Nice try, Benjamin. Only you "fingered" the wrong individual in this case. Mr. Young was, as far as I know, NOT involved in the case of these plates.

lner4472@bcpl.net

> The complication in this case is that the
> "original owner" was likely the
> Reading Co., not a historical society.

Brian,

Thank you for returning a bit of sanity to this discussion. I received an email from an NHRS officer, and I cannot believe how misguided and off base their efforts are... based purely on emotion. Since no report of theft was likely ever filed by the Reading, and photographic evidence supports the plates being removed during Reading ownership, it is likely any "case" the FP7 folks can present would be weak at best.

It is likely only the Reading itself could lay claim to them, and since the RR no longer exists, that's going to be one heck of a feat to pull off. The NRHS people had better consult with an attorney before preceding. While well intentioned, going off on a tangent without proof any crime was committed could land themselves on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

In the end, a matter that could have been settled with a few polite phone calls, and a few bucks out of pocket, could turn into an ugly court battle and legal expenses out the wazoo...

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

Stolen property is just that, stolen property until it is recovered. If and when it is recovered, the police authority will make an attempt to return it to its rightful owner which can be a sucessor or an assignee.

RCT&HS web site

mtillger@enter.net

> Stolen property is just that, stolen
> property until it is recovered. If and when
> it is recovered, the police authority will
> make an attempt to return it to its rightful
> owner which can be a sucessor or an
> assignee.

But without any complaint from the Reading Company that the plates were stolen, and no proof of how or why they disappeared, how can one even begin to claim that the plates were in fact removed unlawfully? You're basing your logic on the fact that the owner has filed a complaint. If the previous owner never filed such a complaint, what is there for the police to pursue or recover?

As a historical society, one can't claim something was stolen when it was never yours to begin with! I'm not flaming you, I just don't understand why so many fans have trouble understanding this concept. There is photographic evidence that the plates were gone while under Reading ownership. If RDG never filed a formal complaint or reported them stolen, other parties will find it very difficult to lay claim to them.

Claiming that the plates "belong" to the locomotives, were removed by someone who has a bad reputation, or were "likely" to have been stolen won't hold up in a court of law. If nobody can offer HARD EVIDENCE that said items were removed unlawfully, legal action is simply going to be a waste of everyone's time and money... especially when those ready to see justice served are providing photographic evidence that undermines their claims to ownership!

For as well intentioned as the NRHS folks are, they need to think logically and rationally. Based on what they've said so far, any legal action they present probably wouldn't make it past a grand jury... if a prosecuter would even take up such a weak case to begin with.

If anything... those providing photos or accounts of when the plates vanished, with no supporting evidence that the Reading reported them stolen, are actually helping the current holder's case!



Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

Legal question:
Is it allowed to buy an identifiable part of a
locomotive from the railroad that now owns it, if
there is any possibility that in the future, the
rest of the locomotive might be sold to a
historical association for restoration and
operation?
A real world example: Tyburn Railroad would like
to buy an additional horn for one of its engines
that now has only one. What if CSXT offeres to
sell us a used horn from one of their locos that
isn't now being run, and might be up for sale
soon? What advice do the historical associations
have for us?


TyburnRR@cs.com

> If we cannot arrange a mutually agreeable
> way to return the plates, then we will
> undertake legal action to attempt to
> retrieve the plates.

> Photographic evidence exists that the plates
> were apparently removed from the units
> during the latter days of the Reading, while
> the locomotives were still active. It can be
> pretty much assured that they were not
> gained legally, but probably under cloak of
> darkness as much other material was removed
> from the RDG in 1976. Our contention is that
> the plates, no matter when they were
> removed, belong with the locomotives,
> especially in the case of the 902 and 903,
> which are still active locomotives.

Mr. Eastwood,

With all due respect, how can any group claim ownership of an item they never took delivery of? If one reads through the DOT rules and regulations pertaining to locomotives, there is absolutely NO mention in the CFR's (concerning railroads) about the necessity of having a builder's plate on a locomotive. Claiming that a plate "belongs" to a locomotive is nothing more than an opinion, and with no CFR to back those opinions up, it is likely your claim may be laughed out of court.

Is it a crime to remove a FRA blue card from a locomotive? You bet. A builder's plate, in the eyes of government regulators, appears to be purely decorative.

Furthermore, why should the current holder have to produce a bill of sale, or letter of permission? Does the various contracts covering transfer of ownership for the FP7's specifically mention inclusion of the builder's plates, or is the condition listed "As Is?" If it's the latter, and there are pictures to prove the plates weren't there when the terms were agreed to, it's very likely a court will not rule favorably on your behalf. I find it rather convenient on your part that you consider it a must for the bearer of the plates to render proof, while there is existing evidence that shows the historical societies in question never actually owned those plates! Yet, you use words such as "retrieve." How can you retrieve something that was not there when you bought it? It is a case of "Do as you say, not as you do?"

I'm sorry if this response may not be as civil as the one I sent you via email, but I cannot believe a high ranking officer of the NRHS would openly talk in terms completely opposite of the beliefs this country was founded on.

How ironic that a resident of the Philadelphia area, where a country based on the premise of innocence until proven guilty was formed, would openly make statements alluding to the fact that the person possessing these plates needs to establish proof that he's not guilty of a crime.

Mr. Eastwood, I honestly believe you should be ashamed. As an officer of the NRHS, to publicly proclaim an assumption of guilt on an individual based on what you "think" happened, and advocating the wasting of taxpayer's dollars with legal action over less than a half dozen pieces of stainless steel that were long gone when the various historical groups purchased the locomotives to which they were once affixed is nothing short of pure zealotry. What's next on the NRHS agenda, pushing for the death penalty for railroad shop workers who paint over GE's "builder's stickers?"

At least be honest with us and admit that you're taking this approach because they happen to be an item you personally covet. Had these been from scrapped FP7's, nobody would have batted an eyelid. Instead, because the plates happen to be from locomotives that were saved at a later date, it's being turned into a personal crusade... simply because the seller didn't play the game to your liking.

If threatening people with legal action, when there is no shred of evidence that any crime ever took place, is typical of the mentality at the NRHS, then perhaps my dollars are better spent elsewhere...

My apologies to everyone else for going off on a rant, but seeing people threaten others with legal action simply because they think something wrong MIGHT have happened at one time is absolutely crazy... IMHO, of course...

Fiv4HghStk@aol.com

> Yes, essentially it doesn't matter how one
> comes into posession of something; if at one
> point it was stolen it is still stolen and
> only the original owner (or the owner from
> which it was stolen) has a claim to it under
> U.S. Law.

> The complication in this case is that the
> "original owner" was likely the
> Reading Co., not a historical society.

This has been an interesting thread to me, as it touches in a strange way on my day job, which involves the potential presence of artworks looted by the Nazis and never properly restituted to their original owners in US museum collections. The principles of law are essentially the same.

Brian and CP O'Shea are right on the legal issues as far as I can tell from the facts at hand--the basic principle applicable here is that a thief cannot convey good title, and the innocent buyer can indeed be forced to surrender stolen property should the original owner locate the property and make a claim. The innocent buyer is as much a vicim of the theft as anyone, and can't keep the property once the original owner's claim is ruled valid.

So if someone steals your camera and you find it years later at a swap meet (and you have a record of the serial number and you filed a complaint with the police) go for it--it's still your camera.

However, as Brian and CP point out, the owner with legal standing in this case is almost certainly the Reading Company's corporate descendants, and I don't even want to speculate who that might be--CSX, NS, Conrail (the surviving legal entity which operates the shared assets area), or even US Department of Transportation (which may have retained certain legal rights and liabilities before selling off Conrail to the public for all I know). In any event, it is almost certainly not the current owners of the locomotives--that would be the case only if the plates were on the locomotives on the day the current owners took title to them.

There are a few other legal principles which come into play in theory, which can protect the innocent receiver of stolen property against claims from the original owners. One is the statute of limitations on theft, and the other is a legal doctrine called latches. Latches requires that the original owner of the property must aggressively pursue his or her claim once the location of the missing property becomes known. For example, if you owned a painting, and it was stolen, and it then popped up 10 years later in an auction catalog, you would be required to take action swiftly to assert your claim--you couldn't wait another 10 years and then go after whoever owned the painting; by delaying, you have fatally impaired your claim.

However, that's getting into deep waters with lots of conflicting interpretations by different courts in different jurisdictions. I think that in the case it hand, it is likely that the current locomotive owner's claim to the plates is moral rather than legal--they probably would be found by a court not to have standing to pusue the property as a legal plaintiff unless they can demonstrate that the plates were in their possession along with the rest of the locomotive when they took title to it.


eledbetter@rypn.org

> Is it allowed to buy an identifiable part of
> a locomotive from the railroad that now owns
> it, if there is any possibility that in the future, the rest of the locomotive might be sold to a historical association for restoration and
> operation?
> A real world example: Tyburn Railroad would
> like to buy an additional horn for one of its
> engines that now has only one. What if CSXT offeres to sell us a used horn from one of their locos that isn't now being run, and might be up for sale soon? What advice do the historical
> associations have for us?

Only one problem with your example: A locomotive air horn is NOT an "identifiable" part of a locomotive, any more than your spark plugs are in your car. Although locomotives are delivered with specific horns at the buyer's orders, the horns are an aftermarket attachment manufactured by an outside supplier; furthermore, horns DO wear out or get fouled up, and are frequently the subject of swapping, disassembly, repair, and modification (for example, having a trumpet or two turned around for bi-directional service when a loco is downgraded from mainline to switching service).

If some preservation group were to purchase a locomotive from CSX rather than the scrapper, they have the right to demand the loco in operable condition, which would include an air horn (and thus a far steeper price for that and other factors). Because of the spare parts needs of railroads' air departments (the guys who fix horns), you are VERY unlikely to even GET a functioning horn from CSX with the locomotive, were you to go that route. The only horns CSX are likely to sell you or give you are troublesome high-maintenance horns with no spares available on the market, such as the Nathan M-5 (which as a collectible is worth thousands and was probably replaced ten years ago at least!) New horns from the manufacturers run several thousand dollars each.

Fortunately, however, there are reputable and legitimate dealers out there that work legitimately with major scrapyards and would happily sell you an "as is" or refurbished air horn for less than you would probably pay CSX for the same. If you contact me off-board I can refer you to a couple.

The more accurate example in this case, however, would be to ask what would happen if, to make up a preposterous example, you offered to buy a GE builders plate off of a new CSX GE locomotive, attach it to your GE 44-tonner, and then attempt to pass off your 44-tonner as a new GE Dash 8-40C and return it to GE for warranty work: "It just isn't getting ANY power; we can't make the speed we're supposed to; and where are those other two axles, and the microprocessors, and the toilet, and .....?" You can't "do" anything else with a builders plate except collect it, and my honest question is, why would any rail "enthusiast" even WANT a plate off a still-functioning and/or preserved locomotive?

lner4472@bcpl.net

Should have just bid on the plates, won the auctions and riveted the darn things back on the locomotive. You seem to want to do this thing the hard way.



rick@todengine.org

> Should have just bid on the plates, won the
> auctions and riveted the darn things back on
> the locomotive. You seem to want to do this
> thing the hard way.

(SARCASM ALERT: Not to be construed as a personal attack...)

Oh? YOU have the $950 to spare on the starting bids? Lucky you.

lner4472@bcpl.net

> (SARCASM ALERT: Not to be construed as a
> personal attack...)

> Oh? YOU have the $950 to spare on the
> starting bids? Lucky you.

Understand where you are coming from, but they will probably pay more than that for a trial lawyer, arguing a case they stand a 50/50 chance of losing. If they do lose, they then have no plates, and are out the money.

The seller apparently was willing to drop the auctions; why the historical society didn't then offer him a reasonable sum for the plates I don't understand either. It would seem like the seller's asking price would have to have been very high to shut down all hopes of negotiation by taking him to court.

-James Hefner
Hebrews 10:20a

Surviving World Steam Locomotives
james1@pernet.net

All I can say is that a few months ago our family had an attorney come to my grandfather's house to take his Will, since he was bedridden. Three hours of the attorney's time plus driving a total of 25 miles round trip cost us $700.

If we do as you say and get the police involved, then attorneys, court hearings etc. etc. etc. your cost will be way more than $950. Then the result would be the plates returned to the successor of the Reading, not the owner of the locomotive. Then additional negotiations to have the Reading successor sell or donate the plates to the locomotive's owners. Good grief, its not worth all that aggravation and time. I would rather spend that time working on said locomotives.

If I were to find a set of builders plates on ebay from one of the locomotives that I had owned, I would shell out the cash and be lucky that I found those plates. I do not concern myself with who got what when where and how before I owned the unit. If they were removed after I had purchased the unit then I would have a case and would pursue prosecution of what I could prove beyond a doubt was a theft.

Also, can you imagine the railroad history that would be permanently lost if nobody ever acquired railroad artifacts that do not have bills of sale?

Lets all meet up in your train room and go through everything you own, and I want you to produce a bill of sale for each and every timetable, photograph, book, date nail and lantern in your collection. What you don't have a bill of sale for we will take and destroy, you obviously are not the owner of those items because you cannot prove how you acquired them. If we follow your line of reasoning to its ultimate conclusion, then this is what would have to happen.

rick@todengine.org

What really concerns me about this entire thread is the under current from more than a minority of posters that try to justify what was originally pure and simple theft (not just these plates, but any railroadiana).

I am both a "professional" railroader and have in the past been a "museum" railroader. My current fleet of M-K rebuilt locomotives were delivered in 1994 with nice bronze M-K builders plates. More than half are now gone. We had an extra 6 cast up with the order for special presentations, and we know where they went. What am I to do if I go to Gaithersburg and find a bronze M-K plate on the table (I know, they are probably not THAT dumb, but what about at the "Big E" or "West Chicago"?)

And I know damn well the hard way how much a K5LA horn costs: over $700.00. However, I purchased from the scrapper (with a receipt) the horns off the last SPV scrapped in Wilmington. And I still have the receipt. And rather than let them rot in my basement so I could look at them, one is now on a GP-7 (whose were stolen) now working a gravel pit in West Virginia, and the other one was donated to the B&O Museum, when they asked me if I knew where they could get one quick. A car dealer "traded" them a nice used Dodge pickup truck for it, which is being well used by their mechanical department!

Steve

SZuidervee@aol.com

So, after eight years or so, is there ANY update on whether this was resolved to the satisfaction of anyone in question?

When I asked earlier about Tyburn Railroad buying used and identifiable parts like horns from CSXT before CSXT transfers the locomotive to a museum, I did imagine that the horns, even though "generic", were marked by the builder or original owner with the original locomotive number. Some owners and builders do just that to some parts in some cases. And some owners will sell jewelry like builders plates from operating trains. McHugh Bros. was willing to sell the cast aluminum "Hecho en Mexico" plates from some of their imported NHIR boxcars. We would even stamp the car number on the back if the buyer wished. The cars were later sold to Trailer Train to be used as RailRox cars.
As for the SPV-2000 horns, 4 of the horns for the SPV-2000 shells now at the private shop near Wilmington, Del. train station were never installed and instead sold separately as inventory at the Budd Company Red Lion Rd. liquidation auction. I was the losing bidder on that lot.