In the thread below regarding the 1218, one of the posts used the term "clear title". How is that established? There's no Department of Rail Vehicles, or Locomotive Identification Number analogous to the DMV and VIN concepts used for automobiles.

It would seem that a locomotive is "chattel" or movable property and subject to that part of the Uniform Commercial Code.

Is the lack of clarity on the matter whats at odds with the 952? (Simple yes or no please not looking to open that can of worms)

superheater@rrmail.com

Establishing "ownership" of anything unusual (like a steam locomotive) is a hugely complicated event, and touches many aspects of the law. The procedures and what constitutes proof will vary from state to state.

Who has a claim against the property (locomotive) also will be important. And so will be the potential for litigation. In other words, the strength of ownership proof can decline if there is little chance that someone will try to take it away.

Also involved in the equation are issues of prior possession and how over time ownership of the item previously has been established. This last factor is particularly important as many steam locomotives often were involved in some past railroad-government donation action.

In other words, without having examined the specifics of the engine about which you inquire, ownership of steam locomotives usually will be a case-by-case matter.

Occasionally, it can get so muddle that judges will throw in the towel. Did not the sad Dick Jensen case illustrate this? I think I remember a shot in TRAINS magazine of one or two CB&Q engines being cut up. Memory says their titles became so fouled and the finances so occluded that a magistrate ordered them scrapped to pay off debts accumulated against the locomotives.

Another thought from a business law class. Onwership issues tend to be simplified if there is no debt against a piece of property.

amiller@rtms-movietrains.com

> In the thread below regarding the 1218, one
> of the posts used the term "clear
> title". How is that established?

> Is the lack of clarity on the matter whats
> at odds with the 952?

I believe the common problem with these two examples is the "unwritten agreement." Once the original parties are out of the picture, "what they meant" becomes an issue.

Write it down and sign it, even if you are best friends with the other party. And don't use terms like "permanent loan."

JAC

> In the thread below regarding the 1218, one
> of the posts used the term "clear
> title".

I copied the term from the National Park site in the link. I used the term in a layman sense that a "clear title" is one that the ownership of the item is not subject to dispute or lien. The real issue in the case of 1218 is that Mr. Robert Claytor, the then president of N&W and later the N&S, wanted the engine for the excursion business in a bad way and wasn't above some corporate arm twisting to get his way. The Steamtown management took what they could get in exchange not wanting to get crosswise with what would become one of the four major railroads in the U.S. IMHO. How bad Mr. Claytor wanted the engine is amply proven by the amount spent to overhaul it back it to service. By all accounts, it was pretty much a basket case by the time Union Carbide got though with it not to mention that some of the main rods were off a different "A." I'll wager that if the real cost of the overhaul was available, that when adjusted for inflation, it was the most expensive return to service overhaul in the second half of the Twentieth Century.

Ed


ff1044@aol.com

> Establishing "ownership" of
> anything unusual (like a steam locomotive)
> is a hugely complicated event, and touches
> many aspects of the law. The procedures and
> what constitutes proof will vary from state
> to state.

> Who has a claim against the property
> (locomotive) also will be important. And so
> will be the potential for litigation. In
> other words, the strength of ownership proof
> can decline if there is little chance that
> someone will try to take it away.

> Also involved in the equation are issues of
> prior possession and how over time ownership
> of the item previously has been established.
> This last factor is particularly important
> as many steam locomotives often were
> involved in some past railroad-government
> donation action.

> In other words, without having examined the
> specifics of the engine about which you
> inquire, ownership of steam locomotives
> usually will be a case-by-case matter.

> Occasionally, it can get so muddle that
> judges will throw in the towel. Did not the
> sad Dick Jensen case illustrate this? I
> think I remember a shot in TRAINS magazine
> of one or two CB&Q engines being cut up.
> Memory says their titles became so fouled
> and the finances so occluded that a
> magistrate ordered them scrapped to pay off
> debts accumulated against the locomotives.

> Another thought from a business law class.
> Onwership issues tend to be simplified if
> there is no debt against a piece of
> property.
METRA had the one loco of Jensens scrapped on site when they pigeon holed him similar to the way N&W did with the 1218.They ordered him to move it but they wouldn't move it 150 yards to a new place & they would not allow anyone to inspect the loco so that they could move it. He eventualy won nearly 3/4 million dollars in a lawsuit over it but tyhe damage had already been done of course.

wooly421@charter.net

> Establishing "ownership" of
> anything unusual (like a steam locomotive)
> is a hugely complicated event, and touches
> many aspects of the law. The procedures and
> what constitutes proof will vary from state
> to state.

> Who has a claim against the property
> (locomotive) also will be important. And so
> will be the potential for litigation. In
> other words, the strength of ownership proof
> can decline if there is little chance that
> someone will try to take it away.

> Also involved in the equation are issues of
> prior possession and how over time ownership
> of the item previously has been established.
> This last factor is particularly important
> as many steam locomotives often were
> involved in some past railroad-government
> donation action.

> In other words, without having examined the
> specifics of the engine about which you
> inquire, ownership of steam locomotives
> usually will be a case-by-case matter.

> Occasionally, it can get so muddle that
> judges will throw in the towel. Did not the
> sad Dick Jensen case illustrate this? I
> think I remember a shot in TRAINS magazine
> of one or two CB&Q engines being cut up.
> Memory says their titles became so fouled
> and the finances so occluded that a
> magistrate ordered them scrapped to pay off
> debts accumulated against the locomotives.

> Another thought from a business law class.
> Onwership issues tend to be simplified if
> there is no debt against a piece of
> property.
such must be the case of the C&O 2700

LL675@aol.com

> It would seem that a locomotive is
> "chattel" or movable property and
> subject to that part of the Uniform
> Commercial Code.

Title 49 of the CFR (Part 1177) provides that encumbrances against railroad equipment can be filed with the Surface Transportation Board (and formerly, the ICC).

Such filing is discretionary but is generally required by lenders since railroad equipment often crosses state lines.

Of course equipment that is owned free and clear would not be recorded, and the STB's records would probably be of little use in tracing ownership of historical artifacts.

Alan Maples

AMaples@aol.com

> I believe the common problem with these two
> examples is the "unwritten
> agreement." Once the original parties
> are out of the picture, "what they
> meant" becomes an issue.

> Write it down and sign it, even if you are
> best friends with the other party. And don't
> use terms like "permanent loan."

I could go on for days on this subject as I have personally involved in a number of cases that stretched out over years. As Mr. Craft points out, a written document (and I would add "legally approved" to that) is the best way to establish
ownership/terms of agreement on preserved railorad equipment. J. David Conrad's shows many ways a steam locomotive changes ownership (and we could add "legal decision" to those as well); the important thing in each case is that the subsequent owner receives the documentation validating the ownership change. When it comes to "loans", "sub-loans", "leases", etc., ownership shouldn't be an issue unless there is something in the terms of agreement that specifically deals with ownership change in the future (for example: should the lessor voluntarily cease business and wants the lesee to retain the equipment).

In #1218's case, there was neither a written agreement to prove a change in validation of ownership nor a written "loan/lease" agreement with Steamtown Foundation (and I emphasize STEAMTOWN FOUNDATION) to show any change in ownership of the locomotive beyond the last legal change (i. e. donation by the Blount estate to SF). Even though NS-predecessor N&W may have believed it had some claim to the locomotive, as a result of dealings through a second party, NS recognized it did not have a clear title to #1218.
At the time NS wanted to restore the Class A for excursion service, it was NS's desire (not SF's) that they obtsin legal validation of the locomotive's ownership. They claimed (and rightfully so) that they did not want to put an estimated $1,000,000 into #1218 just to end up in a legal battle over the locomotive--and possibly end up having it go back to Steamtown. When you stop and think about it, gaining a clear title to the locomotive was a good move on NS's part: had they restored it to service without it, they'd have lost their claim that #1218 was an immovable cavader resting in the Roanoke transportation museum. Yes, NS did, in effect, hold #1218 hostage; and, yes, SF could have engaged in a legal battle to recover the locomotive and try to force NS to move it. Was the cost on SF's part worth it, given the financial condition SF was in at the time? Hell, no! SF's Board made the right decision by trading #1218 to NS, though I wish SF had gotten the four diesels it asked for rather than just two. Not to be forgotten, either, was a strong desire by some members of the SF Board to do what Steamtown's founder, the late F. Nelson Blount, would have wanted: in #1218's case, he'd approved of five glorious years of mainline excursion service by NS as opposed to a derelict locomotive sitting in Scranton (as would be the case if #1218 had returned to the SF collection back in the mid-1980's).

Other issues: predicting things that change over time. It's difficult! Case and point: MEC 2-8=0 #501. Leased to SF by MEC for an indefinite period subject to termination under certain conditions. SF decides to move to Scranton; 470 Railroad Club learns of lease agreement and wants 2-8-0 to remain in New England. Requests Guilford to terminate SF lease. SF required to send locomotive back to MEC "as received". Problems? Ah, the cost of preparing a long-neglected (i. e. outdoor storage for 20 years) piece to interchange condition. Could it even move on it's own wheels today? Oh, it can't even return via the original routing (B&M's Cheshire Branch is long gone). Alternate route to Portland, Maine (agreement specified interchange point) is long gone, so new routing via East Deerfield, Massachusetts is logical way. That's going to take #501 through a state MEC's and
B&M's current owner, Guilford Transportation Industries, doesn't want MEC's locomotive to travel because of asbestos concerns. (it's interesting to note that they were concerned about a locomotive they owned--but not the rest of the SF collection which moved over their trackage at later dates.) What to do? Make SF remove the asbestos? Naw, the agreement says return the locomotive in "as received" condition! MEC remove the abestos. Naw, that's expensive. There must be a better solution. Yeah, change the interchange point to Whitefield, NH (that's OK with SF) and re-open for one day the out-of-service (but fortunately still intact) MEC Mountain Sub through Crawford Notch to get the locomotive to it's new home at North Conway, NH.
That worked back in 1983. What would happen today? Who knows? And what next? well, new owner 470 RR Club decides the old Consol would look good in steam. Where did all those missing parts go? MEC thinks the locomotive was leased intact, but nobody can remember for sure. No inventory was ever taken on what the locomotive had or didn't have at the "time received"--either by MEC or SF. That's 20 years ago now! Yes. SF was known for using parts off display pieces to keep it's active steamers running? Was #501 a "victim" of that practice? Interesting!

I've got plenty more stories, too--will be glad to post others if people are interested.



fred.gracebailey@earthlink.net

> I could go on for days on this subject as I
> have personally involved in a number of
> cases that stretched out over years. As Mr.
> Craft points out, a written document (and I
> would add "legally approved" to
> that) is the best way to establish
> ownership/terms of agreement on preserved
> railorad equipment. J. David Conrad's shows
> many ways a steam locomotive changes
> ownership (and we could add "legal
> decision" to those as well); the
> important thing in each case is that the
> subsequent owner receives the documentation
> validating the ownership change. When it
> comes to "loans",
> "sub-loans", "leases",
> etc., ownership shouldn't be an issue unless
> there is something in the terms of agreement
> that specifically deals with ownership
> change in the future (for example: should
> the lessor voluntarily cease business and
> wants the lesee to retain the equipment).

> In #1218's case, there was neither a written
> agreement to prove a change in validation of
> ownership nor a written
> "loan/lease" agreement with
> Steamtown Foundation (and I emphasize
> STEAMTOWN FOUNDATION) to show any change in
> ownership of the locomotive beyond the last
> legal change (i. e. donation by the Blount
> estate to SF). Even though NS-predecessor
> N&W may have believed it had some claim
> to the locomotive, as a result of dealings
> through a second party, NS recognized it did
> not have a clear title to #1218.
> At the time NS wanted to restore the Class A
> for excursion service, it was NS's desire
> (not SF's) that they obtsin legal validation
> of the locomotive's ownership. They claimed
> (and rightfully so) that they did not want
> to put an estimated $1,000,000 into #1218
> just to end up in a legal battle over the
> locomotive--and possibly end up having it go
> back to Steamtown. When you stop and think
> about it, gaining a clear title to the
> locomotive was a good move on NS's part: had
> they restored it to service without it,
> they'd have lost their claim that #1218 was
> an immovable cavader resting in the Roanoke
> transportation museum. Yes, NS did, in
> effect, hold #1218 hostage; and, yes, SF
> could have engaged in a legal battle to
> recover the locomotive and try to force NS
> to move it. Was the cost on SF's part worth
> it, given the financial condition SF was in
> at the time? Hell, no! SF's Board made the
> right decision by trading #1218 to NS,
> though I wish SF had gotten the four diesels
> it asked for rather than just two. Not to be
> forgotten, either, was a strong desire by
> some members of the SF Board to do what
> Steamtown's founder, the late F. Nelson
> Blount, would have wanted: in #1218's case,
> he'd approved of five glorious years of
> mainline excursion service by NS as opposed
> to a derelict locomotive sitting in Scranton
> (as would be the case if #1218 had returned
> to the SF collection back in the
> mid-1980's).

> Other issues: predicting things that change
> over time. It's difficult! Case and point:
> MEC 2-8=0 #501. Leased to SF by MEC for an
> indefinite period subject to termination
> under certain conditions. SF decides to move
> to Scranton; 470 Railroad Club learns of
> lease agreement and wants 2-8-0 to remain in
> New England. Requests Guilford to terminate
> SF lease. SF required to send locomotive
> back to MEC "as received".
> Problems? Ah, the cost of preparing a
> long-neglected (i. e. outdoor storage for 20
> years) piece to interchange condition. Could
> it even move on it's own wheels today? Oh,
> it can't even return via the original
> routing (B&M's Cheshire Branch is long
> gone). Alternate route to Portland, Maine
> (agreement specified interchange point) is
> long gone, so new routing via East
> Deerfield, Massachusetts is logical way.
> That's going to take #501 through a state
> MEC's and
> B&M's current owner, Guilford
> Transportation Industries, doesn't want
> MEC's locomotive to travel because of
> asbestos concerns. (it's interesting to note
> that they were concerned about a locomotive
> they owned--but not the rest of the SF
> collection which moved over their trackage
> at later dates.) What to do? Make SF remove
> the asbestos? Naw, the agreement says return
> the locomotive in "as received"
> condition! MEC remove the abestos. Naw,
> that's expensive. There must be a better
> solution. Yeah, change the interchange point
> to Whitefield, NH (that's OK with SF) and
> re-open for one day the out-of-service (but
> fortunately still intact) MEC Mountain Sub
> through Crawford Notch to get the locomotive
> to it's new home at North Conway, NH.
> That worked back in 1983. What would happen
> today? Who knows? And what next? well, new
> owner 470 RR Club decides the old Consol
> would look good in steam. Where did all
> those missing parts go? MEC thinks the
> locomotive was leased intact, but nobody can
> remember for sure. No inventory was ever
> taken on what the locomotive had or didn't
> have at the "time
> received"--either by MEC or SF. That's
> 20 years ago now! Yes. SF was known for
> using parts off display pieces to keep it's
> active steamers running? Was #501 a
> "victim" of that practice?
> Interesting!

> I've got plenty more stories, too--will be
> glad to post others if people are
> interested.
I think these stories are absolutely fasinating. WOOLY

wooly421@charter.net

> I've got plenty more stories, too--will be
> glad to post others if people are
> interested.

I smell a very, very intriguing and interesting article for Trains or Railfan & Railroad out of these stories. The mind boggles at the amazing degree of trivial detail (such as that MEC asbestos problem) that goes into such planning and ownership issues.

LNER4472-NOSPAM-@bcpl.net

From my experience, 99% of the disputes over ownership come up in one of these situations: 1. the owner (or one of the owners) of the equipment isn't keeping up with an agreement of some kind to keep the car operational, to move the car before a specific date, etc. or 2. when the owner(s) have a verbal agreement of some kind (for storage, etc.) and now one of the parties to this "agreement" wants out.

So, if you want to avoid disputes over your equipment, have all your agreements in writing, and follow the terms of the agreement.

The problem of people buying equipment with the intention of restoring it, then later abandoning the equipment and refusing to move it or pay for storage, is becoming a big problem. If you are the owner of the storage track, what can you do? As there isn't a title to a railcar you can't easily put a lein (at least an enforcable one) on it like an auto mechanic can.

Chris Jacks.

chrisjacks@chrisjacksnospam.com

As there
> isn't a title to a railcar you can't easily
> put a lein (at least an enforcable one) on
> it like an auto mechanic can.

> Chris Jacks.

Railroad cars and locomotives are very easy to title. Since the ICC required equipment trust registrations are becoming more and more scarce, a whole range of other title instruments are available. I remember stacks of locomotive and car titles in the U.S.R.A. safe when I worked for them in DC.

And, yes, you CAN put a LIEN on a locomotive or car. In 1992, when working for the City of Prichard, Alabama, on an industrial park project, the town's attorney and the fire chief walked into my cubbyhole one afternoon. Seems they had a long overdue bill to the IC for fire truck rental. The charges had been incurred when the railroad borrowed a pumper and four firefighters to help fight a bridge fire in a rural area some distance from Mobile. The City had obtained a judgement but had not been able to collect.

We got a Writ of Replevin and Notice of Adverse Possession against two IC locomotives then resting in the yard near the State Docks, and then served the Writs on the bewildered General Foreman with the help of Prichard police officers.

About two hours later, IC wired the $8445 to the city via their Telex link with the Alabama State Docks Department. Case closed.

Gee, wonder if that's why I never heard anything from IC concerning my employment application?
[ ;-)


amiller@rtms-movietrains.com

Let me clarify what I said above: it is easy to put a lien on a railcar. However, the enforcability of the lien is another matter entirely.

Say IC just decided to ignore the papers you served on them? How would the local government collected their money? That's what typically happens with dead-beat PV owners: you can take whatever legal action you want against them, but they just ignore it, and you have great difficulty collecting from them.

Chris.

> As there

> Railroad cars and locomotives are very easy
> to title. Since the ICC required equipment
> trust registrations are becoming more and
> more scarce, a whole range of other title
> instruments are available. I remember stacks
> of locomotive and car titles in the U.S.R.A.
> safe when I worked for them in DC.

> And, yes, you CAN put a LIEN on a locomotive
> or car. In 1992, when working for the City
> of Prichard, Alabama, on an industrial park
> project, the town's attorney and the fire
> chief walked into my cubbyhole one
> afternoon. Seems they had a long overdue
> bill to the IC for fire truck rental. The
> charges had been incurred when the railroad
> borrowed a pumper and four firefighters to
> help fight a bridge fire in a rural area
> some distance from Mobile. The City had
> obtained a judgement but had not been able
> to collect.

> We got a Writ of Replevin and Notice of
> Adverse Possession against two IC
> locomotives then resting in the yard near
> the State Docks, and then served the Writs
> on the bewildered General Foreman with the
> help of Prichard police officers.

> About two hours later, IC wired the $8445 to
> the city via their Telex link with the
> Alabama State Docks Department. Case closed.

> Gee, wonder if that's why I never heard
> anything from IC concerning my employment
> application?
> [ ;-)


chrisjacks@chrisjacksnospam.com