Right you are, current and former county employeed can't comment on the specifics of the case, so only one side will be heard here and it will be as accurate as you have seen. Will MOT be given any credit for taking the loco in 1953 in the first place, thus saving it to fight over some 50 years later? Any credit for removing the hideous diamond stack and paint job the DL&W gave it? Any credit for giving the same care as all the other locos we had through the 50s, 60s, 70s, and early 80s before there was any overhead cover for them? Will anyone ask why it was placed where mentioned, which was to give it some protection from the west winds and the weather that came from that direction when there was no cover? Did the organization that wants it provide any funds for paint or anything else during these years? Yep, no good dead goes unpunished. So do you sense why MOT folks are a bit out of joint about this sad situation?

MOT is given great credit for all these things by the quiet, reasonable majority of observers, among whom I number myself.

The General, now in Kennesaw, was caught in such a dispute. A three-way suit between L&N, the state of Georgia, and Chattanooga.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. To sort of follow up on Ron Goldfeder's comments, wouldn't that fact that the R&LHS did nothing to assert its ownership for 40 or so years have any bearing on this case. I saw the 952 at the museum in 1987 and it was in terrible condition. Certainly the R&LHS knew that and could have at least sent a certified letter expressing their dissatisfaction. Doesn't the silence imply acceptance of the situation?

- - -

Would the following question come into play in the court's decision?

"Which group would be better for the future preservation of the locomotive?"

I don't know the entire history. It would be nice to see a DL&W locomotive closer to home rails but I don't think the Friends of NJ nor the LC of the R&LHS have any inside storage facility. I assume they may be thinking Steamtown, but that would mean possibly placing something they have inside, outside.

Does this unit into the St. Louis MOT reach and focus? I would think their focus is on St. Louis area RR's.

I hope to be visiting that museum in late May, so seeing that locomotive and taking numerous photos will be high on my priority list. Is it in a decent, open location for photography? Is the Museum open during the week in May?

Chris V, the Civil E in NJ

AND



At this point in the discussion, with out having access to the relevant case law, I think it would be more useful to compile questions than to find answers to them. Answering these questions now would likely lead into a heated, unproductive, uninformed point-counter point discussion.

Hopefully those of you with time and access to some of the legal databases will be able to provide some information -- (and many thanks for those who already have provided info).

While many of us have passionate positions regarding this, the best way to approach the issue is in a dispassionate and professional manner.

Tom Cornillie

In fact there are only two DL&W steam locos left. One is at MOT and the other is as Scranton, in Steamtown. Would anyone like to let us know its status these days? Last I knew it was indoors, but otherwise not being worked on. As for scope of collection, MOT has one that is national in scope, not regional, and the largest collection of steam locos in North America. Everything from Boston & Providence to SP, one from CN, two mainline articulateds, and most wheel arrangements except no geared locos and no 2-6-2.

folks,

I think a couple of important points went by in this duscussion, so let me repeat them.

First there are only two museums in the US who profess to have National Collections: The National Railroad Museum in Green Bay and as mentioned the MOT, which has the largest collection of steam locomotives.

Second the MOT now has the engine under cover. And I don't know if the NRHS Chapter can do the same.

I hope that level heads who are interested in the preservation of the historic artifact are involved in the eventual decision.

Ted Miles

Ron:

Another glaring omission is no example of a 4-8-0 Twelve-Wheeler.

Also, isn't it an R&LHS chapter that's involved in the lawsuit; not NRHS?

Les

It will be sure interesting to see how this plays out. I have to give a lot of credit to the folks in St. Louis for turning the place around. They sure were presenting a good case to be the worst of museums in the not too distant past.

What I think is the most important part for all museums to understand is that they might hold title but the true ownership to these important items is with the public. When XYZ railroad gives away a locomotive or caboose, what they are indeed doing is giving it to the public and making ABC museum the caretaker.

In my opinion once a museum drops the ball and allows something to fall into the shameful disrepair that existed in St. Louis they no longer deserve to remain in the position of caretaker. On the flip side they have turned things around and in the long run might be better able to care for the 952. The legal system will grind on and one day this too will be history. Until then I hope eveyone can get along.

I know of a certain museum in Virginia that has a few to spare...

There are some lessons to be learned from this topic that make it worthwhile for the moderators to allow it to continue, if it stays in a polite tone. They apply to museums, railroads, museums that acquire something from a railroad or elsewhere, and almost everyone else in the world of legal suits.
Railroad textbooks often advised the employee in the real estate department to take every opportunity to perfect the title of land previously "acquired", before any restrictions in agreements from long ago haunted his road in the future. An example given was that if you buy land without restrictions from someone who long ago "lent" or gave you an easement to use other land of his for as long as you run a railroad on it, now is a good time to get him to sell the old land as well!
Some museums dislike having exhibits they don't own "free and clear" in their collections, for fear of disagreements like in this topic happening in the future.
If MOT had bought or been given (not "lent") the locomotive some time before now, they would probably be the only ones who could successfully sue themselves about it. I realize that anyone else with the filing fees could still sue, but winning would be much harder for them!

I know that the Green Bay folks have a National Collection, but I think you could also include the Illinois Ry Museum, which has also sought out all wheel arrangements, like MOT. That might be a more significant factor when compared to geographical distribution. What line a particular loco came from was less important to MOT than getting "typical" examples in most cases. There are some exceptions.

The 4-8-0 was quite a bit less common when compared to 2-8-0 or 2-8-2 or 4-6-0, which might be why none is at MOT. There is an SP example preserved in Bakersfield, IIRC, in addition to the one at Strasburg and the ones in that scrap yard in Roanoke.

From photos I've seen, it appears the 952 has had a good cosmetic makeover and is under cover at St. Louis. Other locomotives should be so lucky. Too bad this incredible waste of money on legal fees couldn't be put to use working on another engine that really needs it. The whole matter reminds me of two eight year olds fighting over who gets to play with the Lionel set. Is it any wonder the general public thinks of us as odd?