Railroad
It's official status is "Out of Service" not "Abandoned". It has to be abandoned through a specific procedure with the federal government for anything to revert. Non use nor non maintenance constitute abandonment of a rail corridor. States have little if anything to do with it. They actually plan to use it again in their 20 year plan.
We will of course be consulting with the attorneys. The clients, the city's, and probably the railroads soon enough. We found an possible easement that could benefit our client and the evidence, as it stands now, seems to show it as being valid so we are going to plot it as a possible easement with a lot of notes. I don't thing we are determining title here. Just plotting what we have found and advising the client and attorneys about it.
Tom
Railroad
Your situation is very simple for me to visualize. I own a farm that was crossed by a railroad in 1888. A triangular piece containing nearly 40 acres was severed from the remainder and sits in the southeast corner of the northwest quarter of the section. There is a private crossing of the railroad to allow me (and all past and future owners) to access the road along the west section line. That right to the private crossing is directly tied only to that portion of the northwest quarter of the section. If I were to purchase either the northeast quarter or the east half of the southwest quarter of the section I would gain access to other roads, but, that would not extinguish my right to the private crossing. I did purchase that part of the west half of the southwest quarter lying east of the railroad, but, it does not touch the tract in the northwest quarter by about 75 feet. I have been known to "possibly" wander along that 75 feet of railroad right of way when moving equipment from one field to the next.
The issue I see in your situation is that the intent of the "whatever it really is" document drawn up in 1868 is to benefit only the owner of that landlocked tract. Even if the owner of that tract purchases additional tracts adjacent to it, I do not believe that automatically awards any usage rights to the owner (even if same) of those adjacent tracts. In the case of my crossing, it is a relatively lightweight crossing intended for occasional use for agricultural and similar uses. I suppose I could construct a house there and still have the right. My crossing is not suitable for semi-trailers to cross and none should be expected to cross it. I believe that if I constructed a commercial or industrial facility on that otherwise landlocked tract that I would need to work with the railroad to upgrade it to be a "public" crossing.