cx500 I assume Mudchicken and Falcon48 likely worked at different railroads, perhaps in different parts of the continent, and in different departments. Not surprising that their experiences with land titles and descriptions may differ. While I was invoved in railroad surveying, my concern was always alignment and grading and well within the r-o-w fences so could safely ignore the minutiae. But I did hear of one location in the Toronto area where several months were spent trying to figure out exactly what the property boundaries were, until finally the municipality and the railway gave up and created a new description acceptable to both. That was in an area with generally good record keeping. In some places an amicable settlement between parties may prove impossible, and I get the feeling MC probably has had more than his share of such disputes. I also heard tell of a location on another road where a property bar that had been driven on the west side of the track had now reached the east side. The slope was unstable and gradually moving, with the engineering department doing what was necessary to maintain the tracks in the original location. John
I assume Mudchicken and Falcon48 likely worked at different railroads, perhaps in different parts of the continent, and in different departments. Not surprising that their experiences with land titles and descriptions may differ.
While I was invoved in railroad surveying, my concern was always alignment and grading and well within the r-o-w fences so could safely ignore the minutiae. But I did hear of one location in the Toronto area where several months were spent trying to figure out exactly what the property boundaries were, until finally the municipality and the railway gave up and created a new description acceptable to both. That was in an area with generally good record keeping. In some places an amicable settlement between parties may prove impossible, and I get the feeling MC probably has had more than his share of such disputes.
I also heard tell of a location on another road where a property bar that had been driven on the west side of the track had now reached the east side. The slope was unstable and gradually moving, with the engineering department doing what was necessary to maintain the tracks in the original location.
John
She who has no signature! cinscocom-tmw
cx500I assume Mudchicken and Falcon48 likely worked at different railroads, perhaps in different parts of the continent, and in different departments. Not surprising that their experiences with land titles and descriptions may differ.
And that is the crux of many discussions here - varying experience and viewpoints, all valid. Oftimes folks looking at the same item/issue from different angles see different things - think of the blind men and the elephant...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Falcon48 I would hope that, to the extent I have some small reservoir of knowledge, I can teach without demeaning others. Apparently, however, that's not the way this forum works.
I would hope that, to the extent I have some small reservoir of knowledge, I can teach without demeaning others. Apparently, however, that's not the way this forum works.
I, for one, think you (Falcon48) have given this forum a great deal of expert knowledge and conveyed it with courtesy. I believe the underlying issues here are not two knowledgeable men working for different railroads. Rather, it is turf issues of members of two different professions and a certain degree of professional status differential. Bluntly, the contemptuous and insulting language MC used concerning lawyers and record-keeping, etc. does not belong in any serious discussion and is certainly NOT the method used by good teachers.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Falcon48 I would hope that, to the extent I have some small reservoir of knowledge, I can teach without demeaning others. Apparently, however, that's not the way this forum works. I, for one, think you (Falcon48) have given this forum a great deal of expert knowledge and conveyed it with courtesy. I believe the underlying issues here are not two knowledgeable men working for different railroads. Rather, it is turf issues of members of two different professions and a certain degree of professional status differential. Bluntly, the contemptuous and insulting language MC used concerning lawyers and record-keeping, etc. does not belong in any serious discussion and is certainly NOT the method used by good teachers.
Except when you spend your days untangling and correcting the messes that have been created by 'lawyers' and various record keeping 'institutions' where the prevailing political 'will' was that the record keepers didn't need any resources (either money, equipment or storage space) to do their jobs. Throw on top of that the fact that most of what is being researched dates from the 19th Century and maybe in some cases even earlier and one can become very comtempuous of the state of real estate record keeping and those charged with doing it.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD schlimm Falcon48 I would hope that, to the extent I have some small reservoir of knowledge, I can teach without demeaning others. Apparently, however, that's not the way this forum works. I, for one, think you (Falcon48) have given this forum a great deal of expert knowledge and conveyed it with courtesy. I believe the underlying issues here are not two knowledgeable men working for different railroads. Rather, it is turf issues of members of two different professions and a certain degree of professional status differential. Bluntly, the contemptuous and insulting language MC used concerning lawyers and record-keeping, etc. does not belong in any serious discussion and is certainly NOT the method used by good teachers. Except when you spend your days untangling and correcting the messes that have been created by 'lawyers' and various record keeping 'institutions' where the prevailing political 'will' was that the record keepers didn't need any resources (either money, equipment or storage space) to do their jobs. Throw on top of that the fact that most of what is being researched dates from the 19th Century and maybe in some cases even earlier and one can become very comtempuous of the state of real estate record keeping and those charged with doing it.
That won't wash. Differing opinions? Fine and good. Contempt towards other professionals whose POV differs is a non-starter and frequently is a red flag for insecurity.
schlimm BaltACD schlimm Falcon48 I would hope that, to the extent I have some small reservoir of knowledge, I can teach without demeaning others. Apparently, however, that's not the way this forum works. I, for one, think you (Falcon48) have given this forum a great deal of expert knowledge and conveyed it with courtesy. I believe the underlying issues here are not two knowledgeable men working for different railroads. Rather, it is turf issues of members of two different professions and a certain degree of professional status differential. Bluntly, the contemptuous and insulting language MC used concerning lawyers and record-keeping, etc. does not belong in any serious discussion and is certainly NOT the method used by good teachers. Except when you spend your days untangling and correcting the messes that have been created by 'lawyers' and various record keeping 'institutions' where the prevailing political 'will' was that the record keepers didn't need any resources (either money, equipment or storage space) to do their jobs. Throw on top of that the fact that most of what is being researched dates from the 19th Century and maybe in some cases even earlier and one can become very comtempuous of the state of real estate record keeping and those charged with doing it. That won't wash. Differing opinions? Fine and good. Contempt towards other professionals whose POV differs is a non-starter and frequently is a red flag for insecurity.
And it is also a red flag for sloppy to non-existant record keeping.
MookieJust about everyone on this forum talks way over my head, so when he explains some things and I can actually almost understand it, I learn something. Jeff (Iowa), Houston Ed, & Tree are about the only ones that actually write so it isn't so technical, I don't even bother. (No Murphy - I will never, ever understand lumber!) For years, I have wished that people would elaborate on some subjects, but I don't find too many on here that are willing to teach on a level that I can understand. I would think that people would want to share their knowledge and experiences with the clueless, like me.
Overmod and Mookie:
["Giga-electron volt ... used to be billion-electron-volt or BeV in the old days when we built betatrons out of angel-food cake molds ..." ;-} ]
Overmod: Cute! I did pretty well up to the last frame. I was in business college when we had to "wire" boards for machines (this was not my forte), key punch cards - not too bad and flowchart. So I am not completely underwater on some of the "new" devices/ideas. But, I also can't swim a stroke....
“A statistician at the U.S. Census Bureau, Dr. Herman Hollerith, made possible the first use of punched cards for the large scale data processing during the census of 1890…
“Development of other card processing machines for the Census Bureau, including the first key punch, the first sorter, and the first tabulator, followed the use of Hollerith's first machine…Commercial use of the machines began with their application to railroad accounting systems.”
https://archive.org/details/ECL-2to7
Mookie Cute! I did pretty well up to the last frame.
I wasn't implying you didn't know any particular information -- the humor was in the tireless repetition of technical stuff as if already self-evident, with requested definitions being provided via an increasingly-large hose of more technical stuff...
Part of this relates to C.P. Snow's "two cultures" (here provided as a .pdf download thanks to the University of Colorado in Boulder).
The title of this thread is "You can't just rip up railroad tracks even if you own it as per STB (at risk tourist lines)" In other words, it's about "at risk" tourist railroads. It’s not, at least as stated, about “how to find abandonments before 1920”, or the various other questions going beyond the “tourist railroad” issues. Mudchicken is certainly free to address broader issues on this thread, if he chooses to do so. But castigating me (or others) for supposedly not properly addressing his issues is inappropriate.
Let’s review the “tourist railroad” issue that this thread is about without the name calling. The question I initially addressed is when STB authority is required to oust a tourist railroad from a rail line it is using but doesn’t own. This is the scenario presented with most (probably all) of the tourist railroads currently “at risk”. A state or local government entity acquired a rail line, made an agreement to let the tourist road use it, and now wants to oust the tourist railroad to turn the ROW into a trail or for other reasons.
The answer to this question depends on the answer to another question – was the line previously abandoned? In the northeast (where most of the “tourist railroads at risk” seem to be), abandonment could have happened when the northeastern railroads’ final system plan was implemented in the mid 1970’s (off the top of my head, I think it was 1976, but don’t hold me to that). If the line wasn’t abandoned with the final system plan, it could have been subsequently abandoned. How do you find out? Well, you can see from the final system plan itself whether the line was conveyed to Con Rail. If it wasn’t conveyed, it was probably abandoned at that time. If it was conveyed, but then subsequently abandoned, there should be an STB/ICC abandonment notice and at least a summary STB/ICC decision. These can easily be found on Westlaw and other legal research programs. If you can’t find an abandonment covering the line in question through these programs, there's a high probability that the line wasn’t formally abandoned, and some form of STB authority is required to abandon it now (not a showstopper, but certainly an additional hoop the landlord has to jump through).
Note, again, that I'm talking about “tourist railroads at risk”. I'm not talking about finding abandonments that are so old that they can’t be found on these research programs. I'm talking about abandonments that occurred from the mid 1970’s forward, which are well within the date range of these programs. The inability to find really old abandonments on these programs is irrelevant to the “tourist railroads at risk” question.
That brings us to the question of real estate boundaries and titles. One could write a whole book on this subject. But, again, I'm talking about “tourist railroads at risk”, not the rail industry in general. The question is how difficult it is to determine the property involved in one of these “tourist railroad” scenarios and what the state of the title is. The current “at risk” tourist roads appear to involve rights-of-way that were acquired (typically by a state or local government entity) from the mid 1970’s forward. Maybe it’s hard to determine real estate information for very old railroad conveyances from local real estate records. But the state or local government entities that acquired these lines should have recorded pertinent information for these transactions at the time they were made. If they didn’t, they have only themselves to blame for any subsequent issues. Title is a trickier question, since the railroad can’t give the acquiring entity any greater title than it has. In some cases, the railroad may only have a reversionary title, and the reversion could be triggered by the complete cessation of rail use (then again, maybe not – some states have “marketable title” laws that kill very old reversionary interests). I've been told that, in at least one of the "tourist railroad at risk" cases, the government entity that owned the ROW recognized this issue and addressed it by bringing a condemnation action against potential reversionary owners to acquire full title.
Finally, one addition. The “final system plan” covered only the territory served by bankrupt eastern roads such as Penn Central, Reading, etc. However, a somewhat similar (but not identical) process occurred west of Chicago in connection with the Rock Island and Milwaukee Road bankruptcies. In other words, a tourist road operating on a former CRIP or MILW trackage that wants to determine the abandonment status of the track it’s using should look at the restructuring decisions that arose from these bankruptcies.
Mookie Falcon48 I would hope that, to the extent I have some small reservoir of knowledge, I can teach without demeaning others. Apparently, however, that's not the way this forum works. That is a big brush you are using. The forum works just fine. Like the proverbial box of chocolates: you really don't know what you will get, and some are nuts. But as far as participation, I haven't really read any of your posts. So if you would like to explain anything about your job, or yourself, you would have a willing listener. And I don't even mind that I am a female - if you don't. Your choice.
That is a big brush you are using. The forum works just fine. Like the proverbial box of chocolates: you really don't know what you will get, and some are nuts. But as far as participation, I haven't really read any of your posts. So if you would like to explain anything about your job, or yourself, you would have a willing listener. And I don't even mind that I am a female - if you don't. Your choice.
See my reply note of 6/13/2016, 9:54 PM on this thread for a short description of my background.
Why would you (or I) mind that you're a female? My railroad had (and still has) several very competent female lawyers at high levels, and we had no trouble at all working with each other. There's also a strong female presence in other departments. Railroading is very definitely not the "male" dominated industry it was when I started (1973). It's a change for the better.
Falcon48 Mookie Falcon48 I would hope that, to the extent I have some small reservoir of knowledge, I can teach without demeaning others. Apparently, however, that's not the way this forum works. That is a big brush you are using. The forum works just fine. Like the proverbial box of chocolates: you really don't know what you will get, and some are nuts. But as far as participation, I haven't really read any of your posts. So if you would like to explain anything about your job, or yourself, you would have a willing listener. And I don't even mind that I am a female - if you don't. Your choice. See my reply note of 6/13/2016, 9:54 PM on this thread for a short description of my background. Why would you (or I) mind that you're a female? My railroad had (and still has) several very competent female lawyers at high levels, and we had no trouble at all working with each other. There's also a strong female presence in other departments. Railroading is very definitely not the "male" dominated industry it was when I started (1973). It's a change for the better.
You don't mind. I don't. Some/most members don't. But pretty obviously some forum members have been pretty contemptuous of assertive female posters (who have some technical knowledge) in the past. Notice how few females post on here?
Falcon48 The question I initially addressed is when STB authority is required to oust a tourist railroad from a rail line it is using but doesn’t own. This is the scenario presented with most (probably all) of the tourist railroads currently “at risk”. A state or local government entity acquired a rail line, made an agreement to let the tourist road use it, and now wants to oust the tourist railroad to turn the ROW into a trail or for other reasons.
Not pretending to any professional expertise, or even distinctive competence, in either surveying or railroad law. But that hasn't been the topic of contention at all in most of the discussions regarding 'trail conversion' of these rail lines. Whether or not the tourist railroad operators get to continue using a line 'owned' by another entity is more a matter for contract between the two parties. The big issue is whether the owning entity continues to have any title to, or control over, the ROW real estate when it is no longer being used for railroad purposes.
To my knowledge, that doesn't become a concern as long as the tracks are still present, even where there is no 'active' or current effort to maintain them in usable condition (witness some of the documented washouts on the Adirondack Scenic). But when conscious effort is made to remove the rail infrastructure, in some cases -- and the Adirondack line has been definitively identified as one -- the complete ownership right of the State agency or agencies concerned disappears, and adjacent landowners (or other entities, notably (as stated on RyPN, at least) 'forever wild' organizations controlling adjacent tracts) may well be able to prevent subsequent 'redevelopment' as a trail, or anything else. (One point repeatedly made being that a trail that is interrupted by 'no trespassing' signs or fences is not very worthwhile for actual public purposes, let alone any purpose that pays for the conversion costs...)
I had thought that a great deal of mudchicken's posting concerned this issue, and did so reasonably 'on point'. While I agree that some of his personal opinions of posters disputing his expressed opinions might be extreme, and even censurable as such, I have to wonder whether he was as irrelevant to the actual topic of concern as your apparent redefinition of the effective controversy would indicate.
OMod, Wans and Falcon - I can honestly say I have never (knock wood) been verbally attacked on the forum. Usually silence is what I see. It is nice to hear from some of the gentlemen on here that actually comment on my statements - like I am a real person. But I don't come here for verification of me, I like reading the information and comments on here. And to enjoy some of the humor. Wans - punch cards - very interesting! I wish I would have known that back then - maybe it would have made classes more interesting. Falcon - I wasn't pointing to male vs female - except my time frame was such that acceptance was pretty non-existent. I would have preceded your start date by about 10-12 years. And I wanted to be the person in the right hand seat.
Mod - we go back a few years - I remember timidly asking about your screen name. Someone set me straight, but I still bet there is a story behind it.
Mookie or Jen - your choice.
MookieMod - we go back a few years - I remember timidly asking about your screen name. Someone set me straight, but I still bet there is a story behind it. Mookie or Jen - your choice.
I would be honored to call you Jen - but only with your full permission, and the understanding that it does not mean I'm 'presuming' on friendship in any way.
The screen name is derived from the 'handle' that an old girlfriend used -- it is a multiple and self-deprecating pun including the sense of 'overmodulation' and 'overmodulation distortion' (in the radio sense, but applied to 'other things' as well), her fashion sense of being 'over mod' in the sense of proving anything. I add to it more personal senses of being an upper-level moderator (in the e-mail reflector group sense of reaching common consensus rather than regulating with edicts and bans, and also the nuclear sense). Not quite up to the Rrose Selavy level, of course, but I think not bad in keeping some of the sense alive that at least some things in this world might yet be perfectible.
In response to Overmod's latest note, you're making exactly the same point that I made in very summary form. If the railroad's title to the ROW reverts on cessation of rail use, the removal of the railroad and the conversion of the ROW to a trail could trigger the reversion (unless there's a state marketable title law that extinguishes the reversion). In that case, the goverment landord would lose title to the reversionary property
This is unlike a "rails-to-trails" situation under the National Trails System Act (NTA). The NTA only applies to a railroad that hasn't been abandoned, but is being proposed for abandonment. If STB authorizes NTA trail use, the ROW is deemed, as a matter of Federal law, to not be abandoned for rail use, even if the tracks are removed (the holders of any reversionary interests may be entitled to compensation from the U.S. for a "taking" of their property, but that's a subject for another day).
The NTA option is not available for a ROW that has already been fully "abandoned" through STB or ICC procedures. Therefore, normal state law on whether the property reverts would apply. So, if we are talking about a ROW where the railroad was "abandoned" as an STB regulated common carrier, but is still being used by a tourist railroad, the ouster of the tourist railroad and removal of the track structure could very well trigger reversion.
As I mentioned in my earlier note, I've been told of one line used by an "at risk" tourist road where the governmental landlord recognized this problem and condemned the ROW to remove the reversionary interests.
O - well, since my real name is Jenny and since most people will mangle it to Jean, Jeannie, Ginny, is it short for Virginia?, etc and since the only other breathing thing I know is a donkey - which is a Jenny - I shortened it to Jen. And if anyone is uncomfortable with friend, then we can be acquaintences. I am here to learn some more and pleasantries are always enjoyed.
Ref. Posted by cx500 on Monday, June 13, 2016 11:04 PM
As a retired school teacher, I had the opportunity to work as a surveyor’s helper in the summer months. (except for teaching, and railroads, my next love ((‘ceptin my wifee’)) was the survey work.
With that said it is interesting to read about the survey subject here on this thread.
I soon realized as my boss taught, surveying is not a science, it is an art. He said and proved by citing examples he had been involved in……”give me the data from an opposing surveyors viewpoint and I can beat him in court.”.
Lawyers do this all the time, it is their job. If good, they can defend a guilty man into a not guilty verdict. For the sake of justice, we hope the defense had a good lawyer too.
But I digress: For those not aware: it is very difficult to fit a “flat” description of land (length by width) onto a round surface (Columbus proved “roundness of Earth” by not falling off the edges). There have to be adjustments galore to accommodate this difficulty. All is possible, but it is tricky. Think about it. I want as much “field” to plant a crop on. That is square area MAXIMUM. Buy land on a “slope” or a “flat” land choice? 1 acre of flat land has less sq ft area than 1 acre on sloped land. So it comes down to crop choice rice or marijuana (last sentence = a joke previous rambling is not) endnrw0614161626
Posted by Paul_D_North_Jr on Sunday, June 12, 2016 9:46 PM
Accurate/precise: Because this is something so easily accepted as the same, as a chem/physics teacher among many other things this was one that was so much fun to show the difference and get that concept across to the student. VERY important to know the difference. Endmrw0614161635
Overmod...witness some of the documented washouts on the Adirondack Scenic...
All of which have been repaired.
In the case of the Adirondack - adjacent properties are for the most part now owned by the state of NY.
The bigger problem with the Adirondack (and the corridor) is the environmental preservationist groups who will insist that the ROW assume the characteristics of the surrounding land, which in many cases is wilderness or primitive and may restrict use even by hikers.
As PennCentral was transitioned to Conrail, PennCntral kept a lot of the non rail real estate. And became American Financial. Did any of the non-Conrail track ROW's transition to PennCentral and thence to AF?
Electroliner 1935 As PennCentral was transitioned to Conrail, PennCntral kept a lot of the non rail real estate. And became American Financial. Did any of the non-Conrail track ROW's transition to PennCentral and thence to AF?
Electroliner 1935 As PennCentral was transitioned to Conrail, PennCentral kept a lot of the non rail real estate. And became American Financial. Did any of the non-Conrail track ROW's transition to PennCentral and thence to AF?
As PennCentral was transitioned to Conrail, PennCentral kept a lot of the non rail real estate. And became American Financial. Did any of the non-Conrail track ROW's transition to PennCentral and thence to AF?
CSSHEGEWISCH Electroliner 1935 As PennCentral was transitioned to Conrail, PennCntral kept a lot of the non rail real estate. And became American Financial. Did any of the non-Conrail track ROW's transition to PennCentral and thence to AF? Sounds like a situation that a good Philadelphia lawyermight be able to figure out (or not).
Not pertaining to PennCentral, but the Reading: Just today I was reviewing documents for a portion of the Schuylkill & Lehigh Branch (Railroad) of the former Reading Railroad. It was abandoned circa 1965, and the tracks removed from most of it; a portion where that didn't happen is now the ''landlocked' Wanamaker, Kempton & Southern RR (tourist line). I presume it still has good title to its property, as it's been operating there about 50 years now.
And a few miles to the southwest is the quaintly named unincorporated village of Virginville . On the southwest side of said 'burg is a long and narrow (60 ft. wide) strip of land that was conveyed from the Reading Company to the Reading R/W Company, Inc. I've not yet researched and reviewed the deeds back to 18?? which would govern what rights and 'color of title' (quality) held by the present owners. One aspect that jumped out at me was the deed for the recent (?) conveyance was executed in 1988, but not recorded until 2000 . . . Those knowledgeable in such matters (i.e., the race to the Recorder of Deeds Office vs. notice of the transaction as affecting the bona fide purchaser status, which varies by state) will appreciate the negative possibilities inherent in those facts.
tree68/ Larry mentioned above the parable of the blind men and the elephant vis-a-vis the comments of Falcon48 and Mudchicken. That's exactly what I thought. Since I have backgrounds in both the legal and surveying professions - in Pennsylvania*, too - I'm entitled to make such diplomatic observations to respect the wisdom, experience, and comments of each.
Overmod and Falcon48 outlined above (Tues., June 14, 2016 afternoon posts) a reversionary scenario which we discussed in another thread on the Adiriondack & Northern issue. It reiterates and reinforces my observation that the proponents of the abandonment better be careful what they wish for: they may get more of it than they bargained for and be left with nothing - but then unfortunately so will the rest of us.
I for one hope Falcon48 does not leave our forum. I will greatly miss his learned, comprehensive, thorough, and well-written contributions amnf legal-based insights of that kind.
*Falcon48 also mentioned above a wish for book: "That brings us to the question of real estate boundaries and titles. One could write a whole book on this subject." (Tues. June 14, 2016, 12:55 PM). At least one kinda-sorta such tome has been written:
Boundary Retracement Principles and Procedures for Pennsylvania, 5th Ed. by Knud E. Hermansen,Ph.D, PLS, PE, Esq. - see: http://www.psls.org/bookstore
Wish I'd thought of (and had the time) to do that . . .
- Paul North.
Mookie punch cards - very interesting!
punch cards - very interesting!
Really? Well then...
http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/ead/pdf/century0454.pdf
The amazing part here is that, as late as 1933, the only reference to the company's now-famous initialism is in tiny print at the bottom.
I actually started Googling "International Method of Punch Card Accounting" thinking it had to be a competitor carefully avoiding the use of a famous competitor's name and trademarks... I had not really recognized that CTR in the early twenties considered "International" the name of the 'business machines', and wasn't using "International Business Machines" as the product name -- here it is carrying over.
Thanks again for providing something I wouldn't have recognized on my own!
Wanswheel - this is for you: I tried to look up the meaning and all I got was your postings. So now I know who; I would like to know what is a wanswheel?
Mookie, my brother Jerry (1945-1990) said “wanswheel” when he wanted to ride his tricycle and my brother Joe (1940-2007) never let him forget it. They laughed about it for decades.
Mike
Jimmy, Michael, Jerry, Rosey, George, Joseph, Mom, Ginny, Dad and Tommy. Steve wasn't born yet. La Salle St. Station 1953.
Well, I would have never thought of that! I was just sure it was some really important part for a ship or maybe a power plant.
I love the picture. The hat your sister is wearing - I wore one at Easter for church for a couple of years. And the shoes on the 3 youngest - my Dad bought a pair of them. They were so different from his usual Thom McAn, Florsheims.
Thank you for sharing. Brought back many great memories.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.