Erik, your points are right on (as we used to say in the 60s). RMNE's collections policy is New England railroading. This policy was developed and refined as we became less "the volunteer auxiliary of the Valley Railroad" and more focused on the vanishing New England rail scene. Some items we had gotten because they seemed like a good idea at the time (the UP/AMTK E9 done up as "NYC 4096" for example) or we inherited (a 1915 CNW open-platform combine, now nicely cared for at MidContinent-- where it goes with 1385 like ham goes with eggs) were gotten rid of (or deaccessioned, if one prefers). Our collecting during the 80s was perhaps a bit of over-collecting, but we were reacting to the losses of the past 25 years- all NH steam lost, all NH electrics lost, even after one of each almost had homes (those stories for another time). Certain areas we simply did not plan to go-- the Maine 2-footers, for example. They were well "covered" by others. We turned down at least GG-1; they ran in CT (never in Illinois or Texas, as I recall) and could have easily been justified--but there were plenty in other places. We had a "hit list" of what was out there, and what of it was typical and or desirable for a New England railroad collection. RMNE was the only non-profit railroad museum organization east of the Hudson River and north of Long Island Sound at the time. Other groups have since come into existence and have filled some niches. For example, the CT Eastern group covers the Central Vermont reasonably well. And, we are now thinning the herd. More pieces will be offered to others in the near future. I hope they will find good homes.The business model needed to attract the public calls for (in my opinion) an operating historic railroad. RMNE walked away from five different sites because providing an operating railroad at those sites was difficult or impossible.The three groups not only compete against each other for fundraising, but for volunteers as well. Of the three groups, to my knowledge, only RMNE owns land and buildings, including an under-construction 180x65 two track restoration shop (building shell just finished, track being built up to it, an RyPN brief will be coming soon!!), an 1881 passenger station, and the famed Comfort Coach. I think that shows a serious committment to the future; ownership is important to us because of our early history.Tom, I invite you to visit RMNE and see what we are accomplishing, to speak with our people and discuss the philosophies of railroad preservation (perhaps over an adult beverage or three) any time. And that invite goes for any of the rest of you, too. We're not bashful (as you've probably figured out)!!HPSorry to have rambled on, and a bit disjointedly at that.

[quote="Howard P."You are an IRM member, yes? What is IRM's policy about "Ownership"? Ever negotiate with Nick about acquiring something from IRM? HP[/quote]Yes, Tom is an IRM member and contributes positively long distance since he does not often have the time to come out and scrape rust. He and I have worked together on a number of projects, despite the fact that we often "share" differring opinions.Back to your question - From the very early days IRM has had a very prejudicial policy regarding private or outside ownership. That is not to say that exceptions were made, for seemingly very good reasons at the time. In some cases this worked for the positive, with the title to the equipment eventually passing to IRM. But usually not before serious deterioration had occured due to the inability of the interim owner to maintain the piece. In other instances our earlier worries were realized and an acrimonious scene resulted in some pieces being reclaimed and moved off site.There are all sorts of ways to try to structure a document or agreement to protect both sides in such cases, but if an agreement can be cleverly crafted, it can be cleverly broken. IMHO life is too short to place yourself in such a situation, and all preservation groups have more than enough on their plate.So let's all heed Erik and try to get our houses in order.Bob Kutella

I approach railroad preservation by looking it as a business - and look for ways to do things better, more efficiently and look for a way to deliver a product that is in demand. Answering this question is how I have arrived at the 'Connecticut Railway Museum' idea. I have experienced the challenges that can be presented by conflicting personalities - however I also believe that many (perhaps not all) conflicting individuals and groups can work together when they mutually recognize that there can be a better way of doing something. I realize that this is an optimistic stance - but in all honesty having this stance is the only thing that keeps me involved in this field as I think that the business plans of many organizations (large and small) are not going to be sustainable over time. I agree with the principle of collection management, but I think that it can be substituted for reviewing a business plan and looking for ways to do something better. If a business plan is proving to be unworkable, no amount of deaccessioning will remedy this. Moreover, we also have to realize that collection management almost always means scrapping. Realizing this, I think the focus should be to find ways to expand the capabilities of our organizations – to continue to preserve what we have saved. Tom Cornillie

Agree in part and disagree firmly in part. Agreed that collections planning won't fix a broken or stressed business model, a problem which is shared by the museum community as a whole, all collections types and all sizes. The components of the traditional business plan--fees from operations (gate, concessions), member/donor gifts, and government grants--are all under pressure simultaneously. This is a whole searate, fruitful conversation to get started.About the second point, I do disagree. To assume that collections planning means deaccessioning and deaccessioning means scrapping is to predetermine the outcome of the planning process. A plan can be written that "grandfathers" existing outliers but guides future accessions. A plan can also be written that states that deacessioning will only be done through gift or trade to sister nonprofits. The content of the plan can be very flexible, and range from relatively weak in the first draft to very stern. I could make a separate case for begin stern in doing it, but I recognize that for some groups at some points in their history, a less stern, less controversial plan--perhaps only governing new aquisitions--might be the place to start.

By stating that deaccessioning means scrapping, I am talking in regards to the fact that there are very very few organizations that are interested in new acquistions or recieving donations of anything that is less than good condition. So, if something is deaccessioned - but there are no takers for the said equipment then it forces the owning organization to continue to keep it or to scrap it. And, I agree that collection management can encompass a wide range of strategies beyond deaccession and scrapping. What I am concerned with, however, is that more organizations will decide to scrap deteriorated pieces - without exploring other options - and claim that they are practicing responsible collection management. What I suggest is working on further developing what collection management actually means - and including case studies. I see potential to correlate this with issues surrounding documentation (Erik - if you are interested in talking about this further, contact me off line.)Tom Cornillie