gokeefe wrote:So the original deal was trackage rights for 20 years? (Started in 1998?)
Older than that. 1989 was when they picked that territory up from Guilford, along with what's now NHCR territory. NHCR territory was shed between 1995-97, landing with NHDOT who granted NHCR rights. St. Johnsbury-Gilman went dormant in '99 when they lost the mill business and is the last piece they still hold on-paper. Since their territory changed this may not have been the first rights agreement...more likely the second, re-drawn in the mid-90's when they were retreating out of NH. At any rate, the current agreement expires in 2018 and has a carrier-only option for 10-year extension to 2028. So if the estate of Lamoille Valley/Twin State steps forward (note: we have no idea who represents the owner's estate!) and gives written notice that they are exercising their 10-year extension, they can sit on it another 10 years and PAR can't do anything about it. If they take no action whatsoever on the contract option or write that they intend to decline it, the rights expire in 2018. The only mystery is whether anyone whatsoever is going to step forward over the next year claiming to represent Twin State, or if the clock runs out silently on the lease.
Dick H wrote:It's roughly eight rail miles from Whitefield to Gilman and roughly twenty rail
miles from Gilman to St. Johnsbury. Assuming (always dangerous to assume)
that the Connecticut River Bridge is structurally sound, it will be far cheaper
to rehab the line between Whitefield and Gilman then Gilman and St.J. Of
course, the Live Free state (NH) will have many qualms about rebuilding
track to serve a Vermont industry. I believe the NHCR would welcome the
new customer. I am still not sure how Mr. Fink #2 would be a player in all
this. At any rate, a new employer in the north country will be most welcome.
The plant itself is inclusive to the Twin State lease, so NHCR can't serve it directly from the east. Unless they're transloading by the side of the road east of the plant property, which would be pointless for all involved. So serving the plant does have ironclad prerequisites of Twin State's lease expiring without that 10-year option being picked up...and then making sure it's kosher with PAR to poke across the division post. It's out of NHDOT's and NHCR's purview. This is all about waiting to see if the Twin State estate does anything, and then VTrans being the party that engages PAR about what comes next (i.e. buying the St.J - Gilman property).
When all is squared they can choose to rehab track from whichever direction--Whitefield, St. J, or both--they prefer. But actual ground zero at the Gilman mill is still today under Twin State's operating thumb and PAR's ownership thumb.