• 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
  • 6
  • 13
  by cpf354
 
The Atlantic Northeast Rails and Ports newsletter reports M&B resumed operations to Granite State in Milford on September 25, although the legal battle between ST and M&B goes on.
  by Trainlover479
 
I heard that NEGS would like to aquire the M&B locomotive for shunting purposes in Concord if they work out a salt contract for cantibury. that would be kinda awesome, right?
  by thebigham
 
^If Guilford will move it...

The NEGS will be getting a new switcher in the spring.
  by Dick H
 
Good point on Guilford moving it. After the M&B caboose was repaired at the Hobo
shop in Lincoln, I believe it was trucked backed to Wilton. I do not know whether
Guilford (PAR) was asked to move it or not.

I want to mention that Mr. Peter Leishman, owner of the M&B, won back a seat
in the NH Legislature at a special election this fall. Almost surely one more vote
to help ward off the insistence of the Speaker"s gang that the NH Rail Authority
be eliminated, which will likely come up again in 2012.
  by Trainlover479
 
:D lol but hey that would be cool if they can stay around running, mabey the SW9 can get a new paint job, into a scheme identical to the caboose? :D
  by atsf sp
 
I have heard that the new switcher would come from the UP itself.
  by MEC407
 
From the Nashua Telegraph:
Nashua Telegraph wrote:A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed by state Rep. Peter Leishman against Pan Am Railways in which he claimed that Pan Am violated its contract with his Milford-Bennington Railroad Co. by blocking it from using Pan Am’s tracks.

Pan Am won a motion for summary judgment against Leishman and his railroad. That judgment was issued by Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court in Concord on Dec. 16.

While Barbadoro wrote that he did not condone Pan Am’s conduct and doubted Pan Am’s “claim that it invoked its right to exclude Leishman from its tracks solely because of public safety concerns, the contract (signed by Leishman in 1992) plainly gives it the right to act as it did, regardless of its motive for doing so.”
Read more at: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/943 ... rding.html
  by artman
 
MEC407 wrote:From the Nashua Telegraph:
Nashua Telegraph wrote:A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit filed by state Rep. Peter Leishman against Pan Am Railways in which he claimed that Pan Am violated its contract with his Milford-Bennington Railroad Co. by blocking it from using Pan Am’s tracks.

Pan Am won a motion for summary judgment against Leishman and his railroad. That judgment was issued by Judge Paul Barbadoro of the U.S. District Court in Concord on Dec. 16.

While Barbadoro wrote that he did not condone Pan Am’s conduct and doubted Pan Am’s “claim that it invoked its right to exclude Leishman from its tracks solely because of public safety concerns, the contract (signed by Leishman in 1992) plainly gives it the right to act as it did, regardless of its motive for doing so.”
Read more at: http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/news/943 ... rding.html
*sigh*
  by ferroequinarchaeologist
 
Question for the participating legal eagles: we have the interpretation of one federal court judge of a contract provision between two parties. The issue could rest here or be pushed to a higher court. However, since interstate commerce may be involved, isn't this an isssue for the STB?

PBM
I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV
  by musehobo2
 
I thought that Guilford (Pan Am) abandoned the tracks because they never bothered to take care of them, and the state of NH took over from Milford north. Then when the tracks were repaired (not by Pan Am) they were used to haul gravel. Now Pan Am want to run the gravel trains and will increase the costs, driving the gravel company to switch to trucks and another line goes down for Pan Am.

Still think they taxed the old B&M out of business, not just because of interstate road construction. Look at the Ossippe Pits. Still going even after the Big Dig.
  by JCitron
 
musehobo2 wrote:I thought that Guilford (Pan Am) abandoned the tracks because they never bothered to take care of them, and the state of NH took over from Milford north. Then when the tracks were repaired (not by Pan Am) they were used to haul gravel. Now Pan Am want to run the gravel trains and will increase the costs, driving the gravel company to switch to trucks and another line goes down for Pan Am.

Still think they taxed the old B&M out of business, not just because of interstate road construction. Look at the Ossippe Pits. Still going even after the Big Dig.
I wouldn't doubt it. PAR isn't the nicest company around.

The tax policies of many states and municipalities did a lot of harm to the railroads, and contributed heavily to the downfall of the EL, NH, and CNJ during the 1960s and 1970s.

John
  by MEC407
 
From the Union Leader:
UnionLeader.com wrote:Long under scrutiny for his use of a state-owned railroad line, a Peterborough state representative could end up losing access to the 18 1/2-mile line, which runs between Wilton and Bennington.

Peter Leishman, owner of Milford-Bennington Railroad Company, said he’s currently using the track without the blessings of state transportation officials.

They even returned payments he tried to send them last year, said Leishman, a Democrat from Peterborough.

In the meantime, another company — possibly Pan Am Railways — could end up winning a state contract that would give it control of the track, challenging Leishman’s ability to use it.
Read more at: http://www.unionleader.com/article/2012 ... /708319938
  by newpylong
 
Given their renewed interest in branchlines (New England Southern for example) it wouldn't surprise me to see Pan Am want it back, especially with a couple more possible customers. They could use another Nashua local...
  by tahawus84
 
Sounds like it might end up as a legal battle. I think I would prefer to see the M+B stay in business rather than pan am get the business.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 13