Comment by TomaszZielinski
3 years ago
I don't know, that's why I asked--for me "infrastructure" sounds like the immovable parts. Similarly to road infrastructure, which doesn't include cars. But it's just my armchair impression, I have no idea how the law works in this context.
I quickly scanned the sentence you linked to, and art. 254a seems to be applied only to the theft of wires from tracks? Or am I missing something?
I've tried googling "infrastruktura kolejowa", and it seems that Ustawa o transporcie kolejowym defines it in art. 4.1, referencing Appendix 1. And that Appendix only lists immovable stuff. But again, I'm not a lawyer and I'm aware that definitions from one act often don't apply to a different act, in different branch of law.
In the usage I'm familiar with (in the US), the entire rail network is considered "transportation infrastructure", from a national perspective.
But from the perspective of just the rail network, the track and other infrastructure is considered separate from the rolling stock.
I wonder: If the rolling stock becomes immobilized, does it now count as immovable stuff?
If that were true, Amtrak wouldn't be leasing railways as it's nationally run. Railroad companies like Union Pacific, Norfolk Southern, CSX, own their rails. They own their rolling stock. They own their locomotives. They lend you, the business person, a rolling stock to load and ship to where you need it to go. There it will be unloaded and sold/shipped by truck to final destination.
Rail companies own the right-of-way AND the rails. They control what runs on their rails, who runs on their rails, when they run, etc.
It's quite something to think that 97% of the rail tracks in the USA are privately owned.
https://public.railinc.com/about-railinc/blog/who-owns-railr...
What’s really interesting to me is how much of that 97% was built using public funds.
3 replies →
Ah, that's a very good distinction between the national perspective and the rail perspective!
> I wonder: If the rolling stock becomes immobilized, does it now count as immovable stuff?
Assuming it's a philosophical question, and not a legal one, how about: - A runner that's currently running is obviously a runner - A runner that finished running for today is still a runner - A runner with serious knee problems is a former runner ?
Also practical question: how much of the rolling stock has to become immobilized before the immovable parts of the infrastructure become useless? At which point you can start throwing the book at whoever's responsible?
1 reply →
We routinely call servers and such 'infrastructure' when they are in fact much easier to move (if not by themselves) than your average rail road car or locomotive. A kid could do it, all by themselves.
2 replies →
Reminds me of the recent Supreme Court case about whether a train is "in use" while parked at a railyard:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2022/03/justices-search-for-the-l...
Thanks for the link! It's fascinating for a laymen like me how they considered all those different angles.
And also:
> For Breyer, however, the prospect of a “tractive power” test
> confirmed that the concept of “use” is so inherently context-dependent
> that the court would be better off taking the “common law approach”
> of resolving just this particular case,
> rather than attempting to determine the word’s meaning for all time.