Re: Disused line permission

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"Bruce Greening" <bgreeni@attglobal.net> wrote in message
397446C3.9FD0AAC4@attglobal.net">news:397446C3.9FD0AAC4@attglobal.net...

> Not sure about the line under discussion, but there are two parties (or
three)
> involved in any disused line.

Totally irrelevant to the line under discussion.

>    * SRA's rail estate who own the land.

Except that we are talking about Commonwealth property here that just
happened to have a railway line built upon it. A search reveals no transfer
of land from the Commonwealth to NSW (although that does not mean that no
transfer took place).

>    * RAC who own the track, and are responsible for issues such as weed
control, etc.

Only if RAC (aka NSW authorities) actually controlled the track to start
with (by control, I do not mean in terms of train control, I am referring to
ownership issues here).

>    * The maintenance contractor for the particular line, who actually
carries out
>      (or subcontracts) the work.

The line was closed long before the current split of responsibilities. This
last argument is a furphy.

> In the case of a line where a heritage operator is in place, they are
responsible
> to carry out the work for RAC.

Not true - this only applies when ownership of the line resides in RAC. An
example of a line where "a heritage operator is in place" is Unanderra to
moss Vale - the "heritage operator" is clearly not responsible on this
section.

Dave