Has anyone said why St. Louis is so adamant to keep this particular engine?

I see you are a relatively new poster to this forum (June 2010 join date) and that you aren't using your real name.

Please use the nifty RYPN search feature. I'm sure you can find scads of posts about this issue that's been hashed, re-hashed, and re-re-hashed. Sorry, not taking the bait.

I was reading for several months before signing up to post. After posting a couple comments I wasn't thrilled with the attitude on the board so I haven't posted much since. That is why the post count is so low. I still read on a pretty regular basis but would rather save myself the aggrevation.

I have read most of what I could find on 952, and understand what's involved, but other than specualtion and a few vague statements St. Louis really hasn't presented a case of why they feel so passionate about keeping 952. From what I have read here they have even turned down offers of large sums of money, trades for multiple other engines, and combinations of the two.

For an engine that some here have argued doesn't really fit their collection, the behavior seems a little odd. One has to assume that either someone high up in St Louis has a sentimental connection to the DL&W and really wants that engine to stay there, or the county is more than happy to rack up legal fees for their (possibly) crony retainer attys.

I understand that it's really not about right and wrong, but what can be proven within the constraints of the law. What I don't understand is St Louis's position on the issue, which is being handled in a seemingly very personal manner. As far as I know they haven't even thrown out a 'pie in the sky' number or trade proposal. At least if they came out and said they want 5 million and a Nickel Plate berkshire in trade, it's a starting point. Even if the R&LHS had no hope of ever raising the funds, at least it's out there.

Get me?

I get you, and I agree with your line of questioning. I hate to hear that precious funds are spent on attorneys (by both sides) instead of artifact restoration. I wonder what gives?

Mike Stillwell
Buena Vista, VA.

Yes, I remember you. I guess all of that local buzz abou the "DL&W" F units has finally died down. Everything I am saying below has been said in other posts. Use the search feature. I'm very unlikely to continue engaging you or anyone else on this issue. As has been succinctly stated previously, this issue is a dead horse that you are beating.

I once learned that if you have the law on your side, argue the law. If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither, pound on the table and yell. The third option appears to be all that is left of those who supported the Chapter in this matter.

First of all, the County was represented by in-house counsel, paid by the taxpayers. I think they'd take offense to you calling them "crony" attorneys. Couty counselors don't make a lot of money, compared to private sector attorneys, but they do a good job of representing St. Louis County in civil legal matters. They certainly ran circles around the private attorneys hired with the allegedly "deep pockets" by the Chapter.

Second of all, as has been stated here ad-naseum, the best argument for 952 staying in St. Louis is that it does fit into the collection of steam locomotive development. As has been stated many times previously, MOT is not a regional museum, and as such, the collection, in particular the steam collection, has pieces that highlight the development of the steam locomotive in American history. The development from an Eddy Clock to a N&W Y-6 is represented.

Third, with regard to the alleged offers, we've never head of anything official from either party. If you actually took the time to read the legal documents in the case, you'd learn that the R&LHS chapter "demanded" the return of the locomotive. The stories we hear of the "offers" usually come third or fourth-hand and as such, cannot be considered reliable. Even if such came true, I seriously doubt the chapter had standing to trade another locomotive, as they don't own anything. They certainly don't own another camelback that would take it's place. If you think about it, these alleged "offers" seem very inconsistent with the Chapter's position. Why would you trade for something you feel you own?

Fourth, other than arguing (which they did sucessfully) that they had the right to possession to the 952, MOT doesn't need to "make a case" as to why they think the museum should keep it. I know it's going to be a big blow one's ego, but they don't have to convince you or most other readers of this board of anything. I'm sure, though cannot speak for St. Louis County, that the Museum had the sole right of possession of the 952, and as such, any attempts to "reclaim" it should be fought. Do you suggest that any museum just roll over every time someone files a suit for the return of an item?

Fifth, the issue wasn't handled in a "seemingly personal manner." The chapter sued MOT and St. Louis County in Federal court. St. Louis County litigated the case, and won. I don't think ad homenim threats were issued by MOT, St. Louis County or anyone officially related to that side of the case.

In the end, it's often lamented the cost spent litigating this matter. For St. Louis County, their attorneys are already on the pay roll. I'm happy to see my taxpayer dollars go do something other than the usual garbage your local goverment wastes money on. The real tragedy is the chapter's expenditure of money. Then again, they wanted that particular locomotive, so I'm sure there are some who felt the risk was worth the potential reward. Maybe now that the matter is almost over, they can redirect their purpose to other projects.

Get me now?

One thing to add: The statement you seek can be found right here on RyPN among other places.

http://www.rypn.org/RyPN/editorials/vieweditorials.asp?filename=041127031926.txt

I quote from MOT Curator Molly Butterworth:

"The Museum’s founders recognized the need to collect representative examples of railroad technology, design, and development while an entire national railroading heritage was still available simply for the asking from railroads that were scrapping equipment as quickly as possible. MOT was in the unique position of being able to select the best of the best and pursue selected wheel arrangements, types, and innovations rather than certain railroads....

Most locomotives and pieces of rolling stock in the collection, including some of the pieces most desired by fans of other institutions, play irreplaceable roles in MOT's effort to trace and define the evolution of railroading technology and its impact on the commerce and population movement in North America. To begin disassembling this uniquely synoptic collection in the name of “good will” or “spreading it around” would be a great disservice to the rail preservation movement as a whole. A collection like ours was not duplicated elsewhere during the glory days of railroading, and the opportunity to recreate it is now forever lost. To break it up would be incomprehensible."

To sum up:

1. MOT's mission includes presenting a synoptic collection, national in scale, of the comparative development of railroad motive power.

2. Presenting one of the 3 surviving examples of the Camelback design fits within that mission.

Now any listener may or may not find this persuasive. But its perfectly internally logical and consistent, and requires no appeal to sinister motives as you implied in your later paragraphs.

As I said, I did take the time to go through any older posts that I could find, but this is the first time that I am reading that quote. If sincere, then I do understand their desire to keep the engine.

My recommendation for the Lackawanna Chapter would be to approach Strasburg about purchasing their derelict Reading camelback, and restore that. It's still a local road to NEPA and a rare engine, and it deserves better.

"If sincere"

Really? You have presented no reason to doubt Ms. Butterworth's statement.

Often, people want to think there is some person, either in smoke filled rooms or behind a curtain controlling everything. Often, in reality, things are as they seem.

As I've often shared there's plenty to be sorry for in this sad saga. Firstly, the deplorable condition that the MOT allowed this locomotive to deteriorate into that caused this action to commence and secondly all the dollars spent on lawyers on both sides vs. spending those dollars somewhere in actual preservation.

I guess if there's some silver lining to this it's that at least the MOT retrieved the engine from the "back lot" where the scrub trees were growing through her running boards and performed a decent cosmetic going over so that today she looks at least presentable!!

The other constructive lesson here is if you "borrow" something on a so called "permanent loan" you'll be well served to observe and keep the conditions of the "loan" current.

IMHO-Ross Rowland

As stated before, there was no formal "loan agreement." As such, there were no "conditions" that were violated. The basis of the suit wasn't a "violation" of the "loan agreement." As such, the condition of the locomotive had nothing to do with the basis of the suit. If there was a formal agreement, written, recorded, or otherwise, I'm sure there wouldn't have been the extensive litigation.

Also, the suit was filed after MOT cosmetically restored it, which negates much of Mr. Rowland's hyperbole.

Some people refuse to let the facts get in the way of a good argument.

The real lesson to be learned here is that if you loan out an artifact, make out a written agreement. Keep the written agreement in a safe place. Put a definate time limit on the agreement. Have proposed agreement reviewed by compotentant legal counsel before you sign it. Use words such as "long term custodial loan" instead of "permanant loan."

I really think the Lackawanna Chapter of the R&LHS and their erstwhile partners the Friends of the NJ Transportation Museum took this matter well beyond common sense. That being said, while Mr. Wilkins statement quoted here is technically correct, it does leave out a little bit of history. Long before the lawsuit, individuals including former DL&W President Perry Shoemaker, approached the museum about a deal to move the 952 to PA (or NJ) and were rebuffed each time. An offer for a trade of a UP 4-4-0 in Steamtown's collection was also offered and rejected. The PA State Legislature even passed a resolution asked for the locomotive to be sent to PA. After these events and the formation of the Lackawanna Chapter is when the MOT moved the 952 and began the cosmetic restoration.

I'm sure the timing of the restoration with these other events was purely coincidental.

The restoration was keyed to the supply of money to retreive all the equipment from the "back lot", not just the 952 and lay more trackage at the MOT.
The matter is closed, but I can't believe bandwidth is still being wasted on the subject.
Bush won, so get over it algore!

Wow. There are some seriously throbbing forehead veins here. I have no dog in this fight, but I have to say that "6-18003" does not sound like a troll. His reply to Erik's post seemed pretty understanding and he even suggested an opportunity to do right by another camelback.

So here is where I try to change subjects to one of my many pet issues.



So this is what gets me. The mission of MOT is to tell the story of the development of American motive power? Really? The collection may have been formed with this goal in mind (although, does it really seem like it? --more likely the founders simply wanted one of everything), but what does the museum, you know, DO to tell this story? Has an interpretive narrative been established that places each piece in the collection in this grand story of locomotive history? Is it self apparent to the average visitor that this is MOTs most fundamental purpose? Can we look at a Mikado next to a Berkshire to understand how the four-wheel trailing truck allowed the latter locomotive to have a larger grate area, and therefore more power? What about locomotive designs from the mid-Nineteenth Century? How many years has MOT had to develop this narrative? And finally, should the average visitor be expected to care about a narrative as arcane and technological as this?

It is a good thing people already like trains.

P.S. Al Gore is two separate names and is capitalized. Also, he received more votes in Florida. You are welcome.

I visited MOT 20 years ago, and again about 5 years ago. Today's MOT is a far better and very different place than it was 20 years ago. The current management has made vast improvements, and it seems constant additional improvements are still in the works.

I didn't see a lot in the way of impressive visitor interactive interpretation going on during my more recent visit, but I'm hoping (based on what i did see) that triaging a huge backlog of collections condition issues was a priority, and as that problem is dealt with perhaps interpretation will get its share of attention. There were signs placed by exhibited hardware, but nothing special.

If I'm alive in 15 more, maybe I'll get back to see what other improvements come about.

dave

I am gratified to see carsheds and restorations there and elsewhere. I hope things continue to get better too, but I do not understand why such improvement need to be made in a serial fashion. I have to conclude that it is simply not a priority for most of our museums to develop the storytelling part of our mission, which is actually kinda the WHOLE POINT of being a museum.

With aging volunteers and fewer boomers, some organizations may not have another 15 years of public good will to burn through.