The thread down below on the 1361 and the Nittany & Bald Eagle took an interesting detour:

Does anyone have comments on "public" ownership of track/right-of-way and its positive and negative effect on preservation/excursion activities?

The SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority mentioned earlier has several preservation/excursion operations on their "empire"--Bellefonte Historical, Wellsboro & Corning, and Stourbridge. (Actually, no, Stourbridge is owned by Wayne County, and the same operator that runs most SEDA-COG lines operates/operated this one.) There are other examples--there's some overlap between the Lackawanna County Rail Authority and Steamtown/Electric City. There are also other such arrangements, some where the tracks are shared with freight and some where the line is shared with, for example, a trail (as in York County, Pa. and soon to be on the Western Md. Scenic).

I invite comments on these arrangements. On the one hand, it's useful--and appropriate--to share the burden of infrastructure costs with a for-profit transport company or an agency that wants a recreational or preservation resource. But can that sharing process also work against a group? Can bureaucracy and red tape delay for long periods what could be accomplished swiftly otherwise? Does implementation of such things as union labor forces and/or massive oversight (OSHA, EPA, Department of Labor, etc.) cause problems that would not be there in a more independent environment? Is the trade-off worth it?

If a new operation--say, just to make up an example, someone wanting to rebuild a narrow-gauge like the EBT or Tweetsie or Sandy River & Rangeley Lakes from almost-scratch--were to have the choice between pursuing a "government-owned" restored railroad/right-of-way versus plugging it out on their own, what would you tell them, based on your experiences?

lner4472@bcpl.net

Much of the public ownership in Pennsylvania came from the startup of Conrail and the availability of many lines that were not in the Conrail plan but were needed for local shippers. Few of the new startup short lines had the capital to buy and rehabilitate the lines so the Commonwealth stepped in. Later the lines were sold to the operators, or to local government or a similar entity such as a Chamber of Commerce or a shippers' association.

The advantage to the excursion operator of local ownership is that there is a friendly landlord; the excursion is a tourist draw and creates jobs in the community; thus the public entity wants the tourist RR there.

Electric City Trolley Museum Association

> The advantage to the excursion operator of
> local ownership is that there is a friendly
> landlord; the excursion is a tourist draw
> and creates jobs in the community; thus the
> public entity wants the tourist RR there.

The disadvantage is that these public owners is that they contract operation out to a shortline operator who will not operate excursions.

rick@todengine.org

> The disadvantage is that these public owners
> is that they contract operation out to a
> shortline operator who will not operate
> excursions.

The statement above is not at all a blanket statement. If there is a desire for passenger excursions, they can and will be accommodated. For example, I believe the Nittany & Bald Eagle RR has (or had) a blanket arrangement whereas no freight movements were permitted on Saturdays, Sundays, and Holidays except by arrangement with the Bellefonte Historical RR, who had trackage rights on those days.

Even major railroads have had such clauses. The B&O/Chessie System for seventeen years had an arrangement with Historic Red Clay Valley (Wilmington & Western) whereas the line was off limits to their (freight) movements on Saturdays and/or Sundays to allow HRCV unfettered access to the railroad. It was even written in the employee timetables!

If the track's owner wants the excursions and their economic benefits, any freight operator will be forced to work around the passenger schedules. I've yet to see a case where freight traffic derailed a regular passenger excursion operation that I can recall.


lner4472@bcpl.net

> The statement above is not at all a blanket
> statement. If there is a desire for
> passenger excursions, they can and will be
> accommodated.

Ditto Georgia Southwestern and Georgia Northeastern. Working on Georgia Central and then we will have the whole state tied up.

Dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

>
>

> If the track's owner wants the excursions
> and their economic benefits, any freight
> operator will be forced to work around the
> passenger schedules. I've yet to see a case
> where freight traffic derailed a regular
> passenger excursion operation that I can
> recall.

One case that has achieved some notoriety in recent weeks is that of the Stourbridge Railroad in northeastern Pennsylvania. Owned by the local Chamber of Commerce and operated by a contract operator, freight service is just about non-existant since the departure of the line's last freight customer. The Stourbridge Line, a separate group which operates excursion trains over the route, must now face the prospect of taking on the maintenance of the track and everything else that was formerly the responsibility of the freight operator. A grant from an area tourist promotion agency will get them through this year and the next, but after that, the picture becomes dimmer. Unless a freight customer can be found to "offset" their expenses, the operation may be done after 2003. A 24-mile line that carries about 25,000 passengers annually can't be maintained on that revenue alone.

K4s1361@hotmail.com

> One case that has achieved some notoriety in
> recent weeks is that of the Stourbridge
> Railroad in northeastern Pennsylvania. Owned
> by the local Chamber of Commerce and
> operated by a contract operator, freight
> service is just about non-existant since the
> departure of the line's last freight
> customer. The Stourbridge Line, a separate
> group which operates excursion trains over
> the route, must now face the prospect of
> taking on the maintenance of the track and
> everything else that was formerly the
> responsibility of the freight operator. A
> grant from an area tourist promotion agency
> will get them through this year and the
> next, but after that, the picture becomes
> dimmer. Unless a freight customer can be
> found to "offset" their expenses,
> the operation may be done after 2003. A
> 24-mile line that carries about 25,000
> passengers annually can't be maintained on
> that revenue alone.

The Austin and Texas Central,home of the Austin Steam Train Association and operators of SP#786,operate over track owned by Capital Metro,the City of Austin's transit authority. Freight traffic is handled by a contract operator which occasionally operates on our days of operation. Other than the meets with the freights(which the passengers seem to enjoy) there are no major conflicts.
Capital Metro is currently spending a great deal of money on track and signals which is having the effect of allowing us to maintain 20MPH over all our run to Burnet,and most of our run to downtown Austin.Their ultimate goal is to get the entire 162 miles of track up to Class Two standards and maintain them there.
Our relationship with them depends on who is in charge,but for the most part have been cordial. They recognize the importance of ASTA,and we work together with them and the freight carrier to further improve the railroad where we can.
We are also working to further and deepen the relationship ,hopefully forming a true partnership that will allow us to do more in the future.

kbcotton@flash.net

Indiana Transportation Musuem has had an arrangement like this for some time. In fact the museum grouds are in and owned by the city (park is the landlord). While I think that arrangement may some big concerns for the long term, it has worked out for them for a very long time.

At this point the former NKP line between Indianapolis (10th Street) and Tipton (ending several hundred feet before the NS main) are owned by a joint governement Port Authority. The pro is simply that if the Port Authority had not bought it, ITM would have no operation outside the park. The museum could not finance the line when it came up for sale. The con is that the "reason" the line was purchased was for a possible light rail commuter line. Should that project go forward, it would likely allow the museum to run north towards Tipton, but it may cut them out of the big event State Fair Train, revenue that they are counting on. But, perhaps the museum will operate for many more years on the line and perhaps the commuter line will never happen. It's a risk that they must take at this point I suppose. IF the Port Authority found it important enough to put in the 10th Street bridge, the trains could even go back into Indianapolis Union Station. This would only happen with a Port Authority's power, though it may never happen.

Another drawback to this arrangement can be demonstrated when a massive rebuilding of the street trackage in Noblesville happened a few years back. The city's design firm decided that a slow long angle off the street to the RR r-o-w was a hazard to traffic (although it had been that way since the track was installed). In its place they put in a sharp zig zag that is just barely enough for the passenger cars and the NKP Mike to go through it. The designers were building this with the anticipated light rail cars in mind and apparently did not consult the tenant (ITM) until it was nearly too late. The final version is better than planned in the original proposal, but in these arrangements, communications must be open and clear. I don't know why the museum did not review the construction plans first. Again, this arrangement does give them access to track that they would otherwise have lost.

David Farlow

hudson.industries@worldnet.att.net