> The decision to change was made by the Board
> of Directors.

Not the Board, but a small, entrenched clique thereof. Most of the rest were duped, parhaps unwittingly in most cases. And the membership was left out because it couldn't be counted on to go along with the program -- and there were ample signs that it wouldn't.

> The Board is elected by
> members of the Association.

Who receive their infomation from a seriously biased WRM media. Keep in mind the Goebbles maxim: tell a lie enough times and it becomes the truth.

> Any person who
> joins the Association as a full member is
> eligible to vote in the next election. No
> weighted voting scheme is used. Board
> elections were hotly contested when the
> changes were being made.

At the same time, there were also abuses of the election processes by several individuals of the in-crowd. For example, one had some 8 or 10 members of his family registered as voting members, another around 6.

Today, everything is "under control". Just like the old Soviet Union, in annual WRM elections there is a slate of only 5 candidates to fill 5 vacancies.

> The statement has been made that the WRM
> wildflower trains made money. Wrong.

Disinformation. They garnered $75K annually. In financial statements to the membership, WRM made it a normal practise to report net for the Wildflower trains and gross for the trolleys, but the Wildflower trains still had the larger figure by quite a margin. The names "Enron" and "Arthur Anderson" come to mind here.

There was also an effort to run small diesel trains to complement the trolleys during the summer weekday operations. When it became apparent that both the public and the trolley operators were more interested in the *train* than the trolleys, this was killed immediately.

> The
> wildflower trains are not running today
> because they did not bring in enough money
> to maintain seven and one-half miles of
> track and pay for the variable costs
> involved.

More disinformation. This would be more accurate if stated: "There was money, but the diesel/Wildflower train department was actively discouraged, even *prevented*, from doing track maintenance to this part of the line."

--snip--

> Financial problems of California today have
> absolutely no bearing on decisions made in
> the past about the mission of the Western
> Railway Museum.

Huh?? Other than adversely affect the availablity of ISTEA grants, which WRM has never received anyway, how does this fit the current discussion?

--snip--

The volunteers who worked on steam and diesel played the major role in building the shop and the Museum itself from the late 1970s through 1992. They expended a tremendous amount of sweat equity working for the good of the order (among other things, they built carbarn #2 -- carbarn #3 is being given away in this trade). They were encouraged and supported by this same clique in their efforts, both when those efforts were for the good of the order and when they were directed to steam and diesel. Then, once the shop etc. were "done", the clique jerked the rug out, stabbed them in the back, and drove them off, all under the smoke screen of "change of mission statement".

Giving away these diesels is the final stage of a carefully orchestrated program of making WRM safe for the entrenched clique. In order to stay in power at "their museum", they had to drive off the competition.

This sort of behavior has ominous implications for all volunteer orgainziations, not just Rio Vista and other rr museums.

For Mr. Hicks: the comment about asking IRM is a reference to a comment by long-time IRM GM Nick Kallas that "steam [at IRM] doesn't pay for itself, but it draws the people who ride the electrics and pay the bills." A statement I have heard personally from him more than once over the last several decades.

> The question arises as to the future status
> of WP steam locomotives #94 (4-6-0) and #334
> (2-8-2).

The present plan is to include in Carhouse 3 a static display of WP #94 with a typical WP heavyweight five-car passenger train. WP was the parent of the interurban Sacramento Northern.

The Carhouse was designed to be long enough to display the entire train on one track.

Funding is in place build Carhouse 3. Construction should begin before too long. Carhouse 3 will include a fire protection sprinkler system and eventually a climate control system. Carhouse 3 is being designed as a display building with wide aisles and other visitor amenities.

Incidentally, the last time an effort was made to steam #94, about fifteen years ago, the boiler wouldn't even hold enough water to perform a hydro test.

No specific plans have been made for #334. The locomotive is stored inside Carhouse 2 protected from the weather and vandalism.


fkrock@pacbell.net

> It is clear that the decision to focus Rio
> Vista on interpreting electric traction has
> caused a bitter rift in the organization. I
> am sorry to see that rift carry over onto
> the Interchange. It's certainly not
> productive for the rest of us to see
> internal battles re-fought in this forum.

> I beleive a similar rift happened at
> Warehouse Point in CT when they made a
> similar decision to deaccession non-electric
> railway equiptment.

> From where I sit, I commend both groups for
> their commitment to a tight focus in
> collections management and interpretation.
> Yes, there are other ways to organize
> collections and other decisions could have
> been made. But the decisions that have been
> made make a lot of sense to me, and seem to
> conform very well with ARM's Recommended
> Practices.

Erik:

The rift is that as created by those in power who ended the steam restoration of the Robert Dollar #3 and then traded it to PLA for the rail to prevent it from starting ever again.

When the folks who supported and operated the Prairie Trains left after that, it was only a matter of time before the trains were ended.

Truth is that the Powers wanted certain folks gone and they got their wish. I sincerely doubt "ARM's Recommended Practices" support treating your members like that to reach any goal.


teamzurg@earthlink.net

> Incidentally, the last time an effort was
> made to steam #94, about fifteen years ago,
> the boiler wouldn't even hold enough water
> to perform a hydro test.

> No specific plans have been made for #334.
> The locomotive is stored inside Carhouse 2
> protected from the weather and vandalism.

As part of the team who performed the test, (after the locomotive had not run in three years) the real issue was leaking tubes and flues more than holding water. Fact is that they were last done in 1949 by the WP, and we weren't optimistic that day but had to try to be sure.

And the 334 was moved indoors to duck the asbestos lagging issues, rather than deal with it on both the 94 and 334 as proposed a number of years ago.

Don't believe Mister Krock on anything about steam at RVJ. He was never part of that group of member who worked on any of the projects.

teamzurg@earthlink.net

> It is clear that the decision to focus Rio
> Vista on interpreting electric traction has
> caused a bitter rift in the organization. I
> am sorry to see that rift carry over onto
> the Interchange. It's certainly not
> productive for the rest of us to see
> internal battles re-fought in this forum.

> I beleive a similar rift happened at
> Warehouse Point in CT when they made a
> similar decision to deaccession non-electric
> railway equiptment.

> From where I sit, I commend both groups for
> their commitment to a tight focus in
> collections management and interpretation.
> Yes, there are other ways to organize
> collections and other decisions could have
> been made. But the decisions that have been
> made make a lot of sense to me, and seem to
> conform very well with ARM's Recommended
> Practices.

Eric,

This is actually an issue that SHOULD be viewed in a forum such as this. This whole affair is something that all preservation groups need to see as it can happen at any museum or preservation group. And not just in railroad preservation too.

Am I saddened to see this happen with this group. You bet! But I will be equaly saddened if this is not discussed and happens again at another museum or to another organization. I think every organization goes through changes throughout their existance. Some are great and some are not. We all have something to learn from this.

I personally have moved on to other organizations that are more in keeping with my goals. Not only the goals, but more importantly. I also now feel that I am supporting organizations that have more respect for me as a volunteer too.

J.

> Eric,

> This is actually an issue that SHOULD be
> viewed in a forum such as this.

Agreed in theory--but only if in practice the discussion can be conducted with courtesy and reflection, not vituperatation. This board cannot and will not survive if it becomes a forum for partisans on either side of an internal dispute to re-fight their battles with swords drawn.

eledbetter@rypn.org

OK, folks, that's quite enough. When we reach the point where one poster is calling another a liar a thread has run its course and there is nothing to be gained by letting the debate go on. I am not taking sides and saying one side is right and the other is wrong--I am saying that the discussion is no longer civil.

Unless someone wants to return this thread to a general discussion of collections policy, interpretation policy, or exchanges between museums, let's let it end here.

eledbetter@rypn.org

I'll try Erik, because it interests me.

Leaving the history and personalities involved in making the decision aside, in a shrinking economy and in an area with many similar attractions to choose from, doesn't it make sense to try to more specifically define your market share so that the more limited resources can be better utilized to reach the target?

I have frequently wondered if Durango and Silverton and CATS are too much alike for both to prosper - D&S, having the better location, thrives despite the public sector subsidizing CATS. It might be worth management at CATS to take some time to see how they can better offer a different experience than D&S which would be equally attractive to an audience.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

Several years ago the Railroadians of America merged into the New Jersey Midland Railroad Historical Society. After counting out duplication and non-renewals, the surviving NJMRHS benefitted from a membership increase of 50%. We were actually able to reduce the dues the Railroadians had been paying while increasing the size and quality of the publications. We have been able to reprint one of the classic Railroadian books and hope to print more in the future.

It took about 6 months of negotiation to reach agreement for the merger. I am also pleased that less than 2% of the members of each group voted against the merger. If we could find other similar groups interested, we would consider another such merger.

New Jersey Midland Railroad Historical Society

> It took about 6 months of negotiation to
> reach agreement for the merger. I am also
> pleased that less than 2% of the members of
> each group voted against the merger. If we
> could find other similar groups interested,
> we would consider another such merger.

Tim,

Ah... and there is the rub! The memberships agreed. And more importantly, the MEMBERS where consulted and voted to proceed. Congradulations! This is how major changes in an organization should be done. All the best to the combined organization, and I hope for great things in the future for you all.

J.

> I'll try Erik, because it interests me.

> Leaving the history and personalities
> involved in making the decision aside, in a
> shrinking economy and in an area with many
> similar attractions to choose from, doesn't
> it make sense to try to more specifically
> define your market share so that the more
> limited resources can be better utilized to
> reach the target?

> I have frequently wondered if Durango and
> Silverton and CATS are too much alike for
> both to prosper - D&S, having the better
> location, thrives despite the public sector
> subsidizing CATS. It might be worth
> management at CATS to take some time to see
> how they can better offer a different
> experience than D&S which would be
> equally attractive to an audience.

> Dave

Dave,

They may seem very similar but I believe if you look more closely you will fine a basic difference. While they both have the ride for the public, and yes, this is what the public sees on first glance. C&TS, I believe is trying to recreate the entire expericence of the line, while the D&S is really nothing but the ride. This in and of itself is not a bad thing. The ride through the Animas River canyon is almost without peer. However as was shown last year. Even the locals consider the D&S to be just another attraction in the Durango area. The C&TS on the other hand, while perhaps not as spectacular a ride, I believe is trying to show to the public more of the community and purpose that was the narrow gauge to Southern Colorado and Northern New Mexico. This is more of an educational endevour, and will take many more years of hard work by all parties involved to come to full fruition. Remember, the D&S has a much longer history as a tourist destination than does the C&TS. I think more important to the discussion of preservation groups/museums/tourist lines "competing" with each other is the fact that they are really competing for the publics disposable dollars against all of the other attractions in an area. This includes other museums, amusment/theme parks. movies, concerts, theater, even video games or going out to a resturant etc. anything that can act as a destination for the public. I think many rail groups, both preservation and tourist lines alike, need to look around them to see not what other like museums or lines are doing (or not) but what other attractions are doing. And how they are doing it. This is where cooperation with other attractions , either alike or totaly different comes into play. You may want to look at joint admissions for different attractions or cooperative advertising for an areas different attractions. The ways to do this are almost endless.

J.

Can't argue with the points you make, J, but they unfortunately look very much alike to the average tourist trying to decide where to spend his limited time and dollars. Perhaps the marketing from CATS can better get the message across about authenticity, but that must also be taken into the context of the product they offer - an all day survival trip is also authentically boring to the average 7 year old after the first half hour.

A difference that might also be marketable is purpose - CATS is an economic development program, D&S is a tourist railroad. Can tourists tire of glitz and other tourists and want something slower paced and dusty? If so, who are these tourists likely to be and what sort of ride would they most likely prefer?

Dave

> Dave,

> They may seem very similar but I believe if
> you look more closely you will fine a basic
> difference. While they both have the ride
> for the public, and yes, this is what the
> public sees on first glance. C&TS, I
> believe is trying to recreate the entire
> expericence of the line, while the D&S
> is really nothing but the ride. This in and
> of itself is not a bad thing. The ride
> through the Animas River canyon is almost
> without peer. However as was shown last
> year. Even the locals consider the D&S
> to be just another attraction in the Durango
> area. The C&TS on the other hand, while
> perhaps not as spectacular a ride, I believe
> is trying to show to the public more of the
> community and purpose that was the narrow
> gauge to Southern Colorado and Northern New
> Mexico. This is more of an educational
> endevour, and will take many more years of
> hard work by all parties involved to come to
> full fruition. Remember, the D&S has a
> much longer history as a tourist destination
> than does the C&TS. I think more
> important to the discussion of preservation
> groups/museums/tourist lines
> "competing" with each other is the
> fact that they are really competing for the
> publics disposable dollars against all of
> the other attractions in an area. This
> includes other museums, amusment/theme
> parks. movies, concerts, theater, even video
> games or going out to a resturant etc.
> anything that can act as a destination for
> the public. I think many rail groups, both
> preservation and tourist lines alike, need
> to look around them to see not what other
> like museums or lines are doing (or not) but
> what other attractions are doing. And how
> they are doing it. This is where cooperation
> with other attractions , either alike or
> totaly different comes into play. You may
> want to look at joint admissions for
> different attractions or cooperative
> advertising for an areas different
> attractions. The ways to do this are almost
> endless.

> J.


irondave@bellsouth.net

> Can't argue with the points you make, J, but
> they unfortunately look very much alike to
> the average tourist trying to decide where
> to spend his limited time and dollars.
> Perhaps the marketing from CATS can better
> get the message across about authenticity,
> but that must also be taken into the context
> of the product they offer - an all day
> survival trip is also authentically boring
> to the average 7 year old after the first
> half hour.

> A difference that might also be marketable
> is purpose - CATS is an economic development
> program, D&S is a tourist railroad. Can
> tourists tire of glitz and other tourists
> and want something slower paced and dusty?
> If so, who are these tourists likely to be
> and what sort of ride would they most likely
> prefer?

> Dave

Dave,

Yes and I mentioned that to the average visitor, they would seem the same. Your point about a different experience is just the thing that I was trying to get across.

I for one hope that both operations continue to do well as for me they are very different. The problem with the C&TS type operation is educating the public both before, when they are making their decision to visit, and after, making sure that the public both enjoyed and learned from their visit. That in my mind is true preservation and interpretation. And more value for the money spent. How the C&TS goes about this will be very informative for all preservation groups.

J.

> Agreed in theory--but only if in practice
> the discussion can be conducted with
> courtesy and reflection, not vituperatation.
> This board cannot and will not survive if it
> becomes a forum for partisans on either side
> of an internal dispute to re-fight their
> battles with swords drawn.

Don't suppress differing viewpoints, the other sides of the story, just because they are a little uncomfortable to read. If other museums' members aren't allowed to see and contemplate all side of affairs like this, they will find their museum wandering down the same pernicious path.

Deliberately driving off a sizeable number of volunteers is a dangerous businees. The volunteers are what build the museums, not grants and paid professionals.

The thing which scares people off discussing these sorts of problems is that they are intimately involved with the personalities at the meseums. Voulunteer museums are de facto emotionally charged atmospheres because the members aren't paid to attend. They *like* to be there (emotion).

What has been happening at Rio Vista is the result of personal inscurity, selfishness, and greed -- all emotions.

As another post said: "This whole affair is something that all preservation groups need to see as it can happen at any museum or preservation group. And not just in railroad preservation too."

> Don't suppress differing viewpoints, the
> other sides of the story, just because they
> are a little uncomfortable to read. If other
> museums' members aren't allowed to see and
> contemplate all side of affairs like this,
> they will find their museum wandering down
> the same pernicious path.

> Don't suppress differing viewpoints, the
> other sides of the story, just because they
> are a little uncomfortable to read. If other
> museums' members aren't allowed to see and
> contemplate all side of affairs like this,
> they will find their museum wandering down
> the same pernicious path.

Note that no post on this subject has been suppressed or deleted by the moderator--every opinion submitted is still on the board. I have requested that the discussion not continue any further because it had begun to violate the terms of service for the Interchange.

As a reminder, those terms include the following:

"Constructive, polite criticism, and polite responses to same, are acceptable.

No flaming. There will be zero tolerance for this, one strike and you're out."

These are the rules of the house, folks. No subject is off limits, but for the long-term health of this Forum, we respectfully but firmly insist that all subjects be discussed in conformity with these rules.

We encourage people who want to have a discussion or debate which can't fit within these terms to continue it offline, or at another forum.


eledbetter@rypn.org