Home Open Account Help 143 users online

Eastern Railroad Discussion > MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH


Date: 07/21/04 06:03
MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: extra315

This recent STB filing was the first I had heard of the "disagreement" between the Maumee & Western and CSX over the diamonds at Defiance. Kind of a large .pdf file, but a good read, especially when MAW talks about removing CSX's tracks.




Aaron
X315



Date: 07/21/04 08:58
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: jonnycando

extra315 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This recent STB filing was the first I had heard
> of the "disagreement" between the Maumee &
> Western and CSX over the diamonds at Defiance.
> Kind of a large .pdf file, but a good read,
> especially when MAW talks about removing CSX's
> tracks.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3t6z8
>
>
> Aaron
> X315

I should be very interested to see how this plays out!






Date: 07/21/04 09:02
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: [null]

So the MAW was technically there first?

I will say that MAW needs to have someone proofread their letters, because that's a pretty bad job of writing.

I can just see the MAW out there cutting up CSX's track and running a straight segment across CSX's lines. In fact, if this does happen, I want to be there, preferably with a video camera and taping the audio over the scanner as the dispatcher and the maintainers figure out what's happened.

Oh, and I'd like to have a spot of ground reserved to roll around on while I laugh my ass off.



Date: 07/21/04 09:26
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: ConrailTV-6

Disruption to interstate commerce on CSXT, regardless of MAW's legal argument, will win this for CSX. I'm afraid it is tough ta-ta's to a shortline whose traffic could easily be handled by trucks and a transload facility at CSX Defiance Yard. There is A LOT more to this story than is being told in the docket.



Date: 07/21/04 10:24
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: scraphauler

Didn't IORY do this to MAW at Liberty Center? Maybe MAW figured something out in their legal wrangling with RailAmerica that they can use to their advantage against CSX.



Date: 07/21/04 10:35
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: MSchwiebert

At Liberty Center, the MAW did not pay for their share of the interlocking repairs as called out by the agreeement set up back in 1927 by the original railroads involved (DT&I & Wabash), claiming that since they were not a party to the original agreement they were not bound by it. The I&O has since retired the interlocking (and presumably removed the diamond).



Date: 07/21/04 12:12
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: hallbf

MSchwiebert Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> At Liberty Center, the MAW did not pay for their
> share of the interlocking repairs as called out by
> the agreeement set up back in 1927 by the original
> railroads involved (DT&I & Wabash),
> claiming that since they were not a party to the
> original agreement they were not bound by it. The
> I&O has since retired the interlocking (and
> presumably removed the diamond).


That just bugs me then. To me it seemed the MAW wanted to hold CSX to the agreement between the B&O and N&W in the 1970s. It also seems crappy to me that CSX pulls out the diamonds and then does an agreement with the town to serve the industrial center.



Date: 07/21/04 12:17
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: ConrailTV-6

Again, there is a lot more to this story than what is presented in the MAW attorneys filing.


hallbf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That just bugs me then. To me it seemed the MAW
> wanted to hold CSX to the agreement between the
> B&O and N&W in the 1970s. It also seems
> crappy to me that CSX pulls out the diamonds and
> then does an agreement with the town to serve the
> industrial center.





Date: 07/21/04 12:25
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: Lakevue

Is the MAW an interstate railroad? Not that they have much of a foundation to stand on, or run trains on. The track speed for the MAW is about that of a holiday parade.

The part I like is all the state grant $ they get 'cause they are poor but they have all kind of $ for lawyers. Makes you wonder how many of the lawyers are also on the payroll of the MAW, officers, part owners or what ever.

Frankly If I were running CSX, I'd put the diamond back in and tell them that CSX will no longer interchange with the MAW. Haul it to Fort Wayne or con the IORY into an interchange. The lawyers fees will cost more than the traffic will pay for.

Just my 2ยข...

BTW I was in Defiance today. The CSX yard crew was kicking cars almost at MAW track speed. :-0

LV



Date: 07/21/04 14:55
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: KevinD

There isn't a single person in the industry, except for those at MAW, who doesn't acknowledge that diamonds are inherently more dangerous and costly to maintain when compared to switches. For this little shortline to expect diamonds to remain in place just so 3 miles of unused track isn't cut off from the world is really absurd. A jump-on, jump-off arrangement would be the most prudent thing to do, IF the traffic that warranted it was real rather than hypothetical.



Date: 07/21/04 15:58
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: hallbf

From reading the STB documents, the MAW did propose having their track west of the CSX connected to the eastbound CSX main. They wanted CSX to pay for this connection (plus a set of crossovers between the #1 and #2 mains). Of course CSX said no which is what I would have said as well. This would be the ideal arrangement but the most costly. It would be interesting to see the whole story on all this. These STB documents have got to be just the tip of the iceberg so to speak.

-Brian



Date: 07/21/04 18:33
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: farmer

Like TV-6 said thier is more to this story than can be typed here. I remember quite well when the manager of the MAW pulled up and saw his diamonds were gone. Can you say thief in the night.



Date: 07/21/04 22:37
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: BaltoJoey

I have a question.
Could CSX have bought this track prior to the M & W buying it? In retrospect it would have been the prudent thing to do. Considering this is their race track between Pittsburgh and Chicago. Even if they did not really want to operate it, they could have leased it to a short line operator afterwards.



Date: 07/22/04 02:52
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: farmer

Yes CSX could have bought the MAW. Thier is also a chance of that still happening.



Date: 07/22/04 15:29
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: CSX_CO

hallbf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> From reading the STB documents, the MAW did
> propose having their track west of the CSX
> connected to the eastbound CSX main. They wanted
> CSX to pay for this connection (plus a set of
> crossovers between the #1 and #2 mains). Of
> course CSX said no which is what I would have said
> as well. This would be the ideal arrangement but
> the most costly. It would be interesting to see
> the whole story on all this. These STB documents
> have got to be just the tip of the iceberg so to
> speak.

There are a set of crossovers at Defiance, but they are only for moves in one direction (i.e no universal crossovers). There is a set at FC and a set at W. Defiance. The MAW could do this move, but they'd have to hash out the details with CSX.

Incidenatlly, CSX controls the diamond there, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were there first. The B&O was pretty late getting this far 'west', so its possible the Wabash was first to Defiance.

Practice Safe CSX

Practice Safe CSX





Date: 07/22/04 18:04
Re: MAW vs. CSX in Defiance, OH
Author: farmer

Yes. The Wabash was there first. A little backup move and one new switch off of track two would be much better than putting the diamonds back in.



[ Share Thread on Facebook ] [ Search ] [ Start a New Thread ] [ Back to Thread List ] [ <Newer ] [ Older> ] 
Page created in 0.06 seconds