Technically, you are correct that one organization can raise funds for something owned by another.

HOWEVER, to apply for most grant funding (government or private foundation) and to solicit contributions that would be tax deductible, the thing (locomotive, roundhouse, whatever) must be owned by either a tax exempt entity or governmental body (3713 belongs to SNHS, 1522 belonged to Museum of Transport, Bob Julian Roundhouse to State of NC - you get the drift), or at the very least, properly and legally leased. People or entities may give money to anyone they want as long as it's legal, but most "gifts" would likely have tax implications for the giver or recipient and certainly would not be deductible. Further, any government funding for a privately owned locomotive as is the case here would be precarious, to say the least. That's the rub, paying to fix up someone else's toy. However, if you really want to qualify for something like that, be legitimate and above board with a defined purpose (and a proper lease arrangement) - Ross Rowland has been successful at this, but keep in mind that railroading's PT Barnum has put a pile of his own money into his projects as well. (NO debate on Ross needs to be started here, please.)

I think the overriding issue here is that the owner of this locomotive is somewhat flakey and cannot be pinned down on definitive terms. The element of control seems to be a major sticking point from what I am gathering and I'm not sure that even a direct gift would do the job here, as I'm not sure that the owner is qualified to do much more than hold title to engine. He certainly does not seem to be qualified to repair, maintain, and run the thing (takes lots of political saavy these days unless you own the RR). At least Jack Showalter knew enough to repair, run, and maintain his stuff to a somewhat decent standard given his limited funding when he if fact could find places to operate his engines - same goes for the late Mr. Hart. And, again, Ross has taken steps to minimize decay on his locomotive.

So, what I'm really trying to say is that while technically you may be correct, the other poster's somewhat blanket statement was intended to mean "generally and what is almost universal" in situations like this.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.p ... 745&nseq=2

May 2008............

So, what I'm really trying to say is that while technically you may be correct, the other poster's somewhat blanket statement was intended to mean "generally and what is almost universal" in situations like this.

In recent weeks, there's been a couple exceptionally bad opinions and most involve blanket statements or generalizations (about the nature of nonprofits, their limitations, etc).

As I recall, a single exception is all that is necessary to negate a universal and the potential exception is more than a point of order in philosophical disputation, its the real issue here.

As you pointed out a (properly structured) lease could allow the expenditure of funds to restore/rehabilitate/maintain a private locomotive. That's the key point-and if some group operates on the premise that cooperating with a private owner is impossible, it might explain much. If I had acquired a locomotive and some group approached me stating "hey we'd like to help you fix up your engine" but insisted on acquiring ownership or control, I could understand the owner's reluctance, especially given the tone of some of the posts here.

“Yes I'm one of those folks who spent over 2 years of time never to come out ahead and at the last minute to have Glenn Campbell stop returning phone calls or he would tell me the some story his board would not vote on it. Only to find out he could not produce the name of the board member or the party who was upset.

[b]I know many folks and groups with good intentions have tried to get the locomotive including the Carnegie Museum but the owner does not want to part with his trophey. He has claimed to many folks who want to see it run that he is willing to let it go but when the money comes around he runs and hides and does not return phone calls at all.”

“How old is the good man? Perhaps he will pass on before the engine is unrestorable.”

“There was absolutely NOTHING but "You Know Who" standing between us and seeing her finally run under her own power. We had sufficient leadership present to make sure everything was done right, too.”

“I think the overriding issue here is that the owner of this locomotive is somewhat flakey and cannot be pinned down on definitive terms.”

If these gems underlie attempted “contacts” with owner, I think his unresponsiveness is understandable, even admirable. Less restrained individuals might dismiss such inquiries with forceful directions to perform acts whose nature are unsuitable for elaboration in a family forum.

I realize this is a tempest in a teapot but seriously, some of the posters here really need to think before they start tapping the keyboard.

Fully conceded and agreed with.

However, much as I agree that hostile nay-saying is counter-productive in a situation like this, it doesn't negate the other reality:

For every Nelson Blount, there's a Paulsen Spence.

For every Milwaukee 261, there's a PRR 1361.

For every Dick Yager/765, there's a Dick Jensen/5629.

For every Ohio Central, there's a pasture in Ohio full of rotting trolleys.

There are some who have proposed that, just like auto drivers need to be licensed, that people should be trained and licensed before being permitted to have children. Some of these folks aren't even being satirical. But you have to agree that, much as the concept flies in the faces of Nature, common sense, human rights, and practicality, those proposing such a regulation have a point.