Don31 wrote: In defference to Mr. Webster, in the city planning and civil engineering professions, when land is acquired in fee, we call it "right-of-way", the right to pass over property owned by another is an "easement".
Then the legal and the civil engineering professions differ in their terminology, not surprisingly. An easement is much broader term than a "right of way," referring to many types of permanent encumbrances on the land. For example, the right to locate a sign on the land owned by another, an easement for light and air, a sight easement, and so forth. The vast majority of case law is in accord, with many of those stating something along the lines of "the aquisition by the railroad of a "right of way" is construed as a mere easement and the railroad owns no interest in fee" (case involved a municipality asserting a real property tax on the full value of the land as opposed to only on the value of the easement).
Likewise, ownership by a railroad of land in fee is a much broader right than an easement. Not only does the railroad have a right of passage (e.g., "way") for its trains, but can also lease or license the land for other purposes. By way of example, a railroad with ownership in fee can lease or license the right to a communications company to bury fiber or other cables in the land (as many have done) but a railroad with only an easement for right of way has no legal right to do do. The telecommunications carrier must negotiate with the underlying owner in fee.
I think this discussion is an example of why engineers should not practice law and attorneys not practice engineering.