 |
Re: Whats going on at the Nevada Northern?
Author: Joel Jensen
Date: 02-19-2009 - 13:37
Yeah...it's a "bit messy" here in Ely and has been for some time. I was going to post on RYPN
but #93 seems to be a subject that is "off limits."
By way of introduction, I initiateded the NNRY Winter Photo Shoots in 1998. From recruiting to
organizing to "running the show," the shoots grew at a surprisingly rapid rate. The primary
reason for the success of the shoots, in my opinion, was a "bang for your buck" attitude.
$400.00 is a lot of money and any ethical approach would be to "deliver the goods" - go the
extra mile. Weather God's aside, "we delivered".....until 2008.
An ad campaign for the '08 shoots began in Nov. of '07, featuring a quote attributed to me.
"Joel Jensen promises that both locomotives #40 and 93 will be available for the upcoming shoots." It was well known that 93 had NO chance of being operational (it still isn't, one year
and 4 months later). At that point I asked Mark Bassett to remove my name from any future advertising, which he appropriately did. I also suggested that the shoots be canceled. His response was, "If we can't pull the shoots off with the same elan that we have in the past, we will have to cancel them." I was encouraged at the time, yet the shoots went forward.
40 had undergone repairs but was available for the first weekend (barely). The Monday following
weekend #1, 40 was discovered to have two cracked axles and was deemed non-operational.
At that point, a call to weekend #2 participants would have been appropriate. Such calls weren't made. This what I find to be most disturbing. Had the calls been made, participants would have had the opportunity to cancel their various reservations, namely airline, and been
able to receive refunds. Consider as well, vacation days that were taken. Point being, there's a lot of money invested in such a shoot that goes well beyond the price of a photo shoot ticket.
And then there was this years shoots....pretty much the same thing - they should have been
canceled. Participants came into town the first weekend and were informed around lunch-time
Friday that 93 wouldn't be available for the shoots (93 was having hot axle issues, which were evident after she returned to service in late December).
The 2nd weekend featured a lame 93 and limited yard runbys for an hour or two. Fortunately, calls were made to participants ahead of time, warning them of the mostly steamless weekend.
At least a lesson was learned. Rain-checks were offered though no refunds.
Sorry for being long winded....but I can't volunteer under any conditions which involves deception. I fully understand the museum's need for money, but in this case, short-sighted
thinking has, and will continue to, take a toll on what was once a pretty darn good Winter Photo Shoot.and the NNRY in general. We all love this place. Joel Jensen
but #93 seems to be a subject that is "off limits."
By way of introduction, I initiateded the NNRY Winter Photo Shoots in 1998. From recruiting to
organizing to "running the show," the shoots grew at a surprisingly rapid rate. The primary
reason for the success of the shoots, in my opinion, was a "bang for your buck" attitude.
$400.00 is a lot of money and any ethical approach would be to "deliver the goods" - go the
extra mile. Weather God's aside, "we delivered".....until 2008.
An ad campaign for the '08 shoots began in Nov. of '07, featuring a quote attributed to me.
"Joel Jensen promises that both locomotives #40 and 93 will be available for the upcoming shoots." It was well known that 93 had NO chance of being operational (it still isn't, one year
and 4 months later). At that point I asked Mark Bassett to remove my name from any future advertising, which he appropriately did. I also suggested that the shoots be canceled. His response was, "If we can't pull the shoots off with the same elan that we have in the past, we will have to cancel them." I was encouraged at the time, yet the shoots went forward.
40 had undergone repairs but was available for the first weekend (barely). The Monday following
weekend #1, 40 was discovered to have two cracked axles and was deemed non-operational.
At that point, a call to weekend #2 participants would have been appropriate. Such calls weren't made. This what I find to be most disturbing. Had the calls been made, participants would have had the opportunity to cancel their various reservations, namely airline, and been
able to receive refunds. Consider as well, vacation days that were taken. Point being, there's a lot of money invested in such a shoot that goes well beyond the price of a photo shoot ticket.
And then there was this years shoots....pretty much the same thing - they should have been
canceled. Participants came into town the first weekend and were informed around lunch-time
Friday that 93 wouldn't be available for the shoots (93 was having hot axle issues, which were evident after she returned to service in late December).
The 2nd weekend featured a lame 93 and limited yard runbys for an hour or two. Fortunately, calls were made to participants ahead of time, warning them of the mostly steamless weekend.
At least a lesson was learned. Rain-checks were offered though no refunds.
Sorry for being long winded....but I can't volunteer under any conditions which involves deception. I fully understand the museum's need for money, but in this case, short-sighted
thinking has, and will continue to, take a toll on what was once a pretty darn good Winter Photo Shoot.and the NNRY in general. We all love this place. Joel Jensen
