Carhouses, Dave's, Etc.

[Fred W. Schneider III]

"Paint one in that Stillers scheme with all those players signatures and the
faithful will flock to your doorstep...."  As a frustrated historian, it hurts
to admit it Bob.  But you're right on target.  And think how much money PTM
could get if the team was riding the car giving out autographs!!!!!

If I may, I'd like to insert a parallel.  I found out yesterday that the
Strasburg Rail Road had an estimated 50,000 visitors and sold 31,000 tickets at
$12 a pop in one week in June for their recreation of Thomas the Tank Engine.
This represents, in one week, more than 10 percent of the prior year's
passengers.  (The engine, by the way is a former Brooklyn Eastern District
Terminal oil-fire saddle tanker, rebuilt with grates for coal firing and with
side tanks, and rebuilt also with Thomas' smiling smokebox.) To put that 31,000
into perspective, the highest revenue years were in the 390,000 to 420,000 range
and typical days in high years are around 2,000 to 3,000.  I think the 31,000
week was roughly the same volume as the full year of operation at Strasburg.
Their biggest problem is renting extra parking spaces!  It may be fake, but the
railroad is probably the largest employer in Strasburg Township, Lancaster
County and it funnels a lot of cash into state sales taxes, food vendors,
industrial suppliers, payrolls, and so forth.

Most of the preservation railroads in Britain also have Thomas the Tank Engine
weekends.  All of this means a lot of royalty money for the creators of Thomas
too.

It really shows, doesn't it, that the ARM and TRAIN members are selling, not
history, but an experience.  I've learned in a hard way that the public doesn't
care a twit about history or the way it was.  Education is an evil word.  Tell
the public the truth and the eyes glaze over faster than the demise of the
Hindenberg.  You can educate the public by backing into it, but heaven forbid
that you ever use the words teach, educate, learn, or history.   To be
meaningful to the public, trainmen need to be straight out of Central Casting.
So education becomes something we dole out in little bits and pieces ... to
those people who actually read the captions on the photo displays or the school
groups.



"Dietrich, Robert J." wrote:

> Paint one in that Stillers scheme with all those players signatures and the
> faithful will flock to your doorstep....
>
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:   Fred W. Schneider III [mailto:fschnei at supernet.com]
> Sent:   Wednesday, July 05, 2000 6:23 PM
> To:     pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject:        Re: Carhouses, Dave's, Etc.
>
> I'm smiling Jim.  You remind me of a lawyer arguing what the drafters of the
> United
> States Constitution and its Amendments really meant.  Acquisition policies
> of any
> museum are open to change by subsequent management's, and they frequently
> are
> changed.
>
> I love taking the opposition view point.  You point out that peoples faces
> light up
> with they see a PCC because they remember them?  Its been more than three
> decades
> since Pittsburgh had red and cream PCC cars.  They are not as well
> remembered
> today.  What we really need to keep up to date is one painted as ... for
> want of
> some other point of argument ... the army camouflage trolley or the MOD car
> ... or
> how about an LRV?  Now that last one is something that people can remember.
>
> By the way, what is the California Railway Museum doing to get a
> Boeing-Vertol car
> from Muni?  I hope that doesn't slip by them.
>
> Jim Holland wrote:
>
> > Greetings!
> >
> >         Well, I managed to download 22 of 65 emails when the download
> aborted
> > --  which means I get the pleasure of going thru these 22 again if I am
> > able to download any more!
> >         At any rate, I responded to a previous email that I felt PCC 100
> should
> > have been saved and indicated that Dave Hamley had said the same.
> >         From the May-June--1992 issue of *Trolley Fare* on page-8 is the
> > article entitled "Department of Hindsignt" by David H. Hamley.
> >
> >         Dave starts:::   "The following represents the personal opinions
> of the
> > author.  It is not intended to point a finger . . .  We pretty well know
> > what *did* happen at Arden over the years . . .  But we have also at
> > times failed to make acquisitions that, in the opinion of the author,
> > would have enbled us to present an even more impressive and useful
> > collection . . ."
> >         "This 1960 document is titled, 'A Policy and Program for Car
> > Acquisition,' . . . it is repeated here in its entirety [the opening
> > paragraph]:"
> >         "'General Policy: The statements on acquiring specific car types
> > contained in this report are based on two principles.  One is tht of
> > obtaining a representative collection of cars that have operated on the
> > street and interurban railways of the Pittsburgh area particularly, and
> > more generally of Western Pennsylvania and the Upper Ohio Valley.  The
> > second important principle is that the collection should as much as
> > possible depict the complete history of electric railway equipment.
> > Within these principles, cars to be acquired should be considered on the
> > basis of availability, cost, condition, as well as other relevant
> > factors.'"
> >         "We acquired several pieces of standard gauge RR equipment. . .
> Having
> > been personally involved in all 3 acquisitions, I certainly can't point
> > a finger . . .  I now see these - with the possible exception of the
> > combine, which has served as our Museum Store - as basic errors in
> > judgment.  They diverted some of our time, money and talent into what is
> > now clearly seen as a dead end.  WE  BEGAN  AS  A  TROLLEY  MUSEUM,
> > AND  WE  SHOULD  END  AS  A  TROLLEY  MUSEUM,  AND  A  TROLLEY  MUSEUM
> > O-N-L-Y  [most emphasis added.]"
> >         "My personal feeling is that this 'only one PCC' policy was
> > shortsighted, even in 1960.  Among those in our membership, and trolley
> > fans in general, there has always been a degree of anti-PCC sentiment.
> > The holders of this opinion are perfectly welcome to feel as they choose
> > about any particular era of cars, but I feel that the inevitable march
> > of time must also be recognized. . ."
> >         "While serving as a carshops tour guide during our annual Trolley
> Fare
> > each June, I have observed that the level of interest shown by visitors
> > in PRCo 3487 (1905), 4140 (1911), and even 4398 (1916) in *no way*
> > compares with that shown in our 1937 PCC car 1138.  People just plain
> > light up upon seeing a *familiar* car, . . ."
> >         "One woman pulled from her purse a dog-eared notebook and found
> that
> > she had ridden 1138 19 times between 1951 and 1955 [Roberta?]. . .  I
> > should also mention that cars from other cities elicited very much less
> > attention than did any car from Pittsburgh, and work cars that much less
> > again. . ."
> >         "So what did happen since 1960's 'conditional recommendation' of
> just
> > one air car PCC?  Happily, we have done better than this, but at the
> > same time I feel we blew the chance to preserve one particularly
> > historic PCC car." [PCC-100.]
> >
> >         All the above elicit the following observations - but the list is
> > n-o-t  exhaustive:
> >
> >         1)--What was the purpose and general policy of the museum as
> expressed
> > by the founding fathers in the very late 1940s when the Pittsburgh
> > Electric Railway Club (PERC) was formed?
> >         2)--Note how *trolleycars* are emphasized by Dave as well as in
> the
> > three various names for the museum:  A)-in #-1 above;  B)--Pennsylvania
> > Railway Museum Association (PRMA  --  yes, I know *Railway* can refer to
> > mainline railroad but it was obvious that the group is referring to
> > trolleycars);  C)--Pennsylvania Trolley Museum (PTM  --  and yes,
> > *trolley* can refer to *trolley-coach* but trolley was a shortened form
> > of trolleycar long before trolley-coaches came on the market;
> > additionally, *trolley* in Pgh referred to trolleycars in spite of the
> > two *demon*--strations with TCs.)
> >         3)--Not listed in the quotes above is a statement that the one
> > air-car-PCC be from PRCo, Baltimore, or Philly with PRCo favored.  So
> > the 1960 recommendation for PCCs violates the 1960 General Policy of
> > *Western PA and the Upper Ohio Valley.*
> >         4)--*Western PA and the Upper Ohio Valley* as listed in the 1960
> > General Policy would certainly be PRCo, JTC, and WP as well as the
> > Pgh-Butler interurbans, Beaver Falls, Steubenville, and Wheeling.  I
> > understand *Upper Ohio Valley* as "Upper Ohio  RIVER  Valley."  Thus,
> > the Shaker Pullman PCC is in violation of policy as well as the Philly
> > equipment.
> >         5)--While Dave admits to being a part of the decision making when
> the
> > mainline RR equipment was purchased, he must have forgotten about
> > writing this 1992 article when he recommended that they acquire another
> > SEPTA (Phlipadelphia) ALL-Electric PCC and have it modified for multiple
> > wheelchair use.
> >
> > James B. Holland
> >
> >         Pittsburgh  Railways  Company  (PRCo),   1930  --  1950
> >     To e-mail privately, please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
> > N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/