--- In STMFC@..., "Dennis Storzek" <destorzek@...> wrote:
--- In STMFC@..., "Jack Burgess" jack@ wrote:
...It seems strange that the CRC would consider a case when "private" could/should be easily determined by land ownership. On the other hand, as you state, they
didn't
rule on tariffs being charged on the basis of private vs.
railroad-owner
trackage.
Jack Burgess www.yosemitevalleyrr.com
Jack,
If you reread the message carefully, you'll see that the two sidings in question were railroad owned, but were built to server private loading docks. I would assume the situation was the track was on the edge of railroad property (or in the street, built under the authority of the railroad's franchise) while the loading dock was on private property, the property line being between the tie ends and the dock. The WP wanted these ruled to be private, as their purpose was the same as a private siding; the SP claimed that they were part of their terminal facilities, as they could, and did, occasionally use them for other purposes.
The commission ruled for the SP, which was entirely consistent with the ownership of the track.
