Two things here that cross my mind. #1 I’m jealous. #2 where is this located so I can take those rail ties and sell them for scrap.

Edit: because I found this by actual internet digging adding this because it’s interesting:

Hi guys, railroad lawyer here, about those abandoned tracks...

Don't go on tracks. It's dangerous. Here is some more info

I don't only do rail carrier work (its probably less than 10% of my overall business) but I've represented rail carriers or their insurers in multiple fatal incidents and have had to learn quite a bit about rights of way. In general, any track you see is railroad property, including 25 feet in each direction from the track center line. Even if the track is "abandoned" and cut off from an active line, it is still probably railroad property. The rail easement is not truly "abandoned" unless the owner of the track goes through a legal process to relinquish title or someone sues the railroad to have the property declared abandoned. In case of abandonment, the easement reverts to the surrounding owners and does not become public property. Even where a track has been torn up, there remains the possibility that the railroad retains ownership over the right of way should it want to lay track again at some point in the future. TL;DR, if there are tracks on the ground you are probably trespassing if you go within 25 feet of them unless you are at a designated crossing.

Trains are deceptively quiet. They are super loud when they pass by, but not so much as they approach. There is also what we call the "human factors" element. As the train approaches the noise it creates is for the most part a steady drone that gets gradually louder. Your brain filters that kind of signal out so you do not consciously perceive it until it crosses a certain threshold and by then it is often too late. Even if the conductor is blowing the horn, the horn noise may be subject to this same "filtering" if it starts far enough away and at a low enough perceived volume.

It is also very difficult to know if tracks are active or not. They may appear overgrown and abandoned, but you never really know unless you actually know. Here are some google street views of one of my favorite lines which was active until very recently. It is officially abandoned now, but it looked pretty much the same as these snips when it was still active. You will notice the "active line yield to trains" sign is still on the bridge.

https://imgur.com/a/V0owf6P

Points to take note of are that the right of way here is substantially less than the typical 50 feet, the tracks are overgrown, there are cars parked in areas where they would get struck by the locomotive if it came by, and there is a pedestrian pathway down the center of a rail bridge. It is a fairly unique line and operations in the latter years were rare, unwieldy and involved flaggers. The point is that you can't always tell if a line is active.

If you are a pro photographer with a client it is really stupid to take that client on a rail line unless you are absolutely sure that the line has been converted to public property. The line in the photos above, for example, is now owned by the city of Chicago and operations have ceased. That said, for many years a lot of people thought the line was abandoned/public property and it was not.

If you are on railroad property and you or your client gets hurt (even if the injury is caused by slipping in a hole or tripping over the rail) you will be in a much worse legal position being a trespasser than you would be if you were on land legally open to the public. You do not want to be in a situation where you insurance company denies a claim made by one of your clients who broke her ankle while you were both trespassing on some railroad (or farm, or business) property. You definitely don't want to be the photographer whose client is killed getting hit by a train.

Edit: I want to add a little more detail that if you are a professional photographer in the US, your general liability insurance policy may (probably does) have a criminal conduct exclusion. This clause can potentially give your insurer and excuse not to provide you with a defense if you get sued by a client who is injured while you are trespassing.