Couldn't agree with you more on the need to determine interest and economic realities of the railroad preservation enterprise.

Railroad preservation, especially tourist railroads, has as its root a wierd heritage; most operations sprang up in places for little more reason than thats where the available track happened to be and thats where old number 12 could run. Sort of the Andy Hardy-Judy Garland "Hey gang, lets put on a show and run a train!" approach. No market research, no economic impact study, nuthin' but some guys wanting to run a train.

Fast forward a few decades, and regulatory and economic realities mean that this is alot more expensive to do, and requires a great deal of professionalism and planning maintain an operation, much less start up.

I have been involved in several studies, all contained huge amounts of information, and where there was a positive indicated outcome, we worked to get them done, if not, we didn't.

I was recently in a meeting regarding a non rail related project involving historic preservation, sports and tourism. Wanna know what a major figure from a major southwestern suburb said about the proposed study? "It'll have the outcome we want, and it'll have the stuff to back us up."

How can it be a study to determine the the feasibility and economic impact of a project when the (desired) outcome is predetermined?

I don't believe everything I read less'n I know whose dog is in what hunt.

Not bein' emotional, just saying that "spin" and truth depends a lot on whose telling it.

The trails people are mainly investing public money, the rail preservation community relies much more on private capital.

It seems to me that we may put a great deal more importance on objectivity and truth than some others. Folks just tend to be more careful with their own money than the other fellows, especially public money.

> Couldn't agree with you more on the need to
> determine interest and economic realities of
> the railroad preservation enterprise.

Thanks!

> Railroad preservation, especially tourist
> railroads, has as its root a wierd heritage;
> most operations sprang up in places for
> little more reason than thats where the
> available track happened to be and thats
> where old number 12 could run. Sort of the
> Andy Hardy-Judy Garland "Hey gang, lets
> put on a show and run a train!"
> approach. No market research, no economic
> impact study, nuthin' but some guys wanting
> to run a train.

True, in many many cases. And thank the Heavens for the Soules and Lockharts and Merrimans. Heck, when TVRM started, market research was more often than not considered to be comparing prices at A&P, Grand Union.

> Fast forward a few decades, and regulatory
> and economic realities mean that this is
> alot more expensive to do, and requires a
> great deal of professionalism and planning
> maintain an operation, much less start up.

True.

> I was recently in a meeting regarding a non
> rail related project involving historic
> preservation, sports and tourism. Wanna know
> what a major figure from a major
> southwestern suburb said about the proposed
> study? "It'll have the outcome we want,
> and it'll have the stuff to back us
> up."

Shame on him, and all who agreed with him.

> How can it be a study to determine the the
> feasibility and economic impact of a project
> when the (desired) outcome is predetermined?

There are studies, and then there is research. Studies were done to promote the Tenn-Tom Waterway, the Knoxville and New Orleans Worlds Fair, and other boondoggles. When the chickens come home to roost, harsh penalties often are extracted. And sometimes, they are not.

> I don't believe everything I read less'n I
> know whose dog is in what hunt.

> Not bein' emotional, just saying that
> "spin" and truth depends a lot on
> whose telling it.

Amen. Have to carefully evaluate what is said and who said it. "How did we come to know what we think we know?" is a good question to ask. Often, a PhD and a major university affiliation is a good indicator of good research.

> The trails people are mainly investing
> public money, the rail preservation
> community relies much more on private
> capital.

True.

> It seems to me that we may put a great deal
> more importance on objectivity and truth
> than some others. Folks just tend to be more
> careful with their own money than the other
> fellows, especially public money.

Good point. Railroad preservationists need to develop the PUBLIC reputation for doing "good science." It will take some time, but the benefits will be worth it.


amiller@rtms-movietrains.com

> There are studies, and then there is research.
///
> Railroad preservationists need
> to develop the PUBLIC reputation for doing
> "good science." It will take some
> time, but the benefits will be worth it.

So where & how do we begin this process (or continue it if it is already in operation)??

hi_plain@yahoo.com

Which is better? Saving what industry is left, maybe doing some sort of an excursion train to satisfy the need for recreational economics or peddling a few snowcones to locals hiking around town?

>>>>>> A very good point indeed.

I will have to interject that many times I see preservationist and railfans alike steaming over an abandonment and subsecquent conversion of the local branch line or secondary main to a rail trail.

By all means, if there is a solid economic base that can still support the route, it is worth the effort preserving.

We need a hard dose of reality that "we can't save them all", I know this mantra is kind of cliche, but it is true. The vast majority of abandoned or soon to be abandoned lines served lineside industries that have gone the way the of the horse and carriage or moved overseas and unless a factory majically falls down from the sky, there isn't any traffic there to support these lines and it's very likely there will never be any in the future.

Many rails-to-trails routes have preserved depots and made interpative displays about the history of the railroads and incorporated them in thier operations. Isn't this much better, in a preservation sense, than the roadbed being plowed under by local farmers and having nothing left except for a few crumbling bridge aboundments and rusty spikes?

Granted, WM Scenic isn't a case like this. But when we bump heads with the rails-to-trails over the more realistic and important issues like WM Sceanic, wouldn't have been better to develop a prior relationship with the Rail-to-Trails people by cooperating in converting lines that absolutely no future and not fighting them tooth and nail over a 10 mile branch line that goes to no-where, thereby using that history of goodwill to our advantage in cases like WM Scenic?

terry_dempsey@hotmail.com

> ///

> So where & how do we begin this process
> (or continue it if it is already in
> operation)??

These discussions are a good place to begin. But at some point, the preceived need has to force the topic off of the web and into reality. A meeting. A TRAIN or ARM panel.

Recently, one of my colleagues suggested that we "sling some coal." I suggest that those interested in polic issues work to develop an action plan, then go work it.

Step 1: See if our esteemed BB Moderator might contact one or both of the professional groups about their interest in hosting a panel? And later becoming involved in a policy initiative.

Erik, are you watching? I know noone in either the TRAIN or ARM heirarchy. And they don't know me from Adam's housecat.


amiller@rtms-movietrains.com