Firends,

If you look through the recent posts, you will see tales of how a politician in Vermont gave into special interests at the expense of a rail line, how a Congressman had to step in to save an Steamtown's rides, how a local rail council is threatened by partisan politics, how Federal IS-TEA money designed to help transit is pork-barrelled and so on...

Interestingly, I have been reading my latest issue of Railway Heritage, the British preservation magazine.

The Brits are suffering the same problem with trail advocates that we are. Any length of track that is used less than daily seems to be their prey. It is nice to know that this isn't just a US issue. And just like we have seen in Maryland, the British trailies are even going after steam preservation lines.

However, what they are doing right is the Heritage Lottery. Funds from this public lottery are made available for historic restoration projects.

Could that work here?

Why not?

Wouldn't such a system be the best way the Government could help here in the US, by taking these programs out of the Congress and setting up a dedicated fund?

Having these funds allows many of Britian's steam locomotives to operate as privately-owned pieces. Wouldn't that help grow the ranks of steam operators here?

And Britian's steamers are subject to many regulations, and especially strict ones for mainline running. The lottery funds high caliber restorations.

It has to make the pro-steamer think twice about how a country a fraction of our size can field so many more steam locomotives in operation.

Rob


trains@robertjohndavis.com

> However, what they are doing right is the
> Heritage Lottery. Funds from this public
> lottery are made available for historic
> restoration projects.

> Could that work here?

> Why not?

Take a look at Colorado. In exchange for permitting casino gambling in Blackhawk and Central City, the casinos pay a tax earmarked to historic preservation, administered through CHS.

This money has done a lot of good for historic preservation around Colorado, but you have only to look at the current tragicomedy unfolding around Georgetown Loop to known that state-administered lottery funds to support preservation will not necessarily be any more friendly to rail or any more wisely administered than other forms of state funds.

Not saying it can't work, just saying it's subject to ALL the usual laws of political gravitation.

eledbetter@rypn.org

And it isn't just steam locomotives, the Lottery has helped the last ocean going side wheeler in the world the Waverley, numorous stationary steam engine preservation projects. They have helped sailing ships, canal restoration and building preservation as well.

The projects require a lot of paperwork and a site visit from a qualified expert in the correct field, but what major grant does not these days?

Yes, Indeed a program that is helping historic preservation.

Ted Miles


ted_miles@nps.gov

> Take a look at Colorado. In exchange for
> permitting casino gambling in Blackhawk and
> Central City, the casinos pay a tax
> earmarked to historic preservation,
> administered through CHS.

I took my family through these cities last summer. It was disgusting. These old Colorado towns had sold out for money - I didn't even slow down - it was too ugly to stop. Kept right on moving - I'll never go back.

Jim

The National Trust's Preservation Magazine did a story on the fate of these two towns in the past year. Here's an online summary:

http://www.nationaltrust.org/magazine/a ... 3cover.htm

High Stakes Game in Colorado
eledbetter@rypn.org

> However, what they are doing right is the Heritage Lottery. Funds from this public lottery are made available for historic restoration projects.

Could that work here?

Why not?

Rob, if one was to stipulate in advance that lotteries were a net benefit without hidden social costs, and you don't mind the obvious contradiction of the government sponsoring something (as a wonderful benefit) thats illegal for private parties to engage in, I still think its unlikely.

Here in Pennsylvania, (this has to be like 10 plus years ago), the idea was floated to expand the PA lottery to fund education programs, in addition to the various programs designed to assist the elderly.

Nice try. AARP and every other (well funded, well organized) senior citizen group made damn sure that their elected representative understood that they would pay dearly if they directed "THEIR MONEY" to any other non "senior" purpose. Even the mightly education lobby fell down at that onslaught.

I don't think they'll be any happier for the choo choo scratch off ticket. Always account for the coercive pressure groups before anything else in politics.



superheater@rrmail.com

Just how many casinos can we support? Is there an unlimited amount of people that people can gamble?

> Just how many casinos can we support? Is
> there an unlimited amount of people that
> people can gamble?

That's just the deal; how many people deem it in their best interest to loose money conveniently?

Here in Dallas, multi jillionare Cowboys owner Jerry Jones is talking the city and county to build him a 400plus million dollar sports complex. The favored location is Fair Park and the Cotton Bowl, recognized the world over as one of the only complete expressions of Art Deco architecture left. It won't be when he's done.

We have spent billions to subsidize rich professional sports frachises, with little real return. look at all the complexes built in the last 10 years, all done with public money, and mainly so owners can install more luxury "skyboxes" for wealthy big spenders.

Where has been the public benefit?

There has recently been a book and study done about this phenomena ( which I haven't actually seen, but have heard discussed on NPR) that shows what a poor return on public investment this has been. Fewer jobs, no real increase in local business activity; the only beneficiery is the sports franchise directly. In many cases it would have been more effective just to use the money as dole.

Think how many places could use portions of these big blocks of money (now going to sports welfare) to make them selves attractive to heritage tourism, creating entertainment districts, investing in historic transportation systems and yes, even local tourist railroads. God forbid it could even be used to help freight railroads promote industrial development.

What impact would a million doller grant investment have on the EBT, Georgetown Loop, Cass, WWW&F,Mid Continent, Long Leaf, ect? How many local jobs would it create, and how many communities would it improve?

jjtemplin@southernuniongroup.com

Government funding is close to a zero sum game. Kinda like the commodity market. Ergo, for every funding idea, there is a counter argument and an established interest group. And while we can look at other models, the British method has been mentioned in thsi thread, the policy development challenge presented to rail historians is unique.

Some wonkish policy development thoughts:

(1.) There is no guarantee that most of what government starts out to do ever gets done to the satisfaction of all.

(2.) As with business, if the rail preservation community begins a national policy objective, there will be a competitor response (Lordy, I love the near ubiquitous applicability of economics).

(3.) Public policy does not always have to have cash money attached. Cash (grants, whatever)is nice if you can get it, but those money-laden policies are the most difficult to create, protect and maintain.

(4.) In a field as diverse as railroad preservation, a policy initiative based on "cash equivalents" might work best. Easier, draws fewer competitors, often easier to control.

(5.) Those interested in developing some slate of favorable national and state policies ought to start with a clean slate -- a blank piece of paper, a pot of coffee, and a cool conference room.

(6.) And finally, allow me to slightly modify a sign I saw at Ison's Lounge outside of Harlan, Kentucky, a few years back:

CHECK YOUR GUNS AND EGOS AT THE DOOR

(After chasing six-axle ALCOs all day, a little refreshment was needed!!)

http://www.rtms-movietrains.com
amiller@rtms-movietrains.com

> (1.) There is no guarantee that most of what
> government starts out to do ever gets done
> to the satisfaction of all.

Like Steamtown.

> (2.) As with business, if the rail
> preservation community begins a national
> policy objective, there will be a competitor
> response (Lordy, I love the near ubiquitous
> applicability of economics).

Which brings up a point: Where is the national outcry for more rail preservation, be it done by the government or private efforts? I don't see any. Are we so focused on our obscure interest that we think the rest of the world wants (or will tolerate) something just because we do?

Over the years I've seen a lot of wailing and whining about hwat could be done with government money, be it from lottery winnings, grants, Tea-21 or whatever the current name is, etc. Unless I misunderstand it, the TEA things were not set up solely to fund preservation and restoration of depots and steam locomotives and odd cars and cabooses. Yes, some money is designated fort that, but we've already seen some it poured down unproductive ratholes, not all of which are rail related.

I think we delude ourselves when we think there is huge untapped market out there. There is a tiny percentage of people who care abotu this tuff, no matter how significant it is or how well it's presented and interpreted. The vast majority could care less.

It's like all those surveys that get trotted out whenever Amtrak or mass transit is threatened with budget cyts. The surveys invariably show that 75% or more of the population "favor" Amtrak or transit, but when it gerts down to where it matters, less than 0.3% of travelers actually ride it. (Please don't start an Amtrak rant; it's just used to illustrate)

I fear that's about where we are in this segment.

> What impact would a million doller grant
> investment have on the EBT, Georgetown Loop,
> Cass, WWW&F,Mid Continent, Long Leaf,
> ect? How many local jobs would it create,
> and how many communities would it improve?

A lot.

As soon as you sucker individuals into paying $1,500 for the licenses to buy a $3,000 season pass on the railroad line, corporations into paying $100,000 into buying a year's rent on half a parlor car, and then charge them $10 for a beer, $5.75 for a hot dog, and $3.50 for a soda.

I strongly think we should do our best to discourage such temporary insanity.


LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

> Where is the national outcry for more rail
> preservation...

> I think we delude ourselves when we think
> there is huge untapped market out there.
> There is a tiny percentage of people who
> care abotu this tuff, no matter how
> significant it is or how well it's presented
> and interpreted. The vast majority could
> care less.

Respectfully, I ask my valued colleague --

Do we quit?

Or do we try to stimulate demand with better products and better communications?

This invariably leads back to the "dwindling volunteers" issue. I see them as related. Closely.

'Tis thorny issues were are tackling. And this is a "good thing" (thanks to Martha).

It has been decided not to rebuild Kinzua viaduct -and although there are some that still advocate putting it back up, there is no discernable public "outcry" over the void that has been created.

If something as dramatic in scale as the great Kinzua vidauct can disappear and only find its way into the NTHP's magazine and a couple of other fairly obscure publications (i.e. Invention & Technology, and of course local TV and press), than I think you've got your answer as to where rail preservation ranks in the national consciousness.

The preservation community in general must work to open the eyes and unlock the minds of the "oblivious majority."

IMO, of course.


SJHussar@aol.com

Interesting comments, but I want to reiterate something to the nay-sayers.

This is not a pipe dream. As Ted said, there is a western, industrialized country that is already doing the lottery system.

Anyone here know the backstory of how England's system got started? It would be interesting to know.

trains@robertjohndavis.com

The closest I can find online to a history of the HLF is the following:

http://www.lotterygoodcauses.org.uk/about.htm

http://www.hlf.org.uk/cgi-bin/hlfframemast.pl?K=1&S=ET

Why does it work in the UK? I can think of 4 factors off the top of my head:

1. Strong national tradition of legal games of chance--little or no anti-gambling stigma
2. Tradition of strong national and weak local government made it feasible to establish a national fund
3. Set up in the daying radical days of the former Conservative government essentially as a way to privatise chartitable funding formerly done by direct state grants.
4. There was enough of a strong national committment to heritage as a tourism and economic development tool (as well as a Good Cause on its own merits) to make Heritage a part of the mix with the other charities when the lottery was set up.

Here are some reasons why the same idea will be hard to import intact to the US. (A note on terms: in my view, this is not nay-saying, it is an attempt to point out factors to be considered and overcome so that any plan will have a better chance of success. I call it constructive criticism, or good planning! Your milage may vary).

1. In the US the analogue to the UK conservatives who pushed the National Lottery is the Republican party. However, the US conservative movement has an associaton with our ancient Puritan/religious reservations about gambling that the UK conservatives did not have. It will be harder to build a constituency around this idea by packaging it as "privatization of charity" here than in the UK.
2. Federalism--lotteries in the US are traditionally a state not a federal function.
3. State balanced budget constitutions--states will be resistant to earmarking lottery funds for specific causes or types of causes becuase these funds are so attractive as general revenue for shoring up state budgets--which in most states must be balanced each year, unlike the Federal budget.
4. Strength of heritage in competition with other causes for the funds from the lottery. In the UK heritage is understood as economic driver of tourism. Here in the US the case for heritage against all other powerful comers--especially education and the elderly--will be to say the least harder to make.

So--those are factors to consider in planning to import the idea.


eledbetter@rypn.org