General Topics > Archives (General)

Portland, Fryeburg and Western?

(1/1)

Ed Lecuyer:
MODERATORS NOTE:
Portland, Fryeburg and Western? has been converted from the pre-July 2008 WW&F Discussion Forum.
Some formatting may have been removed or modified from the original postings that appear quoted in this topic.
Information contained within this post may be superseded by more recent postings and conversations.
Steve Smith wrote:

--- Quote ---Interesting item in today's Portland paper.
http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=200572&ac=PHnws
Hold onto your B & S R stock boys, train travel from Washington DC to Bridgeton may rise again!
Oily
--- End quote ---

elecuyer replied:

--- Quote ---[Moderator's Note]
I fixed the URL in Steve's post to point to the first page of the article.
-Ed Lecuyer
--- End quote ---

Mike Fox replied:

--- Quote ---Too bad the section they just bought has no rails on it. Then owner Guilford scrapped it 3 or so years ago. But it makes it easier to rebuild.
Mike
--- End quote ---

petecosmob replied:

--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---Too bad the section they just bought has no rails on it. Then owner Guilford scrapped it 3 or so years ago. But it makes it easier to rebuild.
Mike
--- End quote ---
True enough,...
just the idea that PAR/Big G, (whatever,) finally let GO of it is pretty amazing!
Wow,... Mt Div restoraton, Calais branch, who knows what's next?
--- End quote ---

James Patten replied:

--- Quote ---I'm suspicious that Guilford/PAR are up to their old tricks, somehow, such as retaining some right to operate trains if certain criteria are met, or retaining ownership of a 10-foot section of ROW in the middle of what the State bought and not allowing any trains on it.
--- End quote ---

Stephen Hussar replied:

--- Quote ---
--- Quote ---...retaining ownership of a 10-foot section of ROW in the middle of what the State bought and not allowing any trains on it.
--- End quote ---
They did something similar in Hampton, NH...they kept a 1500' stretch, rendering the state's purchase of miles of ROW, useless. Millions, of yours and my tax dollars.
In my opinion, when it comes to land ownership of a rail corridor, that practice should be illegal. At the very least, the various states involved in these transactions should make Guilford/Pan Am keep paying taxes on the entire piece...because after all, by holding on to a short section they still maintain control of what happens to the entire line, and are the only ones benefitting from the deal!
--- End quote ---

Wayne Laepple replied:

--- Quote ---It's not only Guilford/Pan Am who does this. I've worked for several shortlines in the old Conrail territory, and in most cases, Conrail kept for itself some segment between the switch off the main line and the shortline's ownership. Often this was done to keep the shortline from establishing direct interchange with a carrier other than Conrail which was exercising trackage rights. Other times, it was to serve a customer or two near the junction point.
But there were occasions when it was just plain stubbornness.  On one line, we were stymied from getting into a yard to set out. Instead, we had to run around our cars about 2 miles from the junction and shove them down. Sometimes, when we got there, we found the Conrail yard job had already set out our cars, and we had to drag everything back to the runaround. Talk about aggravation!
--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index