Eastern Railroad Discussion > CSX creating private crossing stink

And you all thought that their licensing process for websites using the CSX logo was bad. Sounds like you website people have it pretty good by comparison.

This has a fairly large impact on the Appalachia region on account of the number of residents who use private crossings to access their homes back in the hills and hollars. The article states this is a 22-state program, but is this creating a controversy elsewhere?

The land had owners before the railroad was built, the railroad gets built when the railroad builders agree to maintain the private crossings, then along comes CSX trying to get out of the original agreements made by its predecessor companies by shifting both present and future cost back to the land owners, along with passing on the legal burden-of-proof to the landowners as well. It certainly sounds like this is heading for legislative intervention at some point. No doubt some beancounter calculated that saving one accident lawsuit by closing one crossing more than offsets being on the government\'s shitlist and the loss of goodwill from landowners.



CSX seeking fees to keep railroad crossings open

CSX Transportation has sent letters to some Virginia landowners saying private railroad crossings on or near their property can remain open - for a price.

Documents obtained Monday state that the company is requiring landowners to apply for private road crossing agreements in some instances that would require the owner to pay an annual license fee.

The fee, which is listed as $150, would be paid along with an annualized replacement cost or charge, which would be based upon one-tenth of the estimated cost of the crossing installation, the letter states.

Danny Davidson received an almost identical letter by certified mail last week with the same stipulations.

"I have no intentions of signing anything or sending them any money. It\'s more or less extortion, if you ask me,\'\' said Davidson, who owns a farm in the Waycross community that is divided by a CSX railway.

The fees and other related charges stem from a campaign launched by CSX last month to identify all private rail crossing in 22 states.

Some Scott County residents have contacted county government leaders and state legislators seeking assistance because if the crossings are closed, which CSX has indicated could happen, the residents would be landlocked.

Other requirements in the company\'s private road crossing agreement include:

* Maintenance of the crossings\' approaches, drainage and sight clearance by the property owner.

* A requirement for the owner to purchase liability insurance to cover the crossing for the life of the agreement with CSX.

* A future crossing signalization clause, requiring automatic traffic control devices "at the entire expense of applicant," including maintenance, if the need develops or if required by a governmental agency or by CSX.

The letter to Davidson and others concludes by stating failure to respond will be considered "a negative response" and "handling for barricading and removal of the crossing will proceed." CSX representative Gary Cease, who was interviewed last week, could not be reached for comment Monday. Cease said last week that the crossing closures were being done for a number of reasons, including defraying maintenance costs and closing "unused" crossings.

Scott County Attorney Dean Foster called CSX\'s method of identifying private crossings and the original deeds to those plots "a process turned on its head by CSX." Foster has written a formal request to the railroad seeking a compromise in the crossing controversy.

"Most of these right of ways were obtained by the predecessor railroad to CSX in the county in the 1880s and early 1900s, and in some of the deeds I have read from that time the railroad obligates itself to erect necessary crossings and even cattle guards,\'\' says Foster in his letter to CSX property service official Windle Bowman.

"However, rather than do its own research on its individual right of ways with its division of legal counsel or locally retained attorneys, CSX has turned the process on its head by shifting the burden to individual property owners to do the legal research and carry the proof under threat of closing the crossing," the letter states.

Foster continues by questioning whether this was a wise legal process for CSX to use.

"I suggest that it is perceived as an unnecessary strong-armed tactic and certainly does not help community and public relations." "I would appreciate it if (Windle Bowman) or someone with CSX would contact me at your earliest convenience to determine if we might find a better way to resolve this issue,\'\' Foster concludes in his letter.

Foster said Monday that the Virginia State Corporation Commission has requested more information on the situation regarding the proposed closure moves by CSX.

"I suggest that it is perceived as an unnecessary strong-armed tactic and certainly does not help community and public relations."

Since when have these losers cared about that at all?

If there was ever a definition of a sunset industry, this is it. And this is just the sort of issue to bring the government roaring in to tear them a new bodily orifice.

Big business, prepare to meet Big Government. See those nice big teeth?

Good grief. Sounds like the kind of idea that comes from a late Friday night bar session.

David

While its not surprising that new private crossings would be governed by agreements such as this (requiring insurance, passing costs on to the landowner), the issue seems to have surfaced on the Clinchfield now because of the upcoming maintenance blitz scheduled for the end of this month. The railroad is essentially giving the landowners less than 30 days to run to courthouses everywhere in an effort to prove their stance that the railroad is responsible for maintenance costs, or else they risk the crossings being ripped out during the blitz. The railroad appears to be using the short timing and confusion to its advnatage as well. I don\'t think the landowners and government officials understand the immediacy of the issue.

You have got to be kidding me!!!! They want these people to pay for crossing maintenance that CSX has probably never done in the first place. There are public and private grade crossings down here on the Fitz. Sub that have turned into 6" deep mudholes due to sub-roadbed saturation and lack of maintenance.

rpc21

Imagine if the landowners could prove this violated of the agreement under which the ROW was granted? Such agreement would then be void...

"It\'s my land, and y\'all aren\'t crossing it any more!"

Amazed at the gall of CSX legal, I remain:
B-Dubya

Lawyers will try anything. CSX has a legal department. They have to do something for their paycheck.

roughrider wrote:

> The land had owners before the railroad was built, the
> railroad gets built when the railroad builders agree to
> maintain the private crossings, then along comes CSX trying to
> get out of the original agreements made by its predecessor
> companies by shifting both present and future cost back to the
> land owners, along with passing on the legal burden-of-proof to
> the landowners as well.



In some cases, the railroad is actually built on easements from the private landowners i.e. it ain\'t CSX\'s land to begin with. This juicy little factoid bobbed up to the surface a couple of years ago during the fiber-optic cable boom....the phone companies were acquiring easements from the railroads who turned out not to have the power to grant them....and were gambling on the individual whose property was violated not noticing.

BobE

I agree, it looks to me like CSX is counting on the gullibility of the letters\' recipients.

But I\'ll bet Gary Sease is either pissed or amused at how that newspaper misspelled his name. Probably being called "Gary Sease and Desist" now by his colleagues....

The RRneeds more lawyers so they can lay off people that actually do work!!!

BobE wrote:

> In some cases, the railroad is actually built on easements
> from the private landowners i.e. it ain\'t CSX\'s land to begin
> with. This juicy little factoid bobbed up to the surface a
> couple of years ago during the fiber-optic cable boom....the
> phone companies were acquiring easements from the railroads who
> turned out not to have the power to grant them....and were
> gambling on the individual whose property was violated not
> noticing.

I wonder if the easement can be revoked? That would make for an interesting situation. Imagine Farmer John owning 2000 feet of track through his field, and negotiating trackage rights.... If he charged a buck a train in some areas, the government wouldn\'t have to subsidize farming.

I wonder if CSX is depending on a "Snow-Bush" axis to get away with a fast one?

And they all talk about being nice, corporate citizens of the community. Just another example of corporate America breaking it off in the working man. Apparently, they\'re not practing safe CSX.

...I think CSX realizes that they are not going to get away with this. However such an extreme action will get the attention of legislators, and thus impetus to deal with increasing crossing liabilities. The end goal is probably tort reform related to potential grade crossing lawsuits, and perhaps prodding out some state money to build redirected roads allowing for the closing of many of these crossings.

Am not agreeing with these tactics, but do think it will be somewhat effective in the long run, and the \'big pockets ignore true responsibility lawsuits\' are way out of control. Why is it bad when CSX negotiates through such threats, but not bad when governments do the exact same thing by threating cuts to the most vital or desired services(instead of ineffecient and pork projects) when voters/residents try and impose some fiscal restraints in tough times?

Thinking some more, I wonder how many private crossings have been built *without* railroad okay. Picture guy buying a parcel of land, plopping down a trailer, then building his own crossing by moving around some ballast by hand....but, shoot, even then he would have had to get the trailer across the tracks somehow and I\'m sure you don\'t just pull a double-wide up to a hand-built crossing, look both ways and hit the gas...hmmmmmmmm....

BobE

roughrider wrote:

> No doubt
> some beancounter calculated that saving one accident lawsuit by
> closing one crossing more than offsets being on the
> government\'s xxxxxxxx and the loss of goodwill from landowners.

What "Goodwill"?
If the landowners were properly maintaining the crossings, then there would be a "goodwill" issue.

It seems that the landowners expect CSX to do all the work at company expense. Perhaps they are correct, CSX is simply asking for proof of responsibility. Apparently there is no simple answer to the issue.

I realize that many records may be a century old and lost in antiquity on both sides, and the issue may indeed require governmental intervention

Unprotected "private" crossings have been a real danger and liability for years.

Yes, it makes sense for CSX to limit corporate expense and liability to the lowest possible exposure. Any one of us would do the same in our personal financial affairs.

Here\'s afew tidbits from our little railroad.
Line was out of service since 1969. trees were growing.We bought the line in 1992. We start to rehab the line and run into farmers crossing everywhere. Here are a few of the stories.
1. Farmers cow crossing. rotted timber lots of mud. we had wide gauge. cows were romming freely.
Eletric fence across the tracks. We checked our deeds and he did in fact have the right. Worked it out with him where he put up eletric gates, we fixed the track and used some old road crossing timmbers and put in a decent crossing.
now for the dumb ones.
1. Man planted lawn over entire right of way put in his own crossings and then crabed when we started to work. He\'s come around somewhat even though he still has out buildings on our property.
2. man across the street claims we chased the rats out of his dumbster that is guess where, on our property of course.
3. Another farmer that did not have leagal right to have a crossing got mad when we tore it out for track repair. Then said we owed it to him to put it back in.To bad so sad. We offer to do it a super price but he still said we owed it to him. NOT!!
4. The man that tore the right of way down to ground level and says he has rights as a squater! And we are supposed to build him one back. NOT!!
5. The town ship that tore one out(without permission from the last owner)And when we went to them about putting it back said we\'re broke and can\'t do anything about! 30,000.00 later we restore and now the people are complaining about having to slow down for the hump.

This is in the first 5 and half miles. we still have 14 miles to go.
Basically alot of these people are idiots! If our deed doesn\'t show you having a right to a crossing it\'s coming out and you\'re going to pay to put one back

JAChooChoo wrote:


> It seems that the landowners expect CSX to do all the work at
> company expense.

Thats what the original deed called for. Its what the railroad builders agreed to in order for the landowner to approve the go-ahead of railroad construction. Why shouldn\'t the landowners expect the work to be done at company expense?

If the deed was settled over 100 years ago and the railroad has maintained its obligations up til now, why do the landowners have to essentially carry the burden of proof now? Screw that. That\'s what the railroad\'s legal and property departments get paid to investigate, uncover, and maintain.


There probably is an alternate agenda, like tort reform, as Diddle E. suggests. But I fail to understand how anyone "wins" negotiations like this. How do you "win" by publicly making yourself appear to be a bigger anti-social ass than the guy on the other side of the arguement (in this case, the tort lawyers)? Is that the best possible tactic rail execs have to use? Have they sunk that far? Whats next? Railroad Exec jokes replacing lawyer jokes at dinner parties?

Crap like this just burns bridges, and is a good example of why the DM&E is having such a hard time expanding its line into the PRB today. Given today\'s practices on both sides of the aisle, its hard to imagine how any new track gets built nowadays.

The farmer in the story lives in Waycross, in Scott County. Waycross is just over the VA/TN border from Frisco, where the railroads recently (1985) used somebodys farmland to build a new connector between the Clinchfield and the Southern as part of the trackage rights swap.

When the farmers help the railroads out, how dumb can it be for the railroads turn around and use the farmers as human shields in their pursuit of reform in totally unrelated matters? Good luck getting them to cooperate next time.

This is what happens when the distant legal staff in Jax operate in a vacuum, totaly removed from local recent history.

This reminds me of a story told to me years ago by a Penn Central conductor. Whether or not it is true is anyones guess. He said that PC tried a similar move with a farmer down on the Popes Creek Secondary, succeeding in getting the crossing removed. The farmer made alternate arrangements to access his field. One day PC had a derailment and a loaded 100 ton coal hopper was setting in his field. PC had employees and equipment in the field to remove the car. They were quickly informed that they were trespassing and ordered by the local law to cease and desist. Reportedly, the coal hopper set there for years because if he couldn\'t use the crossing, they couldn\'t use his field. Sometimes it pays to try to get along with your neighbors.