| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Riffin at it again in Maryland............ https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=19926 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:31 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Riffin at it again in Maryland............ |
I believe last year we ended up in a big discussion over the attempt by a James Riffin to file with the Surface Transportation Board to re-establish rail service over the former PRR/Northern Central between Cockeysville and the state line with Pennsylvania--now the Northern Central Rail Trail. Two interesting recent developments: 1) Norfolk Southern has applied with the STB to discontinue freight service between Baltimore and Cockeysville, Md. while retaining a yard/freight terminal in Baltimore itself. This means that NS would no longer run freight on the track now used by Baltimore's Light Rail Line to Timonium and points north. 2) Riffin is being a fly in the ointment again, apparently challenging NS's ability to abandon the service without "assigning" service to another willing provider, and asking once again whether the abandonment of the line from Cockeysville to Pennsylvania by the Penn Central in 1972 was ever actually approved by the ICC. For those that like interesting reading, here's a link to one of the documents filed to challenge the abandonment: http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/6084f194b67ca1c4852567d9005751dc/b6c1d96f29e0f5608525710d0074dc2c?OpenDocument Yes, this has nothing to do directly with rail preservation. But the ramifications of such actions could, in the long run, affect us all. Imagine if, just to make us some wild example, somebody investigated the East Broad Top, found that the ICC abandonment petition was never approved (as I think was actually the case), and on that basis attempted a hostile takeover of the EBT on the basis that they wer going to build industry or reopen the coal mines, and the current EBT management was doing an insufficient job of "maintaining service". Or, what if somebody found a "good reason" to "resume service" on a preservation-line's track (say, the Wilmington & Western, or the Strasburg, or the Rockton & Rion, or the Grand Canyon RR), and decided to apply the same tactics to claim the line? The discussions I have had with others on this particular person indicate that this is most likely a "character" that is several bricks short of a full load, but just astute enough to cause trouble in a way that has to be answered by lawyers. NS has attempted to answer his petitions in part by saying, in effect, "he says he has business interests, but he acts as his own attorney because he apparently can't afford one". I work with an all-volunteer nonprofit Japanese anime convention in Baltimore that now draws over 20,000 for a three-day weekend in July/August. Of our annual budget of $1.8 million or so, about $30,000 is to keep a senior business lawyer on retainer--and he's giving us a friendly rate until he retires and can do it for us pro bono. Nonetheless, last year we still incurred several legal expenses above and beyond that retainer. Think seriously, folks. Even if litigants like these didn't have a leg to stand on, do YOU have a friendly lawyer on the Board of Directors? |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | But wait, there's more.............. |
If you read through all the PDF files of the filings, protests, etc., you'll find that Riffin attempted to ship thirteen cars to Cockeysville via NS--six tank cars, several TOFC cars loaded with track maintenance equipment, and two passenger cars (apparently ex-VIA). Supposedly Riffin made claims about wanting to operate a dinner train service on the line. Never mind that, as NS rebutted, the freight agreements with MTA, the operator of the Central Light Rail Line, restricted NS to freight service between midnight and 5 AM. Maybe a "night owl" bar service? |
|
| Author: | David Farlow [ Thu Feb 16, 2006 2:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riffin at it again in Maryland............ |
Quote: Or, what if somebody found a "good reason" to "resume service" on a preservation-line's track (say, the Wilmington & Western, or the Strasburg, or the Rockton & Rion, or the Grand Canyon RR), and decided to apply the same tactics to claim the line?
The discussions I have had with others on this particular person indicate that this is most likely a "character" that is several bricks short of a full load, but just astute enough to cause trouble in a way that has to be answered by lawyers. I must say I would not have imagined such a situation could happen, but I do now. Listen to the advice given by Mr. Mitchell. Make sure you know the status of "your" line and make all the "forgotten" filings before they come back to haunt you later. It still might not solve everything, but you'll be in a better position. David Farlow |
|
| Author: | scrmcurator [ Thu Feb 16, 2006 9:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Riffin at it again in Maryland............ |
Alexander D. Mitchell IV wrote: Or, what if somebody found a "good reason" to "resume service" on a preservation-line's track (say, the Wilmington & Western, or the Strasburg, or the Rockton & Rion, or the Grand Canyon RR), and decided to apply the same tactics to claim the line?
In the case of the R&R, there's still some freight service on the line. A plant known as Plastech has a switch off our main at Rockton and has been getting a couple cars a month since the '80s. I'm not at liberty to discuss it, but we're also about to get more freight service soon. I think the W&W has some sort of freight agreement in place -- I recall hearing something like that some time ago. Of course the Strasburg is still a common carrier and definitely has freight service. The EBT is also still a common carrier, I believe. That said, it's a good point! |
|
| Author: | tomgears [ Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: But wait, there's more.............. |
Maybe the solution for museums/tourist railroad is to create a "paper company" and assign freight service to them for a 999 year period. This would be a good item to address at a railroad museum convention. |
|
| Author: | JamesKissinger [ Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: But wait, there's more.............. |
Tom, A 999 year lease for freight service won't work. You have to file abandonment of service papers with the STB. This is relatively simple if you do not have any customers / potential customers on the line in question. If you do, they can dispute this, but they have to show specifically why. They cannot only note that they might want service in the future. I think it is only an issue in most cases when the museum / tourist train is operating under the FRA insular / non-insular rules. If the group is already operating under common carrier rules, I can't see what problem new freight customers would be, provided they ship enough to cover any increased costs to the operator. James |
|
| Author: | Trainlawyer [ Fri Mar 17, 2006 4:43 pm ] |
| Post subject: | But wait, there's even more.............. |
If it is at all possible the question of freight service on the Baltimore Light Rail line has become even more loony. A company calling itself CNJ Rail has, as of yesterday, entered an appearance in the abandonment of Norfolk Southern’s rights and stated that they are going to make an offer of financial assistance. As CNJ Rail seems to be nothing more than the principal of Somerset Terminal working from daddy's garage with a new letterhead I have some difficulty taking the offer seriously. GME |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: But wait, there's even more.............. |
Ohmigod, it just gets stupider and stupider, doesn't it? [shakes head in amazement] Refresh our memories again--who is/was Somerset Terminal? I was about to go approach MTA regarding the potential of keeping the Light Rail Line open later on Friday and Saturday night during our convention (and an Orioles-Yankees game across the Light Rail tracks from us at the same times), with the argument being "Well, you won't have to give the freight trains their operating window, now, will you?" Quick, somebody dispose of that box of monkey wrenches over there in the gear room........ |
|
| Author: | Trainlawyer [ Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: But wait, there's even more.............. |
Sandy, et alia: I am not going to expend much space here with his history but suggest googling "Somerset terminal" railroad.net. There is quite a bit available on the STB website and, if you can access PACER and are willing to pay the fees, in the NJ Bankruptcy Court records concerning Bridgewater Resources. Somerset appeared here last fall as the "Railroad Company” which was going to resolve the derelict cars at the Boonton, NJ station. The individual's publicly verifiable history includes several very questionable transactions and the resulting litigation concerning the northern two miles of the Delaware and Bound Brook, fictitious waybills, an attempt to obtain the Canadian Pacific trackage rights from Buffalo to Binghamton NY over Norfolk Southern's objections by OFA, and, in a manner which rivals Mr. Riffin's attempt to use his Northern Central exemption to evade state health and safety regulation in a print shop, took the federal pre-emption doctrine to a new low by trying to use Somerset's exemption as a defense on a state bad check charge. GME |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|