Confusion on Abandonment

[wagnew0923]

If a railroad abandons a rail line, regardless of when and where it is. What allows them to reclaim that line for use. What do they have to do before the abandonment and before reactivation.

[jimnorthwood]

Most abandonment petitions, as well as the rare petitions to restore service, mergers, line sales, etc fall under the authority of the Surface Transportation Board http://www.stb.dot.gov/stb/index.html

[Sppengelly]

Rail corridors that have been removed from service are tricky to understand. I am a student at Michigan Tech's Rail Program and have been doing a lot of research on abandoned rail corridors. I understand this pretty well but, like I said, it is tricky.

Out of service: sometimes go through the STB and often precedes abandonment. Examples include the Alabaster and Skeel Spur Branches of the LSRC.

Now, there is a difference between outright abandonment and rail banked corridors. When a railroad files to abandon a rail corridor, there is a period of time (I believe 180 days) after the STB approves the abandonment for negotiations to proceed with trail management groups. Examples in Michigan include MDOT, the DNR and Rails-to-Trails. Under this process of rail banking, the linear rail corridor is kept intact for future reactivation and is used usually as an interim trail (usually transfer to the trail manager though donation, sale or long term lease such as $1 per year for 99years or something like that). If rail banked, the corridor is not technically abandoned.

Sadly, outright abandonments still occur because 1) the railroads do not want to negotiation with the interim trail managers, 2) do not want to allow other railroads the option of reactivating the corridors, or 3) would rather sell the property to adjacent property owners.

Also note: any railroad lines o/s before 1983/84 are not eligible for rail banking reactivation.

However, sometime non-rail banked lines are returned to service. For example, the new Mineral Range Railroad that is under construction as we speak was not rail banked by the LS&I when abandoned in 2004. Luckily, the DNR was willing to reach a deal where the recreational trail would be relocated.

Lastly, an example of a rail banked corridor that was not returned to service when there was a push was the Chassell to Lake Linden corridor. In 1997, the Wisconsin Central was going to purchase the Arnheim to Chassell line and rebuild from Chassell to Lake Linden. However, push from the Houghton city officials overpowered the railroad and the track was not rebuilt. The issue I have with this is that I don't know how the City of Houghton stopped the effort since they have no governing power over Federally rail banked lines. This is stuff I am currently researching. (The E&LS I believe actually won the bit to build and operate the but, of course, the deal fell through regardless. I do not know who was issuing the bid either).

Hope this helps.

-Sean

[GreatLakesRailfan]

However, push from the Houghton city officials overpowered the railroad and the track was not rebuilt. The issue I have with this is that I don't know how the City of Houghton stopped the effort since they have no governing power over Federally rail banked lines. This is stuff I am currently researching. (The E&LS I believe actually won the bit to build and operate the but, of course, the deal fell through regardless. I do not know who was issuing the bid either).

Could the city of Houghton reached out to an influential member of (US) Congress or some other high ranking official, who could have applied pressure to the STB or other regulator? It's a little off topic, but there have been a few projects in the Port Huron area that were supposed to be completed with federal money that were (supposedly) cancelled at the request of certain Detroit-area politicians who were politically connected at the national level. In the Houghton case, it wouldn't necessarily have had to have been an official connection either, possibly someone's relative or even well-connected, local residents who opposed the deal were able to convince the feds to kill the project.

[wagnew0923]

Also it could have been the city pressured the customer into not doing business with the Railroad.

So then the Bay City Branch from Detroit to Mackinaw which now stops in Utica could not be reactivated since it was abandoned in 78, even though it is a rail trail. However, the Clinton River Trail aka Romeo Sub could be reactivated since it was abandoned in the late 90's.

See I thought the FRA and other Federal agencies had control over where the rails go. So the Feds could override the state, local, and individual objections if a railroad wants to lay track over an abandoned line which they have the right to do. I thought that that was the reason for the Rails to Trails law was in part so the line would not be encroached upon and then 50 years later when everyone forgot it was there, the railroad comes in and bulldozes through a subdivision that encroached to closely.

[Sppengelly]

The Bay City branch would not be eligible because the entire linear property may not be continuous. Groups like Rail-to-Trails who manage rail banked trails are required to give up the corridor for rail. However, if they manage non rail banked lines, they are not required to give up the land to the railroad unless a deal is worked out (Ex. Mineral Range).

[Racer]

Good luck to anyone who would ever want the Bay City Branch re-laid north of where Rochester Junction used to be. I went by there recently and except for the trail of the old Romeo Sub, the area is so developed that it's hard to believe Penn Central/ Conrail went through there.

Here is my question about rails-to-trails that always pondered me: Since the railroad abandons a line and goes through the process of being rail-banked, is the railroad that abandoned it given the right to rebuild or is any company able to bid to replace the track and operate it? An example is the Romeo Sub, it was technically abandoned by CN so wouldn't CN be the company that would relay the track and if it was for another operator, it would be CN's issue to handle the change of operators?

Also, I'm curious about the 1983/84 timeline for rail banking and how it effects rail lines that were removed in segments before/ after 1983/84.

For example, the Michigan Air-Line began it's slow death in 1974 when Jackson to Lakeland was ripped by the GTW. It wasn't until 1984 that the South Lyon/ Lakeland to Wixom AND Orchard Lake to Keego Harbor section was ripped as well (Therefore rail banked and is currently a bike trail).

The MAL that was removed from Wixom to West Bloomfield last year was obviously rail banked and so was the Keego Harbor to Pontiac section that CN abandoned in the early 2000s, but what if there was a need to be reactivated in the future to Jackson? Could it with the section removed from 1974 or only to Lakeland from the 1984 removal? Also, since GTW abandoned it, isn't the entire MAL technically property of CN? I've always been curious about this even though none of us during our lifetime will ever again see a train along Sylvan Lake.

[jimnorthwood]

The then Houghon city manager was a vocal opponent to the restoration of rail service through his city. Who or what if anyone or anything he had in terms of support for his position is not known to me.

[Standard Railfan]

The then Houghon city manager was a vocal opponent to the restoration of rail service through his city. Who or what if anyone or anything he had in terms of support for his position is not known to me.

The are a number of property owners along the ROW between Houghton and Chassel that were vehemently opposed to the rail line being re-established. Many had "made improvements" to the real property and treated the ROW as a part of their land. Of course, the tree-huggers were opposed as they seem to be to anything that results in economic growth other than what they see as a direct benefit to themselves.

[wagnew0923]

See this is the big part of my confusion. If the land is to be held in trust for the railroad to re use if needed, then should that not mean that anyone who encroaches on that land is tresspassing. In other words they do so at there own risk and cost and if someone says that under all this cement was a banked rail line and we are using it...to bad. As much as I would love to argue for the Bay City line (it is near and dear to me) lets look at the Romeo sub. Parking lots have been built along the ROW and so have some buildings. So here is the question, if there is a signed agreement between the state and the railroad that says here make this a trail but we get it back if we need it. Then that agreement should override any city or private property owner. They should be able to take it to court and win, regardless of what the political argument is. So if Downtown Rochester gets ripped up because they forgot about the agreement or some 7-11 gets a train 50 feet from its door, oh well they should have known better. Maybe Houghton was not worth the bad press or the court battle but I get the feeling that if they wanted to go to war over it, there would be a railroad in Houghton regardless of what the locals want.

[jimnorthwood]

Some property owners between Houghton and Chassell have also been vehemently opposed to the snowmobile trail that occupies the right of way. My recollection is that chains were strung across the trail, etc. A lengthy court battle followed, and I believe the judge ruled against the adjacent property owners and ordered that the trail was to remain open. There seemed to be a great deal of confusion regarding which state entity actually owned that right of way, the DNR or MDOT, which I believe also contributed to the problem.

Speaking of confusion, on the Hancock side of the bridge, the outfit awarded the contract to lift one of the two lines actually removed the wrong one. I believe the Lake Linden line was supposed to have been left in place, and the line to Calumet removed, but the opposite was done. Or maybe it was the other way around. That was so a lot of years ago, and maybe somebody else on this board will recollect the details better than I have.

I don't think you'll ever see rail service to or through Houghton again. If a new shipper such as a mine were to require service, production would be trucked to Baraga and then transloaded to rail.

[Sppengelly]

Rail service implementation depends in the volume. Look at MR: the benefits of direct rail for the new mine were better than trainload, even though construction is an added cost.

It depends on the volume. I have heard a great deal about DA Glass shipping out ridiculously large volumes (sorry, can can't say how much at the time). The Michigan Tech Geological and Mining programs are also doing a lot of work with mining development in the Keweenaw, primary because of the new technologies the really "clean out" the usable material from the ores.

There is still a lot I am learning about rail banking and I hope I will be able to explain it better in the near future if someone reminds me or brings up the topic again.

[SW]

Recently the Climax Mine in Leadville, CO came back online after several years of activity. Before this latest period of inactivity, It was connected to the UP Tennessee Pass line by an isolated BN spur. A section of track connecting these 2 lines was torn out and turned into a paved bike trail, with the understanding that the rail would be put back in should the mine become active again. This was per the crew of the Leadville, Colorado & Southern, which took over the ex-BN line.

The mine became active again, but the trail remains in place and the mine is shipping by truck, apparently due to new mining processes which produce a higher grade of ore, resulting in less to ship out to be processed (of course, it doesn't help that the Tennessee Pass line remains inactive, and either 65 or 100 miles of it would have to be reactivated, depending on which end).
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=25062#p235446

All this to say renewed mining activity may not necessarily result in restored rail service. But I would LOVE to see trains running in the Keweenaw again!

[Raildudes dad]

It depends on the volume. I have heard a great deal about DA Glass shipping out ridiculously large volumes (sorry, can can't say how much at the time).

Since there is not a local source of plate glass, tell me how this makes economic sense. Truck plate glass from central WI, (several Cardinal Glass factories there) to Houghton, then truck treated glass back south past the factories to the end users. This plant should\d be in central WI IMHO.

I seriously doubt plate glass will be transported by rail.

[Sppengelly]

I'm not saying that DA Glass is the only place that would ship by rail nor that is should be the only place looked at for reactivated service. However, there interest from this company to ship by rail and are willing to use it, whether it is direct service or transloading.

Rail reactivation is a trend that I gets put into two categories by "rail fan": you are either imagining, with little support, a reactivated line or you are pessimistic to any reactivated service. Being an organizer for the Michigan Rail Conference this August, was able to talk to several industries that want reactivated rail service for certain bypasses or direct access. They know the cost but see the potential.

Rail activation is a trend that will be lasting for a long time. Being a student and employee in this field, I am excited to see where the future of rail will take this state and our nation.

[wagnew0923]

Which rail lines were discussed at the conference

[Sppengelly]

The only public announcement of interest was Brown City to Port Huron by the the grain elevator companies in the area and the MABA president.


Additionally, I encourage EVERYONE on this board/thread to listen to the Panel Discussion from the MI Rail Conference. The link is below. Since MTU organized the conference with MDOT, we recorded all the presentations and posted them on our High Speed Rail Learning Center. To review the presentation, simply register for the web page and the "class" title Michigan Rail Conference (FREE).

http://rail-learning.mtu.edu

Panel Discussion focused on Michigan railroads, primarily freight and short line railroads, feeder routes, agriculture, short line intermodal, rail reactivation, etc. Speakers include: Jim Byrum – Michigan Agri-Business Association; Bruce Southerland – Michigan Agricultural Commodities; Dale Yates – Regional Manager of Site Design for CSX Transportation; John Rickoff – President/CEO at Lake State Railway; David Close – Dept. of Supply Chain Management at MSU, Railway Management Program; Libby Ogard – Prime Focus LLC.

Other presentations include the Northern Michigan Rural Rail Studies, Development of Transload Facilities, Michigan Passenger rail (various topics).

[wagnew0923]

So what is the process when a railroad wants to reclaim a rail line that is no longer in use?

[TSB]

When an abandonment is going to be approved, the STB will usually allow a period for "financial assistance offers."
This normally means the involved state. The state then decides if they want to rail-bank, allow an interim
trail or some other status. In that way the state will be able, considering political pressures, to determine
the use of the "land" in future periods. There are usually several "periods." The state then retains the ability
to reinstate rail service thru a private company with which they reach an agreement. The state may instead
determine that they will donate the land to a trail, adjacent landowners, government entities or other.

If the land ultimately lands in the hands of a private party (adjacent landowner or an incorporated trail "club")
a railroad at some future time may exercise their right of eminent domain (yes, they do have it) and
build a new rail line.

Twists and turns like paths and snakes.

[wagnew0923]

So it never really leaves the control of the rail road through eminent domain?