The Atlantic has republished on its website a blog post concerning Glen Echo Park near Washington, D.C., and the NRHS saw fit to repost it to its Facebook page. Go see why:

http://www.theatlanticcities.com/design ... picky/580/

"My take is that, in order to pursue sustainability, we must be very careful in choosing what we want to sustain. Doing so with wisdom requires access to the past, and it also requires engaging our imaginations, our spiritual as well as our scientific sides."

Lots of good points in the article. It's clear that in the past many rail museums have "over-collected." No doubt some of this excess was due to individuals or small groups having an emotional attachment to some piece of rolling stock or other artifact. Thus the group, often with recruited aid, buys or begs the item and brings it to their chosen museum. So far, so good. But then the enthusiasm wanes, the benefactors die or at least go away, and the owning group is left with something for which they have neither need nor justification. That's the situation a lot of museums are now facing and there is no end in sight to the process. The message here is clear; Be very careful what you THINK you need to preserve and WHY. Otherwise you'll saddle future generations of museum personnel with "stuff" for which they will see no future but to render it for parts or scrap. In the meantime your visitors and neighbors will view some of this excess as a blight on the land and your reputation will suffer as a result.

As an FYI, when we did our initial strategic plan, we estimated that our unrestored streetcars represented an unfunded expense of between $250,000 - $500,000 each in paid or in-kind expense in order to fully restore them for display and/or service. Very shortly we were into cubic dollars and we do not have a very long roster of such cars. Walk around most museums, count the "projects", such as that Soo Line sleeper in a recent thread, and do the math. The NPS is also learning this lesson now with the SEPTA PCC on display in front of Glen Echo Park, the subject of the article posted by Sandy.

Wesley

My own take on the article isn't that we have saved too much--rather, we have saved too little, and have devoted too few resources to it. This doesn't negate the necessity of being choosy as noted above; you have to be able to take care of what is important with what you have. But at the same time, it strongly suggests to me that we have let "money" determine too much in this country.

Consider two cases--the destruction of Penn Station, and the proposal by O. Winston Link at one time that the Norfolk & Western should keep one roundhouse full of steam engines for the future. Both "causes" lost because both were considered "too expensive," or were perceived as costing too much money. But ask yourself, what became of that money? Is it still around, or has it disappeared as easily as dew in the morning, if not easier? How valuable, how treasured, would either Penn Station or a small fleet of the best in steam be today, compared with two of the ugliest buildings in New York today, or the value of the scrap metal of a dozen or so steam locomotives in 1960? Even if that money were still around, how much would it be worth today, even if invested?

Did not saving Penn Station save Penn Central? Would saving Penn Station have hastened the end to any extent?

Questions like these deserve to be asked, too.

Heck, I thought the title of this thread was "Being Choosy What We Say"... that's a conversation for another day.

After reading the article, I didn't get the message of being "choosy" at all. Benfield espouses the imperfect preservation of Glen Echo Park.

While he starts off by saying, "I’ve written before that both preservationists and environmentalists must be discriminating and wise in asserting our values. If we push our principles to the maximum without awareness of the consequences to other important societal values, we risk losing our credibility, among other things" he ends up praising an incomplete preservation effort that - by his own account - is devoid of interpretation.

What I take from this is a sense of relief that the park still exists at all. It may not be Benfield's intention, but his praise of using imagination as an interpretive giude, and enjoying unfinished or closed displays is actually an argument FOR saving everything. He's glad. He writes, "In the case of Glen Echo, fortunately we are not limited to photographs in these important endeavors. If we live in Washington, we can ride there on a bike and see it for ourselves."

No where does he suggest any standard.. any dividing line between what is preservation-worthy and what is not.

This article clearly states the past is important. Photography is good, but tactile displays are better (even if imperfect). In that is an even greater lesson... not of being choosy of what we save, but of understanding that even things saved in a less-than-stellar form are better than those long gone.

You can be choosy with what you restore. You can be choosy with what you invest in, but the basic act of saving is not - and never will be - a bad idea.

Some artifacts will eventually return to the earth, while others will return to steam.

Would any park locomotives still exist if "save what you can" wasn't a virtue? Would we rather be without #765, #4449, et al... had someone been more "sensible" and sent them to scrap instead of a park? If logic prevailed, park steamers without a dowry and caretaker should have been cut up.

Saving things as long as is feasibly possible gives them a chance for restoration and interpretive value down the road. If that chance never comes, so be it, but at least it was there. I'd prefer to not see preservationists cut off their nose to spite their face.


Rob

And we have a winner!

Indeed. We have not over-collected. We have under-preserved. Even at the larger and more successful museums, that is still true. The infrastructure investments needed to protect our collections are just not a big priority.

Under-preserved...agreed!

Stephen

I participate on other, non-railroad museum discussion boards… recently on the Yahoo Small Museums list the following was posted by Ron Kley of Museum Research Associates, a museum consulting firm. We have been emailing back and forth since…

From Ron

Facts of collection management life:

1, Junk gets old too.
2. "Save old stuff" is neither a mission statement nor a collection
policy.
3. Every collection object is a liability as well as an asset, demanding
a share of available space and attention.
4. No historical institution has enough storage space to sustain an
"accept everything" policy for very long, and getting rid of clutter once
the available space is full is always more difficult than keeping it out
in the first place

From this comes…. (Ron speaking again)

I have to believe (and I hope I'm not being preachy or snarky in saying
this) that even those museums or historical societies that "accept
everything" must have some sense of how they differ from the local
landfill -- and that distinction can, in fact, become the seed or nucleus
of a "collection policy."

It should be written down in clear terms that staff (paid or volunteer),
trustees and prospective donors can all understand, and it should be
referred to when new offers are brought to (or left at) the door. Over
time it's likely to evolve into something more sharply focused, but even
if it doesn't it will function as a useful standard.

Followed by probably the greatest truth of museum collecting…

Nobody (not even the local landfill) truly "takes everything."

Until we learn this "Great Truth" we will have to learn to love a back lot (hopefully a back lot, but too often a significant (maybe) but fast deterioration display in the parking lot) and notices on this board of "museum" rolling stock being scrapped.

There is FAR more truth to this than any of the "we have underpreserved" remarks.

On the equipment status dry wipe board of a certain tourist railroad, beside the number of a diesel locomotive a lot of people on this forum would very much want to save, is written "scrap". One organization's parts unit would be another group's beloved artifact. Perhaps there is no way to avoid the conflict.

I agree that we have "under preserved," but I also think we have some examples of over collecting. So how about formal collections management as the approach to addressing both?

I suspect - and have some implied evidence to back it up - that we have not always saved the right stuff. So as a percentage of total objects that were built, there are impressive numbers of cabooses, business/executive cars, and unusual things such as plows and cranes. There are some wonderful examples of locomotives, though I am sure many on this board will argue "not enough." But how many plain wood boxcars, flatcars, prewar day coaches, or complete sleeping cars (is there a wood sleeping car at a museum anywhere in North America? I don't know so please tell me!) have been preserved and actually rehabilitated or restored?

How should the decision be made on what gets saved and how many of each? Was it an emotional decision based on the personal experiences of one or more of the organization's founding members? I suspect this was a common theme in early collecting, and it has probably served a number of institutions very well, though often resulting in a very broad representation. So what about a collections management policy that includes a scope of collection (a recent example from the Western Railway Museum was given on this site: Sacramento Northern including its owner Western Pacific.) It could include educational/interpretive themes that the organization would like to address or represent in a research collection. It could also exclude certain categories of objects such as those built before or after a certain date, those used outside of a geographical area, or those built from certain materials. How many rail-themed collecting institutions practice this; why isn't it a good idea? (Please, I really want to hear reasoned arguements about why a scope of collection isn't a good idea!)

Some extensive work has been done on some incredible artifacts, locomotives especially. What major efforts are underway to preserve them once they are "fixed," and shouldn't this be part of an organization's long term & collections management plan? Western Railway Museum has built an impressive modern car barn - exhibit hall really - and so has the Pennsylvania Trolley Museum. My own institution has erected a similar structure. Major institutions such as the California State Railroad Museum, B&O Museum, RR Museum of PA and others have some awesome structures to preserve and protect their collection. But what other efforts are out there to not only get a roof over "the large rotting structures with wheels under them," but to get some heat and humidity control too? I know this is a tough question because space for just one coach inside a semi conditioned environment could work out to be $200,000 or more depending on local economic factors and site limitations. So this really seems to be the king pin of preservation because without a stable environment most of what we have saved will disappear within a lifetime.

--Richard

There may be more than one answer to this, but the Illinois Traction System sleeping car PEORIA is in the collection at the Illinois Railway Museum and cosmetically attractive, and nearly complete inside.

To the question posed, if we are to say that too much has been 'saved' it may depend on the age of the organization and the age of its membership. Forty years ago I fully ascribed to the theory that we must acquire cars before they are gone, and that the future holds bright promise of funding, volunteer resources, the prospects for restoration and operation. Yes, I WAS YOUNG ONCE.

As my age advances and decrepitude takes over, my perspective has changed. I have seen too much gone back to mother nature, or inexorably doing so day by day, to suspect that all now in museums can be saved. Of course there are new finds all the time, things hidden in the weeds, or hidden in a barn, or hidden in the woods. And yes, they deserve to be saved, partly because they are such a rare exception today, and in many cases of historical significance.

Nevertheless, I strongly feel that reality must take a role in decision making. Even if a lot of the component acquisition costs are FREE (or seemingly so) a single piece of equipment probably represents a present and future commitment of organization resources in excess of $30,000. That is based on the concept that it needs to be moved, placed on track, and sheltered under roof to stabilize the artifact, conserve it in a way, perhaps to wait for a future generation. If I had my way that amount of MINIMUM funding would have to be in hand before the deal was signed. Note the use of MINIMUM; in the case of a locomotive that could run to five or ten times that amount.

Emotional attachment has and will continue to play a large role I believe, and in a way that is a shame. Some funds will be spent, volunteer and other organizational resources will be spent, and as interest wanes, or a NEW BRIGHT STAR takes its place in the spotlight, the previous investment of resources may prove to be squandered. Oh well, the world is not perfect, and I am not KING.

Bob Kutella

I fall into the "overcollected" school.

One thing that I have not noticed in this discussion is how relevant something may be for today's museum visitors. Money is limited. Priorities are important in allocating limited funds.

So given a choice, which would be more important: Restoring the inside of a Pullman car so visitors can seen how people slept on trains or restoring some rare type of diesel locomotive when the museum already has five other diesel locomotives on display? If they are kept outdoors those diesel locomotives are a constant money drain requiring repainting and leak plugging to keep out rainwater.

At two operating musuems where I work, one on each coast, railfans and enthusiasts make up well under 10% of the visitors. They contribute very little money to the museum budget.

Perhaps establishing a national rare equipment musuem in Nevada or Arizona where weather damage would be minimized might be an answer. Equipment would be preserved on loan from the museum that owns it. Perhaps on a national basis there might be enough enthusiast support to maintain it. However we all know that railfans are cheap.

Obviously rare equipment should be preserved if possible.

Perhaps another question ought to be asked: Why is this country apparently so apathetic, and even hostile, to historic preservation? In particular why has it sometimes been especially apathetic or hostile to rail preservation?

Compare this country with Great Britain. That place isn't perfect, as has been pointed out by others here who are involved in projects there, but compare how steam is welcomed on the mainlines there vs. unreasonable fear and even loathing here.

Consider that at least one major road here, despite a fascinating history through its predecessors, including one that was THE pioneering common carrier railroad in America, has been described as currently "unhappy to be a railroad" by a magazine editor.

Consider how another railroad (once welcoming of steam, and now thankfully welcoming again after a long steamless period), once had a president on a predecessor road (with arguably the best steam operation the world has ever seen) who essentially forbade employees from even mentioning "steam" on duty. Reportedly some men on that road, discussing a test of a diesel while riding a dynanometer car, remarked to a rail journalist on the trip that at one time they had a single "unit" that could produce over 5,000 hp at anything over 35 mph, and could make time with a passenger train or a manifest. Didn't say what the unit was, but we know, in a number sequence of 1200s. . .even if not said. . .

Consider how a railroad in New York, despite years of work by volunteers, with track that looks mighty good based on the photos I've seen of it, has to fend off snowmobile riders, essentially being a "persona non grata" with that crowd, despite overtures to them, willing to work with them. . .

Consider how another railroad, one that is to handle tourists and also is proposed to move coal traffic off city streets in a town in Indiana, and doing so with quiet electric locomotives, has to face opposition from people living in what are mostly retirement homes, who have managed to have the city put its weight against the railroad, despite the benefits it can bring?

In short, a big part of our limits in what we can preserve are cultural in nature. I would also argue that a large chunk of this is generational, too. However, there are cases where we may not have time to wait for the "dinosaurs" to die, and in any event, we need fresh blood. All this goes against the current culture, although I am of the opinion that the antagonism shown by certain older members of our society may be absent among much of the younger ones.

Still, we need to somehow either change the culture, or somehow successfully work around it, bypass it, or something. Question is, how do we do so?