In case you've never heard of this organization, it's because you never want to:

https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 302877.pdf

The argument here on this one, and it's likely legitimate, is that if it was procedurally proper or not at the time, the property effectively reverted years ago, and is now in the hands of land owners that have no intention of leaving, STB or no STB.

But as JR has seemingly had unlimited ability and resources to file, this group may have similar unlimited ability and resources to counter.

Are these all just attempts by Mr. Riffin to get rail lines for free?

I would think with all the time and effort he has spent over many years, he could have purchased a live, active short line.

Even his storage building in Cockeysville, PA that he first used to state he was a "railroad" was torn down sometime in 2013 and is now a vacant lot.

Kinda says a lot there, doesn't it?

Randy, as a "local" I can tell you that those "named roads" on the former ROW are just private driveways to the houses adjacent to the old ROW.

That being said, I'd have to do some research and dig out some of the files in my own library to see if that ROW, even with single-track was the standard PRR "surveyed width" of 66 feet wide (length of one survey chain), which means that in theory, there would be enough room for one track and whatever road access is there to remain.

Of course, for JR to get copies of these same maps he would be paying money either to the LOC (unknown price structure) or PRRTHS (@ $6/map).

I've talked to the current President of the Stewartstown Railroad and they have their lawyer reviewing the filing. It's absurd to think he only wants to acquire 180 feet of the railroad, the railroad could probably argue that he could get a spur if he can prove he has the business to justify it. If he had left that Stewartstown Railroad portion off of his filing, there's a higher probability it would have gone through. However, JR has been litigating with the Borough Council in New Freedom due to actions taken on the property surrounding the former LaMotte's restaurant building in New Freedom.

As for the York Branch, I know some of the management with the East Penn and they'll do an interchange agreement with him, but I don't believe there's any customers for him to serve.

So, here's a fun question for the STB knowledgeable lawyers among us. When it comes to customers on a line of railroad, can the operator of that railroad create something of their own accord to get rail service and thus say "we have a customer!" or does it need to be a verifiable third party looking for rail service? Considering all of JR's pursuits over the years, this has never really been called into question before. This was part of JR's original operating plan 17 years ago that he would operate the NCR and move ethanol on the line as a customer too.

The right of way appears to be roughly 60’+ in most places. If you go to the York County Searchable Assessment and Mapping Database (https://yorkcountypa.gov/property-taxes/assessment-and-tax-claim-office/assessment-information/searchable-assessment-database-and-mapping.html) you can zoom in on property lines overlayed on satellite imagery and look up the owners by tapping or clicking on the property. Easements for streets or railroads won’t show any ownership. You can also do some rough measurements.

JR does not own any of the land. He’s only going after the easements.

OK, well, thanks for that link.... but a couple observations.

PA considers railroad right of way untilities, and doesn't property tax them. So for many counties, the accuracy of the tax parcel maps is suspect, to be kind, as there's no money in it for the communities to dig into it. New York state, taxing right-of-way, is a lot more disciplined about railroad property lines.

If you follow the line into York, you'll note that significant parts of the ROW that have active track on them have no easement lines drawn at all (Stony Brook Rd. & Rt. 462), and portions of the line under question still do have easement lines on them, but nothing visible at all trackwise, and other things make it interesting - like a garage clearly sitting on it at Frysville road. Then just east of Duckstown Rd, any traces of an easement disappear entirely although the grade is still visible on the aerial photography.

Wow. This will go back to individual deeds, title search, any original ICC documentation, valuation maps with deed ID on them, etc.

As an update, the STB denied Riffin's request.

Of course they did.

Because they are rational adults who can read.

What are the odds that Jimmy and his disciples will stop wasting OUR money with their harebrained "I'm a railroad cause I'm pretending REALLY hard" schemes?

Well folks,

This chapter appears to be over for now. I am not sure if this issue will continue going forward. I will enjoy hearing Mr. Riffin's take on this over the weekend.

I will say that in reading the Board's decision, the reference to the PRR Abandonment Docket is the key to ending the vast majority of the controversy. I was surprised that Jim didn't research that more carefully. He is usually pretty good at finding such things. His failure to be thorough appears to be his undoing this time.

I do know that he was giving serious consideration to challenging the Director's initial decision a couple of months ago, and then decided against it at the last minute. Due to the revelation of the PRR Abandonment Docket, I don't think he will challenge the full Board's decision and seek judicial review. I know I won't encourage him to do so. As far as I'm concerned, the eastern segment was abandoned by virtue of the Final System Plan. It appears now that the line never made it to the FSP.

I do expect him to continue to litigate the 0.53 mile long segment of the York branch east of the grade crossing. That segment was intended to be conveyed as a part of the Western segment, and if so, it may well remain a part of the national rail network.

My expectation is the saga will continue ....

Sad, but true ....