Raritan Valley Connecting, et cetera

Link gives a 500 error.

Unfortunately the amusement of reading the filing will have to wait. As of 12:00h the Surface Transportation Board's public on-line database has been removed. I assume for service to the server or programming. There is no expanded explanation with the HTTP 500 error.

The database is up as of 2 PM.

Hello all,

Hello Trainlawyer,

I was kinda caught off guard by this filing. I was unaware that Jim Riffin had any interest in this rail line. I have reached out for Trainlawyers favorite punching bag to get some more information on what is / was proposed. I'll forward the info just as soon as I get a response. I'm as curious as to what in the world he was doing as Trainlawyer is.

Just as an aside, I'm stunned that Mr. Riffin would have been so dumb to have said what he said into a voicemail box. I would absolutely concur with Trainlawyer that NS certainly has a right to be angry over this proceeding. It strikes me, at first glance, that this is nothing more than an "I'm gonna screw up your deal in Norfolk" filing. The board should dismiss that with filing with prejudice and bar Riffin from doing that again. It's just plain wrong.

Well, when I hear more, I'll post up another response.!!

Well, that's all for now folks!!

See ya all later!!!

Quite a remarkable filing by NS on this.

I've not read all that many legal documents but I don't think I've ever seen the word "sham" used as many times before.

Wow. He's been busy since Bridgewater, huh? Attempting to bribe a public official, damn near contaminating the metropolitan Baltimore water supply, criminal trespass, still pushing the my polluting factory is a railroad jazz.

What's next?? Blackmail?? Oh...wait!

Hello all,

Hello again Trainlawyer,

Just to give you a quick update, I've been told that Mr. Riffin will be filing a response to the NS motion to strike. The info I received may be wrong, but I was told that replys to the NS motion must be filed with the Board within twenty days of the NS' filing. I'm eager to see what will be said in his reply.

Also, I was shown an Email from a Mr. Christopher Mills, Esq. In the email, sent to Mr. Strohmeyer, was an indication that Mr. Mills had spoken to Mr. David M. Konschnik, the Director of Proceedings at the STB. The reason for the phone conversation was to seek when the Board might render a ruling in the BRI matter. Mr. Konschnik indicated to Mr Mills that a decision in the BRI case currently before the Board could come out as soon as mid to late September of this year. So I guess we'll see some movement in the BRI matters this month.

Anyway, that's all for now.....

I'll post more after the filings with the Board are made.

Till next time,

See ya' all later........

This "gentleman" sounds like he's a few bricks short of a load.

RS115 wrote:This "gentleman" sounds like he's a few bricks short of a load.

A few bricks, the railcar carrying them, the track its "supposedly" running on....

Sounds like this Riffin fellow found a chink in Norfolk Southerns armor and dumped a shovel full of burning coals down their shorts. Good for him those low life NS managers, like bully boys everywhere dish it out by the carload but can't take any incoming. Riffin may be a hair splitter but the way I read it the NS legal department let their guard down and ol Riffin is exploiting them to the max. NS..... just the nicest people in railroading today !

My opinion:

BRI gets the best local service staying with NS. The service cannot get better only worse.

The trackage inside BRI is not on the old RDG alignment. Even if BRI was to have been served via the RVL it would still be NS. The division of assits on the RVL use BROOK INT. West of BROOK is NS served and east of BROOK is CR.

Cars outbound and inbound already go via both roads with the majority going via CSX.

It never ceases to amaze me at the complexities of that junction.

nick11a wrote:It never ceases to amaze me at the complexities of that junction.

Its quite simple Its NS and CSX up to the Eastbound Home Signal ( Royce included) From Inside the Interlocking East its Conrail. BRI gets confused becasue the lead off the Royce into BRI goes past the eastbound home siginal of CP- Port Reading Jct.


While I stand behind the comments I've made about the NS serving BRI, I also know of occasions when "other carriers" have served them.

Trainlawyer wrote:Note to Rising - Yesterday was the deadline for the reply and we have not seen it yet. Of course it could simply be lost in the stack of filings concerning the cost of capital.

As Wolfboy has pointed out the physical layout now is really quite simple. It has not always been so. In my younger days it was the North-South double track Delaware and Bound Brook main crossed the East-West double track Lehigh Valley main at grade. The Port Reading Branch split from the D&BB south of the diamond and went east toward Bound Brook. The Jersey Central's Johns Manville Branch (Yes - it was a formal branch requiring ICC abandonment authority) came in from the northwest till it was parallel to the D&BB, then turned west again to join the Lehigh Valley where the out-of-service track in the car dealer's yard is now. I believe all three carriers switched Johns Manville.

What makes it seem complicated it now are the legal shenanigans over property lines, the meaning of "Control Point", and the occasional fantasy railroad trying to claim access.

GME

And even more complicated if NJT reactivating Trenton Service will use the ex-Reading alignment which is what I've seen on project maps and include a stop at Bridgewater to leverage the large parking lot. Is there room for another track (it was double track once) or would the solid waste track have to be displaced? Did NJT retain rights over the former Reading there?

My recollection is NJT was asked to build a flyover in the negotiations, such as they may have been, several years ago. PSE&G was requested by NJT to study capability of the transmission system to support new substations for electrification to Raritan and to West Trenton. At the time, there was sufficient transmission capability available, that may now have changed, though some 500kV upgrades are a potential solution if needed.