Members,

I traveled to New Jersey on Friday to observe Court proceedings. The following summary of events, observations, and news is offered for interested parties and discussions moving forward.

The Court’s emphasis was clearly on preservation. Bids were received from numerous groups interesting in preserving the equipment, some with considerable detail and backup information.

Receiver John Fiorilla summarized each bid, detailed equipment being considered, and responded well to questions from the Court and attorneys for both parties. In addition to collecting/processing bids, the Receiver contacted local preservation groups soliciting interest and seeking potential homes. The Receiver also contacted various parties for clarifications, e.g. Donna Stone loan. Attorney Fiorilla did not align himself with either adversary, but positioned himself directly between them. His presentation was very well done. I feel he went the extra mile for the collection.

After hearing presentation by the Receiver, the Cross Motion by the defendant (Trust), and comments by plaintiff (Township), the Court made the following comments and findings:

1) No comments were presented or received about the process, i.e., the inspection, response time, bid submission, review, etc.
2) Likewise, no comments were received regarding the bids, i.e., too high, too low, etc.
3) The Court accepts the Motion of the Receiver (detailed below) and enforces prior orders to evacuate the property. Notices will be sent to various parties regarding bid payment (needed before anything is removed) and related details.
4) The Court denies the Cross Motion of the Trust commenting the Trust has had ample time to remove the material. Moreover, after all this time, the Trust has never presented a concrete plan to remove the material or alternative(s) to preserve the equipment.
5) An auction will be scheduled for the remaining materials, time and details made by the Receiver. Bid materials excluded.
6) Various fees submitted to the Court were approved.

Summary of accepted equipment bids (conditions, costs, details, presented in the Motion):

1) Georges Creek Railway LLC of Luke, MD, for PS-1 shop car, wooded shanties, and metal bumper ($5,100 bid).
2) Pennsy Railcar Restorations, Inc of Flemington NJ, for N6 caboose frame and trucks ($1,000 bid)
3) Morristown & Erie Railway of Morristown, NJ, for 85 sticks of rail, 5 frogs, 5 points, 2-freight trucks, ties, bumper blocks, and other track materials ($24,700)
4) Melvin May of Wall NJ, for CNJ caboose ($1,500)
5) Donna Stone numerous items formerly displayed in the Station since removed.

Regarding the other freight items:

Three scrap dealers submitted bids; some after the initial scrap bid was made public, essentially bumping their bid up a couple bucks. This prompted the auction –all previous scrap bids are void.

The Receiver sought-out potential nearby museums etc for the diesels / rail bus; however, no interest was found. Essentially, given the current condition of the equipment, the cost of moving and restoring the equipment was deemed excessive relative to other worthwhile, available locomotive projects. I understand there are similar units, in much better shape, already preserved locally – perhaps someone can provide detail if needed.

Other observations:

Attorney Andrew Bayer for the Township reported the Trust did not provide him with a copy of the Cross Motion prior to the hearing (very inappropriate omission) – Attorney for the Trust mailed the instrument with an incomplete address. In spite of the omission, Attorney Bayer was prepared per verbal notice from his adversary and made good presentation of facts.

Attorney Gehret for the Trust argued that the Trust could have removed additional equipment from the site had they been permitted to do so. He also argued that the 45-ton locomotive was not on Township property and should be excluded from the Order. The Defendant also requested that the CNJ caboose (because of its arch bar trucks), hair pin fencing, wooden shanties, and other items be excluded from the Order due to their local historical value. The presentation was not quality and at many times seemed a stretch without supporting documentation / evidence / back-up.

Finally…two other items:

Following the proceedings, with the Receiver’s permission, I traveled to Pemberton (after lunch) to inspect the PS-1 shop car in preparation for moving activities. I was stunned by what I found. ALL TRACK TOOLS, POWER TOOLS, ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES, HARDWARE; PREVOIUSLY SUPPLIED WITH THE CAR AND PHOTODOCUMENTED DURING THE BID PROCESS WERE GONE! The car’s air brake equipment, brake rods, and related equipment were scattered about – Pemberton never put stuff back on the car as promised.

Per discussion with the RECEIVER, the THEFT was immediately reported to the Pemberton Township Police. In addition, locks were changed on the car. I do not know the status of foot stirrups or the completeness of brake equipment.

Earlier that morning, I believe Attorney Gehert testified that nothing had been taken from the freight cars. It appears his client was less than forthcoming.

Image buying a house at auction, you swing by the place on the way to closing only to find the furnace, copper piping, wirers, dishwasher, toilet (why not), kitchen sink, and whatever gone…all items seen at auction and part of your bid.

I believe the Court has been very gracious with these individuals - perhaps that needs to end.

Based on available information, I suggest other interested parties may want to check their equipment, including brass.

I shall return to the site later in the new week to photo document site conditions, assist authorities as needed, and prepare the PS-1 for departure.

On behalf of Georges Creek, we also want to network with other successful bidders to determine if car loading activities can be coordinated to reduce costs, logistics, and site impact.

I hope this overview helps. I believe we all need to think about lessons learned from the Pemberton experience – I’ve learned plenty.

I thank this forum for the opportunity to share this information as well as the guidance previously provided by it’s members.

Best regards,

Jim K

Thanks for the summary, Jim.

Still, so much is lost. Forgetting about the history, there's the time, energy and donations/funding that went into moving this stuff.

J.R.

a historical piece of equipment, you may find certain -monetary- value about it, but this isnt a business, its preservation. If you look for restoring a piece, you just project what it takes and go for it, put up donations for it and go...for it.

A lot of equipment is lost because of not doing this.

Hello,

I'm with a small museum that may be interested in the railbus. Whom might I contact to check on availability and pricing for that? I thought maybe someone here would have a contact for the scrappers, etc. Thank you very much for your time and consideration, as well as the updates on the equipment!

Sincerely,

Kent

Attorney John Fiorilla is the person to talk to - 856.914.2054

Thanks,

J K

I inadvertently removed info on the LV hopper while working on the draft. Many thanks Paul Hartland for the catch!

The former Lehigh Valley hopper is awarded to New Hope & Ivyland, New Hope PA ($1650).

As I recall, there are only four remaining from the Route of the Black Diamond, including those at Weatherly PA (restored), Temple PA (2 in the ruff), and soon New Hope. These are all 55-ton 2-bays.

Thanks guys for the efforts! Looking forward to see the car restored – your shop has done great work.

And humble apologies for the tpyos :)

Jim K