In Trustees of Property of Penn Central Transportation Company v. United States Railway Association, 463 F. Supp. 1321 (D. D.C. 1979), the Special Court addressed the issue of whether it had jurisdiction over matters pertaining to the allocation of costs relative to the repair of railroad facilities stating the following: As for the maintenance obligations, the plaintiffs have argued that those involve nothing more than the obligation of the railroad to maintain its own facilities. The Court have not been apprised of the nature and extent of the maintenance obligations that might be incurred and so cannot evaluate the Trustees' argument. It is fatal to ConRail's argument in this regard, however, that the only issue before the Court is the right to compensation for the appropriations themselves. In Pennsylvania the issue of the costs of future maintenance and repair is separable from the issue of compensation for property rights appropriated. Township of Scott v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'n, 174, 188 Pa. Super. 174, 146 A.2d 617 (1958). the PUC may allocate part of the costs of maintenance to the Department of Highways, Pennsylvania Railroad Co. v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'n, 136 Pa. Super. 1, 7 A.2d 86 (1930); to a benefited municipal corporation, Erie R.R. v. Public Service Comm'n, 271 Pa. 409, 114 A. 357 (1921); or entirely to the railroad itself, See Township of Scott v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Comm'n, supra, 146 A.2d 617, 621. If ConRail wishes to have the commonwealth or a municipal corporation share the costs of maintenance, it may petition the PUC for an order allocating the costs. Public Utility Law 409, 411, 66 P.S. 1179, 1181; Township of Scott v. Public Utility Commission, supra, 146 A.2d 617, 618-619. Id. at 1327-1328.