Museum of Science and Industry Locomotives to be Auctioned

Brian Norden · **Posted:** Mon Sep 21, 2015 10:31 pm

70000 wrote:

As a matter of interest, are there any safeguards in place in the US regarding the disposal of de-acessioned items from Museums - ie do they have to be offered to similar institutions first before they go on the open market?

Disposal of deaccessioned items has been addressed in the Code of Ethics for Museums adopted back in 1993 and revised in 1999 by the Governing Board of the American Association of Museums (now the American Alliance of Museums). This currently available from the AAM bookstore.

It has been sometime since I looked at the this guide line for Museums. I'm not sure where my copy is.

But I do remember that it spoke of a sequence of possible disposal methods

Ken Middlebrook · **Posted:** Tue Sep 22, 2015 12:07 am

Brian Norden wrote:

70000 wrote:

As a matter of interest, are there any safeguards in place in the US regarding the disposal of de-acessioned items from Museums - ie do they have to be offered to similar institutions first before they go on the open market?

Disposal of deaccessioned items has been addressed in the Code of Ethics for Museums adopted back in 1993 and revised in 1999 by the Governing Board of the American Association of Museums (now the American Alliance of Museums). This currently available from the AAM bookstore.

It has been sometime since I looked at the this guide line for Museums. I'm not sure where my copy is.

But I do remember that it spoke of a sequence of possible disposal methods

Additionally, proceeds of a sale are to be ONLY spent toward future acquisitions. AAM implemented these guidelines in response to a series of art museum who continually sold pieces to balance their annual budgets.

David Dewey · **Posted:** Tue Sep 22, 2015 1:14 am

AFAIK, the only thing that would happen to the museum is the loss of AAM accreditation. Maybe they don't think it's important? The other loss they will have is in the public trust to donate items to the museum, as this is definitely not what the original donors had in mind.
As to the Delta Queen example, a few corrections; The Delta Queen has a steel hull, actually two of them now, so she's almost double-hulled. She does have a partially wooden superstructure, which is where she violates the SOLAS (Safety for Ships At SEA) act. I emphasize SEA, as she is a riverboat, always 5 minutes or less from shore and taller than almost all the water she operated in (and all cabins open onto open decks or have large escape windows that open to the outside decks. In other words, the SOLAS act should never have been applied to her. There are currently two bills in congress to re-grant that exemption, one in the house--HR.1248 and one in the Senate--S.1717--please contact your congressperson to support the bills & to be co-sponsors so we can get the boat back on the waters.

Alan Walker · **Posted:** Tue Sep 22, 2015 4:52 pm

David Dewey wrote:

I emphasize SEA, as she is a riverboat, always 5 minutes or less from shore and taller than almost all the water she operated in (and all cabins open onto open decks or have large escape windows that open to the outside decks.

The same could probably be said of the General Slocum.

J.David · **Posted:** Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:16 pm

Greetings:
In 1994, I did a restoration of the Pennsy cab for MSI.
It was missing a lot of parts (throttle & quadrant, etc.) plus a number of items were worn from years of visitors playing engineer (the automatic brake valve handle was worn almost pencil thin).
A few of the missing parts were in their collections storage area.
Using the K4 at RRMofPA as a guide, I replaced the missing parts with replicas, repaired others and generally made the display presentable (and safe) again. I repainted it and numbered the cab 1361 (because I have a rather warped sense of humor), (also check out who signed the cab cards!).
The transparencies in the front windows were taken on PRR 7002 while it was still running on the Strasburg Rail Road.
J.David
PS: I doubt if money had anything to do with the decision to deassess these items. It is more likely they wanted the floor space for something else... JDC

BML1149 · **Posted:** Tue Sep 22, 2015 6:39 pm

I seem to remember that throttle lever.
Leverett Fernald

Richard Glueck · **Posted:** Tue Sep 22, 2015 8:16 pm

Leverett, you've had your hand on one?

Brian Norden · **Posted:** Tue Sep 22, 2015 9:48 pm

Alan Walker wrote:

The same could probably be said of the General Slocum.

The General Slocum was operating in New York Harbor which I imagine is deeper than the inland river system.

IIRC, a paint locker on board the Slocum was the source of the fire. The fire hoses were found to be rotten and could not flow water. And then the Captain or pilot tried to run to shore and maybe when doing this even turned into the wind. But, this only spread the fire throughout the boat that much quicker. A major tragedy resulted.

Tragedies like this and the Moro Castle resulted in changes in the requirements for fire protection on vessels.

philip.marshall · **Posted:** Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:41 pm

Brian Norden wrote:

[The General Slocum was operating in New York Harbor which I imagine is deeper than the inland river system.

Not in New York Harbor actually but in the East River, which is actually a tidal strait connecting New York Harbor and Long Island Sound, with currents that are pretty intense, like the neck of an hourglass. The vessel went aground on North Brother Island, which is just north of the NYNH&H Hell Gate Bridge. (This was in 1904 so the bridge of course hadn't been built yet.)

The General Slocum's intended destination was a picnic grove at Eaton's Neck on Long Island, a good 30 miles to the east. This would have required steaming down Long Island Sound in waters exceeding 100 feet in depth. As a 235-foot sidewheel steamboat with a 12-foot draft (powered by a big single-cylinder vertical beam engine -- 53" x 12ft) this was just the kind of coastwise navigation she was designed for: short day trips never more than a few miles from shore but potentially in rough seas, altogether very different from what a sternwheel river boat is built for.

(Sorry for continuing the digression off-topic...)

-Philip Marshall

Howard P. · **Posted:** Tue Sep 22, 2015 10:42 pm

J David said: (also check out who signed the cab cards!).

Howard P asks: It wouldn't happen to be B. Lamarr Spruell, would it?

(because I also have a somewhat warped sense of humour...)

Howard P.

David Dewey · **Posted:** Wed Sep 23, 2015 12:53 am

Sorry to be off-subject, but since the General Slocum Disaster was brought up;
The Delta Queen has a state-of-the art fire suppression system on all decks & cabins--same system as is used on our Naval vessels.
The Delta Queen is designed to beach herself--that's how riverboats "land" and she has a large landing stage to bridge the distance between the boat and the land for folks to disembark. She is also equipped with lifeboats, inflatables, and rescue slides.
While in service there is a watchperson making rounds of the entire boat with registration stations that the person has to key to while on watch, to prove that they were doing their job.
I feel safer asleep in the DQ than I do in my own house (where no one is staying awake all night just to make certain all is well).
Not renewing the Delta Queen's exemption in 2008 was a political ploy and had nothing to do with safety.
It's time to right that wrong and let a piece of American History run again. She cannot generate enough income as a stationary hotel to pay for her maintenance; she MUST run to be preserved; And that puts us back on subject, doesn't it? :)

Alan Walker · **Posted:** Wed Sep 23, 2015 1:14 pm

philip.marshall wrote:

Brian Norden wrote:

[The General Slocum was operating in New York Harbor which I imagine is deeper than the inland river system.

Not in New York Harbor actually but in the East River, which is actually a tidal strait connecting New York Harbor and Long Island Sound, with currents that are pretty intense, like the neck of an hourglass. The vessel went aground on North Brother Island, which is just north of the NYNH&H Hell Gate Bridge. (This was in 1904 so the bridge of course hadn't been built yet.)

According to available historical information, NYC harbor was dredged to a depth of 30 feet in the late 1880s. This remained the case until the early 1900s.

That said, the Delta Queen's exemption from SOLAS (and the loss thereof) has largely been political from the get-go. One has to remember that the Delta Queen was to have been withdrawn once the Mississippi Queen entered service (which never occurred).

Could the DQ be made SOLAS compliant? Probably. Replacing the wooden portions of the deckhouse with milled steel/aluminum members is probably technologically possible, but would probably be cost prohibitive and would significantly alter the historical integrity of the ship.

ctjacks · **Posted:** Wed Sep 23, 2015 2:10 pm

If the museum wants the space for something else, I can understand, but the space these artifacts take up are miniscule. I don't know what else they could fit into these spaces. And note this museum's signature piece is a German U-Boat, so to me the argument these items don't have relevance to Chicago is weak. I think they should at least seek out other museums to take these items before selling them. And I agree with the earlier comment about the lack of explanation or signage around the PRR cab.

Chris.

patentable · **Posted:** Wed Sep 23, 2015 3:35 pm

Story in a Chicago "internet site" dnainfo.com/chicago - with comments from the MSI and pictures of the equipment being deaccessioned.

http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150923 ... -old-train

Bob

wesp · **Posted:** Wed Sep 23, 2015 5:41 pm

Here is the section on de-accessioning from Recommended Practices (I added italics for emphasis):

Quote:

6. A deaccessioning policy recognizing the museum's trust responsibility is to be developed in advance, for removing items accessioned into the permanent collections. (Note: Objects not accessioned into the museum's permanent collection do not need to go through a formal deaccessioning process.) Whenever possible, and consistent with the museum's fiduciary responsibility, the museum should dispose of deaccessioned objects to other museums, historical organizations, or similar education institutions, and by means of gift, trade, or sale, in that order. The policy addresses:
a. Use of funds generated from deaccessionings, restricting such use to acquisition of additional objects or care of museum collections.
b. The conditions which must be present for deaccessioning to be considered, including such concerns as non-relevance to mission, poor condition, duplication, or lack of authenticity.
c. Any conditions or restrictions stated in original deed of gift. If possible, the donor of an object should be notified of any deaccessioning decisions made regarding an item he or she has donated, purchased for, or otherwise made available to the museum
d. Conditions by which members of the museum, its governing body, or staff must abide in order to receive any deaccessioned object.

It would appear that a fiduciary responsibility may preclude a gift to another museum.

Quote:

“We’ll bring out some motorcycles and from our collections and some more contemporary artifacts and we hope to bring in some concept cars,” [Museum Director of Collections Kathleen] McCarthy said. “It’s been a long-time dream of mine because there’s been some really exciting developments in transportation.”
http://www.dnainfo.com/chicago/20150923/hyde-park/musuem-of-science-industry-is-selling-its-181-year-old-train

This would seem to preclude a trade.

Wesley