Upper Harlem - Wassaic Extension - Questions, Info

fredmcain wrote:I would like to say this about the “Rails to Trails” movement. I truly and honestly believe that many of the Rails to Trails people genuinely meant well – at least at the beginning.

When they went on record as advocating “interim” use of an abandoned roadbed as a trail if and until rail service returns, then that’s probably what they really meant.

However, some of these people probably never really believed that rail service would ever actually return. Then the great railroad revival began and suddenly things looked differently. However, when it comes to returning a trail back into a functioning railroad, much of the opposition might not actually be coming from the “Rails to Trails” organization but rather from local residents who have become fond of the trail.

Hoping to reel this back in closer to the original topic, you've got some good points here. I can see railfans supporting a trail effort, if and when the organizers "promise" that the trail will be immediately handed back over to the railroad if/when a desire to restore rail service returns. I might have bought that claim too, once upon a time.

But we also need to remember that many of these "rails to trails" groups are headed by volunteers. As with any volunteer-run organization, people come and go. Maybe an original leader had to move away for work, or has personal issues which require them to step down. Just like in business, there's also room for politics or financial issues to pave the way for hostile takeovers. Or perhaps the leaders flat-out lied, saying what they knew they'd have to say, in order to get their way, even if they never meant it.

At least for now, though, I still don't see enough need to extend the Harlem Line beyond Wassaic. Heck, they still can't get the public to accept extending the Hudson Line to Rhinecliff --- even though the tracks and an Amtrak station are already there!

pnaw10 wrote:At least for now, though, I still don't see enough need to extend the Harlem Line beyond Wassaic. Heck, they still can't get the public to accept extending the Hudson Line to Rhinecliff --- even though the tracks and an Amtrak station are already there!

Or, more to the point, the $$ -- a resource which the State and the MTA are sorely lacking right now.

Before the extension, the tracks ended at Furnace Bank Road in the hamlet of Wassaic. When the extension was first proposed, it was going to end at Furnace Bank Road, but there was no parking there, or room for a yard as there was at the former gravel pit, a mile north. Extension further north is very unlikely as the rail is in place. When I qualified on the Harlem in 1977, it was from MO to Millerton, although service north of Wassaic had been discontinued by then. When I started to qualify crews from Dover Plains to Wassaic someone questioned my qualifications. I showed my slip from 1977 and the director of operating rules said that was good enough for him. I ran the first train to Wassaic with a form M and authorization to go 59 mph before the cab signals were installed.

Penn Central wrote:When I qualified on the Harlem in 1977, it was from MO to Millerton, although service north of Wassaic had been discontinued by then.

You mean passenger service. Freight service to Millerton continued until March 1980, of course.

DutchRailnut wrote: Not totally true, MNCR ran a freight for HHRC to retrieve the last car at tri-wall and to retrieve cars south of Dykemans.
The rail from Dover plains to Wassaic was so bad it was lifting off the ties as soon as the B23-7 hit the joints.
Despite using a MNCR pilot crew and engine the move was with a HRRC crew, so infact a HRRRC move.
With HRRC not owning any engines with Cabsignal/atc the move had to be made with MNCR engine.

I had completely forgotten that that happened!! Thanks for the memory . . . .

RE the idea of replacing the RR to Millerton: I do not know the details and ins-and-outs of this but I understand there are some complicated legal issues around the matter of "de-abandoning" a railroad, even in the absence of NIMBY activism. I seem to recall there's something in a law that requires the ROW to be put to what they call its "highest and best use," whatever that means. Perhaps there's a lawyer reading this who can and would care to comment intelligently.

The most complicated issue for "de-abandoning" a railroad is the simple fact that often, once abandoned, the right-of-way (ROW) legally reverts to the adjacent land owners. This is true only in cases where the railroad that built the land permantently leased the real estate and never actually bought it.

Usually when a ROW is converted into a "Rail trail" those kinds of issues have been addressed. However, there could be additional issues that I'm not aware of.

What I was trying to advocate is not just a reinstatement to Millerton but all the way to Chatham. This could be a major benefit to all the residents of eastern NY and Vermont as well if through service could be offered Grand Central - Burlington.

Fred M. Cain

If tracks go into Columbia county won't they be subject to the MTA payroll tax?

It would take an act (and miracle) of the state legislature to extend the tax (whether sales or payroll) beyond the MTA zone. As a matter of fact, Rockland and Orange want out of the zone.

Just the mere fact of extending a rail line wouldn't extend the tax, but if I were in a taxed county and another county wasn't paying the tax but getting service I'd be peeved. You could say that's Rockland and Orange's beef (Orange Beef? Sounds good....). I think they claim they are not getting the service they pay for, or at least, equivalent to Westchester, Putnam, and Dutchess. I'm not sure if the rate is the same in each county.

It's similar in Atlanta; many counties opted out of MARTA because they didn't want the sales tax (there are other reasons as well, but it's not germane to this discussion).

The rate is the same in all the MTA service counties.

The rate is same for each resident in each county, but I betya, outlying counties have far less percentage of MTA commuters than say Westchester.
So they are overpaying, cause they get less Service.

fredmcain wrote:What I was trying to advocate is not just a reinstatement to Millerton but all the way to Chatham. This could be a major benefit to all the residents of eastern NY and Vermont as well if through service could be offered Grand Central - Burlington.
Fred M. Cain

If your goal is to bring a rail transit alternative to the Millerton area, you'd be better off focusing on the ex-New Haven Berkshire line 8-odd miles to the east, over the hills. It has the advantage of still being very much in service as opposed to long dead.

Through service to Burlington via the Harlem would a) require the reconstruction of the Rutland's "corkscrew" division to Bennington, which I think has been gone since the '50s, and b) is way, WAY beyond the purview of Metro-North and the MTA. Any discussion of that probably belongs on the New England Railfan forum.

Did we all just drop acid at the same time?

Just a point of information. The land which the Harlem Line was built was granted to them by the State of New York and when the line was abandoned the land should have reverted back to the state. However, Conrail sold off tracts of the right of way. That is why former NYS Attorney General Faso had a lawsuit pending to recover the land. One of the first things Elliott Spitzer did when he became Attorney General (that what he was before he became governor) was to drop the lawsuit.

UpperHarlemLine4ever wrote:Just a point of information. The land which the Harlem Line was built was granted to them by the State of New York and when the line was abandoned the land should have reverted back to the state. However, Conrail sold off tracts of the right of way. That is why former NYS Attorney General Faso had a lawsuit pending to recover the land. One of the first things Elliott Spitzer did when he became Attorney General (that what he was before he became governor) was to drop the lawsuit.

That's interesting. So is there a deed easement over these properties that allows the rail-trail to cross?