ALL:
There is an article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press today (September 4th) stating that the Minnesota Commercial Railway is suing the City of St. Paul for $500,000 for alleged damage to their bridge spanning Como Avenue in St. Paul, MN.
I am interested in the comments from my fellow railfans.
Ed Burns
A link to, I believe, the article referred to:
http://www.twincities.com/2017/09/01/rail-company-sues-st-paul-for-nearly-half-a-million-saying-salt-damaged-bridge/
Be advised that that website caused my computer to go crazy, and may be a dangerous site.
The response from the city is typical. Should be interesting to discover what the truth actually is.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
Whole bunch of issues at play here. PDN or I could lay out volumes at base cause of this. Potentially, both parties may be liable.
Sneaking suspicion that FRA's 214 Bridge rule compliance triggered this. (and the perpetually poor railroad doesn't have the $$$$ to remain compliant from the bridge seats up.)
How long has the railroad been aware of this and when did they put the city on notice? (something sounds not right, it might be the newsworkers prose)
How long has the current arrangement been in place?
License agreement (contract) or Easement or both in place?
If it's an agreement, a good bet is the city lost the contract agreement copy long ago. Easement happy city bubbas probably blind to the contract.
Public crossing under a railroad? -Where's the current document filed with the current version of the State RR Commission? MNDOT now, MN Public Service 1967-76 ...Looks Like the bridge is 1930-1950's vintage (based on the bents & handrails) with a reinforced concrete fascade covering up steel beams on concrete bents with the road going under the middle of 3 spans , DOT 928-828U...
...and yes, drainage under a bridge with a railroad underneath is a big issue that never seems to go away in grade separation proposals. Highway bubbas frequently don't care where the scuppers, etc drain to once it's off the bridge deck.
M.C. and PDN: Sure seems that for someone in your lines of work, Politicians and inept Public Servants, seem to be intrinsick to your lines of continuing work; certainly, your job security is safe for a long time...
YMMV, but in my neck of the woods, the city of Fort Wayne spent some money refacing the concrete in several railroad overpasses for city streets. The overpasses date back to a city law requiring elevation of certain lines. I even participated in one of the projects.
samfp1943 M.C. and PDN: Sure seems that for someone in your lines of work, Politicians and inept Public Servants, seem to be intrinsick to your lines of continuing work; certainly, your job security is safe for a long time...
Mike 2-8-2: now you see why I was asking about the contract in place. Did somebody file a charge or counter-charge before looking at what the contract agreement actually says? The Cls. 1's have public project engineers for that; the little guys don't. Town employees pushed by their political bosses often shoot first from the hip, only to get embarrassed later when shown the contract.
Railroad public projects engineers are a breed apart with the patience of a saint and savvy beyond their years. Not sure I would last very long in that post.
(MC quote) Railroad public projects engineers are a breed apart with the patience of a saint and savvy beyond their years. Not sure I would last very long in that post.
Amen to that MC. I worked with two over the years and they were very mild mannered. When they asked me for assistance I made suggestions that my friends said would upset those with whom they were trying to work. But frequently my suggestions aided them and I became a 'go to guy' about some issues.
MC
I mentioned this story as it because it illustrated an agreement that was honored. I assume the city was responsible for everything below the span, as that is where the street is. I thought it was relevant. Some were under a shortline and the others a Class I. As far as I can tell, both were treated equally with respect to type of repairs. Again, YMMV, as not all municipalities will own up to the results of their decisions.
Is this a Terminal RR or something? Never heard of it.
Used to be Minnesota Transfer RR 1883-1987 (at one point, a union terminal railroad co-owned by up to nine railroads (CB&Q/CGW/MILW/CRIP/CStPM&O/GN/M&StL/SOO & NP)
Been around as a shortline for many years.
Amtrak's old St. Paul-Minneapolis station is on this road--and the Empire Builder still uses it to get back to the BNSF after leaving the St, Paul Union Station.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.