Steam & Excursion > White Pass 107 Update

Posted on Facebook on the Sedro-Woolley (Washington) Police page, the semi truck hauling the 107 is shown sitting in Sedro-Woolley with a broken heavy lowboy trailer! 

2020 is really not being kind to anyone, the D&SNG included!

It didn't get very far.  Trucker's problem.  No hurry, the wheel will not be ready for a while longer.  I hear the debris against the bridge is all clean up and gone.  So it is just the Judge's ruling that is preventing the railroad to rebuild the grade under the track.  That judge should be sued for interfering with interstate commerce. That Silverton Branch has never been removed from the status of interstate commerce per any Federal legal action.  There are still legal tariffs in effect and if there was actual traffic to go to Silverton, that judge is interfering with interstate commerce.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/09/20 14:34 by PlyWoody.

Here is the photo courtesy of the Sedro-Woolley (Washington) Police

---

So, what was/is the routing for this locomotive from Skagway to where it is today and then onward? 

 

It was barged to Bellingham. The strange thing is, it was spotted at a rest area on SB I-5 near Mt. Vernon almost a month ago. Where has it been since then?

Good grief, what does that locomotive weigh? 

Cheers, Dave
 

KM-ML4000 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was barged to Bellingham. The strange thing is,
> it was spotted at a rest area on SB I-5 near Mt.
> Vernon almost a month ago. Where has it been since
> then?

same unit?  2 are in transit?

PlyWoody Wrote:
------------------------------------------------
> That judge should be
> sued for interfering with interstate >commerce.

Please explain how a trip from Durango to Silverton, both of which are in Colorado, can be construed as interstate?

Posted from iPhone

pennsy3750 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PlyWoody Wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------
> > That judge should be
> > sued for interfering with interstate >commerce.
>
> Please explain how a trip from Durango to
> Silverton, both of which are in Colorado, can be
> construed as interstate?
>
> Posted from iPhone

Hey! Don't let stupid old geography get in the way of a good narritive!

(-:
 

The line was formerly the property of an interstate carrier, the issue is whether or not that classification changed when
the line was sold. It's obvious from out point on view but like the real estate ownership along the line, the legal entanglements
aren't always as obvious.

Out 

pennsy3750 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> PlyWoody Wrote:
> ------------------------------------------------
> > That judge should be
> > sued for interfering with interstate >commerce.
>
Let me try to explain it in a simple manner.  To start with you need to have the understanding that a common carrier railroad could never stop operation on a track, no matter how small, without the review and approval of the Interstate Commerce Commission.  This covered all the lines as a Judge on Oct 30, 1911 (SOU Versus USA) explained it “the Safety Appliance Act covered the interconnected highway of the national railway system” regardless of intrastate or interstate car movements.  It did not affect private railroads that carried no commerce or no interstate commerce. When the ICC was eliminated, these abandonment decisions were to be handled by the Surface Transportation Board (STB).

If you agree and understand that, then we continue to the next answer.

The Owner of the line “The Denver & Rio Grande Western Railway” filed an application at the ICC to abandon the entire 45-mile line known as the Silverton Branch from Durango to Silverton and the case outcome was ruled: NO.  The ICC ordered that the operation over the Silverton Branch had to continue to be operated.  The common carrier obligation continued.

I believe you understand when and how that happened so we move to the next step.
 
There has never been any new application to the ICC or to the Surface Transportation Board in application to abandon those common carrier obligations.  Regardless of the line being severed from interstate rail movement, those right and obligation will continue on the Silverton Branch until the STB rules to the effect that those obligation no longer exist.  There has to be a ruling by the Federal Agency to change historic status by law.

The new buyer and owner of the property are still covered by those obligations until they make application to the STB to abandon the common carrier obligation, they don’t just fade away.  The Interstate Commerce Act of 1893 says you cannot abandon a line without the ICC review.   

 
>
 

Does this legal status also apply to the Napa Valley Wine Train?

I would assume yes inasmuch as they have handled freight in the past and AFAIK no application to abandon common carrier status has been attempted.

Out 

PlyWoody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To start with you need to have the understanding
> that a common carrier railroad could never stop
> operation on a track, no matter how small, without
> the review and approval of the Interstate Commerce
> Commission. 

That's all well and good, but has anyone approached D&SNG recently about moving Interstate cargo?  A trainload of tourists going from Durango to Silverton and back is not interstate.

Please read my latest post where the ICC said that when they abandoned the 250 miles of narrow gauge, they exempted the Silverton Branch and it continues to have interstate through rates, some which used RG Motorway, and the ICC ordered them to continue to retain those through rates regardless that the rails were removed.  The D&SNGRR hownered those rates and said they would provide service the same as before. Harper ownership requires him to honor the same procedure.

Then the ICC added to the 1970 ruling that the common carrier interstate rates and status of the line would continue until the ICC made a ruling to abandon freight rates on over the Branch the status could not be changed without their ruling.  It is still a interstate common-carrier railroad.

PS Addtional to PRR3750
As information passenger are not commerce unless they are dead or a slave.  This was the famous decision by the US Supreme Count in the 1840s called the passenger decision.  Only railroad freight is commerce.  Thanks for your interest that I reviewed the ICC decisions as posted in my seperate entry. 

ation on a track, no matter how small,
> without
> > the review and approval of the Interstate
> Commerce
> > Commission. 
>
> That's all well and good, but has anyone
> approached D&SNG recently about moving Interstate
> cargo?  A trainload of tourists going from
> Durango to Silverton and back is not interstate.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/20 18:51 by PlyWoody.

PlyWoody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Please read my latest post where the ICC said that
> when they abandoned the 250 miles of narrow gauge,
> they exempted the Silverton Branch and it
> continues to have interstate through rates, some
> which used RG Motorway, and the ICC ordered them
> to continue to retain those through rates
> regardless that the rails were removed.  The
> D&SNGRR ownered those rates and said they would
> provide service the same as before.
> Harper ownership requires him to honor the same
> procedure.
>
> Then the ICC added to the 1979 ruling that the
> common carrier interstate rates and status of the
> line would continue until the ICC made a ruling to
> abandon freight rates on over the Branch the
> status could not be changed without their
> ruling.  It is still a interstate common-carrier
> railroad.
>
> PS Addtional to PRR3750
> As information passenger are not commerce unless
> they are dead or a slave.  This was the famous
> decision by the US Supreme Count in the 1840s
> called the passenger decision.  Only railroad
> freight is commerce.  Thanks for your interest
> that I reviewed the ICC decisions as posted in
> my seperate entry. 
>
> ation on a track, no matter how small,
> > without
> > > the review and approval of the Interstate
> > Commerce
> > > Commission. 
> >
> > That's all well and good, but has anyone
> > approached D&SNG recently about moving
> Interstate
> > cargo?  A trainload of tourists going from
> > Durango to Silverton and back is not interstate.

I'm no lawyer, but I get the distinct impression that you aren't one either.

D&S was changed in 2000 or 2001 from common carrier to unregulated tourist railroad as per NGDF.  

sixaxlecentury Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> D&S was changed in 2000 or 2001 from common
> carrier to unregulated tourist railroad as per
> NGDF. 

Fritz is wrong, rarely, but this time he is. 
That action that Fritz claimed to change the status is null and void because the ICC said they had jurisdiction and when they isolated the Silverton Branch they ordered it to be operated in the same manner and with the same interline rate in effect.  And then the ICC said the interstate status of the line would stay the same until there was an abandonment application which the ICC or now STB would rule on and change the status.  Federal trump any state action. Read the wording of the ICC in my other post.

12 axles under a 90ish ton loco!

This is obscene, are you roads/bridges constructed out of sloppy blancmange?

Come on guys, the USA is supposed to be a first world country, Do you have a third world highway network, or are you suffering from an overcautious highway bureaucracy?

This photo of a Sudanese Hitachi in India for rebuild, can't find the link but from https://www.irfca.org/index.html
4 axles under around 85 tonnes


 

---

---

The gator is quite a bit lighter lacking trucks and main generator.