286K Infrastructure, Investments & Procedures in New England

286K gives the railroads' transload customers a much more competitive opton. Plastic shippers like Huntsman or Chevron would rather ship 100 tons into New England versus 90 tons or less, especially for customers that buy an entire carload of plastic. It's also more beneficial for the truckers that deliver the final mile because they normally get paid by how much weight they pull from a car. The 286K railroad can certainly market a transload center more attractively than their 263K counterpart.

KEN PATRICK wrote:I'm mis-informed? i've been through a lot starting with no knowledge of railroad equipment,infrastructure, operations and pricing. Unfortunately, some in this forum lack an understanding of railroad strengths and weaknesses. This forum is an example. "heavy cars into Beacon' Where would they be delivered? Grand junction? Probably spread the rails on the bridge. Folks, the MBTA and railroad pricing has killed rail freight in eastern mass. 286 will have no impact. Accept it . Ken Patrick

Beacon Park is on the CSX main. It's been a 315K transload operation for DECADES. Traffic comes from the WEST...over 315K track. Nothing crosses the Grand Junction except the daily produce train to Everett Terminal. No one, least of all CSX, has ever envisioned it being used for anything more than that.


If you're trying to make a point with all this threadbombing, please be a little less incoherent about what it is. This stopped making any linear sense days ago.

I'm still unsure that any of the MBTA's rail on the northside is rated above 263.

Posting as a civilian with no inside knowledge, there is also the possibility that, while the T's published rating may be 263K, much of the work by the T may have been done to 286K standards. By keeping 263K as the official limit, that would serve as a maintenance cushion and also provide leverage with PAR/S for contributions to the accelerated wear-and-tear for actual 286K loadings.
The northern tier of the Commonwealth has always been at an east-west transportation disadvantage, in major part because of topography. Topography, however, is a predestination that can be overcome, as the Hoosac Tunnel -- at least its concept -- proves. One other thing the Hoosac Tunnel -- in execution -- proves is that boring for other people's money is as much a part of the process as boring through the Hoosac Mountain. With fortune, the fortune that might be spent in bringing PAS to full DS and/or 286K, events will allow the NS/CSX battle to continue with benefit to the northern tier. The money spent on spot-widening Rte. 2 won't significantly improve truck-transit times for the northern tier, but what will attract distribution and transload facilities for the Rte. 2 corridor is 21st-century rail interconnection with CP and NS.
(Poster now concludes mild-mannered rant.)

MIKEMOXIEMAINE wrote:I'm still unsure that any of the MBTA's rail on the northside is rated above 263.

Fitchburg Line, Fitchburg-Ayer (PAS main): yes.
Lowell Line (PAR main), N. Chelmsford-Lowell: yes
Haverhill Line, Lowell Jct.-Lawrence (PAR main): yes. Ongoing construction to 3 Shawsheen River bridges, due for completion this year. Replacement of all remaining lightweight rail to state line occurring this year.
Haverhill Line, Lawrence-Haverhill (PAR main): pending (Merrimack River bridge replacement). In design, construction schedule TBD on funding.
Wildcat Branch: yes (no bridges, track is mostly 11-year-old Downeaster installation up to weight spec)
Lowell Line, Wilmington-Montvale: ?. No bridges between Wildcat and Cross St. Winchester. Tighe Warehouse could be 286K-rated if traffic comes from Lawrence via Wildcat. Rail not too old due to Downeaster traffic, probably up to weight spec.
Lowell Line, Lowell-Wilmington: no. Not needed for Billerica Shops customers.
Lowell Line, Woburn-Boston: no. Washington St. Somerville bridge deficient...due for replacement with Green Line extension. Unclear if Route 16/Mystic River stone arch bridge restricted. Unclear if any other misc. small-stream or road overpasses deficient. Very washout-prone...culvert work being done this year in Somerville-Medford in prep for Green Line extension. 286K not needed for current/likely Boston-area customers.
Fitchburg Line, Boston-Ayer: no (Route 62 Concord bridge). No freight except Global ethanol train and 1 small customer in Littleton.
Reading Line, Boston-Wilmington Jct.: no. No freight.
Eastern Route, Revere-all points north: no (Saugus Draw)
Eastern Route, Boston-Revere: ?. Mystic River bridge is mid-1980's construction...probably 286K-rated. 1 small bridge over Chelsea River...unknown. Stretches of older rail needing replacement. Possible 286K to E. Boston Branch, or very easy upgrade if Chelsea R. bridge is only holdup. 286K not needed for current/likely Boston-area customers, Lowell or Fitchburg Line must be upgraded first.


Reading, Fitchburg east of Ayer, and Eastern Route north of Saugus Draw are all width-restricted by high station platforms, so will never have 286K due to lack of clearances for substantial freight traffic. Reading also severely height-restricted. Only possible branchline addons to PAR 286K are the wide-clearance Lowell Line to Boston and Eastern Route to E. Boston Branch.

'Threadbombing', 'linear incoherence'. Only to those who resist facts.
Fact 1: csxt 8100- no pricing for 286k. Marginal look at cubes. o/w car types. Contract pricing only avenue that might reflect 286. Usually no. Market mgr in charge of carload price(value).Weight? only used to calculate gross rail tonnage for power need.

Fact 2 : cr has prevented freight growth with 263 limitations and dispatching. "windows' never match car flow.

Fact 3: too many arcane shortline deals to overcome.(Braintree to SeMass) ken patrick

No, this is thread pollution. On multiple forums now. How is anyone supposed to respond to this hectoring when the majority of it is a stream of non-sequitur data pollution...shouted loudly and persistently? There's no discussion angle amid that incoherence. That's why these threads keep getting split off and cleaned up before they grind to a halt. Do you have any point to all this, or is it just trolling?

...ditto F-line to Dudley via Park...

"Fact 2 : cr has prevented freight growth with 263 limitations and dispatching. "windows' never match car flow.

Fact 3: too many arcane shortline deals to overcome.(Braintree to SeMass) ken patrick"
Try "Fact 4: the above 2 and 3 are not fact, merely jaded, biased opinion touted and portrayed as "fact" by the poster."
In point of fact, CR ins NOT the obstacle the poster would like to have us believe, nor are "arcane short-lines."
But please, prove me wrong. Please give us SUBSTANTIATED facts to prove the points above listed,...

...or else, quit posting the same repetitive arguments over and over expecting us all to merely roll over and accept your "gloom and doom" pronouncements verbatim.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/ ... ct0610.pdf
(p.5 shows current 286K's and high-clearance status for Southern New England.)

A source for *northern* New England is here:
http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailtrans ... thv101.pdf
See p. 25 in the presentation above for weight limits in Northern New England and Quebec

Cosmo: entire cr system is 263 and under 17'. cr has no incentive to upgrade. look at the state rail plan map. when covanta decided to spend $7mil to upgrade Braintree transfer station, i recommended a re-look at the original plans for a rail move to semass. Because of the car-tipper, expensive opentop boxcars had to be used that would average 50 tons on a good day.At a 1000 tpd output, 20 cars/day would eliminate 42 trucks. Unfortunately, the rail price had to match truck and could not. Seems csxt-mbta-bclrr-mc 'needed' 3 times the truck costs per ton. For a 25 mile run. Here was a chance for Mass DOT to move 20,000 trucks per year from rt 24. Lots of lip service , little action in developing freight rail. Not gloom & doom. Simple facts. Ken Patrick

Help me understand: What does 286K capacity have to do with the movement you mentioned?

Yeah, exactly.
Ok, so maybe not "gloom and doom," but how is it germane to 286k capy?
(Wow, me and Cowford in agreement, how weird is that? )
Oh,... and since when does MBTA "move" anything freightwise? CSX has trackage rights, so yes, there may be a fee involved, but nobody is "paying CR to move" ANYTHING for them.
Oh, and may I remind, it was MBTA that bought the B&A main into Boston from CSX so they could UPGRADE the signals etc for pax.

Cosmo wrote:Yeah, exactly.
Ok, so maybe not "gloom and doom," but how is it germane to 286k capy?
(Wow, me and Cowford in agreement, how weird is that? )
Oh,... and since when does MBTA "move" anything freightwise? CSX has trackage rights, so yes, there may be a fee involved, but nobody is "paying CR to move" ANYTHING for them.
Oh, and may I remind, it was MBTA that bought the B&A main into Boston from CSX so they could UPGRADE the signals etc for pax.

Twas to gain control of the dispatching on the line, which has been in Conrail/CSX's ironclad grip for 40 years even though the T has always owned out to Framingham. Framingham-Worcester is cab signaled up-to-spec because Conrail poured millions into the line Selkirk-Framingham for total infrastructure renewal 25 years ago. It's Boston-Framingham that's still the crappiest stretch of failing ABS on the southside and badly needs the upgrade. It hasn't made sense to do it before now because the dispatching would've been just as big a constriction with or without.

Generally the T pays CSX when it needs to borrow some freight equipment to move something bulky on a non-revenue move. They only have trailers, boxcars, tankers for routine maintenance (ballast/tie/rail/rail-washer consists, etc.). They call in a favor from the outside when they need more of the same equipment or something specialized. P&W seems to be the go-to 'neighbor's toolshed' of late.

This may be a little daring...

Could someone address the business viability of PAR upgrading their main line Ayer/Portland/Danville Junction/Waterville/Bangor/Mattawamkeag to 286K w/DS?

I have three principle thoughts/questions:

1. Would connecting to SLR @ Danville Junction provide a new source of "southbound" TT WEST traffic to Ayer from SLR's traffic feeds coming out of Canada? I'm assuming most of this type of traffic comes from NECR at the moment. Also, any potential for "bridge" traffic SLR/PAR/NBSR/CN?

2. Would connecting to Mattawamkeag generate any potential business from NBSR/NMR or for PAR headed "northbound" to Halifax (or coming from Halifax)? (I'm assuming that NBSR/NMR would be 286K/DS to CN).

3. Are there any potential benefits to the forest products industry to having access to 286K/DS track in the vicinity (e.g. Bangor/NMJ, ME)?

I am not worried about the funding or the logistics. Just whether or not there's a business case to be made (if any/at all).

And, yes, Mr. Patrick, I already know based on your previous posts that you don't think this would make any sense.