But what would keep them from
> demanding it back AFTER it had been
> restored? That is what happened with the
> steam fire engine in the fire museum in
> Beaumont.

Well, hopfully the terms set out in the written loan agreement. There was no written agreement? As Louis B Mayer once said, "his verbal contract isn't worth the paper it is printed on."

dave


irondave@bellsouth.net

> Generally I find the term long term loan an
> oxymoron, a self-contradicting term. Having
> been in the museum profession for over
> twenty years I would never negotiate such a
> loan.

> However, I did stumble across something
> researching the B&M 3713 at Steamtown.
> The Boston Museum of Science, under the
> direction of Brad Washburn wanted a
> locomotive to make the centerpiece of a new
> wing going up in the 1960s. At some point he
> made his desires known to F. Nelson Blount
> and the fledgling Steamtown USA. It was
> agreed to do the transaction as a 99 year
> lease as opposed to a loan or outright sale
> with stipulations protecting the locomotive.

> Even though the 3713 was transported to
> Boston and put on display outside the
> museum, technical problems prevented it
> being integrated into the new wing.
> Ultimately other priorities required the
> lease be cancelled and the locomotive
> returned to Steamtown USA, which had just
> been moved to Scranton. Ultimately, this
> lease protected the 3713 from arbitrary
> destruction, and ultimately brought it back
> to Steamtown (and hopefully full operation
> in the future).

It should be noted that this lease did not work out well financially for Steamtown Foundation. SF was in the midst of mvoing its collection from Bellows Falls to Scranton when notified that #3713 would have to leave the Museum of Science--and that SF would be responsible for the cost of moving it! To make a long story short, the barge method that was used to move the locomotive to the site was no longer an option to remove it. It had to be trucked out--very expensive special equipment plus cranes to load and unload--to a railhead nearby via city streets; the truck route included a highway bridge rated way below the locomotive's, and SF had to acquire via Lloyd's of London a very expensive insurance policy to cover potential damage to the bridge. In addition, years of exposed display in salt water air was not kind to #3713's journals, and despite the best professional preparation that could be done without removing wheels, the locomotive was a problem child to move. Getting #3713 to Scranton cost SF in excess of $50,000 unbudgeted dollars! If it weren't for the Tennessee Valley Railroad Museum doing the wheel/journal work for free as part of the CN #5288 deal, Steamtown NHS would be finding out shortly the true cost of the "loan" to the Museum of Science. In any event, the above costs are far above what anyone at Steamtown ever envisioned when the locomotive was loaned out in the late 1960's.

Another "loan" which came back to haunt SF was that of N&W #1218. That's a long and complicated story involving several "gentleman's agreements" which, unfortunately, were never put in writing; even minutes of SF Board meetings didn't clearly identify the circumstances under which #1218 departed Bellows Falls for Roanoke. When Norfolk Southern wanted to use #1218 for the NS Steam Program, they clearly acknowledged SF still held an interest in the locomotive. However, it was also made clear to the SF Board that the locomotive would never rejoin the Steamtown collection. In return for a "clear title" to #1218, NS swapped a pair of diesels; though SF did get something in return, the collection lost a one of a kind artifact.

> While I would not favor a lease, it did work
> in this particular situation. I would
> definitely favor it over a long-term loan,
> though an outright donation or trade would
> be much cleaner.

> Just my two cents.

> Patrick McKnight
> Historian, Steamtown NHS


fred.gracebailey@earthlink.net

> Well, hopfully the terms set out in the
> written loan agreement. There was no written
> agreement? As Louis B Mayer once said,
> "his verbal contract isn't worth the
> paper it is printed on."

I thought that was Sam Goldwin.

When it comes to written agreements I have seen two interesting agreements.

One was a gift from an individual of several railway cars. Along with the gift came the stipulation that the cars could not be sold or encumbered during the lifetime of the donor without his approval.

Another was a sale from a museum of a de-accessioned artifact that stipulated a right of first refusal if the item was ever to be disposed of by the second.

Brian Norden