Catskill Mountain Railroad (CMRR) Discussion - 2018

BR&P wrote:

CPSmith wrote:I'm going to guess the STB will agree the line was properly abandoned under the 3R Act, not withstanding late 80s / early 90s operation (which has been explained away as an excepted track service). The footnotes on pages 5 and 6 offer the concise details.

No idea how the TSB will rule, and have not read the lengthy filings. But "Excepted Track" is a safety designation made under 49 CFR part 213, which addresses levels of track maintenance and the speed allowed for trains over that track. It has nothing to do with whether there is authority to operate on the line itself.

Perhaps this is a poor analogy, but if the cops have a road closed down, the fact that there is is a sign on the road saying "SPEED LIMIT 30" does not mean you can drive on it after all.

The filing uses the words "excepted" and "exempt". One or both of us may be using the terms incorrectly, but I believe the issue to be moot since neither the service nor the track exists today, as I will explain in a response to one of the posters above.

lvrr325 wrote:To presume the line was abandoned properly in 1977 (in the absence of any actual final approval) would require ignoring everything that's been done since then.

Either it is or it isn't, but if it is, then the land reverts back. The County bought it to preserve a corridor and presumably so long as a track is there, there's a corridor.

Well, I don't agree. The STB (and the ICC previously) consider the interstate national network as a single entity. Lines may be added (e.g., Tongue River RR) or deleted (e.g., various abandonments). The STB has absolute authority over both. Ownership, operating rights, etc. are decided as required. In the case of abandonments, once authority is granted and the abandonment consummated, the given line is no longer part of the national network and the underlying property has no more status than that of your backyard. What someone does with it after the fact is no longer a concern of the STB. Again (and I may be proven wrong), I'm guessing the STB will find it was properly abandoned via the 3R act.

Based on my comments above, I'm guessing it was abandoned. I'm not sure how the county gained control - it may have gone to them since the PC estate failed to pay property taxes (just a guess), but I don't believe it relevant here. The physical presence of a track structure has nothing to do with whether a line of railroad is formally abandoned or not. As far as the STB is concerned, you can have a line of railroad (a rail corridor in the STB sense) as part of the national network (that's one of the things a NITU provides) without a track structure - and - you can have an STB granted abandonment with the rails still in place (via differing ownership rights). Your comment "... there's a corridor. " may be true in physical terms, but not in STB terms.

Again, my observations are just that - the STB will have its own view eventually.

As I understand it, Ulster County bought the line from the Penn Central estate. That’s how they became the “owners” of the line. That having been said, despite the county being the owner of the tracks, a class 1 (conrail) INTERCHANGED freight cars with the CMRR and the STB (ICC) didn’t know about it? Or didn’t at least have some control over the freight operations? Whether it’s one small customer, or a busy mainline, freight falls under STB jurisdiction and THAT is what might bite the county in the butt, if they attempted to allow freight to run “under the radar” on an abandoned line.

BandA wrote:If it was abandoned, and they used it for freight, does it become "unabandoned" and now come under the STB, even though paper wasn't filed?

That's a good question and I don't have an immediate answer for that, although the STB (and ICC before that) do (did) have the authority to permit (or compel) service. The county quoted 49 U.S.C. § 10906, but I'm not an expert in that (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn once...).

Apparently, the service was in Kingston proper off of CSX (or Conrail at the time) and did not involve the remainder of the branch (not that it makes much difference here). The customer, service, line and switch have all come and gone and nothing's happened in (roughly) the past 20 years, so for the purposes of ruling on the abandonment issue, I'm guessing the STB will rule all of that operation as moot. The STB isn't interested in whacking someone's pee-pee for some entity's past indescretions (if there were any) unless there is some current or underlying fraud or abuse.

On occasion, the STB must revisit past ICC or STB decisions. These are fascinating cases. In ABE Fairmont (attached), BNSF and a couple of customers asked the STB to unravel a few issues. Two of BNSF's predecessor lines crossed at grade in the middle of flat-as-a-pancake rural Nebraska. Over the years, one of the lines was segmented and cut back and shoved off to a shortline operator (now gone). Line sales and abandonments were (apparently) not handled correctly, and when BNSF went to abandon one segment, it potentially denied access to another (an STB no-no).

My point in bringing this up is the ability of the STB to visit the past and rule on the future. In Fairmont, the STB acknowledged the past imperfections, but ruled accordingly to permit rail operations.

If you are really interested in this stuff, go to the STB website and search for the debacle known as Harsimus Cove in NJ. It's a whopper of a case and involves the Pennsy, Conrail, NS, towns, counties, cities, historical preservation offices, adjacent property owners, the ICC, boatloads of lawyers, officials, lies, deceit, misrepresentations, money, attempted fraud, lots and lots of obfuscation (someone here likes that word), illegal activities and frisky women. The transcripts are somewhat entertaining - there are not many administrative law judges who can quote Blazing Saddles line for line, as far as I know ...

airman00 wrote:As I understand it, Ulster County bought the line from the Penn Central estate. That’s how they became the “owners” of the line. That having been said, despite the county being the owner of the tracks, a class 1 (conrail) INTERCHANGED freight cars with the CMRR and the STB (ICC) didn’t know about it? Or didn’t at least have some control over the freight operations? Whether it’s one small customer, or a busy mainline, freight falls under STB jurisdiction and THAT is what might bite the county in the butt, if they attempted to allow freight to run “under the radar” on an abandoned line.

Ownership and operating authority are two different things. It could well have been that CSX handled the entire operation and contracted CMRR to move cars the last 1000 feet on a spur track. That does happen, and in that case, it's not an interchange between two railroads. Car movers get hired to do that all the time. Just because someone saw a CMRR RS-1 do it, that doesn't necessarily imply anything.

I'm not saying that's the case here, but that could explain it. In any event (and as stated in earlier posts), I doubt the STB will care and will find that operation moot. I think you're looking for absolutes where there are none.

CPSmith wrote:

BandA wrote:If it was abandoned, and they used it for freight, does it become "unabandoned" and now come under the STB, even though paper wasn't filed?

That's a good question and I don't have an immediate answer for that, although the STB (and ICC before that) do (did) have the authority to permit (or compel) service. The county quoted 49 U.S.C. § 10906, but I'm not an expert in that (although I did stay at a Holiday Inn once...).

Apparently, the service was in Kingston proper off of CSX (or Conrail at the time) and did not involve the remainder of the branch (not that it makes much difference here). The customer, service, line and switch have all come and gone and nothing's happened in (roughly) the past 20 years, so for the purposes of ruling on the abandonment issue, I'm guessing the STB will rule all of that operation as moot. The STB isn't interested in whacking someone's pee-pee for some entity's past indescretions (if there were any) unless there is some current or underlying fraud or abuse.

On occasion, the STB must revisit past ICC or STB decisions. These are fascinating cases. In ABE Fairmont (attached), BNSF and a couple of customers asked the STB to unravel a few issues. Two of BNSF's predecessor lines crossed at grade in the middle of flat-as-a-pancake rural Nebraska. Over the years, one of the lines was segmented and cut back and shoved off to a shortline operator (now gone). Line sales and abandonments were (apparently) not handled correctly, and when BNSF went to abandon one segment, it potentially denied access to another (an STB no-no).

My point in bringing this up is the ability of the STB to visit the past and rule on the future. In Fairmont, the STB acknowledged the past imperfections, but ruled accordingly to permit rail operations.

If you are really interested in this stuff, go to the STB website and search for the debacle known as Harsimus Cove in NJ. It's a whopper of a case and involves the Pennsy, Conrail, NS, towns, counties, cities, historical preservation offices, adjacent property owners, the ICC, boatloads of lawyers, officials, lies, deceit, misrepresentations, money, attempted fraud, lots and lots of obfuscation (someone here likes that word), illegal activities and frisky women. The transcripts are somewhat entertaining - there are not many administrative law judges who can quote Blazing Saddles line for line, as far as I know ...

With the caveat "everything you read on the net is true", here's 49 USC 10906:

"Notwithstanding section 10901 and subchapter II of chapter 113 of this title, and without the approval of the Board, a rail carrier providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Board under this part may enter into arrangements for the joint ownership or joint use of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks. The Board does not have authority under this chapter over construction, acquisition, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance of spur, industrial, team, switching, or side tracks."

Then the key to what Mr. Cp just quoted is how the STB classifies CMRR trackage. Because as far as I am aware the switching operations would have to be done at least partially over the old U&D mainline. So if the STB says these freight ops took place over a mainline, as opposed to any of the above mentioned tracks, then that above rule would not apply. Plus as was stated, prior indiscretions does not absolve you from future responsibilities.

CPSmith wrote:

BR&P wrote:

CPSmith wrote:I'm going to guess the STB will agree the line was properly abandoned under the 3R Act, not withstanding late 80s / early 90s operation (which has been explained away as an excepted track service). The footnotes on pages 5 and 6 offer the concise details.

No idea how the TSB will rule, and have not read the lengthy filings. But "Excepted Track" is a safety designation made under 49 CFR part 213, which addresses levels of track maintenance and the speed allowed for trains over that track. It has nothing to do with whether there is authority to operate on the line itself.

Perhaps this is a poor analogy, but if the cops have a road closed down, the fact that there is is a sign on the road saying "SPEED LIMIT 30" does not mean you can drive on it after all.

The filing uses the words "excepted" and "exempt". One or both of us may be using the terms incorrectly, but I believe the issue to be moot since neither the service nor the track exists today, as I will explain in a response to one of the posters above.

Apparently the STB also uses the term "excepted" when referring (in this case) to 49 USC 10906, so (again, apparently) there is "excepted" in the FRA sense (safety) and "excepted" in the STB sense (regulatory).

Here's an excerpt from another case:

"" Track Classification and the Need for Board Authority. TCRY seeks a ruling that the H.R. Spur is mainline track for which Richland required construction and operation authority from the Board. TCRY’s arguments lacks merit. Mainline track is within the Board’s jurisdiction and is subject to the entry licensing requirements of 49 U.S.C. § 10901. Excepted track, on the other hand, is also within the Board’s jurisdiction, 49 U.S.C. § 10501(b), but under § 10906, Board authorization is not required for the construction, operation, abandonment, or discontinuance of such track. In determining whether a particular track is mainline subject to Board licensing or excepted track, the agency and courts consider the track’s intended use, physical characteristics, relationship to the rail system, and history. The Board’s decisions have relied on certain indicia, including the length of the track; whether it serves more than one shipper; whether it is stub-ended; whether it was built to penetrate new markets; whether the shipper is located at the end of the track; whether there is regularly scheduled service; traffic volume; who owns and maintains the track; whether the track was constructed with light-weight rail; the condition of the track; what the track is used for (e.g., switching, loading, and unloading); and whether there are stations on the track. ""

Note the discussion of jurisdiction questions. I copied this particular section since it is more or less the boilerplate verbiage of how the STB determines whether a section of trackage is a "line of railroad" (subject to STB authorization) or excepted track under 10906 (authorization not required). Note 2: To the sticklers - I removed the footnotes to make it easier to read. Obviously, they're in the full decision attached. Note 3: The STB seems to use the terms "mainline" "line of railroad" and "rail line" (all with or without quote marks) interchangeably - kind of sloppy, but in all cases they're referring to the lines for which operating authority is required.

The whole decision is attached. It's not that long and makes for interesting reading since it touches on a number of subjects.

CPSmith wrote:
Based on my comments above, I'm guessing it was abandoned. I'm not sure how the county gained control - it may have gone to them since the PC estate failed to pay property taxes (just a guess), but I don't believe it relevant here. The physical presence of a track structure has nothing to do with whether a line of railroad is formally abandoned or not. As far as the STB is concerned, you can have a line of railroad (a rail corridor in the STB sense) as part of the national network (that's one of the things a NITU provides) without a track structure - and - you can have an STB granted abandonment with the rails still in place (via differing ownership rights). Your comment "... there's a corridor. " may be true in physical terms, but not in STB terms.

Again, my observations are just that - the STB will have its own view eventually.

Not knowing the basic facts here is a big problem when trying to discuss it.

There is no formal abandonment approval for the Penn Central Estate, that anyone can find documentation of.

The county purchased the rail line in 1979 to preserve the corridor for rail service.

Again, if the line is determined to have been abandoned prior to 1983, they do not get a trail, the land reverts to prior ownership.

lvrr325 wrote:

CPSmith wrote:
Based on my comments above, I'm guessing it was abandoned. I'm not sure how the county gained control - it may have gone to them since the PC estate failed to pay property taxes (just a guess), but I don't believe it relevant here. The physical presence of a track structure has nothing to do with whether a line of railroad is formally abandoned or not. As far as the STB is concerned, you can have a line of railroad (a rail corridor in the STB sense) as part of the national network (that's one of the things a NITU provides) without a track structure - and - you can have an STB granted abandonment with the rails still in place (via differing ownership rights). Your comment "... there's a corridor. " may be true in physical terms, but not in STB terms.

Again, my observations are just that - the STB will have its own view eventually.

Not knowing the basic facts here is a big problem when trying to discuss it.

There is no formal abandonment approval for the Penn Central Estate, that anyone can find documentation of.

The county purchased the rail line in 1979 to preserve the corridor for rail service.

Again, if the line is determined to have been abandoned prior to 1983, they do not get a trail, the land reverts to prior ownership.

Like lvrr325 mentions and the NY Times article that I posted a link to states, the county did indeed purchase the line to preserve for rail service.

Under the "Reversionary Clause" that this corridor at least appears to be under, do original land owners actually ever get their land back?

Yes, they do. But don't take my word for it. Read here for yourself. Please read the entire article. A point to note in the first case is the amount spent fighting is mentioned, but, the settlement amount is not. One does not need be a genius to know they got their money back and then some for their trouble behind closed doors.

https://fee.org/articles/the-dark-secre ... il-trails/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The message here is it could end up costing the county far more money to fight this than it would to simply come to the table and work with all parties to design a rail with trail if they are really that hell bent on adding another to the already existing hundreds of trails in the Catskills. The worst part is that they could spend all of this money and still lose!

Perhaps in their eyes a situation like that where everyone would win is unacceptable.

Finally, a business located along the corridor is requesting rail service from the known operator. Yes the original lease to the CMRR has expired, but, again the STB isn't an organization full of dummies that are going to take any one party's claims at face value without reviewing the documented facts along with the actions taken ( dump truck move not looking good here ) by all involved referring to how the old lease was terminated and the new lease that was essentially forced upon the CMRR. Please understand I am not saying there aren't 2 sides to a story, but, there are a lot of strange facets to this one.

I will admit that this is a wonderment on my part as to how this detail will apply to the county's original purchase intent which was to "preserve for future rail use". Now you have a business that wants that "future rail use". Obviously, this opportunity would be presented as an incubator for further business expansion along the corridor.

IMHO, I would be very surprised if this turns out to be the open and shut case that the county is desperate for.

Just as a note to above, it is worth taking the FEE (Foundation for Economic Education) article with a grain of salt due to where it's from. It's the longest-running libertarian think-tank, and while I'm not making a judgement on Libertarianism in general—I'm relatively sympathetic towards arguments from it myself, even if I don't adhere to it—the FEE very much has a dog in the race when it comes to anything related to private property.

Regarding Yama's comments on my link to the article, I should make it clear that I am not involved nor connected to the FEE. I felt the need to mention this as I did not want any thought given that I was using this thread as some sort of platform for a political agenda. I found the article by searching for rail trail impacts.

I know nothing about FEE or, it's purpose.

Beyond the article presenting cases regarding the "Reversionary Clause" involving this corridor, it struck a chord with me as I live about 1/2 hour away from Williamsburg. There still is no rail trail there and to the best of my knowledge there never will be. At this point, if you don't remember where the rail line was, it is getting more difficult to know where it was.

To the good, at least taxpayer money wasn't spent here creating yet another permanent taxpayer maintenance burden so a small group of locals can pedal or walk to nowhere when they feel like doing so. Instead they have to pick from the hundreds of already existent trails in all of the state and local parks in the area. I wonder how they cope with the loss!

at least taxpayer money wasn't spent here

???? Seriously ???? Have you been following this thread or what's going on here?

Anyone can take part of a sentence that some else posts and use it to make whatever point that they want although I cannot say that I know what yours is.

Perhaps if you read the ENTIRE sentence along with the following sentence grouped with it you may better understand my point.
To assist here, I was referring to the Williamsburg Mass. rail trail that was not built as a result of the land abutters lawsuit. I hope this helps.

Moving along I would prefer to keep this thread on topic which is about the CMRR and the corridor it runs on. Thank you.

Seconded.