From yesterday's Surface Transportation Board Docket:
http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7f93537688b8e5852573210004b318/b457147df0c1b2c885257b94006dfd77/$FILE/234460.PDF

See also:
http://www.savethedinky.org

This is a dispute that I have not seen much mention of here primarily because the litigation has been buried in the morass of local zoning, planning and historical preservation rather than a railroad abandonment per se.

As much fun as I would have, I have so many conflicts of interest here that I cannot even begin to discuss the merits. I am not certain that I am even allowed to think about some of them. I can say, however, that there are some very interesting railroad questions raised in the myriad suites involved here including the extent of common carrier obligation, whether non-inclusion in the Final System Plan constitutes abandonment authority even if Conrail continued to operate the the line, and whether a state historical preservation office can actually authorize the abandonment of common carrier obligation without the Surface Transportation Board even having a seat at the table.

Watching from the Bench,

GME

(Memo to Brother Mitchell and my former Sergeant - Do not even think it!!)

Dammit. You made me think it.

And I wasn't even disposed along those lines until you said something. Oh, well.

I guess in the next few days that well-known Maryland law firm of RGC&M will be making one of their usual OFA filings before the STB. Hey, its something like 460 feet of railroad that may be up for grabs-