Railway Preservation News
https://www.rypn.org/forums/

Another EBT concern
https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3427		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Tue Jul 02, 2002 5:55 pm ]
Post subject:  Another EBT concern
Has anybody been in a position to answer this simple question:

The EBT, although never "officially" abandoned, has been neglected along much of its route for over forty years. Those who have hiked the railroad in the wilderness can confirm that there are several encroachments by adjacent property owners. At least one driveway and one jeep trail have gone as far as to sever rails and pull them aside, legally or not. In other locations near Mt. Union, the rails barely poke up out of handsomely-mowed lawns (the high school and a plant come to mind).

Is the EBT adequately protected legally from property owners claiming abandonment? I quake at the thought of one sympathetic judge saying that 25 years of grass-mowing or not appearing with a rail vehicle on the line qualifies the adjacent owner to claim the land and annex it. Then, the K's asking $10 million for the property they still have could be irrelevant if, say, Country Bumpkin or XYZ Corporation wants $1 million for that 300 feet of right-of-way.

lner4472@bcpl.net
Author:  Al Patterson [ Tue Jul 02, 2002 6:24 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Another EBT concern
While I'm not a lawyer, I seem to think that 25 years of use without complaint by EBT may be enough to qualify for a permanent easement. I'd be satified if we manage to save the current 5 miles as is, although as has been said before we're one or two major snowstorms away from losing the shop complex.

> Has anybody been in a position to answer
> this simple question:

> The EBT, although never
> "officially" abandoned, has been
> neglected along much of its route for over
> forty years. Those who have hiked the
> railroad in the wilderness can confirm that
> there are several encroachments by adjacent
> property owners. At least one driveway and
> one jeep trail have gone as far as to sever
> rails and pull them aside, legally or not.
> In other locations near Mt. Union, the rails
> barely poke up out of handsomely-mowed lawns
> (the high school and a plant come to mind).

> Is the EBT adequately protected legally from
> property owners claiming abandonment? I
> quake at the thought of one sympathetic
> judge saying that 25 years of grass-mowing
> or not appearing with a rail vehicle on the
> line qualifies the adjacent owner to claim
> the land and annex it. Then, the K's asking
> $10 million for the property they still have
> could be irrelevant if, say, Country Bumpkin
> or XYZ Corporation wants $1 million for that
> 300 feet of right-of-way.


acp19809@yahoo.com
Author:  John Boykin [ Tue Jul 02, 2002 7:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Another EBT concern
Precisely this happened to the Lake Whatcom Ry (tourist) about 20 years ago. The current owner purchased about 15 miles of abandoned BN right of way and track only to lose a few hundred feet less than 5 miles from his maintenance base at Wickersham, Washington.
Author:  Bob Yarger [ Tue Jul 02, 2002 7:22 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Another EBT concern
I think the Ma & Pa folks have a similar neighbor situation with their track, that, if I'm not mistaken, still has not been fully resolved.

> Precisely this happened to the Lake Whatcom
> Ry (tourist) about 20 years ago. The current
> owner purchased about 15 miles of abandoned
> BN right of way and track only to lose a few
> hundred feet less than 5 miles from his
> maintenance base at Wickersham, Washington.


ryarger@rypn.org
Author:  Alan Maples [ Tue Jul 02, 2002 9:16 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Another EBT concern
I do not know EBT's legal status as a carrier, although I presume it received abandonment authority from the ICC when operations ceased in the 1950's. However, the company may have some type of state Public Utility Commission (PUC) carrier status for the excursion trains. Railroads in Pennsylvania are generally considered public utilities under jurisdiction of the PUC and I have received legal opinion in the past advising that adverse possession claims can not be made against public utility property.

I know that EBT has been pretty agressive about maintaining its rights with respect to grade crossings, which accounts for the new 3-rail concrete crossing on the 522 bypass at Mt. Union. I also suspect they keep a closer eye than you might think on the various encroachments.

Alan Maples



AMaples@aol.com
Author:  Jack A. Siffert [ Tue Jul 02, 2002 11:56 pm ]
Post subject:  squaters
>I know on our railroad several poeple have put there lawns right up to and over the tracks. We have the weed spray truck spray extra on the lawns.(nice and brown in less than a week.)Plus we make sure when we are changing ties we trat the land like the rest of the right of way. Back hoes do a job on grass.

We only are doing this where we are putting the line back in service. The area we are working in now hasn't seen a train since 1969. WE own the property free and clear and if anyone want's to try to take it well we will see you in court.

irss@eriecoast.com
Author:  RH [ Wed Jul 03, 2002 3:15 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Another EBT concern
This should not be a problem, I think most ideas for saving the site only involve using the existing five miles of useable track. Considering the cost of just doing that, I doubt extending the line would be considered. I don't know the whole track layout, but there are tunnels that would require millions of dollars to use again, any track beyond these tunnels is out of the question. Is there a track plan online some where? It would be cool to restore the whole thing, with trains hauling timber and coal (revenue trains hauled by diesel, excursion trains by steam) the proceeds used to offset operating costs, but this is beyond a pipe dream, it just could never happen.
Author:  Chris Coleman [ Wed Jul 03, 2002 9:43 am ]
Post subject:  EBT Owns the land *PIC*
The EBT had the forsight to purchase the land for the track, so it is not actually a right-of-way or easement, it is owned. In addition to the US 522 crossing that was mentioned, the line was also defended when the new 522 overpass was built in Shirleysburg, during sewer work in Three Springs and during water work in Robertsale. In all cases the rail was disturbed and replaced when the work was done. In Shirleysburg and Three Springs the track was even reballasted. In all cases public funds were used which makes the railroad easier to defend since it is a National Historic Landmark.

As and aside, the EBT filed for abandonement in 1955 and received approval in 1956. After the purchase of the line by Kovalchick Salvage, a permamnent stay in the abandonment was granted. As such the EBT has never been formally abandoned.



The East Broad Top Homepage
Image
ebtrr@spikesys.com
Author:  Dave Stephenson [ Wed Jul 03, 2002 11:57 am ]
Post subject:  Re: EBT Owns the land
Playing off what Chris Coleman wrote, I believe if a customer at Robertsdale requested service, and the EBT decided to move the shipment over the railroad, it could, under its common carrier obligation, remove encroachments, rehabilitate the line and move the shipment to Mt Union. Economically ridiculous, to be sure, but strange things have happened in order to preserve a contiguous rights-of-way. With the current EBT situation, we're almost at the "let us pray" alternative.



drs5260fr@yahoo.com
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/