Personnally, I agree with both your posts.
I was trying to provide some communication. Since RTC is not willing to get involved directly, with us, I'm bowing out.
Doug vV

I'll put it this way: If I offered money for anyone who can tell me a rail trail that had rail track re-laid/restored for active service, would I find any takers?

I think I can make a case that rail-to-trail lobbyists have a stereotype amongst rail preservationists as being disingenuously anti-rail, and that said stereotype is well founded in reality. I notice that no one has yet been able to present a case where rails returned to a trail corridor. We have a potential case here in Maryland, where the Baltimore & Annapolis Trail from Glen Burnie to suburban Annapolis remains a potential extension of MTA's Light Rail south from Cromwell Station to downtown Glen Burnie, Marley Station Mall, Severna Park, and potentially Annapolis. We can certainly make the argument that MTA needs to get its act together and make the existing line more serviceable first, and that the monies aren't there yet to do the engineering that would be necessary to get track back into Annapolis proper, but the sad reality is that any politician in the region that would propose putting track down Anne Arundel County's favorite roller-blading, baby-stroller-pushing, dog-walking, and flower-bed-holding park would be committing political suicide, and they know it. They tried extending it just the last three-quarters of a mile past the park-and-ride into downtown Glen Burnie, and were met with protests, convoluted engineering/route requirements that drove up potential costs, etc.

The cited RTC policy of "supporting" return of rail service is perhaps two-faced and disingenuous at best and outright fraud at worst. It's far too easy for the organization leadership to hide behind local chapters made up of trail lovers and say "we're simply supporting the desires of the locals; after all, don't they have a better handle on the specific circumstances of the case?" They can claim to support rail service return, but their actions refute those claims completely.

The only way to trust that a potential future return of rail service to a trail or railbank is possible is to have a requirement for same codified in whatever legal actions create the trail/railbank. Not a suggestion or a "good idea"--a requirement. Said conditions are politically unpopular and will probably create massive legal headaches and fees, but unless this is diligently pursued, you can write off permanently any "trailed" rail line.

Reactivated Railbanked Corridors

Docket Number(s): AB-298 sub 1x (FD 31717)
Service Date: 12/12/88
Name: Council Bluffs to Shenandoah (Wabash Trace Nature Trail)
State: Iowa
Counties: Pottawattamie, Mills, Fremont, Page
Original Railroad: Iowa Southern
Initial Railbanked Length: 64.5 miles
Date Railbanked: 6/1/89
Interim Trail User: Iowa Natural Heritage Foundation
Reactivating Railroad: CBEC Railway (subsidiary of Iowa Power)
Reactivated Length: 350 feet
Year Reactivated: 1990 (decision modifying NITU served 12/20/90)
Notes: According to STB decision modifying the NITU, “CBEC committed to reconvey to INHF the northern 30 feet of the parcel for interim trail use so that the trail on the remainder of the railbanked corridor will continue to have logical termini, and will be fully usable.” As a railroad different from the original railbanking railroad, CBEC was required to get STB approval for acquisition and operation of the corridor.

Docket Number(s): AB-290 sub 68 (FD 32294)
Service Date: 6/23/89
Name: Minster to St. Mary’s
State: OH
Counties: Auglaize
Original Railroad: Norfolk and Western
Initial Railbanked Length: 10.1 miles
Date Railbanked: Unknown (CITU issued 2/26/90)
Interim Trail User: West Ohio Rail Authority (WORA acquired the right-of-way under railbanking, but did not intend to build or manage a trail on the corridor)
Reactivating Railroad: R.J. Corman (via lease from WORA)
Reactivated Length: 10.1 miles
Year Reactivated: 1993
Notes: As a different railroad than the original railbanking railroad, R.J. Corman was required to get STB approval for operation of the line and acquisition of “right to commence rail service” from Norfolk and Western.

Docket Number(s): AB-3 sub 98x
Service Date: 2/28/92
Name: Carondelet Branch (Grant’s Trail)
State: MO
Counties: St. Louis
Original Railroad: Union Pacific
Initial Railbanked Length: 6.2 miles
Date Railbanked: 12/30/92
Interim Trail User: Gateway Trailnet, Inc.
Reactivating Railroad: Union Pacific
Reactivated Length: 0.21 miles (1100 feet)
Year Reactivated: 1997 (decision vacating NITU served 4/25/97)
Notes: UP realized that it needed a portion of the corridor back for “tail room” for standing cars at a shipper’s facility. In negotiating the return of the right-of-way, UP asserted that since they gave Trailnet a bargain price for the corridor in the first place, they should get that small portion back for free. Trailnet did, however, negotiate to keep 20’ of right-of-way for trail purposes alongside the now-active segment.


Docket Number(s): AB-389 sub 1x
Service Date: 8/16/96
Name: Sasser to Albany (Chickasawatchee Railway)
State: GA
Counties: Dougherty, Lee, Terrell
Original Railroad: South Carolina Central
Initial Railbanked Length: 13.62 miles
Date Railbanked: 11/30/97
Interim Trail User: Rails-to-Trails Conservancy (interest conveyed to South Georgia Rails-to-Trails, but 2003 request to substitute SGRT as interim trail user denied by STB)
Reactivating Railroad: Georgia Southwestern (successor in interest to South Carolina Central)
Reactivated Length: 4.92 miles
Year Reactivated: 2003
Notes: The deed of conveyance from South Carolina Central to RTC did not stipulate any conditions for reactivation, including compensation. Georgia Southwestern asserted a right to obtain the right-of-way for rail use without compensating RTC or SGRT, and the STB agreed, saying that interim use of the right-of-way is the only thing that was conveyed. Requests for clarification of the decision by RTC have not yet been addressed by the STB. Originally, the railroad wanted to activate service over the entire 13.62 mile line. GSWR vacated the NITU for the entire line on 03/05/2003. On 05/24/06 GSWR filed a letter stating that RTC, SGRT and GSWR have reached an agreement. Changes in rail demand led to GSWR only needing access to milepost 77.8. The parties have agreed to re-railbank the section between 77.8 and 86.5, in return for RTC and SGRT not seeking compensation for re-activation of the portion between 77.8 and 72.88.



Docket Number(s): AB-564
Service Date: 6/15/00
Name: 2nd Subdivision (Spalding to Grangeville)
State: ID
Counties: Idaho, Lewis, Nez Perce
Original Railroad: Camas Prairie
Initial Railbanked Length: 66.8 miles
Date Railbanked: 5/9/01
Interim Trail User: Camas Prairie Trail Conservancy
Reactivating Railroad: BG & CM Railroad, Inc.
Reactivated Length: 52.0 miles
Year Reactivated: 2003
Notes: This is not technically a reactivation because BG & CM got permission from the STB to operate this line only on a seasonal basis, and without common carrier obligation. BG & CM substituted itself as the interim trail user in order to initiate reactivation.
Served on 05-03-04. As clarified in this decision, the status of the line from milepost 0.00 to milepost 66.8 is as follows: (1) GNR is the owner and operator of the segment between mileposts 0.0 and 1.0, and the CITU for that segment has been vacated; (2) BG & CM is the owner and operator of the segment between mileposts 1.0 and 52.0 and the CITU for that segment has been vacated (although the Board reserves jurisdiction to reissue a CITU if BG & CM ceases service between mileposts 1.0 and 52.0 and a CITU request is timely made); and (3) BG &CM is the owner and interim trail manager of the segment of the line between mileposts 52.0 and 66.8 that continues to be rail banked.

Docket Number(s): AB-441 sub 1x (FD 34430)
Service Date: 8/26/96
Name: Bisbee Branch and Douglas Branch
State: AZ
Counties: Cochise
Original Railroad: SWKR Operating Company
Initial Railbanked Length: 14.8 miles (an additional 1.46 miles were part of the original NITU, but the NITU was later vacated and abandonment consummated for that portion)
Date Railbanked: 2/12/97
Interim Trail User: San Pedro Trails, Inc. (Cochise Trails, Inc., substituted as trail user on 11/21/03)
Reactivating Railroad: San Pedro Railroad Company, LLC
Reactivated Length: 14.8 miles
Year Reactivated: 2003
Notes: Formal reactivation (vacation of the NITU) has not yet actually occurred. However, the San Pedro Railroad has received STB approval of its acquisition of the “assets and railbanked common carrier rights” to the corridor, and has expressed intent to restore freight rail service.

Docket Number(s): AB-441 sub 2x (FD 34430)
Service Date: 2/14/97
Name: Charleston to Douglas
State: AZ
Counties: Cochise
Original Railroad: SWKR Operating Company
Initial Railbanked Length: 41.5 miles
Date Railbanked: 8/14/97
Interim Trail User: San Pedro Trails, Inc. (Cochise Trails, Inc., substituted as trail user on 11/21/03)
Reactivating Railroad: San Pedro Railroad Company, LLC
Reactivated Length: 41.5 miles
Year Reactivated: 2003
Notes: Formal reactivation (vacation of the NITU) has not yet actually occurred. However, the San Pedro Railroad has received STB approval of its acquisition of the “assets and railbanked common carrier rights” to the corridor, and has expressed intent to restore freight rail service.


Docket Number(s): AB-477 sub 3x
Service Date: 02/25/1998
Name: Browns to Poseyville
State: Illinois, Indiana
Counties: Edwards, White (IL); Gibson, Posey (IN)
Original Railroad: Owensville Terminal Company
Initial Railbanked Length: 22.5 miles
Date Railbanked: 08/25/1998
Interim Trail User: Indiana Trails Fund
Reactivating Railroad: Browns, Grayville & Poseyville Railway
Reactivated Length: 22.5
Year Reactivated: 2005 (decision modifying NITU served 09/20/2005)
Notes: On August 25, 2005, Browns, Grayville & Poseyville Railway Company (BG&P) filed a notice of exemption to acquire and operate the line. OTC and BG&P have entered into an agreement whereby, for value, OTC has conveyed its right to reinstitute rail service on the line to BG&P.


Docket Number(s): AB-485 sub 0x
Service Date: 05/16/2005
Name: Pullman, WA, to Moscow, ID
State: Washington, Idaho
Counties: Latah, Whitman
Original Railroad: Blue Mountain Railroad, Inc.
Initial Railbanked Length: 7.45 miles
Date Railbanked: 09/01/1997
Interim Trail User: City of Moscow for a 1.27-mile segment, City of Pullman and Whitman County for a 6.18-mile segment
Reactivating Railroad: Palouse River & Coulee City Railroad, Inc. (PRCC)
Reactivated Length: 0.75 miles
Year Reactivated: 2005
Notes: Decided 05/16/2005: On April 25, 2005, Palouse River & Coulee City Railroad, Inc. (PRCC), successor in interest to BMR, filed a petition to partially vacate the NITU to permit PRCC to reactivate rail service on a 0.75-mile segment of the rail line rail banked in this proceeding pursuant to BMR’s interim trail use agreement with the City of Moscow. PRCC states that it currently operates over a rail line that is immediately adjacent to the University of Idaho, a public corporation and state educational institution. According to PRCC, it recently entered into a conditional agreement with the Regents of the University of Idaho (University) whereby the parties will be exchanging certain properties and easements to enable PRCC to relocate a short segment of its rail line in Moscow further away from the University. PRCC states that, in order to facilitate the exchange and ensure that there are no service disruptions on its line, the City of Moscow has agreed to reconvey to PRCC the 0.75-mile segment of the right-of-way located between milepost 26.75 and milepost 27.50 that was rail banked in this proceeding. The University in turn, will grant the City an easement over its adjacent property so that the trail can be relocated. According to PRCC, the agreement between it and the University is contingent upon the Board’s approval of its petition, since the relocation of PRCC’s existing line to the rail banked segment is essential to the overall project.