I recently moved to New Jersey and I had the opportunity to sit through a talk/slide show on the proposed New Jersey Transportation Museum. The proponents are pushing to build this in Phillipsburg, NJ. I have being visiting RYPN for several years now and I enjoy the information I get as an observer (and occasional donator) of railroad preservation.

This New Jersey museum effort has me confused. Over half of the presentation was about their "restoration" of the New York Central observation car Hichory Creek. I qualify restoration because they removed one bedroom and changed the size of the other four bedrooms! They say they have spent $700,000 on this car and that they still need more to finish it. Then I was told that this car is the focal point of the proposed museum. Someone else asked why since this car never ran in New Jersey. The answer was that this car is so important that it doesn't matter where it ran.

The rest of the presentation focused on diesels painted for the wrong railroads, RDC's leased out to others, and second hand commuter cars letter for railroads they never served. There was a lot of "in Phase 3 we will do...". I understand that you need to have a vision, but frankly I felt embarassed by all of this by the time it was over.

I emailed the "Friends" group at their website with my questions but the response was more or less a press release and a form letter for me to send to my state representatives to ask them for their support. So, I am asking the readers of Interchange what they know of this museum effort and is this a "good" effort or is it (pardon the pun) way off the track?

Henry in NJ

hessler@mediacenter.com

Henry:
I'd like to invite you to the NJ Museum of Transportation located down in Monmouth County. As an all volunteer organization we operate the Pine Creek RR and have a sizable collection of NJ railroad artifatcs along with equipment from around the country. Some NJ highlights include:

2 each CNJ cabooses
Mack locomotive which was built in NJ
PRR private car 3999 "Trenton"
3 CNJ boxcars
1 boxcar from Singer factory in NJ
Various industrial steam and gas locos from NJ
The Freneau, NJ station
The Allenwwod, NJ station
The newstand from Manasquan, NJ
Spring Lake, NJ octagon watchman shanty
Manasquan Broad Street Station shanty
One Cagney locomotive (built in Jersey City)

Our non-NJ collection includes a 1927 Shay, 1912 Baldwin outside frame 2-8-0, 1887 Irish 4-4-0T, 1920 2-6-2, D&RGW 3000 series boxcar, Tweetsy boxcar, Canadian National coaches (1902) and much more.

We receive no state funding and are always looking for volunteers. We also have an R-Stamp and can do our own boiler repairs. Our current steam project is the restoration of a 1914 Porter 2-6-0. Our primary rolling stock project is the restoration of the coaches used by the Carroll Park and Western which will include handicap access. These cars are based on the chassis and bodies of DL&W cabooses.

BTW, we are supportive of the State museum as they have a mission, and collection, much larger than ours.

Contact me via email and I can set up a tour of our facilties.

And welcome to NJ!

J.R.

> I recently moved to New Jersey and I had the
> opportunity to sit through a talk/slide show
> on the proposed New Jersey Transportation
> Museum. The proponents are pushing to build
> this in Phillipsburg, NJ. I have being
> visiting RYPN for several years now and I
> enjoy the information I get as an observer
> (and occasional donator) of railroad
> preservation.

> This New Jersey museum effort has me
> confused. Over half of the presentation was
> about their "restoration" of the
> New York Central observation car Hichory
> Creek. I qualify restoration because they
> removed one bedroom and changed the size of
> the other four bedrooms! They say they have
> spent $700,000 on this car and that they
> still need more to finish it. Then I was
> told that this car is the focal point of the
> proposed museum. Someone else asked why
> since this car never ran in New Jersey. The
> answer was that this car is so important
> that it doesn't matter where it ran.

> The rest of the presentation focused on
> diesels painted for the wrong railroads,
> RDC's leased out to others, and second hand
> commuter cars letter for railroads they
> never served. There was a lot of "in
> Phase 3 we will do...". I understand
> that you need to have a vision, but frankly
> I felt embarassed by all of this by the time
> it was over.

> I emailed the "Friends" group at
> their website with my questions but the
> response was more or less a press release
> and a form letter for me to send to my state
> representatives to ask them for their
> support. So, I am asking the readers of
> Interchange what they know of this museum
> effort and is this a "good" effort
> or is it (pardon the pun) way off the track?

> Henry in NJ


http://www.njmt.org
jrmay@njmt.org

Don't know anything about them, but it sounds like an excellent illustration of the difference between a museum and a bunch of guys playing with trains.

> This New Jersey museum effort has me
> confused. Over half of the presentation was
> about their "restoration" of the
> New York Central observation car Hichory
> Creek. I qualify restoration because they
> removed one bedroom and changed the size of
> the other four bedrooms! They say they have
> spent $700,000 on this car and that they
> still need more to finish it. Then I was
> told that this car is the focal point of the
> proposed museum. Someone else asked why
> since this car never ran in New Jersey. The
> answer was that this car is so important
> that it doesn't matter where it ran.

Henry,

You'll find that NJ's URHS, even though organized as a group to unify all the local NRHS chapters into one cohesive group aimed at preserving the state's transportation heritage, fails miserably at its job.

First off... the group if VERY cliquish, and certain contingents within the URHS are often at odds with each other. It got so bad, that certain officers had no clue that others had leased out an operable CNJ GP-7 to a local tourist line. Even though they claim to be united, the efforts at preserving equipment are far from it. Most of the time, equipment historical to NJ that would be better served locked away in safe storage, until the museum is built, is often leased out for operation and is put at risk of being seriously damaged/destroyed through regular use or display.

A good example would be one of the remaining CNJ "Blue Comet" observation cars. Rather than the URHS making sure the car is taken care of and saved, the group or person owning it leased the car to the city of South Plainfield for several years. Now, after a "quickie" cosmetic restoration sponsored by a local NHRS chapter, the car sits vandalized and in real danger of being lost to a fire. Local undesireables have overrun the car.... spray paintng grafitti on it and damaging the windows... which will in turn lead to water leaks and loss of the wood interior.

To this day, the CNJ car sits rusting away, while time and money is put into a NYC car that never ran in NJ. Here is a golden chance for the URHS to step forward and at least secure an actual CNJ car from further damage on behalf of the city... yet they sit back and throw money at a car of lesser value to a NEW JERSEY museum.

As far as the "restoration" of the Hickory Creek, that's about par for the course. Historical accuracy seems to take a back seat at the URHS. Instead of restoring the Hickory Creek as it once was, the URHS officers seem to think it was a better idea to alter the car's historic value and lease it out to joyriders.... which again puts the car at risk for being lost or damaged beyond use. The idea of trying to recoup restoration costs is admirable, but operation begets more money to maintain the car. If, in the end, the car gets rear ended and destroyed, that's $700K wasted... money which could have been used to conserve other equipment.

Another thing the URHS suffers from is the "Two of Everything" syndrome. Their "historic" diesels (most of which are cosmetic replications, and not historically accurate restorations of actual equipment used in NJ) are almost always done in pairs.... even to the point that historical value is ignored in favor of "having two of them."

For example... the URHS was lucky enough to come into ownership of two actual ex-CNJ GP-7's... 1523 and 1524. Now.... one of the two units, I forget which offhand, was one of the first (if not THE first) to wear the later CNJ "Red Baron" colors. Instead of taking one CNJ unit and displaying it in its as-delivered green and gold, and taking the one that heralded the "Red Baron" scheme and showing what a later unit looked like, URHS went for the matched green and gold pair... which does little to educate the public on the changes a RR experienced over time and only satisfies egos within the organization itself. This is SOP at URHS... paint everything in pairs, even if they could do a better job at interpreting transporation heritage through individual items with historical variations.

If one looks at the history of the museum proposal itself, the entire idea of a museum has been nothing but one political boondoggle. The original authorization board chose a site in Flemington, NJ, due to its proximity to existing non-RR tourist destinations, an existing tourist RR operation (BR&W), land availability, site preperation costs (such as toxic waste cleanup), and historical value (Flemington was once served by three different RR's). The selection board included individuals well known to rail preservation, including personnel from CRSM.

Almost immediately, very political groups of rail enthusiasts who supported Phillipsburg and Port Morris (the latter being particularly organized, even though it would have been the most expensive site to develop due to soil contamination alone) immediately cried foul and kept trying to stall the project. Eventually they had the original selection thrown out on the basis of an "urban development" clause... ignoring the fact that a rail museum is most successful when there are other EXISTING attractions in the area.

A new selection board was eventually chosen, and Phillipsburg was the eventual choice... not that the museum is one step closer to construction today.

Realistically, if the URHS and a museum for NJ are to be taken seriously, they should take more serious aim at historical representation of actual artifacts. Even though pieces of relevance to NJ transporation aren't in the collection, they are out there if the URHS tries hard enough. For example, a GENUINE (as opposed to replication, as the URHS's two units are) Erie E8 was available when NS auctioned off former CR OCS unit 4022. Had they had a plan in place, and money set aside for its acquisition, they could have brought it home. As a backup plan, URHS could have offered up some cash and one of their former PRR E8's (which are operable or reasonably close to operable) to Juniata Terminal in exchange for the Erie unit. It could have been a win-win situation. URHS would have walked away with a REAL Erie E8 for their collection, and Juniata Terminal would have had a third unit of PRR heritage... thereby eliminating any controversy about what they might do with it. Instead, the URHS channeled funds toward the Hickory Creek... which probably cost a lot more than the E8 would have.

At the very least, if the Hickory Creek is of such value, it could be restored to a near original condition and used as "trade bait" to another museum. Even a group such as MOT might have to think long and hard about the prospects of getting an original, and pristine, 20th Century Limited obseration car in exchange for a DLW camelback. Heck even a Reading T-1 would be of far more value to an NJ museum (since they ran in NJ), and there's enough of them out there to have a legit shot at getting one in trade.

But... that takes the vision and determination of a group who is focused on creating an accredited museum with true historical value to its host state, and not just "collecting trains."

Even though the MOT in St. Louis has come under criticism in the past, I think they're looking in the righ direction, and URHS should be looking to go the same direction.

Just my opinion...



Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

The URHS is a common whipping post here in NJ. Out of respect to those in the group who are working hard to secure what they can, I refuse to add to the mire.

As for the CNJ "Tempel" in South Plainfield, there is a lot more to the story than what you have explained. I am not spreading rumors here, I actually sought out some answers over the summer as I had a potential home for her down the shore at a new local history museum.

First, lest you have any confusion, Tempel is part of the Tri-State NRHS collection, not the URHS.

When the Blue Comet finished in 1941, the cars were put into the regular passenger pool, with some (including BC obs DeVico, CNJ #1178) running well into the 1970's commuter era. Others were relegated to yard office or storage duty. Most significant of these was the lone diner, a steel sheathed wooden car turned into a yard office near Jersey City. It succumbed to the elements and was destroyed.

Along the CNJ/PRR combo route the New York and Long Branch, several Blue Comet cars were in static company service. Red Bank hosted at least two BC coaches (along with 4 or 5 wooden CNJ boxcars). In Bay Head Jct. the BC observation Tempel served as the yard office.

The third observation car, Biela, was turned into a restaurant in Clinton, NJ after her commuter days ended.

Any cars in CNJ posession eventually passed through to NJ DOT ownership. In the early 1980's, NJ Transit began two programs that threatened all of the remaining BC cars on the property. The first was the conversion to head-end power. The last of the CNJ steam fleet coaches were retired as they were incompatible with the new trains. DeVico was affected by this (more later).

The second was a massive property clean-up that resulted in the scrapping if Erie Stilwells and the Blue Comet cars in Red Bank (along with the wooden boxcars). Tempel was to be scrapped on site at Bay Head.

Enter Tri-State and member Frank Reilly. Through their effort, not only was Tempel spared, but she was moved (via rail behinmd an E-8, no less) to North Jersey for safe keeping and eventual restoration.

A short time later, to the surprise of many, DeVico became NJ Transit #1 and was restored by the agency for use on special events. The car roamed the system behind the new HEP trains. At the time, NJT was lead by a fellow who was somewhat of a buff.

None of the cars, by this point, really had thier BC interiors intact, byt the way.

When NJT#1 was finally retired, she was in much better shape than the Tempel. Tri-State sought to find a home for Tempel which would provide her with care as a static display.

The South Plainfield group came forward, and much effort was made to set the car up, build a park around her and lay enough track that someday the famous Lehigh Valley "map" boxcar could be moved in (it is down the line from the Tempel's current location, unrestored).

Anyway, South P. has some problems, including a wretched group of vandals. Interest in the park dwindled, and the vandals won... going as far as to cut down the "old time" streetlights the city had put up.

This left Tri-State in a jam. From what I have been told over the summer, Frank Reilly intends to purchase the car (or already has) and would like to restore it himself. All the power to him.

Now, you can slam the URHS over not buying her, but there is the matter of the Biela, as well. The restuarant she is at has been closed and for sale for some time now. She is available, and no one has madea move for her that I know of.

Should the URHS? Maybe not. They have two BC coaches in their collection, and Tri-State is a member group of the URHS. That means you could see those two cars reunited with the DeVico.

If all goes well, DeVico and Tempel get restored. Biela's fate is unknown.

The folks at Liberty State Park that run the CNJ terminal would like a CNJ obs to display. There are 5 or 6 left at this point. Maybe the effort should be made to get Biela to Jersey City?

In any case, the Tempel situation is niether hopeless nor being ignored. It isn't happy to see her like that, but she is not abandoned.

Rob Davis

> A good example would be one of the remaining
> CNJ "Blue Comet" observation cars.
> Rather than the URHS making sure the car is
> taken care of and saved, the group or person
> owning it leased the car to the city of
> South Plainfield for several years. Now,
> after a "quickie" cosmetic
> restoration sponsored by a local NHRS
> chapter, the car sits vandalized and in real
> danger of being lost to a fire. Local
> undesireables have overrun the car.... spray
> paintng grafitti on it and damaging the
> windows... which will in turn lead to water
> leaks and loss of the wood interior.

> To this day, the CNJ car sits rusting away,
> while time and money is put into a NYC car
> that never ran in NJ. Here is a golden
> chance for the URHS to step forward and at
> least secure an actual CNJ car from further
> damage on behalf of the city... yet they sit
> back and throw money at a car of lesser
> value to a NEW JERSEY museum.

> As far as the "restoration" of the
> Hickory Creek, that's about par for the
> course. Historical accuracy seems to take a
> back seat at the URHS. Instead of restoring
> the Hickory Creek as it once was, the URHS
> officers seem to think it was a better idea
> to alter the car's historic value and lease
> it out to joyriders.... which again puts the
> car at risk for being lost or damaged beyond
> use. The idea of trying to recoup
> restoration costs is admirable, but
> operation begets more money to maintain the
> car. If, in the end, the car gets rear ended
> and destroyed, that's $700K wasted... money

> which could have been used to conserve other
> equipment.

> Another thing the URHS suffers from is the
> "Two of Everything" syndrome.
> Their "historic" diesels (most of
> which are cosmetic replications, and not
> historically accurate restorations of actual
> equipment used in NJ) are almost always done
> in pairs.... even to the point that
> historical value is ignored in favor of
> "having two of them."

> For example... the URHS was lucky enough to
> come into ownership of two actual ex-CNJ
> GP-7's... 1523 and 1524. Now.... one of the
> two units, I forget which offhand, was one
> of the first (if not THE first) to wear the
> later CNJ "Red Baron" colors.
> Instead of taking one CNJ unit and
> displaying it in its as-delivered green and
> gold, and taking the one that heralded the
> "Red Baron" scheme and showing
> what a later unit looked like, URHS went for
> the matched green and gold pair... which
> does little to educate the public on the
> changes a RR experienced over time and only
> satisfies egos within the organization
> itself. This is SOP at URHS... paint
> everything in pairs, even if they could do a
> better job at interpreting transporation
> heritage through individual items with
> historical variations.

> If one looks at the history of the museum
> proposal itself, the entire idea of a museum
> has been nothing but one political
> boondoggle. The original authorization board
> chose a site in Flemington, NJ, due to its
> proximity to existing non-RR tourist
> destinations, an existing tourist RR
> operation (BR&W), land availability,
> site preperation costs (such as toxic waste
> cleanup), and historical value (Flemington
> was once served by three different RR's).
> The selection board included individuals
> well known to rail preservation, including
> personnel from CRSM.

> Almost immediately, very political groups of
> rail enthusiasts who supported Phillipsburg
> and Port Morris (the latter being
> particularly organized, even though it would
> have been the most expensive site to develop
> due to soil contamination alone) immediately
> cried foul and kept trying to stall the
> project. Eventually they had the original
> selection thrown out on the basis of an
> "urban development" clause...
> ignoring the fact that a rail museum is most
> successful when there are other EXISTING
> attractions in the area.

> A new selection board was eventually chosen,
> and Phillipsburg was the eventual choice...
> not that the museum is one step closer to
> construction today.

> Realistically, if the URHS and a museum for
> NJ are to be taken seriously, they should
> take more serious aim at historical
> representation of actual artifacts. Even
> though pieces of relevance to NJ
> transporation aren't in the collection, they
> are out there if the URHS tries hard enough.
> For example, a GENUINE (as opposed to
> replication, as the URHS's two units are)
> Erie E8 was available when NS auctioned off
> former CR OCS unit 4022. Had they had a plan
> in place, and money set aside for its
> acquisition, they could have brought it
> home. As a backup plan, URHS could have
> offered up some cash and one of their former
> PRR E8's (which are operable or reasonably
> close to operable) to Juniata Terminal in
> exchange for the Erie unit. It could have
> been a win-win situation. URHS would have
> walked away with a REAL Erie E8 for their
> collection, and Juniata Terminal would have
> had a third unit of PRR heritage... thereby
> eliminating any controversy about what they
> might do with it. Instead, the URHS
> channeled funds toward the Hickory Creek...
> which probably cost a lot more than the E8
> would have.

> At the very least, if the Hickory Creek is
> of such value, it could be restored to a
> near original condition and used as
> "trade bait" to another museum.
> Even a group such as MOT might have to think
> long and hard about the prospects of getting
> an original, and pristine, 20th Century
> Limited obseration car in exchange for a DLW
> camelback. Heck even a Reading T-1 would be
> of far more value to an NJ museum (since
> they ran in NJ), and there's enough of them
> out there to have a legit shot at getting
> one in trade.

> But... that takes the vision and
> determination of a group who is focused on
> creating an accredited museum with true
> historical value to its host state, and not
> just "collecting trains."

> Even though the MOT in St. Louis has come
> under criticism in the past, I think they're
> looking in the righ direction, and URHS
> should be looking to go the same direction.

> Just my opinion...


trains@robertjohndavis.com

(These thoughts are not directed at any of thbe RYPN posters)

When I was younger and knew everything, I railed against almost every decision the URHS made. The points you bring up were the same ones that got me infuriated.

Now I am older and know nothing. Yes, I still see the decisions that I questioned, but what I don't see anymore is the need to knock the guys who are doing what is being done.

Why my change of heart?

A couple of things. First of all, I am not involved. This isn't an election where we can work for or against a candidate to do what we want. No way. This is a case where to have things go the way you think are "right" you have to get involved.

A friend involved with the URHS opened the door for me to get involved, and I thought long and hard about it before deciding not to do it. Why? I knew that, at that time, I could not make the commitment needed. Would I serve any purpose to be a lukewarm chair-filler? I thought not.

The funny thing is, my disagreements subsided then, too. Maybe that was one of those "growing up" moments. If I couldn't materially or fiscally contribute, what right did I have to decry the efforts being made by those who could contribute?

The URHS is a volunteer group. What I have come to know them as is a group of people working against the odds and making the best decisions for the situation as they see it.

Do I agree with everything? No. But so what? It is like they say in the NY Lotto ads, "You gotta be in it to win it." Well, in an open volunteer organization, the same sort of sentiment holds true. I guess I believe, "You gotta be in to complain about it."

The URHS has been the subject of much debate, derision and other nastiness among buffs in the region. I have seen people's feelings get hurt by it, and other less-than-nice results.

I have not seen one relic be improved or restored as a result of external bickering, though.

And through it all, we can focus on things like the Hickory Creek debate, or we can look at the PRR GP-9, the CNJ GP-7's and the other victories.

Rob



trains@robertjohndavis.com

> (These thoughts are not directed at any of
> thbe RYPN posters)

I would dearly love to see this thread continue on a positive note (as it is now) as a learning experience. I am trying to fathom the difference between a working volunteer organization a non-working or a close to working volunteer organization as a means of personal improvement. So far I have learned from several working volunteer organizations that, yes there are cliques and personality conflicts but somehow all this comes together as working towards a common goal ... please continue my enlightenment !!!

lamontdc@adelphia.net

The URHS locomotive roster may be found at:
http://urhs.org/roster.html

They list 20 locomotives, all of which saw service for a NJ railroad (including NJTransit). Of the 20, 5 have been painted in "faux" schemes. These are the Erie painted E-8's (ex PRR and NYC), the LV painted F7's (Ex NJT, nee C&NW) and the B&O painted Baldwin VO (ex military).

10 are currently in "historic paint." One other is awaiting historic paint from the line leasing it. That leaves a handful in NJT/NJDOT paint (which is also historic in its own right, especially for the U-Boat).

I believe that at least 6 of the 20 are operational.

> Another thing the URHS suffers from is the
> "Two of Everything" syndrome.

Well, you can look at this different ways. It is subjective, but the CNJ restorations are pretty nice, and they are as-delivered.

The PRR GP-9 does not have a matching mate, by the way.

> A new selection board was eventually chosen,
> and Phillipsburg was the eventual choice...
> not that the museum is one step closer to
> construction today.

The site selction process has little to do with the lack of construction. Flemington would only have worked with state budget support. That is not forthcoming. P'burg was long considered the best choice by many observers, and even more so once the nearby canal history museum was built and the Smithsonian began the now-delayed Beth Steel project.

With the state budget woes and the BushII recession, train money is unlikely.

> Realistically, if the URHS and a museum for
> NJ are to be taken seriously, they should
> take more serious aim at historical
> representation of actual artifacts. Even
> though pieces of relevance to NJ
> transporation aren't in the collection, they
> are out there if the URHS tries hard enough.

The URHS collection is pretty much what was given to them by NJT. The equipment would have been scrapped or sold at auction otherwise.

> For example, a GENUINE (as opposed to
> replication, as the URHS's two units are)
> Erie E8 was available when NS auctioned off
> former CR OCS unit 4022. Had they had a plan
> in place, and money set aside for its
> acquisition, they could have brought it
> home.

Perhaps, but you do have to consider that the 4 URHS E-8's are all of NYC and PRR heritage, and all worked NJ under Penn Central. Beneath the Erie paint are Jersey girls.

Should the URHS have bid good money for a fifth E-8A?

>As a backup plan, URHS could have
> offered up some cash and one of their former
> PRR E8's (which are operable or reasonably
> close to operable) to Juniata Terminal in
> exchange for the Erie unit. It could have
> been a win-win situation.

No, it would have been lose-lose. There is no NJ museum, so the Erie E could have gone into storage somewhere. In return, JT would get a beat-to-heck commuter engine that hasn't run in 15 - 20 years. Mr. Levin stated here a while back that he bought the 3 CR E's because they were in great shape. No way is this trade a trade of equals. At all. Instead, the Erie E is in a great home, and the Jersey E's await their museum and fresh paint (PC black, anyone?).

>URHS would have
> walked away with a REAL Erie E8 for their
> collection, and Juniata Terminal would have
> had a third unit of PRR heritage... thereby
> eliminating any controversy about what they
> might do with it.

What controversy? It is a privately owned machine intended for revenue service. They can do what they want. It is not a museum piece, yet..

> At the very least, if the Hickory Creek is
> of such value, it could be restored to a
> near original condition and used as
> "trade bait" to another museum.

Remember, had anyone wanted "Hickory Creek" they had an opportunity get her after Rignling was done with her.

> Even a group such as MOT might have to think
> long and hard about the prospects of getting
> an original, and pristine, 20th Century
> Limited obseration car in exchange for a DLW
> camelback.

#952 is clearly not available.

> Heck even a Reading T-1 would be
> of far more value to an NJ museum (since
> they ran in NJ), and there's enough of them
> out there to have a legit shot at getting
> one in trade.

Trade for what? Andy and Steamtown are keeping theirs. Would the B&O Museum want anything the URHS has? That leaves the altered #2100, which is for sale for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

> But... that takes the vision and
> determination of a group who is focused on
> creating an accredited museum with true
> historical value to its host state, and not
> just "collecting trains."

Outside of the CNW F-7's and the Hickory Creek, everything else in the collection has a pure Jersey tie. And those F-units ran on NJT in NJT paint, so maybe you can argue the "Creek" is out of place, but the NYC was a NJ road with a major presence in the northeast part of the state.

> Even though the MOT in St. Louis has come
> under criticism in the past, I think they're
> looking in the righ direction, and URHS
> should be looking to go the same direction.

Agreed. I think if you look deep enough, you'll see that the URHS is making some progress. There have been a lot of half-truths in the railfan press and gossip mill that have become whole truths by reason of repetition. Beware that they are still half-truths underneath.

Rob

trains@robertjohndavis.com

I think one example of a working volunteer organization that bears close scrutiny is IRM. They have all-volunteer governance, but make a distinction between voting and non-voting members based on service credits. I also beleive that to become a voting member (or maybe to become an officer) you have to rotate through volunteer service with several different special interest departments (which goes a long way toward breaking down cliques and silos). I'm sure they have their issues, but they do seem to set a useful beanchmark for how far you can go with the volunteer-driven model.

eledbetter@rypn.org

> I would dearly love to see this thread
> continue on a positive note (as it is now)
> as a learning experience. I am trying to
> fathom the difference between a working
> volunteer organization a non-working or a
> close to working volunteer organization as a
> means of personal improvement. So far I have
> learned from several working volunteer
> organizations that, yes there are cliques
> and personality conflicts but somehow all
> this comes together as working towards a
> common goal ... please continue my
> enlightenment !!!

Don't get me wrong... there are good people in the URHS, but the group is often still too unfocused as a HISTORICAL society.

First off... using the reasoning that a particular unit operated in NJ being "good enough" to use it as a replication (for example... using a CNW F-Unit repaininted in LV colors) doesn't wash in my book. That is revisionist history at best. At its more irresponsible level, it can be downright damaging to other artifacts.

Take, for example, the ATSF CF7 that was scrapped after its innards became donation fodder for one of the "CNJ" F units (which I'm aware was not the doing of the URHS, I'm only using this as an example). Some will scoff at the idea of a CF-7 being historic, but to the folks in Cleburne, TX, and ATSF historians, the unit was the first of a long line of locomotives unique to the Santa Fe. Several ATSF lists have lamented at losing the unit and not saving it when they had the chance.

Now... on one hand, it's easy to say, "Too bad, they had their chance." But, on the other hand, an equally valid argument can be made for those who say the mission of an NRHS chapter is to preserve the historic equipment that remains, not sacrificing true relics while recreating items that have been lost permanently. It's a tough call.

Another poster mentioned Bennett Levin's sitution with the E8's, and how URHS's E's all have Jersey ties. That's all well and good, but if you want to rationalize the situation in such a manner, then URHS has no business painting every one of those E's in anything other than a historic paint job. No Erie, no DLW, nothing other than what they actually were. If you're going to tie them to the state historically, show them to the public in that context, not as something they never were.

Furthermore, we all know how things transpired, and why Juniata Terminal went after the former CR OCS engines... but did anyone even try to see if such an arrangment would have worked? It's easy to write it off now, in retrospect... but was there any thought put into it, and was Mr. Levin even approached and asked if there was any possibility of a deal being made? If URHS did... fine, then they did their job. If they didn't, then they dropped the ball on what their mission should be. Sure, Mr. Levin could still have said no... only he knows the answer for sure, and it may have hinged on what was offered to him... but nobody would have known if there was any chance of making a deal unless the URHS asked.

Higher rewards are gained by taking the chance that success is possible, not by sitting back and saying, "No, it's never gonna happen."

All it would have taken was 1 phone call to Mr. Levin, asking if there's any chance he'd swap his former Erie E unit for one of their former PRR units, and possibly some additional cash account the Erie unit's better overall condition, and URHS would have known if he was open to the idea. 1 phone call shouldn't be too much to ask of a group who outwardly admits they'd like to see more historic equipment in their collection.

As for any controversy surrounding Juniata Terminal's purchase of the Erie unit, it was widely reported in other forums and became a hot topic of debate. Yes, as a private owner, it's his to do what he pleases... but enough people spoke up that Mr. Levin addressed the issue himself. If his third E8 was of PRR origin, such debate would have been moot. That's the only point I was trying to make.

This brings us to the Hickory Creek. Again, with the attitude of "don't bother, nobody is going to trade for it," it's a sure bet that nobody will! Unless the URHS tries, and offers up something of value, there's nothing to be gained. Yes, other groups could have had the Hickory Creek when it came available originally, but many of them probably looked at the car and realized a full restoration would have been beyond their financial means. Now, with the car in a much better condition, it takes on added value. Is the 952 really unattainable, or would the MOT listen and actually consider such a deal if they were offered something equitable in return? If the URHS put out a list of "most wanted" equipment historic to NJ's predecessor roads ... including a list of steam locomotives that would take priority over other equipment, with Hickory Creek as trade fodder, would someone come forward and say, "let's talk?"

Until they do... we don't really know what the answer would be. It's easy to speculate, but until they go around and ask, nobody knows for certain. Asking costs them nothing, but it can pay off if their inquiry results in interest on the other end.

It all starts with dialogue, and being willing to trade one piece of equipment with significant historical value for another. Other groups have failed because they have had nothing of value to offer in return. URHS does have a significant car in their collection, and it might be the key to someone saying, "I don't know, nobody ever offered us something like this before. Let's see what the museum's board thinks before we give a firm yes or no."

The same museum who politely told outside groups to get bent when people demanded they hand over an engine for nothing, based on their interpretations of an agreement with a railroad no longer in business, might have a different attitude if the price is right.

But... that also takes the right leadership, and a consistent focus. I'm not attacking individuals within the URHS, but as an organization they need to make up their mind which direction they're going to go.

Let me relate a personal experience here...

Several years back, URHS leased one of their CNJ GP-7's to a tourist line. That line reactivated the unit, and used it for one day on a freight train. They wanted to get better feedback on how the unit was behaving, and decided to use it on one of their regularly scheduled weekend passenger excursions. Based on work I'd done previously for them, and the fact that I'm employed in the operating department of a Class 1 carrier (with FRA engineer's licenses issued by both that carrier, and another from the short line), I was asked to come up and operate the unit for a day and give feedback on its performance. I did so, and noticed that the unit had a strange characteristic when loading. It didn't seem to want to transition down to series. When starting from a standing position, it would sit there and rev and rev and rev, not loading, then take off. Even units with manual road/switch settings seem to load faster on the road setting than this unit did. Something just didn't "feel" right. In addition, there were times the unit seemed starved for fuel. IIRC, it may have even shut down once. I wrote those findings up in an engineer's report, and passed them along at the end of the day.

Now... fast forward a week or so later, and I was talking to one of the RR's officials. On hand was one of the URHS officers, who I won't name, who had come to see the unit. I was going over what I had experienced, and what the RR had done (they had pumped the fuel tank dry, finding some serious sludge and even a shop rag or two in the tank) in response. The URHS official only stood there and looked at the unit, and said, "We'll have to move the horns, looks like CNJ or NJT must have moved them from their original position at one time." Both the RR official and myself looked at each other dumbfounded. Here we were, telling a group important information on what kind of shape an operable piece of equipment in their collection was in, and the guy who leased it out is worried about there the horn is.

Now... contrast that to the Hickory Creek... where URHS skipped over historical accuracy, and wants to spend $60K on making the car Amtrak compatible... money that would go a long way toward preserving other pieces in the collection.

Well... which is it going to be? One time URHS concerns itself with historical accuracy and the integrity of their equipment, and the next they're more worried about owning a private car that they can hire out for trips. That points to a lack of consistency and focus.

That's where there's a need for change in the URHS. As a "Historical" group, they need to figure out if they're dedicated to preserving equipment in a true historic sense, or opertaing a leasing company. Until they define an unwavering mission, and follow through with it, they're destined to bumble along, not sure of what they're doing any given moment. That's not going to help get a museum built in the state of NJ.

I appreciate everyone discussing this in a civil manner, and want to thank them for this not turning into a flame war. Both sides have valid points, and I honestly believe groups are best served when both their strengths and weaknesses are spotlighted.

Again, I honestly believe the problem at URHS is not the people, but too many people going in too many different directions.

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

Yikes, I've heard horror stories about IRM, such as severe infighting and intolerance for "other" technologies--i.e. trolley guys don't talk to the steam guys kind of mentality. Why can't we all understand that we're working toward the same goals and get along?! Or we'll just take our toys and go home:) LOL

> I think one example of a working volunteer
> organization that bears close scrutiny is
> IRM. They have all-volunteer governance, but
> make a distinction between voting and
> non-voting members based on service credits.
> I also beleive that to become a voting
> member (or maybe to become an officer) you
> have to rotate through volunteer service
> with several different special interest
> departments (which goes a long way toward
> breaking down cliques and silos). I'm sure
> they have their issues, but they do seem to
> set a useful beanchmark for how far you can
> go with the volunteer-driven model.

> Don't get me wrong... there are good people
> in the URHS, but the group is often still
> too unfocused as a HISTORICAL society.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that many of these organizations are still very much clubs and not really functioning as bona fide museums. While the members are well-intentioned, they often don't understand the basics of how museums operate and how to collect. Plus they stubbornly resist professionalization which is seen by many as a threat to the clubhouse culture. Once the railway museum field can get past the clubbish, clanish, cliquish "boys playing with toys" mentality will we be able to make progress.

> Part of the problem, as I see it, is that
> many of these organizations are still very
> much clubs and not really functioning as
> bona fide museums. While the members are
> well-intentioned, they often don't
> understand the basics of how museums operate
> and how to collect. Plus they stubbornly
> resist professionalization which is seen by
> many as a threat to the clubhouse culture.
> Once the railway museum field can get past
> the clubbish, clanish, cliquish "boys
> playing with toys" mentality will we be
> able to make progress.

Excellent point. Compare RR preservation to something more "mainstream," such as aviation preservation, and you'll see some glaring differences.

If an aviation group announced they had purchased the first production B-17G, intact and operable, and intended to cannibalize it for parts and then scrap the rest so they could take a derelict, nondescript transport version and recreate a bomber that crashed on a training mission, all hell would probably break loose.

In RR preservation, when the first CF7 was cannibalized and scrapped to recreate the CNJ unit, few people noticed... much less questioned the process.

That's where there's a big difference. Now, do replications happen in the aviation field? You bet... and the Collings Foundation's B-17 and B-24 are good examples. However, aviation preservation seems to frown on sacrificing the integrity of significant aircraft at the expense of replicating other planes lost to history.

That said, recreations can coexist with historical equipment, but I think they are better left to private business like Strasburg, where the idea is to recreate an experience for the general public, and not document history "as it was."

Museums are a different story, and any group that tries to identify itself as being "historical" should stick to just that... showing things as they were, not as they wish they could be.

Authenticity does not mean less entertainment value, or less of a draw. Civil War reenactments are very popular with spectators, and some of those groups are THE biggest sticklers for authenticity.

That's one hurdle the RR preservation movement needs to clear. Too often, groups want to save EVERY piece of equipment they can lay hands on, instead of identifying key pieces and attempting to procure those specific targets.

For example, URHS doesn't necessarily need four or so F units in its collection. One or two can be displayed, if they hold signficance, while others could be sacrificed as fodder in order to rescue a more important piece from a scrap yard.

But, that hinges on knowing what equipment is of value to your collection, or holds potential value to your collection, while knowing when to give up elements that don't serve your purpose as well. The MOT covered that subject pretty well in their editorial here.

As it stands now... preservation of rail equipment happens in a rather random manner. The run of the mill, everyday equipment, often disappears unnoticed, until they're nearly gone. Then, there's a mad scramble to save whatever's left, no matter who owned it. As a result, we end up with no genuine CNJ F units, and a dozen former CNW ones. When it's all said and done, historical societies end up standing around scratching their heads and wondering what to do with them. Basically, we never fully learned lessons from the NYC Hudsons, MILW Hiawathas, and other equipment lost completely to history. How many GE U series locomotives have been saved? Does anyone realize how scarce some of them are actually getting, or will rail preservation notice too late?

That's where groups, such as the URHS, can have a significant positive impact. Instead of figuring out what they're going to do with a bunch of CNW F's, they can be gathering information and presenting lists of equipment relevant to CNJ, Reading, LV, PRR, CR, etc., to their suboordinate (for lack of a better term) chapters as potential pieces of equipment to add to the collection.

In the end, their efforts could lead to fewer replications, and better success in saving actual equipment of value for a museum dedicated to preserving NJ's transportation heritage.

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

CP, I love that e-mail address. As long as it is hockey, it is all good. I am not sure who you are (is CP O'S your name?), but I appreciate you taking my comments in the spirit offered.

The "dumbfounded look" you saw is probably good reason to get involved. All of us, at one time or another, did something to get that look.

To progress past it, one has to be taught. Some of the guys I know learned those lessons when they were kids. Others I know in thier 50's still need to learn.

What I hope we can all find is a way to move past letting that need for education be a show-stopper.

As long as it is progress, it is all good...

Happy New Year!

Rob



trains@robertjohndavis.com

> CP, I love that e-mail address. As long as
> it is hockey, it is all good. I am not sure
> who you are (is CP O'S your name?), but I
> appreciate you taking my comments in the
> spirit offered.

Hi Rob,

Thanks, and glad to see someone figured out the origins of the addy.

CP O'Shea is a pen name I write under periodically. Due to my job, with the "evil empire" of rail transportation, I've learned to keep a low profile and not compromise contacts or associates. The importance of that doesn't hit home until a supervisor calls you and talks of how one of your Internet posts made a division-wide management conference call that morning. Run silent, run deep... and try to write responsibly.

Even though I've been openly critical of certain individuals involved with rail preservation in other forums, I do try to keep most people's names out of the spotlight, and focus more on groups and how they can be perceived amongst others in the transportation field. Even though I'll be the first to admit my writing style can be often interpreted as abrasive, it's not my intent to destroy, but rather to encourage others to push their standards higher. For the public to take rail preservation seriously, more than just "men playing with trains," or "look at the cute choo choo," there needs to be a certain level of professionalism in the field. "Hokeyness" or being perceived as being an "eclectic" operation doesn't pay the bills. I can think of many individuals whom I've come across over the years, who while well intentioned, scared off more customers than they created.

There are also people who are of great value, like one elderly gentleman volunteer at the RR Museum of PA I once met. While talking with another railroader, we used a slang term only those familiar with the profession of railroading would know or understand. This gentleman came over and introduced himself, then pulled out an ancient time book and showed us some of the engines he had operated for the PRR through his career... including the steamer behind him. To listen to his stories as a rail employee was a real pleasure. For the public, I can only imagine how fascinating and intriguing the experience could have been. His demeanor was friendly, courteous, and wasn't about trying to impress anyone with the content of the collection or reciting facts that would have gone right over their heads. It was about sharing something he loved with the public. He brought a real human side to the machines in that building, and the value of that is an organization's greatest asset.

As for the opinions I express here, if I didn't have a background in railroading, I'd be more inclined to keep my mouth shut. Having seen multiple sides of the issues, as an enthusiast, one who has some experience with steam (though not as extensively as others here), a working railroader, and a local representative for a rail labor union, I've had a chance to come to a greater understanding of factors most volunteers don't see. Do I know it all? Hardly, there's always someone out there who can teach you more.

I would love to get more involved with rail preservation, but a full time career in the rail industry doesn't leave much time for a personal life, let alone the dedication needed to get involved as deeply as I once was. I try to do what I can, when I can... whether it be through monetary support, sharing knowledge, or trying to spark ideas in those who have a precious resource I tend to run short of.... time.

Thanks again, and who knows... maybe you'll run into me trackside...

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com