• Milford-Bennington Railroad (MBRX) Discussion

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England

Moderators: MEC407, NHN503

  • 187 posts
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13
  by Tim Mullins
 
There was an investigation by the FRA and determined that the M&B was not at fault....IF the crew had a form D line twelve,they would approach prepared to stop and protect unless they can see that the electronic protection ie. lights and gates have been activated for 20 seconds appon arrival then they can proceed...
  by kilroy
 
But they were found at fault by a higher authority.....Pan Am. And that's all that matters.
  by GP40MC 1116
 
kilroy wrote:But they were found at fault by a higher authority.....Pan Am. And that's all that matters.
Just because Pan Am owns the track this railroad is running on does not mean they are of any higher authority. As someone already pointed out FRA already ruled on this investigation, case closed!
  by Trinnau
 
GP40MC 1116 wrote:
kilroy wrote:But they were found at fault by a higher authority.....Pan Am. And that's all that matters.
Just because Pan Am owns the track this railroad is running on does not mean they are of any higher authority. As someone already pointed out FRA already ruled on this investigation, case closed!
Apparently not, since there is still a lawsuit over it. And according to the lawsuit (linked in the news article) the FRA and NORAC offered "email opinion" and "informal opinion" on the matter - no official ruling (page 10 item 46). If one of those agencies had issued an official ruling then it would be case closed.
  by kilroy
 
I guess I needed some smiley thingies so eveyone would know my comment was tounge-in-cheek.

In the past, rulings from governing bodies have been viewed as suggestions if they were not in line with the way Guilford/Pan Am saw the world. I'm still waiting to see what they try to pull with the DE extension to Brunswick.
  by Watchman318
 
kilroy wrote:I guess I needed some smiley thingies so eveyone would know my comment was tounge-in-cheek.
I caught it, but there are times when no one knows that I'm kidding, either.
In the past, rulings from governing bodies have been viewed as suggestions if they were not in line with the way Guilford/Pan Am saw the world.
I didn't completely read every document linked from the newspaper article, but I got the impression PAR's "Rule 138(e)" argument didn't cut any ice, so they fell back on an FRA regulation about backing/shoving moves. I'm not an expert on such stuff, but I don't think they're going to accomplish anything with that, either.
Seems kinda like someone who keeps saying "Yah, but--" when they know (or should know) they've lost the argument.
I'm still waiting to see what they try to pull with the DE extension to Brunswick.
Not to knock this thread off-topic or anything, but I think they've been pretty supportive of that project so far. Like the upgrades on other parts of the route, it benefits PAR, so I would think they'll continue to cooperate with NNEPRA.
Although there was that thing about 59 versus 79 MPH awhile back . . .
  by Dave D
 
I think I know were those ties ended up. I was with D company 101 EN BN and back around 1990 or so we built something for theWilmington Police Dept (our first sergeant was from Wilmington). This consisted of houses built out of old ties with 8 or 10 ft burms built around them so that they could practice entering houses using live fire. The location was just behind the Wilminton water works right off rt 62 near the gravel pits.

Dave D
Melrose
  by Jeff Smith
 
Shared to FB by the other page admin; anyone have any updates? Be sure to "like" us on FB: https://www.facebook.com/RailroadNet we're going for 1,000!
  by canobiecrazy
 
I don't see why Pan Am is acting this way. Will they really make THAT much of a profit from the traffic on this shortline? Anyway, this branch seems to be cursed. First the Wilton Scenic, now this.. :(
  by bm1838
 
Sorry I did the facebook post so many people probably didn't see.
M*B is not out of business. They should resume operations shortly they have to hire a conductor as peter leishman isn't allowed on Pan Am property. I have connections with M&B engineer and thats where I heard the info from. Take it for what its worth!
Cory
  by MEC407
 
Latest news on the Pan Am / Milford-Bennington dispute:
New Hampshire Business Review wrote:Last Friday, U.S. District Court Judge Paul J. Barbadoro issued his first substantive decision, denying Pan Am's claims that the Surface Transportation Board has the final say in the matter. Barbadoro disagreed, saying the STB doesn't have the right to "resolve disputes between rail carriers concerning the meaning and operation of trackage rights agreements."

What is in the agreement is key. Indeed, the judge set a hearing July 1 on that agreement and safety issues because the contract interpretation issues "lie at the heart of the case," he said.
Read more at: http://www.nhbr.com/businessnewsstatene ... an-am.html
  by jaymac
 
So much time and effort and money spent fighting things of marginal significance: To go all David Byrne & Co., "Same as it ever was..."
  by BandM4266
 
artman wrote: My God, I hate PanAm. Has anyone ever (ever!?!) heard anything positive about them? Have they ever done more than their share? Have they ever supported a public cause or charity? Have they ever been called a good corporate citizen? Have they ever paid all the taxes they owe on time? Has a year gone by when they haven't been sued to pay what they owe?
Is the fact that they saved the MBTA some money with the sale of the yard and Trackage rights for the Green line Expansion project not something Recent enough to be considered Positive Attitude by Pan Am? Also when they aggreed to absorb the cost of Roadwork and sidewalk improvements in the Lechmere area, is this forgotten?
It may not be much from a company that has everyone hating them, but it is a start of what may be a much better future for Pan Am.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 13