There was a recent thread here on RyPN about the scrapping of a stainless steel Rock Island passenger coach; RI #319 Narcissus (see "Was there a logical reason...."). There were a number of comments made about the car, but the primary thing that was upsetting was that it seemed the car was not offered to anyone, but just scrapped.

At the museum this past Saturday, I picked up a copy of the latest (Fall 2012) combined RAILWAY MUSEUM QUARTERLY/TRAINLINE magazine and I found a report that the Midland Railway in Baldwin City, Kansas, had "a major scrapping program of derelict equipment (that) has thinned the collection and raised considerable revenue." It then listed the items which included a coach, tank car, steam crane, turntable, transfer table, wood caboose, gondola, lightweight coach and another caboose. I felt like someone had hit me in the stomach! I don't recall any of this stuff being offered to other museums. If I am wrong and there was such an offering, please tell me. What's worse is that the magazine, which is the house organ for these two rail preservation organizations, seemed to give a tacit "okay" to the procedure. Now I realize that many museums have "too much stuff" and can't take care of all of it. But shouldn't we at least be telling other organizations about this first, to see if anyone might want some of these items?

Recently, our museum scrapped an old double sheathed N&W wood tool car which had begun its career as an NKP boxcar. I didn't agree with our Board's decision to junk the car although I realized that the exterior of the car was in horrible shape and would have needed a complete new set of tongue and groove sides. An expensive proposition to say the least. Although the car was scrapped, back in February of 2010, museum member Tom Travis put a thread here on RyPN offering the car to anyone who would preserve it. We actually had a private party and two railroad organizations express an interest in the car, but nothing ever came of it. The car was slowly getting worse and finally our Board got tired of waiting.

There was a recent thread on RyPN of the idea for a "Most Endangered List". I kept quiet about that, but I think the idea had merit. Just a list of equipment or structures that are endangered. Maybe if such a list was out there, and if it was publicized, the folks in Baldwin City, Kansas would have had a place to put the stuff that the no longer wanted. We have lost a goodly number of items through the years, that might have been saved if there had been a saviour. Yes, much of that stuff was bad, and not all could be saved, or should have been saved. But we all know of success stories, by museums, groups and, yes, even individuals. Are we going to continue to get rid of stuff and not even tell others about it? When is this attitude going to change? I hope in the near future.

Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum/North Judson, Indiana)

And the railway preservation press loves those sort of stories because they get to perpetuate the FALLACY that we've overcollected. Actually we have under-preserved. Don't believe me? Scrap half your equipment, can you PRESERVE the remainder? No, you cannot, you are right back in the same situation - chasing rust. So what percentage do we have to hit before we can actually preserve what we have? 70%? 80? 90%?!!?? See, it doesn't work. We fail at ANY percentage. It does not matter what the size of our collection is. We cannot win, break even, or even lose gracefully.

Did you catch the part where it doesn't matter what the size of our collection is?

So why scrap unit X? How does that change the game? It doesn't. You're still in exactly the same losing game. The museum with 12 pieces of equipment is just as rusty as the museum with 100.

What I find alarming is the claim that they raised "considerable revenue". That is appalling. Scrap revenue should be chump change by comparison to your passenger revenue and fundraising, aka development.

But development is hard. It's much easier for a board of thieving morons to spend money and strip equity. The latter term means burning up your cash, mortgaging up your property, deferring maintenance, and scrapping assets. That kind of fiscal policy soon reduces a museum to a hollow shell.

That's why they say every board member must "Give, Get or get out". Give means donate. Get means develop! Fundraise, draw passenger revenue, or get new volunteers on board. That can take any form from writing the inspirational plan to fixing the unreliable locomotive.


Yeah we all know that feeling, but cut the crap. What have you done to assure that doesn't happen?


There you go, that right there. Why didn't you do it? Seriously. Really seriously. Yeah, so you have to raise some money to buy the wood, that's "Development". If you were not interested in doing what it takes to save that car, why are you caring about cars in Kansas? It sounds like you (and surely most of us all) are being internally dishonest about our true capabilities and genuine level of "giving a darn".

You (all of us) want it saved but you don't want to do anything to save it. We've heard THAT before!!!! Probably said it a few times ourselves LOL. Well it's pretty easy to sit there writing those "care checks" that our volunteer hours can't cash. That's why we "care" about cars in frickin Kansas while our homefleet rots.

Well it's time to stop doing what is easy in lieu of what is hard. Simple as that.
Look to the homefleet first, then look abroad.
Figure out how to change the game so it is winnable. (hint: land and carbarns.)

In that same issue, another museum scrapped several diesels as well. We do not know the circumstances behind their reasoning, so we can only say that it is sad until someone in authority from those organizations comes forward to go into more details why these items were not offered to other museums or put up for general sale. Until then we can only guess the reasons why.

Later!
Mr. Ed

Les: Were YOU, personally, OR YOUR ORGANIZATION, in actual need of any of the artifacts listed? Does your mission statement specifically outline the acquisition of a wooden caboose, or a turntable, or a steam crane, or a tank car? If so, have you/your group ever approached them with an offer, specific or vague, and left your contact info? If you had been told "here's a tank car, come and get it," how soon would you or your board have been able to act?

Were YOU OR YOUR ORGANIZATION both financially and logistically capable of acquiring, transporting, restoring, and putting to use the items in question?

I know of a particular organization that seeks, or has been seeking, a turntable for their operation. Rather than just wait for someone to step up and offer them a turntable, they (with some help from me and others) have gone almost continent-wide seeking potential candidates, and I'm convinced that as soon as the right opportunity arises, they'll have the wherewithal to make it happen. (They've already shocked me with the stuff they've pulled off with little or no notice.) At the moment, they're "playing vulture" on quite a few candidates. If they didn't go after what was in Baldwin City, either it wasn't the "right size" or the shipping costs may have been prohibitive. (Or they may have wanted too much for it--we've heard that before, you know.)

And the fact remains that you can be as proactive as you want, and it may still amount to nothing if the other owner or organization chooses not to cooperate or work with you.

I'm currently dealing with one organization that has a proposal before it to sign over an asset now declared surplus or redundant to another group. The officer that is theoretically in charge of the asset agrees with the proposal, and in a sense it's a "no-brainer"--a win-win for both groups. All they need is a freakin' piece of paper formally giving title from the first group to the second, and you don't need a truck or heavy equipment to move it, either. It's been well over six months, and nothing so far--the first group's board of directors are dragging their collective feet. (Though I'll note they have a few other more pressing issues to deal with, but still. . . )

In my opinion, we--not just railroad preservationists, but even all of society and politics in general--are spending far too much time and energy attempting to dictate to others the "proper" stewardship of their assets, and nowhere near enough time and energy being proactive, taking appropriate initiative, and demonstrating the worthiness of our causes, missions, and ambitions to others so they will align themselves with us in solidarity or financial/physical support. And the libertarian in me finds this trend utterly appalling, disgusting, and repulsive, and will stop now before this becomes a well-reasoned political rant that doesn't belong here......

[looks at one museum with which I work] Oh, Hell, yes....... and we're stashing stuff for OTHER GROUPS until they get their collective acts together, dammit!!!!

[looks at another such museum across the way] Yes, and the place would look a hell of a lot better, but I wouldn't want to be on the selection committee......

[looks at a third place] ..... Wouldn't need to get rid of half of it, but junking a *couple* pieces would help, even though they've already done so for a "hopeless case" or two.....

[looks at a fourth place, with which I've worked] Actually, I've spent years begging them to do just that, take the parts out of 2-3, make two decent pieces, and offer the shells of the other 2-3 for parts to anyone else....... but first, we gotta put that bridge back in place.....

[Looks at a fifth place, where I was one of the earliest donors] Well, DUH!....

[looks at places six through nine] Well, not only are they privately owned and I have no damned business telling them what to do with their stuff, they not only seem to be doing quite a good job caring for what they already have, but the "derelict" component is less than ten percent at each of these places, and they put the rest of us to shame, so.......

Based on the above, I'm flatly rejecting the rest of your argument.

[And the railway preservation press loves those sort of stories because they get to perpetuate the FALLACY that we've overcollected. Actually we have under-preserved.]

I totally disagree with this statement. All you have to do is look at the amount of equipment that is slowly returning to nature at a number of railroad "museums" around the country. Then look at the average age of the museum members. What is it? Seventy years old?

How many of these people are going to be around and active to help preserve equipment ten years from now? Where is the fresh new blood coming from to help preserve the museum and the equipment?

We keep reading here about the end of various railroad enthusiast organizations and the demise of of smaller "museums" around the country. We also read about the death of individuals who have preserved rail equipment and their heirs wondering what to do with the collection.

Look at the problems many museums have in rationalizing and reducing their collections to conform with their mission statements (if any).

Then there is the problem of privately owned equipment at museums. The owner frequently performs maintenance such as painting and repairing leaks. After he is gone, frequently no one is available to continue this maintenance. Somtimes ownership of this equipment is in question.

So I'm afraid we have more equipment collected today than ever can be preserved in perpetuity.

Reality check: As we long ago learned in the historic structure side of the preservation business, you simply cannot save everything. There just is not enough interest, personpower, or money to come close. So you have to pick your buildings carefully. A few well-preserved structures serve the public interest. A lot of decaying structrues does not. Just remove "structures" and insert "rail equipment." That's reality!

Mike

Les, asked yourself this honestly: had you known ahead of time that said scrapping was going to take place, what would you personally have done about it? Would the outcome by any different had you known?
I for one am tired of reading this same old story over and over again, where a piece of RR history is going to be scrapped unless it can be moved as a group doesn't want it on that land anymore. Then, people scramble to find someone to buy/move it (it's always 'someone else' of course). So many people decry that someone saves the equipment, but it's never the person saying that it should be saved who's going to do the work to save it. And why? "Hey, I don't have the money to move this, but someone should save it!"
The original owner, who was never into RR stuff, gets tired of well-meaning train buffs yelling how someone should save it but nobody has the money to move it. So, they scrap it because they're tired of people with no means yelling at how someone should come along and preserve it (seeing a trend yet?)
And of course, then people write on forums like this that the original owner didn't look hard enough for that magical someone with deep pockets (who is never named, oddly) who 'could have moved it easily,' yet never does...
I say, if you're not that someone, or know who he is, then put up or shut up. You cann't expect a property owner to hold onto a piece of RR stuff forever while you decry how someone should save it with no way to actually do that!

Of course. That is where the fallacy COMES FROM. It is a very reasonable, natural and obvious conclusion from exactly what you and Sandy observe. Yet still, the conclusion is wrong.

So you magically cull the fleet by half, and now what??? What is cured??? Not a damn thing. The surviving half will STILL be returning to nature. And then the next guy comes along, looks at the dilapidated state of this demicollection, and says -- you guessed it -- "wow, we have too much stuff." A second miracle of consent later, the collection is halved again, and what is the state of our quartercollection? Returning to nature.

Halve it as many times as you please, it makes no difference. You cannot cull your way to preservation.



That is a problem local to one particular museum, who caters to their specific, aging membersrip base. They are notoriously bad at development, has no succession plan nor any plan to remain relevant in a changing world. (their sector is one of the fastest moving areas in railroading, yet they want to freeze their museum in 1940.)

One thing they did right, however, was redefine their purpose to a unique and highly marketable one, and to that end massively culled their collection.

Any other purpose of culling a collection is a badge of failure. It means you failed as a steward. Folks don't like how that reflects on them, so they make up this cock and bull story about culling being good, so they can come off as brave heroes. No, THAT is exactly what it looks like on the surface. Neglect.

Swallow your pride and own that. And then, act properly.

From your argument, then, it follows that we are all failures.

Tell us, sir, what YOU have preserved.

Mike

Why is that presumed?

Take a hypothetical: A museum with ten pieces of rolling stock and a station. The station and five pieces are pretty well maintained--the caboose, the operable 44-tonner, the coach, the box car, and the baggage car with the displays that aren't in the station. The two old Pullman camp cars, the wooden ex-MOW boxcar, the other caboose with all the windows smashed out and the remains of a fire inside, the four-wheel Plymouth switcher with a cracked block, and the leaky tank car all need help and/or have been untouched for twenty years. The membership is not there to stay ahead of the rust and decay on all ten pieces and the station.

Scrap the latter five, and you have a coherent, focused collection that you can keep painted and stay on top of, and you look like an attractive local rail museum, not a junkyard masquerading as a museum. And now, maybe, it'll be taken more seriously by the locals, the schools, prospective members, and prospective donors. And there's room if somehow the local shortline decides to donate that more modern (and relevant to 21st-century fans) GP38, hi-cube box car, or covered hopper.

Now, no, in no way is this outcome guaranteed. But it's, on average, a far likelier outcome than some Powerball or Lotto winner sweeping in and writing a "blank check" for new car barns/pole sheds, coats of paint for everything, and an endowment to maintain it in perpetuity. I'll play the odds, thank you.

Yeah, I sort of got that feeling as well and was wondering where the logic there was.
There ARE museums who keep ahead of what they have in their primary displays. I don't need to name them, we all know the success stories. All of them have stuff rusting out back, though. But they have picked what best to preserve and display for the public. So using the logic of others who have posted here, if those museums scrapped the stuff they'll never get indoors, then they failed because everything else is 'resturning to nature' anyway, even though their prime display stuff is restored and in a climate-controlled building with a budget to maintain it that way? What the heck kind of thinking is that?

Three diesel locomotives--in partnership with a group.

I've been directly credited/blamed for instigating the preservation of two other diesel locomotives elsewhere. Yeah, I need to go back and help paint the one, I know.....

Working with someone else: Four locomotives, two cars.

Another group effort: Two box cars, two hopper cars, a tank car, for which I was the primary instigator.

With another group: Thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands by now) of railroad books, photos, periodicals, and technical manuals, facilitating trades with other groups as well.

Do we want to discuss all the groups for which I've just laid rail, pounded spikes, slathered paint, helped do hydros, escorted rail shipments, and the like?

Oh, yeah, helped make the other loco able to be shipped to a new home rather than being scrapped.

Sorry, were you talking to me or someone else?

No, Mitchell. To Macdowell.

Mike

In thinking about this, a data base is probably not the ultimate solution. Suggesting there is too much to handle does not help either.

From my experience as a volunteer, board member, and chairman, and in looking at a couple of groups now, what is missing is accurate, solid, easy to understand, and easy to access information on running a museum and caring for a collection. Yes, I know all about the ARM recommended practices and in truth I find them over whelming and probably not of interest to the mom and pop railroad museum.

Case in point, although I have been around this stuff for decades, when it came to what kind of paint to use for a steel caboose, along with recommended prep work, it was like a well hidden secret. Why is that? Lots of opinions, but little in the way of solid recommendations.

When it comes to moving equipment, why is the wheel reinvented by just about every museum?

If a museum must get rid of something, what are the options? Railswap, RyPN, ebay, OMR, etc.

What does it take to run a museum? What have others found to be problems? What works, what doesn't?

The problem is not the equipment. The problem is a lack of people who understand, through no fault of their own, what it takes to manage a small museum and care for an assortment of equipment.

I think RyPN could be the gathering point for such information. Or perhaps a wiki page. It has to be an easy google search. It has to be to the point. Easy to understand and cover the big issues.

I'd be happy to help out on such an effort as I have seen first hand how badly it is needed.

J.R.