To correct a statement on another thread, the current status of the 952 matter is that the Lackawanna Chapter of the R&LHS filed a lawsuit in Federal court some 18 or so months ago demanding the return of the locomotive(in full working condition) based on the assertion that the museum in St.Louis had violated the terms of the original loan agreement dateing from the 1950's.
St. Louis attempted to have the case dismissed and failed. The Federal court in Penna. did allow the venue to be moved to Missouri where it now is. Depositions are now being taken in anticipation of a trial which should commence later this calendar year.
I have had the opportunity to review the evidence and it's my lay opinion that based on the facts at issue the Chapter has a strong case. However, how important the facts will be vs. the reality of it going to trial in the Museums backyard is impossible to judge.
If the Chapter wins a full verdict on all counts of the complaint, the Museum will be required to not only return the locomotive to the Chapter but also to restore it to full working order.
IMHO it's a shame that the parties weren't able to negotiate a settlement as now tens of thousands are being spent on lawyers not on preservation. As most of you know the St.Louis operation is now owned by the County so if they should lose there will be the money there to satisfy the verdict.
Those close to the case hope the trial will commence later this summer.
Ross Rowland....no s please......

Truly a shame that the two parties could not sit down and hammer out an agreement. I am a firm believer that if there were more honest discussions, there would be less litigation. But then how would all of those lawyers support their families?

There's profit in disagreement.

Later!
Mr. Ed

I'm 100% with you Mr. Ed, however I can state for a fact that in this case the folks in St. Louis were absolute in their unwillingness to even enter into serious discussions of the matter.
My gut is that they(The County) seriously mis-judged the Chapters conviction(and financial abilities) and at least operated like they thought they could ignore the whole thing and it would go away.
Now they're full square involved in Federal court and risking a verdict which if it goes against them will cost them several million dollars. Oh well, its only taxpayer money-not the real thing!
Ross Rowland....no s please.........

Back in 2000, the day of the canceled 1522 trip to Hannibal, I visited the MofT in Kirkwood. At that time the 952 was in the shop getting some much-needed cosmetic work. We were allowed into the shop and I took some pictures, some of which wound up on John Craft's Steamcentral.com website.

A few days later I got some very threatening e-mails from Molly Karsten, the Director of the Museum, accusing me of all sorts of nefarious conduct regarding my pictures, and alleging some underhanded dealings involving the Steamcentral.com website. (Karsten is the wife of Ben Butterworth, of Illinois Transit Assembly.)

Why they would pick a fight with me - when I had nothing to do with the 952 or its current situation - is a big mystery to me. I haven't been back to the museum since.

Chris Jacks.

If my memory serves me correctly, didn't this engine get a very extensive cosmetic restoration a few years ago? If this is the case, one would think that a major part of restoration has already been taken care of.

Just my two "sense"

JD Johnson, Morehead and North Fork Railroad Historian

This topic is so unsuited to rational discussion in this forum that I'm surprised it has gotten this far. Needless to say the folks in St. Louis would disagree, to say the least, with most of Ross's assertions on the case. It is too bad that it is in the courts, but let's leave it there. The passions it brings up are already being seen, and they are strongly held on both sides. We can't solve it here.

This topic (as with any topic) can remain active as long as the discussion remains civil and focused on the case. Discussion over opinions should be focused on the content of the opinions - not the person(s) behind them.

This case has wider implications for railway preservation and preservation generally - and learning more about the facts of this case would be most useful. Such facts could include - the date and court where the case was first filed, the docket number of the current case, and references to similar cases and precedents.

A discussion of this case in its larger legal context would be most useful for understanding what the important and relevant aspects of this case are and how it might be decided. Devolving into ad-hominem attacks on either the posters or the organizations involved are not helpful to anyone - and are most certainly not relevant to the case at hand.

Tom Cornillie

I will withold my comments on the DL&W engine but I wonder has any engine or artifact be caught up in such a position in the history of railway preservation? Perhaps Dick Jensen's engines?

Joshua

This is an interesting point, as I believe that in regards to the Jensen locomotives the courts treated them as property and not as historic objects. However, I could be wrong on this.

My guess is that the case of DL&W 952 would relate more to cases dealing with museums that have custody of smaller objects (of art, antiquity, or natural history).

Tom Cornillie

Tom makes an important point and I agree that when all the facts emerge thru the court proceedings some important lessons will be learned for many in the preservation community.
The cosmetic work on the 952 was done after the commencement of the argument One of the tenants of the complaint(one of many) is that the loco. was neglected for many years in violation of one of the key clauses of the original loan agreement. From photos I've been shown from the 70's,80's and 90's which clearly show her positioned in the far back of the property with brush&trees growing out of her and all around her, I'd say the evidence supports that assertion.
Again, from more recent photos I've seen there clearly has been some effort to clean her up and at least make her exterior appearance more acceptable. Cosmetic restoration and operational restoration are birds of an entirely different feather. Operational restoration on that very old loco. will run well into 7 figures and take 2/3 years.
It will be very instructive for the restoration community to see how the Federal court rules on this issue and particularly how the court interperts the clauses of the 1950's loan document. I would hope that at some point once the trial commences that all the relavent papers will be available on-line so that all who care can follow the deliberations.
My guess as stated above is(just my guess) that the facts would seem to strongly support the Chapters argument however there's no way to tell how the court will find.
One thing is certain. There are within this suit important issues (i.e. definition of "permanent loan", definition of "good working order", definition of "reasonable wear and tear excepted" etc.) that have important long term meaning for all involved in our industry.
Barring a very unlikely pre-trial settlement it should prove very interesting.
Ross Rowland....no s please...........

Mr. Rowland makes some inaccurate statements. I am going to give him the benefit of a doubt and summarize that his information was incorrect, and no malicious intent was meant. Here are some facts culled from the court documents, which are publicly available.

1. The Docket number is 4:04-CV-00734. The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh presiding.

2. The original action was filed on October 10, 2002 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.

3. Nothing really happened to the case until March of 2004 when the case was transferred to the ED of Missouri. To do this, the federal court in Pennsylvania had to agree to the transfer. Since the object of the litigation is the locomotive itself, which is located in St. Louis County, it makes sense.

4. Probably the most recent "real action" in the case is a motion for summary judgment filed by St. Louis County on 2/07/06. Summary judgment is a request by the trial court to end the case before it goes to trial. It serves as a final adjudication of the case on its merits.

5. I checked and read the most recent amended complaint by the plaintiffs. They ARE NOT requesting that the locomotive be returned in operational condition, as stated by Rowland. The complaint, as amended contains three counts. The relief sought for each count consists of the following.
-An order to return the locomotive to the chapter
-Damages for the supposed unlawful detention of the locomotive
-Any other relief the court feels appropriate.

6. There are actually two plaintiffs in the action - The Lackawanna Chapter of the R&LHS and the Friends of the New Jersey Railroad and Transportation Museum Commission.

The case should be interesting to see what happens. I think the issue highlights the importance of making sure your loan agreements actually mean what you think they mean. I notice that museums today use terms such as "long term custodial loan" to indicate that the loan may end at some point in the future. While I cannot think of the citations off the top of my head, I believe courts have held such terms as "permanent loan, and indefinite loan" to mean basically mean forever, unless the agreement states otherwise.

I’d like to further add that neither side will probably officially comment on pending litigation. This is common practice. I doubt we will see St. Louis County, the Museum of Transportation, The R&LHS Chapter, and the New Jersey group officially comment, all on the advice of their counsel. I’d further like to state that I am not an agent or representative of either side in this matter. The information above was culled from documents available to the general public. Anyone has access to these.

Do you have a cite for the case?

Thank you tractionboss for that update. If you're correct regarding the plaintiffs no longer demanding the return of the loco. in working order, that's a relatively new development(relative to when I last discussed this with someone from the Chapter) and a surprising(to me) one at that!
Again, as this case clearly has bearing on our industry I'd recommend keeping an eye on it.
Ross Rowland....no s please............

I found the case in Lexis, only the decision to
hear the case in Mo. has occured so far.
If you want I will send you the text of the case.

Actually, according to the first complaint available through Westlaw (citation 2002 WL 32760336) the relief sought is the same as in the most recent amended complaint (citation 2004 WL 2878029) filed in 2004, the relief sought is the same. In either case the return of the locomotive to operational condition DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN ASKED FOR. My guess is that your "source" is incorrect. Since the case has proceeded to the summary judgment stage, I doubt that the 2004 amended complaint will be amended again.

All information above was taken from public records available to anyone. I viewed them using Westlaw.