RJ
"Something hidden, Go and find it. Go and look behind the ranges, Something lost behind the ranges. Lost and waiting for you. Go." The Explorers - Rudyard Kipling
http://sweetwater-photography.com/
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH If I'm reading his take on this issue correctly, it appears that FM believes that no railroad right-of-way should be taken up, EVER, against the possibility that it might be needed in the future. Of course, if such a line remains in place with no traffic, maintenance would be minimal to non-existent and rebuilding if and when a future need comes up would be quite expensive. Of course, such a situation would be in violation of the Fifth Amendment prohibition against deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Paul
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal LC, In a way you made my point. Railroads are not subject to local and state building regulations, ergo the hypocrasy of giving localities the "right" to force the preservation of an otherwise nondescript brick structure built in 1910, but not the right for force preservation of a rail line built in the 1880's. Given the total impact on local economies, it would make more sense to preserve the rail line than the old brick building. The Sevier County oil find is a case in point. There was a rail line running down from Thistle to Richfield that would be very useful right now for moving unit trains of oil to Salt Lake refineries, but because of the federal pre-emption regarding railroad regulation and FEMA funds distribution, that line is gone and now they're talking about building a new line east from the UP's LA to Salt Lake line, the cost of which is much more than if they had just been able to finance the reconstruction of D&RGW's Thistle branch after the slide. So now all the oil is moving by truck, and if they do get that line built, it may come too late to serve as an oil shuttle, because by then they will have built a pipeline. And to top it off, by accessing off of UP's LA-SL line rather than via the old D&RGW line, the potential Sevier rail shippers will be subject to UP rate monopolization rather than having UP and BNSF compete for rates via Thistle. Whether the State of Utah was "offered" the Thistle branch via sale is moot, because: 1. Most such offers go through each state's DOT (read: Highway Depts.), and those guys don't want to fool around with railroad politics, they'd rather sling the asphalt around. Such sales should be offered through the States' Commerce departments, but nonetheless........ 2. Unless such a sale can afford the online shippers better rates and services, there is no justification for a state to take over rail lines such as the State of Washington deal. All that resulted in was Watco getting a sweet deal at the expense of the State's taxpayers, while the online shippers did not gain anything other than still having a railroad nearby. They are still subject to rail rate monopolization depending on which former Class I owner their plant/elevator lies next to, even though the former UP and BNSF lines interconnect. That being said, check your local government regs, I bet you find some building codes therein.....
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Look at your local regs. Most local governments have a say in how abandonded property is disposed. For example, if the owners of the Space Needle in Seattle suddenly converted to the sect of environmentalism and subsequenty decided that the structure was a blight on the environment and needed to be torn down, they would have a hard time getting the necessary permits to do so. The governments of Seattle, King County, and the State of Washington simply would not allow them to do so. Governments at all levels do have an absolute say on how improved property is disposed. They need to take that oversight right and start applying it to railroads. Mudchicken and LC are simply reactive antagonists who once again pull shortsighted retorts out of their anal brain holes.
QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken Somebody turn up "Big Rock Candy Mountain" now please.....fade to black.
QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken LC - FM likes to play fast and loose with the facts or he ignores them altogether if it does not suit his agenda/ view of the world here. His reality is selective - nothing new. Tried to avoid stepping into the last paragraph, but you jumped in feet first. Have fun!! Somebody turn up "Big Rock Candy Mountain" now please.....fade to black.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal When a property owner abandons a brick business building, he is not allowed to take the bricks with him. The local government condemns the whole lot intact, and either auctions it off to other bidders, refurbishes the building with public funds, or razes it themselves. This idea of letting railroads scavenge the remains of railroads and then just walking away is detrimental to the national economy, and is inconsistent with standard infrastructure abandonment procedures.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,600131526,00.html One interesting blurb from the article states that they are trucking the 1500 barrels per day to Salt Lake area refineries. Since one barrel equals 42 gallons, that's only 63,000 gallons per day or 441,000 gallons per week, not enough to justify a shuttle train just yet. They would need roughly 5 times their current production to justify a weekly oil can move by rail. By the same token, if daily production doesn't exceed 10,000 barrels a day, that may not be enough to justify the construction of an oil pipeline into the area. Relatively small production quantities may favor unit train transport over pipeline transport. Of course, the question is mute if the proposed Sevier rail link is not built. Does anyone know the current status of that project? The line is being proposed to move coal out of the region, but of course it wouldn't hurt to move some oil out as well. It is unfortunate that the D&RGW chose to abandon rather than rebuild the Thistle branch which once ran into this area. This is one of those sticking points with me regarding current railroad abandonment regulations. If a railroad no longer wants to operate a rail line, then that property should immediately be transferred to the State with everything intact, rather than letting the railroad sell the rails and ties for scrap. When a property owner abandons a brick business building, he is not allowed to take the bricks with him. The local government condems the whole lot intact, and either auctions it off to other bidders, refurbishes the building with public funds, or razes it themselves. This idea of letting railroads scavenge the remains of railroads and then just walking away is detrimental to the national economy, and is inconsistent with standard infrastructure abandonment procedures.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.