Railway Preservation News

Nickel Plate Trail
Page 3 of 3

Author:  dinwitty [ Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nickel Plate Trail

Around here some clearly abandoned lines were turned into trails in some distance fashion or whatever, not completely, the rails were gone.

I think by now the operators to be already know and perhaps contacted the STB already I would bet. If any read this place they will certainly get their information and make a response.

Author:  Peter Nicholson [ Sat Aug 05, 2017 12:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Nickel Plate Trail

Randy Gustafson wrote:

It's far, far stickier than what you said.

I read the above-referenced filing and it seems they are basing their case on:

1. What we're doing is consistent with good public policy;
2. There's precedent for most of what we're asking for; it only goes slightly beyond ICC/STB decisions in previous cases that were filed with similar intent; and
3. The abandonment (in 1991 by N&W) was never consummated because the Indiana RR continued to operate on the line for 12 years past the Service Discontinuance they were granted at the same time.

#3 seems a very convoluted argument to me: it appears in part based on current practice that requires a "notice of consummation" in abandonment cases, a requirement not in effect in 1991 (and of course, from N&W's perspective, the line WAS abandoned and sold); and in part because the line was sold with the track intact so the grade was never physically abandoned.

I'm not sure what the STB will say, but the petitioners' law firm in the case (Fletcher & Sippel in Chicago) is a well-respected firm in rail commerce law - they are definitely not amateurs in such matters.

Author:  dinwitty [ Sat Aug 05, 2017 9:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Nickel Plate Trail

we have another rip the rails out issue when the bidding operators say they can still fully operate the line.

Author:  Trainkid456 [ Sat Aug 05, 2017 10:46 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Nickel Plate Trail

I don't know what help this would be but I recently spoke with several ITM volunteers about all of this conflict and they said the current plan is to operate on the museum grounds with a caboose train, pulled by one of their diesel locomotives, and that should bring in enough funds to keep it going for a little while.

Thomas Dyrek

Author:  Robert Opal [ Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nickel Plate Trail

There's now an STB proceeding involving this line. See petition filed August 1 below:

https://www.stb.gov/Filings/all.nsf/d6e ... 244022.pdf

A number of opposing comments have also been filed and are available on the STB website (under FD 36137). STB probably won't do anything substantive on this anytime soon, but we'll see.

Author:  dinwitty [ Tue Aug 22, 2017 11:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nickel Plate Trail

The very first reply is a good one and shows an FRA track inspection report, the track is fine.

And I agree with the comment.

Author:  Robert Opal [ Sun Sep 17, 2017 10:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Nickel Plate Trail

Of possible interest, see the Indiana Transportation Museum filing dated 9/8/17 (filed 9/15/17) available at the following address:

https://www.stb.gov/Filings/all.nsf/d6e ... 244349.pdf

I have no independent knowledge of any of the facts surrounding this case. But, based solely on the STB filings, I don't think there will be a substantive decision by STB anytime soon (although there may be a procedural decision). This is so for two reasons:

1. The ITM filing indicates there is a current court case addressing a number of issues pertinent to the dispute (among them, whether the ITM's rights to operate the line had been lawfully terminated). Contractual (and property law) issues like this aren't STB issues. STB (and the ICC before it) have a long tradition of declining to address non-regulatory issues pending before a court, and awaiting the court decision before taking any regulatory action. See, for example, STB Finance Docket No. 36107 Soo Line R. Co. - Petition for Declaratory Order, served 8/10/2017 available at the following address:

https://www.stb.gov/Decisions/readingro ... /45880.pdf)

2. The STB does not have any Trump administration members at present. To my knowledge, none have even been nominated yet. The Board appears to be deferring action on any controversial cases until the new Board members are in place.

Author:  J3a-614 [ Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:27 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Nickel Plate Trail

In light of recent developments in New York, this is something that may be pertinent.

https://www.ibj.com/articles/65732-law- ... l-corridor

Author:  dinwitty [ Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Nickel Plate Trail

has it been designated a historical site?

Author:  J3a-614 [ Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:53 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Nickel Plate Trail

I don't know if the NKP trackage is listed as historical as not, but let us recall that was not the only issue in the New York case. Ownership via easements is there, too, and that's also the case here.

Although it's been posted before, it's worth revisiting as a reminder that these things don't die. This group is fighting a rail trail with the easement issue--and it's for a railroad taken up in 1956!

https://southhillrecreationwayorg.wordp ... -corridor/

Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group