Since I raised this issue, I guess I should add my comments to this thread. I agree with most of what you say about the Friends, but frankly that is only partially relevant to my concerns, because as you point out, the Commission is the body that holds the future of CATS in their hands.
I believe that the Commission needs a well thought-out, well publicized statement of vision that they pledge to stick with for many years. The starting point should probably answer the question "In this context, what does it mean to be a museum?"
I can think of at least three answers, and each of them leads to a distinctly different future, so it is important for them to answer this question:
(1) A traditional collection of artifacts, ala CRRM.
In that case, they need very little in the way of working equipment, which radically reduces their need for funding.
(2) A recreation of the Rio Grande in the year 19XY (fill in the year)
I assume this is what Rick B. envisions.
If this is the case, then they desperately need appropriate passenger equipment, but with this as their stated vision they might be able to find funding source(s) to underwrite the construction of passenger cars replicating the cars in use in the chosen year. In order to make this work, though, they would need to review the entire process, eliminating as much as possible that postdates the year in question, and they would need to provide clothing and patter appropriate for that year. For example, in Indiana there is a place called Conner's Prairie which is permanently stuck (IRRC) in the year 1843. The docents wear clothing appropriate for that year, when you enter a house someone will talk about how a person of that year might feel about particular subjects, the school master teaches year-appropriate material (who was prez, governor, etc), ad nauseum. This kind of decision would need to occur reasonably soon, because IMHO the proposed location for the visitor center would be a real problem. I would also think that they would want to relocate the parking lot, because that is sufficiently close to the station and tracks to impact the ambiance of the place.
If the Commission decides on this course, then they need to follow it, and someone smart needs to figure out how to market it. "Following it" is harder than it sounds, because they would need to minimize, if not eliminate, equipment that doesn't fit in. Rick B. has complained about stuff left lying around by the Management Co. and the Friends, and in this setting he would be absolutely correct. Having non-historical equipment (such as tractors, track equip, etc) in sight would also be inappropriate. This might be "fun", but it would also be incredibly difficult for anyone trying to get anything done.
(3) A "living history museum" honoring and propagating the transportation technology which built America
This is what I have envisioned, but I could accept (2) if that is what the Commission decides is best.
In general, this is how the railroad has been operated for most of its 36 years. However, cleaning up the yard would still be appropriate, and the railroad would have to continue to work at presenting themselves to the public.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2007 04:41PM by Randall Hess.
