Salem County Line - Swedesboro to Salem - Operated by: West Jersey, SRNJ, US Rail, SMS

Trainlawyer wrote:On first reading it appears that the underlying contractual right cited by Brother McFarland would be the first two sentences Section 12, Paragraph 1, Terms and Conditions in the REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS dated June 18, 2003, and incorporated by reference in Page 1, Paragraph A, of the actual contract.

"The lessee shall not assign, sublet, subcontract or otherwise dispose of this agreement, or any right, duty or interest herein, without the prior written consent of the County. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be void."

As there is no resolution allowing any such assignment in the minutes of the Board of Chosen Freeholders over the last year, it would appear that SRNJ was not legally competent to enter into the agreement with Salem Industrial Railway.
Anyone who wishes is free to contact Salem county and obtain copies of all of the documents which comprise the contract.
I will stand with my assertion that the filing itself was not "false".

GME

Trainlawyer I have a question, the original SIR filing states:

"(c) 1 statement that an agreement has been reached or detail* about when an agreement will
he reached,

An agreement has been reached between the County and SIR for SIR's operation of the
subject rail line."

So it appears to me (though I am not a lawyer) that the agreement was between the County and SIR and not SRNJ, no?

Doug D.

Is the Anchor Glass plant still operating? I know it has been the subject of several bankruptcies and was slated to be shut down more than once.

Any reason why you are so happy for the end of the SRNJ on this line and the track record of the new operator?

While I have no connection with the SRNJ, I do browse postings on the railroad occasionally, and have noticed that Trainlawyer seems to have an ax to grind.

Never have I seen somebody celebrate when bad things happen to the railroad (or any railroad for that matter): Salem line issues, Joe Petaccio's death to the point of almost dancing on the guy's grave, etc. I don't know Mr Petaccio or much about the railroad he ran, but come on dude, have some class.

So, I have to ask - what's the deal, Trainlawyer? For someone that lives "somewhere off the New England coast", you seem to spend a lot of time spewing venom against a shortline operation in New Jersey. What exactly is your beef with the SRNJ????????

Trainlawyer wrote:First of all I will not question your bona fides in discussing New Jersey railroads while using the number of a Sante Fe CF-7 (or is it the 0-4-0 preserved in San Jose?).

Second, I do not see this as a bad thing happening to a railroad. I see this as the owners of a railroad, specifically Salem County, finding a new tenant to operate that railroad when the existing tenant did not seem to feel that his tenancy was governed by the terms of his lease.

I suggest you actually read the posts. If you feel that it is inappropriate to report on the business end of the industry here, be the events reported good, bad or stupid, you need not spend your time reading about it .

GME

To be fair ATSF #2419 did reside in New Jersey for quite a while (10 years) at a short line we discuss often on this board.

Look for USRNJ's new engine to arrive by the end of the week. It is currently in Selkirk.

We just had an EMD switcher arrive in Morrisville, PA tonight lettered "GMRY" and "US Rail" #112. Maybe the new power? I'll try to get a picture.

Update: as of today (12-27) its sitting in Woodbourne (PA) yard.

presumably to work the Salem Branch.

The reporting marks are GMRY for the Great Miami Railway for whch the US Rail also owns.

I uploaded it to rrpicturesdotnet as USRC 112 because it was already on the site with that designation and I didn't have time to change it.
I subsequently changed it.

GMRY 112 was still at Pavonia Thursday morning, in the sunshine. It was joined by NS 2104, built in 1973 as Reading 2614

are those old SDs used in the background?

southern sec. kid wrote:are those old SDs used in the background?

No they are stored serviceable. But I don't see them coming back any time soon maybe bought up like 58 was by BRW. They are SD9's I should add.