Good point Mr. ADM4...but then again if your Aunt had you know whats....she'd be your Uncle!!!

Ross Rowland

Well, I know it is bird walking way out on a limb, but neat information. After I read the note about no gloves, my thought was "OUCH!" However, underhanded pitches would make for a somewhat less volatile knock off of the bat, unless by "underhanded pitch", you mean like the softball girls pitch. Having made many trips by Warner Park's softball fields in Chattanooga (TVRM East Chattanooga Belt Line), I can say that underhanded pitching can be quite intimidating when pitched by some "ladies". Also, after one bounce, the ball would lose a lot of its punch.

Does the catcher get any kind of glove or leather pad? Also, I'm thinking a picture of you in that uniform should be part of your profile... :-p

Thanks for the reply. Sounds like a hoot to play or watch!

Best,
Mike

NM*

In my other incarnation as a Civil War reenactor, I have seen a few games of "Rounders" as it was commonly refered to back then. Definitely interesting to watch, although I haven't yet been brave enough to participate.

Regarding 952, Mr. Delhaye if you're out there I think it's time for your "dead horse" graphic........................

But not money, apparently.

The Chapter is in a St. Louis venue which means most likely, they're out long cash dollar for their representation. And here's the St. Louis government, trying to keep parks and crime labs open in THIS economy, and they just missed a bunch of revenue the Chapter threw at lawyers instead of them. Do the supervisors of St. Louis know how much money they're leaving on the table? Do the citizens?

Could've been worse, they could've gone up against Judge Solomon, and they'd each now have half a loco.

HEY!!!!! Finally, Steamtown gets its sectioned locomotive exhibit!

[runs like hell to a secure anti-nuclear bunker]

The MOT is a St. Louis County Park and as such the county has lawyers on staff, so they are just earning their keep.
Had there been a legitimate claim by L&RHS backed by credible paperwork in a timely manner, the case would have been a done deal years ago.
I don't think RYPN is the correct venue to argue the case, especially on rumor, innuendo, failing memories and bloviating.
This is like a badly written soap opera for adolescents. He said, she said, did not, did too, now you've pissed off my big brother and he's gonna whup your butt.
Post the supporting correspondence.

Well, while the hurling is underhanded, the hurlers on my team tend to think that, unlike a modern softball pitch, the older style was a flatter underhanded pitch. Unlike modern fast pitch softball, a hurler in the 1860 game could not "windmill." That said, a couple of the better hurlers on our team can hurl 40 mph + pitches. One can even make it drop and curve.

That being said, the lack of gloves is still a clallenge, especially if you are the short scout (shortstop) or third tender (third baseman). I'm an okay second tender, and have jammed a few fingers trying to stop hard-hit balls. I just let them zing by.

The behind (catcher) does not wear a glove. Around 1864, the "fly game" was introduced, where the ball had to be caught on the bound. Overhand pitching (actually sidearm) came in the 1870s. Only then did you see rudimentary gloves, especially a fingerless model for the behind. By the 1880s, some wore gloves that looked like leather gardening gloves, while some players refused.

Charles "Old Hoss" Radbourn won 59 games in 1884, and I don't think he wore a glove, or not much of one.

Leaving aside the legal technicalities, statute of limitations etc. is there any moral reason for MOT to refuse to return property which they plainly knew was only there on loan?

I mean if they had some reason to think it was being abandoned to them and on that basis made a major investment in it or something like that. But that was clearly not the case.

Sounds like the lender asked for its property back and was told "F U -- If you don't like it we dare you to sue us!"

That the lender didn't do so in time may put the law on MOT's side but I don't see how anyone can find their initial refusal to be morally justified and any further benefit they accrue from that past injustice may be legal but it is still tainted. IMHO.

Steve

I concur with the moral/proper point that is raised. As I recall, MOT did nothing but leave the locomotive to complete neglect until they got some inkling that maybe the owner might want it back and might possibly seek legal remedies. Claims of coincidental timing are dubious at best. Though they claim national significance in their scope, it does occur to me that they readily deaccess other equipment. What's so special about 952 (they have 4 other 4-4-0's - maybe the Wooten)? Other than that, what of it? Especially considering that MOT has no plans to ever make the locomotive operational, why hang on to it? Perhaps the 952 owners could acquire the 2100 and trade it for possession of 952 - one Wooten firebox anthracite road loco for another - nah, that'd make too much sense!

TVRM's acquisition of CN 5288 was met with some criticism due to its origins, but it was acquired with the intention of returning it to service as a living, breathing representative of what similar regional locomotives were, since most/all examples are extinct. I feel similar about the N&W Y6a or the Y3a at Union, though IRM does have not have another articulated locomotive and they apparantly are open to some sort of trade under the right circumstances.



On another note, one thing I do find very appealing about serious rail preservationists and historians is that in most every case, we have various other interests in keeping history alive. Common interests seem to be maritime history, pipe organs, and the Late War of Northern Aggression.

Best,
Mike

On another rail preservation board I frequent, we have been discussing precisely that. That Australian tramway and streetcar board seems to be full of rail/pipe-organ afficianadoes. Nice to know we're not alone.

To keep my post on topic, could I ask for some shots of the loco in question?

Cheers,
Matt

Matt, If you'll google the 952 you'll find tons of photos of her at all stages of her history including her years of abject neglect at the MOT.

Ross Rowland

Someone asked earlier why the R&LHS didn't bother to check the status or condition of 952 for forty or so years. The reason was they could care less! Let's face it, from at least the 1970's on the R&LHS has been an organization past its prime and on the decline. They have what, seven or so local chapters? They get mentioned once a year when they give out their awards for books and articles - kind of like the dubious organization behind the Golden Globe awards.

The R&LHS was approached by a small group of people in the 1990's and asked to contact St. Louis with the aim of getting the 952 returned to them. The R&LHS still didn't have much interest in doing that. The Lackawanna Chapter of the R&LHS was created expressly to take title to the R&LHS claim and run with it. Once created the national R&LHS transferred its title to the new chapter. I suspect from a purely legal point of view transferring this claim was perfectly legit. From a reality point of view the R&LHS was quite content to forget about its ownership for those 40 years because if the museum has tried to give it back to them they likely would have tried to find someone else to take it or even told them to just scrap it.

From a logical big picture point of view the 952 should be on display at Steamtown. When this all started the last DL&W president Perry Shoemaker was still alive and played an active role in trying to put together a decent trade. There were some serious heavy hitters in the industry involved and the stuff that St. Louis was going to get was substantial. The one deal I know of involved a UP steam locomotive and two historic diesels, both operable plus some cash. This was turned down flat. This was in the 1990's just before Perry died. If a deal like that didn't work and obviously a lawsuit didn't work you have to conclude this is over. The only thing you can really do is leave them with a standing offer to deal. Who knows with the way our country and our government is broke at all levels, maybe some day the County would sell the thing off in the face of massive budget cuts.

In the meantime, perhaps it would be better for the people in the PA side of the lawsuit to look at all of the groups, agencies, railroads, etc. that are preserving and portraying the Lackawanna Railroad:

- Steamtown occupies the roundhouse and various shop buildings in Scranton
- The other DL&W steam locomotive is getting a complete cosmetic restoration
- Steam regularly operates over the DL&W through the Poconos
- The counties own the DL&W from Scranton to the Delaware Water Gap and have an operator that carries a respectable amount of freight on the line, owns an original DL&W EMC diesel, a DL&W Keyser Valley caboose, and is slowly building up a collection of DL&W freight cars.
- This line has most of its stations and towers intact. Many are restored and can be visited. The Lackawanna R&LHS was involved in the initial efforts to save one of these though now the town has taken over.
- Two groups are recreating DL&W F3 diesels
- One group owns a Lackawanna dining car from the Phoebe Snow and a Nickel Plate sleeping that ran through on the Lackawanna's passenger trains and has plans to operate them as a recreation of Lackawanna dining car service.
- Most of the significant archives of the DL&W are secure in Scranton.
- The majestic DL&W station in Scranton is safe and can be visited every day.
- Its largest concrete viaduct still has major freight traffic run over it.

This legal action ran its course a long time ago. Time for the PA litigants to put up their money for these other DL&W projects or just go away.

By request.



This shall be my only posting on this topic, as I have "no horse in this race" (and if I did, it would be very aromatic, and NOT in a good way!)

Jeff

Steamtown Observer,

Excellent retort.

To all those who have grandiose visions of DL&W 952 at Scranton, may I remind you:

It's possible that, had had NMT St. Louis just rolled over and handed over the locomotive in 1985 or 1995 or whenever, we'd see a gleaming, handsome Lackawanna locomotive in the Steamtown roundhouse.

It's equally possible and likely that in 2010 we'd be putting up with continuous posts every three months in rail forums of "whatever happened to DL&W 952?" and that it would be lying scattered in many, many pieces hither and yon. Or, just as bad, locked or shoved away out of sight and largely out of mind.
A la PRR K4s 1361, LIRR G5s 35 and/or 39, Reading 2100, Reading 2102, C&O 614, AFT 1, SP&S 539, SR 722, PRR I1s 4483, C&O 2700 T&P 610, two Baldwin Sharks, a Smithsonian-owned Alco PA hulk...........

I would very much like to think better of the supposed "deep pockets" that seemingly lust to do naughty things with a DL&W Camelback in their outright possession. But, seeing as the party or parties in question have seemingly let passions trump any degree of common sense, that's probably too much to hope for.