I agree that the shame here is that to date all of the different courts have only discussed/ruled on the technicalities of the statue of linitations, not on whether the borrower (MOT) violated the terms of the loan agreement. Anyone who has seen the photos of her on the MOT's back-lot in the 90's with sappling trees growing up through her running boards doesn't need an attorney to answer that question.

Perhaps by some miracle this will tickle the fancy of a closet foamer on one of the Justice's staff and they'll get it on the docket AND a second miracle will occur with the high court remanding it for trial on the merits?? EXTREMELY unlikely BUT not impossible!!

Yes, SO the Lackawanna chapter of the R&LHS will continue on I suspect after this issue is gone.

IMHO-Ross Rowland

Even more unlikely and closer to impossible:

That the Lackawanna Chapter R&LHS will put some constructive energy, labor, and/or monies towards a certain DL&W steam locomotive in Scranton. Or into restoring Lackawanna equipment in storage for a future NJ Museum of Transportation.

I celebrate one of the rare instances wherein I concur with a posting of ADM4 and find it also largely correct.

IMHO there is next to zero probibility that the Lackawanna Chapter will be an active supporter of the effort in Scranton on the "other" DL&W engine as the individual with the $$$$$$$$ is passionate about the 952, none others.Unfortunatly for the MOT's sake they pissed off the wrong guy!!! Most foamers are stone broke,but this guy has VERY deep pockets!!

Also, the sad reality is that there is no "future" to a future NJMuseum of Trans. They blew that chance 15 years ago and with the State on the cusp of bankruptcy and the various histerical outfits penniless,disorganized and scattered to the 4 winds it ain't got NO chance.

Sad but factual!!

Ross Rowland

If the guy funding this legal battle has pockets are THAT deep maybe he should try to offer hard cash in return for a lease with return to MOT at a later date. Cash from the lease being used to fund an campaign to fix up other equipment/displays.

Yeah, but.......... that would entail eventually returning it to St. Louis. Do you really think they'll let that happen?

But the end of the day, MOT has the engine, and apart from putting a few lawyers' kids through college and whatever thrill he may be receiving from the pursuit of untamed waterfowl, at this point those deep pockets of his don't seem to have accomplished anything to change that, pissed off or otherwise.

Unfortunately, it seems to me we're now dealing with pissed off people on both sides of the issue, so with the legal options more or less exhausted (apart from appealing to the supreme court, which is by all accounts a long shot), the only remotely viable way to bring the engine back east is to come to some kind of agreement. I was only half joking earlier when I asked at what point does it become cheaper and easier to build a replica. Seriously, take those deep pockets down to Strasburg, have them build a visually-exact but non-working replica of the engine (presumably any new camelback replica would be banned from operation by the same law that outlawed them in the first place) and offer it up to the MOT in trade. However, if the MOT were ever the least bit inclined to negotiate some kind of a trade, I'm guessing they aren't anymore. In hindsight, I guess it's too bad she didn't go to Green Bay instead!

Yes the MOT failed to uphold their end of the agreement by neglecting the engine and letting her rot, but the Lackawanna Chapter also neglected to do what was required of them by not proceeding with their legal action until the statute of limitations had elapsed. If the supposed "merits" of the case are that the MOT didn't care enough about the engine and the agreement to keep it maintained (something that, to their credit, they have since remedied), how is the fact that the Lackawanna Chapter didn't care enough to pursue legal action during the statute of limitations not also one of the merits of the case? If there's a moral to this story, it's that if you have something out on loan to a museum, be prepared with a "plan B" before you ask for it back. If they say "no", the clock starts ticking on the statute of limitations. Simple as that.

One last thing, is it just me or does "replevin" sound like some kind of prescription medication from a TV commercial? Side effects include nausea, irrational behavior, and foaming at the mouth...

Now that's funny! :-)

The only whole in your argument rjenkins is that in America if you've got the gelt you have the right to spend it as you please.

I'd love to see the Supreme Court hear it especially if by some miracle part of their discussion at least touched on the core issue of neglect!!

Guess we'll someday see!!

Ross Rowland

Can't argue with that, otherwise it might be possible to convince him that from an operating perspective, a C&O Greenbriar would make a far better investment! It just seems sad to have such a rare combination of seemingly limitless disposable income and a passion for steam, yet he would rather squander it on a legal vendetta, instead of trying to think outside the box to accomplish what would seem to be the real goal of seeing his favorite locomotive under steam.

Sad to say, for as much resources that are being blown on the principle of the thing, there's no knowing what condition said engine might be in if MOT had not taken it. The plaintiff should be happy in the main that his actions led to the engine being fixed up. Home rails no, but it was a loan and there are a lot of engines that are doing far worse out there--even some that were running and spiffy in the 1990's.

Still, since this has become a matter of "principle" it won't be over until all legal avenues are exhausted. Sadly, that may mean a new case predicated on different law next time. THIS is the reason that museums eschew "loans" and want title to donations--simply to avoid this kind of black hole.

Michael Seitz
Missoula MT

You know what? I'd love to see this "agreement" that is being bandied about so freely.
I've hung around the MOT for many more years than I'd care to admit and recall when the 952 arrived. There's no way in hell that she was operational and had the appearance of a circus train engine from when the DL&W "backdated" her. Memory is a bit dim, but I think she was missing her sand dome.
So here's the challenge: Scan the agreement and post a copy of it here so we can all share the real facts of the issue. Too damned many "I saw" "I heard" "I was told" and other half truths, non truths and pure fabrication and unfounded bloviating.

Mr. Beckman is quite correct, no gloves are used. Base ball (yes, two words) went through quite a period of change from 1858 (first nationally published rules) to about 1886. By the time you get there, the game resembles today's game. Without going into too much of a dissertation on the subject, I'll say that only in 1860s base ball could I be an offensive juggernaut, I'll briefly list some of the changes. Keeping it rail-related, I first saw the game at Greenfield Village in the early 2000s, while riding the train.

1. No gloves
2. Hand wound ball with "lemon peel" stiching (it's still pretty hard, but softens up and goes "dead" after use"
3. Bats no thicker than 2 and 3/4" all wood.
4. Home plate is a round metal plate
5. Hurler or pitcher stands 45 feet away, underhand pitch.
6. Balls caught after one bound are still considered out.
7. Position players play straight up, only the short scout is allowed to roam.
8. Funny uniforms. I wear canvas pants, suspenders, and even some 1860s style base ball shoes.
9. The ball is determined whether to be fair or foul by where it first strikes the ground. No bunting, but you can "fair-foul" it by hitting it "fair" down in front of the plate and hoping the ball runs foul. I tried one of these for the first time on Sunday and it landed perfectly 45 feet down the third base line and stopped in "dead man's land" I easily trotted to first.

Lots of other differences, but lots of fun to play. If your museum has the space, consider inviting a couple of local clubs to play a match and incorporate a rails to the ballgame theme.

Message me offline if you want to hear more. By the way, I'm pretty much finsihed the talking about the 952. My one last comment is that this alleged "agreement" was never produced in the court file. Even if MOT had lived up to this alleged "agreement" the violation of the alleged "agreement" was not the real legal issue at play. The chapter wanted "their" locmotive back. MOT could have fully resored it and kept it in a climate control room attended to by eunichs who polished it every day and oiled the moving parts, and it wouldn't have made a bit of difference. The legal cause of action pusued by the chapter was the return of the locomotive. The alleged violation of the alleged agreement was just some salacious facts that they could throw around to trump up interest/their side of the story. In the end, if it's your "property" act like it and don't sit around for six-seven years before you do something. This topic has morphed from being informative to being a platform for some to bloviate about the issue, without credibility, in order to hear themselves talk.

Some might say that perhaps I resemble that remark??? Perhaps, if it had been kept as described by Mr. Wilkins but instead of being attended to by Eunich's had been kept in good order by certified master steam studs it might have been different?????

As I previously posted I have seen the file containing the voluminous correspondence between the parties way back when, and one of the key documents is the one between Perry Shoemaker and John Roberts that I spoke to. Where/how/when the Plaintiff intends/intended to introduce that into the process I don't know. I have not been at all involved since moving to the North Country in 2004.

Really doesn't matter. The undisputed facts are that the MOT was clearly guilty of gross negligence in allowing the locomotive to reach the depths of neglect evidenced by the widely published photos of her inthe early-mid 90's and that's the core issue. Fortunatly either as a result of the R&LHS's renewed interest in "their" engine or if you prefer by coincindence that has been at least cosmetically addressed. So no matter whose side you're on, the subject locomotive has at least limitedly benefited.

As I'm a certified terminal dreamer...I still hope the US Supreme Court will remand it with orders to try it on the core issue of failure to act responsibly and in accordance with the loan stipulations.

Hope springs eternal.

Ross Rowland

Post the damned correspondence and be done with it. Do like our President and make sure C-Span televises it. Oh wait, that didn't happen either did it?

Just an observation:

If I were a judge looking at this kind of thing, here's what I'd say:

"Okay, you want to shift this from the statute of limitations to enforcement of this purported agreement, saying "maintain in working order." It went out to Missouri when, again? 1953? 1954? Can you produce any evidence that said loco was in working order when it left? So.............. why did nobody from the Chapter say anything between 1955 and 1995? Did NOBODY in any way connected to the Society ever think to check up on the darned thing? Take a little detour on a trip, visit the place, request an annual status report, whatever?"