I am not sure if I understand your question, but here are some important points. The group that has been fighting to retain the locomotive in Topeka was only reactivated a couple years ago, which was after the locomotive had been sold by Great Overland Station to the Minneapolis group. From the time when that sale happened, it has been contested in court, so there has been no way that the group could maintain the locomotive or even gain access to it.

Prior to the sale, was also prior to the re-activation of the group that wants to care for the locomotive. So, in that period, the group had no claim on the locomotive and no basis to challenge Great Overland Station which was prohibiting anyone from working on the locomotive.

If you go back further to a period before Great Overland Station lost interest in restoring the locomotive, there was a lot of volunteer work underway to restore and maintain the locomotive. That ended by order of the Great Overland Station when they lost interest in the project.

I don’t know if this dispute goes any further legally. If not, I guess the Minneapolis group takes possession, and we will eventually see the result. I would have preferred that the engine stayed in Topeka with all of its missing parts returned, and be responsibly maintained as a static display.

Incidentally, the article says that Great Overland Station has proven its ownership of the locomotive prior to the sale. In everything I have heard up to this point, they were unable to prove ownership. So I am curious as to what form of “proof” finally was presented.

I don't understand your point about the group not having their legal affairs in order. They took it to court, and the judge ruled against them. Another judge may have ruled for them. Maybe someone can explain the legal reasoning behind the outcome.

From reading the court's decision, the only document showing ownership of the locomotive was the bill of sale from the Santa Fe to the City of Topeka. Nobody could produce a document showing the transfer to Great Overland Station nor a document showing a transfer to the Children's Group. Since there was not any other documentation the court ruled that the City of Topeka still maintains ownership.

Does the city then want CSRail to gain ownership and move 3463 or let it sit and rot? Last summer I went and looked it over. Its in a fairly inaccessible area, and without the work ASRail did it would be a eyesore looking on the verge of abandonment.

Is there a Web link directly to the text and supporting materials of the decision?

Something I noted in the news story is that the City government was refused summary judgment (which they had apparently filed a motion to secure) regarding at least some aspect of the title question. Without seeing the actual decision, I have to wonder whether the controlling 'bill of sale' is in fact the ... wasn't it a deed of gift, or something like that? ... instrument from the Santa Fe giving the locomotive to "the children of Topeka"? (That being one big reason the nonprofit group had the word 'children' in its title, iirc.)

Be interesting to see what Mr. Wilkins and GME have to say about this currently.

Mr. Wilkins won't have comment for a while. He's hunkered down in his office working on an appellate brief..

Is that explanation of the court decision completely clear to everyone here?

Pretty much - the complainant never owned it, so they had no basis on which to claim it in the first place. None of the ancillary things brought up mattered either, just noise and obfuscation. Chapter and verse quoted to explain for those who want to dig up the precedent. Documentary evidence beats lack of evidence apart from unsubstantiated claims.

So the City of Topeka still owns it. Great Overland Station never owned it and had to right to sell it to the Minneapolis group. Now the Minneapolis group is trying to purchase it from the City of Topeka. Does the City want to sell the engine to the Minneapolis group? If the Minneapolis group cannot finance the transportation, what will the City do with the locomotive?

As I understand this, the CSR group from Minneapolis does not own the locomotive as they had assumed. The City has owned the locomotive from the time it was donated it to them by the ATSF to the present. However, the City has not realized that they have owned it all along and still own it. They had assumed that they had given it to the Great Overland Station. Clearly, the City had decided they did not want to maintain and display the locomotive as the ATSF had stipulated when they donated the locomotive to the City. The evidence for the City’s loss of interest in displaying and maintaining the locomotive is that they gave it to the Great Overland Station.

So now the City finds the locomotive and responsibility for it back in their lap. What will they do? I doubt they will be enthused about restoring and maintaining it as a display, especially now that it has been partially disassembled with parts removed and taken elsewhere.

So they have the choice of either selling or donating it to the CSR group to use a scientific test bed, or selling or donating it to the Children of Topeka group who wishes to display and maintain it in Topeka. With either choice, the recipient must immediately relieve the City from the liability and responsibility for storing the locomotive.

Both groups have specific plans for the locomotive, but the plans require funding. The CSR plan also calls for a very expensive transportation move from Topeka to Minneapolis. What if neither one of these groups can assume the responsibility for owning this locomotive? The City also has the option of scraping the locomotive, which would provide an immediate solution to the issue of liability.

A press release from the Coalition For Sustainable Rail:

http://csrail.org/newsroom/

Sounds like they want to keep the locomotive in Topeka.

From the article:

Steam Train Lawsuit Receives Clarity, CSR Position Regarding ATSF 3463 Validated

T O P E K A, K A N S A S | April 11, 2017 – Shawnee County District Court has ruled in favor of Sustainable Rail International d/b/a Coalition for Sustainable Rail (CSR) in its case concerning quiet title of the former Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway (ATSF) steam locomotive No. 3463.

“Now that the court has determined that TCSFR does not have sufficient standing to remain in the lawsuit, we look forward to working with the City of Topeka to resolve the matter,” said CSR President Davidson Ward. “Of specific importance to CSR is outlining a realistic path forward that provides for the preservation of No. 3463 and a secure facility in Topeka for it to call home.”

***********************************************************************


CSR had claimed they owned the locomotive. How did the court validate that position and rule in favor of CSR when they found that the City of Topeka owns the locomotive and not CSR?

When CSR says they are working with the City to resolve the matter, what matter do they want to resolve, and how do they expect to resolve it?

Why is it of specific importance to CSR that there be a path forward that provides for the preservation of the locomotive in a secure facility to call home in Topeka?

I wonder what happened to the torrefied-wood project that was supposed to use the 3463 as a symbol. A quick and sloppy internet search doesn't disclose any news from the world of torrefaction, and my mailbox isn't stuffed with offers to sell me 20-ton truckloads of refried wood pellets that replace coal at a big fraction of coal's energy density. Did the collapse of oil and gas prices croak this research effort?

Aarne Frobom
Biomass City, Michigan

That link above gives lots of news about their torrefied fuel project, but it seems as if they have given up on acquiring #3463 for use with the fuel promotion. Overall, their statements in the linked article make no sense to me.

What we are seeing here is cleverly-crafted spin from CSR. They claim victory of sorts, but the facts in the above-linked Court Memorandum and Decision are abundantly clear.

1. CSR "purchased" the locomotive from the Great Overland Station.
2. Great Overland Station did not own the locomotive.
3. The City of Topeka owns the locomotive.
4. The Children group never had any real claim.

While I agree with the CSR press release that the court's decision gives the muddled mess some "clarity" it doesn't mean CSR won. CSR signed a purchase agreement to buy something from someone who had no ownership interest. I hope no money changed hands.

Also, CSR stating that they want to keep the locomotive in Topeka is also very telling. I assume CSR's main planned source of income for the project (government grants for alternative fuels research) has dried up, and thus the need to convert 3463 is no longer needed. In fact, if you read further on the CSR page, they are doing biofuel tests, but they are also asking for people like us to donate money to make those tests happen. It's a far cry from the big dreams and plans heralded four years ago.

David Wilkins
Brooklyn Bridge-For-Sale, Utah