| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| STB decision on Northern Central Railroad/2-23-05 https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=12327 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Sloan [ Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | STB decision on Northern Central Railroad/2-23-05 |
-->James Riffin d/b/a [doing business as] The Northern Central Railroad--Acquisition and Operation Exemption--in York County, PA, STB Finance Docket No. 34501. (Embraced case: James Riffin d/b/a The Northern Central Railroad--Petition for Declaratory Order, STB Finance Docket No. 34552. At issue in this case is a State of Maryland petition requesting the revocation of a class (of transactions) exemption allowing James Riffin, doing business as The Northern Central Railroad (NCR), to acquire and operate approximately 19 miles of railroad line, known as the USRA Line 145, in York County, Pennsylvania. Also at issue is NCR's request for a declaratory order addressing questions regarding federal preemption of state law. The STB voted, 3 to 0, to revoke the acquisition and operation exemption and to deny NCR's petition for a declaratory order. |
|
| Author: | hi-plains [ Thu Feb 24, 2005 12:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | STB decision on Northern Central Railroad/2-23-05 |
Besides the rail line itself, what historic structures, RR equipment, rolling-stock, physical plant, et al, are at stake in this case? |
|
| Author: | Michael E. Allen [ Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:01 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: STB decision on Northern Central Railroad/2-23-05 |
Short answer - None. This case had nothing to do with any real railroad. The very short version is that a gentleman in Maryland filed several highly suspect notices and motions with the Board attempting to claim the right of way as his through emminent domain. Among other claims he made was that the use of the row in suburban Baltimore by the Light Rail Line and NS was not a railroad use of the land. Until today's ruling he had an exemption to operate as a common carrier railroad on the trail in Pennsylvania. This would have been difficult on account of no tracks and more importantly as he had no property interest in the land he had no legal right to enter it to operate his "railroad". The State of Maryland found the whole thing objectionable as he was trying to use his "trailroad" in Pennsylvania to establish that as a federally-regulated railroad he was not subject to any state environmental regulations. The State cried "fraud" and the Board seems to have agreed. Mike Allen |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|