Realistically, RAILROADS won't be affected by the decision at all. If anything, it will make their life easier if the trail people more or less go away. The title hassles involved with reversion aren't their problem after they've pulled up the tracks and left. Their only concern might be if some part of the line is on land the RR actually owns and other parts are just easement - could get some landlocked parcels if they're unlucky, but RRs have lawyers and right of way departments whose job it is to take care of situations like that.

The TRAIL people are the ones with the problem. They've been getting essentially free land from the R-to-T program, or at least they don't have to negotiate with and buy title of some kind (maybe another easement) from the surrounding or reversionary property owners. Going through the whole right of way business would kill off the more marginal (most of the ones I've seen) trail schemes. Again, can a trail bunch make a deal with a railroad to take over maintenance of a line that can be shown as viable should reasonably foreseeable business be developed? In that case, a trail as a temporary use might make sense, but somebody (the RR or a public agency acting as a RR) would probably need to hold the title and allow the trail. The RR won't want to do that unless the future business is more than just reasponably foreseeable, and the trail people won't like setups that are that temporary. Just mumbling here ... I think some trails will still be able to work it out, but only if they have a lot of political and financial support, including ongoing buck$ for ops and at least minimal RR line maintenance.