It is currently Sun Jul 22, 2018 8:45 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 4:47 pm 

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 7:20 pm
Posts: 167
Image


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2018 10:38 pm 

Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 8:09 pm
Posts: 343
http://www.recordonline.com/news/201803 ... -shipments


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 12:43 am 

Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:17 am
Posts: 210
Location: New York
cjvrr wrote:
From where is this "investment" you speak of going to come? The County is investing, in a trail. They gave the CMRR 30 years to make a return on the rail line. It didn't work. Now CMRR has a small, manageable piece to use in Kingston and are making a go of it.


CMRR was "making a go of it" in the past, but when most revenue was being applied to lawyer fees. Not to mention that the county shut down operation of the isolated Phoenicia section, and has also refused to make FEMA-approved repairs to other sections of the line.

I will be curious to see the county's reaction to the appeal for freight service.

-otto-

_________________
----------------------------------------------
—Otto Vondrak
Rochester, N.Y.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 1:52 pm 

Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2017 8:42 am
Posts: 9
Location: Either behind my desk or on my phone
Lawyers' fees do seem to eat up money fast don't they...
(This is why its so terribly important to have good counsel and make sure the 'T's are dotted and the 'I's crossed properly early when you're involved in what is really a complex commercial land lease. Clear understanding on both sides of the common carrier authority issues and what is often referred to as a federal license to operate would have saved everybody quite a bit of time and effort as would clear understandings of rights and obligations under the lease agreement.)

Which brings us back to Common Carrier Authority and the abandonment or lack of abandonment thereof - We don't know here what precisely the agreements were to handle the paper cars. Those documents that cover that, if they exist, may well be buried somewhere. What is really interesting here is that if, and again this is a really large IF, the STB decides that the line wasn't abandoned they will then have to decide who holds the residual common carrier authority. The answer to that question will almost certainly be Ulster County as the purchaser of the property and if that's the case then the county will have to: 1. accommodate the lumber company (and follow all of the rules in doing so); 2. start a formal abandonment proceeding while finding a suitable alternative unloading site, and incidentally starting what may well be another circus of Trail Lobby v the Usual Suspects' OFA; or 3. park a dump truck in front of 395 E St SW.

Quote:
We will have to see what happens at or by March 21.
Quote:
The only thing which may or may not happen by March 21st is that Mr. Heffner may or may not file various motions in response to the County's pleading.
Mr. Heffner filed no motions yesterday so unless something else interesting happens the STB will have to go forward on the record as it exists today.

Meghan

_________________
Meghan

Subscribing to my grandfather's philosophy that no case is so weak or cause so harebrained that somebody cannot be found to handle it in exchange for a sufficient retainer up front.


Last edited by Meghan on Thu Mar 22, 2018 6:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 3:49 pm 

Joined: Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:56 pm
Posts: 18
As I said before, no patron can be served without a side track agreement. Now it remains to be seen that if the sidetrack was with the patron or the county. The county should have been able to produce that paperwork if they had it. This would imply that the trackage to the patron was just like any siding directly connected to Conrail. At the end of Conrail, we were all instructed to dump all files so it is likely that CSXT does not have any of these files.

In the shortline case, there were more than 1 relationship that a shortline could have had with Conrail. Most likely it would have been as a "allowance carrier". Conrail would have retained the "stations" on the line and held the POA for making rates. The carrier would be paid a "fee" to provide the switching service from the point of interchange.

Short line carriers were responsible for damage to the equipment and had there been a hard coupling that damaged safety appliances, someone would have been in serious trouble without an agreement. I am surprised that the CMR would switch the industry and assume the liability and I am equally as surprised that Conrail would have looked the other way.

Now the county should be looking for a side track agreement. Weren't they the ones that were being billed for the "switch charge"? Sounds reasonable. It would have been a lot easier to produce that document than to produce an 800 page document.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 5:10 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:12 am
Posts: 481
Location: Somewhere off the coast of New England
I believe that this is what my lovely GrandDaughter may have meant by 'Interesting'.
https://www.stb.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7f93537688b8e5852573210004b318/637f1387c78866ab85258258006d9a40/$FILE/245346.pdf As there was a decision released yesterday morning and no announcement on the website, we were not aware of the tolling due to the shutdown. As he is now a participant, Brother Gustafson may certainly recuse himself from further comment here.

GME


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2018 9:15 pm 

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 2226
If someone could give me a bit of summary on this, my 56k and STB's server still gives a rucuss and 28 megs makes it impossible to get.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 12:24 am 

Joined: Sat Mar 30, 2013 2:05 am
Posts: 51
Location: Glen Ellyn, IL
Filed today with STB by the U&D revitalization group:

https://www.stb.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7 ... 245346.pdf


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:54 am 

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 2226
that is the same one as above


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:17 pm 

Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:17 am
Posts: 210
Location: New York
dinwitty wrote:
If someone could give me a bit of summary on this, my 56k and STB's server still gives a rucuss and 28 megs makes it impossible to get.


Counsel for U&DRRC made a motion to have most of Ulster County's supporting documents struck either because they have aged out, or because they are irrelevant to the matter at hand.

Quote:
The Board should strike certain portions of Ulster County's Reply The Board's rules of practice provide that the Board may strike material that is redundant or irrelevant. 49 CFR § 1104.8. The four inches of exhibits attached to the verified statement of County witness Christopher White fit those criteria and should be stricken. Specifically, U&D asks the Board to strike the following exhibits:

Exhibit E, Annual report (1977). 41 years old and of no relevance.

Exhibit F, Environmental Assessment (1991). 27 years old and of no relevance.

Exhibit H, CE Maguire Report (1978). 40 years old and of no relevance.

Exhibit I, TAD Report (1979). 39 years old and of no relevance.

Exhibit K, Notice of Default (2013). Irrelevant as it pertains to litigation between CMRR and the County, a matter outside the STB 's jurisdiction.

Exhibits L through N, HDR Report. Pictures of the deterioration of the Line. Unnecessarily redundant. Not necessarily indicative of abandonment in a legal sense but could support an adverse abandonment application.

Exhibit 0, Pictures. Redundant and irrelevant. Not necessarily indicative of abandonment in a legal sense but could support an adverse abandonment application.

Exhibit P, Rail Trail Project pictures. Irrelevant on the issue of abandonment and, if abandoned, irrelevant on the issue of whether the NTA applies.

Exhibit Q, Washout pictures. Redundant and irrelevant.

Exhibit R, New York State Attorney General eminent domain letter. Irrelevant. Indication that New York is providing funding for property acquisition. Has no bearing on abandonment or NTA eligibility.

Exhibit S, Pictures. Redundant and irrelevant. Not necessarily indicative of abandonment in a legal sense but could support an adverse abandonment application.

Exhibit T, Alta Trail Study (2006). Irrelevant.

Exhibit U, Camoin Report (2013). Irrelevant.

Exhibit W, Numerous county resolutions. Irrelevant.

Exhibit Z, New York State SHPO correspondence. Irrelevant.

These documents should be stricken because they are either very old (as much as 40 years old) or have no bearing on the basic issues of whether the Line has been "abandoned" in the legal sense or, if abandoned, it is eligible to be converted to trail use under the NT A. Also they should be stricken as they are voluminous and highly redundant. In addition, Mr. White's testimony contains repeated page references to unidentified documents such as White V.S. at 2. U&D does not know what that means and the Board may not too.


Also buried in the last pages is a letter of intent from a local lumber company requesting CMRR service, CMRR letter to County requesting permission to pursue, and county's response denying permission.

Interesting, to say the least.

-otto-

_________________
----------------------------------------------
—Otto Vondrak
Rochester, N.Y.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 2:23 pm 

Joined: Sat Aug 25, 2007 12:45 am
Posts: 540
dinwitty wrote:
If someone could give me a bit of summary on this, my 56k and STB's server still gives a rucuss and 28 megs makes it impossible to get.

The conclusion is a good summary:
Quote:
IV. CONCLUSION
U&D requests that the Board strike numerous exhibits accompanying the County's Reply as redundant and irrelevant to the issues presented by U&D's petition. It urges the Board to accept its response to the County's Reply in order to provide a complete record and correct a distorted presentation of the facts. It further asks the Board to find that the Line has not been fully abandoned and to order the County to cease its salvage activities absent Board authorization. Should the Board conclude that the Line has been abandoned, it asks the Board to rule that the Line is not eligible for designation for trail use pursuant to the NTA.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:02 pm 

Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:18 pm
Posts: 2226
I see U&DR's direction, the STB can just flat out declare unabandoned due to new represented interest. The legal point that it may be abandoned or not does not line up with the potential new interest in the line. U&DR is working on the technicality of abandonement and prove the county doesn't have the right to pull the rails. And pulling the rails they technically may not be able to put a trail in. But we here have wrangled rail and trail. The games afoot, Sherlock.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Tue Apr 10, 2018 8:52 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:41 am
Posts: 3303
Location: Inwood, W.Va.
New press release.

http://udrrcorp.com/wordpress/press-rel ... dor-update


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: And we have a decision...
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 3:49 pm 

Joined: Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:12 am
Posts: 481
Location: Somewhere off the coast of New England
Based on the available evidence the Board has concluded that common carrier operation on the line was abandoned in 1977. Accordingly, the provisions of the National Trails Act do not apply.
https://www.stb.gov/decisions/readingroom.nsf/9855c1fb354da09b85257f1f000b5f79/cce24611ce42bf82852582ba0051cbce?OpenDocument
GME


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ULSTER & DELAWARE REVITALIZATION CORP.--PETITION FOR DEC
PostPosted: Mon Jul 02, 2018 4:27 pm 

Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 3:41 am
Posts: 3303
Location: Inwood, W.Va.
Response from the railroad, parts of which second Train Lawyer's opinions.

http://udrrcorp.com/wordpress/stb-rulin ... d-position


Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 131 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


 Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], KJP1990, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 57 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to: