The Oklahoma Railway Museum our local NRHS chapter is building in Oklahoma City has a lease on 1.7 miles of the old Katy main from the Transit Authority. We have built 1500 feet of track to tie to the Union Pacific to get equipment in and rehabed the line during the last year to operate on. The the City planning dept got a $1 million Tea-21 grant for a trail. Our Tea-21 grant to move and install a Frisco Turntable was turned down. My concern is where the trail will be adjacent to the tracks. Without having to look through all the FRA rules, does anyone know the rule that spells out distance separation of walking/bicycle trails and operating rail activities? Thanks, Drake Rice, Secreatary

drakerr@telepath.com

Here in Portland, OR, we have a similiar situation of "rails and trails". The former Portland Traction line that runs aprox. 3 miles alongside a river has a planned shared r.o.w. to be seperated by a fence, on a maybe 40-50 foot r.o.w. The city paid the track owner to move his tracks from the riverside to the inland side of the former double track r.o.w. The trail will now be on the riverside r.o.w.

Trail construction has yet to start, but is planned for soon.

Smokebox

> The Oklahoma Railway Museum our local NRHS
> chapter is building in Oklahoma City has a
> lease on 1.7 miles of the old Katy main from
> the Transit Authority. We have built 1500
> feet of track to tie to the Union Pacific to
> get equipment in and rehabed the line during
> the last year to operate on. The the City
> planning dept got a $1 million Tea-21 grant
> for a trail. Our Tea-21 grant to move and
> install a Frisco Turntable was turned down.
> My concern is where the trail will be
> adjacent to the tracks. Without having to
> look through all the FRA rules, does anyone
> know the rule that spells out distance
> separation of walking/bicycle trails and
> operating rail activities? Thanks, Drake
> Rice, Secreatary

Sorry for being so cynical on Christmas Eve, however. . .

1) There are no FRA rules for co-existing right-of-way.

2) As was greatly discussed at a seminar at the TRAIN/ARM meeting, I hope you have a fully paid up liability insurance policy that covers these "guests" along you right-of -way. Because basically all of the advocacy groups that got the access for the hikers/bikers will be far away and not sued if a train/"guest" incident happens.

Steve


SZuidervee@aol.com

I think this would be a good place to get direction from the Rails-to-Trails Conservancy. Ask them about the liability issue discussed above, plus any other detail matters of rails-with-trails. The answers they give will determine if they are friend or foe.. It might be noted that the Liberty Limited dinner train ran out of New Freedom, PA until recently on a shared right-of-way, apparently with no problems even though the trail is heavily used.

Sorry for being so cynical on Christmas Eve,
> however. . .

> 1) There are no FRA rules for co-existing
> right-of-way.

> 2) As was greatly discussed at a seminar at
> the TRAIN/ARM meeting, I hope you have a
> fully paid up liability insurance policy
> that covers these "guests" along
> you right-of -way. Because basically all of
> the advocacy groups that got the access for
> the hikers/bikers will be far away and not
> sued if a train/"guest" incident
> happens.

> Steve


bobyar2001@yahoo.com

Bob,

As discussed in the TRAIN/ARM seminar, there was an incident on the Alaska RR on a shared ROW on the south end. There was even fencing put up to keep the trail users separate. Locals continued to make private openings to cut across and a youth ended up losing some limbs to a train.

Now, it was reported the the Railroad finally prevailed in this case. However it was also reported that it cost the Railroad over $200,000 to defend itself before it received the positive judgement. My point is that the lobbying groups, such as RTT Conservancy, have no legal standing in getting these trails established. Yes, the Liberty Limited suffered no claims to co-users. But this is the kind of issue where if a few claims pop up here and there, it will increase the costs of all of our liability insurance. It will not increase the cost of the liability insurance of the RTT Conservancy. They will just say that our increased premiums will be "the cost of doing business". Many of the groups that are making the deal with the trail folks to find funding for their ROW need to realise that this could be a "pay me later" proposition.

> I think this would be a good place to get
> direction from the Rails-to-Trails
> Conservancy. Ask them about the liability
> issue discussed above, plus any other detail
> matters of rails-with-trails. The answers
> they give will determine if they are friend
> or foe.. It might be noted that the Liberty
> Limited dinner train ran out of New Freedom,
> PA until recently on a shared right-of-way,
> apparently with no problems even though the
> trail is heavily used.

> Sorry for being so cynical on Christmas Eve,


SZuidervee@aol.com

My understanding--and I must concede it was secondhand--was that a similar situation was brewing on the Western Md. Scenic RR, where a trail was going to be put on the "second track" right-of-way--complete with full flashers and gates at Brush Tunnel, and a waist-high chain-link fence between the bike path and the track the entire way. Carl Franz-style photo freight charters aside, does anybody think this will mar the experience or the operational considerations of the railroad?

lner4472@bcpl.net

> My understanding--and I must concede it was
> secondhand--was that a similar situation was
> brewing on the Western Md. Scenic RR, where
> a trail was going to be put on the
> "second track"
> right-of-way--complete with full flashers
> and gates at Brush Tunnel, and a waist-high
> chain-link fence between the bike path and
> the track the entire way. Carl Franz-style
> photo freight charters aside, does anybody
> think this will mar the experience or the
> operational considerations of the railroad?

A bit off the subject perhaps, but is there a single example of a rail-to-trails that has been converted back to rails? Isn't part of that argument that they are keeping rail corridors open for future use? Has anyone tested them on this?

TJG


tjgaffney@phmuseum.org

> A bit off the subject perhaps, but is there
> a single example of a rail-to-trails that
> has been converted back to rails? Isn't part
> of that argument that they are keeping rail
> corridors open for future use? Has anyone
> tested them on this?

> TJG

Yes.

The Maryland Transit Administration attempted to put rail back on the Baltimore and Annapolis Trail from Dorsey Road into downtown Glen Burnie. The citizens made enough noise to have it rerouted about two miles out of the way via more industrial surroundings. So much for Trails-to-Rails. The moral of the story is that even if the enabling legislation is for reversion, if enough voters make a noise, no politician will enforce it.

SZuidervee@aol.com

> The Oklahoma Railway Museum our local NRHS
> chapter is building in Oklahoma City has a
> lease on 1.7 miles of the old Katy main from
> the Transit Authority. We have built 1500
> feet of track to tie to the Union Pacific to
> get equipment in and rehabed the line during
> the last year to operate on. The the City
> planning dept got a $1 million Tea-21 grant
> for a trail. Our Tea-21 grant to move and
> install a Frisco Turntable was turned down.
> My concern is where the trail will be
> adjacent to the tracks. Without having to
> look through all the FRA rules, does anyone
> know the rule that spells out distance
> separation of walking/bicycle trails and
> operating rail activities? Thanks, Drake
> Rice, Secreatary

FYI: The Ohio Central/Columbus and Ohio River Railroad between Newark and the west end of Black Run, Ohio "shares" its right of way with a bike path built on what was the old #2 (westbound) panhandle main with only a chain link fence separating the pedestrians/bike riders and a 25-40 mph mainline track. Interesting, for lack of a better word!!!! Perhaps someone in that area could help as far as regulations for "sharing" rights of way, but from this example it doesn't appear that there are any.

drotarinoh@webtv.net

To further on Steve Z.'s remarks, proposals have been floated since "completion" of the line to both extend the terminus into downtown Glen Burnie (ca. 3/4 mile) and/or extend the entire operation down the B&A to the Annapolis area--with the idea of beginning the bureaucracy now, with the intention of having construction underway in the future when the need would be there for it.
Although I believe study is still under way on the revised former proposal, the latter suggestion is now considered instant political suicide in the county involved. The caveat is that the trail is so popular on fair-weather weekends that it is all but impossible to bring a bicycle up to speed in the more residential stretches, what with dog walkers, parents with strollers, joggers, families on bikes with kids on training wheels, roller-bladers, etc.

lner4472@bcpl.net

> My understanding--and I must concede it was
> secondhand--was that a similar situation was
> brewing on the Western Md. Scenic RR, where
> a trail was going to be put on the
> "second track"
> right-of-way--complete with full flashers
> and gates at Brush Tunnel, and a waist-high
> chain-link fence between the bike path and
> the track the entire way. Carl Franz-style
> photo freight charters aside, does anybody
> think this will mar the experience or the
> operational considerations of the railroad?

In the WMSR's case the trail will seriously impact their ability to maintain their track structure. The former WM Connellsville extension
up to Frostburg contains numerous cuts that were built just wide enough to fit the original double track mainline. The proposed fence to separate the existing track from the abandoned ROW in these places it will make it impossible to replace ties with out removing the fence. With the trail being being imposed upon the railroad by state governmental agencies does it become the RR's financial responsibility to replace the fence in order to satisfy it federally mandated safety regulations?


Hal2415@aol.com

> In the WMSR's case the trail will seriously
> impact their ability to maintain their track
> structure. The former WM Connellsville
> extension
> up to Frostburg contains numerous cuts that
> were built just wide enough to fit the
> original double track mainline. The proposed
> fence to separate the existing track from
> the abandoned ROW in these places it will
> make it impossible to replace ties with out
> removing the fence. With the trail being
> being imposed upon the railroad by state
> governmental agencies does it become the
> RR's financial responsibility to replace the
> fence in order to satisfy it federally
> mandated safety regulations?

AMTRAK and SEPTA (and PRR and RDG before them)have intertrack fences at stations. The fence has to be removed to do track work, then it is replaced. It costs more but that's how you have to do your business.

With WMSR who pays will probably depend on the contract they have with the trail sponsors.

The Electric City Trolley Museum Association