It is currently Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:48 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:49 am 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm
Posts: 1753
"Superheater, the resident guy in the green visor, could probably provide more information about the regulatory nuances, as he did regarding the transfer of Nickel Plate 757 by the Rail Road Museum of PA to the folks in OH. He also helped prepare the locomotive for transfer from Scranton to CPR."

1.) I am not an attorney and have never filed a FOIA request, and have no knowledge of the procedure. We have some attorneys on the board-perhaps they can advise.

2.) This particular thread has already produced a predictably tedious response by the resident vexatious litigant-the one most afflicted with that particular monomania lamented by Wilhelm Roepke as the "cult of the colossal" and I'm not particularly in the mood to travel down that road right now.

I'd like to look forward to spending a couple of days enjoying the latest product of the the dynamic duo from Indiana-They are so productive and so unpretentious-inimitable models of industry and humility. It's even better that they are father and son.

Jeddo 85 is almost family in as much as it worked near where my father went to grade school and late Uncle resided (Ebervale, PA) and wasn't too far from where a great Uncle worked (Ashmore). I think I remember its replacement-a center cab-and had a vague idea that little tank engines worked there-never imagining I'd see one in operation. I'm avoiding unpleasantries for a couple weeks.

Post Script:

"CP owns 2816, steamtown sold it to them back in 1998".

Generally speaking, the Park Service doesn't "sell" things in the sense that there's a cash exchange-my memory of it was that deal was made for promises of equipment or considerations. I would like to see any written agreement if any-was executed and what it specified. Regardless of its subsequent restoration and operation-the same principal applies to the NPS that applies to PHMC-they are not supposed to be giving things away (in this case to foreign countries)-and I don't see anything as having been provided.

Personally, I'd have told them that a fair trade was 2816 for 7312. I wasn't asked.

They also gave away UP 737, but that was to U.S. entity-so I have no similar argument with that transfer in principle-but there might be DOI/NPS rules governing transfers.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 7:12 am 

Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:08 am
Posts: 240
superheater wrote:
"Superheater, the resident guy in the green visor, could probably provide more information about the regulatory nuances, as he did regarding the transfer of Nickel Plate 757 by the Rail Road Museum of PA to the folks in OH. He also helped prepare the locomotive for transfer from Scranton to CPR."

1.) I am not an attorney and have never filed a FOIA request, and have no knowledge of the procedure. We have some attorneys on the board-perhaps they can advise.


Hey Supe - I thought by referencing the green visor you'd recognize that I was referring to the accounting regulatory issues involved in such transactions and not with respect to any potential FOIA request. I edited my post to clarify.

The concept you refer to in your post script - "my memory of it was that deal was made for promises of equipment or considerations" is a legal one, that is, for a contract you have to have some sort of consideration provided by each of the parties to the contract. This can be a future consideration, such as a player-to-be-named later deal in professional sports. The key there is that, if the player to be named is not provided, the party that fails to provide the player to be named is in breach and my understanding is that they have to give the player they received back.

As I said previously and as you and I have discussed before, the CP 2816 transfer is interesting but I do not understand what 6-18003 would do with any information he gets from his FOIA request. My take is that this is an academic exercise.

6-18003 - good luck with your endeavor. I too will be interested to see what you discover. Unfortunately, artifact transfer has been a troublesome concept in rail preservation history and so anything on this board that can illustrate the nuts and bolts of a significant transaction would be helpful.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:19 am 

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 11:07 am
Posts: 522
superheater wrote:
"

1.) I am not an attorney and have never filed a FOIA request, and have no knowledge of the procedure. We have some attorneys on the board-perhaps they can advise.



Many govt agencies consider FOIAs to be hostile actions -- a better route would be to find a congressman who is "pro" steamtown and ask his/ her staff to look into it for you.

Bob H


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:40 am 

Joined: Sat Feb 05, 2005 1:05 am
Posts: 400
G. W. Laepple wrote:
According to the original story on Trains "Newswire," 4501 is being retrofitted with the stoker from CN Pacific No. 5288, which TVRM acquired from Steamtown several years ago.

viewtopic.php?p=172935#p172935

Why not ask TVRM how they got #5288 from Steamtown?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 10:49 am 

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:31 am
Posts: 399
M Austin wrote:


Why not ask TVRM how they got #5288 from Steamtown?


I believe they traded for work on 3713. As far as official paperwork to release an asset, I have no idea.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:19 am 

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:31 am
Posts: 399
Let's start this another way. Has this subject ever been brought up to current Steamtown officials? If there is a loan agreement with a repatriation clause, would Sup. Conway pursue that option under the right conditions?

I would imagine that any such agreement, if it existed, would have limitations on both parties, and it would be wise for current administrators to be aware of such things. Even if it is only a first right of refusal clause.

On the other hand, if there is no agreement, or the agreement has lapsed, it would be nice to know that so we can end the debate.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 1:06 pm 

Joined: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:35 pm
Posts: 315
Location: NJ
Heavenrich wrote:
Many govt agencies consider FOIAs to be hostile actions -- a better route would be to find a congressman who is "pro" steamtown and ask his/ her staff to look into it for you.

Bob H



Working for a government agency that receives many FOIA requests, I wouldn't say they are looked on as a hostile action but rather an inconvenient use of employee time.

We regularly get FOIA requests from private not for profits looking to see "All outstanding bills or unpaid checks for the last five years" or " a list of all firms you have contracts with" This not only takes weeks, if not months to put together, the person on the other end requesting the information is never going to look through all of it.

Specific to the original post, I wonder what the documentation retention requirement is for something of this nature? Realistically if this was a straight sale with no reversion rights, retention of the document may be as little as 7 years.

_________________
cv the civil E in NJ


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 2:16 pm 

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:31 am
Posts: 399
cjvrr wrote:

Specific to the original post, I wonder what the documentation retention requirement is for something of this nature? Realistically if this was a straight sale with no reversion rights, retention of the document may be as little as 7 years.


Another reason why I suspect there may be an agreement as opposed to a sales slip. I expected the usual 'beyond retention' response from CP. They would have to keep a copy though if SNHS could lodge a claim at a later date.

I'd really rather not file a FOIA but there is always a chance that the clock may be ticking.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:06 pm 

Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:50 pm
Posts: 367
Where's Dave Wilkens when you really need him, lol?

1.) I am not an attorney and have never filed a FOIA request, and have no knowledge of the procedure. We have some attorneys on the board-perhaps they can advise.

Rob Gardner


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 6:42 pm 

Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 9:23 am
Posts: 134
Location: willow grove pa
Sometimes just asking works!
Watching this for a bit, sometimes the simple question generates the response desired.

If you write a letter to the Superintendent of Steamtown and just ask for the information with an explanation that you "just want to know" you might be surprised with the response.
Typically managers will take the easy path, you may be required to pay copy fees.

Example - We were stonewalled by our local police department regarding a situation and denied information request. We were told get a lawyer an file a FOIA request. On my way home from the capitol, I was near the State Police records center. I stopped defined what I wanted, they found that and other information that would help. Gave it to me after filling out a form and paying $6.00. Sometimes just asking works!


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2017 11:58 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:54 pm
Posts: 1753
@Scranton Yard

"Hey Supe - I thought by referencing the green visor you'd recognize that I was referring to the accounting regulatory issues involved in such transactions and not with respect to any potential FOIA request. I edited my post to clarify."

No problem-my only question is how do you know that I own these things?

@K5aHudson:

As I recall, the promise of moving equipment may very well have been the legal consideration. However, i don't think that anything was ever moved-and I say that with no particular prejudice as CP was generally willing to help out with providing power to exhibit at Railfest. We had always hoped to see 2816 back, but we all know EHH's attitude towards steam.

A couple of things here. I think any interest here would be prurient curiosity-I can't imagine any way the deal would be re-examined. I think our resident attorneys would likely quote the old adage-possession is 9/10 of the law.

As an aside, assuming near twenty year old documents exist (the more I think about my own experience with public and private document retention, the more I doubt it exists somewhere now) -I'd be very surprised if they were stored at Scranton-if anything, they might have been scanned and sent to some archive somewhere. I honestly don't see much point in bothering Superintendent Conway about something that occurred twenty years ago at the behest of long retired Superintendent Gess. She's got plenty on her plate as it is.

There's simply no chance of expending staff time and effort on that-there is a retirement on Saturday-and another in three months and the shop is short-handed.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 9:47 am 

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:31 am
Posts: 399
superheater wrote:

There's simply no chance of expending staff time and effort on that-there is a retirement on Saturday-and another in three months and the shop is short-handed.


That attitude is why I raised the issue. And why I think it's 100% possible that, assuming SNHS has/had an opportunity to repatriate 2816 to the park, they would fail to act on it.

Sup. Conway has not been in her post long and is not from Pennsylvania. It is likely that she has zero knowledge about 2816, a transfer of equipment that occurred well before her employment at the park.

What I know is that whenever the topic comes up, some parties say that there was a trade for service by CP, while others say that the loco is on long term loan with conditions attached.

I would think that Sup Conway, who currently has no mainline steam to speak of (and you can argue about the park's mission and site interpretation, but it has hurt ticket sales and therefor attendance and revenue), would be very interested in the potential that could be in that transfer document.

I would have to assume that someone overseeing a site that large has a secretary, and that Sup Conway can get a copy of that transfer a lot faster than I can.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:11 am 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 7:19 am
Posts: 5262
Location: southeastern USA
What makes you think Steamtown wants it back? I think they have more on their plate than they can digest at this point.

_________________
"Techies never minded eating bits and jots of their work. They were grit and grease inside and out and could turn a pile of junk into a magical kingdom."

Andrea Hairston


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:21 am 

Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2010 9:31 am
Posts: 399
I would imagine getting 2816 back in operation and cleared for use in the US would be much more advantageous than rebuilding 3377, which is supposedly the current plan following the eventual return of 3713. I believe she has been in dry storage since her fire was dropped?


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: An interesting response re: CP 2816
PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:28 am 

Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 12:18 am
Posts: 250
I've tried to stay as far away from this topic as possible, but I must comment.

During the research process for an article that was published over eleven years ago, I was given the opportunity to look over the paperwork that was prepared between CP and Steamtown. The railroad was adamant that they have clear title to the 4-6-4 before they put a lot of money into it. Therefore there is no lease agreement - CP has clear title/ownership of 2816. According to my contact at the NPS (again, it was over eleven years ago at this point) CP fulfilled their end of the agreement shortly after 2816 departed Steamtown.

This begs the question. Even if they could have it back, why would Steamtown want 2816 back? It's not an American locomotive, and they certainly don't need another indoor display piece (God forbid it sit outside). Right now 2816 has a great home and is well cared for by Canadian Pacific (I saw her two weeks ago). She is the centerpiece of the Heritage Building near CP's headquarters in Calgary.


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], David Notarius, Google [Bot], patentable, Phil Raynes, Purdue66, rusticmike6, Wasatch RR Cont and 44 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: