well, did the county reply?


looks like they just cut the joiners, thats an easy replace.

First, the photo we were shown shows what anyone with experience in this field will tell you is stress-fractured metal, NOT "cut" or "torched." Yes, it ruins them, but in effect no one in this situation (on the scene, that is) cares.

Second, have you actually gone out to try and find joint bars for rail lately? A good ballpark figure is $50 each, $100 per joint, PLUS the bolts, and that's in large quantities. Tie plates are $5-10 each in large quantities.

Here's just one online price list:
https://www.ez2rail.com/track-components?cat=14

Yes the County did reply with 800 pages (no joke) of summary and backup. From the part I skimmed the County's claim is the line was abandonded prior to the County's purchase.

Sorry I can't link the response from my phone.

Here is the county's response.

I have to confess, I haven't looked at it at all (and will do that later), but I've read posts on another page, from someone who at least glanced at it, that they didn't see anything that said the actual abandonment was approved by the ICC, which would have been the agency with the necessary authority at the time.

https://www.stb.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7 ... 245214.pdf

There is still a can of worms in there, even if the abandonment was approved--and it's those easements. If the line was really abandoned, then the reversion clauses should have kicked in years ago.

If it wasn't abandoned, then the STB now has the authority to approve or disapprove, as inherited from the ICC.

Either way, in my opinion (and you know what that would be worth), the county seems to be sloppy on legal things like this, as well as the city of Kingston (recall the dump truck incident a couple of years ago).

would the stb have ICC records?

Th revitalization group would show interest in the line which would still mean returning the rail. But the pulled rail would demonstrate land owner reversion regardless of abandonement.

I can't view this directly from the STB, theres some kind of server timeout, and other download managers will not nab it.

........going.........going.......

I got the proper download manager, I read it tomorrow.

I have been slowly working my way through this Magnum Opus since it showed up as have my Granddaughter and one or two colleagues. We do not have a dog in this fight however it may prove to be a definitive case on abandonment based on the Final System Plan (FSP). Our first thought was that Mr. Meindertsma was being paid by the word and that this would not help the County's cause. What he has actually done is lay out as complete a paper trail as he possibly can. As my own personal best in this regard is something under 200 pages in a single filing I commend his industry.

I should also note that as of Friday the New York City Department of Environmental Protection has entered the fray with a mere 54 pages https://www.stb.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7 ... 245219.pdf
and that the original petitioner has asked for an Extension of Time, https://www.stb.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7 ... 245220.pdf

Much of the paperwork on the FSP abandonments was never properly completed and at the time there was no requirement for a Certificate of Consummation. In my view most are legitimately abandoned, some may not have been.

There are two things that need to be understood about the word abandoned in terms of this discussion. One - It refers solely to Common Carrier Authority and has nothing to do with property ownership per se. Two - It is entirely possible for the property to remain in 'Railroad' or 'Transportation' use after common carrier authority is abandoned.

If there are reversionary clauses in the deeds the wording is very important. Wire lines, pipelines, and trails have all been found to be 'transportation use' while some courts have gone so far as to read the term 'railroad use' very broadly applying it to any transportation use. I have also seen instances where there was a reversionary clause and adjacent portion of the property was later sold with new meets and bounds which did not include the railroad's right-of-way leaving an orphan strip 40 or 60 or what-have-you feet wide.

This is NOT an Abandonment Proceeding. The Ulster and Delaware Revitalization Corporation has asked the Surface Transportation Board to commence a proceeding to determine whether or not the line was abandoned properly at some time in the past. The Board has not yet decided whether or not it will institute the proceeding and make a decision. The stated reason for the petition is so that the question of whether or not common carrier authority exists over the line will not muddy the waters in a state court proceeding. It will be interesting to see where Mr. Heffner is going with this.

GME

(Edited to correct the spelling of John's last name.)

I still cannot view the pdf, 88 megs, and the STB site seems to have a filter preventing downloaders or services to nab it. If someone ups it to a cloud like google drive and share it maybe I can grab it there, but it sounds like the county just grabbed whatever documents they have related to the line and threw them in. Because the STB should have full documentation for the line they should be able to rule on whats happening here, and since they are keyed to other interest for the line like the Revitalization group I expect a lean to the revitalization group or they might reccomend the 2 parties sit down in some face to face meeting to resolve this.

I was able to download it without issues to my iPad using my iPhone as a hot spot. It must be something on your end.

Court rejects stay:

http://www.dailyfreeman.com/general-new ... s-in-court



More at the link.

Not terribly surprising as the U&DR Corp would probably not have been able to show irreparable harm.

Dinwitty - 1. The Board will have NO information on the line other than what is filed with them. It is the responsibility of the U&DR Corp and the county to establish the record. Of course they found everything they could and presented it and that is the exactly what the petitioner should also do.

2. I am not at all sure why you think the Board would be leaning toward the U&DR Corp. They are not a railroad with established customers on the line and no immediate prospects of any.

3. How is a sit down meeting between the U&DR Corp and the County going to resolve anything since a) it has already happened and b) U&DR Corp is not actually a party to the various underlying disputes over the lease and the easements?

I am not taking the County's side here. My view is that several of their officers have behaved reprehensibly. I would have much preferred to see the defaults cured much earlier in the game and Catskill Mountain continue to operate the entire line. From having followed the dispute(s) both here and in the press it is clear to me me that one of the many reasons that it was not resolved earlier, (which would probably have been on much better terms for Catskill Mountain) was that it was neither side really had an understanding of the railroad's legal status. In that regard I'm sorry that Mr. Hefner or another practitioner was not retained several years ago on just this issue.

The animus and the lack of civility here has been remarkable and it has carried over to the County's law firm. Practitioners usually cooperate in matters such as scheduling and due dates. When Mr. Heffner asked for a a ten day extension because of the size of the filing (four and a half inches thick) the County's firm refused so he made a formal request to the Board.The county counter-offered with seven days. This is not only somewhat unusual but it is the type of nickle-and-dime procedural nonsense which makes resolution more difficult to achieve.

GME

I found a working link by a news source in pdf or text but the text is mangled technically from the pdf.
What I see is a deluge of data. I can grab the full pdf but this is 56k, that 8 hours of time so it'll be a while. I want to see the full thing as presented.

Ths STB could stop any abandonements if there is shown interest in the line, the Rivitalization group shows that. The county has made assumptions on abandonments and bullied on their pursuits. The state supreme court decision doesnt change anything. This is still on the county. The reason I say the STB may lean towards the Rivitalization group is because of their interest inn the line and the STB bylaws show anyone who shows an interest in the line abandonement would not be done. They could reverse any abandonement as well.

I may be able read this thing tomorrow maybe.