1152 Whether or not a rail right of way had been legally abandoned or discontinued as of the date of value is often key. See Preseault v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n (Preseault I), 494 U.S. 1, 5 n.3 (1990) (discussing important distinction between legal “abandonment” of a rail line and “discontinuance” of service under Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. § 10903 (1982)); see, e.g., Terminal Coal Co. v. United States, 172 F.2d 113, 114-16 (3d Cir. 1949) (finding railroad had not abandoned right of way that was actively used for railroad purposes until taking, therefore owner of reversionary interest in underlying land in event of abandonment was entitled to only nominal compensation); Woodville v. United States, 152 F.2d 735, 737-39 (10th Cir. 1946), cert. denied, 328 U.S. 842 (1946) (same result where owner of reversionary interest was municipality).