Author Topic: NKP Trail Updates  (Read 24216 times)

Wema

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 474
  • A Rail History Nut
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #260 on: June 21, 2019, 09:37:47 AM »
Looks like bids are going out soon for removal of rails...

https://twitter.com/larryinfishers/status/1138753697582858240?s=21

Looks like bids due June 28 and work must start on July 29: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/local/hamilton-county/2019/06/21/nickel-plate-rr-track-removal-very-heavy-job/1445699001/

Scrap: Need any more rail or ties for any of your companies?

monon_rr

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 388
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #261 on: June 21, 2019, 01:31:08 PM »
The irony was on Fox 59 this morning (they did their morning show live in Fishers) - they highlighted the history of the town being the railroad and it's importance to modern day Fishers.

BourdonBoy

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
  • A conductor of both kinds.
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #262 on: June 24, 2019, 02:25:47 PM »
Not a huge deal, but I just saw that U.S. Rail's motion for protective order was granted by the STB last Monday 6/17/2019.
It also states that U.S. Rail's motion for leave to file a rebuttal "will be addressed in a later decision."

https://www.stb.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/WEBUNID/8FA59D842ACAF7368525841C004FC5E8?OpenDocument

47075                                      SERVICE DATE - JUNE 17, 2019
DO

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

DECISION

Docket No. FD 36137

CITY OF FISHERS, CITY OF NOBLESVILLE, & HAMILTON COUNTY, IND. — PETITION FOR PARTIAL REVOCATION OF EXEMPTION

Docket No AB 290 (Sub-No. 117X)[1]

NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY—ABANDONMENT EXEMPTION—BETWEEN INDIANAPOLIS & TIPTON IN MARION, HAMILTON, & TIPTON COUNTIES, IND.


MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Decided:  June 14, 2019

On August 1, 2017, the cities of Fishers, Ind. (Fishers), and Noblesville, Ind. (Noblesville), and Hamilton County, Ind. (collectively, the Owners), jointly filed a petition in Docket No. FD 36137 to partially revoke their exempt status on 37.56 miles of rail line between milepost I‑2.13 at Indianapolis, Ind., and milepost I‑39.69 at Tipton, Ind. (the Line), in order to pursue interim trail use for the Line.  On May 31, 2018, the Board issued a decision finding that the Owners could pursue railbanking of the Line without revocation of their exemption authority.  City of Fishers—Pet. for Partial Revocation of Exemption, FD 36137 (STB served May 31, 2018).  Thereafter, the Board received requests for issuance of notices of interim trail use or abandonment (NITUs) for portions of the Line, one each from Fishers, Noblesville, and the City of Indianapolis, Ind. (Indianapolis), in Docket No. AB 290 (Sub‑No. 117X).  In a decision served December 21, 2018, the Board, among other things, issued the three requested NITUs.  City of Fishers—Pet. for Partial Revocation of Exemption, FD 36137 et al. (STB served Dec. 21, 2018).

On March 29, 2019, US Rail Holdings, LLC (US Rail), filed a motion to vacate the NITUs and to reactivate rail service and a motion for a preliminary injunction under 49 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(4), to which the Owners replied.  On May 10, 2019, US Rail filed a motion for leave to file a rebuttal, and, as relevant here, a motion for a protective order as well as public and redacted versions of its rebuttal.  On May 17, 2019, the Owners filed a motion to reject and to strike, urging the Board to deny the motions and strike the rebuttal from the record.[2]  US Rail replied to the Owners’ motion on May 22, 2019.

This decision addresses only the motion for a protective order.  US Rail’s motion for leave to file a rebuttal will be addressed in a later decision.

US Rail states that the redacted information in its rebuttal is “highly confidential and commercially sensitive, relating to [US Rail’s] financing.”  (US Rail Mot. for Protective Order 1.)  US Rail further states that a protective order is “necessary to protect this highly confidential information from public disclosure.”  (Id.)  The Owners argue that the Board should deny the motion for protective order “to avoid tacitly approving the introduction of [US Rail’s]” rebuttal information, and “to avoid burdening the Owners with the task of formulating a substantive response to an unsanctioned Rebuttal.”  (Owners Motion to Reject & to Strike 3, May 17, 2019.)

The motion conforms with the Board’s rules at 49 C.F.R. § 1104.14 governing protective orders to maintain the confidentiality of materials submitted to the Board, and the Owners do not dispute US Rail’s contention that the information submitted is highly confidential and commercially sensitive.  Issuance of the protective order will ensure that confidential information will be used solely for this proceeding and not for other purposes.  Accordingly, the motion for a protective order will be granted and the documents will be made subject to the Protective Order and the Undertakings, as modified in the Appendix to this decision.


It is ordered:

1.  The motion for a protective order is granted, and the Protective Order and Undertaking in the Appendix to this decision are adopted.

2.  The unredacted documents submitted in Docket Nos. FD 36137 and AB 290 (Sub‑No. 117X) will be kept under seal by the Board and not placed in the public docket or otherwise disclosed to the public, unless the attached Undertaking is executed and the terms of the Protective Order are followed, or unless otherwise ordered by the Board.

3.  This decision is effective on its service date.

 By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Office of Proceedings.


NS7112

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 425
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #263 on: June 24, 2019, 05:12:30 PM »
Not a huge deal, but I just saw that U.S. Rail's motion for protective order was granted by the STB last Monday 6/17/2019.
It also states that U.S. Rail's motion for leave to file a rebuttal "will be addressed in a later decision."

https://www.stb.gov/Decisions/readingroom.nsf/WEBUNID/8FA59D842ACAF7368525841C004FC5E8?OpenDocument

47075                                      SERVICE DATE - JUNE 17, 2019
DO

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

DECISION

Docket No. FD 36137

CITY OF FISHERS, CITY OF NOBLESVILLE, & HAMILTON COUNTY, IND. — PETITION FOR PARTIAL REVOCATION OF EXEMPTION

Docket No AB 290 (Sub-No. 117X)[1]

NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY—ABANDONMENT EXEMPTION—BETWEEN INDIANAPOLIS & TIPTON IN MARION, HAMILTON, & TIPTON COUNTIES, IND.


MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Decided:  June 14, 2019

On August 1, 2017, the cities of Fishers, Ind. (Fishers), and Noblesville, Ind. (Noblesville), and Hamilton County, Ind. (collectively, the Owners), jointly filed a petition in Docket No. FD 36137 to partially revoke their exempt status on 37.56 miles of rail line between milepost I‑2.13 at Indianapolis, Ind., and milepost I‑39.69 at Tipton, Ind. (the Line), in order to pursue interim trail use for the Line.  On May 31, 2018, the Board issued a decision finding that the Owners could pursue railbanking of the Line without revocation of their exemption authority.  City of Fishers—Pet. for Partial Revocation of Exemption, FD 36137 (STB served May 31, 2018).  Thereafter, the Board received requests for issuance of notices of interim trail use or abandonment (NITUs) for portions of the Line, one each from Fishers, Noblesville, and the City of Indianapolis, Ind. (Indianapolis), in Docket No. AB 290 (Sub‑No. 117X).  In a decision served December 21, 2018, the Board, among other things, issued the three requested NITUs.  City of Fishers—Pet. for Partial Revocation of Exemption, FD 36137 et al. (STB served Dec. 21, 2018).

On March 29, 2019, US Rail Holdings, LLC (US Rail), filed a motion to vacate the NITUs and to reactivate rail service and a motion for a preliminary injunction under 49 U.S.C. § 1321(b)(4), to which the Owners replied.  On May 10, 2019, US Rail filed a motion for leave to file a rebuttal, and, as relevant here, a motion for a protective order as well as public and redacted versions of its rebuttal.  On May 17, 2019, the Owners filed a motion to reject and to strike, urging the Board to deny the motions and strike the rebuttal from the record.[2]  US Rail replied to the Owners’ motion on May 22, 2019.

This decision addresses only the motion for a protective order.  US Rail’s motion for leave to file a rebuttal will be addressed in a later decision.

US Rail states that the redacted information in its rebuttal is “highly confidential and commercially sensitive, relating to [US Rail’s] financing.”  (US Rail Mot. for Protective Order 1.)  US Rail further states that a protective order is “necessary to protect this highly confidential information from public disclosure.”  (Id.)  The Owners argue that the Board should deny the motion for protective order “to avoid tacitly approving the introduction of [US Rail’s]” rebuttal information, and “to avoid burdening the Owners with the task of formulating a substantive response to an unsanctioned Rebuttal.”  (Owners Motion to Reject & to Strike 3, May 17, 2019.)

The motion conforms with the Board’s rules at 49 C.F.R. § 1104.14 governing protective orders to maintain the confidentiality of materials submitted to the Board, and the Owners do not dispute US Rail’s contention that the information submitted is highly confidential and commercially sensitive.  Issuance of the protective order will ensure that confidential information will be used solely for this proceeding and not for other purposes.  Accordingly, the motion for a protective order will be granted and the documents will be made subject to the Protective Order and the Undertakings, as modified in the Appendix to this decision.


It is ordered:

1.  The motion for a protective order is granted, and the Protective Order and Undertaking in the Appendix to this decision are adopted.

2.  The unredacted documents submitted in Docket Nos. FD 36137 and AB 290 (Sub‑No. 117X) will be kept under seal by the Board and not placed in the public docket or otherwise disclosed to the public, unless the attached Undertaking is executed and the terms of the Protective Order are followed, or unless otherwise ordered by the Board.

3.  This decision is effective on its service date.

 By the Board, Allison C. Davis, Director, Office of Proceedings.

Soooooo.....can someone basically translate this?  Does this hold up the City of Fishers now from removing the rails in the near future?

BourdonBoy

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
  • A conductor of both kinds.
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #264 on: June 24, 2019, 05:39:04 PM »
In a nutshell, it's just saying that the STB has agreed to keep confidential certain facts about U.S. Rail's finances that would otherwise be revealed in public versions of the supporting paperwork they have filed as part of their attempt to purchase and operate this portion of the IMC line.

This decision has nothing to do with preventing Fishers/Noblesville from removing track and ties.  However, my understanding is that the "later decision" mentioned in this document will, in fact, pertain to that.
Like many others, though, I'm not holding my breath.  I expect that they will unfortunately be able to proceed with their trail plans.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2019, 05:49:32 PM by BourdonBoy »

monon_rr

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 388
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #265 on: June 24, 2019, 10:15:47 PM »
In a nutshell, it's just saying that the STB has agreed to keep confidential certain facts about U.S. Rail's finances that would otherwise be revealed in public versions of the supporting paperwork they have filed as part of their attempt to purchase and operate this portion of the IMC line.

This decision has nothing to do with preventing Fishers/Noblesville from removing track and ties.  However, my understanding is that the "later decision" mentioned in this document will, in fact, pertain to that.
Like many others, though, I'm not holding my breath.  I expect that they will unfortunately be able to proceed with their trail plans.

Fishers is either confident in the decision or is trying to pull them up before the decision comes down. I don't see US Rail winning this.

CSX_CO

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 8066
  • Ok...lets get our stories straight......
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #266 on: June 24, 2019, 11:21:59 PM »
Fishers is either confident in the decision or is trying to pull them up before the decision comes down. I don't see US Rail winning this.

This has been so back and forth, has trail use been granted?  If so, my understanding is they can go ahead with pulling rails.  It was officially abandoned back in the 90’s, even though service continued.

US Rail was wanting an injunction to prevent rails from being lifted, I don’t know if that was granted, or a decision made?  If it wasn’t, then my understanding is they can pull the rails.

If they’re starting to pull rails, I’m guessing Fishers has their ducks in a row on this.  Their counsel has been pretty much on top of things during this.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2019, 02:11:45 AM by CSX_CO »

Wema

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 474
  • A Rail History Nut
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #267 on: June 28, 2019, 02:05:57 PM »

Lt._Dave

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 433
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #268 on: June 28, 2019, 08:03:44 PM »
I think that is someone warming up, stage left, I hear.

Also, where is ITM Fan(guest) these days?
« Last Edit: June 28, 2019, 08:24:08 PM by Lt._Dave »

AlcoGuy

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 294
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #269 on: July 16, 2019, 12:51:53 PM »
An interesting reply by Fishers over on the STB sight showed up today, however I can never get the link to post here.

BourdonBoy

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
  • A conductor of both kinds.
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #270 on: July 17, 2019, 12:02:03 AM »

crblue

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 385
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #271 on: July 18, 2019, 12:05:50 PM »
I did smile a bit at the closing statement in the letter from the owners' attorney:

"The Owners do not intend to respond to each and every such filing, but note here that all such opposition efforts are designed for one unwarranted, legally-unsupported purpose--to force the Owners to retain unused railroad track that has no meaningful, remunerative freight shipment prospects for the hoped-for purpose of resuming passenger excursion trains at some point in the future."

Folks can't seem to get it through their heads that the line has been legally abandoned through the STB and that the current owners of the line plan to do with the property as they see fit.

trainmaster53

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 7991
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #272 on: July 18, 2019, 12:37:26 PM »
What about the Railroad putting in a Bridge back over 10th Street and Connecting to CSX. That can be done and has been brought up as a Possible way to connect to CSX. As far as NS for a Connection, who knows.


BourdonBoy

  • President
  • *****
  • Posts: 1339
  • A conductor of both kinds.

Wema

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 474
  • A Rail History Nut
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #275 on: July 30, 2019, 10:14:56 PM »
Interesting bids, about half seem like they would charge for the track removal vs pay HHPA...

IU_Tower

  • Mogul
  • *****
  • Posts: 2477
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #276 on: July 31, 2019, 02:44:53 AM »
What about the Railroad putting in a Bridge back over 10th Street and Connecting to CSX. That can be done and has been brought up as a Possible way to connect to CSX. As far as NS for a Connection, who knows.

Keep beating that dead horse, don't ya?

trainmaster53

  • Tycoon
  • ******
  • Posts: 7991
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #277 on: July 31, 2019, 02:36:13 PM »
David George, Isn't what he is doing a Conflict Of Interest? Wow. On the Fishers Town Council and on the Houser Heritage Board as well.  That Whole Deal up there Sounds Fishy to me. FRA Needs to stop Him "DEAD IN HIS TRACKS". Corruption in Big Ways.

NS7112

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 425
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #278 on: July 31, 2019, 10:46:32 PM »
David George, Isn't what he is doing a Conflict Of Interest? Wow. On the Fishers Town Council and on the Houser Heritage Board as well.  That Whole Deal up there Sounds Fishy to me. FRA Needs to stop Him "DEAD IN HIS TRACKS". Corruption in Big Ways.

Not really sure what you mean by this statement. Yes it does seem fishy but I’m sure that’s already been looked at under a microscope. He’s not profiting off anything. He doesn’t own a business and isn’t using his power to twist the govnt into turning him a profit. I guess how you see it is that...the conflict of interest is him trying to make something good for the city and everyone to use??!!  That makes it a crime to the FRA?  Seriously if ever in the future there was enough demand for rail traffic to return to this corridor it will still be there and the govt or another railroad could put the rails back in but in this day and age with railroads spinning off one line after another I don’t see it happening in my lifetime

AlcoGuy

  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 294
Re: NKP Trail Updates
« Reply #279 on: August 01, 2019, 08:24:40 AM »
New info over on the STB sight.