Union Pacific (Ex SP) West Phoenix Line

5386 views
124 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • 1,060 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Wednesday, October 11, 2017 5:45 PM

Fred M Cain
 

RE: Attached excerpt from Fred M's note of 10/10:

Another UP right-of-way that some people might be unaware of is the former SP “Modoc” line in extreme northeastern California.  The line was abandoned and converted into a bicycle and equestrian trail.  However, what some people might not realize is that when the conversion to railtrail was done, the UP forced the trail folks to sign a legally binding document that left the UP with the right to return the trail to rail use at any time and without notice.  Pretty clever in my view.
 
 

I don't have any inside information, but I very much doubt that UP has (or ever had) any interest in potential reactivation of the Modoc line.  If there had been any such interest, UP would have merely "discontinued service" on the line (with STB authorization) and left the tracks in place (as they did on Tennessee Pass and several other rail lines).    As a practical matter, trail use isn't a very good strategy for preserving corridors for potential rail reactivation.   The political fallout from letting a line go to trail and then, years later, taking it back for rail use would be significant.
 
The provision you mentioned in the Modoc line trail agreement where UP supposedly retained the right to take the Modoc trail back for rail restoration simply mirrors the requirements of the Federal National Trails System Act (NTSA), which has been used for most rail-trail conversions since the mid 1980's (whenever you see the terrm "interim trail use" in connection with a trail, it's probably an NTSA trail).  If the Modoc line trail was created under the NTSA (as I think it was), the railroad retains the right to restore the rail line as a matter of law, whether it reserves this right under the sale/lease agreement or not.   The right of restoration is in the statute and also in the ICC/STB decisions authorizing trail use under the NTSA.  But, that does nothing to quell the political firestorm that would result from taking a popular trail back to restore rail service.    
  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • From: Georgia USA SW of Atlanta
  • 8,219 posts
Posted by blue streak 1 on Wednesday, October 11, 2017 6:42 PM

Fred M Cain

 

RE: Attached excerpt from Fred M's note of 10/10:

Another UP right-of-way that some people might be unaware of is the former SP “Modoc” line in extreme northeastern California.  The line was abandoned and converted into a bicycle and equestrian trail.  However, what some people might not realize is that when the conversion to railtrail was done, the UP forced the trail folks to sign a legally binding document that left the UP with the right to return the trail to rail use at any time and without notice.  Pretty clever in my view.
 
 

 

The provision you mentioned in the Modoc line trail agreement where UP supposedly retained the right to take the Modoc trail back for rail restoration simply mirrors the requirements of the Federal National Trails System Act (NTSA), which has been used for most rail-trail conversions since the mid 1980's (whenever you see the terrm "interim trail use" in connection with a trail, it's probably an NTSA trail).  If the Modoc line trail was created under the NTSA (as I think it was), the railroad retains the right to restore the rail line as a matter of law, whether it reserves this right under the sale/lease agreement or not.   The right of restoration is in the statute and also in the ICC/STB decisions authorizing trail use under the NTSA.  But, that does nothing to quell the political firestorm that would result from taking a popular trail back to restore rail service.    
 
Could it be UP wrote that in to lock in the trail provision ?  Laws can always be changed and some pol might pass a law eliminating the pass back to a RR that he did not want in his back yard ?
  • Member since
    July, 2014
  • 96 posts
Posted by Fred M Cain on Thursday, October 12, 2017 6:05 AM

blue streak 1

Could it be UP wrote that in to lock in the trail provision ?  Laws can always be changed and some pol might pass a law eliminating the pass back to a RR that he did not want in his back yard ?

 

 

I found the document online a few years ago and brought it to SP expert and historian Tony Johnson's attention.  I recall that he, too, was surprised so I came away with the conclusion that the Modoc abandonment was a unique case.

Not sure if I can find it again but I'll try.

Regards

Fred M. Cain

  • Member since
    December, 2007
  • 1,060 posts
Posted by Falcon48 on Thursday, October 12, 2017 10:39 PM

blue streak 1

Fred M Cain

 

 

Could it be UP wrote that in to lock in the trail provision ?  Laws can always be changed and some pol might pass a law eliminating the pass back to a RR that he did not want in his back yard ?
 

It's more likely that, if UP wrote this provision into the contract, it probably did so simply to make clear that the trail agreement met the requirements of the Federal National Trails System Act (NTSA) and the STB decision authorizing trail use.  As I mentioned in my previous notes, it's highly unlikely that UP (or any other major railroad) would deliberately use an NTSA trail as a device to "mothball" a rail corridor for possible future rail use.  If the railroad wants to preserve the possibility of reactivation when it shuts down a rail line, it will obtain "discontinuance" (not "abandonment") authority from STB and leave the tracks in place, a strategy which makes future restoration of rail service at a later date MUCH easier.   

  • Member since
    July, 2014
  • 96 posts
Posted by Fred M Cain on Friday, October 13, 2017 6:22 AM

Falcon48

 

It's more likely that, if UP wrote this provision into the contract, it probably did so simply to make clear that the trail agreement met the requirements of the Federal National Trails System Act (NTSA) and the STB decision authorizing trail use.  As I mentioned in my previous notes, it's highly unlikely that UP (or any other major railroad) would deliberately use an NTSA trail as a device to "mothball" a rail corridor for possible future rail use.  If the railroad wants to preserve the possibility of reactivation when it shuts down a rail line, it will obtain "discontinuance" (not "abandonment") authority from STB and leave the tracks in place, a strategy which makes future restoration of rail service at a later date MUCH easier.   

Falcon,

I went searching on Google for that document again and could no longer find it.  What I *DID* find was another online document about the Modoc Rail Trail which stated that the Union Pacific actually SOLD the abandoned right of way to Lassen County back in 2008.  So, I now believe that you are right on this one.

What I'd seen before probably predated '08 when UP still owned the ROW. If they actually owned the ROW it's only natural that they'd want to retain future rail rights.  But in this case they elected not to do that.  The same article also mentioned that during a terrible winter storm year of '97, I think it was, the UP was utilizing the line as a diversion route for storm damaged lines and ran up to 12 trains a day over the line!

Now that it's gone, they may have burned their bridges behind them.

I would like to say here that I have long believed that property taxes are one real reason that motivates railroad companies to dispose of "excess capacity".  I have long suspected that high property taxes are an issue that have gotten little attention in the railroad community but I still believe it's a problem.  Thing is, though, no one knows what to do about it.

 

Regards,

Fred M. Cain

Join our Community!

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

Newsletter Sign-Up

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

Search the Community