Who is responsible for NYAR freight sidings?

Who is responsible for maintaining all the spurs of the NYA's customers, the NYA or the customer itself?

The Tenth Legion wrote:Who is responsible for maintaining all the spurs of the NYA's customers, the NYA or the customer itself?

From what I have heard, It is the customers who maintain the sidings.

In joint use territory, the LIRR maintains the switch and up to the derail. Anything past the derail is upto the NYAR and whatever agreement I guess they have in place with the costumer. Some costumers have to trackmobiles to shuffle cars. The New York and Atlantic pays hefty fees to for switch upkeep to the LIRR. This is why alot of times the switch will be torn out if there doesn't seem to be any potential future use. An example of this would be American Tissue up on the Port Jeff.

In joint use territory, the LIRR maintains the switch and up to the derail. Anything past the derail is upto the NYAR and whatever agreement I guess they have in place with the costumer. Some costumers have to trackmobiles to shuffle cars. The New York and Atlantic pays hefty fees to for switch upkeep to the LIRR. This is why alot of times the switch will be torn out if there doesn't seem to be any potential future use. An example of this would be American Tissue up on the Port Jeff.

To expand on what freightguy said, LIRR is responsible for maintenance of the switch and the siding up to the derail. In reality, past the derail, no maintenance is ever performed until a derailment forces emergency repairs.

Somewhat related to the subject of switch maintenance: Does anyone know if the International Bakeries siding in Jamaica has been, or will be, reconnected to the mainline? Besides being a railfan, I see it as environmental issue that someone who would just have to have a switch rebuilt to be able to ship by rail should do so and reduce the number of trucks onthe road.

I seem to recall that money was appropriated for this project, back during the Pataki Administration, but, like the Calverton spur reactivation project, nothing has been done. Too bad.

I seem to recall that money was appropriated for this project, back during the Pataki Administration, but, like the Calverton spur reactivation project, nothing has been done. Too bad.

Ironically there was something in NY Newsday about Congressman Tim Bishop trying to obtain funding for the Calverton switch. It was an article pertaining to transit funding around last month.

Whats the plans for Synergy siding off the mainline west of Gershow?
The siding cannot fit a lite engine and just goes a few feet past the derail and that's it. Is there any plans for a future customer such as replacement for synergy gas or is that a deal gone bad?
As for 84 Lumber West of Paraco, Is that siding waiting funding from the company to build it into their property before they take cars?

With the 84 lumber switch, I heard that was blocked by the other spur, Riverhead Building Supply having some sort of political ties. In what this person told me, 84 lumber would be taxed heavily to be able to use that switch, atleast as long as RBS is in business. As with all of these companies that don't take rail traffic, for one reason or another...it's a shame, because it really would benefit everyone to have less trucks on the road.

Going off on a slight tangent: the public doesn't weigh the difference in safety between shipping by train or truck. By truck, the roads are shared buy drivers that are trained to drive trucks long distance along with drivers who don't have a clue and tend to get frustrated with the difference in the way trucks drive, and this lack of understanding along with the frustration causes accidents. The truck drivers and the car drivers both have different intentions. On the rails, the engineers of the passenger trains as well as the freight trains are both very highly trained and have very strict rules to follow. The freights and passenger trains have the same block signal system rules to follow, which prevents the passenger trains and freights from crashing into eachother, or from being near eachother period. The engineers of both types of trains are on the same page, unlike the difference between both types of drivers on the road.

I have a reference on the road safety issue. For one thing, a car will sometimes cut off a truck whose driver will then have to react quickly in general, while downshifting 2 or 3 gears. Most car drivers don't know or don't care about that.

With the 84 lumber switch, I heard that was blocked by the other spur, Riverhead Building Supply having some sort of political ties. In what this person told me, 84 lumber would be taxed heavily to be able to use that switch, atleast as long as RBS is in business. As with all of these companies that don't take rail traffic, for one reason or another...it's a shame, because it really would benefit everyone to have less trucks on the road.

It has nothing to do with taxes. Taxes in the form you mention would be unconstitutional and would be overturned in a court of law.

However, permits are a different issue. Riverhead Building Supply has deep connections with the Town. They have informed 84 Lumber that to complete the siding on their property would require a building permit. 84 Lumber doesn't agree with this, and refuses to pay for the permit. Thus, you get a switch, and no siding.

More of your NYS taxpayer money (they received grant money for the switch) gone to waste.

Jay

Isn't the Town, by obviously acting in the best interest of Riverhead Building Supply to prevent a competitor from receiving product by rail, interfering in interstate commerce?

Isn't the Town, by obviously acting in the best interest of Riverhead Building Supply to prevent a competitor from receiving product by rail, interfering in interstate commerce?

Yes they are. But the cost of legal fees to prove this in court would cost more than the permit. So, they'd just as soon truck it. With the economy what it is right now, it's probably not worth it anyway.

Jay

Did Riverhead Building Supply get a permit for their spur? If so, I fail to see the "conspriracy" against 84. Building laws are building laws. If they didn't, then 84 has a case, but since they're not pursuing it, I doubt it.