[nicola_tesla]

Or it may be that his deed carried a reversion clause that upon abandonment by the rr, the right-of-way would revert back to the deedholder.

I know for a fact that the rail-to-trail fanatics would like to make you believe otherwise.

This same thing happened to me. I fought the trail successfully because the rr had abandoned the property a decade before and my deed said I recovered the right-of-way. The County did everything short of eminent domain, then abandoned the idea when it was pointed out to them how much it would cost to buy 15 miles of former right-of-way.

[bert]

.....it may be that his deed carried a reversion clause .....

I know. It may also be, as it locally occurred, that at some point the state acquired the right of way as creditor of the railroad and the route was never abandoned.

It causes never ending hard feelings.

[Alberta's Child]

Very interesting information.

I think it's worth noting that the term "abandonment" has a very specific legal definition when it comes to railroads in the U.S. Whenever I see one of these out-of-service railroad rights-of-way or rail trails (we have a bunch of both in New Jersey) I wonder exactly how far along the formal abandonment process is -- or how long it took to complete it.

[Mark was here]

Damn shame the county did not act before the easement was abandoned. The original land owner was paid for the easement, so the current owner would not be out a penny.