NYGL update?

So any updates on the NYGL? Are they still contracted out to do the garbage facility in Passaic? No signs of a new owner yet. Any thoughts?
Also any news on the restoration facility in Port Jervis?[/list]

I can tell you they had another open house today in Port Jervis, NY.

-otto-

Were getting two things confused, what is NY&GL is it the railroad sold in NJ or s it the equipment Jimmy wilson owns and sitting in New Jersey.
Which of these two entities is now the NY&GL lets establish that first.

According to this following ruling, the property the first poster is talking about is no longer the NY&GL.

38037 SERVICE DATE – LATE RELEASE MAY 25, 2007
CO
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
DECISION
STB Finance Docket No. 35020

Northern and Bergen Railroad, L.L.C.—acquisition Exemption—a Line of Railroad Owned by New York & Greenwood Lake Railway
Decided: May 25, 2007

This decision stays the effective date of the exemption in this proceeding.

BACKGROUND
This proceeding involves the acquisition (by purchase) of approximately 1.1 miles of track, beginning in the Borough of Garfield, Bergen County, NJ, and ending at or near the intersection of South and Fourth Streets in the City of Passaic, Passaic County, NJ. On April 26, 2007, Northern and Bergen Railroad, L.L.C. (NBR), a noncarrier, filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire the line from New York & Greenwood Lake Railway (NYGL). NBR states that it plans to provide rail transportation service to three shippers along the line and to develop a transload business for hauling finished wood products. In addition, NBR states that it will haul cars to an interchange with Norfolk Southern Railway Company. The effective date of the exemption is May 26, 2007.

On May 16, 2007, the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) filed a petition asking the Board to stay the effective date of the exemption until NBR provided certain information.[1] NJDEP claims that further development of facts is necessary in order to determine whether NBR will become a rail carrier as defined by 49 U.S.C. 10102(5) or whether its proposed operations are in reality those of a solid waste processing facility. On May 18, 2007, NBR filed a reply in opposition to a stay, wherein NBR argues that it is seeking to acquire an existing common carrier railroad and an existing transload facility, and that NJDEP’s allegations that NBR’s transaction is a “sham” are unfounded. NBR also asserts that it has provided to NJDEP the information that NJDEP requested.

On May 23, 2007, NJDEP filed a supplemental pleading to its request for a stay, further explaining its concerns regarding NBR’s pending acquisition of the line. In its supplement, NJDEP stresses the environmental implications of the pending transaction and the projected effect that the transaction could have on the surrounding community. NJDEP also appears to seek in this proceeding a Board pronouncement about the preemptive effect of Board jurisdiction regarding an existing solid waste transfer station proposed to be conveyed to NBR by NYGL. NBR responded to this supplemental pleading on May 24, 2007, further supporting its position that it will operate as a legitimate rail carrier. In its reply to the supplemental pleading, NBR, while maintaining that this is not the proper proceeding for consideration of NJDEP’s request for a ruling on preemption, nonetheless expressed its intention to meet with NJDEP to assure that the solid waste facility will operate in compliance with all health and safety regulations that apply to rail facilities.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The May 18 and May 24 replies filed by NBR to the stay petition and the supplemental request for stay, respectively, provide additional information sought by NJDEP regarding the nature of the proposed operations. While NJDEP has stressed and continues to stress its public interest and environmental concerns surrounding the exemption at issue, it has not raised sufficient doubts about the validity of applying the class exemption to this transaction for the Board to find at this time that the class exemption is not available to NBR. Moreover, NJDEP’s apparent request for a ruling at this stage of this proceeding about what activities NBR may conduct if it acquires the rail facilities is not the proper subject of a stay request. However, because NJDEP continues to have questions, and a further exchange of information could prove useful, a short stay of the effective date of the exemption is appropriate. The effective date of the exemption will therefore be stayed until June 26, 2007.

Additional time will allow the parties to meet, as offered by NBR, to discuss NJDEP’s concerns about the rail facility’s compliance with health and safety regulations. The delay in the effectiveness of the exemption also will provide NJDEP with an opportunity to file any additional comments in response to the information provided so far by NBR, or to seek a stay of the exemption by making the showing discussed below. NJDEP shall have until June 1, 2007 to file any supplemental pleading. Should NJDEP do so, NBR will have until June 8, 2007 to reply.

In the event that NJDEP seeks any further stay of the effective date of the notice, it is reminded that any interested party seeking a stay from the Board must establish that: (1) there is a strong likelihood that it will prevail on the merits of any challenge to the action sought to be stayed; (2) it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of a stay; (3) other interested parties will not be substantially harmed; and (4) the public interest supports the granting of the stay. Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987); Washington Metro. Area Transit Comm’n v. Holiday Tours, Inc., 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C. Cir. 1977); Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. Fed. Power Comm’n, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958). A party seeking a stay carries the burden of persuasion on all of the elements required for such extraordinary relief. Canal Auth. of Fla. v. Callaway, 489 F.2d 567, 573 (5th Cir. 1974).

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

It is ordered:

1. The effective date of the exemption in this proceeding is stayed until June 26, 2007.

2. NJDEP may file further comments or a new petition for stay, as described above. Any such pleading must be filed by June 1, 2007.

3. NBR may file, by June 8, 2007, a reply to any further comments or stay request filed by NJDEP.

4. This decision is effective on its date of service.

By the Board, Charles D. Nottingham, Chairman.

Vernon A. Williams, Secretary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] By letter dated May 17, 2007, New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT) states that it supports NJDEP’s petition to stay pending receipt of further information regarding the proposed operations by NBR, which could impact NJT trackage.

If you follow the STB paper trail, you'll see that the sale has not yet been approved by the STB.

Jim

Trainlawyer wrote:Jim,

I'm afraid that you are incorrect. In the decision cited below the Board denied NJDEP's request for a further stay, thereby causing the exemption to become effective as ordered in the decision cited by Dutch.

GME

http://www.stb.dot.gov/decisions/Readin ... penDocumen

Oops...getting my STB cases mixed up in my head. ;-)

Jim

I don't know if this was touched on yet with the whole NYGL/NBR saga, but I pulled this off an SEC filing for Chartwell International.

On or about May 23, 2007, our subsidiaries, Hudson Logistics, Inc. and Hudson Logistics Loading, Inc. filed a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey against New York & Greenwood Lake Railway and Northern & Bergen Railroad, LLC (“N&BR”) for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and tortious interference with business relationship. On August 29, 2006, Hudson and HLL completed the acquisition of certain agreements from Steel Wheels Transport, LLC and Team G Loading, LLC, that they respectively held with Greenwood. One agreement is a Facility Capacity Agreement, which grants Hudson the exclusive right to utilize a guaranteed amount of capacity at Greenwood’s railroad at Dundee Yard in Passaic, New Jersey. The other agreement is a Railroad Car Loading Agreement, which grants HLL the exclusive right to perform loading of bulk materials primarily consisting of construction and demolition debris to railcars at Greenwood’s railroad at Dundee Yard. The agreements had been held by Steel Wheels and Team G, respectively, both of whom had filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the Federal Bankruptcy laws on June 14, 2006. While in bankruptcy, we negotiated with Steel Wheels, Team G and Greenwood to allow Hudson and HLL to acquire the agreements. Greenwood had represented to us that (i) a host community fee it insisted we pay to the City of Passaic was $0.75 per ton but in actuality it was $1.50 per ton; (ii) it would freeze its rate charged to use its 1.1 mile interchange track rail-line at then current rates; and (iii) it would enter into good faith negotiations over new terms for the agreements. Greenwood repeatedly refused to negotiate with us over new terms for the agreements and decided to sell all of its assets to N&BR. We were advised that as a result of such a sale, our rates to use the rail-line would be increased by approximately $500 per rail car which would make it prohibitive for Hudson and HLL to continue their businesses. As a result, Hudson and HLL initiated the lawsuit to enjoin Greenwood from completing the sale to N&BR and increasing the rates to use the rail-line, and to seek damages. On June 22, 2007, Hudson and HLL’s petition for an injunction against Greenwood and N&BR was denied, however, their claims for damages remain.
On or about July 25, 2007, Greenwood filed a counterclaim against Hudson and HLL, and additionally named Chartwell International, Inc., Imre Eszenyi and Raymond Kalafsky as third party defendants. Greenwood is claiming that Hudson, HLL, we, Imre Eszenyi and Raymond Kalafsky (collectively the “Defendants”) tortiously interfered with contractual relations between Greenwood and N&BR preventing the sale transaction between Greenwood and N&BR. Additionally, Greenwood is claiming that Hudson and HLL breached their agreements with Greenwood by failing to perform under such agreements, committed a fraud on Greenwood by making material misstatements and conspired as part of the Defendants against Greenwood by interfering with its business, contracts and prospective advantages. Greenwood is seeking damages, specific performance on delivery of certain tonnage reports, payment of host community fees due to the City of Passaic, and an accounting of transactions at Hudson and HLL facilities. We believe that Greenwood’s claims cannot be substantiated by the evidence and we intend to vigorously defend any such claims.
In the normal course of operations, we may have disagreements or disputes with employees, vendors or customers. These disputes are seen by our management as a normal part of business, and except as set forth above, there are no pending actions currently or no threatened actions that management believes would have a significant material impact on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Sp, what is the status of this line currently?

As of this past week the Dundee Spur was still a NY&GL operation

I will be in NJ the second week of February and hope to get some photos of the NYGL in action. Can anyone tell me what days and maybe hours the railroad currently operates. What type of motive power? Thanks.

Dcell

I can take photos of the WTS if you like. Do you have specific areas or photos needed?

From my visit this week, trucks basically do outside dumping. Because the trucks cannot fit into the facility. So the trucks dump at the entrance, then a payloader pushes the debris into the building.

As you can guess, this causes alot of dust for the residents who live directly across the street. Including adjacent schools, churches and homes.

If I understand above, does Chartwell still run the facility or are they officially out of the picture?

A google search with "Finance Docket 35020" Once revealed more information.

There was a 30 page affidavit from the Owner of Greenwood Lake Railway.
Does anyone have the link back to this document?

There was also a question and answer document for the new owners NBBR, concerning expansion, dust control, etc.
Does anyone have the link to this document?

These do not come up with a search engine and I did not bookmark.

Your help is greatly appreciated, or please e-mail the link or .pdf documents.
[email protected]

thank you.

What's going on? Does the NYGL still operate the Dundee Spur?

My cousin lives nearby and told me there ahsn't been any activity on the Dundee line in weeks. Myabe it's been shut down?

Dcell wrote:My cousin lives nearby and told me there ahsn't been any activity on the Dundee line in weeks. Myabe it's been shut down?

I doubt it's shut down....Even if it was, there is still a lot of equipment and motive power in Passaic that would need to be moved out.

The last I knew the C&D customer there was pretty lucrative, the economy is in shambles so that is probably the most likely cause for lack of freight traffic.

What ever happened to NY and GL? Is Atlantic Coast Fibres still a customer in Passaic? Where is the GP stored? In New Jersey
someplace? Questiion # 2 what about the passenger service he was going to run out of PJ,NY? Isthat #833 E-8 still up there? There was a lot of speculation a few years ago and since then nothing. Just another dream ? Anybody know whats happening?