Large Scale Central

Lane County OR craps on residents railroad!

General Discussion
#1

Dear All - as you know, mrs tac and I spend a LOT of time in Oregon, and have some great and close friends there. A year last september we made some new ones, who are now having a real hard time from the county planning authorities - please read my quote from another forum…

quote - Lownen

Passenger
Posts:1

Send Message
05/29/2008 9:17 PM Quote ReplyAlert
A friend sent me a link to this site about an 18" gauge train in Oregon that the state wants removed. Rather than rewrite the whole thing here, please read my blog post on the subject.

http://modeltrains.about.com/b/2008/05/29/meadows-and-lake-kathleen-railroad.htm

tacfoley
1st Class Member

Foreman
Posts:249

Send Message
05/29/2008 10:32 PM Edit Quote ReplyAlert
Dear Friends on the Forum - A year last september, my wife and two close friends of ours from Portland visited with J and K, the owners of this wonderful track and spent a rather damp but exhilarating day with them [and their dogs] on and around their beautiful site.

I’m not going to say who they are either, for fear of intruding, but two more genuine folks, deeply in love with the environment, would be very hard to imagine - they need ALL the support you can muster, bleeve me.

The amount of time and effort put into EVERY aspect of the railway, and its impact on the local environment, is prodigious, and deserves our respect and admiration.

The steam locomotive was rebuilt in the shops of the GS4 4449 and SP&S 700 - and I saw it in ‘kit-form’ on one of my frequent visits. The big-sit-in diesel is just that - it has a cab big enough to sit in for somebody my size - 5’-10" and 230 pounds.

The landscape is not only very beautiful, some might say hauntingly breathtakingly so, but is totally at one with the railway that passes through it so convincingly.

I am appalled by the attitude of those who should know better, especially in a state that prides itself on being friendly to enterprise coupled with respect for the environment we all love so much.

Please help them to keep a piece of Oregon alive.

tac, mrs tac, ig, crow, Larry & Jo-Ann’ - end quote

I’m not about to tell anybody what to do about this - it’s certainly not my place - and I have no vested interest in this venture - all I can ask you to do is to look at the blog, inspect the site, and do what you feel is right to do.

I already have, and I’ll be there in september.

tac

#2

You know as much as I want to build my own ridable railroad someday, hopefully sooner rather than later. these guys are twits. How could you possibly not consider talking to the state DEC about bridge abutments and wetlands? They should be fined for more, and forced to take out any track that doesn’t meet state bridge safety codes.

#3

That sucks, but sadly it’s not too surprising. Oregon is chock full of extremist environuts with no respect for property rights at all.

#4
Mark Dash said:
You know as much as I want to build my own ridable railroad someday, hopefully sooner rather than later. these guys are twits. How could you possibly not consider talking to the state DEC about bridge abutments and wetlands? They should be fined for more, and forced to take out any track that doesn't meet state bridge safety codes.
Typical Socialist nonsense.

These folks restored the land to its original condition, or at least as close as they could get. Then, some socialist unelected bureaucrat decides that “They can’t do that!” without even doing an investigation. Once they did investigate, they realized that they (the bureaucrats) really didn’t have a case, so to show their magnanimity, decided to reduce the fine in view of the restoration work.

WHATEVER HAPPENED TO PROPERTY RIGHTS?

#5

It would appear that as far as environmentalists are concerned, it is acceptable to have a cattle farm (considering that cattle contribute a large portion of methane gas to kill off the ozone layer and cattle dung polutes adjoining waterways), than it is to rejuvenate the land to get it back to natural appearance. The railroad operators ‘sin’ was they did not involve the state authorities in the initial planning process. However, if a poll was conducted with land owners, exactly how many, apart from involving building/zoning regulatory authorities, would choose to tell the authorities that they were building a railroad. Seems like a simple face saving measure. The authorities went in with guns blazing then realised that they had overstepped the mark. Instead of offering a simple handshake apology, they decided to over-react and ‘save face.’

#6

I guess next they’ll be going after the guy who owns Train Mountain. They’d crap gold bricks if they ever saw that place! Typical unelected Bureaucracy run amok. I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but I’m certainly going to contribute to their Preservation Fund!

#7
Ken Brunt said:
I guess next they'll be going after the guy who owns Train Mountain. They'd crap gold bricks if they ever saw that place! Typical unelected Bureaucracy run amok. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but I'm certainly going to contribute to their Preservation Fund!
Train Mountain - a place we know right well - can clearly be seen on Google Earth for what it actually is - a total living dream for the railroad enthususiast.

It’s the largest 7.5" gauge railroad on earth - almost 26 REAL MILES - and makes a visit to Chiloquin a must for anybody in the NWP interested in live-steam and dismal trains of all kinds.

Go there on a non-steaming day, and rent one their neat little street-cars and womble around the track to your heart’s content, as we do…go off the main drag onto a siding and take lunch at your leisure, watch the birdies, and chill out.

Or go on a steaming day and be prepared to push your eyeballs back in every ten seconds.

Look here - http://www.livesteaming.com/train_mountain_triennial.htm

and here - http://www.trainmountain.org/default.asp

tac

#8

I’ll have to try that Google Earth. I did visit the place in '03 and had a great time. Quinton gave us the Grand Tour…:wink:

(http://trainweb.org/rgs/trainmtn08.jpg)

#9

Ken,

Nice picture, shows the scale size trees to great advantage. :wink: :smiley:

#10

It’s not clear to me from that link what the state is objecting to. Is there another side of this story? The railroad looks great to me–completely charming and delightful. I’d like to see what the state’s argument is.

I know this will not be a popular position here, but not everyone who works for the government is a jackbooted thug, and not everyone who works on environmental issues is a wild-eyed zealot. Does anyone have a link to the State’s side of the story? Please note: I’m not suggesting that the State is right–it may indeed be acting unreasonably. I’d just like to see both sides of the story before rushing to judgment

#11

OK, now it is time to get into it!! The Tree huggers can go to HELL and I’ll help them get there - they are the baine of my life as an engineer! I am not sure how much BS I would have to ge thru to get an Oregon PE but it might be worth it if they need an engineered drawing and stamp to get the bridges of’d. Nor the “Wet Lands” are a whole lot of an other problem. However the improvement of the Salmon Habitat is even beter, who ever said the Cow pup is bad hit right on the head, cattle of all kinds are the largest source of steam polution and remove of the source is very important in cleaning up the Salmon streams.

What next, will they come after those who have 1.75 " track in our back yards? I would not put it past them!

We all need to vote the people who hire these people and get them replaced Union of not!

I think it is a great back yard RR, abit a very large back yard!

Paul

#12

Mark Dash - The RR and the bridge are a private bridge on private property. A private bridge doesn’t have to meet local, state, or federal bridge codes, however the owner does take all the responsibility for it even if it does meet the codes. If both sides of the creek are owned by the same person he doesn’t need permission to build it. Building codes don’t apply here. Zoning codes might but if the county didn’t have something already in place to control it this guy had every right to build his RR on his property. Everyone complains about lawyers but this it a time to go hire one! Roger Crooks, Bridge Engineer

#13

Are there downstream issues involved? I’m still trying to figure out what the state or county’s 's objection is. If you built a railroad, including ballast, across an existing drainage you’d clearly be having an impact–in effect you’d be building a low dam.

Also if they broke the law–and I assume the county is claiming that they did, although I can’t tell–then it does seem odd that they didn’t check before they built it. They seem to live inside or next to a state park–common sense would say to investigate before building on or next to land owned by the county.

Imagine this as a hypothetical: they broke the law when they built the railroad. The county goes out and looks and says "hey you broke the law here–we’re fining you. They point out that they’ve done the tree plantings and other things, and the county knocks the fine down to $500 bucks. It doesn’t seem like a huge injustice. As far as I can tell, the county is not dismantling the railroad.

Stuff like this happens around here all the time–someone builds themselves a new house, and they want it as big as possible, and they build too high or too wide. The neighbors complain, the county comes out, says your house is too big, either modify it or pay a fine. The owners of the new house often cry about government tyranny but the fact is you are responsible for knowing the law and the county has an obligation to enforce it.

But it’s all just speculation–the link, and the website, don’t provide enough info to figure out what’s going on.

#14

Mike,

I read “wetlands” on their website! As the ex-owner of approx. 20 acres of Class 1 wetlands in Ontario I have a keen appreciation of what wetlands are supposed to be about. Building a miniature railway is OUT! As are all kinds of other items! For those not familiar with wetlands quite often they are the primary filters of water at the headwaters of streams and rivers, Screw that up and it will only get worse downstream! It usually does anyway, but that’s another story!

I’m also familiar with people building first and asking later - I had one neighbour like that. If the county nails them … GOOD! This isn’t about big brother, eco-freaks, tree huggers etc. etc. this is about stewardship and appropriate land use!

OTOH this is just my two cents worth! :wink: :slight_smile:

#15

I certainly do not have enough information or knowledge of wetland regulations to comment on whether this is big brother over stepping it’s bounds.
I will say these people are blessed with a fine home in very beautiful surroundings and enough land to build a very large railroad. Judging from the photos, all this land is not wetlands. I would think the offending section of railroad could be moved and the wetlands restored.
I hope they can work something out and keep their railroad.
Ralph

#16

HJ - the only mention of “wetlands” that I found on their site was a description of what the county said.

I think that they have well met the requirement for stewardship and appropriate land use. See the comment by the Fish and Game Department about having the best salmon stream in the state.

#17

Steve,

The County doesn’t grab “Wetlands” out of thin air. :open_mouth: Having had a bit of experience albeit in a completely different jurisdiction I would say the designation comes from a higher level in government. Interestingly up here any stream that holds fish and provides fish habitat falls under the federal “Fisheries and Oceans” regime. A lot of the wetlands in Ontario fall under one or the other Conservation Authority - thank heavens for them doing a good job and keeping things the way they should be kept!

In essence to me this looks like a stewardship issue, trains or no trains.

#18

Down here, any depression in the pasture that holds water after the spring snow melt, even if for just a day or two, and is dry the rest of the year, can be labeled (and usually is, when the gummint finds out about it) a wetland, subject to taking by the gummint. That is why the folks down here are upset. There is no rhyme or reason to the revenuers, they are a law unto themselves.

Reading the info provided, I think that these folks have met the stewardship requirement, changing the pasture back into a wetlands. I see no reason for the gummint to come down hard on these folks. If anything, they should get a plaque for best restoration by a private individual!

Article V of our Bill of rights says, in part, “…nor be deprived of … property, without due process of law…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” There doesn’t seem to be any due process or compensation offered for this taking.

Again, stewardship has been well met.

HJ, by the rules here in the good ol’ US of A, that pond and stream you just build has changed your property into a wetlands. You better hope that the revenuers don’t come by! :smiley:

#19

Sounds like a Brave New World in the Home of the Free!

On that pond and stream, I’d tell them that they’re all wet and they’d have to wait 'til it starts leaking. Right now it’s as much of a wetland as the neighbour’s swimming pool. :wink: :slight_smile: :lol:

PS If the State of Oregon considers part of that property wetlands I guess they have a reason

Meadows and Lake Kathleen RR said:
We were fined $3,000 by the state of Oregon for placing our 18 inch gauge railroad on our hay field which they consider to be wetlands. Because of our restoration work (over 550 trees and 2,000 shrubs and plants) they waived $2,500.
Meadows and Lake Kathleen RR said:
It was so swampy in the section just ahead of us that I had to put 14 yards of gravel in a 30 foot section just to stabilize the roadbed so I could place two culverts.
That's the kind of stuff they frown on!
#20
Roger Crooks said:
Mark Dash - The RR and the bridge are a private bridge on private property. A private bridge doesn't have to meet local, state, or federal bridge codes, however the owner does take all the responsibility for it even if it does meet the codes. If both sides of the creek are owned by the same person he doesn't need permission to build it. Building codes don't apply here. Zoning codes might but if the county didn't have something already in place to control it this guy had every right to build his RR on his property. Everyone complains about lawyers but this it a time to go hire one! Roger Crooks, Bridge Engineer
Don't know what state you live in but thats not true for where i'm from. Unless that stream starts and terminates within your property boundaries then yeah, it's your stream, however if that stream goes off your property, the state DEC has jurisdiction on it.

What happens to that stream when logs and other debris comes down stream, gets cloged up on the bridge supports, creates a dam and floods everything upstream. (ps if you look at the pics on the links above you will see the EXAMPLE at this railroad site!!)

You have no GOD DAMN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to alter your land so that it adversly affects someone elses land, thats what codes help protect the neighbors of idiots from