Dear Wesp, Dave and JR May

Thank you for the post. I find that what you say about policies and practices is very true of several organizations. Certain people attend convention and seminars about preservation issues. But within the organization the information seems to stall at a level where those doing the work are unaware of the possible concerns. In the volunteer based organizations I have been associated with communication is key. The newsletter is an underutilized tool to express comments about what the group is doing or why they exists much less discussions of preservation values. Bill Howes and I were discussing membership recruitment for the R&LHS in 1996. I reflected on my own experience and that while my interest in trains went back to early childhood it took a longer time to begin to appreciate the history of railroading. The kid wanting to work on 3420 eventually became exposed to ideas that I would not have considered when I first started. The letters from Mr. White on the importance EP&SW #1 that a fellow member shared, working in the UTEP Special Collections Department with people who may not have understood railroading but did understand archival preservation which leads to the discovery of historical facts and the story to be told and other with different interest and opinions. Weather our interest is just operating a piece of equipment for our on understanding or working to preserve an artifact for others to enjoy is a journey choice we each choose.

A friend wrote Mr. Bob Richardson and Mr. Cornellus Hauck about there setting up the Colorado Railroad Museum. While there were different emphasis on certain details it was obvious that they worked to bring in people with different backgrounds to help shape the organization. Since I left El Paso I have found myself constantly explaining the ownership issues for the 3420 and the associated rolling stock. The city can not remember they own it and others have said if the city knew they owned it they scrap it and other interesting things. At a distance it is very hard to shove a project forward. With new leadership I find myself answering the same questions to new people. Yet I know answering those questions is important if the group is going to have a chance to move forward. Communication as to what the goals and expectations are for the group is critical if the vision of one generation is passed to the next.

Robby Peartree

Agreed about the newsletter - I get one regularly that is abut half copied verbatim from other rail magazines about other places, the second half mostly self congratulatory stuff and thanking people for showing up to paint something or unpaint something, put something in the ground or dig something up, and absolutely nothing about the actions, inactions, discussions or other management or board concerns of our own organization. The membership is in the dark, so no wonder the same issues constantly resurface - after a couple decades of sweating to gather enough of the right people for the right qualifications to just get through an operating day or tend to regular maintenance every time one is scheduled, you'd think it was being reinvented each time. If members were told about the vision (assuming there is one), long term plans and strategies (assuming there are such), and how they can contribute to them the day to day would take care of itself and we'd get somewhere better faster.

The problem with "newsletters" is that, VERY often, the function of the so-called "newsletter" is not to disperse "news," but instead to act as a public-relations missive for the organization.

I was explicitly informed by one editor, when I started working with him on the newsletter decades ago, that "only about half the press run goes to active members. Others are sent to other rail groups and history organizations, and even to prospective donors. Therefore, its mission is really PR, and not airing dirty laundry."

So the group's official "house organ" is not necessarily (more likely never) where you're going to read news about, say, the burglary of the shop building, the enormous and divisive fight between the membership and board of trustees over the group's mission and direction, the major setback in restoring a car/locomotive to operation, or the departure of a volunteer crew or locomotive to other lines or that heavenly crew room. A "new" locomotive may have arrived with much fanfare and a cover story, but do the research ten years later in the back issues and you'll find the loco's departure to another line (along with the owner and his clique) buried as an afterthought on an inside or back page--or never mentioned at all. (Why, yes, I DO sound like a frustrated researcher, don't I?)

Many organizations now also issue "internal" news briefs, newsletter inserts, or e-mail lists targeted only at working volunteers, docents, the track or train crews, etc.

You could almost rename this thread "Preservation History Repeating Itself".

Nearly three dozen responses, some quite lengthy, with references to B-17s, a 1972 Malibu and a discourse regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of the 26L brake and stokers.

The solitary reference to internal combustion?

"CF7s or ICG GP10s"

I suspect that over half a century ago the conversations about preservation took somewhat the same tone, and while that was going on we lost forever the Centipedes, Trainmasters, RF-16s, PAs, FTs . . . and on and on.

We are already down to our last two SDP35s, with few SDP40s and 45s remaining. But it seems like when you talk "preservation" on this forum it is in reference to steam, as usual.

Having two PAs left out of the numbers produced (not one in its original configuration) is a sad testament compared to how coal is fed into the firebox of a steam engine.

As things are becoming retired, who wants to preserve Dash-7's? or even Dash-8's? Do we really need to take one of every single model of locomotive and save one? Or does a representative of that level of development suffice?

Lake Shore Railway Museum in North East, PA has a B32-8, so there is at least one of them preserved. They are looking for a Dash 7 if one becomes available cheap enough.

I don't think I was clear. I mean to ask if there were fights about preservation and we 'lost' the RF-16's and the Trainmasters and the FA's (which there are a few of those) then do we as the community who care about locomotives and equipment being preserved need to start worrying about equipment that was built in the 1980's, 1990's, and 2000's or even 2010's?

Where is the line? Does it move forward? Does something automatically become worthy of preservation because it reaches a certain age? Or does it become worthy on its merit for what was accomplished in the advancement of railroad technology to move tonnage?

What makes steam engines worthy of restoration? The fact that they haven't rusted to a point that they can no longer be fixed up and made to pull gondola cars with seats installed for small children with a Thomas the Tank Engine fixation?

The organization needs something that does that. Receiving a quality newsletter makes a would-be supporter feel important and involved. It's a keystone to fundraising and community support.


As well you should. I am frequently - nay, constantly - dealing de-novo with issues which have a long deep organizational history. I head straight off to the newsletter archive to find all that I can. It is highly informative. When I'm surrounded by those who were there from the early days, it gives me a solid backgrounder. And when I'm the experienced one, it gives me something to show others, so we can make the best decision.

In fact, one of my frustrations is that less experienced folks aren't interested in this. Though to be fair, the issue may actually be lack of ability to access the data. That's something the modern age ought to be able to repair.


And even this does not capture the great internal strifes - and for good reason. In my considerable experience, internal conflict makes most members sick - they are outraged to see quarreling at all - they see it as selfish betrayal of the social contract of the Mission. It becomes readily obvious that factionalism in the newsletter could be the "last straw" that finishes off what remains of the already-decimated volunteer corps.

Been there done that - I was the member's newsletter editor during one a long time ago.

My dollar and two cents respectfully submitted…

This query is common to history enthusiasts regardless of specific interest. My concern is broader than my interest in historical railroad operations and equipment and how/what is done in preservation. What concerns me is that broad interest in our endeavors is shrinking despite some excellent new preservation stories. Our collective interest is a subset of the railroad history, which is a subset of industrial history, which is a subset of the history of discovery and invention, which is a subset of human history. I have one in elementary school and one in high school, and the subtle creep of revisionism has changed the discipline of history study and not for the better. Revisionism is a movement that grew out of discovering new facts that challenged the story as had been told, or as I call it revisiting using original research. The latter, revisiting, is healthy the former, revisionism, is not (just my opinion).

I’m shy of 50 by a year or two and my course of history instruction saw the presentation of the industrial revolution as a giant leap forward, but not without costs. Today’s presentation of the industrial revolution and industrial age is heavily focused on the costs or negatives of the industrial age. Teaching youth from this perspective has the natural effect of deterring interest in the subject while promoting guilt of sorts. “Look what we’ve done to the environment we must make amends”…etc.

Our interest in technology, equipment, and operations of the industrial age struggles against this perspective. Then our specific interest in railroad preservation struggles to attract a following because today’s rail industry is so markedly removed from the day to day of folks lives. Direct interaction with rail transportation was a day to day thing for my father’s generation. Folks today just don’t have that experience. The shifting perspective of the industrial age and a lack of interaction with rail transportation (commuter transit being the lone exception) have combined to make attracting customers to our realm and by extension new enthusiasts difficult.

With regard to the query “what are we preserving and why?” a few have drawn attention to the role and importance of narrative and mission. I feel that narrative and mission is paramount and that preservation, and how ever you choose to define that word, will follow narrative and mission. Good story telling is what we need to do better than ever before.

No, we don't as an industry cohesively work to wards common goals about preservation. Each organization works on its own (or at least reflects things that more vocal members want it to pursue.)

Well, actually they do. Let's expand this from "Railroad Museums" to simply "Museums".

One of the most popular tourist attractions in Seattle is the Museum of Flight. They don't give plane rides. They do a have a full motion simulator you can fly, for an added fee, but only a few guests use it. They have a very nice theater which shows excellent films and that is quite well attended.

Most other transportation museums are the same way. You can't ride 1401 at the Smithsonian, much to our dismay. I don't know of many car museums that let you say "Can I take that one for a spin?"

In fact, if anything railroad museums are a rare exception. Also, what many people call "Railroad Museums" should actually be called "Tourist Railway" or even "Theme Park"

Now I think you have hit the nail on the head- there is no real common goal once you get past 'it's a train'. I find that to be very interesting.

I think that the goal of our little industry, now that you called it that, should be the preservation of the knowledge and experience to work on pieces of railroad machinery that were engineered a hundred years ago: that being steam. I have zero problem with diesels either. This is not to say that there is no merit in preserving diesels. They support the shop by moving equipment around and pulling the train on days when there might not be enough crowd to justify firing up the kettle. The train ride's purpose is to show off the steam engine to the crowds of people that will pay to ride the train, which is the product that that steam engine can produce. We as museum volunteers (I am not currently active but have been in the past and intend to get going again) enjoy seeing the train run and we [should] know that running the train for the fare paying public and performing the maintenance by painting and turning wrenches enables us see, hear, and smell those sights, sounds, and smells that are unique to steam railroading.

I think that there is a difference between preservation and restoration, same as been already hashed. Steam in service is not necessarily preserved, though we do use that word to generally mean "not cut up for scrap" rather than its usual Webster's definition. Restoration to service is not necessarily preservation. I'd rather have a locomotive with a 26 brake and a mechanical stoker and roller bearings because those things will enable the thing to run more efficiently or more easily due to availability of critical components or ease of maintenance. For that matter I'd rather oil-fire than coal-fire because you can get a fuel truck to a big mainline engine easier than a front end loader full of coal.

The term that's missing from this conversation is "conservation." This refers to taking steps only to prevent the artifact is it is from further deterioration. If you were to take the John Bull, treat it with reversably removable coatings to prevent oxidation, and keep it in a climate controlled environment you would be conserving it. Restoration includes anything from cleaning and repairing finishes to an overhaul, but done strategically to present the artifact is it was at a specific time using period appropriate materials and techniques. Very few of our "restorations" are textbook - we like our modern paints, etc. What we tend to do is some form of "repair." We can repair using modern coatings and techniques to replicate a historic time in service, or to take a static artifact and make it a serviceable one - we call it "restoration" and that works for us as a basis for common conversation. I think if we stop confusing "conservation" with "preservation" this would be a more meaningful thread, since much of what we consider "preserved"is in no way protected to the extent of being also conserved in reality.

Dave:

That is an EXCELLENT point. The new building up at Northwest Railway Museum is called the CONSERVATION & Restoration Center, the program up there is world class for the goals of Conserving their collection. The work isn't finished, but their goal is to have their collection conserved and in a few cases restored to operation.

Climate control will suffice. Conservation is the #1 thing we do at the Western Railway Museum. The passively managed climate controls in Carhouse 3 do a fine job of keeping temperature at medians and humidity in appropriate range, and suppressing "weather in the barn".

Pro tip, when building even the cheapest carbarn, put a vapor barrier under enough dirt to protect it from the ballast. Even of the rest of the building has none. It's easy to retrofit it to the rest of the building later, but nigh impossible to retrofit under the tracks.