Has anyone seen this STB notice listed below?http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/0/a4813bb0f66f1511852570b200611475/$FILE/215100.pdfA friend of mine says I should find it interesting but I have not been able to pull it up. Any info would be appreciated.Thanks.Les Beckman (Hoosier Valley Railroad Museum/North Judson, Indiana)

Les,The STB web site seemed to be down earlier this morning but I was able to get the link to work later.This appears to be a technical filing to clarify common carrier status of 1.1 miles of track at Connersville, IN, owned by the Whitewater Valley Railroad (tourist), that is to operated by C&NC Railroad (freight) under a trackage rights agreement. There is one shipper requesting rail service.I'm sure someone from Whitewater Valley can provide more insight, however from reading the filing it appears to related to concerns about the level of FRA compliance required by Whitewater if common carrier freight operations take place by a third party over their track. C&NC is asking the STB to confirm that it already holds a common carrier obligation to serve the customer in question. Alan Maples

Sorry we can't say much regarding the specifics of this right now. I can offer some generic advice for others though, just for sake of discussion.One might be that some rail businesses will try nearly anything to force a deal when faced with a bad economy. Another basic lesson is to remember that if you want to work with someone, making threats is not a good way to start a discussion and will probably not lead to an agreement, escalating the threats will probably not work either.For those museums who own their own track: remember that if someone wants to try and us it for common carrier freight again on track you also use, your organization will no longer be FRA insular or non-insular, but rather will be considered part of the general railroad system with all the costs that entails. Also remember that if anyone files with the STB, your organization will have to get a lawyer and spend money to defend your rights to your property. If you don't have money to defend yourself with....this business threat tactic might work. If you do have the money ......... not sure, I'll get back to you.David FarlowWhitewater Valley Railroad

Evidently the Whitewater people have filed a response. It appears there may be more to it then a customer requesting service. Is it odd that the customer did not file the petition? Instead the neighboring shortline filed. http://www.stb.dot.gov/FILINGS/all.nsf/ ... enDocument

It appears that the Railroad has filed a rebuttal. Is this common with these type of proceedings? Will the Whitewater folks be able to respond to this as well? If so, when does it ever end?http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/6084f194b67ca1c4852567d9005751dc/8b98b0f09a41ee8a852570ca005b905d?OpenDocument

It goes on and on.......http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/ ... enDocument

For anyone following this topic, here's an interesting website:

http://www.eavaughan.com/wvrr/CandNC/index.htm

If the site is true, then why is C&NC "taunthing" WWVRR by parking the car just outside of the property?

Also, if the locomotive was delivered to WWVRR property, and later taken away, hasn't C&NC essentially "stolen" the car. If they did deliver it, then took it way for supposed defects in the bills of lading, tarrif forms, etc, it seems to me to show bad faith on the part of C&NC.

The whole thing seems to be ridiculous, no telling what WWVRR is having to spend to hire a Washington law firm to defend itself in front of the STB. C&NC may end up spending as much as well on legal fees than what they may have made in shipments to the scrap metal yard.

This is essentially the way it is. I suggest reading the STB filing documents to get the flavor of the personalities involved.

David Farlow

It appears a ruling was made on Thursday July 13, 2006.


http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readin ... enDocument

http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readin ... /36438.pdf