Now that Santa has come and gone what is to become of the balance of old NYGL motive power and rolling stock?

Someone claiming to be in charge of this final segment had stated on here that he would advise interested parties when to make inquiry of upcoming disposal sometime by about now. Any idea who this was? Search function on here isn't of any use.

I believe his handle is "rudystrains": viewtopic.php?f=1&t=42163&p=307080&hilit=Toys+for+tots#p307080

To make the search work here you need to use an unusual term that doesn't show up in a lot of other posts, I searched under "toys for tots" to find this thread, as I remembered the two were tied up somehow.

Happy New Year everyone....

While I cannot speak for either Operation Toy Train, or the new Port Jervis Transportation Museum, I would caution anyone who is attempting to acquire any of said equipment (and believing that they are receiving good title to the equipment) from either of those two entities should consult with an attorney before signing any agreement to do so.

More importantly, investing significant sums of money into purchasing and moving said equipment comes with considerable risk and any organization needs to be prepared to lose their entire investment should they choose to move forward.

The litigation surrounding this equipment remains active and interested parties need to be aware that the next wave of anticipated litigation will have a significant impact on title to the equipment.

The operative phrase here is: Caveat emptor

Another is "Possession is nine-tenths of the law."

Of note: the following comments relate solely to the former NYGL equipment that was located in Passaic, NJ, which Operation Toy Train took legal possession of on September 12, 2020. We have no involvement or legal interest in the NYGL equipment in Port Jervis, NY, other than the fact that we are still waiting for the NYGL to remove the equipment from the site so PJTM can begin museum construction.


The other one-tenth of the law is publicly available court documentation showing the chain of ownership. We are happy to provide that for anyone that's interested. The court order transferring title was executed on September 12, 2020, and the court verified that all proceedings had been completed on September 14, 2020. There is no ongoing litigation.

Upon further inspection when the former Passaic equipment arrived in Lackawaxen, many of the pieces were found to be much further deteriorated than originally hoped/anticipated. In our efforts to ensure that it is all saved, we scrapped our plans for a bid process and reached out directly to several preservation groups and preservationists with the somewhat considerable resources required to ensure future homes for the pieces that we do not intend to keep. As of this moment, we have arranged permanent homes for all three locomotives (two will be cosmetically restored and the third will be returned to operation) and the three boxcars. Further announcements are forthcoming once the paperwork is signed and the new owners are ready to release their plans. We are currently seeking interested parties that would like to preserve the Long Island P72 coach, and the Grand Trunk coach is likely going to be scrapped on account of its horrendous condition (with parts to go towards other restoration projects). The three cabooses, the flatcar, and the baggage car will be retained by Operation Toy Train.

In regards to the "Grand Trunk Coach" - it would be helpful if your organization would refer to this car with it's correct number and configuration. (as posted on the earlier thread) - this car served in revenue service as Grand Trunk Western Pullman Parlor-Lounge-Observation #891 carrying the name "Wabascon Lake." It later served as Grand Trunk Western Instruction Car, as GTW 15046. Built in 1929 this car was owned by GTW until about 2000.

A photo of the car in GTW service:

http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/rspicture.aspx?id=431939

The official Operation Toy Train page does not contain any of this information. But, it has the notice: "Please do not contact us with unsolicited offers. Other OTT equipment that not been offered directly to an interested party is not currently available for sale." - https://www.operationtoytrain.org/dispositions

It would be helpful if Operation Toy Train could make an official announcement on its website about the availability of this car. It is one of only a few remaining revenue-service observation cars from a Michigan railroad remaining.

A similar car, Great Northern "Twin Ports" has been undergoing a frame-up restoration for several years - http://www.gngoat.org/2015msp_114.JPG

We've discussed the heritage of all of the cars elsewhere, so I didn't repeat it above. As far as condition... the car has large sections of roof that have caved in, and photographic evidence suggests that the damage appears to have occurred about a decade ago. There is significant water damage to nearly the entire carbody and, more importantly, structural elements in the frame and walls (and the obviously compromised roof).

This car wouldn't require a frame-up restoration, it would require a wheels-up reconstruction. We have had some serious inquiries about the car, but all of them have bailed out when we gave them an inspection report. That GN car looks night and day better than our GTW car.

The GTW car discussed above is another sad example of a car that will get scrapped via neglect. As far as I know, this car was kept by GTW until the mid-late 1990s for employee events such as Santa visits in Port Huron. It was rumored to be donated to the Project 1225/SRI in Owosso circa 1997 - then it disappeared from Port Huron. Can anyone explain how it was acquired by its current owner, or how it would up in New Jersey? Or was the car in Port Huron a different one? There was a video posted of this car a few months ago, and indeed the condition is very poor, with the entire interior demolished. These modernized heavyweights fared very poorly if stored outside with no maintenance - the roof would fail, and water will run right through the car. And GTW is already a railroad that is not well-represented in the preservation community - besides the diner 899 in Tennessee, and a few coaches in western Michigan, not much is left.

As per Eric's comment above - is this litigation re: the equipment in Passaic? Or re: the other equipment NY&GL owned, such as the equipment already in Port Jervis? I would be quite surprised anyone would want to litigate the equipment formerly in Passaic - someone would have to pay to get rid of much of it.

Chris.

Eric, can you clarify what CNJ Rail Corporation is? Are you involved in preservation? When I google it, I see some STB filings with Mr. Riffin but nothing else. As you opined about litigation that is apparently unknown to others directly involved with the rolling stock, you've sparked my curiosity. Thanks in advance!

Yes Eric, We'd love to hear all about your successes - and I'm certain that a few of the readers here could learn from one or two of your less successful ventures.
:)

Crickets.

Good morning all, ... hello Scranton Yard,

No, .... I wouldn't go that far as to say "crickets". I certainly will answer Ms. Meghan's question, as well as the questions posed by others, just as soon as I can. I am waiting for a specific action of a third party to occur (which is beyond my control at the moment) before I comment any further than what I share below.

It will surprise many, but I fully intend to take Ms. Meghan up on her request to talk about a few of my "less than successful projects", since they are highly relevant to my comment above. Given the subject matter, I have no problem using my own projects as an example. I will speak from experience on the subject matter.

Given what I said in the paragraph immediately above, Ms. Meghan should be able to easily deduce what litigation might be pending. The crooning by some that Mr. Garbely's title was obtained after a NJ State Court order that allegedly decided the matter of ownership fails to take into account what additional litigation might arise out of the Court's decision.

While an appeal might be a possibility, it is not the only option. Mr. Wilson might want to make a Federal case out it. Since I know Ms. Meghan knows the answer, I pose the question to the other "experts" on this forum; ....

Is there a court with the capability of not only issuing a "stay", but a statutory "automatic stay" that would easily vanquish the Court Order upon which Mr. Garbely is relying for good title? .... Is there a Court that could easily set aside a conveyance made immediately before the filing of a case and return an asset to an "estate"? ... Is there a Court that would require an asset be sold to the highest bidder at an auction to be conducted by a "trusteed" (a spelling error or a hint?) person acting under the direction of the Court?

Ms. Meghan - While I do love debating with you and your grandfather, please note that I didn't say what I said above to be a jerk. I said it as a public warning so preservationists with limited funds who are acting in good faith don't get burned badly.

If either you or your grandfather were representing a client with limited resources who was interested in purchasing the former NY&GL equipment for preservation and caught wind that a certain type of litigation was being actively considered to recover an asset immediately after an adverse Court decision, I have no doubt that both of you and Mr. Edwards would be not only grateful for the advanced warning, but that both of you would certainly advise your clients on how best to proceed in a very different manner.

I'd love to share a few documents with everyone that could help people better understand what is about to happen. However, certain documents that are in my possession which do conclusively tell the story could be viewed as communications between a client and an attorney (and select parties) regarding the contemplated litigation and are subject to certain privileges regarding disclosure so I cannot share them here. I know Ms. Meghan and her grandfather understand the significance of this paragraph.

So, I wouldn't say there are "Crickets" here Mr. Scranton Yards..... My genuine fear is that Ms. Meghan, in her efforts to bait a response out of me, might have inadvertently given preservationists a "clear signal" that acquiring the former NY&GL equipment from Operation Toy Train is completely without any risk. I sincerely pray that her desire to troll me didn't lead to someone ignoring my warning, and that said person then handed Mr. Garbely a large amount of money without putting certain protections into their purchase contract.

It would be a shame if that happened.

"considered to recover an asset immediately after an adverse Court decision" I wouldn't say anything the former owner does happens immediately after an adverse court decision.

That equipment had been left to rot in Passaic, along with the property as the owner had not paid property taxes in many years. So many years, that the property was seized and sold at auction.

From history I know the former equipment owner is adept in filing complaints in court and with the STB. Curious as to where he gets the funds to do so when he is unable to pay taxes? And even then, what will he do with said equipment if ownership did revert to him? Let it rot even further just as his other equipment in Port Jervis is doing?

Rudy Garbely is a man of the highest character. His judgement of what should be retained or put up for re-sale or donation is, I'm certain, well thought out and being pursued with full consideration of what is best for the equipment and preservation aforethought.

My 2 cents.

I believe this is exactly the point "Meghan" and "wrg113" were making in regards to the legal advice proffered by you. They were not "baiting" you. They were giving you an opportunity to present your bona fides to folks like myself who are unfamiliar with you so that we could better evaluate the reasonableness of your legal opinion.

Unfortunately, to me your writing style appears to be indicative of someone who has never attended law school, graduated law school, or passed the bar in any state. So I was curious as to your qualifications to speak on this matter as well.