Has anyone else heard about this story? The guy might prove to be unsuccessful and a bit of a nut but one cannot fault him for lack of effort. If he happens to succeed, even if it is pretty unlikely, it would have to go down as one of the best success stories in recent memory of a rail line returning to service.
So the man wants to run a railroad. But is buried in paperwork.
I dont know if the Blue Mount Quarry is capable of being used for stone as cited in the link article.
This is very interesting.
Edit
A search of satellite pictures of the quarry indicated that the place is very much functional.
A search of Baltimore County news indicated that the old Big Falls Concrete bridge built in 1933 will be replaced. Apparently it had a 15 ton rating and insufficient for full truckloads rated about 120 total trucks times two trips each per day at 20-30 tons a trip.
No sign of the NCRR (Northern Central Railroad) of Pennsy fame in that imagery on Mapquest.
Blue Mount Quarry Incorporated
17701 Big Falls Rd
White Hall, MD 21161
Phone: (410) 343-0500
Big Falls Bridge Closing
http://www.co.ba.md.us/News/releases/0829bigfalls.html
Big Falls Bridge Closing
http://www.backwaterangler.com/2007/09/07/big-falls-bridge-above-blue-mount-quarry-closing-for-repairs/
Now. The Railroad man article posted indicated that the one person wanted to run rail into that quarry and beat trucking rates to run stone.
My question is this. Where is that stone going aside from ballast for his new railroad? To a interchange point?
Further reading indicates he will like to interchange where the current Trolley Museum is near the Baltimore Howard Street Bridge. I think there needs to be another location for this interchange.
I suppose it’s no worse than telling stories about the Pacific Ocean and wanting to run a railroad from one coast to the other. But apparently this person has the MOW, a caboose, a spot of land some rail and possible wants a choo choo. That would make him a railroad wouldnt it?
You might want to sing a chorus of “To Dream The Impossible Dream.”
But I will follow this with interest. My daughter and her husband lived in that area for ten years and we visited often. The Trolley Museum uses part of the old M&Pa ROW on Falls Road. I didn’t even know about this old track although I did some serious railfanning up there.
Sounds like he’s trying to live the American Dream, start with nothing and make something out of it. His business plan may be a little light, but that’s not a crime. He’s trying to resurrect a piece of railroad, that’s not a crime, though you might think it is, based on his experiences.
Here is a link to the recent decision by the STB. Mr. Riffen lost on all counts on the Cokeysville Industrial Track. The bad precedent he is attempting to set is one of several reasons that the Class 1 RRs led by NS have filed in Ex Parte 673 before the STB which could seriously damage the ability to form new short lines. I can’t say I’m sorry he lost. I’d like to have a short line someday…
LC
It sounds like he was ruled against because he didn’t supply enough detail. The decision was without prejudice, so he can can refile, addressing the problems the STB had in more detail.
Well, what ever the outcome, I for one would like to comment on an article that was well researched and managed to explain the intricate ins and outs fairly clearly.
Of course, I am not well enough versed on the applicable laws or issues to know if the writer hosed it up, but the article was consistent and well presented.
Too bad all the RR stories (or other subjects, for that matter) aren’t written as well!
Based on the writing ability of most of the posters here, not too many other than yourself would recognize it. [(-D]
Chico
Not exactly.
Here’s what STB actually said:
“For these reasons, NCR’s notice of exemption will be rejected as incomplete. The rejection is without prejudice, but given the numerous questions that have been raised regarding this proposal, any new filing should be in the form of a petition for exemption, or a full application, to allow the level of scrutiny the Board would need to accord to the proposed acquisition in light of the questions and concerns that have been presented here.”
Although the rejection is without prejudice, the STB has substantially raised the bar by requiring a minimum of a Petition for Exemption on any return. This will convert the matter into a much more contested and full blown type of litigation and will allow the MTA and NS significantly greater abilities to oppose. Also, it will increase the expense of pursuing the action and time required significantly, even without counsel. If a full application is required, well suffice it to say that it will be orders of magnitude greater than the Petition route. The Board seems to be trying to send a signal to the man in the tin foil hat, whether he will receive it or not remains to be seen.
LC
[quote user=“Newyorkcentralfan”]
It sounds like he was ruled against because he didn’t supply enough detail. The decision was without prejudice, so he can can refile, addressing the problems the STB had in more detail.
[quote user=“Limitedclear”]
Here is a link to the recent decision by the STB. Mr. Riffen lost on all counts on the Cokeysville Industrial Track. The bad precedent he is attempting to set is one of several reasons that the Class 1 RRs led by NS have filed in Ex Parte 673 before the STB which could seriously damage the ability to form new short lines. I can’t say I’m sorry he lost. I’d like to have a short line someday…
LC