E-mails regarding the Dakota Southern

Note: These E-mails are a rough compilation of the messages I've saved from several listservs. All are archived at yahoogroups.com. Over time, I plan on searching the archives and making this a more complete survey. Groups containing messages of interest include SoDakRailfans, MILW, and MNRail. MNRail was originally hosted by its owners ISP, but was archived on two yahoogroups: mnrail and MNRailYA. Since then, the main group has migrated over to Yahoo and operates as MNRailGroup.

Motor Car Trip Report --Kadoka, SD west

David Voeltz
Fri, Aug 16 1996
misc.transport.rail.americas
Motorcar Trip Report

There is never a time like the present to do the things that a person tends to put off until later. This was very true for me. It was my intent to someday ride the rails of the former Milwaukee Road line from Chamberlain, SD to Rapid City. But it was never a high priority since I assumed the track would always be there waiting for me. However, that is no longer true for a portion of this track from Kadoka to Caputa, SD.

Back in the late 1970's, the Milwaukee Road had many miles of track in South Dakota. During its bankruptcy proceedings, all the trackage in South Dakota was slated for abandonment. Fortunately, the State Legislature stepped in and purchased what they identified at the time to be the vital rail links for the state.

While most of these lines have proved their worth, two of the lines have seen little use and were identified by a recent governor's task force for salvaging. These are the Napa Junction to Platte line in eastern South Dakota, and the Kadoka to Rapid City line in western South Dakota The Napa Line to Platte Line was identified as a potential grain feeder line, but after a couple attempts to garnish sufficient business to operate the line, it was rail banked a few years ago. It only sees use by motorcar operators.

The Kadoka to Rapid City Line (a segment of Milwaukee Road's main east/west route through the state) was purchased to assure an east/west route across the state. The then C&NW line across the state was facing potential abandonment. The Milwaukee Road line also has easier grades than the C&NW line across the state.

The state fully anticipated the abandonment of the C&NWand even went as far to say this line could not be profitable. They had not planned to fight abandonment proceeding, nor planned to purchase the line. However, the DM&E stepped in, purchased this line and is making a go of it. Subsequent abandonment of the Cowboy Line in Nebraska further aided this line.

As a result, the need for a second east west rail line wasn't justifiable. While the former CMStP&PP line is still in use from Kadoka east to Mitchell, SD, the Kadoka west to Rapid City line has seen no use (other than motorcars) since the late 70's. In fact, some of the track materials have started to disappear. Thus the task force's recommendation to salvage rail banked lines prior to the theft of more materials. Bids have been awarded and salvaging is imminent.

Part of the Kadoka west line passes through the scenic Badlands of South Dakota. Since it was my desire to see (at least a portion) of this line before it is ripped up, I contacted a motorcar owner who lives in Kadoka and arranged a trip over a portion of this line westerly. A member of our local rail enthusiast club as well as my two sons also accompanied us.

Saturday morning, August 10th was damp and cloudy. As we headed west toward Kadoka, the rain began to fall. By the time we arrived 90 minutes later however, the rain quit and the skies turned partly cloudy.

Our host, Don, was waiting for us at a local restaurant. He informed us that another motorcar owner would be joining us. We finally caught up with him and a fellow enthusiast trackside. It turns out that both of these individuals are railroad employees. One is an engineer and the other a conductor for a large well known railroad.

Don used his Ford tractor to pull his motorcar from his garage to the track, a distance of less than 100 yards. The other car was already railed and ready for departure. After scrounging for date nails on the ties (most dated 35 and 39), the cars were fired up and we were off.

We got a few hundred yards west before encountering our first of many farm fences. After passing through the gate, it was smooth rolling on the sod ballasted track until we got to State Highway 73. It had been paved over. The first car climbed the pavement and shot across, but missed the rail and had to be rerailed. Don, however, shot his car across the pavement and right back onto the track like a pro.

We continued westerly across the plains, stopping occasionally to closer inspect the track, some of the bridges, or other points of interest. The remains of a dugout homestead from a turn of the century pioneer were also located track side.

More gates, crossings, and bent and mud covered rails later, we were in the beautiful Badlands. I never realized just how scenic it is here. The rail passengers who passed through this area were treated to beautiful multi-colored bluffs. Even now it would seem that a tourist line would be very popular. But with salvage operations beginning within a month or so, it is too late to consider that option.

We continued west until reaching a point where the mud covered the rails. It being a long section covered with gooey mud and none of us wanting to spend hours digging out the rail, we decided to turn back. But before leaving, we took a group picture courtesy of my time elapse exposure camera and tripod.

With a great deal of difficulty, the lead car was turned around on this muddy section of track. We decided to back the second car to a grade crossing and instead turn it there. While waiting for the other car to reach us, my boys found some nice pieces of petrified wood track side. Fortunately, the other frequent track side item, namely diamond back rattlesnakes, was not seen. We turned around the second (now lead) car and headed back east toward Kadoka. Since numerous stops were made on the way out to inspect points of interest, we highballed it on the way back. We still had to make numerous stops to open and close the various gates, and use caution when crossing roads.

All too soon, we arrived back in Kadoka. We helped Don garage his motorcar, and then helped the other gentlemen trailer their car. We proceeded to a local restaurant to have a late lunch and continue our rail related discussions. Lunch completed, we bid each other farewell and went our separate ways.

This was my first time on a motorcar, and it was a thoroughly enjoyable situation. I can see why this is a popular hobby. It's too bad that this line will no longer be available for use. At least I got a chance to ride a portion of this line before its abandonment. Fortunately, the operators of the Dakota Southern will typically grant motorcar operators permission to operate over their Kadoka to Chamberlain line so there is still opportunity to enjoy this hobby close to home and for me to traverse the remainder of this line.

Now all I have to do is find and purchase a motorcar!!!!!

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: Fw: MNRail: Dakota Southern...
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 14:22:08 -0600

-----Original Message-----
From: Andy Cummings <>
>Alex--
>
>There's still stuff left out at Chamberlain? I figured that, with the end
>of service west of Mitchell, that everything would have been cleared offthe
>line. What else is out there? Are you planning on operating that line
>again?
>
>Also, what ever came of the Samammish Transportation? I remember reading in
>CTC Board a couple years ago that it was a company that wanted to ressurect
>the Milwaukee Road between the west end of your railroad and Rapid City,
>thus giving you an outlet via DM&E and cutting your dependance on BNSF. Did
>that company simply die?

Andy and list,

Chamberlain - GE 70T #75, #77 (parts loco), S-3 #103, C420 #213, SD9 #506, SD7's, #512 & #522, DDA40X #6925 (gutted) & truck frame for #6906. Also home for ex-MILW Russell-type snowplow #900103, two Jordan spreaders (ex-NP, ex-MP), and most of our M-of-W equipment, Plasser tampers, ballast regulators, etc.

Mitchell - GE 70T #76, SD9 #4427

About 300 100T grain cars, scattered from Mitchell to Murdo Mackenzie.

Short version of the current situation. In late 1998, BNSF pricing strategy on grain shut off grain on our line. It was cheaper to truck to DM&E or to fairly close domestic destinations, or to the elevator in Mitchell for the export market in 110 car trains. After rail business dried up in 1/99, we notified our rail authority we were out of the grain business 4/1/99 unless and until we could get trackage rights to Sioux City and connection with UP and CN/IC.

In mid-1999, Tim Tennant d/b/a as Cascade Rail Corp which was buying Nobles Rock on time, proposed to operate by cutting local rates to offset the BNSF differential at Mitchell. This proved to be an error in judgement and his business failed after less than a year in operation. Last train ran June, 2000.

Throughout the operation of Nobles Rock, DSRC continued to switch one industry at Mitchell with a GE 70T and we also provided a locomotive and engineer for the BNSF-served elevator in Mitchell after their NW-2 failed. In Dec. 2000, the elevator began doing its own switching with a GP-9 purchased from BNSF.

Our position has not changed. BNSF has proved to be an unreliable partner and we can offer no advantage to our on-line customers as long as BNSF is our only connection. We will put the line back into service on our own nickel, if and only if, we have access to the UP and CN in Sioux City. We retain the lease on the line into 2003, and are obligated to maintain it. That we will do. The grain cars will at some point have to be moved off line. GE Capital, which owns them, has leased some out to the elevators as mobile storage units.

re: Samannish Transportation. Things are not always what they seem. This is a paper railroad which Rails to Trails uses when it takes over a line which hasn't been formally abandoned. To discourage anyone from expecting a train, they require a very large up front payment by the shipper(s) for rehab first. When no one responds, the company then files for abandonment so the line can be legally scrapped. The MILW had filed for abandonment but didn't pursue it when they entered negotiations to sell all of their secondary lines in South Dakota to the state. The line is scrapped west of Kadoka to fifteen miles east of Rapid City.

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: Fw: Fw: MNRail: Dakota Southern...
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2001 16:34:59 -0600

-----Original Message-----

From: Andy Cummings Subject: Re: Fw: MNRail: Dakota Southern...

>Alex--
>So have you made any progress on getting trackage rights to Sioux City?

BNSF declines to allow trackage rights.

>Also, what process do you go through to get those trackage rights? Iassume
>BNSF is not exactly thrilled with the idea of granting them... can thestate
>or federal government compel them to negiotiate a deal with you?

The STB won't. At the state level, BNSF stewardship of the state ownedex-MILW track is becoming a political issue. BNSF pricing is forcing longer truck hauls and will increase future highway maintenance costs. Economic damage to rural communities which effectively lose rail service is another issue. If we get trackage rights, it will be due to the Governor's good efforts.

>Also, have you considered trying to get trackage rights to other
>connections, such as Wolsey, Sioux Falls, etc? And what about sale? BNSF
>has spun off tons of branchline trackage across the region over the past
>couple of decades (RRV&W, MNN, OTVR, St. Croix Valley, etc...). Have you
>talked with them about perhaps purchasing the Yankton line? Or perhaps the
>Mitchell-Canton line?

All four lines out of Mitchell are state owned. BNSF operates three under lease, we operate the fourth. Mitchell to Sioux City is all ex-MILW, owned by South Dakota.

>Also, what is the fate of the line between Mitchell and Kadoka these days?
>If memory serves, it was shut down due to a washout...if you did manage to
>get the railroad restarted, would there be a possibility of that line seeing trains again?

I assume you are asking about Murdo Mackenzie to Kadoka. There is a land slip between Stamford and Okaton. About 40' of track is hanging. It would be repaired if there was a reason to do so. Right now, there isn't. A motor car group is exploring having a light trestle put in so they can extend their twice a year rides on the west end from Kadoka to either Okaton or Murdo.

Alex

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: Fw: MNRail: Dakota & MN locos Jul 1992
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 13:30:25 -0600

>Alex;
>I heard the C-420 is also out of service. What happened to it?
>Merle Dick
>Brookings, SD

All of the equipment in Chamberlain is out of service in the sense it is parked for the winter. We operate one active mile of track at Mitchell. Once the snow melts and the ground thaws we will continue to do track maintenance on the rest of the line using a locomotive occasionally.

The C420 is operational.

Alex

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: Re: MNRail: Dakota & MN locos Jul 1992

Tom Persoon asked what is the status of the Alco switcher at DSRC.

It is still here in Chamberlain. This past fall we replaced the failed main generator. Sad to say, the replacement generator had a grounded armature. The locomotive would only operate with the ground relay cut out, not good practice. We remain in the market for a cheap running takeout main generator for a 660 hp Alco.

Alex Huff

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: MNRail: Trackage rights
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2001 10:55:33 -0600

Nick inquired about the status of trackage rights from Mitchell to Sioux City.

It isn't politic to speak for the Governor, I'll just leave it that the issue is being pursued. As the BNSF is feeling more than usually paranoid about trackage rights, I wouldn't recommend rushing down to the junction in Sioux City expecting to see a DSRC locomotive anytime soon.

On a philosophical note, capitalism depends on competition to enourage economic efficiency. Where monopoly exists, BNSF in South Dakota as an example, society has reacted with either political solutions (government regulation) or legal constraints (anti-trust suits, etc). Both alternatives place additional transaction costs on economic activity. BNSF's actions in South Dakota are already a political issue. It is probable some of the issues will be settled in court. (Let's see...that's exactly what happened in 2005...it just took four years.)

Alex

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: Re: MNRail: Wanderings in SW Minnesota
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 12:42:18 -0500

...While sharing an empty box car with several knights of the road during a recent rainstorm in Mitchell, the subject came up about the mysterious "LWA was here" inscribed with a fine Spencerian hand on railroad equipment. As these gentlemen do not frequent those places in which silver plaques are commonly found, they were unaware of the significance of what they had seen.

As the rain let up and a learned discussion of the comparative advantages of Night Train vs. Thunderbird as an aperitif for Mulligan Stew began I had to leave and go back to work.

After all, "Railfanning is Serious Business".

Alex

Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 18:33:43 -0500

From: LaVerne Andreessen <LWAndreessen@...>
To: mnrail@...
Subject: MNRail: Re: Non-Wanderings in So. Dakota

Alex or Dick Huff wrote:

> As the rain let up and a learned discussion of the comparative advantages of
> Night Train vs. Thunderbird as an aperitif for Mulligan Stew began I had to
> leave and go back to work.

I hate to bring this up in front of the assembled group, but your most interesting and erudite report would much more helpful had you taken time to note whether the fermented material was served chilled or at boxcar (aka "room") temperature.

Obviously, the Mulligan stew would place any of the epicurean specialities tendered by the Weenie Wagon at a great disadvantage.

LWA

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
Re: MNRail: Re: Non-Wanderings in So. Dakota
Mon Sep 17, 2001 2:47 am

Having been chided by LWA for short changing the epicures on the list, I make amends forthwith.

Regarding the proper serving temperature of Night Train, the assemblage tended to agree with the label, that it is best served very cold. It was thought a brisk trip by side door pullman across the state which now prefers to be called South Alaska during the thirty days following the winter solstice would bring a bottle to the correct temperature.

As to Thunderbird, the group deferred to its two most senior members. They were of the opinion that bottles should be kept cool in water filled spike kegs until served. The water was best drawn from a spring fed, wooden stave, railroad water tank. The ambiance while partaking was also of import. It was felt that the bouquet was enhanced by the presence of nearby newly creosoted timbers such as a trestle. A trestle would also provide the dappled shade reminiscent of a bosky dell.

Certain matters of etiquette were touched upon as an acolyte was present. It is declasse to offer a swig to a fellow traveler from a bottle wrapped in a plastic bag. Only brown kraft paper will do. A soft, well used sack of the proper size offers a tactile enhancement of the libation within. The blue velvet bag with drawstring as used by Crown Royale was dismissed as effete and beneath the dignity of the profession.

All of the above must surely meet the standards of MNRail content, but just in case, the Dakota Southern 70-tonner #76 finished switching the carton plant in Mitchell shortly before this post was begun. One of the joys of serving a customer that operates round the clock.

Alex Huff

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: Fw: MNRail: Wanderings in SW Minnesota
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 17:35:52 -0500

Andy Cummings wrote;

Changing the subject a little, now that Alex is around, I've been wanting to ask you about that Milwaukee Road combine at Milbank. I had the pleasure of riding in that car with Todd Schultz this summer, and in spite of having school bus seats, it looks like a pretty nice car. Rumor has it our Alex found that in a ditch somewhere. I'd be interested to hear the background on that.

In response;

I'm afraid the history of the car is more prosaic. It was surplus on the Soo Line and put up for sale ca. 1985. I did look at it, at the time it was filled with blocking and cable for a wrecker crew. Jerry Ross bought it for Dakota Rail which was operating the Sisseton Line. It did spend some time in the ditch, or at least off the end of track at the Milbank enginehouse. It got away from Jerry about the time he was terminating his contract to operate in 1987 and left as is. The museum group in Milbank finally fished it out of its hole and fixed it up in the early '90's as I recall. That track slopes down beyond the enginehouse on a fill to the end of track and is bad news. Currently an ex-MILW tender converted to a snow flanger rests in the same hole.

I have read that combine and its sisters were unique to the MILW, the only steel lightweight passenger cars built with open platforms. A sister car still in excursion service was sold by MILW in the 60's to the Reader RR in Arkansas. The Reader was noted for remaining steam powered until in closed in early 1973. The car was then sold to an excursion RR in French Lick, Indiana and I believe is still there.

The two RETX units which Andy reported were owned by the people who put Nobles Rock RR together. They elected to keep the units under a different corporate umbrella. After the operating company, Nobles Rock, was sold to Cascade RailCorp in 1998 (?) the units continued to be leased. The owners ultimately did sell the two to ILS as Andy surmised.

Alex Huff

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: Fw: MNRail: PGR Update--Caboose Arrives!

George LaPray, GM MNN, wrote;
"MNN is a railroad and ALL real railroads need a caboose - thus we now have one and thus we are a real railroad."

Aha, that explains what happened to Dakota Southern, no caboose, hence went from 187 miles to one mile.

Alex Huff, GM DSRC

(As an aside, DSRC hosted a caboose owned by George. It was after the caboose was interchanged to Nebkota via the obscure Long Valley, SD interchange that DSRC was reduced to its present active length.)

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: Fw: MNRail: REAL Railroads need Cabooses
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 16:47:35 -0600

George LaPray, GM MNN, wrote;

"I believe based on my last yard check at Chamberlain DSRC qualifies as areal railroad on the Jordan spreader basis of real railroad evaluation."

Now I know why we bought those!

For those who are keeping their Jordan spreader rosters current;

DSRC #1033, ex-NP #?, Model 2-180, S/N 1033, shipped from factory 8/21/37.Purchased from Mardian's scrapyard in Aberdeen, SD after being retired by BN due to "air leaks".

DSRC #"713", ex-MP #238, Model Type A, S/N 713, shipped from factory 11/12/28, rebuilt at Ludington, MI factory and shipped 9/12/60. Before and after photos are in the June 1969 issue of Trains magazine in an article on Jordan spreaders. Purchased from UP at auction of surplus equipment at Grand Island, Neb.

A free subscription to MNRail to the first person to correctly identify what "DtWoaAoM" stands for.

After all, "Railfanning is serious business"

Alex

From dsrc512@...
Subject: Re: Fw: MNRail: DM&E and Dakota Southern
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:39:45 -0500
Re: The DDA40X in Chamberlain.

Dakota Southern primarily bought the unit as a cheap source of spare parts for its three SD7/9's which all have 645 power packs in their 567C blocks.

Two bad order Diesels were in the unit when purchased. Both had thrown rods as a result of piston failures. The engines were swaps from SD40-2's aka "heavy block 645's" which proved to be fortuitous when they were later sold to Morrison Knudsen as cores for rebuilding into commuter locomotive power.

The locomotive was shipped on its own wheels from Omaha to Mitchell, SD via BN. As an aside, when it moved from Sioux City to Mitchell it traversed a line on which BN generally prohibited six axle units. Of course, the DDA40X isn't a six axle unit. <g>

Movement to Chamberlain was without incident, possibly the only time a DDA40X ran over a line laid with 65# rail.

There was never any intention to put the unit into operation west of Mitchell. At the same time the 6925 was sold, the 6905 was sold to a scrapper.

Dakota Southern did purchase one of 6905's truck frames from the scrapper. This was done on the off chance the unit might ever be restored to service. The trucks are the one unique item that would be very costly to replace. UP did break a few truck frames when a unit was left supported on only the first and fourth axles during traction motor changeouts. They have a slightly longer wheelbase than the DD35 truck.

With operational SD40-2's selling at auction in the low $20,000 range, it would be feasible to put the 6925 back together as a 6,000 hp unit. We don't need the world's largest switch engine for our one mile of active railroad, but if Dakota Southern is granted trackage rights to Sioux City....

Alex

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: "MNrail" <mnrail@...>
Subject: Fw: Fw: MNRail: DM&E and Dakota Southern
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 21:35:03 -0500

DougD wrote,
"Wasn't it also to be used for fuel storage?"

No, it wasn't, although that story has long circulated on the Internet. I have an unpleasant suspicion I may have made an off hand comment to that effect when someone asked why we bought it. A reminder to watch what you say.

That said, it almost became a fuel tank. Shortly after it arrived in Chamberlain and was parked on the house track west of the depot, I discovered the fuel dealer putting fuel in it. He had been called to fuel a locomotive and it was the first one he came to. Which proves what the old steam die-hards say, all Diesels look alike. Fortunately he had only put 300 gallons in it which they later pumped out.

Alex

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: Re: MNRail: Speaking of Milwaukee in SD
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 18:24:28 -0600

(and specifically Dakota Southern....)

The three units are still part of Dakota Southern's inactive fleet in Chamberlain, SD. Batteries have been removed from all three units.

MILW 512 arrived at Napa Jct (beginning of the Platte Line) painted MILW orange and black. X2200 reported it as being the first six axle MILW painted in the "new" scheme some years previous, BTW. It was sandblasted and painted red/black without the complete white reflective dividing stripes before making its first trip in Oct. 1985. The white striping was completed after it was moved to the Mitchell/Kadoka operation in 1987.

522 was as John reported in orange and black when we received it. One of the reasons for painting it red/black later on was the MILW paint peeling and exposing the green undercoat. 506 went directly from the green/black to Centennial white/red/black, which it still has.

A trivia note, the purchase agreement with National Railway Equipment covered all three units in 1985 although we didn't take delivery (or pay for) of the 506 and 522 until we took over the line west of Mitchell in 1987.

I heard that Wisconsin Southern was obligated to pay for repainting both the 506 and 522 as part of the lease. When I made inquiries about the serviceability of the units on WSOR I was told that the reason they never overpainted the 512 was that it was the least reliable of the three and not used much.

Alex Huff, DSRC

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: MNRail: Re: Final rail move from Murdo Mackenzie, SD
Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 23:05:24 -0500

Dakota Southern has run a ballast regulator to Murdo to plow out and sweep all the crossings, the first rail bound vehicle to run into Murdo since August, 1999. We have some minor track work to do and will then run only the Alco C-420 with a carload of ballast to Murdo in the coming week.

Exact pull times from Murdo are still up in the air. We have to squeeze this work in between the time we spend switching in Mitchell.

Best guess is that we will move some of the 55 empty cars during the week with the final move the weekend of the 11/12th.

We have until June 1st to pull the cars before the state cuts the line at Vivian as part of four laning the road from the Interstate to the state capitol at Pierre.

For those wanting to see the last train depart, be forewarned, these will be very slow trips. Grass over the rail will limit how much we can pull at one time. The first two pulls will be thirteen cars to Vivian.

The final pull may be the remaining 27, assuming we can make the grade out of town. If not, we will double to Draper.

There is interest in preserving the line from Murdo to Kadoka as a motor car route. A group has already paid to have a contractor fill in a landslip which left a rail length unsupported and the same contractor is now removing dirt which fell down the side of a cut and covered one rail.

Alex

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: MNRail: Final? run from Murdo Mackenzie, SD
Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 16:23:28 -0500

List,

Dakota Southern pulled the last of 55 covered hoppers out of Mudo on 5/11/02. The cars had been there since 7/31/99 when Dakota Southern placed them at the elevator for the account of Nobles Rock, SD Division. Nobles Rock was never able to retrieve the cars which were then used as mobile storage units by the elevator.

The final train of 25 cars departed at 3:33 pm, pulled by Alco C-420 #213. Several members of this esteemed list were in attendance. The weather which ranged from mist to drizzle made for challenging photography.

Thirty of the cars will remain in the Vivian side track, the twnety-five coupled to the unit will move to Chamberlain in the coming week.

Alex

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: MNRail: Activity on DSRC
Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:15:50 -0500

On Memorial Day the 213 (C-420) pulled twenty-five empty grain hoppers from Vivian to Chamberlain. This was the first eastbound move west of Kennebec since the departure of Nobles Rock in June, 2000.

The owner of the Vivian depot provided a backhoe to lift bags of sand to fill the front sandbox on the unit in exchange for a Dakota Southern hat.

On a less cheerful note, someone got into the buttoned up cab of the 213 while it was in Vivian and stole both reversers, a factory one and a homemade one. Almost all fans would agree that disabling a locomotive in order to collect a couple of souvenirs is way beyond acceptable behavior.

On the off chance that whoever stole them reads this list, we would like them back within two weeks, no questions asked. If they don't show up I will mention that on this list and ask that list members keep an ear open for anyone bragging about what he "collected".

Alex

DSRC

Subject: MNRail: We don't need no stinkin' branchlines.
From: "Alex or Dick Huff"
To: mnrail@...
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 23:32:58 -0500
BNSF grain marketing 101

"I can't talk about it", said the Mitchell, SD elevator manager when I asked if it was true that the elevator was receiving special incentive payments on wheat to the PNW. However, the Mitchell elevator is now able to bid over twenty cents/bushel more than other shuttle train loaders on wheat. Another elevator manager told me that rumor in the trade was the BNSF is paying close to 30 cents/bushel, or about $1,000/car in a 110 car shuttle in order to pull wheat from the area which was served by Dakota Southern.

Last year the Mitchell elevator loaded less than 300 cars of wheat. Wheat was either trucked to destination flour mills out of state or up to the DM&E.

Many's the time I heard BNSF people say, "If the shortline doesn't exist, the grain will be trucked to us on the main line". They have proved themselves right.... at a price.

Alex

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: "MNrail" <mnrail@...>
Subject: Fw: MNRail: Re: Scraping rust from the Scrap topic
Date: Mon, 26 Aug 2002 17:59:33 -0500

LaVerne Andreessen wrote:
<snip> "If one were into restoring vehicles, and had the time to drive 88,567 miles through western Nebraska, western Dakotas, eastern Montana and Wyoming, it would appear you would find all the parts you would need. It is quite obvious there is no mini-mill or John Deere foundry in the area absorbing scrap iron."

Scrap prices in the hinterlands have fallen beneath the cost of cutting it up. I know one gentleman who recently hauled a pick-up load of iron to a dealer and was offered $8/ton. Having recently purchased an ex-Soo Line GP-30 for its Alco trucks and GE traction motors, the best deal we have been offered on the rest of it is an even swap, the scrapper will set aside what we want to save in exchange for the rest as scrap. As an indication of the value of locomotives as scrap, we were offered a land locked "running when shut down" switch engine for free if we would haul it away. That was in the Chicago area where steel mills would presumably bid more for scrap.

BTW, some MN content, the GP-30, WC 719, may ship from Homewood, Illinois to Sioux City via CN/IC next week. BNSF will then move it to Mitchell, SD either on its once a week local direct from Sioux City to Mitchell but more likely via Sioux Falls which has a three days a week local to Mitchell. Anyone wishing to photograph this hulk on its last trip is cautioned to use an ugly filter to protect the camera's lens. Still in Soo Line red and white with much rust, the unit is missing part of the long hood which covered the main generator, which is also missing.

Alex

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: <mnrail@...>
Subject: Re: MNRail: old coal handling facilities
Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 14:16:38 -0600

West of Mitchell, SD coal sheds as George describes still exist in Mt. Vernon, White Lake, Kimball and Kadoka. The building in Presho was knocked down as part of the recent Governor's clean up South Dakota campaign.

Following up on an inquiry from a customer on the Platte line in 1985, I did call a company in Duluth which sold bagged coal in boxcars. Alas, by 1985 they had retired their equipment and were out of the business.

Alex

From: "Alex or Dick Huff" <dsrc512@...>
To: "MNrail" <mnrail@...>
Subject: Fw: MNRail: Low Speed service in Vivian??
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 11:25:24 -0600

Dave in Pierre wrote;

"Any word on a similar incident occurring on the Dakota Southern? I heard of an ill wind blowing in Vivan coupled with kids uncoupling and releasing brakes on some standing grain cars. One of the locals told me that a string of 5 headed east.

Inquiring minds want to know :-)"

Prior to Christmas sixteen empty cars rolled out of Vivian, apparently started by the gentle breeze that day, 35 mph with gusts to 45 mph. Sometime prior to that, I assume some miscreant released the hand brakes.

When it was reported to me by the sheriff I was told the cars were rolling at a sedate six and a half mph. How any witness was able to be so precise was not explained. The sheriff wanted to know how far they were going to roll. When he told me the current location I said the cars would stop in about a mile where there was an upgrade. That is in fact what happened.

The distance traveled was about three and a half miles.

We later took the C-420 out and shoved the cars back. The cars are now west of town and have some additional security measures beyond the handbrakes to make sure they stay put.

Alex

Subject: MNRail: South Dakota Rail Auth. vs. BNSF Case
From: Hudson Leighton
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 22:04:14 -0600
To: mnrail@lists.visi.com

Judge refuses to settle railroad dispute without a trial

A federal judge has refused to settle a dispute between the South Dakota Railroad Authority and Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad without a trial over the use of a key rail interchange at Aberdeen, SD.

The dispute started early last year when the South Dakota authority and the Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western Railroad of Bismarck, ND, sued BNSF in a state court in hopes of forcing the giant rail company to open the interchange to shipments being towed by locomotives from other railroads.

The issue eventually wound up in federal court, and both the state and BNSF asked U.S. District Judge Charles B. Kornmann to rule in their favor without a trial.

Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western operates the so-called Britton Line from the BNSF exchange at Aberdeen to the North Dakota border. BNSF donated that 54-mile segment to the state Railroad Authority three years ago. South Dakota later bought another 23 miles of tracks from the border to Geneseo Junction, ND, where the Canadian Pacific rail line runs from the Great Lakes to the West Coast.

When BNSF donated the Britton Line to South Dakota, ownership of the exchange did not change hands, the company says. It also says the 2001 donation agreement allows the company to forbid use of the interchange for loads that do not originate or end on the Britton Line.

But state officials say they rebuffed proposed restrictions on the interchange in both northerly and southerly directions when BNSF donated the Britton Line, adding that Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western and the Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern Railroad should be allowed to use the interchange.

The South Dakota authority owns lines at various places in the state, including two rail lines in the Aberdeen vicinity. One runs from Aberdeen to Wolsey, and DM&E has the right to run its trains on those tracks.

BNSF says that trackage right does not extend to use of the Aberdeen interchange unless DM&E railcars are hooked to BNSF locomotives.

Another line that intersects with the BNSF east-west line at Aberdeen is the Britton Line, which runs northeasterly toward Kidder, SD; a third line in the area, called the Rutland Line, extends from north of Britton to Geneseo Junction, ND, and it is owned by the South Dakota authority.

Traffic on the Britton Line fell off sharply in the late 1990s when the tracks were severely damaged by high water levels in northeastern South Dakota, and BNSF considered abandoning the line. After the South Dakota authority insisted that BNSF restore the line, BNSF donated it to the state and took advantage of a multimillion-dollar federal tax deduction.

The agreement excluded ownership of the Aberdeen interchange. BNSF says the deal made with the donation permits it to control access of the interchange and it did not agree to use of the interchange by other railroads seeking to use the Britton line to link with the Canadian Pacific Railroad, a BNSF competitor.

The South Dakota authority and Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western argue that the 2001 agreement gives them an unfettered right to use the BNSF interchange in Brown County.

Refusing to grant summary judgment to the state or BNSF in the contract dispute, Kornmann said the facts of the complicated case should be sorted out in a trial.

"The 2001 agreement is no model of clarity," the judge wrote in an order signed Monday.

Kornmann said neither party inserted language into the agreement that may have prevented the argument over use of the interchange.

"It is frankly as though both parties used the ostrich approach of sticking their heads in the sand," he said.

Kornmann did dismiss a BNSF complaint and request for punitive damages against Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western for alleged contract interference and tresp assing upon BNSF's tracks.

Kornmann noted that BNSF's own train master allowed the exchange of railcars between the Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western and DM&E.

"If BNSF's employees failed to act in accord with BNSF contracts and consented to improper train movements, that is a BNSF problem," he concluded. - Joe Kafka, The Associated Press, The Grand Forks Herald, courtesy Larry W. Grant

from Altamont Press 11/25

http://www.skypoint.com/~hudsonl

Subject: Fw: [SoDakRailFans]
Re: Judge refuses to rule on dispute between BNSF And SDRA
From: "Alex or Dick Huff" Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2004 21:23:08 -0600
To: SoDakRailFans@yahoogroups.com

Todd Schultz wrote, "Have there been any DME-DMVW interchange trains since the second, disputed Northville train was interchanged after the court cases were filed"

To my knowledge, no. A third corn train was held at Redfield after BNSF refused to issue a track warrant allowing the train to go to Aberdeen. It was moved to Huron and later sold into a different market, I believe.

Alex Huff

Subject: Re: MNRail: Dakota Southern Vivian, SD Railcars are gone!!
From: "Alex or Dick Huff"
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 00:44:55 -0600

To: mnrail@lists.visi.com

As are the eighteen cars which were stored in Presho. The thirty Vivian cars departed at 3:00 p.m. on Saturday, witnessed by about ten local residents who put coins on the rail as mementos. Three company material cars (one ballast, two air dumps which had carried rip-rap) set out in Kennebec on the westbound run were picked up to bring the train to 51 cars into Chamberlain. The 48 covered hoppers are split into two cuts for movement to Mitchell. The cars will eventually go into a shop and have their Morrison-Knudsen gates removed and conventional gates applied by the cars new owner.

The editor of the Lyman County Herald took a photo of the SD-9 4427 westbound at Presho and called yesterday morning to see if anything had derailed on the east bound trip. After pointing out that she had used a naughty word, I had to disappoint her (and a number of coffee shop experts), the cars stayed on the rails. "Well, it would have been news." In defense of the experts, I did have two track contractor employees out for a day to do some work before the train ran. This was only the third trip to the west since the collapse of sub lessee Nobles Rock in the summer of 2000.

Alex Huff

MRC Regional Railroad Authority - Trackage Rights Exemption - Lines of the State of South Dakota
From: dvoeltz@...
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 13:26:48 -0600
To: Matt's Mailing list mnrail@lists.visi.com

This looks interesting.

Dave in Pierre, SD
==============

Full Text of Decision

35446

SERVICE DATE - DECEMBER 29, 2004

FR-4915-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34630]

MRC Regional Railroad Authority -Trackage Rights Exemption- Lines of the State of South Dakota

MRC Regional Railroad Authority (MRC), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from the State of South Dakota (the State) overhead trackage rights over a line of railroad extending between milepost 654 near Mitchell, SD, and milepost 511.90 in Sioux City, IA, including such yard tracks, sidetracks, and connecting tracks (existing or to be constructed) as are reasonable: (a) to interchange railcars with The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) and Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation at Mitchell; (b) to access the State-owned line extending westerly from Napa Junction, SD, to Platte, SD; and (c) to interchange railcars with BNSF, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Canadian National Railway Company at Sioux City. MRC will also acquire from the State limited local trackage rights on the Mitchell-Sioux City Line: (i) to move loaded cars of corn, soybeans, and wheat originating at points on the line between Mitchell and Kadoka, SD, and terminating at the Mitchell Elevator in Mitchell and the Beardsley Elevator in Beardsley, SD; and (ii) to move empty cars via the reverse route. The total distance of the trackage rights to be acquired is approximately 142.1 miles.

MRC certifies that its projected revenues as a result of the MRC-South Dakota transaction will not result in MRC becoming a Class I or Class II rail carrier, and further certifies that its projected revenues will not exceed $5 million. The MRC-South Dakota transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or after December 17, 2004.

If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke does not automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34630, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on MRC's representative: Kenneth W. Cotton, Wipf & Cotton Law Offices, LLC, 107 South Main Street, Wagner, SD 57380.

The notice of exemption filed with respect to the MRC-South Dakota transaction in this docket is related to a notice of exemption concurrently filed in a related docket: STB Finance Docket No. 34630 (Sub-No. 1), Dakota Southern Railway Company - Trackage Rights Exemption - State of South Dakota and MRC Regional Railroad Authority. The notice of exemption filed in the related docket contemplates the operation of MRC's Mitchell-Sioux City Line trackage rights by DSRC on behalf of MRC.

MRC and DSRC have advised that the Mitchell-Sioux City Line, which is owned by the State, is now operated on behalf of the State by BNSF, pursuant to a 1986 Operating Agreement. MRC and DSRC have also advised: that, under the Operating Agreement, the State has the right to grant trackage rights on the Mitchell-Sioux City Line subject to certain BNSF consent; that, although the State has the right to grant trackage rights to MRC for operations by MRC's third-party operator (DSRC), BNSF has not consented to the grant of those rights; and that the failure to provide this consent is now the subject of litigation between the State and BNSF in The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. State of South Dakota, Case No. 04-470 (S.D. 6th Circuit). MRC and DSRC have further advised that they recognize that BNSF consent may have to be obtained, either voluntarily or through litigation, before DSRC can commence trackage rights operations on the Mitchell- Sioux City Line. MRC and DSRC have suggested, however, that, inasmuch as the Board's authority respecting the notices filed in this docket and in the related docket is "permissive" in nature, the filing of the notices in the two dockets is appropriate as a "prelude" to obtaining any necessary consent.

By letter filed December 17, 2004, BNSF has advised that it has not given its consent, and does not intend to give its consent, to the third-party trackage rights operation contemplated by MRC and DSRC. BNSF has further advised that, in its view, the filings by MRC and DSRC in this docket and in the related docket are intended to improperly influence the pending state court litigation. BNSF has asked that the Board stress that issuance by the Board of the notices filed in this docket and in the related docket: does not constitute any finding by the Board concerning either the Board's jurisdiction over these transactions or DSRC's right to operate over the line without BNSF's consent; and does not provide any basis for MRC or DSRC to claim that the Board has permitted DSRC to operate over the line in the absence of a final decision by the courts that DSRC has a legal right to conduct such operations.

In view of the ongoing litigation concerning the right of the State to grant the trackage rights contemplated in this docket and in the related docket, it seems best to note that the Board has made no determination, one way or the other, concerning either the right of the State to grant these trackage rights without BNSF's consent or the right of DSRC to operate over the line without BNSF's consent. The contractual dispute respecting the scope of the rights retained by or granted to the State and/or BNSF under the 1986 Operating Agreement must be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Board decisions and notices are available on its website at http://WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

Decided: December 21, 2004.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams
Secretary ___________________________________________________________________________

Full Text of Decision

35447

SERVICE DATE - DECEMBER 29, 2004

FR-4915-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34630 (Sub-No. 1)]

Dakota Southern Railway Company -Trackage Rights Exemption- State of South Dakota and MRC Regional Railroad Authority

The State of South Dakota (the State) and MRC Regional Railroad Authority (MRC) have agreed to State-owned line of railroad extending between milepost 654 near Mitchell, SD, and milepost 511.90 in Sioux City, IA, including such yard tracks, sidetracks, and connecting tracks (existing or to be constructed) as are reasonable: (a) to interchange railcars with The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF) and Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern Railroad Corporation at Mitchell; (b) to access the State-owned line extending westerly from Napa Junction, SD, to Platte, SD; and (c) to interchange railcars with BNSF, Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Canadian National Railway Company at Sioux City. The State and MRC have also agreed to grant to DSRC limited local trackage rights on the Mitchell-Sioux City Line: (i) to move loaded cars of corn, soybeans, and wheat originating at points on the DSRC-operated line between Mitchell and Kadoka, SD, and terminating at the Mitchell Elevator in Mitchell and the Beardsley Elevator in Beardsley, SD; and (ii) to move empty cars via the reverse route. The total distance of the trackage rights to be granted to DSRC is approximately 142.1 miles. The DSRC-MRC transaction contemplated by the parties was scheduled to be consummated on or after December 17, 2004.

Under 49 U.S.C. 10502(g), the Board may not use its exemption authority to relieve a rail carrier of its statutory obligation to protect the interests of its employees. Section 11326(c), however, does not provide for labor protection for transactions under sections 11324 and 11325 that involve only Class III carriers. Accordingly, the Board may not impose labor protective conditions here, because all of the carriers involved are Class III carriers.

The notice of exemption filed in this docket was filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d) (7). If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke does not automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34630 (Sub-No. 1), must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on DSRC's President: George Alexander Huff, IV, Dakota Southern Railway Company, 408 East Prospect Street, Chamberlain, SD 57325.

The notice of exemption filed with respect to the DSRC-MRC transaction in this docket is related to a notice of exemption concurrently filed in a related docket: STB Finance Docket No. 34630, MRC Regional Railroad Authority -Trackage Rights Exemption- Lines of the State of South Dakota. The notice of exemption filed in the related docket contemplates MRC's acquisition from the State of the trackage rights that MRC intends to grant to DSRC.

MRC and DSRC have advised that the Mitchell-Sioux City Line, which is owned by the State, is now operated on behalf of the State by BNSF, pursuant to a 1986 Operating Agreement. MRC and DSRC have also advised: that, under the Operating Agreement, the State has the right to grant trackage rights on the Mitchell-Sioux City Line subject to certain BNSF consent; that, although the State has the right to grant trackage rights to MRC for operations by MRC's third-party operator (DSRC), BNSF has not consented to the grant of those rights; and that the failure to provide this consent is now the subject of litigation between the State and BNSF in The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. State of South Dakota, Case No. 04-470 (S.D. 6th Circuit). MRC and DSRC have further advised that they recognize that BNSF consent may have to be obtained, either voluntarily or through litigation, before DSRC can commence trackage rights operations on the Mitchell-Sioux City Line. MRC and DSRC have suggested, however, that, inasmuch as the Board's authority respecting the notices filed in this docket and in the related docket is "permissive" in nature, the filing of the notices in the two dockets is appropriate as a "prelude" to obtaining any necessary consent.

Board decisions and notices are available on its website at http://WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

Decided: December 21, 2004.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams

Secretary

Subject: Re: MNRail: Re: Trackage rights
From: Andy Cummings
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 2004 11:51:02 -0800 (PST)
To: mnrail@lists.visi.com

>>If the state is able to break the BNSF's lease of the Core Lines, it will be very interesting.

Alex--

So the gist of it is this: the MRC rail authority (I assume that's Mitchell Rapid City) has been granted rights by the state between Mitchell and Sioux City, but the BNSF will have to approve those rights before they can actually be used?

Then, complicating this is a court case where the state has sued to regain control of the Mitchell-Sioux City line? Is that what I'm getting from the STB document?

Finally, why are they talking about interchanging with DM&E at Mitchell? DM&E doesn't go to Mitchell.

I wonder if Mr. Janklow and Mr. Myers still think granting BN the contract to operate their lines was such a good idea.

BTW, how long does that lease run for? It's not set to expire any time soon, is it?

Good luck, sir. I can imagine few things more pleasing than watching your Century pulling grain loads out from the edge of the Badlands again.

Andy Cummings
Mora, MN

Subject: Re: MNRail: Re: DSRC, South Dakota, etc. et. al., and whatever else referenced
From:tschultz@...
Date:Thu, 30 Dec 2004 22:17:29 -0800 (PST)
To:mnrail@lists.visi.com

> > Regarding the below (abbreviated) to the list, could somebody please
> > interpret? Yes, it looks interesting, but what does it really mean? An
> > honest attempt at railroad activity or leverage against the BNSF for some
> > reason?
> >
> > - RCA

As an interested party, I don't know what Alex can say, so I'll take a stab at it.

BNSF has sole authority over the SD state lines it operates. The BNSF contract was set to expire soon (2007 I think) but Gov. Mickelson extended the contract 20 years (2027?). Under the old contract, the state RR authorities could grant overhead rights to any carrier. For example, when DSRC operated both the Kadoka line and the Platte line, it had rights to deadhead equipment between Mitchell and Napa Jct. Under the new contract, BNSF has the right to refuse any rights the state may wish to grant.

BN has priced the DSRC out of the grain market by giving favorable rates only to shuttle trains loaded on the BN at Mitchell. It is believed that DSRC could competitively haul grain off the Kadoka line if it could get trackage rights to Sioux City, where UP and CN still accept smaller cuts of cars. Much of the wheat grown on the Kadoka line goes to flour mills along the old IC, making CN a logical interchange partner. Thus, if MRC gains the right to grant overhead rights, DSRC might again operate more than the mile it currently operates at Mitchell. Of course, BN is dead set against this.

I have no idea how DME comes into this, unless MRC forsees granting DME rights into Mitchell should this initial effort prove successful. Anyone else have ideas?

The provision for Kadoka line loads to/empties from the Mitchell & Beardsley elevators is interesting as well. Perhaps a move to transfer the grain to BNSF unit trains by transferring it through these large elevators? Yet, it seems to me any cost savings would be eaten by the transfer.

Todd

Subject:Fw: MNRail: Re: DSRC, South Dakota, etc. et. al., and whatever else referenced
From:"Alex or Dick Huff"
Date:Fri, 31 Dec 2004 00:38:40 -0600
To:"MNrail"

Todd wrote....
The provision for Kadoka line loads to/empties from the Mitchell & Beardsley elevators is interesting as well. Perhaps a move to transfer the grain to BNSF unit trains by transferring it through these large elevators? Yet, it seems to me any cost savings would be eaten by the transfer.

Limited direct access to more than one shuttle elevator for inbound grain enables DSRC to compete with trucks to these facilities from the area west of Mitchell.

Of note, D&I has now filed for trackage rights from Elk Point to Sioux City with direct access to both Canadian National/Illinois Central and Union Pacific using a format similar to DSRC. BNSF is trying to force the sale of the Core Lines (Aberdeen to Sioux City via Mitchell and Yankton, plus Mitchell to Sioux Falls via Canton) in a suit filed in state court, 6th Circuit, Case # 04-470. The state is resisting. The STB has elected to leave the DSRC application for trackage rights in the hands of the state court. Previous attempts to strike a trackage rights deal with BNSF directly by DSRC were all turned down.

Alex Huff

Subject:Re: MNRail: MRC Rail Authority issues
From:"Alex or Dick Huff"
Date:Mon, 3 Jan 2005 19:07:57 -0600
To: mnrail@lists.visi.com

The present South Dakota governor is dealing with past agreements, particularly an extension of the Core Lines lease granted by a governor who died in a plane crash several years ago. This amended lease gave the BNSF a limited veto over the state's retained right to grant trackage rights on the Core Lines. BNSF appears to be trying to make its problems go away by suing in state court to force South Dakota to sell the Core Lines per the terms of the lease.

The present Governor is also attempting to enforce access to North Dakota through Aberdeen via a suit now in Federal Court.

As to how far west of Mitchell would be re-opened, there are no prohibitive repairs needed to go to Kadoka. The land slip was filled in some years ago. When the highway crossing was removed for the four lane road west of Vivian, the highway side of the DOT signed an agreement to bear the cost of installing a crossing if service is resumed.

Alex

From dsrc512@...
Subject: Re: MNRail: MRC Rail Authority issues
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 19:07:57 -0600

The present Governor is also attempting to enforce access to North Dakota through Aberdeen via a suit now in Federal Court.

Alex

Subject: MNRail: STB Decision on SD BNSF
Filing From: David Voeltz
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 19:41:00 -0600
To: mnrail@lists.visi.com

For your Information

Dave in Pierre, SD

=============================
Subject: Fwd: STB 'In Control' dept. - BNSF, Stare of South Dakota (ex-MILW; cont'd)

Full Text of Decision

35518

LATE RELEASE - JANUARY 14, 2005

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

DECISION

STB Finance Docket No. 34645

THE BURLINGTON NORTHERN AND SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANYACQUISITION AND OPERATION EXEMPTION STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Decided: January 14, 2005

We are rejecting the ss 1150.31 exemption notice filed in this proceeding by The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF). Our rejection of the exemption notice moots the stay petition filed by the State of South Dakota (the State).

BACKGROUND

The Core Lines. This proceeding concerns certain State-owned railroad lines (referred to as the"Core Lines") that are the subject of a 1986 Operating Agreement between a BNSF predecessor (Burlington Northern Railroad Company) and the State. The Core Lines were once part of the rail system operated by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company (the Milwaukee Road), which entered bankruptcy in 1977, and which, in 1980, received approval to abandon the Core Lines. In 1981, the abandoned Core Lines were acquired by the State. Since then, BNSF has provided common carrier rail service over the Core Lines pursuant to various agreements with the State, and pursuant to a Modified Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity issued by the Board's predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC). See 49 CFR Part 1150, Subpart C.

BNSF's Exemption Notice. On December 23, 2004, BNSF, a Class I rail carrier, filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire and operate the Core Lines. BNSF contends that, pursuant to the terms of its agreements with the State, it has an option to purchase the Core Lines. BNSF notes that, although it is clearly a rail carrier, it used the notice of exemption procedures at 49 CFR Part 1150, Subpart D, which are applicable to 49 U.S.C. 10901 acquisitions by noncarriers. BNSF argues that, because the Core Lines were abandoned by the Milwaukee Road, they are no longer subject to the Board's jurisdiction, and, therefore, the acquisition and operation of the Core Lines by a rail carrier is subject to the prior approval requirements of 49 U.S.C. 10901 rather than those of 49 U.S.C. 11323 (governing line sales between carriers). Because its operations over the Core Lines will not change as a result of taking legal title, BNSF asserts that no employees will be adversely affected by this transaction.

Contractual Dispute. BNSF has advised that it has a contractual dispute with the State which is now the subject of litigation in The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. State of South Dakota, Civ. No. 04-470 (S.D. 6th Circuit). BNSF acknowledges that, before it can actually acquire title to the Core Lines, it will need to prevail in acquiring the Core Lines from the State, whether through voluntary conveyance by the State or involuntary conveyance as may be ordered by the state court. BNSF seeks the Board's permissive authority to acquire and operate the Core Lines in response to the State's argument, made in the state court proceeding, that, because BNSF has not received Board authority to acquire the Core Lines, BNSF has no right to exercise the purchase option. The state court has set trial for September 2005.

The State's Stay Petition. On December 29, 2004, the State filed a petition seeking a stay of the notice of exemption filed in this proceeding by BNSF, pending resolution of the State's forthcoming petition to partially revoke or reject the notice. BNSF replied by letter on December 29, 2004, arguing that any remedial action, should it be necessary, can be taken after the effective date of its notice of exemption. On December 29, 2004, the Board issued a "housekeeping stay" of the effective date of BNSF's notice of exemption, to allow BNSF an opportunity to file a formal reply to the stay petition, and to allow time for the Board to consider, in a more orderly fashion, the issues presented in the stay petition. On January 7, 2005, BNSF filed a supplemental reply to the stay petition. On January 12, 2005, the State filed a response, again urging that the exemption be stayed pending resolution of revocation proceedings. The State also filed, on January 12, 2005, a letter from South Dakota Governor M. Michael Rounds, who also urges the Board to stay the exemption until it rules on the State's forthcoming petition for partial revocation. On January 14, 2005, the State filed a similar letter signed by the members of the South Dakota Congressional delegation (U.S. Senator Tim Johnson, U.S. Senator John Thune, and U.S. Representative Stephanie Herseth).

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

We will reject the exemption notice filed by BNSF because the transaction contemplated by BNSF (i.e., the transfer of the Core Lines from "modified certificate" status to ss 10901 "railroad line" status) is not appropriate for consideration under the "class exemption" procedure that BNSF invoked when it filed its ss 1150.31 exemption notice. That procedure is typically reserved for uncomplicated and noncontroversial cases. This case, however, is both complicated and controversial.

As we have explained in prior cases, see, e.g., Riverview Trenton Railroad Company Acquisition and Operation Exemption Crown Enterprises, Inc., STB Finance Docket No. 33980, slip op. at 6-10 (STB served Feb. 15, 2002), the ss 1150.31 class exemption typically applies to "routine" transactions that are not subject to substantial controversy and opposition. The facts and issues presented in the pleadings filed to date regarding BNSF's notice of exemption, combined with the fact that this transaction is now tied up in state court litigation respecting BNSF's rights under the 1986 Operating Agreement, indicates that the transaction contemplated by BNSF is not "routine" or "noncontroversial" either. Finally, the competitive issues that the State has indicated it may raise before the Board cannot be regarded as "uncomplicated."

Under these circumstances, we will reject the ss 1150.31 exemption notice filed by BNSF and direct BNSF to file either a ss 10502 exemption petition or a formal ss 10901 application, so that we will be able to compile a record that will allow us to resolve the issues raised. We expect that BNSF will file, as soon as possible, either a petition or an application, and we also expect that this filing will include BNSF's entire "case in chief." We further expect that the State will submit its reply to this filing no later than the 21st day after the date on which the filing is made, and we also expect that this submission will include the State's entire case. We also expect that BNSF will submit its response to the State's reply no later than the 14th day after the date on which the reply is filed. And we will make every effort to issue a decision in this matter well in advance of the trial in the state court proceeding.

We expect that BNSF and the State will inform us if it appears the state court will issue any dispositive order in advance of the trial date. In that event, we will make every effort to issue our decision as expeditiously as possible.

Finally, it is important to note that the ongoing litigation in the state court involves a contractual dispute respecting the scope of the rights retained by or granted to the State and/or BNSF under the 1986 Operating Agreement. The State apparently contends that the 1986 Operating Agreement gives BNSF no "purchase option" right to acquire the Core Lines and/or gives the State a right to grant other entities trackage rights to operate over the Core Lines. BNSF apparently contends that the 1986 Operating Agreement gives BNSF a "purchase option" right to acquire the Core Lines but gives the State no right to grant other entities trackage rights to operate over the Core Lines. In this decision, the Board has made no determination, one way or the other, concerning the existence or scope of any rights retained by or granted to the State and/or BNSF under the 1986 Operating Agreement. The contractual dispute respecting the existence and scope of any such rights must be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction.

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

It is ordered:

1. The ss 1150.31 exemption notice filed in this proceeding by BNSF is rejected.

2. The stay petition filed in this proceeding by the State of South Dakota is dismissed as moot.

3. If BNSF intends to pursue the transaction contemplated by its exemption notice, it should submit, as soon as possible, either a ss 10502 petition or a ss 10901 application. The State should submit its reply to this filing no later than the 21st day after the date on which the filing is made. BNSF should submit its response to the State's reply no later than the 14th day after the date on which the reply is filed.

4. This decision is effective on its service date.

By the Board, Chairman Nober, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and Commissioner Buttrey.

Vernon A. Williams
Secretary

Subject: MNRail: STB Decisions involving SD
From: David Voeltz
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 20:14:20 -0600
To: mnrail@lists.visi.com

More STB Decisions concerning SD.

Full Text of Decision

35470

SERVICE DATE - JANUARY 19, 2005

FR-4915-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34645]

The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway CompanyAcquisition and Operation Exemption State of South Dakota

The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), a Class I rail carrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire and operate approximately 369.7 route miles of railroad lines, referred to as the "Core Lines," that are owned by the State of South Dakota (the State). These lines, which are described in a July 10, 1986 Operating Agreement between a BNSF predecessor (Burlington Northern Railroad Company) and the State, extend principally: between milepost (MP) 777.0 near Aberdeen, SD, and MP 650.6 near Mitchell, SD; between MP 518.9 near Sioux City, IA, and MP 649.7 near Mitchell, SD; between MP 293.1 near Canton, SD, and MP 650.6 near Mitchell, SD; between MPs 74.1 and 68.8 in Sioux Falls, SD; between MP 68.8 near Sioux Falls, SD, and MP 49.4 near Canton, SD; and between MPs 511.9 and 518.9 in Sioux City, IA.

The Core Lines were once part of the rail system operated by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company (the Milwaukee Road). The Milwaukee Road entered bankruptcy in 1977, and, in 1980, it received, both from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and from the bankruptcy court, approval to abandon the Core Lines. In 1981, the abandoned Core Lines were acquired by the State, and, since on or about July 6, 1981, BNSF has provided common carrier rail service over the Core Lines pursuant to various agreements (the most recent of which is the 1986 Operating Agreement) with the State, and pursuant to a Modified Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (the modified certificate) issued by the ICC. See 49 CFR Part 1150, Subpart C (ss 1150.21 et seq.) (these are the "modified certificate" regulations that apply to operations over abandoned rail lines that have been acquired, through purchase or lease, by a State). BNSF contends that it has, under the terms of the 1986 Operating Agreement, a right to acquire the Core Lines from the State.

Because the Core Lines were abandoned by the Milwaukee Road, BNSF has invoked the notice of exemption procedures at 49 CFR Part 1150, Subpart D (ss 1150.31 et seq.) (these are the regulations that apply to acquisitions and operations under ss 10901). See The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company Acquisition and Operation Exemption Lac Qui Parle Regional Railroad Authority, STB Finance Docket No. 33364 (STB served Apr. 15, 1997); Burlington Northern Railroad Company Acquisition and Operation Exemption South Dakota Railroad Authority, Finance Docket No. 32017 (ICC served Apr. 2, 1992).

Under the modified certificate regulations at ss 1150.21 et seq., a modified certificate operator may not terminate modified certificate service unless it first provides to the State, to the Board, and to all persons that have used the line within the preceding six months 60 days' notice. See 49 CFR 1150.24. BNSF has not yet provided such notice, but it has stated that, once it has acquired the Core Lines, it will notify the appropriate parties that it will cease to provide service under its ss 1150.21 modified certificate but will continue to provide service pursuant to its ss 1150.31 exemption notice.

BNSF's ss 1150.31 exemption notice was filed to be effective on December 30, 2004. However, by decision served December 29, 2004, the effective date of the exemption was stayed until 11:59 p.m., January 14, 2005. The question of whether the exemption will be stayed beyond that date will be addressed by the Board in a separate decision.

As noted in the decision served December 29, 2004, in this docket, BNSF's asserted right to acquire the Core Lines is disputed by the State, and is now the subject of litigation in The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. State of South Dakota, Civ. No. 04-470 (S.D. 6th Circuit). As is also noted in the prior decision, BNSF has acknowledged that, before it can actually acquire title to the Core Lines, it will need to prevail in acquiring the Core Lines from the State whether through voluntary conveyance by the State or involuntary conveyance as may be ordered by the state court. In view of the ongoing litigation concerning BNSF's right, under the terms of the 1986 Operating Agreement, to acquire the Core Lines from the State, it is appropriate to note that the Board has made no determination, one way or the other, concerning BNSF's asserted right to acquire the Core Lines from the State. The contractual dispute respecting the scope of the rights retained by or granted to the State and/or BNSF under the 1986 Operating Agreement must be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction.

An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34645, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on BNSF's representative: Adrian L. Steel, Jr., Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, 1909 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-1101.

Board decisions and notices are available on its website at http://WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

Decided: January 12, 2005.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams

Secretary ___________________________________________________________________________

Full Text of Decision

35486

SERVICE DATE - JANUARY 19, 2005

FR-4915-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34646]

Sioux Valley Regional Railroad Authority Trackage Rights Exemption Lines of the State of South Dakota

Sioux Valley Regional Railroad Authority (SVRRA), a noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire from the State of South Dakota (the State) overhead trackage rights over a line of railroad extending between milepost (MP) 533.4 near Elk Point, SD (also known as MP 0.0 at East Wye Jct.) and MP 511.90 in Sioux City, IA, including such yard tracks, sidetracks, and connecting tracks (existing or to be constructed) as are reasonable to interchange railcars with The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Canadian National Railway Company at Sioux City. The total distance of the Elk Point- Sioux City line is approximately 21.5 miles.

SVRRA certifies that its projected revenues as a result of the SVRRA-South Dakota transaction will not result in SVRRA becoming a Class I or Class II rail carrier, and further certifies that its projected revenues will not exceed $5 million. The SVRRA-South Dakota transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or after January 5, 2005.

An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34646, must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on SVRRA's representative: Russell Hazel, Sioux Valley Regional Railroad Authority, c/o Sioux River Ethanol, 29619 Spur Avenue, Hudson, SD 57034.

The notice of exemption filed with respect to the SVRRA-South Dakota transaction in this docket is related to a notice of exemption concurrently filed in a related docket: STB Finance Docket No. 34646 (Sub-No. 1), D&I Railroad Company Trackage Rights Exemption State of South Dakota and Sioux Valley Regional Railroad Authority. The notice of exemption filed in the related docket contemplates the operation of SVRRA's Elk Point-Sioux City trackage rights by D&I Railroad Company (D&I) on behalf of SVRRA.

SVRRA and D&I have advised that the Elk Point-Sioux City line, which is owned by the State, is now operated on behalf of the State by BNSF, pursuant to a 1986 Operating Agreement. SVRRA and D&I have also advised: that, under the Operating Agreement, the State has the right to grant trackage rights on the Elk Point-Sioux City line subject to certain BNSF consent; that, although the State has the right to grant trackage rights to SVRRA for operations by SVRRA's third-party operator (D&I), BNSF has not consented to the grant of those rights; and that the failure to provide this consent is now the subject of litigation between the State and BNSF in The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. State of South Dakota, Case No. 04-470 (S.D. 6th Circuit). SVRRA and D&I have further advised that they recognize that BNSF consent may have to be obtained, either voluntarily or through litigation, before D&I can commence trackage rights operations on the Elk Point-Sioux City line. SVRRA and D&I have suggested, however, that, inasmuch as the Board's authority respecting the notices filed in this docket and in the related docket is "permissive" in nature, the filing of the notices in the two dockets is appropriate as a "prelude" to obtaining any necessary consent.

By letter filed December 30, 2004, BNSF has advised that it has not given its consent to the third-party trackage rights operation contemplated by SVRRA and D&I, which (BNSF adds) would violate the 1986 Operating Agreement. BNSF has further advised that, in its view, the filings by SVRRA and D&I in this docket and in the related docket are intended to improperly influence the pending state court litigation. BNSF has asked that the Board stress that issuance by the Board of the notices filed in this docket and in the related docket does not represent a determination, by the Board, concerning either the right of the State to grant the Elk Point-Sioux City trackage rights without BNSF's consent or the right of D&I to operate over the Elk Point-Sioux City line without BNSF's consent.

In view of the ongoing litigation concerning the right of the State to grant the trackage rights contemplated in this docket and in the related docket, it seems best to note that the Board has made no determination, one way or the other, concerning either the right of the State to grant the Elk Point- Sioux City trackage rights without BNSF's consent or the right of D&I to operate over the Elk Point- Sioux City line without BNSF's consent. The contractual dispute respecting the scope of the rights retained by or granted to the State and/or BNSF under the 1986 Operating Agreement must be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Board decisions and notices are available on its website at http://WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

Decided: January 12, 2005.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams
Secretary ___________________________________________________________________________

Full Text of Decision

35487

SERVICE DATE - JANUARY 19, 2005

FR-4915-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34646 (Sub-No. 1)]

D&I Railroad Company Trackage Rights Exemption
State of South Dakota and Sioux Valley Regional Railroad Authority

The State of South Dakota (the State) and Sioux Valley Regional Railroad Authority (SVRRA) have agreed to grant overhead trackage rights to D&I Railroad Company (D&I) over a State-owned line of railroad extending between milepost (MP) 533.4 near Elk Point, SD (also known as MP 0.0 at East Wye Jct.) and MP 511.90 in Sioux City, IA, including such yard tracks, sidetracks, and connecting tracks (existing or to be constructed) as are reasonable to interchange railcars with The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company (BNSF), Union Pacific Railroad Company, and Canadian National Railway Company at Sioux City. The total distance of the trackage rights to be granted to D&I is approximately 21.5 miles. The D&I-SVRRA transaction contemplated by the parties was scheduled to be consummated on or after January 5, 2005.

The notice of exemption filed in this docket was filed under 49 CFR 1180.2(d)(7). If the notice contains false or misleading information, the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. The filing of a petition to revoke does not automatically stay the transaction.

An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB Finance Docket No. 34646 (Sub-No. 1), must be filed with the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be served on D&I's President: Jack Parliament, D&I Railroad Company, P.O. Box 5829, Sioux Falls, SD 57117.

The notice of exemption filed with respect to the D&I-SVRRA transaction in this docket is related to a notice of exemption concurrently filed in a related docket: STB Finance Docket No. 34646, Sioux Valley Regional Railroad Authority Trackage Rights Exemption Lines of the State of South Dakota. The notice of exemption filed in the related docket contemplates SVRRA's acquisition from the State of the trackage rights that SVRRA intends to grant to D&I.

SVRRA and D&I have advised that the Elk Point- Sioux City line, which is owned by the State, is now operated on behalf of the State by BNSF, pursuant to a 1986 Operating Agreement. SVRRA and D&I have also advised: that, under the Operating Agreement, the State has the right to grant trackage rights on the Elk Point- Sioux City line subject to certain BNSF consent; that, although the State has the right to grant trackage rights to SVRRA for operations by SVRRA's third-party operator (D&I), BNSF has not consented to the grant of those rights; and that the failure to provide this consent is now the subject of litigation between the State and BNSF in The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. State of South Dakota, Case No. 04-470 (S.D. 6th Circuit). SVRRA and D&I have further advised that they recognize that BNSF consent may have to be obtained, either voluntarily or through litigation, before D&I can commence trackage rights operations on the Elk Point- Sioux City line. SVRRA and D&I have suggested, however, that, inasmuch as the Board's authority respecting the notices filed in this docket and in the related docket is "permissive" in nature, the filing of the notices in the two dockets is appropriate as a "prelude" to obtaining any necessary consent.

In view of the ongoing litigation concerning the right of the State to grant the trackage rights contemplated in this docket and in the related docket, it seems best to note that the Board has made no determination, one way or the other, concerning either the right of the State to grant the Elk Point- Sioux City trackage rights without BNSF's consent or the right of D&I to operate over the Elk Point- Sioux City line without BNSF's consent. The contractual dispute respecting the scope of the rights retained by or granted to the State and/or BNSF under the 1986 Operating Agreement must be resolved in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Board decisions and notices are available on its website at http://WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

Decided: January 12, 2005.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams
Secretary

Subject: [SoDakRailFans] BNSF in a snit
From: "Alex or Dick Huff"
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 09:25:17 -0600
To: SoDakRailFans@yahoogroups.com

From various sources, I am hearing that BNSF has put a hold on track improvements on the state owned lines.

Surely the trial date of April 26 in Aberdeen's Federal Court and September 26 in Pierre's state court in separate suits between BNSF and the state, plus the published intention to file more suits by the state against BNSF have nothing to do with the BNSF decision!

Alex Huff

Subject:Re: [SoDakRailFans] BNSF in a snit
From:"Alex or Dick Huff"
Date:Tue, 8 Feb 2005 19:20:16 -0600
To: SoDakRailFans@yahoogroups.com

Todd, et al, (regarding track maintenance and track materials on state owned lines)

Materials purchased by the operator become property of the state once they are installed. Scrap material that was replaced becomes the property of the operator. Any scrap left behind by the MILW may be sold by the operator but the proceeds must go into the track.

It is my understanding that BNSF pays a small fee to the state for each carload which originates or terminates on the state owned lines. After counting it, the state then passes the money back to the BNSF to cover some of the maintenance. The BNSF is required to account for how the returned money is spent. The accuracy of the accounting (carloads and spending) by BNSF seems to be one of the issues to be resolved at trial.

Alex Huff

Subject: [SoDakRailFans] Fwd: STB 'In Control' dept. - BNSF, state of SD (ex-MILW) in SD, IA
From: "Paul S. Highland"
Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2005 09:54:27 -0800
To:SD Railfans SoDakRailfans@yahoogroups.com,

Full Text of Decision

35633

SERVICE DATE - MARCH 3, 2005

FR-4915-01-P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

[STB Finance Docket No. 34667]

BNSF Railway Company -Acquisition and Operation- State of South Dakota

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Notice of filing of application and request for public comments.

SUMMARY: BNSF Railway Company (BNSF)[1] has filed an application under 49 U.S.C. 10901 for authority to acquire and operate approximately 368 miles of railroad lines (referred to as the "Core Lines") that are owned by the State of South Dakota (the State).[2] The Core Lines, which are described in a July 10, 1986 Operating Agreement between Burlington Northern Railroad Company (BN, a BNSF predecessor) and the State, extend principally: between milepost (MP) 777.0 near Aberdeen, SD, and MP 650.6 near Mitchell, SD; between MP 518.9 near Sioux City, IA, and MP 649.7 near Mitchell, SD; between MP 293.1 near Canton, SD, and MP 650.6 near Mitchell, SD;[3] between MPs 74.1 and 68.8 in Sioux Falls, SD; between MP 68.8 near Sioux Falls, SD, and MP 49.4 near Canton, SD; and between MPs 511.9 and 518.9 in Sioux City, IA.

DATES: Comments respecting the BNSF application must be filed by March 11, 2005. Replies to such comments must be filed by March 25, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Any filing submitted in this proceeding must be submitted either via the Board=s e-filing format or in the traditional paper format. Any person using e-filing should comply with the instructions found on the Board's website http://www.stb.dot.gov at the FILING link. Any person submitting a filing in the traditional paper format should send an original and 10 paper copies of the filing (and also an IBM-compatible floppy disk with any textual submission in any version of either Microsoft Word or WordPerfect) to: Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, one copy of each filing in this proceeding must be sent to each of the following (any such copy may be sent by e-mail or fax, but only if service by e-mail or fax is acceptable to the recipient): Adrian L. Steel, Jr., Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, 1909 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-1101 (phone: 202-263-3237; fax: 202-263-5237); and Sarah W. Bailiff, BNSF Railway Company, 2500 Lou Menk Drive, Fort Worth, TX 76131 (phone: 817-352-2354; fax: 817-352-2397).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph H. Dettmar, 202-565-1609. [Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800 877-8339.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Core Lines were once part of the rail system operated by the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company (the Milwaukee Road). The Milwaukee Road entered bankruptcy in 1977, and, in 1980, it received, both from the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) and from the bankruptcy court, approval to abandon the Core Lines. In March 1980, the Milwaukee Road terminated its Core Lines operations, and thereafter, for more than a year, shippers located on the Core Lines had no rail service of any kind. In 1981, the abandoned Core Lines were acquired by the State, and, since on or about July 6, 1981, BN/BNSF has provided common carrier rail service over the Core Lines pursuant to various agreements (the most recent of which is the 1986 Operating Agreement) with the State,[4] and pursuant to a Modified Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (the modified certificate) issued by the ICC. See 49 CFR Part 1150, Subpart C (' 1150.21 et seq.) (these are the "modified certificate" regulations that apply to operations over abandoned rail lines that have been acquired, through purchase or lease, by a State).

A contractual dispute has arisen respecting the scope of the rights retained by or granted to the State and/or BNSF under the 1986 Operating Agreement. On June 29, 2004, BNSF advised the State that it desired to exercise its "purchase option" right (said to be provided in the 1986 Operating Agreement) to acquire the Core Lines. The State apparently contends that the 1986 Operating Agreement gives BNSF no right to acquire the Core Lines and/or gives the State a right to allow other railroads to operate over the Core Lines. BNSF apparently contends that the 1986 Operating Agreement gives BNSF a right to acquire the Core Lines and gives the State no right to allow other railroads to operate over the Core Lines. The dispute concerning the various rights asserted by the State and BNSF is now the subject of litigation in The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company v. State of South Dakota, Civ. No. 04-470 (S.D. 6th Circuit).

The contractual dispute between BNSF and the State must be resolved by the court; that dispute will not be resolved by the Board. However, a related matter -- BNSF's request that the Board authorize BNSF to acquire and operate the Core Lines -- must be resolved by the Board. But even if the Board authorizes BNSF to acquire the Core Lines, that authorization is only permissive. If the South Dakota state court decides that BNSF does not have, under the 1986 Operating Agreement, a right to acquire the Core Lines, then any Board-granted authority cannot be exercised.[5]

On December 23, 2004, BNSF filed, in STB Finance Docket No. 34645, The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company C Acquisition and Operation Exemption C State of South Dakota, a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.31 to acquire and operate the Core Lines. By decision served January 14, 2005,[6] the Board rejected BNSF's 1150.31 exemption notice on the ground that the transaction contemplated by BNSF (the transfer of the Core Lines from "modified certificate" status to ' 10901 "railroad line" status) was not appropriate for consideration under the ' 1150.31 "class exemption" procedure. The Board explained that, whereas the ' 1150.31 class exemption typically applies to routine transactions that are not subject to substantial controversy and opposition, the transaction contemplated by BNSF was neither routine nor noncontroversial. Therefore, the Board required BNSF to file either a ' 10502 exemption petition or a formal ' 10901 application, in order to compile a record that would allow the Board to resolve the issues raised. The Board specified that BNSF should file a petition or an application as soon as possible; that BNSF should include, in this filing, its entire "case in chief"; that the State should submit its reply to this filing no later than the 21st day after the date on which the filing was made; that the State should include, in this submission, its entire case; and that BNSF should submit its response to the State=s reply no later than the 14th day after the date on which the reply was filed.

On February 18, 2005, BNSF filed, in STB Finance Docket No. 34667, BNSF Railway Company -Acquisition and Operation- State of South Dakota, a formal ' 10901 application. This application seeks authority, under 49 U.S.C. 10901 and 49 CFR Part 1150, Subpart A (' 1150.1 et seq.), to acquire and operate the Core Lines. The formal application filed in STB Finance Docket No. 34667 contemplates the same transaction that was contemplated by the class exemption notice previously filed in STB Finance Docket No. 34645: the transfer of the Core Lines from "modified certificate" status to ' 10901 "railroad line" status. As indicated in the decision served January 14, 2005, in STB Finance Docket No. 34645, comments respecting the BNSF application must be filed by March 11, 2005 (the 21st day after the date on which the application was filed), and replies to such comments must be filed by March 25, 2005 (the 14th day after March 11th).

The application filed by BNSF in STB Finance Docket No. 34667 is available for public inspection in the Docket File Reading Room (Room 755) at the offices of the Surface Transportation Board, 1925 K Street, N.W., in Washington, D.C. The application is also available for inspection at BNSF=s offices, at 2500 Lou Menk Drive, in Fort Worth, TX. The application is also available for viewing and downloading at the Board's website at http://www.stb.dot.gov. In addition, copies of the application may be obtained from BNSF=s representatives (Adrian L. Steel, Jr., and Sarah W. Bailiff) at the addresses indicated above.

Board decisions and notices are available on the Board=s website at http://www.stb.dot.gov.

This decision will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

Decided: March 2, 2005.

By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of Proceedings.

Vernon A. Williams
Secretary

Subject: MNRail: SoDak Rail Legal Battles.
From: David Voeltz
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 20:44:18 -0500
To: DMandE@egroups.com, DMErail@egroups.com, mnrail@lists.visi.com, therealMilwaukeeRoadComedyCentral@yahoogroups.com

Legal battles could alter rail traffic in Hub City One trial next week looks at railroad access north of Aberdeen By Scott Waltman American News Writer

Two pending railroad lawsuits could mean more trains with unfamiliar logos passing through Aberdeen.

Both of the cases are set for trial this year and involve state entities and the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway.

BNSF has an Aberdeen rail yard and is the primary railroad in northeastern South Dakota. However, the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern may frequent the Hub City more often in the future, depending on the outcome of the litigation, the head of that railway said.

One case, set to begin Tuesday in the Aberdeen, has to do with tracks that run north of Aberdeen through the Britton area and to the North Dakota border. The other, scheduled to start this autumn, involves tracks that run south of Aberdeen and, eventually, to Sioux City. The two lawsuits are not related.

Next week's case will determine whether the stretch to North Dakota can be opened to a wider variety of trains. The 54-mile line is commonly called the Britton Line.

In 2003, the South Dakota Railroad Authority and Dakota, Missouri Valley & Western Railroad sued BNSF for greater access to the tracks.

DMV&W is a short-track provider, much smaller than BNSF and DM&E. It is based in Bismarck, N.D.

Three years ago, BNSF donated the line to South Dakota's Railroad Authority. Shortly thereafter, the state purchased an additional 23 miles of track from the border to Geneseo Junction, N.D. From there, a Canadian Pacific rail line goes east to the Great Lakes and west to the coast, offering potential new markets.

When BNSF, headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, donated the line to the state, actual ownership did not change hands, according to the railway. As a result, BNSF believes it can forbid the use of its Aberdeen interchange for loads that don't start or end on the line.

The Railroad Authority and DMV&W believe BNSF's restrictions should not apply.

Arguments in the case begin at 9 a.m. Tuesday in the federal courtroom at the downtown post office. Judge Charles Kornmann will preside.

Last fall, Kornmann declined to settle the suit without a trial. According to the judge, the agreement between the Railroad Authority and BNSF is unclear.

If the line is opened to a wider variety of trains, more DM&E engines will likely be seen in Aberdeen, according to Kevin Schieffer, president and CEO of the Sioux Falls-based railroad.

The DM&E has access to Aberdeen from the south. But it has no access to northern markets in part because of the controversy concerning the Britton Line. So, Schieffer said, very few of the railroad's trains visit the community.

Should the court rule in favor of more access to the Britton Line, that could change, Schieffer said. DM&E wouldn't use the Britton Line, but other railroads that would may open new markets through the Hub City, using it as a transfer point for grain. DM&E would likely get that grain to Aberdeen for transfer.

Second lawsuit: The second lawsuit - the one covering the tracks to the south of Aberdeen - probably won't have as big of an impact on DM&E, Schieffer said.

A circuit court trial set to begin Sept. 26 in Hughes County will determine whether BNSF will be allowed to buy 363 miles of state-owned tracks commonly called the Core Lines. In addition to the Aberdeen to Sioux City line, it includes stretches from Sioux Falls to Canton and from Canton to Mitchell.

After a partnership of more than two decades, the state is now refusing to sell the lines to BNSF.

In late 1981, the state and BNSF entered into an agreement in which BNSF would provide rail service on behalf of the state on the Core Lines. In return for BNSF providing the service, the agreement was eventually changed to allow BNSF to purchase the Core Lines for roughly $15 million, plus the cost of improvements made by the state. South Dakota purchased the tracks from the bankrupt Milwaukee Road in the early 1980s at a cost of $15 million.

The state won't sell because, it claims, BNSF has had suspect business practices including charging South Dakota shippers too much and not paying enough rent to the state. BNSF denies those charges.

Another claim made by the state is that BNSF doesn't allow DM&E trains on state-owned lines.

Schieffer said the lawsuit won't change DM&E's ability to use the tracks south of Aberdeen. The fact that line is shared has been established for decades. However, the litigation may open the lines to other railroads, creating extra competition for both DM&E and BNSF.

State officials claim that shippers along the southern line won't be impacted by the outcome of the lawsuit. However it, combined with next week's court proceedings, may change the future of rail service in Aberdeen.

Subject: [SoDakRailFans] BNSF & SD settlement agreement
From: "Tim"
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 03:32:11 -0000
To: SoDakRailFans@yahoogroups.com

News Release
Gov. Rounds and BNSF Announce Settlement On South Dakota's Core
Railroad Line

PIERRE, SD and FORT WORTH, TX, April 29, 2005:

Gov. Mike Rounds and officials from the BNSF Railway Company (BNSF) today announced a settlement agreement that paves the way for the sale of the state-owned Core railroad line to BNSF, while providing enhanced transportation access to markets for South Dakota shippers and producers of agricultural products. The acquisition price is $41.64 million reduced by the value of the properties retained by the state. The sales agreement is subject to approval by the Surface Transportation Board.

"This is great news for our farmers and shippers in South Dakota," said the Governor. "In 1986, the state of South Dakota and BNSF entered into a contract regarding the operation of the Core railroad line in South Dakota. This contract included a formula allowing the BNSF to purchase the Core line under specific conditions at a time of their choosing. BNSF has exercised their option to purchase the Core line. As a condition of the sale, we negotiated a settlement agreement protecting and expanding access to the Core line for our South Dakota shippers. This agreement also settles two pending law suits involving the Core line."

The 368-mile Core line runs from Aberdeen to Mitchell, Mitchell to Canton, Canton to Sioux Falls and Mitchell to Sioux City.

"BNSF is pleased to have resolved with the State a win-win outcome that enhances rail service options for shippers in South Dakota and supports our continued investment in the Core line for the future," said Peter J. Rickershauser, BNSF Vice President, Network Development. "The purchase of the Core line will mark the next step in our successful partnership with the State and freight rail shippers over the last two decades to revitalize and upgrade these once abandoned rail lines. We look forward to continuing helping to grow business in South Dakota and to investing in this line as an integral part of our extensive western rail network."

In addition to the purchase of the Core line, BNSF has agreed to allow certain access rights to the Core line by smaller, South Dakota based railroads. While all of these access rights are important, the most notable is expanding access through the BNSF transfer point in Aberdeen. This agreement will allow agricultural product shippers in South Dakota access to additional markets.

The state of South Dakota purchased the Core line from the Milwaukee Road in 1980. In 1981, the state and BNSF entered into an agreement in which BNSF would provide rail service on behalf of the state on the Core line for five years. In 1986, a new agreement was reached in which BNSF agreed to continue operations and the state agreed to allow BNSF to purchase the Core line.

A subsidiary of Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (NYSE:BNI), BNSF Railway operates one of the largest railroad networks in North America, with about 32,000 route miles covering 28 states and two Canadian provinces. BNSF is an industry leader in Web-enabling a variety of customer transactions at www.bnsf.com. The railway is among the world's top transporters of intermodal traffic, moves more grain than any other American railroad, transports the components of many of the products we depend on daily, and hauls enough coal to generate about ten percent of the electricity produced in the United States.

For more information on the company and its transportation solutions, visit the BNSF Web site at www.bnsf.com

BNSF Headquarters BNSF Railway Company
2650 Lou Menk Dr. 2nd Floor
P.O. Box 961057
Fort Worth, TX 76161-0057
Phone: (817) 352-1000

Subject: [SoDakRailFans] BNSF SD. Settlement mentions DM&E- Dakota Southern-D&I
From:nascarphan@...
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:22:15 EDT
To: SoDakRailFans@yahoogroups.com

>From The DM&E LIst.

Les

----------------------------------------------------------------------

S.D., BNSF strike deal on rail lines By Dave Dreeszen, Sioux City Journal business editor

South Dakota officials have agreed to sell the state's remaining 386 miles of state-owned railway, including a line that runs into Sioux City, to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad.

Gov. Mike Rounds touted the deal as expanding shipping of grain through the state, including parts of Siouxland.

"This is great news for our farmers and shippers in South Dakota," Rounds said.

BNSF, which has a major presence in Sioux City, has operated its trains on the publicly owned tracks, known as the Core line, since 1981 under a deal that gave the railroad the option to buy the system at some point in the future. But two lawsuits revolving around the use of those tracks by other rail operators had stopped BNSF from exercising that option.

State officials said both suits will be resolved if a federal judge approves the $41.6 million deal jointly announced by the state and BNSF. Under the agreement, BSNF will allow other railroads, including the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern, the Dakota Southern and the D&I, to move traffic on the Core line, with certain restrictions.

One main segment of the state-owned lines runs from Yankton to Sioux City, following the Missouri River. Another line runs from Sioux Falls to Canton and south to Elk Point, where it intersects the Yankton segment. At the Iowa border, the Core line crosses the Big Sioux River and connects with the BNSF line in Riverside.

The South Dakota-owned line also serves cities that include Aberdeen and Mitchell. The Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad abandoned the rail lines in 1980. A year later, then-Gov. Bill Janklow convinced the state Legislature to purchase the lines. In 1986, the state contracted with then-Burlington Northern to operate the lines.

Peter Rickerhauser, a BSNF vice president, said the Fort Worth, Texas, company is ready to take the next step in its successful partnership with the state and freight rail shippers.

"We look forward to continuing helping to grow business in South Dakota and to investing in this line as an integral part of our extensive western rail network," Rickerhauser said in a statement.

Subject:MNRail: More details on the SD-BNSF sale
From:Todd Schultz
Date:Sat, 30 Apr 2005 15:14:07 -0500
To:MNRail mnrail@lists.visi.com, Sodakrailfans sodakrailfans@groups.yahoo.com

A different report from the Argus Leader with a few more details.

Todd

State plans to sell rails to BNSF

Farmers and shippers will benefit, Rounds says

STEVE YOUNG
syoung@argusleader.com

Published: 04/30/05 2:04 am
South Dakota is poised to sell 368 miles of state-owned rail line after reaching an agreement with BNSF Railway that expands rail access to state shippers and settles two pending lawsuits.

Under the sales agreement, subject to approval by the federal Surface Transportation Board, BNSF will pay $41.64 million for the line that the state purchased in 1980 for $15 million from the Milwaukee Road Railroad.

"This is great news for our farmers and shippers in South Dakota," Gov. Mike Rounds said Friday in announcing the agreement.The state's core line runs from Aberdeen to Mitchell, Mitchell to Canton, Canton to Sioux Falls, and Mitchell to Sioux City. As part of the agreement, BNSF - formerly known as Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway - will allow certain access rights to the line by smaller South Dakota-based railroads. That will give South Dakota shippers of everything from corn, soybeans and millet to ethanol access to additional markets, said Rounds' spokesman, Mark Johnston.

"It's all about access to markets that our producers and our agricultural shippers didn't have before, predominantly from South Dakota to the Northwest," Johnston said. "There are a number of ports in the Northwest that this will open access to, especially for foreign as well as domestic markets. It also will help in the Great Lakes region, too."The agreement settles two lawsuits pending in federal and state courts between South Dakota and BNSF, said Bill Nevin, a lawyer for the state Department of Transportation. One lawsuit involved the state's use of BNSF's interchange at its Aberdeen yard. The other lawsuit involved a dispute over rental payments and allowing access to the state's core line by third-party railroads.

"Both of those are resolved now," Nevin said.

BNSF wants to purchase the core line "because it plays an important role in our network," company spokesman Dick Russack said."We see this as an opportunity to grow business in South Dakota and to invest in the line and make it a more integral part of our extensive network," he said.

In 1980, then-Gov. Bill Janklow persuaded legislators to create a rail authority and temporarily raise the state sales tax to buy that 368-mile core line from the Milwaukee Road Railroad.At the time, highways and bigger trucks had helped force private railroad companies into abandoning lines and considering bankruptcy. So Janklow produced a plan to save only an essential core line in the state.

In 1981, BNSF agreed to provide rail service on behalf of the state on the core line for five years. In 1986, a new agreement was reached in which BNSF agreed to continue operations, and the state agreed to allow BNSF to buy the core line.

While the South Dakota Railroad Authority approved the sale Wednesday, the Surface Transportation Board must still act, Johnston said. He had no timetable for when that might happen.If approved, the $41.64 million from the sale will go into the state's Railroad Trust Fund, where it will be used for railroad infrastructure improvements, Nevin said.

The state still owns several rail lines, he said, including the Britton line between Aberdeen and Geneseo Junction in North Dakota. It also owns lines between Mitchell and Kadoka, Napa Junction and Platte, and Canton and Elk Point.Reach reporter Steve Young at 331-2306.

Subject: [SoDakRailFans] Fwd: STB 'In Control' dept. - BNSF, state of South Dakota in SD, IA (cont'd)
From:"Paul S. Highland"
Date:Thu, 26 May 2005 09:48:28 -0700
To: SD Railfans , MN Railfans

Full Text of Decision

35887

SERVICE DATE - LATE RELEASE MAY 25, 2005

SEC

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

DECISION

STB Finance Docket No. 34667

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY -ACQUISITION AND OPERATION- STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Decided: May 25, 2005

By application filed February 18, 2005, BNSF Railway Company (BNSF)[1] seeks authority, under 49 U.S.C. 10901 and 49 CFR Part 1150, Subpart A (ss 1150.1 et seq.), to acquire and operate approximately 368 miles of railroad lines (referred to as the "Core Lines") that are now owned by the State of South Dakota (the State). The Core Lines extend principally: between milepost (MP) 777.0 near Aberdeen, SD, and MP 650.6 near Mitchell, SD; between MP 518.9 near Sioux City, IA, and MP 649.7 near Mitchell, SD; between MP 293.1 near Canton, SD, and MP 650.6 near Mitchell, SD; between MPs 74.1 and 68.8 in Sioux Falls, SD; between MP 68.8 near Sioux Falls, SD, and MP 49.4 near Canton, SD; and between MPs 511.9 and 518.9 in Sioux City, IA.

By decision served March 3, 2005, and published in the Federal Register on March 8, 2005,[2] interested persons were requested to submit comments respecting the BNSF application. Such comments were submitted by two parties: the State, which asked that approval of the BNSF application be made subject to four conditions; and John D. Fitzgerald, for and on behalf of United Transportation Union- General Committee of Adjustment (UTU/GO-386), who asked that the BNSF application be approved without conditions.

By joint motion filed May 19, 2005, BNSF and the State ask that this proceeding be stayed pending the implementation of the terms and conditions of an agreement reached between BNSF and the State, dated as of April 25, 2005, to resolve the State's concerns in this proceeding and to settle andresolve related litigation pending between BNSF and the State. The agreement provides, among other things, for the grant to the State or third parties of certain trackage, haulage, or access rights over rail lines owned or to be acquired by BNSF in South Dakota. The agreement contemplates the execution of a number of implementing agreements with third parties, after which BNSF and the State would request immediate resumption of this proceeding, the State would withdraw its comments and request for conditions, and BNSF and the State would seek unconditional and expedited approval of BNSF's proposed acquisition of the Core Lines. The agreement also contemplates that all conditions of settlement (including execution of required third party implementing agreements, Board approval of BNSF's acquisition of the Core Lines, closing on the Core Lines acquisition, and dismissal of the related litigation) must occur prior to October 25, 2005, or the terms of the settlement will be null and void.

BNSF and the State have therefore requested that this proceeding be stayed to allow completion of certain terms of settlement until such time as BNSF and the State may jointly request that the stay be lifted, provided that in no event shall the stay extend beyond October 25, 2005, unless BNSF and the State mutually agree and jointly request otherwise.

In view of the Board's preference for negotiated solutions to disputes arising between railroad industry stakeholders, this proceeding will be held in abeyance until October 25, 2005. The Board requests that BNSF and/or the State will submit a report on the progress of the implementation of the agreement on or before August 22, 2005. The Board expects that BNSF and/or the State will submit, no later than October 25, 2005, a request seeking further action to be taken in this proceeding. Moreover, we note that not all parties to this proceeding have entered into the settlement agreement.

This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.

It is ordered:

1. This proceeding will be held in abeyance until October 25, 2005.

2. BNSF Railway, Inc. and/or the State of South Dakota will submit, on or before August 22, 2005, a report on the implementation of the agreement.

3. This decision is effective on the service date.

By the Board, Vernon A. Williams, Secretary.

Vernon A. Williams
Secretary

-----

[1] Effective January 20, 2005, The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company changed its name to BNSF Railway Company.

[2] BNSF Railway Company - Acquisition and Operation - State of South Dakota, STB Finance Docket No. 34667 (STB served March 3, 2005, and published March 8, 2005, at 70 FR 11309).

Subject:[SoDakRailFans] SD rail sale cash debate
From:Todd Schultz
Date:Tue, 21 Jun 2005 12:19:37 -0500
To:MNRail , Sodakrailfans

From Aberdeen American News via Altamont Press Railroad News site:

*Lawmakers ponder uses of cash from rail sale*

The sale of some South Dakota state-owned railroad track will mean a one-time infusion of $41 million, but state Rep. Deb Peters, R-Hartford, says the state needs to be smart about what's done with that money.

It should not be used for ongoing programs, said Peters, a member of the Legislature's Appropriations Committee. "We need our government to be responsible with the sales proceeds."

Peters said her committee and the full Legislature should be part of the process because of the amount of money involved.

Committee members have sought details of the sale of 368 miles of state-owned track to the BNSF Railway Company.

Transportation Secretary Judy Payne said negotiations between BNSF and other railroads that want to use the track are not finished.

"Until such time as those agreements are worked out, I don't believe there's much to talk about in terms of the settlement," Payne said. "There isn't much legally, quite frankly, that we can talk about."

Payne said when the deal is done, the $41 million will go to the railroad trust fund, which is earmarked for railroad improvements, and "what happens to it from there is certainly up to you folks."

The state is "out of the picture right now in terms of the agreement. It's between the other railroads and the BNSF," Payne said.

The rail trust fund should have $18.7 million at the end of this budget year, and if the sale is added, the fund would grow to nearly $60 million.

The trust fund is a creature of the Legislature, said state Rep. Jim Putnam, R-Armour. "We giveth and we taketh away, so to speak."

"The legislative body has authority to go to any and all funds," Putnam said. "When those funds are indeed in place, if they're needed for good government and so forth, in getting things done, we have them."

Payne said the state still owns about 430 miles of core line. "If the settlement comes to fruition, we are no longer going to be getting rent from Burlington Northern for those miles of track that they were paying for."

That revenue source will dry up, but the need for railroad infrastructure expenditures, loans and other such expenses will continue, she said. *- The Associated Press, The Aberdeen American News, courtesy Larry W. Grant*

Subject:Re: MNRail: Presho motorcar runs
From:David Voeltz
Date:Tue, 05 Jul 2005 00:03:47 -0500 To:mnrail@lists.visi.com

At 11:15 PM 7/4/05, you wrote:

Dave,

Having just gotten back in after watching the local fireworks, I was reminded of the Presho runs. Did you have many riders?

I was there Sunday to mow to Vivian and return to Reliance. It was pretty quiet in town. I didn't see motorcars or potential riders.

Alex

Alex,

Business was slow. We gave about 2 dozen rides the entire day on Saturday. LeRay stayed overnight incase there was any activity on Sunday but left about noon due to boredom :-)

We rode from Main St east to the first crossing and back. That worked out fine. LeRay tells me it was a bit thick because of trees out west of town (as I remember). I'll have to find a weekend and put together a brush cleaning posse unless the state brings you a big pot of money to get the pro brush cutters out there :-)

I'm out on STIP meetings for the next 3 weeks. Much fun. Come to Mitchell on the 14th and testify for more railroad funding.

Dave

Subject: Re: [MNRailGroup] SD rail sale
From:"Alex or Dick Huff"
Date:Fri, 4 Nov 2005 11:32:17 -0600
To: MNRailGroup@yahoogroups.com

The sale has not been completed. Current deadline to get all agreements finished is Nov. 15th.

Alex

Subject: Re: [SoDakRailFans] South Dakota selling land along state rail line
From:"Alex or Dick Huff"
Date:Fri, 4 Nov 2005 11:35:26 -0600
To: SoDakRailFans@yahoogroups.com

The sale of the Core Lines has not been completed. The present deadline is Nov. 15th. The #2 man at BNSF met with the South Dakota Governor on Monday to try and get the final bumps in the road smoothed out.

Alex

Subject:[SoDakRailFans] South Dakota core line sale
From:"Alex or Dick Huff"
Date:Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:12:38 -0600
To: SoDakRailFans@yahoogroups.com
CC: MNRailGroup@yahoogroups.com

Todd wrote, "Can anyone reveal the status of the SD rail sale? Last I heard,the deadline for an agreement with BNSF had been extended to Nov. 15th."

The fifth? deadline is tomorrow, 11/22. Attorneys still at work finalizing documents as this is written. Four shortlines, four rail authorities, one regional railroad and one state are on one side of the table, BNSF is on the other side.

This deadline should hold. South Dakota's governor said Thursday if documents weren't signed by 11/22, the state would see BNSF back in court.

Alex, who was signing documents this afternoon

Subject:[SoDakRailFans] Businessman says talks moving ahead in SD state rail line sale
From:nascarphan@...
Date:Tue, 22 Nov 2005 21:49:59 EST
To:2ndTRMRCC@yahoogroups.com, bullexcrementy@yahoogroups.com, RosevilleRoustaboutCliques@yahoogroups.com, SoDakRailFans@yahoogroups.com, TRCNWCC@yahoogroups.com, TheRealWesternPacific@yahoogroups.com

>From The Milwaukee Bad Boy List.

Zoom Zoom

--------------------------------------------------------------------

YANKTON, S.D. (AP) -- Progress is being made in negotiations to work out the details of a proposed sale of the state-owned railroad line, the head of the Dakota Southern Railway said Tuesday.

In April, Gov. Mike Rounds said a general agreement had been reached under which the Burlington Northern Santa Fe would buy the state-owned rail line for about $41 million.

But state and BNSF officials said the sale hinged on whether details of t