Taking Over Old Lines

After reading several topics about Guilford and they contraction away from Boston, I was wondering what prevented another company from taking over the lines? If, for example, Guilford wanted to abandon a line, and there was still a customer on it, could another company take over the line (once it was abandoned)? Or would they have they have to purchase the line?

The physical property would still be owned by the Boston & Maine or the Maine Central (depending on whose line it was originally), so any prospective operator of an abandoned line would have to negotiate a purchase or lease price with Guilford. You can't just show up and run your trains.

You can't just show up and run your trains.

I guess I'll have to cross that off my "to do" list

Seriously, though, what is the point of officially "abandoning a line?" Is it merely a formal declairation that one isn't going to run trains down it anymore? I was under the impression that one relequishes property rights, and that was how the old ROWs disappear...thanks for the clarification.

So are you saying that the owner of the tracks owns it until they lease it or sell it? Does that mean that if a track is abandoned for 100 years but the railroad that owned it still exists never leased or sold it still has the right to sue you if you drive a locomotive on it? That is pure crap.

In this context, "abandonment" simply means that the railroad has stopped running trains over the line. It is not legally the same as "property abandonment"... it's an abandonment of service. The railroad may or may not rip up the tracks -- there are a bunch of abandoned lines in New England that haven't seen a train in 20 or more years but still have rails in place under the weeds, like the B&M Central Mass branch. But whether they rip up the rails or not, they still own the real estate and have the same legal rights over its use as any other property owner, until they choose to give up those rights through sale or lease.

"So are you saying that the owner of the tracks owns it until they lease it or sell it?"

Yes.

"Does that mean that if a track is abandoned for 100 years but the railroad that owned it still exists never leased or sold it still has the right to sue you if you drive a locomotive on it? "

Well, the hundred year example gets into other legal areas like "adverse possession"... if, for example, you build a driveway that crosses a corner of your neighbor's land and he doesn't complain about it for a period of time set by law (I think it's 20 years in Massachusetts, but don't trust my memory on that), then by default you acquire rights to continue to use the land. Also, land titles sometimes get confused over time due to sloppy surveying, unpaid liens, and other circumstances. Finally, there are cases where the railroad never owned the land to begin with but simply had an easement, meaning a right to use it for a specific purpose (like running trains), and rights to the land would have reverted to the original owner (the local farmer or whoever, or his heirs) when the trains stopped. Consult an intro legal reference on property law if you're interested in details on that sort of stuff... the same rules apply to a railroad right-of-way as to a house lot.

But basically, if the Fitchburg RR owned a piece of land in the 19th century, then the B&M got title when it took over the Fitchburg, and they still own it unless there's been some disposition.

IIRC,doesn't the MBTA own most of the former B&M rails/ROW in the Boston area?(allegedly, a Guilford excuse not to maintain some of them....because they're "MBTA Property...) If thats the case,as the owner, couldn't they assign a new operator to trackage that Guilford has cast off , or has no interest in providing service anymore, if the customers are there and are paying?

The MBTA does own most of the ex-B&M trackage in eastern Massachusetts, but under current contractual arrangements stemming back to the sale of the lines by the B&M the Guilford organization has exclusive rights to provide freight service. Guilford might pull out of serving a line (like everything above Salem, for example) but the MBTA can't just offer it to a new operator (assuming one wanted it -- there isn't much on-line rail business left anywhere in southern New England compared with what there used to be even 20 years ago). I'm not saying that makes sense or represents good public policy, but that's the deal that was agreed to.

AznSumtinSumtin wrote:Does that mean that if a track is abandoned for 100 years but the railroad that owned it still exists never leased or sold it still has the right to sue you if you drive a locomotive on it?

You don't drive a locomotive, you run a locomotive. Sorry, couldn't help it.

Just getting educated...



I wonder why rail-trail people assume every old row is available to pave over?


Do not railroads get rid of land if it's taxed? Taxes not paid?




I never got into the subject although it often seems abandoned railroad rights of way are there 'for the taking'. Then people build on the row.



I can recall a few town clerks in rural New York and NW Connecticut telling me once the Central New England RR (or whatever name it was in) still owns strips of land but nobody wants it because its just a narrow strip. Taxes? Collect from who?


I don't even know how the rail-trail people seem to get the right to re-take the row for a trail. I've seen established businesses closed or booted off row over a rail-trail.

Depends if the ROW was a literal right-of-way or actual property. In the former case the company doesn't own the land but has a right to use it for a railroad. Rail trails prevent an unused ROW from reverting to the adjacent property owners by still being used for transportation, or being for future rail use, or something (there was a Supreme Court case in the 1980s). If the company owns it, on the other hand, they would have to sell it off to lose it, even if it's been abandoned forever.

Azn says "So are you saying that the owner of the tracks owns it until they lease it or sell it? Does that mean that if a track is abandoned for 100 years but the railroad that owned it still exists never leased or sold it still has the right to sue you if you drive a locomotive on it? That is pure crap."

No, that's not pure crap it's called the American right to own property. If you have a car you don't drive for years, it's still your car. If you don't use your mountain cabin for years it's still yours. The concept of adverse possession has been noted above, but that generally comes into play in cases of a crossing, not somebody deciding to start running trains on a line.

If the original railroad way back when went out and bought the land they laid tracks on, that is their property until they sell it. Laws vary, but if that original railroad got an EASEMENT across somebody's land, in most cases the line would revert back to the owner of the surrounding property when the line was abandoned.

Abandonment is a legal process - previously through the ICC and now through the STB. A railroad may decide not to run a train on a line for months or even years, the trees may grow between the ties, but it's not abandoned until they go through the formal process.

So yes - no matter how long it's been since something operated on a line, it still belongs to SOMEBODY, not YOU, and you can get arrested if you drive a locomotive (or a speeder or an ATV) on it - it's called TRESPASSING.

"No, that's not pure crap it's called the American right to own property. If you have a car you don't drive for years, it's still your car. If you don't use your mountain cabin for years it's still yours."

I see your point but why then, for example, can't the MBTA just reactive the Central Mass if they wanted to? (If they had the $$$ and the need)

So if the ROW is just that (and not land owned by the company), what's the relationship between the company and the setting up of a rail trail (which I understood would be set up by a municipality or some non-profit group or something like that)? Thanks.

kwf wrote:I see your point but why then, for example, can't the MBTA just reactive the Central Mass if they wanted to? (If they had the $$$ and the need)

Sure they could, if they had the money. Of course the NIMBYs in Weston would howl so loudly that the MBTA would be tied up in nuisance lawsuits for years.

A current example of that is the abandoned and trackless ex-NH right-of-way between North Easton and Taunton that the MBTA is proposing to reactivate for Boston-New Bedford/Fall River service. A bunch of purported environmentalists have sued to prevent it on the grounds that some swamp critters will be annoyed -- apparently the welfare of salamanders is of more concern to them than the environmental and social effects on humans of the traffic jams on Route 24.

"Sure they could, if they had the money. Of course the NIMBYs in Weston would howl so loudly that the MBTA would be tied up in nuisance lawsuits for years."

This is where I was going...They can't just "hop in their car and drive it after x number of years". I'm not being naive, but if its the T's ROW, why can't they run trains on it if they want?
(infrastucture allowing)

Also, who owned the ex-NH ROW?