| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| straw poll - lost count https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3343 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Dave [ Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:14 am ] |
| Post subject: | straw poll - lost count |
I had been keeping track of posted responses to the posting on the Old Board about the lawsuit over DLW 952 in an effort to see how many were either supportive of MOT or against the lawsuit, or supportive of the suers and for the lawsuit. I think there was one for the suers and about 20 for MOT before the thread died? Anybody else keeping up with it? Also seem to remember a general feeling this wasn't considered the ideal way for us in the industry to work through conflicts - do I remember right? Dave irondave@bellsouth.net |
|
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: straw poll - lost count |
Gee, Dave, just when I was hoping we were all gonna let that conversation die down for a while... :-) As I recall, one posted defended the suit as a means of clarifying the underlying ownership of the engine for once and for all (while remaining otherwise netrual on where the engine quote-belongs-unquote), at least one poster was supportive of returning the engine to the anthracte country by any means necessary, and most of the other posts were hostile to the idea of settling disputes within our movement this way. Some were warm defenders of MOT, some were simply hostile to the notion of mawsuits, dismissing them as a waste of scarce resources, etc. So I would rate it at least 1 pro, many con, and 1 "other/neutral" eledbetter@rypn.org |
|
| Author: | Tom Cox [ Wed Jun 19, 2002 12:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: straw poll - lost count |
Sometimes when disputes cannot be resolved it is necessary to go to the courthouse. However, I believe that the actions of the plaintiff's , the Pa. group, reflect very poorly on rail preservation in general. Can we learn anything from this? The answer is "of course" and while some of you may not like it is important that "exhibition/loan agreements" or "movie rental agreements" be reviewed by legal counsel. As one of our local museums volunteer attorneys I have reviewed numerous contracts which I hope have resulted in avoiding legal trouble. Also, I would really like to see is a copy of the law suit because in Federal Court the plaintiff is suppose to plead all the facts that entitled them to recovery. tcox@parknet.pmh.org |
|
| Author: | Rob Davis [ Wed Jun 19, 2002 2:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Check off Other |
> So I would rate it at least 1 pro, many con, > and 1 "other/neutral" It's alarming how many times in my life I check off the "other" box. "Other" in the case means "Just settle it." Then we can forget #952 and figure how camelback #592 is getting out of Balitmore and back to New Jersey. JUST KIDDING! I enjoyed Mr. Cox's post about good legal planning. Part of the notion of rail preservation moving into the traditional museum world is that all those dotted "i's" and crossed "t's" count. I look at the sad situation with #952, and I don't bemoan it ending up in court... I bemoan that the deal was so bad that five decades later there's still no final interpretation. That's what the parties will get out of the suit. If it was done better the first time, this might not have happened. But hindsight is 20/20, and railroad preservation was hardly organized or savvy back then. It's funny how the quality of deals vary. Remember when Steamtown got its second Maine Central 2-8-0 under the stipulation MEC got it back if Steamtown moved? They moved and keeping the engine in New England went smooth, and she is now in North Conway awaiting $$$ (an MEC town, no less). Then again, I am reminded about other museums where privately owned equipment (and museum-owned, too) has been left to rust and rot as if no one wanted it, despite the good intentions, and often times clouded ownership is the culprit. Strange how things go... Rob Davis trains@robertjohndavis.com |
|
| Author: | Dave [ Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | thanks |
For all the input. This has been worrying me for a while, not in specific but as a general professional principle. I am not personally involved with either party or interested in 952 other than to have been very impressed with the fine job MOT did in its restoration. I wish I had more real information as to the quality and nature of the claim the PA guys have on her ownership. It is hard to imagine she could be in better hands from a strict preservationists POV than she is in now. Sloppy or absent agreements have haunted more than one museum and will probably continue to do so until they are identified and resolved. Shame this one can't be resolved in the family. This might be a good awakening to any museum officer with cloudy-titled stuff around to write some agreements and get them signed before 50 years go by and somebody wants to make changes. Maybe Tom could offer some general guidelines for the rest of us laymen? Dave irondave@bellsouth.net |
|
| Author: | Erik Ledbetter [ Wed Jun 19, 2002 7:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: thanks |
> This might be a good awakening to any museum > officer with cloudy-titled stuff around to > write some agreements and get them signed > before 50 years go by and somebody wants to > make changes. There have been some whoppers in the not-so-distant past. Famously, the Railroad Museum of Pennsylvania had to scramble to purchase title to the PRR locomotive collection from the Penn Central Corporation (the property and real estate holding company which was the remnant of the by-then-defunct/merged into Conrail RR)--1979 was the year I beleive, maybe Kurt can recount the tale for us. Less well known, I beleive the B&O Museum had to work out title issues to some of the equipment which was on the property when the keys were turned over by CSX and the Museum was spun off as an independent nonprofit in 1989. I don't recall the details if I ever really knew them, but I beleive the C&O Historical Society had a title claim to some of the C&O equipment which was on the property, even though CSX had presumably conveyed a good title to the Museum at the time of the spin-off. It was all resolved through quiet negotiation is my understanding. eledbetter@rypn.org |
|
| Author: | Brian Norden [ Wed Jun 19, 2002 10:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: thanks |
> Sloppy or absent agreements have haunted > more than one museum and will probably > continue to do so until they are identified > and resolved. Shame this one can't be > resolved in the family. Over the years, I have heard stories that absent agreements, etc. have haunted even the "mainstream" and local historical society museums. The State of California some years ago enacted a law that allows museums that have undocumented items and met certain conditions to go through a process to claim and obtain title. This was included in an AAM published book on legal issues of collection management. Brian Norden bnorden49@earthlink.net |
|
| Author: | Bob Yarger [ Thu Jun 20, 2002 9:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Save lawsuits for where they are needed. |
I think we should save lawsuits for things that are really endangered, by hostile owners, railroad companies, etc.. When they are filed against each other within our ranks, it makes us all look like big kids fighting over a toy. The media then thrives on such controversy and makes us all look bad. When a DL&W roundhouse is authentically restored to look as it did in the steam era, it will then be time to bring it back to Anthracite country. Otherwise, I don't see much difference whether it sits at Steamtown or St. Louis. ryarger@rypn.org |
|
| Author: | Rob Davis [ Thu Jun 20, 2002 11:05 am ] |
| Post subject: | Two DL&W Roundhouses |
Gee Bob, she sure would look fine in Kingston, PA or Conklin, NY at the DL&W roundhouses there. Time to buy that lottery ticket! ;-) Rob trains@robertjohndavis.com |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|