J Mann Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The big problem is that most rail museums are
> running into the problem of having too much stuff
> and not enough space to store it or volunteers to
> restore it. Big locomotives like a SD45 or SD40
> take up a lot of space and can't be econmicly
> operated. SW's and GP's are better for short
> lines and operating rail museums to operate. So
> going forward we will see lots of first generation
> diesels saved but almost no second generation.
>
> Personally I think it's too bad that a TE70 wasn't
> saved. But I can think of a lot of other
> locomotives that I would give higher priority to
> save.

I'll give you a perfect example: Seattle's Museum of Flight.

You have some "large" aircraft, like the Boeing 747-100 prototype (you can't get much larger than that!), as well as a Boeing 727 and 737 displayed nearby, a former Air Force One (a 707 body), and a British Airways Concorde. All pretty large artifacts - but they are all a huge draw to the museum.

Inside the Great Hall you have, among other things, an "Aerocar". Not exactly a successful model of the aviation field, but nevertheless a unique model in history.

I'm not sure why railroad artifacts have to be operating, while operating condition is a huge plus I don't think it should be a prerequisite. If I could have twenty historically significant artifacts that were non-operating but I could have least preserve and cosmetically maintain versus one or two operating pieces of equipment, I'd choose the former (especially if I didn't have an operating track of my own). Again, another example is the Evergreen Aviation Museum in McMinnville - yes, they have a lot of aircraft in operating condition (as well as the Spruce Goose, another huge artifact). But so what, it's not as though Museum visitors will ever experience flight in any of those aircraft (never mind that to operate, the aircraft would have to be towed down a road, across a five-lane highway (with flaggers), down another road, through a gate, just to get to an airport). And the next door Space Museum...surely operational status is not of any concern there; but it will still be a huge draw for people to see the artifacts.

On the other hand, if a museum isn't able to maintain its collection, then that is a problem. There's no point hoarding equipment if it's going to scrap anyways. There's a reason I won't join my local NRHS chapter, because they own some great equipment that is going to end up getting scrapped because they have no interest/desire. In fact they've already given at least one locomotive away to another group (not a railroad museum/historical society, but has some railroad equipment that is related to their primary mission).

There is a difference, IMO, between a "tourist railroad" and a "museum". A museum is there to tell a story and to show artifacts that tell the story. A tourist railroad is an operating entity. While it's not always black-and-white and certainly there are organizations that can rightfully be both a tourist railroad and a museum, there is a lot of equipment that a lot of "museums" are literally turning their noses at, just because it isn't an operating steam locomotive, as an example. In Oregon there are a lot of historically significant diesel locomotives, that not one single historical/preservation group here has any interest in.

(Thankfully, we have Shortline Sammie, who himself owns at least two of those historically significant diesels.)