http://www.southdakotatraintravel.com/index.htm

If successful, this could have a beneficial effect on new passenger operations.

Good luck, South Dakota.

dave

I'm not exactly sure who this legislation will benefit - even with a law such as this the host RRs still could institute whatever (very high) insurance requirement they want to for anyone to operate passenger service over their lines. A law such as this won't make UP, BNSF, RailAmerica, or the other RRs that own most of the network in the state any more likely to reduce their insurance requirements.

Were the people behind the proposed operation to Deadwood the prime movers behind this legislation?

Chris J.

The State of Texas also has similiar legislation on its books,but this has not increased the number of excursions allowed on mainline or short line railroads since it's passing more than 10 years ago. It becomes a matter of push and shove with the railroads because it is still their private property and they can pretty much dictate what can and can't operate on their property. I applauld South Dakota for their efforts,but unless the Class Ones decide they want it to happen,it might be doubtful. For the intrastate operators,time will tell.

The fact a bill is *proposed* doesn't mean anything will ever come of it, often nothing ever does.

Bob H

[quote="Txhighballer"]I applaud South Dakota for their efforts,but unless the Class Ones decide they want it to happen,it might be doubtful. For the intrastate operators,time will tell.[/quote]

The 'Class I' concerned, DM&E, has not, to my knowledge, publically taken a position on whether they will permit the commuter operation to Rapid City. I presume, however, that the Deadwood bunch is negotiating with them...