I think (not 100% positive) that the Craggy Mountain Line in North Carolina owns all of their track, just over 3 miles. Someone here may be able to confirm it either way. Both ends of their line seem to be currently landlocked and unable to expand unless able to get those parcels, if they even want to expand.

That brings up another point not mentioned. What would be the ideal length of track (roughly) to comfortably run a tourist train on and be a worthwhile amount of run? When you're dealing with a non profit with outright ownership of it's track and relying on all volunteers too much trackage to maintain could be a problem. Both in manpower and cost.

I'd personally feel 10-12 miles max mainline length. It could vary though depending on terrain, bridges ect that could need work at times. IRM's mainline is only 5 miles from what I know, and they seem to do well.

After discussing with a noted C&TS historian who was consulted on the NHL designation, the C&TS is a NHL on Oct 18, 2012 by Ken Salizar Secretary of Interior. The discussion expressed here shows the importance of being educated in an orgizations history. The after all a 45 year old is younger than the C&TS. Having talked to several involved in the initial preservation of the C&TS the reasons for purchase by. both states were economic development and prervation. The states own the property equally.


Robby Peartree

Stewartstown Railroad owns our line....7.4 miles....so we're not the longest, by far.

The Buckeye Central Scenic out in Heath/Hebron Ohio bit the dust a few years ago as the ROW was owned by a local foundation that decided they wanted a bike trail instead of a tourist/heritage railroad.

Like most things in this business, that depends........

What's the experience you are providing? If it is a ride through pretty much nothing in non climate controlled cars, probably you want a half hour to 45 minute long ride so length is dependent on speed. If you have interesting scenery or provide onboard programming, you can keep riders interest longer. If you take people to a destination at which they get off the train, do something and then reboard for a return trip, your trip out can take longer than the return since they have already experienced it once and the second time won't be as interesting for them.

Rather than thinking about it in terms of technical practicality, think about it in terms of what interesting and meaningful experience you want to offer, and then build the attraction you need to provide it. Starting with a bit of rail because it is handy isn't the way to build this business unless there are other reasons to make it worthwhile.

Dave, you definitely strike a chord with me here. When a trip has something additional to offer either at the end of the line or at intermediate stops, the experience that is able to be offered changes dramatically. Once again it all depends on mission and values- what type of experience are you trying to provide visitors with?

Case in point:
Recently I have been discussing travel to Wales with a friend from the UK. I mentioned that my wife and I both enjoy hiking a great deal, to which he replied that we can easily take a train to one end of an incredibly scenic mountain pass, hike back through, and pick up another train at the other end to continue our journey.

One railway I volunteered with for many years offered rides of different lengths to better suit different audiences. It didn't matter that the train could go further- it didn't need to.

Which brings my thoughts full circle- that particular railway is no longer running that line because they lost access to their track- because they didn't own it.

Ownership is a key component of making railway preservation possible- or setting up proactive, long-term (think 'in perpetuity') preservation easements with appropriate accommodations.

Advocacy is key, so is effective lobbying, and the feeling of successful performance. The more professional all railway preservation appears and the more successfully all railway performs, the more likely we will all be to succeed. Perhaps it is time to revisit 'best practices' with more specific benchmarks and goals for organizations to strive for?

Steve

Other things to think about: preservation isn't necessarily a good basis for sustainable business. you can preserve something that has no use or marketability only as long as your pockets are deep. This is why starting with the concept that some bit of track must not be lost without a sustainable plan to find a way to pay for it is a poor way to begin to think about a business. This means that ownership of such a bit of track is an ongoing obligation, not an opportunity......... and it might in fact be a bad idea if what you "really" want is to run trains and have fun doing it. If you start with the creation of a mission, concept and vision that is sustainable and defined in terms of what it offers customers and provides to the community and will recover the cost of its continued execution, then and only then is ownership demonstrably good. We seem to have worked backwards starting with physical stuff and then trying to kludge together something that may or may not be sustainable in many cases, so it is only natural that we can expect a lot of attrition and we shouldn't be surprised as a result.

Dave's comment above about the "experience" brings me back to one of my favorite tourist railroads. The WK&S here in Pennsylvania originally hoped to be over 10 miles long, but in the end is just 2.7 miles long. That's just the right length for a group of volunteers to maintain. The folks there manage to make the most of that ride, which includes running along Ontelaunee Creek, through an apple orchard, past farm fields and a genuine log inn. The 40-minute round trip is just about right, and over the years the folks have maintained their railroad and its surroundings to the highest standards, with well-groomed lawns, very little unsightly junk, sharp-looking equipment and excellent visitor service. In addition, they have developed a series of special events each summer that bring in plenty of visitors.

Points of order:

The Verde Canyon technically operates over a pseudo-separate freight operation, the Arizona Central, which owns far more track (37.8 miles) than the Verde Canyon trains actually operate over (20 miles, or 40-mile round trip). They are corporately separate but under common ownership.

The Grand Canyon RR owns all of its trackage, as the entire reason for its existence traces back to the default on a loan to acquire the line for scrap. I have no reason not to believe that Xanterra, which bought the operation from the Biegerts a few years ago, doesn't also own the right-of-way and track now, but stranger things have happened.

Historic Red Clay Valley/the Wilmington & Western owns all 10.2 (or so) miles of their line after purchasing it from the Chessie System in mid-1982.

The National Park Service owns the Northern (approx.) 23 miles of the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad in Ohio, from the South switch of the wye at Willow (connection to CSX), to the South end of the bridge over N. Howard St. in downtown Akron. Akron Metro Regional Transit Authority owns the remaining mileage to Canton, although operationally the CVSR regularly uses the track the approximately half-mile from the Howard St. bridge to the derail at MP 40, just short of where Furnace St. ducks under the railroad.

Again, you could say the railroad is safe because it's owned by an agency of government whose current mission is to preserve and maintain the railroad, but like any government agency, it's mission could change over the years. As I've said before, if there weren't a parallel trail - that had been the Ohio and Erie Canal towpath - for most of it's length, it's very likely that the railroad would have been converted to a trail decades ago. The railroad has managed to make itself an integral part of the National Park, so it's probably safe. I think the takeaway lesson is that probably the most important mission of any non-profit preserved railroad is to maintain good relations with it's local community. It's the only way to survive the occasional whims of fads - like snowmobiling - from overriding the long-term benefits of preserving the existing railroad.

Akron Metro RTA also owns the former Erie/EL/Conrail trackage from Akron to Kent, rail-banked (Akron Metro actually owns more railroad RoW than does Cleveland RTA - by a couple of miles) for future light rail transit use to connect the University of Akron with Kent State. It currently is being converted to rail-trail use, and large parts of it are going to be somewhat difficult to change back into a railroad if and when that day ever comes, especially the part through downtown Tallmadge, OH, where there were four grade crossings in a very short distance just off the town circle. Back in the day, the EL ran freight trains through there at 60 mph with more than a little protest from the residents, and I can just hear the hue and cry when the plan is announced to once again operate trains through there, although light rail vehicles of some kind, and nowhere near as fast, since Tallmadge would be a stop. Those of us in the area already experienced a taste of that NIMBY-ism when there was a short-lived proposal to start a dinner train operation on other Metro RTA-owned RoW between Akron and Hudson on what was the PRR/PC/Conrail Hudson Secondary (the original Cleveland, Akron & Columbus Railroad, and route of the ill-fated PRR Doodlebug crash of 1940), from the residents of the upscale suburb of Silver Lake. And that was only going to be a few-day-a-week 15 mph evening operation!

Southern Michigan Railroad Society owns 13.5 miles of track purchased from Conrail in 1982-1984. A group of young adults and concerned local citizens made it possible. The southern 1.5 mi of track is isolated from the rest of the railroad due to NW ripping out the diamonds as soon as Conrail filed for abandonment.

There are cars and a locomotive stored on this southern 1.5 mi that may never see the northern end but we are hopeful.

The Northern most track between Clinton and Tecumseh (4.5mi) sees the most use and is about a 30-45 minute trip(depending on who is engineering) with a maximum speed of 12mph.

The Southern end (middle really) has been out of service to revenue trains for a few years. A few Hi-rail trips have been made over this section to clear trees and spray weeds. There are hopes to re-open this section with some needed tie work, although volunteers for heavy labor are getting harder to find as we are not mechanized other than a spike driver.

Even with the Society holding title to the ROW there has been past legal battles as to whether or not the Society actually owns the ROW due to Conrail's abandonment petition. We won BTW.

As for the question about the A&B being considered a tourist railroad I would not classify them as such as they are a for profit railroad who runs a dinner train and occasional excursions.

The opinions and views expressed in this post are not necessarily the opinions of the SMRS or its Board of Directors. (For all those who may be watching me.)

Contrary to Mr. Mitchell statement GCR DOES NOT own what is within the park boundry. The Santa Fe gave it to the park service. Someone was recently let go over some tree removal within the park that they did not have authorization to remove. GCR has since replanted replacement trees.


Robby Peartree

The East Troy Railroad Museum owns and maintains approximately 7.5 miles of right of way, most of it between East Troy, WI and Mukwonago, WI.

The Western Railway Museum (the corporate structure being entitled The Bay Area Electric Railway Association) at Rio Vista Jct. "owns" 21 miles from Cannon, CA, via Dozier, to Montezuma. The middle section of the latter segment, from Rio Vista Jct. to near Birds Landing, is electrified and in use. There are some entanglements: the ownership is legally tainted, but in practicality it is quite secure.

The Montezuma-Dozier segment is under Rails-to-Trails (it's a "trail") and could be reclaimed for rail use. This makes no difference. All potentially interested parties are the government, who could take it by eminent domain anyway! However the route is even more distant from key towns like Vacaville and Davis than the UPRR already is. And prairie land is cheap - far faster and cheaper to build a new RoW than get in a legal fight-to-the-death with WRM.

The Cannon-Dozier segment has some entanglements relating to the fact that it was built by the Air Force. It goes nowhere anyone would want to go, since it was a bypass to an original route nowhere anyone would want to go (from Creed to Cordero Jct.) - which was only ever a connector between the Northern Electric's Vacaville line and the OA&E mainline. Of course, one of the aforementioned new RoW's would likely sever it.

Bike trails are not a risk to either segment, as they are too remote and have paved farm roads as alternatives. Bikers strongly desire a Fairfield to Rio Vista route, as Hwy. 12 is too treacherous for bikes. Part of the abandoned Creed branch might be of use. This would be mostly a commuter corridor; there is literally 20 miles of nothing except for a railway museum.

Speaking of Buckeye Central Scenic Railroad, as of 2008, they are now the Zanesville and Western Scenic Railroad. They began operations in 2013 and are in the process of rehabilitating and restoring the old Glassrock Spur between Mt. Perry and FS switch near South Zanesville.

The Western Railway Museum's 22-mile preserved section of the Sacramento Northern Railway is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places as the Sacramento Northern Historic District.