The "previous owners" are the reason the locomotive has paint on it. I set hands on the thing prior to any of the business in the articles..... it was cared for. I'm not saying it was preserved like the 1401but far from lost and forgotten.
I'd like to see the engineering work related to the second set of cylinders, that's going to be some serious HEAVY fab work!

Cheers, Jason

If you do a tiny bit of research you'll see that the local group involved is made up of a small band of locals who together have zero successful projects to their credit and the charity they've resurrected to "own" the locomotive did NOTHING to help preserve it for DECADES.

In sum it's a laughable sideshow that hopefully will die a natural death before it ends up wasting countless dollars on lawyers. Luckily the locals are represented by interns so there's a good chance that their parent law firms will see the futility in this and shut it down?? Let's hope so.

IMHO-Ross Rowland

One can make the false argument that the people of Topeka who are fighting to retain the locomotive are the ones that had let it deteriorate, and are therefore not qualified to possess it. I guess if you say it often enough it must be true, right?

The fact is that it was the Great Overland Station who caused the suspension of maintenance leading to the deterioration. The GOS is not the group that is fighting to retain the locomotive. It was the GOS that gave the engine away because they did not want it. So, you see, there are two parties involved in Topeka:

1) The Great Overland Station
2) The group called Topeka Children and Santa Fe Railroad

The first group did not maintain the locomotive and gave it away. The second group wants to retain ownership.

Yes, but the second group (which was originally created in 1956) has only resurfaced now that CSR owns the locomotive and wants to remove it from where it is. It has not been in existence since the 70s. I don't know who was doing work on the engine before GOS stopped them, but the revival of the TC&SFR was a direct result of CSR coming in with plans to remove and restore the locomotive. Unless they have money in had to cosmetically or mechanically restore 3463 should they win custody of it, this should not be a case, because the engine will continue to sit and rot.

And my information comes from the lawyers involved. TC&SFR was forfeited as a legal business entity in the 70s and as such abandoned any and all right, title, or interest in the locomotive. TC&SFR is arguing that the locomotive was not abandoned and the group did not lose ownership during the 40 years it didn't exist. It doesn't work like that.

This story is beginning to have some familiar tones. What agreement did the TC&SFR have with the town for the land? Did the TC&SFR own the locomotive or just the caretakers of it? Once TC&SFR went under, who assumed ownership of the locomotive? What legal means was this accomplished? And did they have the legal authority to transfer that ownership to another entity?

This was somewhat the grounds for the legal challenges in the Pemberton case. Did the township have the legal means to take ownership of the equipment? Could the equipment be treated much as you would treat personal belongings left behind in an apartment? Or as an abandoned automobile or bicycle? Few local towns have laws or regulations dealing specifically with abandoned locomotives and I believe this is the basis of the appeal that is still pending in the Pemberton situation.

There is a bigger picture to all this which should be of interest to the CMRR and others who may find themselves in disputes with the local political types.
J.R.

Do a title search?

Hope this foolishness gets settled quickly.

dave

The dispute is between two private groups claiming ownership; CSR and TC&SFR.

TC&SFR claims that they have owned the locomotive since ATSF donated it to them circa 1956. According to that claim, the city of Topeka never owned the locomotive.

The CSR group claims that they were given title to the locomotive by GOS, which was given title by a group called “Topeka Railroad Days,” which was given title by the city of Topeka.

The locomotive has always stood on land owned by Shawnee County. Nobody contends that the County ever owned the locomotive.

I made an inquiry for records to the city of Topeka, Shawnee County. Shawnee County extended my inquiry to GOS. I asked for any records showing ownership of the locomotive or conveying ownership to another party. None of the three entities could produce the requested records. The city of Topeka and Shawnee County told me that the requested records do not exist.

If you guys REALLY want to see this locomotive preserved (and by preserved, I don't mean parked outside and left to rust into oblivion) in Topeka, wouldn't it be better to help CSR get the locomotive, accomplish their goals, and return the locomotive to its original configuration as their charter says they will do? While they're out setting a new steam speed record, you could be building a suitable permanent display facility rather than paying attorneys. Once CSR is through with the locomotive, it would be placed in your display facility in pristine cosmetic condition. Win-win.

This is pretty typical, isn't it?
I always thought that generally the mindset of donated locomotives was more a 'possession is 9/10 of the law' than anything else. It's not like a car or something small where you can show up with a rental van and drive off with it. Seems to me that RRs just handed over locomotives to pretty much whoever could get them off the property for good. After that, the RR has washed their hands of the whole thing.
This would come up a lot more if large locomotives like this could be easier moved than they are, where one group would simply delcare it's theirs and make off with it...

Well said

That's exactly how most railroads treated the matter, although there were a few exceptions. In the case of ATSF 2926, she was given to the City of Albuquerque in 1956 with the understanding that she could (and would) be returned to service if necessary; the acquisition of enough SD24s and RSD-15s the following year to completely replace the remaining 4-8-4s in service led to the retirement of Santa Fe's remaining steam locomotives meant this would never happen. City Hall did indeed have clear ownership of 2926 and the documentation to prove it, and that ownership was transferred to NMSL&RHS in 1999 (and yes, we do have the documentation to prove that!!).

I make a point of who has had ownership of 2926 (and the ability to prove it) since, in most cases, ATSF didn't just "give away" its steam locomotives; there was usually a process involved which resulted in the recipient (city, museum, etc.) having documentation proving its ownership of the locomotive in question. If this "TC&SFR" group actually had ownership of 3463 at any point, then where is their proof? Did any of their members play any role in preserving 3463 at any point, or were they yet another one of these "all talk, no do" outfits? I'll admit I'm not too happy about having CSR tinker around with the only remaining Santa Fe Hudson in such a fashion (especially when there's no absolute guarantee that it will leave 3463 in a restored condition, rather than a collection of parts), but if what Mr. Rowland says about this TC&SFR outfit is true (and I don't doubt him at all, given the lack of proof that they have done anything meaningful with 3463), then letting TC&SFR have it may well be worse yet.

So, CSR is going to redesign and modify #3463 in all the myriad of ways that they have described, run the locomotive to set a speed record, collect test data, and tour the locomotive to become a rolling billboard for bio coal; after which they will reverse all of that modification and return the locomotive to its original factory pristine cosmetic condition, and present it back to the city of Topeka. Is that correct?

When you consider all the work needed to modify the existing locomotive, and then the work needed to reverse all of that modification, plus taking it all the way back to the as-built condition, plus the shipping both ways from and back to Topeka; I cannot believe that would not be far more costly than to just build what they want from scratch. Not only would that be less labor, but it would also liberate the development process from the need to work around a pre-existing antique design. There is a lot to be said for starting with a clean sheet of paper.

But instead, they will jack up the whistle and build a modern wonder beneath it. Then they will jack it up again and build a replica of #3463. I don’t see the point of using #3463 for this project. In my opinion, it makes no economic sense unless they fail to deliver on part of the plan.

Whether it's the financially optimum course or not, the CSR 130 group says they won't do any modifications to the locomotive until they have the money in-hand to do all of the above. If they don't get all the money, they don't modify the locomotive.

Worst case, they'll fail to raise all the money and it won't be modified, but they'll generate a lot of publicity for the locomotive which would make it easier for the Topeka group to raise funds to preserve it. Best case, they'll raise all the money, they'll modify the locomotive, set a new steam speed record, prove the viability of bio coal for rail passenger transport, they'll return the now world-famous locomotive to original condition, and turn it over to the Topeka group with its new storage facility for display.

What's the downside to supporting them? Why not work with the CSR 130 group to ensure their plan has what you consider to be adequate safeguards for protecting the locomotive rather than trying to stop them from doing anything?

Coal fired passenger locos ???? The answer to a question that nobody has asked.

Dave

I don't see why this question would be asked, the CSR group has made it clear on the website that they intend to use bio-fuels made from wood for the project. The locomotive will be a large combination experiment and publicity tool for testing that fuel.