| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Railbanking statute https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=38869 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | IronTie [ Thu Dec 10, 2015 11:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Railbanking statute |
Does anyone know if the Railbanking statute can be used to get control of an out of service ROW for railroad operations, rather than for trail use? |
|
| Author: | Al Stangenberger [ Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Railbanking statute |
"Rails to rails" is possible, that's how the Western Railway Museum acquired about 22 miles of former Sacramento Northern Railway ROW which was up for abandonment by Union Pacific. We had to buy the rails, ties and other improvements for scrap value. Of course it is railbanked and all or part of it could be put back into commercial service if a need developed, as provided by law. |
|
| Author: | IronTie [ Thu Dec 10, 2015 3:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Railbanking statute |
Thanks. Does the STB ever recognize constructive abandonment due to non-use? |
|
| Author: | ebtrr [ Thu Dec 10, 2015 4:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Railbanking statute |
IronTie wrote: Does anyone know if the Railbanking statute can be used to get control of an out of service ROW for railroad operations, rather than for trail use? I do not profess to be an expert, though I have done some reading on this. The term "railbanked" seems to be used in many cases where it does not apply. From my limited reading of the CFR, my understanding is that a legally Railbanked line is not legally abandoned, even if the track is taken up. The trail authority is responsible for maintenance and taxes, but the carrier (railroad) has the ability to take the line back for rail service. Legally it is still a railroad even with the trail in place. The term "Interim Trail" is used in the CFR with the same meaning as "Railbanked". However, it seems that in the case of the vast majority of rail trails, the line was actually legally abandoned (NOT "railbanked") and ceased to be a railroad. The property then had to be purchased by another entity, such as government or nonprofit, and the land is no longer owned by the railroad. In such cases the provision for the railroad to take the line back does not exist. It must be purchased, taken by eminent domain, or the owner must be willing to turn it over. |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Thu Dec 10, 2015 6:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Railbanking statute |
Indeed. "Railbanked" is a legal, technical status with a specific objective, not just a concept or "nice idea." Examples of "railbanking" have included lines to areas with proven, but currently uneconomic to extract, coal or oil reserves, or a line to a planned or proposed industrial development area. If local or state officials or agencies have not specifically made the "railbank" designation at the time of abandonment/removal, it's "back to square one" for proposed rail development. |
|
| Author: | wm303 [ Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Railbanking statute |
Go to www.stb.org and find the filing where the rail line was formally submitted for abandonment. Read through the chronology of that transaction. If you find a decision where a Notice of Interim Trail use was negotiated and submitted to the STB, that right-of-way is railbanked. |
|
| Author: | IronTie [ Thu Dec 10, 2015 7:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Railbanking statute |
What if the line has never been submitted for "abandonment" with the STB, but the owner has had it OOS for decades, track still there but severed in places, trees in the gauge, etc. Is it ever consdidered "abandoned " for Railbanking purposes without a formal filing of abandonment by the owner? |
|
| Author: | Al Stangenberger [ Thu Dec 10, 2015 10:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Railbanking statute |
I can't answer the question of adverse position as it applies to railroads, that would require advice from a lawyer familiar with adverse possession law at both the federal and state levels. I would suggest, however, that the word "adverse" demands consideration in terms of future plans for a railroad operation in this case. It seems to me that instituting some sort of adversarial action against the railroad is not the best way to make friends with a neighboring railroad, especially since it may make them much less likely to do you a favor in the future. |
|
| Author: | RCD [ Thu Dec 10, 2015 11:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Railbanking statute |
wm303 wrote: Go to http://www.stb.org and find the filing where the rail line was formally submitted for abandonment. Read through the chronology of that transaction. If you find a decision where a Notice of Interim Trail use was negotiated and submitted to the STB, that right-of-way is railbanked. I think you mean www.stb.dot.gov |
|
| Author: | wm303 [ Thu Dec 10, 2015 11:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Railbanking statute |
It is considered abandoned when it is officially removed by the STB from the National rail network, and yes, I did mean .gov. How anyone including myself, could regard anything related to the government as a non profit is laughable. My next purchase of rail infrastructure includes 4.2 miles of rail line with trees the size of my legs growing up between the ties and hasn't had a train on it since the late 1990s. But until CSX files with the STB to abandon that segment, it is still considered part of the National network of rails. In fact, at 0800 December 14th it will be officially downgraded by CSX from "main line" track to yard limit track. |
|
| Author: | Dougvv [ Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | tangent - Re: Railbanking statute |
Hi, I recall a situation in the 1970s (pre-railbanking and pre-rails-to-trails) where a section of Southern Railway's mainline from McDonough GA to Griffin GA fell into disuse due to the take over of the Central of Georgia. Something like 14-odd miles of former class one had trees growing between the rails. Although Southern opted not to join Amtrak in 1971, CofG did. Many subsidiary passenger cars were cut up on the old wye in McDonough. There were many cars of TOFC (maybe trailer train but I do not recall for sure) were stored there at times. Most of the route had trees about a foot in diameter growing between the rails. I recall one steel trestle that had rails but few ties remining on it. Later, Southern put in signals and a diesel over there for an engineer training school complete with signals.The school used a few miles (five I think) of the 14 to Griffin. The line was never abandoned and Southern had a section of line that could not be operated. Many years later when I saw the East Broad Top, it reminded me of the Southern line from McDonough to Griffin. The major difference was the rolling stock on the EBT was still there. FWIW Doug vV |
|
| Author: | Alexander D. Mitchell IV [ Fri Dec 11, 2015 12:55 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Railbanking statute |
IronTie wrote: What if the line has never been submitted for "abandonment" with the STB, but the owner has had it OOS for decades, track still there but severed in places, trees in the gauge, etc. Is it ever consdidered "abandoned " for Railbanking purposes without a formal filing of abandonment by the owner? I am not an attorney, don't play one on TV, and can only claim to have studied numerous abandonments in scholarly-level detail....... .... but my personal impression is that, in the scenario you describe, the only way the STB, state agencies, etc. would get involved would be IF a major rail user--say, a coal mine, automobile plant, or ship dock--were attempting to re-instigate rail service on a long-moribund line, the current owner/operator refused to consider re-activation, AND a competing railroad wanted to gain access to said customer and was being blocked by the old RR's refusal to sell or allow access. In the case of the line I (and I'm sure many others) believe you are referring to, that isn't going to happen. |
|
| Author: | ebtrr [ Fri Dec 11, 2015 10:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Railbanking statute |
IronTie wrote: What if the line has never been submitted for "abandonment" with the STB, but the owner has had it OOS for decades, track still there but severed in places, trees in the gauge, etc. Is it ever consdidered "abandoned " for Railbanking purposes without a formal filing of abandonment by the owner? It requires a ruling from the STB before any line that is considered part of the national rail network can become legally abandoned. Period. It does not matter if there are Sequoias growing between the ties and all the rail has been stolen. It is still legally a railroad. Usually the abandonment process is initiated by the carrier that owns the line but can sometimes be initiated by a third party. It seems that if your end goal is to re-operate the line, neither abandonment (or adverse abandonment) nor railbanking is the course you want to pursue. You want it to be part of the national rail network. Those options would be pursued by those who want it converted to a trail or adjacent landowners who want to break up the line. |
|
| Author: | CREEPING DEATH [ Mon Dec 14, 2015 11:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Railbanking statute |
IronTie wrote: What if the line has never been submitted for "abandonment" with the STB, but the owner has had it OOS for decades, track still there but severed in places, trees in the gauge, etc. Is it ever consdidered "abandoned " for Railbanking purposes without a formal filing of abandonment by the owner? It is embargoed - not abandoned. This is not so uncommon, UP did it to some former MKT lines here in Texas that were redundant, until traffic levels increased to where they were needed. I think the former SP (GH&SA/H&TC/T&NO) line between Houston and Galveston also falls under this, it's been OOS since a bridge (over Clear Lake) was burned by a vandal in the 1990s. CD |
|
| Author: | Al Stangenberger [ Tue Dec 15, 2015 2:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Railbanking statute |
Northwestern Pacific's line in the Eel River Canyon is embargoed. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|