Help solve a mystery that has baffled a lot of transit and rail preservation fans:

Just what happened to the Ohio Railway Museum?

I sat with a bunch of rail and transit preservation volunteers in the Baltimore Streetcar Museum tonight and kicked about this very question (while, of course, considering what parts off of what cars on the "disposition" list would be worth acquiring, if any). One member said that the story he had heard was that "something" happened circa 1975 that caused fully half or more of the membership--and all of the operating personnel, it appears--to walk off. I went upstairs and pulled the Maryland Rail Heritage Library's file on the ORM; it abruptly stopped around 1974, with not even a brochure since then.

Another member of the BSM speculated that it may have been related to the same inter-factional fighting that occurred at the other Ohio transit museums--Northern Ohio, Trolleyville USA, etc.

So what's the straight dope, folks? I don't think writing to Cecil Adams of "The Straight Dope" column is going to get me an answer.

I will predicate my speculation with the fact that this conversation on the ORM happened about 7-8 years ago with a traction enthusiast/chief engineer at the Kentucky Railway Museum, so my memory may be bad. I seem to remember him saying that it the problems at ORM came about because the museum had a chance to move and didn't.

From my visits to the area, also a number of years ago, I think that the ORM is located in a suburban residential area, around Worthington. They may have become unable to expand.

If I am wrong, then I apologize to any ORM members out there, I'm just passing on a fuzzy memory.

In the mid to late 1980's, there was a devastating expose in the Columbus Dispatch that made a lot of allegations about financial impropriety. As I recall, the questioned where the money raised as a sponsor of the NS Steam Excursion Program went. There were some examples of some unusual financial accounting.

FIRST AND FOREMOST --- Kudos to the current ORM for making this gutsy move, and moving to their core. This is a HUGE step, and one long in coming. I have not had a chance to meet very many in this new group, but something must be going right if they have come to grips with the situation finally, and hopefully before it was too late for some of the equipment in question.

In regards to that Dispatch article; that same expose was followed by a couple others in the early 1990's that were of similar nature, possible worse, in the "I told you so" vain. Things like money spent on lab tops computers instead of equipment, etc. Again, I wish NO harm to current ORM members --- just devasted when I first saw equipment while attending college nearby from 1993-1997, to see priceless pieces of equipment rotting away.

I talked with one of those who walked away back circa 1975 -- he lived in the greater Newark, Ohio area, and remained in the used locomotive parts business for some time. My understanding is that there were also some concerns in regards to safe practices around the operation of #578 --- to the point that some elements "went missing" one day that were need in its operation, namely washout plugs as I recall. I do, however, clearly remember going with this individual (who was helping with repair on a piece of equipment there, and trying to himself get re-involved) into the Columbus, Delaware & marion interurban. Although it had been blue-tarped, I was shown just how quickly an interior can deteriorate, by the fact that some of the milk glass globes, upon opening from their fixtures, dumped torrents of water onto the floor. Others had cracked from "freeze-thaw" --- a sad site indeed for a RARE car.

Again, all this being said --- I think EVERY one of us needs to support ORM in this giant leap forward. If they were/ are to survive, this needed to happen.

TJ Gaffney

It is important that the facts behind what happened at ORM be documented and written about. A big problem that all museums face is how to find a sustainable organization structure, mission and financial support. Learning from the events at ORM (and other failed preservation efforts - large and small) would provide preservationists (in all fields) with a valuable body of information on which to learn from. It is also important to emphasize that the past is the past -- and it is better to learn from it than to bury it.

I also applaud ORM's decision to make this announcement - and I further applaud making the offer directly instead of working through a equipment broker.

Well said. First and foremost, though, lets find good homes for the equipment --- the study can come later ;- )

Oh, and although I'm a curator, I've become greatly swayed as late by the "operation is best" side of things. Three-weeks work on an LS&I 2-8-0 can do that to a person I suppose ;-)

TJ

I seem to have missed a post someplace.

I gather that the Ohio Railway Museum is disposing of some equipment?

If so where can one see the list?

It is pretty amazing the amount of bad luck that the Ohio groups have had.

First Ohio RR Museum, then the Trolleyville, USA groyuup has to move.

Ted Miles

See the RyPN Brief for 10/9/04:

http://www.rypn.org/briefs/october2004/041009.htm

Branford did get some exchange newsletters after 1982. I remember one issue that said the Illinois Terminal PCC was the only operable car that could carry passengers, and that they could only board at one end, because the stepwell light was not working at the other end! That issue hinted of F.R.A. oversight.

Earlier, in the late 1970's, I heard stories that suburban sprawl spread next to the tracks, with no buffer zone to keep disapproving eyes and neighborhood vandals away from the "junque".

As usual, everyone skrits around the main issue: why did ORM "fail".

This is how it was explained to me years ago by one of the really active participants there: ORM was being "sub-divided out of existence" and was offered the long term lease (or the donation of) a 3-4 mile spur which lead to a power plant. This split the organization, with approximately 1/2 the people wanting to go, the other half not. The problem was the majority of those who wanted to move were the ones who were restoring and maintaning the cars, while the majority of those who didn't were the "good ol' boys" of the organization.

Our railroad museums are made of the equipment /and/ the people. Neglect one at the peril of the other.

In ORM's case, the good ol' boys won, but the organization lost because those who fixted the equipment walked off in disgust.

That's probably the best and shortest description I have heard yet. I had heard of and new about the move, and lord knows there is no more room to grow at the Worthington site --- arguably there is a good deal less now then before, since they abandoned everything north/ west of the road crossing. If I remember too, they could have sold the Worthington property even then for a goodly some, and paid for the NEW area PLUS have some money elft over for relocation costs, etc. I suspect the whole story will never come out, but what does seems clear is that fractionalization was to blame, either over a.) moving or not moving b.) steam vs traction c.) operation vs restoration/ maintenance.

I think the reason most of us walk around the issue is that many of us aren't sure of how many of the "old Guard", or the "real restorers/ maintainers" are involved in the new ORM. I give kudos to anyone who has stuck out through all of this to try and come up with a solution. Admittedly, it may be too late for some equipment; but if one piece makes it out alive, its better than nothing.

The other caution is this --- ORM is far from the last group that needs to evaluate their collection. Its something that, in my opinion, EVERY group should do, lest you end up with a glorified junk yard.

Oh, and by the way --- this is not just rail museums, or even museums with rail collections. We, too, have been taking a long look at how we take care of all our collections, and have been at times embarrassed by what we have seen. We are in the middle of a process similar to ORM's --- maybe not as drastic, but just as humbling. In short --- their isn't a group or museum out there that is perfect --- the whole glass house thing is part of why I no longer attack ORM -- its different when you are behind the fence, fighting the daily battles, of which their can be many. Sometimes you have to say "NO" -- some may not like you for it, but it comes with the territory.

But, as usual, I'm drifting off into accredidation issues again......sorry.

TJ Gaffney

Agreed as usual TJ, but in my experience most moves in accreditation of railroad and other museums primarily comprised of collections of large mass produced mechanical artifacts, which in use required to truly interpret their purpose get partially consumed and replaced, look for standards which are much more reasonably applied to conservation of lighter, smaller, more fragile items. I had a boss who was expertly proficient in conservation of paper and textiles once - needless to say, the realities of using cotton gloves and cotton swabs to remove dirt and grease from rusty iron could have made a lifetime career out of one cellar. Do we have an accreditation standard yet developed by those of us working in the industry which is actually usable in other than an academic exercise?

dave

Sadly, in answer to your question, no.

I think that we still have a ways to go in figuring out what "accredidation" means in the Transportation environment of collections --- I have seen more than one curator struggle with it. Automobiles are particularly nasty in this regard. Usually more than half - 3/4 of the original equipment has ben replaced, so that arguing for "returning it to its as manufactured state" is near impossible.

My gut feeling is that maybe, though, we can take a cue from the car show crowd on this, especially in what the deem to be "original." Most have pretty strict rules on orginality -- original paint, parts, etc. Few cars make it, and I expect fewer pieces of rail equipment. "RESTORED original is another matter -- restoring an item by a set group of standards --- ones that are usuallly agreed upon by experts in the field, i.e. " this paint mark here, this type battery, no halogen headlights." For those of us in the rail equipment preservation environment, I feel that levels of some kind need to be established by a similar group of experts --- ones that can tell you if this piece is original (no touch), or needs to be repaired (touch, but do so in right way), or replaced completely (get me something close to whatever it had).

Operation is another matter entirely. Arguably, there is some equipment that just shouldn't be operated --- and yes, Dave, my mind has changed greatly on what that means, but say, if Lincoln's funeral car had survived, my gut feeling is that it shouldn't be operated. A steam engine of a rare manufacturer, for instance, or a single existing wheel type. I know I'll get hit at for this, but operating the John Bull, or restoring it to operation, was something that might not be justifiable in that regard.

Neither of us will answer that question today, but the mere fact that ORM, arguably one of the biggest "boiling point" topics in the rail preservation community, is taking a massive step towards looking at these issues has to be nothing but a positive move forward.

Here's a question --- what's the next step?

TJ

I think TJ and Dave have offered some really interesting thinking here, but I would respectfully recommend a change in terms.

What you guys are really talking about are standards and best practices for managing railway and other large artifact collections. ARM has made an excellent start on this with its "Recommended Practices for Railway Museums," devleoped by experts in our field with the help and cooperation of the American Association of Museums. Read 'em at:

http://www.railwaymuseums.org/RP.htm

Accreditation is something different--its a specific certification program run by AAM for the museum field (zoos and aquaria have a different accreditation program).

The Accreditation Commission and staff at AAM are very mindful of the issue of non-traditional collections. In fact, the current Accreditation Coordinator comes from our sister outfits, the aviation museums. AAM's approach is not to set out restrictive "one size fits all" standards, but to set out more general expectations of what they want to see in a well-run and progressive museum. These expectations are flexible enough to cover large object collections as well as, say, fine art. The key question the Commission would ask is "are you following best practices appropriate to your field?" For railroad museums, that means the ARM standards cited above.

Anyone can learn more about AAM Accreditation at

http://www.aam-us.org/programs/accreditation/accred.cfm

FULL DISCLOSURE: I am employed by AAM. The views I expressed here are, however, strictly my own opinons and interpretations.

Actually, I was thinking in both terms as one affected the other but didn't make myself clear in stream of semiconsciousness.

Erik, are you telling me that AAM has in some way officially recognized the ARM standards and practices as criteria to be applied in accreditation? If so, a fine thing for us all - accreditation can be a useful thing to have in grant applications, and a reasonable commonly understood yardstick the first step.

dave