Let’s understand before I begin that I am not expecting to win a popularity contest with this post. Also, be very clear that I respect the Fort Wayne crew and have no personal or professional grudge against them. They just happen to be the group in question. Here it goes…<p>The recent announcement that over $300,000 of TEA-21 funds were awarded to restore Nickel Plate 2-8-4 #765 has been met with loud applause by many rail preservationists. On first glance, I cheered, too, but upon greater reflection the award raises some serious questions about government policy and preservation.<p>$300,000 is a lot of money to bestow upon a locomotive with no significant individual history (she ain’t The General or anything like that) and she is one among numerous surviving sisters (including one owned by the National Park Service). She also really has no dedicated route to stretch her legs on. During the last years of operation, having a place to run became less and less frequent. With the PM Berk, Cotton Belt #819 and other big engines spending most of the ‘90’s all dressed up with no place to go, I have ask if we really need another mainline steam engine at all, especially if tax dollars are going to it. <p>So, the first question is why does she get the money? The obvious answer is politics. Much to their credit, the Fort Wayne guys must have made a really superb argument for the funds. Kudos for that. They are pros and it shows. I admire that.<p>It also points out that the government is not looking too hard at the situation. If federal dollars are to be spent on steam at all, they should be directed to stabilizing the Steamtown collection, which is actually a ward of the government (and also has a NKP 2-8-4 on the ready-to-restore list). Doesn’t it strike anybody odd that the NPS is actively raising money from the public to restore the Berk the Feds own, yet the Feds give $300,000 to restore an almost identical engine that they have no stake in?<p>I’m sorry, but that is just strange,<p>I’m no fan of government policy lately, to be sure. I would much rather see meaningful farm aid, but assuming that will never come because it is too obvious, let’s think more about the TEA-21 dollars.<p>I have to question any allotment to restore an individual engine rather than helping a shortline that is ready to make a meaningful economic impact in its home region. If I were to award $$ to a steam program, I would probably prefer to give it to the C&TS or the Reading & Northern where the steam has a place to run and a chance to for greater impact, regionally and long-term. In both cases, the local economy would feel the benefit of the money on an on-going basis. Steam roadshows like barnstorming mainline engines really don’t make the economic impact.<p>Looking further, shouldn’t this money really go to preserve facilities like stations and other infrastructure? Wouldn’t we be better off with an improved physical plant than more mainline steam?<p>And, I have to ask.. shouldn’t all the rail preservation dollars we have in the government right now go the East Broad Top, which is a true national treasure? I would trade a dozen park engines on the mainline for the EBT to be awarded the funds and attention that its historical significance warrants… it would be money well spent as it goes way beyond a steam train to being a full-scale effort to save a slice of industrial revolution life. The lessons EBT can teach have much great societal impact than another mainline queen.<p>Again, I repeat that I have nothing against the Fort Wayne guys. They won through all the red tape, and that should be admired – and Rich in particular. He is a benefit to our movement, and is one of truly knowledgeable leaders we have. It just seems to me that our tax dollars, if they are to be used for RR preservation at all, should go to a different sort of policy. <p>Please don’t flame me on this. I have given the issue a lot of thought. I do welcome any equally thought out responses, but only via this message board.<p>Thanks!<p><br>



nospam@nospam.com

TEA 21 dollars are derived from the feds, but distributed from the state DOTs. Aside from broad designations of purpose, there is minimal federal oversight of distribution. This is good and bad for our purposes. <p>Every state distributes in their own way - Georgia, for example, uses TEA 21 for pure pork. Every regional overseer can designate whatever single project or group of projects he pleases. One site I work with was ranked 3 of the top 4 by the recommending board for our region, but the individual decided to do a bunch of nickel and dime small town roadsign type projects instead. <p>I sense we are almost depending on TEA 21 for many of our projects instead of just considering them as one potential source. When it works it works, but it doesn't more often than it does. we need to broaden our potential sources of funding.<p>Steamtown itself is a better example of the power of politics in the face of rational preservation than a dozen nickel plate berks. Those dollars could have preserved EBT instead as the national treasure it is. I am not knocking steamtown, but comapred to EBT? Come on, guys......So why should we expect better from TEA 21?<p>I think the real danger here is that the feds and states will use TEA 21 as the only source they see reasonable for our projects if we do not continue to apply for other public sector sources.<p>Dave <br>



lathro19@idt.net

With many grants and funding from many sources, one sometimes wonders why project ABC was approved and project XYZ was not. Whether it is a grant request submitted to a private foundation or a funding request submitted for state or federal funds, one always hears "you gotta know somebody" or your application will sail straight into the wastebasket.<p>To the extent that this is true, it's a real shame, because it would be nice to think that funding requests are always judged on their merits rather than on the intercession of a guardian angel who knows what strings to pull and what buttons to push.<p>Looking at publications, from AAM and other organizations, one sees in the course of a year a lot of grants. In spite of the real or imagined politics, good projects are approved. "Pure pork" is probably not a fair description of EVERY project that manages to get through the maze of sign-offs and approvals.<p>Some great projects are not approved because they do not have the proper write-ups or focus, or are otherwise missing the kind of documentation the reviewers really want. Sometimes, it appears that somebody thinks "ohmygosh, the deadline is tomorrow" and types these things up in one draft and then sends them in and wonders why they fail.<p>Merit is a hard thing to determine sometimes when there are so many points of view, so many agencies involved, so many people trying to write the applications. <p><br>



collections@srmduluth.org

Depends on how you define Pork, Malcolm. I do not mean to imply that pork is bad for your financial diet, either. I wish my people had done a better job of gaining access to the trough by recognizing how it needed to be effectively done in their particular venue. <p>In other words, there is no set of rules which will guarantee success. You have to determine what approach works for your decision making circumstances, and tailor your approach accordingly. Reason does not play a large part in such a process in some other parts of Georgia, as it does in the more sophisticated Atlanta SMSA.<p>Hell, we got a nice ISTEA grant for Kennesaw, but the city hasn't yet gotten over the hump of actually willing themselves to match and spend it. Kind of like snatching defeat from the jaws of success.<p>It is a wonderful and colorful business after all. <p>Dave <p><br> <br>



lathro19@idt.net

If it weren't a colorful and a wonderful biz, we might get bored and do more chores around the house instead of spending so much time at the museum.<p>Discussions like this are great because,hopefully, they help all of us figure out how to get the money we need to stay in this colorful and wonderful business. <br>



71045.2202@compuserve.com

In this interesting thread there have been several references to EBT as the prime example of an irreplacable treasure languishing while Federal funds are speant elsewhere.<p>Just for the record, various interested parties have been working for years to get the Feds more involved with EBT, and the Feds (usually the Park Service, more recently ISTEA/TEA-21 via the State of Pennsylvania) have always been more than sympathetic.<p>The problem, if problem it is, is Mr. Kovalchick's strong sense of his rights and perquisites as the owner of the railroad. Any serious Federal of State involvement in EBT would require Mr. K to surrender much of his outright control over the EBT, and thus far Mr. K has been completely unwilling to contemplate this. I note this not to slam Mr. K-- we all owe him and his family a debt of gratitude-- but to point out that in this specific case, there are local ownership issues which thus far have tied the State and Federal authorities' hands.<br>



eledbetter@rypn.org

Back in June there was an RYPN Brief that implied Kovalchik was putting the property into a trust to qualify for TEA21 money. Did this change?<p><br>JAC



SteamCentral

The TEA-21 grant requires Mr. K to put the shops complex into the hands of a nonprofit trust. The estimated value of the shops then becomes the "local match" which will qualify the project for release of the federal TEA-21 funds.<p>My informants tell me that negotiations for the formation of the trust have hit some snags, involving differing understandings of the degree of residual control Mr. K would retain over the property conveyed to the trust. Finalizing the arrangements is still very much a work in progress.<p>In any event, the current TEA-21/property trust negotiations cover only the shops buildings excluding the roundhouse, and explicitly do not cover the engines, rolling stock, right of way, and all other buildings, lands, appurentances, etc. pertaining to the Railroad. Mr K owns these outright, and will continue to do so under any of the schemes currently under discussion.<br>



eledbeter@rypn.org

The Long Island Railroad Museum received money from the older ISTEA program for their LIRR 4-6-0; see the RyPN Brief for August 7th.



LIRR Brief
eledbetter@rypn.org