Gentlemen, Ladies, and such real railroaders who may be in attendance;

It appears that I may be becoming somewhat lax in my old age as I have allowed this filing to sit unmolested on the STB website for an entire week. it appears that one of our old friends is again developing a railway system upon which an end-to-end movement will require either teleportation or a degree of cooperation to which he is completely unaccustomed.

https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/DCMS_External_PROD/1633705027954/303074.pdf

As it is well past my bed time I will leave it to you to discuss among yourselves what is going on and I may join that discussion over the weekend.

GME

Brother Mitchell - might I suggest that this one might rate a taste of The King's Ginger?

Initial translation--looks like someone trying to get something out of Northern Central (Steam into History) and the Stewartstown Railroad (preservation group) for nothing.

I guess some lawyers will be collecting some fees.

The last three or so miles on the west end of the Stewartstown RR hasn't seen trains since before the current preservation group took over, around two decades, due to washouts (the worst now repaired) and bad ties. They do operate track cars on it, and have expanded their class I track on the east end to around two miles now, but I think this thinly-veiled shakedown attempt won't be much more than a nuisance to them. SRR used to meet the old PRR on a wye at New Freedom, and I think the remaining south leg of the wye, now connection track (the north leg was removed some time ago) is that portion of the SRR described in the notice.

Well folks,

I have to say, this STB filing surprised me too.... I speak with Mr. Riffin often, and he mentioned nothing to me about this current action before the Board. I am aware that there is significant litigation ongoing in PA related to the 180 feet of property adjacent to the Mays building in New Freedom. Title to that small segment of property is actively being contested in the courts.

It was my understanding that one of the questions that arose is "Where does the Stewartstown actually begin?" At one point in time, the disputed property was owned by the Stewartstown and was allegedly used by the railroad to reach their passenger facilities in New Freedom. I do not know all the details to proffer a more detailed response at this time.

Mr. Edwards, the current action before the STB which relates to the east end of the York Branch is a complete mystery to me. He has never mentioned to me the litigation with NS to quiet title to that segment of the line. I lack any knowledge with respect to that segment that could allow me to provide any additional details at this time related to that portion of the NOE.

What I can say is that NS would not have allowed a Court to enter a consent Order if there was a serious infirmity with Riffin's underlying claim. This makes the action before the Board subject to some interesting review. If no one objects to the NOE, what basis would the Board have to declare the NOE void given the consent order entered by the Court? This could get interesting....

So, who has fired up the popcorn maker?

Riffin is a clown up to his old tricks I thought the stb told him to. Stop filing

While various prior STB filings have elicited everything from admiration to fits of rage, one thing you have to remember is that JR actually managed to appeal decisions of the STB to Federal appeals and District Courts and prevailed, which by itself is remarkable, and an indication of what's to come even if the STB doesn't agree with his premise of a 180-foot railroad or one that is largely a forested roadbed.

No dog in this fight, but have to follow it anyway.

If you want to gain better understanding of the 'manuvering' to acquire a railroad by any means necessary, go on to Google Earth and attempt to find the right-of-way of the PRR/PC from Wrightsville through Hallam toward York; the MP 7.53 to MP 2.0 portion. The part that still has rails on it is the East Penn York Industrial track, still operating, runs east out of York to Stonybrook.

At least the other 180-foot portion still has rails.

Even if the quarry wanted rail service, the right-of-way has been 'compromised' in various ways and is just barely visible and would require total reconstruction of the portion.

I've found a lot of perplexing 'errors' in abandonment of overlapping or missing portions, a favorite was a half a mile of missing track as the mileposts were accidentally transposed in the filing as in 8.16 vs. 8.61, leaving half a mile to the imagination and subsequent reversion of a strategic section. It can happen.

So why does this guy continue trolling railroads and the STB?

Odd question on a web site devoted to a hobby - about another person's hobby.

Ha, yeah, but his hobby ties up the legal system and wastes a bunch of peoples time.

I'd hate to see the Stew have to waste resources on this distraction when they've been making such good progress getting their railroad back together.

It's my understanding from dealing with him in the past is that his own legal interpretation, when it comes to railroads, the business of acquiring/operating, etc. can ONLY be done via STB authority/authorization. So, he seeks their authority and in the process has become a public nuisance.

I find it interesting regarding the York Branch that he isn't trying to go the route of making a feeder line application. Still, he has no interchange agreements in place, and no customers that anyone knows of.

Again, as well all know, if he manages to get approval for NOE on the Stew, he'll try to force York County into allowing him to operate over the NCR into York and which would also force the NCR/SIH operator to put the rail back in place so they're "isolated" from the outside rail system.

In the meantime, I'll be preparing some 5 gallon buckets for popcorn. butter and salt.

I'm going to take the blame on this one. I was thinking a few weeks ago what happened to our frequent filer, as I hadn't heard anything in a while.

My all time favorite was the response to the STB when they accused him of not being a financially viable and responsible entity on a line purchase was that declaring bankruptcy actually proved he was a responsible entity to do so. That ended up in appeals court.

Lest I be accused of fabrication....
http://bankrupt.com/misc/mdb11-15870.pdf
and this is one that ended up in the US District Court of Appeals:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5 ... 493422a6e2

I can't prove this easily, but I'm pretty sure the STB attempted to basically ban him from any further filings, he took that one to court as well, and won that one as a prejudicial decision.

To answer the "Why?" part, I won't editorialize, but I will reference:
https://vansmith.me/2017/10/10/train-wr ... o-reality/

Recommended reading.

Wait, is this the guy who wanted to either put track back on the mapa in baltimore or at the end of the north central in Cockeysville?

Courts generally aren't amused by their time being wasted with the Moops argument (the name coming from the Seinfeld episode in which there is a misprint of Moors on a Trivial Pursuit card but George makes a stand and says "I'm sorry, but the card says Moops"). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia02fGpUQfU A few years back a case went before the USSC brought by groups opposed to Obabamacare, who were sure the court would throw out the whole law because of an error in the original bill, using the word State when they meant/intended Federal. The Moops argument (called that derisively at the time, first time I heard it) didn't fly with the court, as such errors creep into every large bill, they usually are fixed after the bill is passed, and the intent of the writers was clear. I am sure the same is true of the property disposition this clown is making a stand on. The courts could actually put a stop to this tactic if they wanted to by imposing large court costs on this person every time he brings the Moops argument to them.

The timing of this makes it like a really bad Halloween horror movie, but yes, its that same guy.