Wow, there sure are a lot of people making posts here that are making this feel like they only read what they want to read and then let propoganda fill in the blanks as something malicious.

Dare I pose this thought: A Class 1 decides to abandon a stretch of railroad in Pennsylvania, instead of it being abandonned the local munincpal authority purchases the line to railbank or keep it in place for any potential designated operator to come in and runt he line for them. Should the owner of the track be responsible for maintaining the track or should the designated operator be responsible for mainting the trakc sicne they're the ones operating on it, and include that as part of their yearly operating budget.

Direct example: York County, PA owns the rail line that Steam Into history/Northern Central Railway operates on, but they don't pay to maintain the track, its part of the operating agreement with the designated operator. How would York County justify using county tax money to maintain the tracks?

Let's say that Lane would get the northern portion of the EBT from Aughwick Creek to Mount Union, if he's only using the standard gauge rails why would he use his money to maintain the third rail which he wouldn't use? Pennies add to dollars, this is how the big railroads made money, they do little things which when expanded over a larger system can save thousands of dollars.

Why not suppose that if the EBTF wants to take trains north into Mount Union, they enter into a trackage rights agreement and part of the agreement is that the EBTF has to maintain the narrow gauge track that they operate on and repair for use any structures that they would need to do that, such as the concrete bridge over Aughwick Creek?

Is this really so hard of a concept for people on this forum to understand?

Everyone here keeps complaining about lack of activity in this hobby by "younger people", but now when a younger person comes along he's being slandered as the anti-christ by the narrow gauge cult.

Just because he's young, does that make him right?

Wow, there sure are a lot of people making posts here that are making this feel like they only read what they want to read and then let propoganda fill in the blanks as something malicious.

Dare I pose this thought: A Class 1 decides to abandon a stretch of railroad in Pennsylvania, instead of it being abandonned the local munincpal authority purchases the line to railbank or keep it in place for any potential designated operator to come in and runt he line for them. Should the owner of the track be responsible for maintaining the track or should the designated operator be responsible for mainting the trakc sicne they're the ones operating on it, and include that as part of their yearly operating budget.

Direct example: York County, PA owns the rail line that Steam Into history/Northern Central Railway operates on, but they don't pay to maintain the track, its part of the operating agreement with the designated operator. How would York County justify using county tax money to maintain the tracks?

Let's say that Lane would get the northern portion of the EBT from Aughwick Creek to Mount Union, if he's only using the standard gauge rails why would he use his money to maintain the third rail which he wouldn't use? Pennies add to dollars, this is how the big railroads made money, they do little things which when expanded over a larger system can save thousands of dollars.

Why not suppose that if the EBTF wants to take trains north into Mount Union, they enter into a trackage rights agreement and part of the agreement is that the EBTF has to maintain the narrow gauge track that they operate on and repair for use any structures that they would need to do that, such as the concrete bridge over Aughwick Creek?

Is this really so hard of a concept for people on this forum to understand?

Everyone here keeps complaining about lack of activity in this hobby by "younger people", but now when a younger person comes along he's being slandered as the anti-christ by the narrow gauge cult.

John, you may have missed it in the discussion (as well as the Trains.com article), but FEBT already has a trackage rights agreement in perpetuity over the northern 4 miles of the line. When Joe Kovalchick sold this parcel, he included this clause in it for himself, which he has since transferred to FEBT. More importantly, he also included right of first refusal, which has also since transferred over to the FEBT.

You're confusing the Friends of the East Broad Top (FEBT) with the East Broad Top Foundation (EBTF.)

My understanding is that the Friends/FEBT are not a party to the dispute over the sale of the EBT's north end.

Direct example: York County, PA owns the rail line that Steam Into history/Northern Central Railway operates on, but they don't pay to maintain the track, its part of the operating agreement with the designated operator. How would York County justify using county tax money to maintain the tracks?

Huntingdon County Judge Ray A. Ghaner ruled on Wednesday, May 13, that the proposed deal by Juniata & Aughwick Railroad to purchase 4 miles of the East Broad Top Railroad at Mount Union, Pa., for $2 million is a bona fide offer.

J&A owner Stephen Lane and the current owner of that 4-mile segment, the East Broad Top Preservation Association, sued the EBT Foundation for summary judgment to allow the transaction to proceed. The foundation, which in 2020 acquired 27 miles of the narrow-gauge East Broad Top, has spent more than $10 million restoring the line as an educational heritage railroad, running steam and diesel passenger trains.

Much of the EBT Mount Union yard is still laid with dual-gauge track. Lane wants to start a standard-gauge short line and transload facility, connecting to Norfolk Southern’s Pittsburgh Line main line. [See “Ownership dispute could split . . .,” Trains.com, May 4, 2025.]

After Ghaner ruled, the foundation immediately matched J&A’s $2 million offer.

At issue now is the validity of the foundation’s right of first refusal. Former owner Joseph Kovalchick wrote that clause into the contract in 2013 when he sold the Mount Union property to DuBois, Pa., businessman Larry Salone, who created EBTPA with the intention of someday restoring the entire railroad.

When he could not fulfill that goal, the foundation was organized to do the same, and Kovalchick later assigned that right of first refusal to the foundation. EBTPA and J&A contend that the right has lapsed. Kovalchick and the foundation say it’s still valid.

If the judge does rule that the EBTF still does have first right of refusal, and they exercise that right to have not have the sale go through with Mr. Lane, then there's nothing stopping Mr. Salone from pulling back and deciding not to sell the Mt Union section at all, correct?

The only possible reason to reject the matching offer must be spite.

............ if they sell the now-damaged property (no 0-6-0, pieces of property sold off for profit, damaged track switches, etc.) for a 100% mark-up from original price, where does that $2 million go if the sale is executed?

Into Larry Salone's pocket? Wouldn't that be a violation of the "non-profit" status?