Judge Rules EBT Foundation Can Offer To Buy EBT North End

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Fri Sep 25, 2026 8:51 am

I dropped the original news late last night in the related earlier thread; here's more on the story, from the Altoona Mirror:

https://www.altoonamirror.com/news/loca ... s-of-line/

Quote:

A Huntingdon County judge Wednesday ruled that the organization that owns almost all of the East Broad Top Railroad can buy the remaining several miles at the northern end of the right-of-way from the EBT's former operator, thus making the historic narrow gauge line whole again, while extending the right-of-way far enough to connect with the Norfolk Southern mainline at Mount Union.

Judge Roy Ghaner ruled that the East Broad Top Foundation has 14 days to exercise its right of first refusal to intervene in former operator Larry Salone's East Broad Top Railroad Preservation Association's proposed sale for $2 million to local railroad enthusiast Stephen Lane's Juniata & Aughwick Railroad.

The foundation board will convene next week to vote, and is expected to match Lane's offer, thus executing the purchase, according to Bennett Levin, foundation member and chairman of the organization's Property Committee, adding, however, that he didn't want to be "presumptuous" in making a definitive prediction.

Salone first notified the foundation of Lane's offer in August 2025, giving the foundation 60 days to exercise its right to match, after which there was a delay on the foundation's part, followed by a request for proof that Lane's offer was genuine, and not an attempt to extort money from the foundation.

The judge ruled in May that Lane's offer was indeed genuine, then added this week that due to the foundation not having received enough information from Salone and Lane to determine the validity of Lane's offer -- but having squandered some of its originally allotted time to make a decision -- the foundation would have two weeks to make the purchase.

The agreement that provided the foundation with the right of first refusal was actually silent on how long the foundation had to decide, according to the judge.

While Salone and Lane set the deadline initially at 60 days, the normal criterion for how much time is allotted for a right of first refusal -- absent a stated deadline -- is simply what is reasonable, according to the judge.

Lane's offer was backed by an anonymous investor, Lane told the judge at a previous hearing.

He sought to maintain the investor's anonymity "due to the hostile nature of the sale," according to a motion that came into play at that time.

In the course of his inquiries to determine whether Lane's offer was in fact genuine, the judge conducted discussions in chambers to avoid revealing the investor's identity.

The foundation had reason to doubt the validity of Lane's offer because it was twice what the foundation initially offered for the property in 2024, even though there were components of the property that had since been sold or damaged -- which would seem to have made the assets less valuable, not twice as valuable, according to foundation lawyer Larry Newton, speaking at the time of a hearing in April.

"Money is not an issue with us," Levin said then. "But we don't want to be extorted."

The state Attorney General's office will need to review and approve the potential purchase by the foundation, as stipulated at an April hearing by the attorney for Salone and Lane, according to Levin.

The AG's office is generally responsible for transactions between nonprofit parties, according to Levin.

bigjim4life · **Posted:** Fri Sep 25, 2026 9:38 am

So let me get this straight, if the Foundation matches the $2 million purchase price that the J&A did, then the purchase is, as per the agreement, complete and the rest of the line goes to the EBTF? No "take-backs", no "never minds"?

NJDixon · **Joined:** Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:36 pm **Posts:** 376

bigjim4life wrote:

So let me get this straight, if the Foundation matches the $2 million purchase price that the J&A did, then the purchase is, as per the agreement, complete and the rest of the line goes to the EBTF? No "take-backs", no "never minds"?

I've been wondering if the EBTPA would retract the sale to J&A and spontaneously decide to lease it to J&A instead if the courts ruled in EBTF's favor, since the whole EBTPA sale to J&A seems to be largely motivated by spite, and J&A has already been moving equipment onto the property and putting up the Emergency Notification Signs despite not owning the property and the whole thing waiting on legal settlements.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Fri Sep 25, 2026 11:20 am

I strongly suspect that the EBT Foundation believes--or even knows--that Lane/J&A doesn't actually have the money, or a supposed financial backer, to follow through with his ambitions; thus the sincere belief that his offer was not in fact "bona fide" in spite of the court's finding that it was. So........ exclude a guy they don't believe will really do anything, or give him the opportunity to fall on his face and have to clean up the resulting "mess," if so? Or, heck, maybe he can succeed after all. But I wouldn't want a guy who just cost the preservation efforts an unnecessary additional million dollars hanging around...........

My quiet question was, if someone launched a legitimate fundraiser to donate to the costs of this now-inflated purchase for the EBT Foundation, how much would be raised? There may be good reasons why that won't happen.......... but I'm waiting to cough up if that happens!

NJDixon · **Joined:** Mon Dec 06, 2021 4:36 pm **Posts:** 376

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

I strongly suspect that the EBT Foundation believes--or even knows--that Lane/J&A doesn't actually have the money, or a supposed financial backer, to follow through with his ambitions...

I don't know about Lane/J&A'S finances but he also bid on the Luzerne & Susquehanna recently when that went up for bid. Not sure what his bid was, since it didn't even seem to be too strongly considered (Redevelopment Authority backed RJ Corman, Luzerne County Council is backing R&N) but that makes me thing J&A is at least somewhat more legit than a weapon to spite the EBTF.

bory2502 · **Posted:** Fri Sep 25, 2026 4:49 pm

According to one of the articles he offered $1.00 with some type of kick back to the local governments.

NJDixon wrote:

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

I strongly suspect that the EBT Foundation believes--or even knows--that Lane/J&A doesn't actually have the money, or a supposed financial backer, to follow through with his ambitions...

I don't know about Lane/J&A'S finances but he also bid on the Luzerne & Susquehanna recently when that went up for bid. Not sure what his bid was, since it didn't even seem to be too strongly considered (Redevelopment Authority backed RJ Corman, Luzerne County Council is backing R&N) but that makes me thing J&A is at least somewhat more legit than a weapon to spite the EBTF.

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Fri Sep 25, 2026 8:16 pm

I have been told allegations which, if determined to be true (basically nothing but gossip or hearsay at the present), would very much back the supposition by the EBT Foundation that there were valid reasons to question the "bona fides" of his offer for the MUCRR.

If the article's report that Lane offered "$1.00 plus kickbacks" for the Luzerne & Susquehanna proves true, then this would tend to reaffirm the notion by the EBTF to question the "bona fides" of the offer to purchase the MUCRR/whatever it's being called now.

PMC · **Joined:** Sat Oct 17, 2015 5:55 pm **Posts:** 2890

Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote:

Lane's offer was backed by an anonymous investor, Lane told the judge at a previous hearing.

He sought to maintain the investor's anonymity "due to the hostile nature of the sale," according to a motion that came into play at that time.

In the course of his inquiries to determine whether Lane's offer was in fact genuine, the judge conducted discussions in chambers to avoid revealing the investor's identity.

This is an odd little procedure, normally I would think that the Foundation would have the right to examine any evidence and to dispute its authenticity, e.g. to force the "anonymous investor" to testify. If the Foundation doesn't appeal it may be that the $2M isn't far off of what they think it is worth.

jayrod · **Posted:** Sat Sep 26, 2026 12:28 pm

Based on what Salone presumably owes in liabilities, the $2m is likely going to pay down debts. Per the IRS, he can't personally profit from the sale.

[Edited]
If one were to do a detailed business plan, I'd likely assume that the property isn't currently worth $2m as a railroad business. Maybe if you dissolve the nonprofit, sell off the assets to cover the debt and then Lane can sell off parcels over the long term thus blocking EBT from ever getting to Mount Union.... That could be the plan. Maybe it's time for another bucket of popcorn.

PrrOpCrew · **Posted:** Mon Sep 28, 2026 11:54 am

bigjim4life · **Posted:** Mon Sep 28, 2026 12:30 pm

I'm sure that if someone they TRUSTED put in an offer to buy the trackage, and they could reach some sort of concrete agreement with the EBTF regarding it's future use, then they might let that entity purchase the north part of the line. As it is, neither the current owner or the J&A seems to be willing to work with the EBTF with an agreement/contract, and EBTF doesn't seem trust either of them to do the right thing.

All of the above is just my opinion, but that's what it SEEMS like to me.

mcgrath618 · **Joined:** Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:54 pm **Posts:** 235

PrrOpCrew wrote:

Besides the easy answer of "the whole narrow gauge line should be preserved INTACT" what is a serious legitimate reason for owning the line all the way into Mount Union?

Is the next step going to be to buy the Dollar General in Mount Union and demolish it so the wye can be relaid? With the wye gone, there's no historically accurate way to turn the locomotive for a return trip to Orbisonia.

There's also the hard reality that as much as a bunch of EBT foamers will cry and bemoan it, Amtrak would not be willing to add an handcapped-accessible additional station and I highly doubt Norfolk Southern would accomodate it either.

The EBTF is focusing on rebuilding the line south through the more scenic and pure Narrow Gauge ambience portions of the line. There's nothing of any major significant historical draw in Mount Union. To suddenly decide to build North will essentially create a "war on two fronts".

If the EBTF would get the line, I don't think the by-laws of the foundation would allow them to operate as a for-profit freight railroad, they could lease out the operating rights of the standard gauge portion to a designated operator. (Someone should let Riffin know!)

Otherwise, they're going to buy the line only to let it rust and rot into the ground, which is what it's doing already. The situation won't improve, the only change is the ownership.

1) The original Bill of Sale, which gave the EBTF the right of first refusal on the property.
2) There is more than enough land on the opposite side of the railroad from the original wye for either its replacement or a turntable.
3) This would not be as much for Amtrak to decide as it would be the decision of PennDOT. Should enough public support manifest itself, there is ample room for basic station platforms alongside the now-two-tracked NS Main. The Airo cars are handicap accessible even from low-level platforms, so the requirement of building high-levels will now be effectively gone.
4) No one is saying they have to immediately run trains north of Colgate Grove. They will decide as an organization when and how they'd like to tackle the project of restoring this portion of the line (although, given the rate at which they're marching to Satillo, this could happen much sooner than you'd think). I think you also undersell the scenic value of the line north of Colgate Grove, especially compared to the line to Satillo. I'd say they're about the same.

There are plenty of things that a driven, creative organization could do with a terminus in Mount Union. It is by far the largest town on the railroad, and to my knowledge is the only location other than Rockihill itself that has any restaurants or bars within walking distance of the train. Besides the Bricktown Museum, the EBT-PRR interchange could be outfitted with a viewing platform of the NS Main Line, to appeal to the "foamers" you seemingly despise.
5) I do not have enough knowledge of the EBTF's bylaws to comment on this, but I fail to see why your suggestion of leasing out rights wouldn't be feasible (except for the horrid condition of the physical plant and lack of existing customers).
6) What is your proposed solution here? You offer up all of these reasons as to argue why the sale shouldn't happen (despite it being EBTF's legal right to pursue purchase of the railroad), while offering no alternatives for what exactly it is you think should happen. What exactly is it that you would prefer to the line being sold to the EBTF?

Chris Webster · **Joined:** Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:45 am **Posts:** 1097

mcgrath618 wrote:

There are plenty of things that a driven, creative organization could do with a terminus in Mount Union. It is by far the largest town on the railroad, and to my knowledge is the only location other than Rockihill itself that has any restaurants or bars within walking distance of the train.

Also, FWIW, Mount Union permits the retail sale of liquor and beer, while most of the other boroughs and townships along the EBT do not.

Orbisonia, Rockhill, Saltillo, Shade Gap and Three Springs are all dry, according to this list:
Pennsylvania Dry Municipalities - As of September 2025

Alexander D. Mitchell IV · **Posted:** Mon Sep 28, 2026 11:55 pm

Here is another consideration:

There are people who are enthusiastic about rebuilding the EBT "over the mountain," but there are no doubt some supporters that want to see Mt. Union "come back to life." I suspect that if a drive to return to Mt. Union were to be announced, it would garner both financial and logistical support from Mt. Union, Huntingdon County, and a number of fans more fixated with the idea of rebuilding the timber transfer than Pogue Trestle.

We must never consider the support and funding of rail preservation as a fixed pool, where raising funds for one project means you must be depriving another project of its funding. Some donors may now donate more than they have been. Maybe Mt. Union can be eligible for some community grant it wasn't before, or for which they never applied.

As far as the Amtrak-stop delusions:
We still don't have that proposed Amtrak connection at Leaman Place for the Strasburg Rail Road. Amtrak stopped stopping at Williams Junction for the Grand Canyon Railroad years ago. We still don't have Amtrak service to Scranton. And I haven't seen a connection to the Essex Steam train advertised from Old Saybrook for decades now.

mcgrath618 · **Joined:** Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:54 pm **Posts:** 235

Yeah to be clear I think there are a lot of infill stops for the Pennsylvanian that would rank higher than Mount Union. My point was more that such a thing is not impossible.

Leeman Place has a large contingent of Amish that might use it (as they patronize Amtrak extremely well), and STILL hasn’t been built. Mount Union doesn’t even have such a draw.