There was some discussion about doing a RYPN 'most endangered' list a few months ago, however the consensus reach was that it could expose RYPN to litigation which could rapidly deplete our meager financial resources.

However, we would welcome the submission of statements of significance about equipment, buildings, potential archaeological sites, artifacts, collections, etc. that may or may not qualify as being endangered. The first part of a statement of significance should be able to answer in a simple and elegant way the 'so what' question to somebody who has no prior knowledge of railroads or railroads history. The National Trust’s most endangered lists provides good examples for 1-2 sentence examples of this. The statement can then be further developed to provide specific historical and technical information about the subject, its function, and how it changed over time. Information in statements of significance should also be referenced using a standard bibliographic style to facilitate further research by others.

A really basic and concise page on writing statements of significance can be found at: http://www.heritage.gov.au/protect-places/scr4_04.htm

I can provide links to other resources if there is interest.

I look forward to reading your submissions!

Tom Cornillie

Now who would sue the web site for a list of endangered sites? An ambulance chaser perhaps! I would think that such a list would fall into the category of free speech under the first amendment. But this too is open to interpretation.

Later!
Mr. Ed

No, the person who might sue would be an angry and insulted owner.

Imaging you own a locomotive and you strongly feel you have taken the best care of it you can for many years. I, Erik the Train Website Operator, come along and name you as the no-good lousy owner of one of my 10 most endangered locomotives.

You might be mad enough to sue me for libel. You would almost certainly lose on the merits, but not before forcing me to spend so much money defending myself that Erik's Train Website goes broke (becuase I was a shoestring operation to begin with). See, you do not have to win the lawsuit to put me out of business--just bringing it would probably be enough.

Are there are people in this movement who are touchy about having their stewardship criticized, and deep pocketed enough to sue? I can think of a few right off the top of my head.

I was in favor of such a list, but I certainly would not want RyPN to get into legal hot water over it. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of rail lines threatened with conversion to trails, and any items out there that might qualify as abandoned -- the ex-StJ & LC wood snowplow stranded in Morrisville, VT comes to mind... (is it still there?)

Don't fear, Stephen and others. We thinks its a good idea and it can be done, we'rejust still mulling over how to do it in a way that offers the best results for the comunity and raises the fewest risks for RyPN. The key would be to do it as an editorial project selected by a committee.

At the moment, the key barrier is staff time. We are watching all the suggestions in this thread with interset, and as Tom explained, we are thinking about how best to approach it.

Erik, I see your point.

Later!
Mr. Ed

Stating the threat in factual terms does not necessarily equate to slander: if, for example, a development company or municipality is planning on demolishing something, one can say as much without placing a value judgment on their statement about the owner.

Take, for example, a piece of railroad equipment in a field, say a rare passenger car, that has sat for years, and the roof has begun leaking and the paint is long gone. One could say the car is endangered by deterioration and weather without saying that it is the property owners' fault: the property owner is under no obligation to care for the car, may have inherited it without the resources to care for it, may not realize what it is, etc.

In the case of an impending demolition, there may be many reasons why a demolition is taking place, sometimes legitimate if not well-conceived: liability, development pressures (particularly in areas with slow job growth), lack of a viable use, etc. Again, one can state as much without blaming the property owner.

The point of the endangered list is not simply to cause outrage and direct blame; usually such things are counterproductive anyhow. The primary function of the listing is to call attention to a situation, with a goal of fostering discussion (which ideally includes the property owner) on solutions to the threat. This is not to say that someone couldn't try a lawsuit and make life hard for either the Trust, RyPN, or the person or group nominating a property, but it does mean that dealing in good faith tends to perpetuate itself, which, in turn, does temper the risk a bit.

My doubt about RyPN doing a list of any kind is this: does RyPN have a high enough profile to make it effective? It works for the trust because they have had several decades to establish credibility and make their organization's name a household term. RyPN is a top-notch professional forum, but does it carry the weight to make such a list more than an internal memo among us?

Perhaps a statement of significance list would be best, not merely from the point of liability, but also because, simply posted on the site, it would be this site's most effective means of bringing the sites, resources, etc., to the broadest possible audience within its means--possibly with a press release at its debut. Also: relatively few railroad or industrial sites have made the National Trust's list. How many out there know that the Trust accepts nominations to the list? It's not easy to get listed, but the option is there.

David A. Vago

I believe RYPN should do an 11 Most List. To avoid being sued, its easy, only list the items that have the owners approval. To not do a list because of a fear of being sued is a disservice to the rail preservation community.

There is an inherent danger to heritage railroading. If the fear of lawsuits overwhelms our ability to do something for the common good, then we might as well close up shop.

The Nevada Northern has been on Preserve Nevada’s 11 Most List for 2 years running. (http://www.nevadanorthernrailway.net/th ... 071505.htm) and guess what we won again! The preservation of these historic railroad complexes goes a lot farther than just restoring the locomotives and the cars. It is the buildings and the infrastructure, too.

Here at the Nevada Northern, in addition to all of the other challenges we face, we have a new one, fire and water. We need a new fire hydrant system in the yard. If I was able to install the new system tomorrow, I have an additional problem. The City of Ely’s water system can’t supply enough water to the rail yard for a new hydrant system. The price tag on upgrading the City of Ely’s water system is a cool million dollars. (http://www.nevadanorthernrailway.net/th ... 051206.htm)

Jay had it right, all of these heritage railroads are holding on by a thread. It the National Trust was to include us on their 11 Most List, the simple solution is to list us all as an item under heritage railroads.

http://www.nevadanorthernrailway.net/throttle/throttle051206.htm
http://www.nevadanorthernrailway.net/throttle/throttle071505.htm

We DO intend to do a list, as I note in my post above. The mechanism for avoiding conflict you suggest is one of several we are considering in as we refine our ideas.

[Earlier terse remark edited out and replaced by following:]

Let me give everyone a complete statment of where the RyPN Board's thinking on this stands so there will be no confusion:

1. last winter readers floated a number of good ideas for user-nominated avialable lists, endangered lists, things in need of preservation lists, etc.

2. The RyPN Board continues to talk about all these ideas; none were forgotten or ignored

3. The first thing we did is introduce the RyPN Classifieds where people can post available items for preservation that they own or control

4. The next thing we are considering is some form of "10 most endangered" list. Trying to be good stewards of the money patrons donate to us, we want to avoid liablity concerns. The way to do this is to make the list a formal editorial project under some kind of formal selection. Our last round of brainstorming was to have a submission process, a selection panel, and a list published as an editorial of some kind. This puts the project under maximum protection of press freedom precedents.

5. Having fleshed the idea out that far, we are in a holding pattern for the moment becuase that idea requires a lot of editorial manpower, and editorial manpower is our single most scarce commodity right now. Also, we have some other high priority ideas that are a little higher in the queue to discuss and work out.

So in a nutshell, we like the idea, we know it can be done, we are not in a position to do it this instant, but I expect you'll see something within two years. Until then we do welcome everyone's thoughts and brainstorming. Please don't conclude from my attempt to explain to Ed what some of our hypothetical libaility concerns are that we have abandoned the idea or shot it down. We have always tried to serve the community, and I hope you all trust us not to do the community any disservice by action or inaction.

Would it be possible to install a standpipe or a reservoir and pump system of your own. The latter is being done at the Western Railway Museum in Rio Vista, CA to supply the sprinkler system in their new barn. It would permit you to reduce the amount of water required from the city system to a level that it could handle. It would not be cheap, but probably less than a million dollars.

Pretty soon, the way our state is going, you can add anything preservation-related in the State of Michigan; actually, you could just ADD the State of Michigan. Last one leaving the state, turn out the lights........

In reagrds to Ely, Mark, let me make you feel better; a million dollars for a municipal water supply is nothing. Our town has been, per EPA mandate, been doing a sewer separation project for over a decade now that has cost 30 - 40 million, both from tax payers and gvernmental grants. We will have one of the most environmentally friendly sewer systems in the country when were done (not to be taken lightly I guess, as we are right on Lake Huron/ St. Clair River), but our downtown and our employment outlook is one of the worst in the country right now; PH has 16% unemployment --- try raising preservation dollars in that kind of environment.

They say some places in the country actually have a booming economy ---- couldn't prove it by Michigan!

TJG

I have seen this problem being discussed in detail, but so much detail obscures the big picture for me. In the most basic terms, what is wrong with the C&T?

RTK

I would think PRR's roundhouse at Crestline should be on that list.
http://www.crestlineroundhouse.org/engine.htm

I guess if we're nominating roundhouses, I would add the Frankfort, Indiana house to the list. I will admit that Crestline looks a bit worse off than the NKP roundhouse in Frankfort. Perhaps what we should do is just show Abandoned Roundhouses as 1 item, then list the various ones that are abandoned and endangered, perhaps in alphabetical order so no ones nose gets out of joint. Example:

Item XX - Abandoned roundhouses:

1. Crestline, Ohio (ex-Pennsylvania Railroad)
2. Frankfort, Indiana (ex-Nickel Plate Road)
3. xxxxxxxxxx
4. xxxxxxxxxxx
etcetra.

And this of course, is assuming that such an Endangered list is ever published.

Les

I can see several categories, but I think it would be helpful to keep the list on either the homepage, or "stuck" to the top of the Interchange.

This is the former B&M roundhouse in Portsmouth, NH. The entire site including this 65 ft. turntable do not appear to be in any imminent danger, but the property is located behind several active businesses.