Under a lease agreement, Twin States RR operated a section of former Maine Central RR between Gilman, VT and St. Johnsbury, VT. Then one day Twin States RR decided to not only file for abandonment, but also permission from the STB to remove trackage, etc. which they of course do not own.What right do they have to do this? Has anyone here ever heard of such a thing? http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/readin ... enDocument

Visualize that this was the same scenario presented when New Haven RR/Penn Central wanted to abandon the Providence and Worcester.A lot of lines were leased a hundred years ago under "999 year" leases.

Understood, but this line was leased to TSRR in 1984...

While I am not a lawyer, there is some legal precedent for what is called 'rights of adverse possession'. Basically, if the previous owner has abandoned all interest in a property, and has not kept it fenced, posted or paid property taxes - a 'squatter' may come in in stealth mode and use it. State laws vary but perhaps after seven years the squatter can lay legal claim to that site, pay the back taxes and get a tax deed from the county or state.In Illinois a lot of farmers have done this to reclaim right of way land from an old line, interurban or shortline, even though that property was sold to build that line. The key to the squatter is that there is no corporate shell left from the original owner, and no one else to contest the new deed. The state gets the property back on the tax rolls.This does not sound exactly like the situation you are referring to but state and local statutes vary. In some cases the tax deed does not require the new 'owner' to actively use the parcel, and I have heard of folks who regularly scan and search for opportunities in property on delinquent tax lists. Occasionally they can stitch together parcels and make something out of nothing - generally for speculation and hopefully big gains in reselling it.Bob Kutella

I do believe that this may be a legal manuever to make the state of New Hampshire respond and ultimaltely purchase this line. The problem being that there is hardly any customers left to serve. A paper company located at Gilman, is on the line but hasn't received rail service in some time, and could if need be get served from another RR with connections from up north. Theres much more behind the scenes stuff with regard to this line, and perhaps someone from the area can respond with more details.

Bob,You are mostly right about adverse possession, save for the fact that the adverse posession must be open and notorious. In other words, you have to visually act like you own the property. If this was the case with the shortline railroad in question, then I imagine operating a railroad and maintaining it would qualify. What remains to be seen is the impact of the lease, an issue the STB felt needed to be resolved before abandonment could be granted to TSRR.

There was quite a bit of discussion about the attempt to dismantle the Twin State on this list:http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/VRSandRutland/?yguid=111348323A number of the posters were ex-employees of the somewhat shady operator, who may still be collecting payments from the State of Vermont from his contract to operate the Lamoille Valley, even though it is now dismantled and hadn't turned a wheel in nearly ten years.I believe the last few posts indicated that the STB had turned down his attempt to claim the scrap from a potential dismantling of the Twin State, however.

I also am not currently a L*wyer and do not play one on TV, but in my state, the claim must open, notorius and ADVERSE. You can not claim adverse possession against someone who you have a lease with. I don't fully understand the circumstances of this particular railroad, but I do not understand how they are able to abandon a line they are leasing unless they are acting under the authority of the owner.My $.02