Trains.com

Virginia Rails: Buckingham Branch and RR Lawyers

545 views
5 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: L A County, CA, US
  • 1,009 posts
Virginia Rails: Buckingham Branch and RR Lawyers
Posted by MP57313 on Friday, September 3, 2004 3:36 PM
[%-)] Just browsed through the STB website (www.stb.dot.gov) and looked at some recent filings. {not as good as a novel, but there are some interesting details there}

Anyway there was an item, FD_34495_0, filed 8/23/04 by the NS lawyer commenting on the Buckingham Branch RR (BBRR) leasing the CSX line in Virginia. Evidently the branch between Gordonsville and Orange is owned by the NS and leased to CSX; never knew that. The original lease dates back to 1890.

NS's concern was that the proposed lease of the CSX tracks by BBRR did not mention the lease of the Gordonsville-Orange segment or maintenance of the interlockings at Orange and Charlottesville; evidently they are/were both CSX's responsibility. NS was asking the STB to consider these points and have the lease agreement corrected to mention these.
  • Member since
    January 2001
  • From: MP CF161.6 NS's New Castle District in NE Indiana
  • 2,146 posts
Posted by rrnut282 on Friday, September 3, 2004 3:48 PM
NS doesn't want to let CSX off the hook after they cut and run. That's to be expected. NS has had the benefit of someone else paying the bill for the interlocking and NS wants to keep it that way, wouldn't you?
Mike (2-8-2)
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, September 3, 2004 4:08 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by rrnut282

NS doesn't want to let CSX off the hook after they cut and run. That's to be expected. NS has had the benefit of someone else paying the bill for the interlocking and NS wants to keep it that way, wouldn't you?


Indeed. Why pay for something you already get for free???

LC
  • Member since
    June 2001
  • From: L A County, CA, US
  • 1,009 posts
Posted by MP57313 on Saturday, September 4, 2004 1:38 AM

Indeed. Why pay for something you already get for free???
LC

I agree with you. Never really considered who "owned" the interlockings. Didn't realize what details were left to be settled.

A UTU article that came out a while back questioned whether BBRR was up to the task of taking over a 100-mile-plus RR line.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Saturday, September 4, 2004 1:47 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by MP57313


Indeed. Why pay for something you already get for free???
LC

I agree with you. Never really considered who "owned" the interlockings. Didn't realize what details were left to be settled.

A UTU article that came out a while back questioned whether BBRR was up to the task of taking over a 100-mile-plus RR line.


Typical union trying to keep the short line out. After all, union jobs will be lost. I'm sure that is part of what CSX has in mind.

LC
  • Member since
    May 2003
  • From: US
  • 24,939 posts
Posted by BaltACD on Saturday, September 4, 2004 1:12 PM
The who own's what and who pays for what is more underground and convoluted than even the railroad lawyers can comprehend.

We look and see 4 major Class I's in the US today.....the reality is that each of these Class I's is made up of hundreds if not thousands of prior existing rail companies their successors, aires and assigns. The agreements that each of these compaines originally negotiated must be accounted for as each property follows it's trail to becoming the X subdivision or branch of what is today's Class I. Can you spell major migraine headache for title searches.

Never too old to have a happy childhood!

              

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy