MaineCoonCat wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:24 pm Tried to pull a copy of that deed but stuff that old hasn't been scanned yet..It was included in the Hopedale Properties filing, on pages 38-47.
Railroad Forums
Grafton & Upton Railroad (G&U) Discussion
- Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
jamoldover wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:21 pm It was included in the Hopedale Properties filing, on pages 38-47.Thanks!
Second page is where the passage rights are reserved.
Seen behind the motorman on the inside wall of a PCC departing "Riverside" many years ago: "Pickpockets are on duty for your convenience."
Plans #1
Last edited by MaineCoonCat on Sat Jul 31, 2021 1:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Seen behind the motorman on the inside wall of a PCC departing "Riverside" many years ago: "Pickpockets are on duty for your convenience."
Plans #2
Seen behind the motorman on the inside wall of a PCC departing "Riverside" many years ago: "Pickpockets are on duty for your convenience."
MaineCoonCat wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:45 pmThat's how I read it. My feeling is it amounts to an uncompensated taking. I love the railroad but I'm thinking Hopedale Properties has a valid claim here.Yeah, and since they don't acknowledge it as a taking, they will have to put it back and live with the 2% grade, and pay "damages.". Why is it a problem now and it wasn't a problem before? Who would they have to go to to approve a taking?
DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer although I used to watch Ally McBeal back around the turn of the century..I watch Perry Mason, even thogh he went underground 28 years ago. Around the time Ally McBeal was on, I worked in a building that was next to or a couple doors down from the building which was the exterior shot for her office.
BandA wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:02 pm Who would they have to go to to approve a taking?Not sure but I'm thinking Land Court for Worcester County.
I watch Perry Mason, even thogh he went underground 28 years ago. Around the time Ally McBeal was on, I worked in a building that was next to or a couple doors down from the building which was the exterior shot for her office.Cool!!!
Seen behind the motorman on the inside wall of a PCC departing "Riverside" many years ago: "Pickpockets are on duty for your convenience."
It looks like the entire property is a huge vacant lot. Hard to believe there isn't another place to provide a suitable crossing if there is a problem at this one spot. I'm sure they can come up with a compromise.
A bit of "thank you,"
I've been looking for something "railroad+law" related to share with the Opening Arguments podcast (now THERE'S a plug!
) for quite some time and I believe this foots the bill as they just did a deep-dive on Eminent Domain and have had a few requests for "railroad law,"
Cheers!
I've been looking for something "railroad+law" related to share with the Opening Arguments podcast (now THERE'S a plug!
) for quite some time and I believe this foots the bill as they just did a deep-dive on Eminent Domain and have had a few requests for "railroad law,"Cheers!
MaineCoonCat wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:27 pmBandA wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 7:02 pm Who would they have to go to to approve a taking?Not sure but I'm thinking Land Court for Worcester County.
I watch Perry Mason, even thogh he went underground 28 years ago. Around the time Ally McBeal was on, I worked in a building that was next to or a couple doors down from the building which was the exterior shot for her office.Cool!!!
"It belongs in a MUSEUM!"
-Indiana Jones
-Indiana Jones
The kicker line for me, which is where G&U may have some valid claim here, is (not a lawyer here either but I've dealt with railroad agreements before):
"...however, always to be consistent with the full and perfect use of said premises for railroad purposes."
G&U's complete use of the property for railroad purposes appears it might override the desired crossing locations if there is a conflict for some reason. bostontrainguy is right, no reason they couldn't work together to find a different location. So I agree very much with the below.
"...however, always to be consistent with the full and perfect use of said premises for railroad purposes."
G&U's complete use of the property for railroad purposes appears it might override the desired crossing locations if there is a conflict for some reason. bostontrainguy is right, no reason they couldn't work together to find a different location. So I agree very much with the below.
wilfred wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:30 pm two millionaires squabbling.
Trinnau wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:18 pm G&U's complete use of the property for railroad purposes appears it might override the desired crossing locations if there is a conflict for some reason. bostontrainguy is right, no reason they couldn't work together to find a different location. So I agree very much with the below.Ultimately, there is a certain amount of truth to this. The owners of the two companies have a long and acrimonious history with each other, and haven't hesitated to use various legal methods to try to "stick it to the other guy" in the past.
wilfred wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:30 pm two millionaires squabbling.
I was a Hopedale resident for quite a few years. I had a front row seat to the bickering,
Why can't the pavement be raised on both sides of the rail to match the height of the tracks?