Hello STMFC List-

I've been chewing on a bit of research for some time and I'm coming
out of long time lurker status for guidance.

I've been studying Sacramento's `R' Street corridor for a few years
now. In the transition era, the `R' Street corridor was a
significant part of Sacramento's switching district and had both the
Southern Pacific and Western Pacific interchanging and serving
businesses here. There were even guest appearances by the Sacramento
Northern from time to time.

My research has been pretty tightly focused, but it has led me down
some interesting paths. Your definition of 'interesting' may vary
<g>.

One of the `finds' is a 1936-1937 California Railroad Commission
(CRC) case that deals specifically with `R' Street. After reading
and rereading the testimony (and supplemental materials), the case
has taught me a great deal about reciprocal switching agreements
among other things. Mostly, that I completely misunderstood what a
reciprocal switching agreement was <g>.

CRC case 4066 dealt with a WP complaint that the SP refused to switch
cars from the interchange at 4th & `R' to two sidings on `R' Street
under a cheap switching tariff ($2.70 a car- which even in the `30s
wasn't enough to pay for the switch) as part of the reciprocal
switching agreement. SP defended itself by claiming these sidings
were team tracks and not private sidings and, as part of the
railroad's own terminal facilities, ineligible for the tariff. SP
contended they were team tracks because the railroad owned the tracks
and the sidings did see a variety of consignees pick up deliveries
there. WP wanted the definition of `private siding' or `team track'
to follow more from the track's actual usage and thought that at
least on one of the sidings its use was primarly as a private
delivery track.

The sidings were both adjacent (right up to the loading doors) to
businesses on `R'. On one of them, nearly all the shipments went to
the business next to the siding (Valley Wholesale Grocery), but SP
was able to prove that at least a few shipments were picked up by
other concerns. One of the exhibits in the case file is an 18 month
record of every car that was delivered to this track. Out of 170
cars, about four were for consignees other than Valley Wholesale.

The other siding was originally built circa 1910 as a private
delivery track for a storage company; however, this original business
later abandoned their siding. At that point the siding's ownership
fell back to SP, and it was designated as a public team track. There
was ample evidence that this second siding was used as a team track,
the adjacent business that moved in later only rarely taking delivery
from this track.

The commission decided that the WP did not prove either of the tracks
was `private' but they did not spell out what definition of `private'
or `team' tracks they used as a benchmark.

I've been broadening my research in an attempt to put this case in
context, but does the list think this `team track that looks like a
private siding' situation was common? From what I've seen, it seems
like it was.

Did the definition of `team track' later (at least by 1950, my
planned modeling date) get locked down legally so that use rather
than ownership was more of a determining factor for tariff
considerations? I do plan on tracking down the 1950 tariff to see if
a team track definition is spelled out in the tariff itself – it
certainly wasn't in 1936.

I'm curious to see if anyone knows of any similar cases elsewhere in
the country.

Thanks for any comments, and certainly suggestions for books and
other research materials/leads that will help me have a better
understanding of this.

Tom Campbell
Elk Grove CA

I'm sure someone will have more complete information regarding private spurs
vs. team tracks, but in our town (Newark, CA) the SP engineering and
maintenance departments certainly upheld that distinction until the SP was
bought out by the UP. Newark has a large switching yard and a lot of
industrial sidings which were very active in the 70s and 80s. I worked for
the city of Newark and we quickly came to realize that private sidings were
not maintained by the railroad in any way. Most were on private property but
we had some private grade crossings which, if maintained at all, were
maintained by private railroad contractors. So, it would seem that the
railroad kept an accurate inventory of private vs. railroad-owned trackage.
The industries on some of the sidings changed ownership over time and even
types of industries occasionally changed. However, that shouldn't change the
fact that the siding was private. (As a side note, the land on one side of
the yard was originally all owned by SP and SP would not sell parcels to a
new owner unless they needed and agreed to rail service.) Regarding the
abandonment of a siding, remember that the siding is on private property. If
the business is abandoned, the railroad can't just take over the siding. In
this case, the business probably executed a quit claim on the land (and thus
the siding), transferring the land to the railroad. 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

In simple terms, a team track was a railroad owned spur that non rail served
customers could ship or receive carload traffic. A private spur was just
that private. Only the owner of that property could ship or receive carload
traffic. If the owner of this private spur ceased to ship or receive rail
traffic, it was not uncommon for the railroad to remove the switch serving
the private spur as that was railroad owned.



All switches connecting to the railroad were owned by the serving railroad
to the clear point. Beyond the clear point it was the property owner's
responsibility to pay for the installation and maintenance of the track.



Paul C. Koehler



_____

From: STMFC@... [mailto:STMFC@...] On Behalf Of Jack
Burgess
Sent: Saturday, December 09, 2006 8:02 AM
To: STMFC@...
Subject: RE: [STMFC] Team tracks that look like private sidings?



I'm sure someone will have more complete information regarding private spurs
vs. team tracks, but in our town (Newark, CA) the SP engineering and
maintenance departments certainly upheld that distinction until the SP was
bought out by the UP. Newark has a large switching yard and a lot of
industrial sidings which were very active in the 70s and 80s. I worked for
the city of Newark and we quickly came to realize that private sidings were
not maintained by the railroad in any way. Most were on private property but
we had some private grade crossings which, if maintained at all, were
maintained by private railroad contractors. So, it would seem that the
railroad kept an accurate inventory of private vs. railroad-owned trackage.
The industries on some of the sidings changed ownership over time and even
types of industries occasionally changed. However, that shouldn't change the
fact that the siding was private. (As a side note, the land on one side of
the yard was originally all owned by SP and SP would not sell parcels to a
new owner unless they needed and agreed to rail service.) Regarding the
abandonment of a siding, remember that the siding is on private property. If
the business is abandoned, the railroad can't just take over the siding. In
this case, the business probably executed a quit claim on the land (and thus
the siding), transferring the land to the railroad. 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

--- 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.

Dennis

--- 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.

Dennis

--- In STMFC@..., "Paul" <buygone@...> wrote:

In simple terms, a team track was a railroad owned spur that non

rail served

customers could ship or receive carload traffic. A private spur was

just

that private. Only the owner of that property could ship or receive

carload

traffic. If the owner of this private spur ceased to ship or

receive rail

traffic, it was not uncommon for the railroad to remove the switch

serving

the private spur as that was railroad owned.

But that doesn't address Tom's question, which appears to boil down
to, "Is any railroad owned siding a team track?" I would have to say…
it depends.

Obviously, one could not consign a car to the local roundhouse and
expect to pick the load up there, so somewhere in the tarrifs there
must be a list of tracks that are specifically set aside for this use.
Likewise, there are many railroad owned tracks that serve private
businesses that can't be team tracks simply because the only access is
on private property. However, if the railroad provided driveway access
on their own property, I'm sure they could designate the portion of a
track still on their property as a "public team track" if they chose to..

To respond to Tom's question about railroad owned track that looked
like a private siding, this was pretty common in the Midwest. Here it
was quite common for the railroad to construct a track along one edge
of their station grounds and encourage small industry to locate along
it. In Elburn, on the former C&NW, we have a railroad owned track that
once served a farm service fertilizer shed and three oil jobbers, one
of which was located across a public street and had a pipe buried
under that street to reach his unloading stand along the track.

The C&NW also maintained a public team track, and a public stock pen
on the station grounds. At one point they leased the stock pens to the
local packing house, at which point I would imagine they were no
longer available for public use. And, more recently, the railroad
owned siding along the fertilizer shed on the other side of the
mainline temporarily became (with a lot of improvement) the Union
Pacific's eastbound mainline while the new trackage for the Metra
terminal was under construction. As that work finished up, the track
was shifted away from the still existing (but no longer active)
fertilizer warehouse. For a while, it was quite a close shave between
the building and passing mainline trains.

To sum up for Tom, a track isn't a team track unless the railroad says
it is a team track, and somewhere there will be a list.

Dennis

Dennis wrote:

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.

You're right...I missed that important point.

Jack Burgess
www.yosemitevalleyrr.com

--- 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.

Dennis

ugh.. sorry about this post... the 'Rich-Text Editor' ate my original content... I'll try again
later.

Tom Campbell
Elk Grove CA

I'm not sure about the legal issues, but the Pennsylvania Railroad in
its CT-1000 "List of Stations and Sidings" books - identified each
siding by the names of the companies on those sidings; sidings
labeled "Public Carload Delivery" or "Public Delivery Track"; and
combined, e.g. "Public Carload Delivery and E____ H_____" or "Storage
and Public Delivery". That's an interesting question whether there
were legal technicalities regarding what these tracks were called or
what kind of agreements governed their "ownership" or servicing.

Lou Whiteley
Lawrenceville, NJ

Ok... trying again...

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Just to clear up a couple of things.

There were certainly industry sidings on 'R' Street that wandered off onto private property;
the two tracks in the CRC case were definitely on city streets. There are examples of
sidings that even though they are situated on R Street itself, were considered `private
industrial spurs' by virtue of business paying a lease for their use. A few sidings, as in the
two in this case, were considered team tracks and businesses that happened to lie
adjacent could take delivery from these tracks, but they could not demand preferential
treatment.

The original franchise for SP's line down `R' Street traced its lineage to the Sacramento
Valley Railroad in the mid 19th century. From the ICC valuation reports of 'R' Street it
looks like individual sidings each had their own franchises- for many of the sidings the
`carrier' retained the franchise but with a lease agreement the spur could be considered
'private'.

To help explain how a siding could be at one time considered `private' but later revert to
railroad control, I'll quote the testimony regarding that second siding from the case. This
is F. C. Nelson, assistant general freight agent for SP:

"The track adjacent to the J.L. Russill plant is a portion of a spur originally built for the
Capitol and Sacramento Van & Storage Company under the so-called old industrial basis,
whereunder the industry paid for the perishable material, such as ties and grading, and
the railroad paid the remainder. Eventually, the track having been abandoned by the
original owner, being maintained by the Southern Pacific, we came into complete
ownership of the track."

Neither land nor track ownership was ever a question in this case. It really turned on
whether the CRC would follow WP's suggestion (drawn from an earlier ICC ruling) that a
track's definition, such as the distinction between private and team tracks, should depend
on usage.

Looking at the decision for the umpteenth time it appears that the CRC was willing to
consider it. They decided that the WP was unable to prove `exclusive or preferential use'
for either siding. The commission noted that "Although the Grocery Company handles the
majority of the shipments from and to one of these tracks it should be observed that such
a condition may normally arise from the amount of business done by the Grocery
Company and the convenient location of its plant with respect to said track."

This is the spur that saw 166 of 170 carloads go to the Valley Wholesale Grocery over an
18 month period. I'd hazard a guess that the Western Pacific felt this qualified as
'preferential' usage. Many of those 166 carloads were shipments that Valley Wholesale
Grocery shared with other grocery businesses. They used the spur as their own team track
in that the other grocery businesses would often unload from the car directly to their
trucks without the goods going into the warehouse.

From everything I've seen, I agree with Dennis. Team tracks are only team tracks when the
railroad designates them as such- and there is always a list somewhere. One of the
exhibits in the case is a letter from a few years before the case from the SP to the WP
listing out which industries are adjacent to team tracks.

This was a depression era case. I wonder if the SP designated this track as a team track
partially to deny the business (by denying the cheap tariff in the reciprocal switching
agreement) of the Wholesale Grocery to the WP in an era when business was tight.

Tom Campbell
Elk Grove CA

Paul C. Koehler:

All switches connecting to the railroad were owned by the
serving railroad
to the clear point.

True, AFAIK.

Beyond the clear point it was the property owner's
responsibility to pay for the installation and maintenance of
the track.

That's the problem with absolute statements. What you say, Paul, is >usually< true, but not

always<. I know that there are examples, based on work orders in a couple of archives, where the

railroad performed everything at their own expense to lay the siding and maintain it, because of the
volume of business anticipated out of the business. Cases in point include spurs off the ERIE in
Youngstown to steel plants and steel fabricators.

SGL