This question is based on actual circumstance.There are three museums located within the same state, actually located within driving distance of each other. There is some overlap in mission-in fact in the actual collections.Each museum has one example of the same artifact, in this case, motive power. All things being equal, one of the examples is a bit more signficant than the other two-for not only it is the last of that model, it is the last of that overall type produced by the manufacturer. Now, it has come to be known that there is an example of a different type of motive power is (possibly) available for preservation. This example could be equally 'at home' at any of the three museums. Any thoughts on proper collections management here-assuming that it may be possible to swap one of the duplicates for the as-yet unpreserved item ?Dave

My question would be what is the financial health of the three museums? If one or more of them are "hand to mouth" operations it may be wise to make your decisions as if they didn't exist. If all three are pretty much on equal footing, perhaps there should be an attempt at coordination between them. Perhaps something like a one of a kind piece of rolling stock could spend time at each of the sites.

I will talk in specifics, since the theoretical 'what if' would take too much space to write. Additionally, talking in specifics identifies some additional alternatives that may not have been considered initially.It depends on how the FL9's which are at the three Connecticut museums are to be used or preserved. Both of the units at Danbury are HEP equipped, however one has suffered some fire damage and would only be suitable for a static display in the near future. Additionally, the FL9 at the Connecticut Eastern museum has HEP and as far as I know is operational. However, do they have the ability or plans to utilize this unit in service? The FL9 at RMNE (MNCR 2033/NH 2053)is the last F-unit built but also has its steam generator intact ~ which (as far as I know) is the only non-HEP FL9 to be preserved and is significant for that reason. So, there are 4 units across three museums - One unit can't operate, one unit should have only limited operations due to its importance and overall intactness, and two units are up-to-date and operational. While all three museums have operations, only one (RMNE) has a main-line run. Additionally, only one museum (Connecticut Eastern) will soon have an indoor display area. As I see it, can the three museums come to a loan agreement that would allow one or both of the units to be used at RMNE in exchange for the 2033/2053 to be displayed in the Connecticut Eastern’s soon to be opened roundhouse? In terms of the locomotive that will come available (my guess would be an MNCR F-10, but possibly a MNCR GP-8 too) it depends on how it relates to other pieces of equipment that are already in the collection. However, without specifics I can't offer any thoughts on this.Tom Cornillie

Well since the pieces have been identified, I will add the third layer to this question. As far as the 4 units go, IIRC, only one museum has the pink slip for their engine, whereas the other 3 engines are still classified as long term storage / reserve power for MNCR/CDoT, not that it is likely that they would be called back into service. This is based on what I was told by members of the other museums shortly after the locomotives arrived, but situations and contracts may have changed in the interim. So basically the decision for their disposal is not really up to the hosting museums, short of telling MNCR to remove the locomotives. In which case they would probably end up in the Croton-Harmon Deadline.As for the 4th unit (MN 2023/NH 2057), we have spent some money to replace missing equipment and plan on operating her, as soon as we finish installing a pre-lube pump, so as not to cause undue wear, timing is dependent on other higher priority projects getting out of the way first though. Also we are currently working with a surplus equipment supplier for trim parts so that we can make her look closer to her as built appearance, without loosing the Amtrak compliance equipment, basically a visual backdating with the modern equipment left intact ala the Roger Williams restoration done at Claremont and Concord RR. Besides we would probably have to shoot one of our members before the unit left the museum for anything other then a short term rental or repair situation, his sweat and contacts made the acquisition possible. Besides the fact that to go from MNCR territory to the museum, the locomotive had to travel across two other railroads, thus making reserve power storage option not an option in our case.I am probably wrong, but as far as I know the MNCR F10s/(rebuilt F3 or F5?) have no Connecticut history outside MNCR, and the GP-8 was from a western railroad, that is if you are talking about the one with the roof `torpedo' air tanks (#750?), but IIRC none of the other MNCR GP7/8s, nor SLE GP-38s were from the Connecticut area.Regards,Rich C.MoW ForemanCt Eastern RR MuseumWillimantic, Ct 06226http://www.cteastrrmuseum.org

In all probability, the theoretical donation should be made to the organization that shows the best proposal for its continued preservation and / or use. Start gathering resources and writing, guys..........Realistically, is the choice going to be rational or political or emotional? As much as it goes against my jaundiced view of human nature, it seems to me the best world would be all the museums cooperatively work to maintain everybody's engines and run multiple-unit powered excursions to benefit all concerned, and hopefully give the public an experience they will want to do again and again. dave

The MNCR steam generator equipped GP-8 is from the New York Central. Its steam generator was not removed during its rebuilding in the 70's (either at Altoona or Paduach) and has been maintained for use in thawing switches. The MNCR F-10's are significant for their use by the MBTA in the late 70's and early 80's - the first locomotives to be acquired new/remanfactured by that railroad. In terms of technology, they show how locomotives can be remanufactured to have very long lives (47 years and counting). So, their historic paint schemes are either MNCR or MBTA - as there is little remaining from their Gulf Mobile & Ohio days besides the frame and trucks.The issue of sweat equity is very difficult to overcome. While it is possible to put together a very good idea on paper (or with electrons) things will only happen when people on the ground want them to happen. Tom Cornillie

Gentlemen,A little correction is in order before this discussion continues any further. This discussion is not about 4 FL-9's but about 6 units in the posession of the various CT based museum organizations. Unmentioned so far is that the RMNE has in its collection not only the 2033/2059 but CDOT 2002 and 2019 both on long term lease from CDOT. These units come from the first MK rebuild program of 1984 and represent the earliest form of HEP rebuilt units. At present the 2019 is stored servicable and the 2002 is out of service due to an as yet undiagnosed water leak. Both units have operated on the RMNE's Naugatuck RR but economically they represent an expensive proposition. The operational requirements of the Naugatuck RR are best suited to road switcher type units. If the FL-9's are placed in service then both have to be used. This limits them to special occaisions only.

OK, it's time to add my bit....MNCR 750 is a 1955 NYC GP9, never was rebuilt or upgraded, still has not only the Vapor boiler, but the old EMD "spike keg" control stand and 24 air.MNCR 2033/NH 2059 was requested from MNCR in a letter I wrote to MN in 1984; the story was covered in a brief a few years ago when it arrived. It is indeed as Tom C. says-- the most original unmodified FL9 left. It also suffered a great deal during the MN "storage" period from 1996 to 2002. Cosmetic restoration? Yes, at some future point. Operational retsoration? Most likely not. Why, with the two newer FL9s that my esteemed colleague ZOG mentions being available?RE: Moving stuff between museums....the hurdles that have to be jumped over to make even short moves in the Northeast/New England areas are high. I have plenty of experience in doing that. The "swap" would have to be awfully compelling to make it worthwhile.A few years ago, RMNE offered some stuff on long-term (10 year term, renewable for additional terms) loan to a nearby museum that was perhaps a better, more appropriate location for certain things RMNE has. No interest, due largely to the "ownership" issue, and the concern that once restored (or made more presentable, RMNE would "take it back, with us having done all the work". Needless to say, the stuff still sits at RMNE's yard. HP

This question was meant to be a theoretical exercise in collections management. The specifics were WAY besides the point. The inspiration behind the question was off-line exchange between a number of folks and myself on the subject of mystery locomotive-an ex-NH SW-1200 that is currently in the possession of NS. Their point was someone at Museum "X" should write a letter and ask for it. My point was to why doesn't someone at Museum "Y" or "Z" inquire after it. Their point was that Museum "X" 'does the New Haven very well.' My point was maybe Museums "Y" and "Z" need to do the NH 'better.'On and on...like a dog chasing its' own tail.To cut to the chase-this says it all:

Moral of the story: You can lead a horse to water, but...DPK

A theme that has arisen in this discussion is -Ownership- In terms of: sweat equity, loans between museums, and long term leases from CDOT. All these issues seem to complicate the Connecticut preservation scene and limit opportunities for developing future preservation and interpretation strategies. Across all three museums there is a collection of 1900-1910 passenger equipment with an appropriate steam locomotive, a portion of a 1950's New Haven passenger train, several New Haven MU cars as well as freight trains from several different areas. This collection is dispersed over a recreated 1900 railroad junction and locomotive servicing facility, a mid-20th century yard, and a mid 20th century branchline. In short - there is a potential to display a world class collection across three very historic sites - but current organizational boundaries limit what can be accomplished. So - is there a way for all three museums to work together to agree on a common mission and to collaborate in seeking the large amount of funding that is necessary to preserve the equipment collection? Tom Cornillie

Tom, with all due respect, what do you suggest the solution is? You do seem to have some knowledge of the three-dimensional (sites and artifacts) stuff, while being 700+ miles away. That is indeed commendable, because plenty of people in our region (who should know what we all have and are trying to do) are unaware of us.That said, I have lived this for the last 18-20 years, and seen the creation of two groups (DRM and CT Eastern) as a result of RMNE's search for a good home. Those two groups recieved the benefit of RMNE's expense and resources to develop a plan and concept, and support (community and political) in the two locations. We feel we have chosen the best of the possibilites in the Naugy site. The concerns we had about the other locations, which caused us to walk away from them at great expense, are still present in large part. And, no, I will not discuss them on the internet.What do you propose? There ARE three distinct sites...close one or two? In an ideal world, the collections could rotate among the three locations. However, CT is not an ideal world (what is?) and moving this stuff is difficult at best.You are an IRM member, yes? What is IRM's policy about "Ownership"? Ever negotiate with Nick about acquiring something from IRM? At RMNE there are 3 pieces that are "privately owned"---and two are pledged to the museum upon the owner's passing. We don't do yards full of privately owned equipment.HP

I'll chip in two or three cents in a theoretical vein. In an ideal world, nearby sites with related missions would closely coordinate collections, etc. But this is the less-than-ideal real world. And in the real world, I would urge each group to tend to its own garden first.The proper test for any collecting museum is whether the group itself has a clear collections policy. This policy should be an intellectual framework that explains what is to be saved, and how the items are significant (alone, in relation to one another, and in relation to the site and the organization's mission). It also may set out resource constraints on how much can be saved. This framework can then guide decisions about accessioning, deaccessioning, and loans.If this process is followed through carefully and maintained over time, a group will end up with a right-sized collection that fits its site, mission, and resources. Such a focused, well-maintained collection will in turn attract visitors, volunteers, and donations.So that's where I'd focus my attention. You can really concentrate on what the organization down the road is doing too much--you can't predict what they will do, what will stay in their collection and what will go. The first task is to make sure your own house is in order.Once your own house is in order, it may make sense to talk to sister organizations about collections rationalization, swaps, deaccessioning, etc. But the guiding principle for each group should be getting its own collections plan thought out, documented, and implemented first.Just some thoughts...

I think that the ideal situation would see the three existing groups join together into one large organization - for the purposes of this discussion I will give it the working title of Railroad Museum of Connecticut. This organization would own the equipment presently owned by the three organizations. Moreover, Railroad Museum of Connecticut would provide some economies of scale in terms of hiring/contracting professional fund raisers and curatorial staff. The equipment would then be reorganized to fit the three sites, with pre-1920 equipment being concentrated at Willimantic, electric equipment and commuter equipment at Danbury, and operational equipment at Thomaston. This would provide for economies of scale in accomplishing restorations, which is important as all surviving wood equipment needs serious help, there are endemic problems with NH lightweight equipment, and keeping equipment operational poses its own special problems.This is not to say, however, that the limited operations that are now carried out at Danbury and Willimantic could not be carried out or that there wouldn't be site-level organization of volunteer activities at each site. I realize that many may prefer the status quo - as many people justifiably take pride in their current organizations. However, the status quo also means that, by default all three organizations compete against each other for fundraising. This will force each organization to make tough decisions (read scrapping) as resources will not be available to care for the all of the equipment that is in each collection (something that has already begun).Also, I think that Erik’s points about collections policy are more relevant for growing organizations. Most of what is eligible for preservation in New England has been preserved – and experience shows that there is virtually no interest in preserving New England equipment that would be eligible for deaccession outside of New England. The challenge instead is to find a business model that can continue to preserve this equipmentTom Cornillie

Tom,I looked at your webpage and see that you have an academic background in history-which explains your perspective on many issues. That being said-I would like to hear what you have to say offline re: the documentation project you spoke of. Contact me off line if so moved. Now, I am going to play the role of agent provocateur...To put this discussion in proper perspective, two of the folks who have posted here on this subject have been at the game for a long time, one of them for probably for most of his adult life. As for me, I came along a bit later, but have spent most of my life-some 40 plus years-'playing with machinery.' So I believe the credentials are there to make accurate observations on the situation-which by the way was (and is) part of our day-to-day lives. And, BTW, NONE of us live in the state of CT. We all drive quite a bit to do our railroad thing.As an aside, it infuriated me to no end to hear someone (who lived 45 minutes from our site) bitch about the driving and so on . I couldn't help but tell him: bro-after gas, tolls and meals-it is a 75-100 dollar weekend for me. But I digress...I am also going to make an educated guess and say you are 'young'-certainly younger than the baby boomer types that tend to make up the demographics of our chosen avocation. So-I'll be straight with you and say this-you have a little bit to learn about human nature. Specifically, I have to second everything that Howard P has written here-I witnessed it first hand. It all boils down to personalities-and that is what accounts for the existence of three 'competing' groups in the same state. And guess what-some of the groups do certain things much better than the others. I'll throw another story into the pot: One of my associates offered to put a slide show together that documented the progress of a long-standing restoration project that some of us in Museum 'X' had worked on. I offered this show was to one of the 'competing groups' who happened to own a bastardized version of the same piece we were working on. Now-wouldn't common sense dictate that Museum "Z" invite us down and pick our brains ? I never got as much as a 'thanks, but no thanks.' How arrogant is that ? Let me tell you, Tom-that is arrogant-even for the Northeast.For some of us, the act of participating is the realization of a life-long interest. For others, it may just be...community service-like the volunteer fire dept.Dave KPS: I don't know how ownership became an issue of the discussion. I'm sure CDOT has a good reason for sequestering these FL-9's all around the state. Seems like a good deal for all concerned.

But that sort of makes my point--a collections plan helps you downsize or right size wisely as well as grow wisely. It's relevant at all stages of the life cycle.