• Maine Narrow Gauge Museum Discussion

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England

Moderators: MEC407, NHN503

  • 356 posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 24
  by Mikejf
 
If they leave Portland, they will loose a lot of business. They know that. I think what they are looking for is other communities to help maintain their fleet. They have several cars "off Site" now, with the promises of the hosts to keep them up, and some restoration.

I also believe they are talking about sattelite operations. Not moving the entire museum, but parts of it to operate elsewhere. If done properly, this could actually be a win-win situation for both parties involved, MNGRR and the host community. MNGRR gets their fleet maintained, and the community gets a "little" draw for tourists.

Mike
  by MEC407
 
Maine Narrow Gauge has received two formal proposals from communities that would like to host the railroad and museum: Gray and Monson. Portland has also submitted a proposal for keeping the railroad there.

From today's Forecaster:
The Forecaster wrote:Brian Durham, president of the railroad board of trustees, said a relocation committee will meet over the next couple of months to discuss the proposals. He said he expects the group will issue an analysis and recommendation to the full board in March.
Read more at: http://www.theforecaster.net/content/pn ... uge-011211
  by Cowford
 
Given the choice, I'd rather have one strong collection over multiple weaker ones... I'd like to see MNG and WWF collections/operations consolidated at one the WWF. Is this an option being reviewed? It's not getting stellar patronage in Portland - while I understand the historic link, Monson would be a disaster.
  by Cosmo
 
Cowford wrote:Given the choice, I'd rather have one strong collection over multiple weaker ones... I'd like to see MNG and WWF collections/operations consolidated at one the WWF. Is this an option being reviewed? It's not getting stellar patronage in Portland - while I understand the historic link, Monson would be a disaster.
WW&FRR has no interest in obtaining any more of the MNGRR collection at this time. The WW&F already has acquired the one remaining original W&Q coach #3 and has leased or purchased 2 coaches and what has become their newest flatcar from MNGRR. There is not enough room at Sheepscott for much more equipment. To move the entire collection there would mean that pieces now under cover at MNGRR would wind up sitting outside exposed to the weather.
In the meantime, there has been co-operation between the two groups and with other groups. Aside from the above mentioned acquisitions by WW&F from MNGRR, MNGR has leased out Monson #3 and some equipment to SRRP in Philips, as well as allowing pieces to be displayed in Bridgeton.
I don't see why something similar could not be done in Monson. Yes, it's remote, but something small could be done there.
My hope is that the group in Bridgeton can get something going there, as it's not as remote as Monson and also has great historical significance.
  by Mikejf
 
Actually the newest coach (8) and the parts for the new flatcar (126) came from Edaville. They were never part of the MNGRR collection. Open car 103 is currently leased to the WW&F from the MNGRR.

As for the speculation of anything else including not obtaining more equipment, that is all it is, speculation. MNGRR has an excellent collection and if anything was to happen to it, I would hope the other museums (Boothbay, SR&RL, WW&F) would step in and preserve what is left. But I have a feeling the MNGRR is going no where any time soon. They will survive, even if they have to move to one of the interested communities. I am only disappointed Bridgton didn't make the short list.

Mike
  by Cosmo
 
Hey Mike,

thanks for clearing that up. I forgot they came from the EDAville auction. Either way, there's not a lot of room for much more of the collection at Sheepscott. Acquiring more stuff means we'd need a place to put it and things are getting crowded up there now.

I'm also disappointed there was no mention of Bridgeton. That has me wondering, I know they sent a response in. Can anyone else give us some insight on that?
  by ThinkNarrow
 
I notice that the last couple lines of the Forecaster article are:
Durham said a fourth community expressed interest in adopting the railroad, but was unable to submit a formal proposal by the Dec. 6, 2010, deadline. "We got another response that was intentionally late," he said. "We might talk later as time goes on."
Maybe this is a mention of Bridgton.....

-John
  by Jack Powell
 
Cosmo wrote: thanks for clearing that up. I forgot they came from the EDAville auction.
What Edaville auction are you now remembering? When was that?
  by Cosmo
 
There were a few auctions of things left over after "The Big Move." I believe this was in the late n90's or early 2000's.
  by Cosmo
 
ThinkNarrow wrote:I notice that the last couple lines of the Forecaster article are:
Durham said a fourth community expressed interest in adopting the railroad, but was unable to submit a formal proposal by the Dec. 6, 2010, deadline. "We got another response that was intentionally late," he said. "We might talk later as time goes on."
Maybe this is a mention of Bridgton.....

-John
I wondered about that. I'm hoping someone in the know can clear that up. ;)
  by Jack Powell
 
Cosmo wrote:There were a few auctions of things left over after "The Big Move." I believe this was in the late n90's or early 2000's.
No, that's not how it happened. A person who speaks in an official capacity for WW&F explained it on its own internet forum in January 2009:

"There was an auction several years ago as part of a bank foreclosure, at which time I believe we were the successful bidder on #21." [an ex-SR&RL coach which remains at Edaville today] "Then someone came forward with plenty of money and offered to pay the whole owed amount and the bank took them up on it, so we only owned it for about 2 hours. This was the expected outcome. We were also successful bidders on 202" [an open excusion car that was subsequently dismantled by WW&F and parts used to construct a new flatcar] "and the coach that became coach 8. Eventually we purchased them seperately."

As I recall, a generous member funded the above-referenced eventual private purchase of these items.
  by Stag Hound
 
Cosmo,

No offense, but I am continously intrigued how you are the spokesperson for not only the WW&F but the Valley Railroad as well. I fully support academic discourse but one should not use the word "we" when speaking from a personal, speculative perspective to which you have no authority. If I want to know the official stance of the WW&F, I will consult their website or PM a member of the board. If I want to know what the current status of VRR's 97, I will speak with Mr. Conrad directly.
  by Cosmo
 
Stag Hound wrote:Cosmo,

No offense, but I am continuously intrigued how you are the spokesperson for not only the WW&F but the Valley Railroad as well. I fully support academic discourse but one should not use the word "we" when speaking from a personal, speculative perspective to which you have no authority. If I want to know the official stance of the WW&F, I will consult their website or PM a member of the board. If I want to know what the current status of VRR's 97, I will speak with Mr. Conrad directly.
Hi stag,
I'm a member of the WW&FRR museum and have been actively involved with them for quite some time.
I'm NOT a "spokesperson" nor did I ever claim to be, and I've stood corrected on many occasions.
Also, I'm a member of the Friends Of The Valley RR volunteer group, and I'm down at the enginehouse just about every Wed. night.
I'm not a "spokesperson" for them either. I'm just an active member of both groups.
Just as any member of other groups can feel free to comment here and claim the title of "we" by being active participants in those groups, I do so with the WW&F and the VRR.
I'm not a member of MNGRR, so I don't use the title "we" in reference to them.
So, to use the "royal We" for a moment, "We" helped lay rail and build a switch this fall up at Sheepscott. "We" also are working diligently on constructing the new cab for 3025.
"We" also got to have #97 join us for pizza a couple of Wed. nights ago.
  by 3rdrail
 
Don't forget "we" as when used when including the presence of Lee, Ernest, and Keith !
  by Cosmo
 
3rdrail wrote:Don't forget "we" as when used when including the presence of Lee, Ernest, and Keith !
I would NEVER forget them,... especially Lee! :wink:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 24