Ozark Mt Rail has a few of these units listed for sale..........
Anywheres from $400,000. to $605,000. apiece........

http://www.ozarkmountainrailcar.com/detail.asp?id=860&n=EMD-F40PH-302-SALELEASE---NEW

http://www.ozarkmountainrailcar.com/detail.asp?id=857&n=EMD-F40PH-293-SALELEASE---NEW

http://www.ozarkmountainrailcar.com/detail.asp?id=858&n=EMD-F40PH-270-SALELEASE---NEW

sounds like they still have some value .......

Thoes ones have recentely been overhauled.

"The MBTA is a government organization so a tax write off doesn't affect them. "

No, and beyond having no incentive, being part of government may actually impose additional limitations on disposition of property. Ordinarily, even if not legally proscribed, it's a sure-as-shoot way to get on the six o'clock news, i.e., giving away valuable taxpayer property and having it questioned as a part of an audit or other inquiry into management practices or operating results. Even if the only value is scrap, the general rule is that the interests of taxpayers is to get what you can for the property.


"The board at the Trolley Museum is open to the idea. I am also a active member of the Shelburne Falls Trolley Museum and all of them there know what I am trying to do."


"open to the idea", is not the same thing as officially committed, i.e., having a board resolution to pursue the acquisition, with you appointed as able to speak on behalf of the organization.


"501(c)(3) is the section of the Internal Revenue Code that defines exemption from taxation by entities classified as public charities. It is relevant here.

A 403(b) is a salary deferral plan, similar to a 401(k), but with somewhat different rules, and limited to tax exempts, healthcare and educational organizations. If it seems stupid to have two largely similar things with different rules, with one limited to a rather arbitrary list of eligible sponsors, it is indeed stupid and as tomorrow is the 100th anniversary of the ratification of the 16th amendment to the Constitution, I couldn't help but note just one aspect of the insanity that has resulted from that era, largely the same folks that gave us the Hepburn Act and the other legislative millstones that devitalized and disrupted U.S. railroads.

403(b) is also the section of some bureaucratic legislation whereas states could sponsor the losses of an Amtrak service in order to have a particular train service run. I don't know if the Mountaineer/Hilltopper was actually run under 403(b) or just Robert Byrd and Harley Staggers' blackmail, but I know that the Pennsylvanian, and later its affiliated Pittsburgh-Altoona turn, the Fort Pitt, were 403(b). I believe earlier versions of what became Amtrak California and North Carolina's Carolinian were also 403(b) operations.

But back to the pertinent point: If the group in question doesn't have its collective wits together enough to tell 501(c)3 from 403(b) or confuse them, this doesn't bespeak an air of authority, intellect, and experience worthy of turning over a six-figure asset to them......

Another note: The state RR Museums of California and North Carolina got their F40PH's for preservation (and Pa. their E60CP) by asking for what was effectively an inter-agency transfer of government assets.

EDIT: I was informed that the Commonwealth of Pa. and other states are still paying a portion of the related costs of the Pennsylvanian and other such 403(b) trains.

As the president of the trolley museum stated this is a chicken and egg situation. My best guess is the board does not want to make a commitment that may not work out for that may work now but if things change later would not work. The details would be ones such as who would own it and who would be responsable for what. Say we come to agreement now and three years laiter the insurance adjuster comes to us and says as long as your equipment is under X amoubt of ponds your insurance rates won't rase. Noe I come back with the agreement we made 3 years ago and say gess what I got a F40PH, which happens to be way over the weight limmit the insurance adjuster said we could have. If the origenal agreement from 3 years haden't taken that into acount then the trolley museume would be stuck.

I'll give you an alternative scenario: they don't think there's the remotest chance in Hades that they'll ever have to do anything about this, so they are being polite and blowing you off.

Something else you may be overlooking, I don't see where a F40PH would fit in with a trolley museum. They may not be willing to come out and say it but it may not fit in with thier mission statement, or may open the doors to other equipment arriving that has no bearing on thier goal. If they do allow you to park it there and the fact you don't own the land or track it's on they could ask it be removed at any time.

I don't see a connection between a museum specializing in trolleys and adding locomotives. A RDC or SPV would be a better, closer fit to what they are doing. And those could even be a stretch.

Just something to think about.

There's a real world example of this playing out right now. IRM has given that "group" out of Milwaukee some time to put a proposal together for their idea for 265, but in reality, we all know that 265 isn't going anywhere.

It's not that they are seriously open to the idea, they just know that it's never really going to happen...

I don't even know what "giving some time" means in this context. You mean if that group came up with a good, viable, realistic, well-financed, carriers-will cooperate, everyone-benefits plan (doubtful but let's pretend) a year from now the board would say, "Sorry...you're too late." ?

Steve

The amount of time they gave was posted somewhere but since I can't seem to find it, I didn't want to make up something. It seems that it was in the neighborhood of 6 months?

Gentlemen,

We need to ease up on RCD. I understand he asked for feedback and it is being provided (I wouldn't exactly call some of it "constructive") but how about some positive reinforcement? There are few preservation groups I can think of which did not start with an individual's "vision" and grew from there. Why should this be any different? His argument of an F40 being significant in the redevelopment of passenger service in the U.S. is sound and indisputable.

I can think of a number of pieces in various museums which were "32/44 cent" pieces, meaning they were donated simply because a member sent a letter of inquiry. Certainly times have changed but it can't hurt to ask, right?

I understand being realistic in this business. In fact, I understand it all to well. But here is an individual who's heart is in the right place and if nothing else, will learn valuable lessons about navigating the complicated world of equipment acquisition. RCD, keep up the good work.

~Brent

Since the 'T' is beholdent to various layers of politicos for funding, perhaps one of them would be a better place to start vs. some functionary within the organization.

I also suspect the 'T' has some pre-existing internal rules relating to the disposition of surplus assets. It is almost too much to ask to expect some middle-manager to give any type of donation request anything more than a cursory review.

Given tht new passenger locos are getting to close to $10MM apiece, it would be hard to believe that these F40's won't retain some substantial value when pulled from service.

Dave

It has been discussed at at least one such museum: the Baltimore Streetcar Museum operates on former Maryland & Pennsylvania RR right-of-way acquired from the RR by the city in the late 1950s, and there's more than just a bit of token "bleed-over" enthusiasm between Baltimore streetcar and Ma & Pa fanaticism on the property, to the point where a few token Ma & Pa assets are formally preserved on the property; there's a plan being discussed for the eventual takeover of the Ma & Pa roundhouse adjacent to the operational right-of-way if/when it becomes available; AND if (and that's a big if) a piece of Ma & Pa rolling stock should become available and they can come up with a place to properly display/preserve it, they would take it. (Supposedly, there are still a couple extant vintage Ma & Pa pieces not at Muddy Creek Forks, the B&O Museum, or Strasburg. That's all I can say.)

Also, Pennsylvania Trolley Museum has (or at least had) a 1930 Westinghouse "visibility cab" 300-hp switcher on the property.......

I don't think anyone is being too hard here. It is better that Mr. RCD gets "hit hard" here, and hopefully learns from it, in order to refine his approach. The other alternative is that we could simply ignore his request (see the AT&SF 3751 to Kansas City in 2014 thread for a comparison).

I get a bit tired of the "we shouldn't be too hard on the kid, because all museums started with a dream..." line of reasoning. It's the same mentality as to why everyone gets a "participant" trophy these days. By only being overly-positive, we are shielding Mr. RCD and others from the cold, hard reality of life, and of the preservation world.

Yes, most successful museums and preservation organizations started with a dream. The proverbial "wouldn't it be nice if...." The main difference was that the dream became a vision, something that had a concerte plan to make it turn into a reality. Even those halcion days of being able to get a locomtotive donated over a 3 martini lunch turned into cold hard reality after the first couple of years when rust and rot appeared. Not every museum so conceived in a dream could long endure.

The fact is that if you want to preserve a piece of railway equipment, even a lowly caboose or flatcar outside of an established museum, you must have a real plan, grounded in reality. It takes a lot of hard work just to even paint a locomtotive, let alone maintain it to keep the rust and rot at bay.

If you really want to preserve a F40PH, and want one from the MBTA, you need to take some steps so that your request letter doesn't end up in the circular file or the "crank file." At the very least, you need to be prepared to answer these questions:

1. How many members does your society have? How many are active?
2. How much in donations do you have now? Do you have commitments, in writing for more donations once we give you the locomotive? Do you even have enough money to move it to Shelburne Falls?
3. Ok, we give you the locomotive, what are you going to do with it?
4. What is the educational purpose or your organization?
5. What is the five year plan of your organization?
6. What are your estimates of how much it will take, both in money and man-hours to maintain this locomotive?
7. What happens if you cannot locate storage, or the deal with the trolley museum falls through?

My suggestion is that you need to start small. Have you ever engaged in any type of fundraising activity? Why don't you learn, by working within an existing museum framework?

I know of an F40PH in Amtrak paint that needs some cosmetic help. It is in a museum, that has an active volunteer base. Why don't you approach the North Carolina Transportation Museum and see if you can help them raise funds to paint this locomotive? Perhaps, you can work with the Amtrak Historical Society, NRHS chapters, and other groups to raise money for the locomotive. You may even be able to plan work days to go down and do work on the locomotive, if you present NCTM and their volunteer group with a workable plan, money, etc. At the very least, the whole expierence would help further your organization's goals, and it would give you real, bona-fide evidence that you can be a good custodian of an MBTA F40.

Otherwise, if you are expecting to just write a letter, and a F40PH in MBTA colors to magically appear at the trolley museum one day at the interchange, then quit asking us for advice or help.

Last time I checked shelburne Falls was in Masschutess not vermont.