A possibility of a railroad returning, as it's supposed to be able to do for a railbanked line--and look at the fight that's starting.

This is what we face if a railroad goes away, and if even a well-financed carrier decides it's time to go back.

http://www.wtov9.com/shared/news/featur ... 8858.shtml

"Commissioners say they have now gone a few months without hearing from the railroad company, but of course that doesn't mean this issue is dead."

Get those D-9 Cats lined up, and gentlemen, start your engines.

The video is interesting.

$400,000 grant for asphalt? Wow.

Blue hair and blacktop. These folks sure like to walk.

The details are in the paperwork. What I mean is, a lot of railroad rites of way were allowed to be paved for trails contingent upon the need for rail service. So, if the railroad has a need to return, it will have the authority to activate the agreements in place and rebuild the track.

What needs to be seen is if there was such an agreement with the county/state.

From what I understand, asphalt makes a darn good base for railbed.

Brian

I love the writing...
Wow, that reporter learned English real good, didn't he done learned it good?
And as for content...
Turned into railroad tracks? You mean, what it was to start with?
As opposed to the work the railroad originally put into the right of way, or the tears from the train fans when it was torn up originally? How about the benefit for shippers? I love how people of their ilk (I've never liked ilk) talk about pollution control, but refuse to accept that a train is far less polluting than all the 18-wheelers it takes to move the same amount of stuff from A to B.
Bill, you moron, it was a railroad to start with.
They shouldn't. A railroad would earn way more money for any government than a trail does.
I live nowhere near this, but I must admit I'd love little more than to be there if they bulldoze the asphalt up, cheering the 'victory' against the trail people, just rub a giant bag of salt into the tree-huggers' wounds...

This sounds to me to be a "We do not want any change any time any where no matter what."

If I remember right, several railbanked lines have been reactivated. I also think that a number of rails to trails have been reverted back to rails.

However it has not done so often. It is sort of Who owns the right of way?

Doug vV

If I was to hazard a guess, I think The news station attached the wrong railroad to the story. If Genesee and Wyoming needed another track between Jewett and Bowerston, all they would have to do is add the second main on the old Pennsylvania panhandle line back in place. I know Ohi–rail has just completed, or is nearing completion of track upgrades to the NYC between Minerva and Hopedale for the oil fracking business that's on their line. Hopedale is where they interchange with the Wheeling and Lake Erie, which used to use the right away in question before traffic dwindled and decided to hop on the Panhandle to save money on track maintenance. I will do further research just to make sure…

I don't know the specifics on this ROW, but these are generalizations....

Pretty much any abandoned railroad corridor has a mix of ROW ownership between fee simple title and condemnations, goes back to the original deeds. Many of those condemnations revert the property to the original owners or subsequent owners if the railroad is abandoned. Sometimes the deed language gets really muddy, too.

So the trick is to not fully 'abandon' the railroad to keep the ROW intact; that's the angle, and the way that is done is to designate the corridor 'interim trail use' even if the tracks are removed. In the eyes of the law, it's a railroad without track on it, but its still a railroad. The trail folks have to be reminded periodically that the alternative to not allowing replacement of ANY viable commercial railroads (should situations allow) is to invalidate the ability to create a trail from the interim trail use language to begin with. The very fact that this CAN happen actually validates the term 'interim trail use'. Otherwise, there would be no surviving corridors for trails - all it takes is one condemnation parcel. Most of the pre-Conrail corridors around here are in that category, and there are darn few trails as the ROW has all reverted. Trails people don't seem to understand that they can't get that old property, either, and there's no condemnation authority for a trail. There's some really beautiful abandoned corridors that will never see a trail because of it. Which concentrates activity on other corridors that are either contested or are actually still railbanked in some manner with the track on it.

Now, of course, a community can actually purchase the trail ROW from the property owners at market value/fee simple, and the other angle is that if the railroad wants it bad enough, it can seek STB authority to condemn right back across it a second time. Expensive and difficult for sure, but ultimately, entirely possible. If there's a valid economic case for it, and it's the best alternative (including environmental considerations), the railroad holds the high ground legally.

A handful of viable trail back to rail conversions have been done, at least validating the concept although it's still pretty rare. And in most cases, the railroad will bend over backwards trying to find a new alignment for the trail as well, just to avoid conflict, if it can be done.

On a national basis with the rails-to-trails conservancy, they completely know this. It's the locals that don't get it. It's also not all that difficult to research the abandonment dockets online with the STB website and prove/disprove the trail conversion issues. The great, great majority of the trails are out there specifically under the 'interim trail use' designation, and the railroad has every right to pursue relaying track if it makes economic sense and clears environmental review.

People need to be made to understand that in many cases the track was on an easement and the land goes back to the original owner when rail use ceases and that the railbanking concept is what preserves the open corridor and allows the trails to be built at all.

The number of times a trail has gone back to rail use can probably be counted on one hand. If you block the return to rail use you're contributing to making a case that railbanking is a scam and the next time it comes up the land owners could convince a court there is no such thing and let the landowners take possession. Better to lose a trail one time in hundreds to prove that railbanking is a real thing than to jeopardize the entire program.

If I represented landowners in conjunction with some future abandonment I would be practically salivating every time there is a proposal to return a track and it's fought down by the trail people because it's further proof that the program is BS.

I don't understand the point of restoring the track. The area from Bowerston to Jewett originally had the old single track W&LE line, plus the double track PRR Panhandle Division. The W&LE went to NKP, then N&W, and eventually to the new W&LE. The Panhandle went to PC, Conrail, Ohio Central, and eventually G&W. In the process the Panhandle was single tracked. The W&LE was abandoned in favor of trackage rights over the remaining Panhandle track (now G&W), and became the trail. If a second track is needed, the alignment of the old PRR second track is available. There is no need to restore track to the W&LE alignment, so there is no need for a dispute.

If there were a real need for this re-tracking, then the discussion would be entirely different.

Tom

At least this is a freight railroad looking to rebuild. God help the museum who wanted to expand its operations over a railbanked route. The opposition they would get would make the sorry experience MTM faced in Stillwater before moving to Osceola seem reasonable.

Not necessarily true. Some railroads had routes conferred to them by their state or territory. Others had a policy of only buying in fee simple (and did what was necessary to do that). Others cleaned up their muddy deeds and easements by willingly detangling with anyone they're entangled with. (if a successful railroad that's plainly not going to be abandoned in your lifetime offers you $10,000 to buy out their easement, hey, free ten grand.)

Or even cheaper - watch the market and when an entangled property goes up for sale, BUY IT, restructure the easement and flip the property for about what you paid.

Keep in mind you can't have an easement across property you own. If you buy property you have an easement on, the act extinguishes the easement.

Ann sells Joe her back 40, granting an easement. Later Ann sells her property to Joe, who flips it to Lucius. Joe has lost his easement and Lucius has him over a barrel.



Well both parties have eminent domain power. People forget that communities also have eminent domain power and could take property for a community trail all their own.

Of course, usually eminent domain is the "offshore battleship" that scares people into doing a willing free-market deal.

And therein lies the bluff.


Sure, because it's easy, quells objections, and it gives them an access road.

Actually, the rail rebuild project I'm referring to offered to trade alternate fee-simple abandoned ROW in the same county for the trail ROW they were to rebuild on. The project never happened, but it was a rather creative approach to dealing with the trails folks.

I've been involved in so many relatively messy ROW deals I've lost count. The tough ones are trying to read quill-pen written 'railroad deeds' dating back to the mid-1800's, that involved a payment. Fee simple, reversionary....??? Even the STB couldn't figure some out, and made the decision to force a warranty deed rider on the sale, which then couldn't be done either. Negotiate a deal. Move on. Write another quit-claim deed and kick the can down the road. Also tried to decipher one made with an indian tribe in the late 1850's that sort looked like a fee simple transaction but no trace of any actual payment amount, so.....?

Binding up the entire mess under 'interim trail use' is a whole lot simpler and avoids a lot of grief. The trails guys have it good, actually, and shouldn't complain much if at all.

Robert, if you know of any case where there has been a successful eminent domain condemnation of a trail back over a reverted ROW, I'd sincerely like to know it, because there's been several situations where I've found the trails guys after a trail on a preserved or semi-active track only because the one they REALLY wanted has reverted years ago, so they concentrate on an alternative. While a lot of public condemnation power exists, it also requires payment, and that's often in short supply for these. I don't doubt you, I'd just like to add an example to my toolkit if it exists.

Even when an agency is GIVEN condemnation powers to put track back if the line wasn't in interim trail use status, it doesn't always work. This was one of the messiest and prolonged battles I know of: http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/local/ ... c4751.html
If this had gone into interim trail status, the railroad ROW rights would have been preserved, but without it.... you can see the ultimate outcome. Nothing.

Hi,

I own 22-odd acres in north GA with about 1000 feet of frontage on the NS-DC mainline.

Starting about 1985 (about the time I purchased the property) there has been a legal class action suite against the railroads.

Basically, it covers the mentioned R.O.W agreements above PLUS some cases where the easement/deed stated something like (if it does not then it automatically reverts back to the owner's descendents). Or .

What started in 1984/5 was the laying of Fiber optic lines along R.O.W. by the railroads for non-railroad use became a class action suite that is pending verification of conformation documents by the adjoining property owners. The payment is $0.94 per foot for all members of the claim to give up the claim for the future.

This is a simplified explanation. The point is there are even more possible land mines out there is you are trying to reconstitute a former railroad R. O. W.

Now if they will just get this settled and send me my check for about $900.

I wonder if trail people realize that they might run into ownership problems if the tracks are removed - the idea is that if the tracks are removed, no trains can run and the land MIGHT revert to the proper land owners.

For what its worth.

Doug vV

I wouldn't expect to see them yet, because they haven't exhausted the supply of trails that can more cheaply be done under the Rails to Trails act (and maliciously extinguishing heritage railways, New York.) But it's a matter of time IMO.

Anyway, I don't expect to see eminent domain condemnations. That's just the distant threat that motivates willfully negotiated plain sales at prices which are also motivational. That's cheaper for everybody.