Seems to me we've pointed out that #763 and #4876 are part of the same conversation. Both have been in museums with financial stress, and both were at the fringes of the collection policy.

Both are currently going through a time period that may forever shape the future of the piece.

I think the comparison is valid, and I dare say there are far more locomotives that could replace #4876 in the conversation than there are #763 (unloved museum piece vs. private owner).

In fact, this thread ties into the Erie E thread from a few weeks ago and many others.

Just my $.02! :-)

Rob

This is a serious oversimplification. SOME of the material acquired under that plan has been disposed of. MOST is still at the museum, as can be asertained by walking the tracks at the Museum. It is still MORE than the museum will have resorces to restore, house, and care for for the forseeable future.

The only way to sort this out would be to compile a line by line roster of what the museum got, what it kept, what it trasferred for preservation elsewhere, and what it scrapped. Absent this roster, I assert, there is no hard data to support the opinions being thrown about.



I am flatly astounded that anyone is willing to criticize this museum for not mouting a capital campaign to house the freight car collection at this time.

After the President's Day blizzard the museum called in every chit and sucked dry every source of capital it knew--private, foundation, state, and Federal-- to repair the roundhouse and finish the North Carshop project. To turn around and suggest that they are laggards in capital development for not having done a freight car storage facility ON TOP OF ALL THAT is astonishing, just astonishing.

Truly, no good deed goes unpunished.

Very interesting thread to say the least. Fascinating that the title subject has attracted over 33,000 hits and counting. Guess that gives a strong clue on where most of our passions lie!!
I congratulate both Mr.Jacobson and the VMT for the transaction. 763 gets a new home where she is practically assurred of being returned to service and being well cared for both mechanically and cosmetically and VMT gets some badly needed cash to help its new Director kick start his program of recovery. Seems to me it's a win-win if there ever was one!
VMT still has an abundance of pieces in thier "stuffed&mounted" collection and besides 763 had little to do with thier core mission anyway.
I can see the double headed Berks now, what a sweet scene they'll make!
Ross Rowland

Thank You Eric, all I needed to hear is that even one person understood that.

I should clarify that by significant I meant important, not a large quantity. For example, if the Mona Lisa were stolen from the Louvre, one could plausibly imagine a newspaper headline stating that they lost a significant part of their collection. However, significant can also mean a large quantity – for example 15 inches of rain falling in a night may lead to a headline stating that a significant amount of rain fell last night. It is unlikely that one would confuse think that the Mona Lisa comprised a large proportion of the Louvre’s collection, or that there was an important quality of the rain that fell.

In my prior remarks, I intended to state that the BORM scrapped several important pieces in their collection. They still have a large collection of freight cars – that are important both in themselves and in relation to each other. However, the fact that they have a large number of cars does not make up for the fact that the cars that were scrapped were quite important in themselves.



I base my assertion on the review of a document that is not available for public release. At this point readers will have to take my word for it.



In the 1990s the BORM earned a spotted reputation among many in the railroad industry and preservationists by virtue of their shifting collection policies, frequent staff turnovers, and consistent lack of transparency. At this time latent frustration grew as a gulf emerged between the recognition of the importance of the collection, the site, and the potential for the museum’s development and the lack of a clear and consistent vision from the museum’s leadership. I base this on my interactions with those in the railroad industry and private preservationists who know their history and use their resources to support preservation.

The roof collapse and the BORM’s reaction to it, where they were remarkably open and transparent about the damage done and the repair plans, wiped the slate clean. Many who had looked at BORM with doubt hoped for a new future for the museum – and supported the reconstruction effort accordingly. Moreover, the plight of the museum and its rebirth gave the museum a tremendous amount publicity to the museum and its collection.

This goodwill presented the museum with a unique opportunity to put forth a larger vision for the museum. It need not be a full fledged capital campaign - it could be as simple as a brochure – or mission statement – recognizing that the collection as a whole cannot survive outdoors over the long term. Their passenger car collection, perhaps the best on the continent for a single railroad, are the most vulnerable as they are prone to rust, corrode largely from the inside, and are difficult and expensive to repair. Indeed many passenger cars that are scrapped by museums move instantly from “awaiting restoration” to being “too costly to repair” – the window of opportunity for a feasible repair having long ago passed. Freight cars, steam and diesel locomotives are also vulnerable – arguably to a lesser degree.

Alas, recent management changes and the secret scrapping of the freight cars has reopened old wounds. Putting forth a long term vision for the preservation of the museum’s collection, as well as being more transparent and communicative would help to recapture good will that was gained and lost.

Tom Cornillie