>One difference with WRM is that it owns the land under the railroad.

Incorrect. I recall this being explained quite clearly at the time: WRM had to buy and would own the RR track but would become only custodian of the R/W, which would be in the right of way bank, controlled by US the Department of the Interior under the provisions of the right of way banking act.

Think about it: if title to the land which makes up a R/W, even a short section of it, passes on to others, then entire R/W has become useless. The Key System's line to Richmond (the G line) was stymied by one single homeowner who refused to sell his house and lot, which sat right across the R/W at the north end of Asbury St in El Cerrito.

In the 1950s and 1960s, right of ways were being lost because they were becoming segmented and/or gone altogether because of reversionary clauses. The rail banking act was specifically written and passed to prevent this segmentation and loss should future situations (like urban sprawl) dictate a need a railroad. If WRM or Alameda County "owned" the respective R/Ws, then when the UP, or whoever, came along to (re-)build a railroad, they could tell the future RR to take a hike, and this would be counter to the intent of the rail banking act.

At the time WRM acquired the SN trackage, I was very concerned with what PLA appears to be facing today: a rail operator filing a certificate of need to take the R/W back and use it as a real railroad. This would mean the end of the museum because the playpen (for lack of a better term) would vanish, not to mention the waste of all the sweat equity and money to build, maintain, and use it.

WRM is a bit more fortunate because it and the custodian are the same entity and the SN track goes to an area at its south end not commercially useful, a designated wetlands called he Suisun Marshes. Look at all the issues Caltrans has been enduring in order to improve the highway through Niles Canyon. Similar issues would be faced at the south end of the line by any RR who desired to take back the SN R/W, and these would be compounded by what to do when it got to the river, because anyone who wanted to build a bridge or port there would face an entirely separate Gordian Knot, probably more complex, not to mention costly.

I knew a lot of the key people at PLA when they moved into Niles Canyon, and they explained that they have to remain in the R/W custodian's good graces (i.e. do not P.O. Alamdeda County), or they can be kicked out without the UP/ACE/etc doing anything. Since WRM is also the custodian of the R/W, it's in a slightly more secure position than PLA, but as I said before, I sincerely hope that PLA doesn't have to pull up stakes and move again (which would be the 4th move, RVJ to Crow Canyon to Castro Point to Sunol being the first three).

>The freight houses at Molena and Rio Vista Junction had been sold by SN earlier so WRM had to purchase the RVJ freight house from the new owner.

Partially correct. The "freight house" at RVJ, and the land under it, was donated to RVJ by the owners, the Blakemore family about 15 years ago. In the 1970s, WRM purchased the land immediately surrounding it to the south, east and north from the WP (this is a small parcel which is separate from he two main parcels purchased in 1961).

Don't know the situation with the one at Molena, although a very faint bell rings that the Blakemores might have been involved with that building too.

>Technically it is an active short line railroad under the jurisdiction of FRA and California PUC. Monthly accident reports are submitted to FRA and annual PUC track safety inspections are made. Public grade crossing protection would be a problem if the line were abandoned. Sawbucks are installed and maintained by WRM but all other signs are installed by Solano County or Caltrans.

Misleading to incorrect. All RRs are under the jurisdiction of regulatory authorities, FRA and PUC -- including WRM, Seashore Trolley Museum, IRM, the NCRy, Etc. Whether or not these authorities exercise this jurisdiction, and how closely, is a bureaucratic decision on their part, which to date has been pretty much hands-off. So far there haven't been serious accidents involving visitors at museums, but if there ever are, "watch out".

All WRM trains must stop before crossing Shilo Rd because that is a Calif PUC stipulation imposed when the SN took out the crossing protection devices (a wig-wag) in the early 1950s, and because WRM took over the SN, it inherited this stipulation. Little Honker Bay Rd has no such restriction because it never had crossing protection devices. WRM has elected not to exceed 15 over the crossing, and this speed limit is subject to change by WRM.