Back in 2004, the Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum spearheaded what turned out to be a successful effort to preserve 33 miles of common carrier railroad that was then up for abandonment. As part of that effort, a company was ultimately chosen to operate the freight business on the railroad. Now that original contract with the freight operator has ended but the operator is not leaving the premises. Our scheduled train from North Judson to La Crosse this past Saturday was greeted as shown in the first photo at milepost 218 near English Lake. Shown in this Bob Barcus photo is Trainman Bud Tibbie (in uniform) and museum Secretary Mark Knebel. The red board placed between the rails can be seen behind Mark. I have also included a photograph of a page from the April 2016 issue of the museum's newsletter, written by Bob, which explains the current situation. My apologies for the poor quality of this second photo, but hopefully you can get the gist of HVRM's predicament.

I'll try to answer questions that anyone might have.


Les Beckman (HVRM member #249)

get out the cutters, break the lock, walk into their offices, here's your derail, here's our lawyer, lets talk.
I want to look at both sides of the equation, I wonder if this is a response to the view that HVRM is looking for another carrier, If I were the current operating carrier I would be upset, hence the derail.

it sound like to me minds need to meet here if the current carrier is doing a good job servicing the clients on the line and deserves a contract extemsion, but the derail is wrong because HVRM should have had advance notice.

At least a fire truck wasnt parked there...


it reminds me of the thing where an interurban was trying to build a crossing over another railroad and that railroad parked freight cars blocking access to work the crossing, lawsuits enthralled and the railroad finally relented.

I don't remember the Interurban or railroad, but the situation flashed my memory.

Okay make sure I just want to get things straight with this, so please correct me if I'm wrong. First the museum owns the entirety of the shortline but only operates the tourist end of it, Second the contractor who contracted to run freight is no longer under contract, and Thirdly said no longer contracted operator has cut off the museum from it own trackage?

How the heck could the contractor do this?

From the context of the above, I think the government (City-County-State?) owns the tracks and allows the freight and museum to operate on them, and the government is now changing it's story/agreement on what will be allowed to run on the tracks.

If it is the museum's tracks. Not only would I cut the lock, but they would not get back their derail, and their engines would be locked to the tracks

I think there is more to this story. In the meantime, I would be careful about the urge to cut the lock.

Before you do that, I'd suggest breaking out the contract and introducing it to your lawyer... Then follow his advice.

There are quite a number of legal precedents for this sort of thing all over the past 50+ years of rail preservation, involving both leased operations and operating rights. One railroad operation, in an attempt to secure common carrier freight operation into a planned industrial park, ended up having to deal with a Class One, a regional government railroad agency, an NRHS Chapter, and a private individual just to get eight miles of track! (and they only got a lease from the NRHS Chapter, and the private owner insisted on sale with right of first refusal to the NRHS Chapter!)

These situations often end up fraught with a quagmire of legal covenants, restrictions, and complications,that would take a great deal of clarification to explain to the average lay-person. This is no doubt one of these situations. I'm certain that there's a pretty good reason why HVRM doesn't "just cut the lock." It could have something to do with insurance mandates, or some fine print buried in the contracts.

I would caution anyone from commenting who doesn't have direct knowledge of the situation, and those folks who do may have good reason to stay quiet for the time being. All I know is, I read the newsletter report above and other accounts, and I instantly "smelled" gaps in the accounts--gaps that left me wondering the answers to a few unanswered questions, which in typical "political" fashion were "danced around" or simply not raised. I'm hearing one side; in "The People's Court," Judge Wapner or whoever now asks the freight company for their explanation.

I'm not saying "don't talk about this"; I'm suggesting we just sit back and wait to find out what we as an avocation can learn from whatever transpires, be it "how to deal with evicting a recalcitrant freight operator" or "what not to put in your designated-operator contract"........

I noticed something odd -- the Indiana Department of Transportation's Indiana State Rail Plan, dated November 2011, seems to list two different owners for the same 10-miles of track between North Judson and LaCrosse.

I'll quote the document:

Exhibit 3-10, on page 3-18 of the Plan, says that the Chesapeake and Indiana Railroad Company leases and operates 33 miles of track. That exhibit, and the text I quoted above, led me to think that all 33 miles of track operated by CKIN are owned by the Town of North Judson.

However, in another section of the Rail Plan, I read:

Exhibit 3-12, on page 3-24, says that the Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum owns and operates 10 miles of track.

http://www.hoosiervalley.org/news/lacrosse-excursions-canceled/

That shows the town owns the rails. So there is more to the story..

AH...a quote from the North Judson Wiki page....

"North Judson is a town in Wayne Township, Starke County, Indiana, United States. The population was 1,772 at the 2010 census. The town owns and is the headquarters of the Chesapeake and Indiana Railroad."

I am guessing there is a whole lot more to the story....

Gentlemen,

It just does not stop does it.

There are no less than three actions before the Surface Transportation Board to read for background

1. AB_55_643_X CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.--ABANDONMENT EXEMPTION--IN LAPORTE, PORTER AND STARKE COUNTIES, IN which resulted in the town acquiring the railway.

2. FD_34529_0 CHESAPEAKE & INDIANA RAILROAD COMPANY, INC.-OPERATION EXEMPTION--THE TOWN OF NORTH JUDSON, IN which is the Chesapeake and Indiana's operating exemption allowing them to provide common carrier rail service on the town owned rail line.

3. AB_1232_0 THE TOWN OF NORTH JUDSON, IND.--ADVERSE DISCONTINUANCE OF SERVICE--IN LAPORTE, PORTER, AND STARKE COUNTIES, IND. which is the town's request for waivers of certain requirements in the event of an Adverse Discontinuance petition.

The summary is that the town requested the waivers a year ago as they intended to terminate the C&I's operating agreement at the conclusion of the lease and did not believe that the tenant would leave willingly. The whole matter seems to have been hung up since last summer as there have been no further filings. It appears that the lease has expired and C&I is a tenant on sufferance.

I concur with Brother Mitchell on sitting back. I do not have a clue what is in the museum's agreement. I suggest that the museum's best course is an attorney who is versed in both Indiana property law as this is really a landlord/tenant issue and the arcane world of Common Carrier regulation. I certainly advise against cutting the lock without a court order even though the museum may well have the right to. However because of the way these thing work that may take a while.

Even though my sympathies here are probably quite clear to some of you it appears we may have a conflict of interest through a colleague so my comments, if any, will have to be limited to procedure.

As I have said so many times that my Granddaughter was repeating it by the time she was six - READ THE CONTRACT, EVERYBODY READ THE BLEEDING CONTRACT. It wasn't written just to pass the time of day.

GME

Indiana Boxcar? So it is Powell Felix that is responsible for this?

Gents -

For the record:

1. The Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum does not own the 11 miles of track it operates over between North Judson and La Crosse.

2. Those advertised passenger runs to La Crosse are currently "suspended" and the museum will operate only as far as English Lake.

3. Yes, Powell Felix is the owner of the Chesapeake & Indiana; the freight operator (at present) over the 33 miles of railroad.


Les

Is the OP authorized to speak on behalf of the HVRM?

You can read the town's minutes on their facebook page at:

https://www.facebook.com/Town-of-North-Judson-388700781159618/

Looks like something has been brewing for a while on the RR, some discussions on insurance and one note in the minutes that makes it sound like the freight line wasn't happy with the tourist line's scheduling.

The minutes on the most recent meeting on May 2 are not posted yet, but it sounds like the town voted to deny the museum access to the rails beyond a certain point.

There has been a long discussion about this issue on the Indiana Railroads board for the past year or so:

http://indianarailroads.org/board/index ... ic=17197.0

I would be in favor of the museum operating the freight trains, for a bit of extra scratch to plow back into the right of way, without the need for profits, executive salaries etc. that private for-profit firms tend to siphon off, but there is apparently a problem with a non-profit firm operating as a common carrier. There shouldn't be IMHO, a museum would be an ideal operator in that they would care about maintaining the right of way above all else no matter what, it is their job after all.

Hi,

I would suggest you contact the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad and the Friends of the C&TS.

They operate and preserve a 36" gauge line over 64 miles of track.

Many incidents have occurred since its founding in 1970. The original idea was a government entity owned the track and land, a for profit company would run the trains, and the Friends would be the museum arm.

The current situation is that a for profit operator was not the best for a pure tourist operation. The current operator is a for profit company started by the Friends that does not have to worry about paying dividends or share price. Profits are plowed back into the railroad and when possible the historic equipment that are not the operator's responsibility (not used in regular operations) and can be considered the museum collection (mainly anything that can not haul passengers or keep the line open are not the operator's responsibility).

The HVRM situation is not exactly the same. However some of the lessons learned by the C&TS, the states of NM and CO, and the Friends of the C&TS learned in the school of hard knocks may be valuable in finding a solution for the HVRM.

FWIW

Doug vV