there's a few flaws with the logic in this tale. For a judge to make a ruling, there would have to be an active dispute presented to the court that made the question relevant, likely a disagreement with the FRA assesement of the matter. Since they didn't want to ask the FRA directly, it's unlikely there was a dispute that could be presented to the court.
Generally, regulatory agencies are responsible for interpretation of their regulations, and courts only get involved when there appear to be incorrect interpretations made, or conflicting laws that make consistent interpretation questionable.
It's entirely possible they solicited a judge's "off-bench" opinion, but that's only his opinion and not binding.
The fear, of course, is of actually TALKING to the regulator and asking the question outright and getting an answer that isn't the one the organization wanted. There's an awful lot of activity in a lot of hobbies where the clubs are ruled by whispers in general meetings about "the rules" when nobody involved has ever actually talked to the purported regulator in question. Certainly there are a tremendous amount of railroad preservation stories grounded in a fear of directly asking the needed questions of the agency involved.
SRK
OC MP62 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe someone here connected with the Galloping
> Goose Historical Society of Dolores can fill us in
> on the details of the following report I heard.
> In the historical society early years they planned
> to build track down some streets in Dolores and
> then over the original RGS Dolores River bridge,
> (saved in storage) and over the former right of
> way to Millwood and on to Mancos. There was
> question of the street running in Dolores as
> possibly being under FRA jurisdiction so they had
> a Colorado Judge review the FRA tree of
> Jurisdiction under the term ‘Rapid Transit”.
> The judge looked into the case and found the term
> Rapid Transit was only described as “Usually
> electrically powered, and usually in a urban
> area”. The judge later added that the
> “urban” was not further defined, and the
> usually “electrically” powered could mean that
> any motive power could be used. It could even be
> steam, or the Goose. It would be just like both
> Cog RRs that both had steam and diesel power.
>
> The report I was told was the Judge decided that
> the intent was to build a railroad from Dolores to
> Mancos was a trolley line-“Rapid Transit” as
> defined by the exemption from FRA jurisdiction and
> they could proceed building the line. Val Trusend
> then received miles of rail removed from a
> government base on the Front Range and stacked the
> rails up north of Dolores on his ranch.
>
> To make the story even more interesting was the
> fact that the GGHSofD being a “Rapid Transit”
> would even be considered for a proportional
> distribution of the Federal Rapid Transit monies
> that were being received to build the Denver to
> the airport heavy rail rapid transit lines. That
> would be big money spread apart in Colorado to
> benefit the state evenly.
>
> Their plans for the line was given up when land
> between Glencoe and Millwood and at Millwood would
> have to have access through some Indian land
> ownership which they refused to give up. The
> GGHSofD was also happy with the occasional
> transport of the Goose #5 to near by railroads and
> realized that would be a lot of track to maintain
> through Lost Canyon and there was not enough
> passenger to use it as a real Rapid transit.
>
> Words I receive on the details said that the Judge
> said other lines in Colorado, like CC & Victor,
> were also rapid transit lines as having no
> commerce, along with others. If it walks like a
> duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck.
>
> I have been unable to learn the name and date of
> that court ruling and would still be interested to
> its legal value compared to statements above where
> FRA claim access over nearly everything on rails
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/20/2019 10:27AM by SR_Krause.
