Welcome to the age of social media. If you're looking for a big audience impact, the social media outlets can often have more impact than say, an email listerv, or a physical mailing list. Why? Because all people had to do to get routine information (pictures, updates, drives, etc) was click the little "like" button. FaceBook and the like have brought issues, as we all know. However, the tradeoff for outreach and interaction with an audience is a small one, in my opinion. It's similar to how crowd-funding drives online (think KickStarter and Indiegogo) are starting to factor into preservation projects. The old "rules" are starting to apply less.

Mr. Wilkins, the Court of Appeals' 2010 decision was indeed based on a determination that the SOL had tolled. The PA group sat on its right to request the return of its artifact and thus gave up its right. In combination with the earlier 2007 Decision, the effect was to split title and possession in what appears to be a permanent manner.

I did not intend to post specifically to the result in the 952 litigation, but yes, I agree that MOT would be ill-advised to allow the artifact anywhere near PA as it may provide the opportunity and a more sympathetic jurisdiction for a local group to attempt to repossess the artifact.

The purpose of my post was to reiterate what many other posters have pointed out as to best practices when it comes to the management of collections.

Taken together, these three transactions illustrate that the only constant is change.
People change, entities (both for profit and non-profit) change in their goals and policies, and there is change in how those goals and policies are implemented.

All three of these transactions were done in a spirit of cooperation at the time they were made. Even assuming no ill intent on the part of any entity involved, things can and will go wrong. Consulting counsel prior to any movement, such that all of those involved in storing, caring for, and transporting the artifact have a contractual obligation to return the artifact in a timely manner to the point of origin in at least a condition that is equivalent to the condition in which it left, is paramount.

This is just personal opinion, but I imagine if the loan was made to Steamtown, there wouldn't or couldn't be that much of an issue as far as other groups trying to keep it in the state. I highly doubt the national government is going to get into a pissing match with another museum over something like that.

That being said, I'm biased and hope it does stay if it comes haha.

Mr. Yerkes, the small OT aside concerning any hypothetical loan of 952 is not about the Park Service, the Department of Interior, or the Federal Government. Please read the third to last paragraph of Mr. Wilkins' post. What he mentioned, and I responded to in agreement, is the possibility that such a move of the artifact to PA could potentially create a needless exposure for MOT from a possible action by the local L&RHS.

In all fairness, Brother Laepple's cynicism is somewhat justified.

Absent a major corporation (non-profit or no) with the wherewithal and manpower to micro-manage its image and publicity--exceedingly rare in any historic preservation, let alone rail preservation--Facebook accounts, and even web pages, are to be considered at the whim of random individuals, and ONLY careful perusal and examination will tell a competent, well managed site/page from some random bunch of blather that may or may not have any relationship with reality. (The other extreme--all glitz and micromanaged PR and no substance--also exists out there.)

I have personally observed major disputes and what could only be described as "fecal weather disturbances" erupt over mismanaged and unauthorized Facebook and web-board management, be it posting of information quite prematurely (imagine if, just to make up a faked example, the recently announced deal for C&O 1309 to go to the WMSR were scrubbed because some WMSR supporter running an unofficial Facebook account announced the deal before a museum BOD approved it...) or simply mismanagement of forums or member information services.

Honestly speaking, there is little way to assure that a FB account or web site is officially sanctioned and overseen by the museum, group, etc,. it purports to represent. The only way to judge is by the discretionary use of the increasingly-scarce "common sense" and critical judgement.

I understand that, but if it was a loan to Steamtown, they would most likely not be party to any such action. It has been ruled time and again that MoT is the owner of the locomotive, and it wouldn't be a similar situation as when Steamtown loaned 1218 to VMT (then RMT), since neither the DL nor NS would have a personal stake in it.

Again, being biased, the worst that would happen is it would stay in PA a little longer until another judge ruled that MoT was still the owner.

Rypn

One thing to keep in mind as we speculate about the likelihood that NS will want to restore the Y6a to operation. Sometime before I got to MOT in January 1995 its siderod on the front right side broke when it was being moved. This broke between the front two axles, closer to the first one, and was welded back together. It isn't easily seen as the front crosshead tends to hide that part of the rod. But before anyone restores it to operation they will have to fabricate a new rod. Even moving it a long distance may be a problem as there is no way to know if the repair changed the length of the rod and removing it and the one from the opposite side would be the safe thing to do. How did it happen? My own guess, and it is only that, is that the loco had been sitting in one place for a long time and when they coupled up to move it the front driver's axle bearings just didn't want to turn and something had to give, in this case it was the siderod.

Looking at my post I should have said that the front section of the front right side rod had broken as the rod is composed of several sections, not one piece.

< Again, being biased, the worst that would happen is it would stay in PA a little longer
< until another judge ruled that MoT was still the owner.

Not being biased, and not having any interest in the situation other than as a learning experience, I would think the railroad preservation community/brotherhood/family would be better served without risking the fallout and possible negative publicity and image that would certainly accompany any such involvement . . . again . . . by any judge in any jurisdiction.

As was noted earlier in this thread, there have been some significant advances made in railroad preservation; particularly steam, recently. It would be in our collective best interests to let the dogs that sleep remain so.

Jeff,

I think Mr. ETA was just jesting, especially in his "character" as a devotee and worshiper of all things internal combustion.

Though, he has been spending a lot of time around a particular external combustion locomotive, so his heart may be softening a bit.

David

Good, old fashioned press release announcing the loan today:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/st-louis-museum-of-transportation-and-virginia-museum-of-transportation-to-trade-historic-locomotives-2014-05-28?reflink=MW_news_stmp

This is a very exciting development and one that speaks well of all the parties involved!

I see a trip to Roanoke in my not-too-distant future ...

I've still got an unused "Free the N&W 2156!" bumper sticker that dates from the early 80's. As I recall, it would sort of a parody of the Iranian hostage crisis back then.

Very glad to see this finally come about.

Ha! Yes, that's the one. IIRC, Roanoke was trying to convince St. Louis to loan them 2156 for a few years but they weren't receptive to the idea at the time.