ConnDOT Rail Plan

BM6569 wrote:Looks like the total cost for all the freight railroad projects listed near the bottom is around 480 million. That's actually cheaper than I was expecting it to be. Now they just need to come up with the money! How about the voters passing a 500 million bond for rail improvements! Haha

Considering over a third of that carrier-provided tally came from the mouths of the con men at Housatonic...who have had all their fed grant applications pulled by CDOT over failure to complete projects from previous awards...really not as bad as it could be. If you consider that P&W and the two G&W carriers are going to get the lion's share of attention from doing two-thirds of the state's freight tonnage and owning two-thirds of the total private trackage in the state, their lists are pretty modest and focused square on state-of-repair and 286K and/or DS capacity. And the bulk of CSO's tally is tied to non- carrier-specific Amtrak/NHHS upgrades, with Priority #1 (the river bridge to East Hartford) already paid for and under construction. That leaves the carrier-specific wishlist for P&W, NECR, and CSO at around $102M. Prioritize as you will, but that's not an unrealistic tally for their share of the pie. And there is zero expectation that all of these items will be funded in the term covered by the rail plan, or even funded at all. Because it is not an implementation plan, and not supposed to be one.

It's interesting that the New Hartford branch of the Canal Line and the Rockville branch are shown on the state rail map and marked as landbanked, when some other lines abandoned around the same time (the Colchester branch, Canaan-Lakeville, the south end of the Canal between Hamden & New Haven, the South Manchester, the Dublin Street branch in Waterbury) don't even appear in ghost form. I wonder why that is.

I know some of the New England state rail maps show absolutely everything that was once a railroad-- IIRC Massachusetts even shows the never-completed Southern New England.

Ridgefielder wrote:It's interesting that the New Hartford branch of the Canal Line and the Rockville branch are shown on the state rail map and marked as landbanked, when some other lines abandoned around the same time (the Colchester branch, Canaan-Lakeville, the south end of the Canal between Hamden & New Haven, the South Manchester, the Dublin Street branch in Waterbury) don't even appear in ghost form. I wonder why that is.

I know some of the New England state rail maps show absolutely everything that was once a railroad-- IIRC Massachusetts even shows the never-completed Southern New England.

They revised the rail map last month to color code them by name, and ditched their old map showing status, ownership, and user. But it does show the same lines as before, so the ownership gaps where ROW's lapsed into private hands like southernmost Canal and the Air Line gap in Portland are still omitted.

I hate the new map. Loses too much useful information and half as useful a reference as it used to be. They could've easily just added the descriptive names as another column to the Legend table instead of scrapping it all.


MA's is sourced entirely from GIS data, so it's got a lot of phantom ROW's and ownership inaccuracies from data not updated in decades. Sort of goes the opposite extreme from CDOT's. MassDOT needs to prune it to just the active, landbanked, and full-intact abandoneds in private hands (e.g. the Armory) so it accurately reflects the 'going-concern' parts of the official and preservable state rail network and doesn't have so much static in it. But too much information is better than too little.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:They revised the rail map last month to color code them by name, and ditched their old map showing status, ownership, and user. But it does show the same lines as before, so the ownership gaps where ROW's lapsed into private hands like southernmost Canal and the Air Line gap in Portland are still omitted.
...

MA's is sourced entirely from GIS data, so it's got a lot of phantom ROW's and ownership inaccuracies from data not updated in decades. Sort of goes the opposite extreme from CDOT's. MassDOT needs to prune it to just the active, landbanked, and full-intact abandoneds in private hands (e.g. the Armory) so it accurately reflects the 'going-concern' parts of the official and preservable state rail network and doesn't have so much static in it. But too much information is better than too little.

Thing is, though, the southern end of the Canal is actually an intact ROW all the way into downtown New Haven- it's a rail trail. Same goes for the Colchester branch off the Air Line.

I’ve lived in CT for nearly fifteen years, and in that time have discovered that I am descended from many founders of the state. I am tied financially and emotionally. I am sad to have concluded that CT is not a growing economy and not a really a comparatively great place to live. The issues go well beyond the fact that we do not have much of a rail system. I live in the northeast suburbs of Hartford and work on that side so my experience with the crowded and more expensive southwest corner is limited.

As Mr. Weaver and others have stated so many times- the manufacturing is gone. Even if CT were not in the bottom five “business friendly” states there are not many reasons to move a manufacturing business here. Although the state government has recognized that many of our graduates flee the state government has not acted on some of the root causes that they could fix. No point discussing politics today.

From the study: “Connecticut is a net consumer of goods. That is, the state receives and consumes more commodities than we produce and ship out. Connecticut is increasingly oriented to businesses and service activities that do not generate large volumes of freight.”

If Connecticut wants to become serious about receiving freight we probably need to reopen the Maybrook Line. I didn’t see the Poughkeepsie Bridge in this study, probably for good reason. None of the three rail lines that enter southern New England are particularly convenient for use of freight in CT. Hopefully Worcester intermodal is successful and CT will attempt to get into the business. Worcester intermodal will provide some benefit as I-84 northeast of Hartford and I-395 are our least congested interstates. An intermodal within the state would be beneficial- maybe somewhere central on the NHHS line. Meridan or Middletown would be interesting locations, in addition to somewhere in the southwest corner. Removing trucks from I-95 and hilly western I-84 is an idea with great merit. The terrain in western New England is not favorable to any mode of transport.

Passenger is moving in the right direction. Connecticut is blessed with a good (although crowded) interstate system that serves the major population centers. I am interested to see if increased frequency on the NHHC corridor will truly lead to increased ridership. Outside of the (urban) areas with bus service it is impossible to get around without a car, and since those areas are not heavily populated it does not seem like increased bus service is forthcoming. I think that the New Britain busway is an incredible waste of money since I do not see the ridership. CT is probably going to continue to lose population which makes future public transport less viable. A more direct HSR line between Boston and New York would be very interesting but the US does not seem to have the eminent domain opportunities that France and Korea have been able to use for their very impressive HSR systems.

Although the idea of trains to the casinos are interesting, the casinos are losing business (and will lose more as other states get in the action). I’m a little surprised that the casinos haven’t explored the possibility of direct trains to New London on the weekends (even though Saturday is about the only day I-95 is tolerable). Gov Duval of MA is interested in rail service from NY to the Berkshires-probably also not able to generate enough revenue to make the effort worth it, although a weekend-only passenger service would leave the line available for freight.

Lots of gems in this document..NECR says “All-terrain vehicles trespass onto the rail right-of-way and chew up the shoulders of the rail bed, which poses a safety issue”.
..NECR says “All-terrain vehicles trespass onto the rail right-of-way and chew up the shoulders of the rail bed, which poses a safety issue”.

For the UMPHTEENTH time, re-opening the Poughkeepsie Bridge to rail traffic is NOT going to happen, not in 10 years, not in 20 years and not anytime else either. There are no railroad tracks on either side of it for many, many miles, no more connection to western and southern routes via Allentown, the tracks are gone here too. The only west connection is the old Erie and this route today is not very busy although it is still in use. The old Erie is also a "slow boat to China" when it comes to freight traffic east and west compared with the existing trackage through Selkirk which has capacity for existing traffic and probably a reasonable amount of expansion. Today in the Northeast and this is not just Connecticut but everywhere in the Northeast you have a few very strong lines and a few decent feeder lines to these very strong lines and the rest is mostly lightly used branch lines that are still available and in use for the business that remains and is offered. The remaining physical plant in Connecticut is more than adequate for the existing traffic and whatever traffic that is offered in the reasonable future. I worked the Maybrook Line, I rode it many, many times and ran over a good part of it but today it is not needed and there is little or no prospect for any amount of local freight business in that part of the state either so it will probably just continue to sit and decay. I don't see a big warehouse, lumber dealer, service center say nothing of a industry locating anywhere in Connecticut that would need a serious expansion of rail service with the exception maybe of Eastern Connecticut. The folks in New Haven and Fairfield Counties would not tolerate anything big in their backyards and that is what it would take for even a decent amount of local freight to return to the Maybrook Line. Most likely the track and ROW will continue to deteriorate and decay until it reaches a point where not even an emergency move of equipment will be possible.
Noel Weaver

Those were very good reasons to not include Poughkeepsie in the study. If we had unlimited funding and wisdom we could build a world that works better, but unfortunately both of those are in short supply.

Regretfully CT is at the "end of the line" for freight (some places like Manchester and Bloomfield even more literally so). The most direct rail route to the rest of the US is the NEC, which is not going to be used for freight.

Noel Weaver wrote:Most likely the track and ROW will continue to deteriorate and decay until it reaches a point where not even an emergency move of equipment will be possible.
Noel Weaver

Only way that *doesn't* happen is if the Housy goes completely belly-up and gets acquired by (or conveyed by the State to) P&W. I could see P&W bringing the line between Derby Jct. and Danbury back into service in order to avoid having to service Danbury/Bethel via the Danbury Branch and a reverse move at South Norwalk-- and maybe moving their interchange point for some Connecticut traffic from Worcester to Pittsfield.

Ridgefielder wrote:

Noel Weaver wrote:Most likely the track and ROW will continue to deteriorate and decay until it reaches a point where not even an emergency move of equipment will be possible.
Noel Weaver

Only way that *doesn't* happen is if the Housy goes completely belly-up and gets acquired by (or conveyed by the State to) P&W. I could see P&W bringing the line between Derby Jct. and Danbury back into service in order to avoid having to service Danbury/Bethel via the Danbury Branch and a reverse move at South Norwalk-- and maybe moving their interchange point for some Connecticut traffic from Worcester to Pittsfield.

I doubt the Berkshire is going to anyone except a plucky shortline if the day comes when HRCC finally gets euthanized. The business has atrophied so much it'll take a plucky CNZR-like operation that can make money on the smallest carloads to charm some business back. Why would a P&W want to take on that task? If the plucky shortline is successful at getting a healthy baseline back...buy 'em. That's the better value proposition for a P&W or G&W conglomerate than doing it themselves.

That said, there's no question P&W wants the Maybrook to Danbury. They made that abundantly clear in the whole adverse-abandonment standoff that they'll use legal muscle to keep HRCC from screwing them over on their preferred overhead route. Since that's on an existing profitable run for them they also wouldn't mind getting local control. It was HRCC's recklessness that screwed the pooch on that Newtown transload, so it's not like there isn't a potential customer or two that P&W can tack onto this profitable Danbury run if they're using the line anyway for overheads. Berkshire's different, though...that's a loss leader without a years of elbow grease.

Again, nothing grand here. CDOT has to look for a buy-low opportunity to secure public control of the Maybrook, which I'm sure it's looking for (and I'm sure HRCC is still asking too much). It needs to get to baseline Class 1 state-of-repair to Danbury for P&W to feel secure. Think Armory repair money, not Willimantic Branch...it's negligible in the grand scheme. And the goal is preservation of an existing profitable run and maybe P&W picking up a gimme customers that HRCC spat all over...not chasing ghost business that no longer exist. And all they'll want to do to the state line is keep it operable for dire emergencies with MNRR being able to dispatch their own moves instead of needing the help or an unreliable 3rd party. That's it. No overthinking, just security.

And they quite badly want to buy the last private-owned stretch of the Berkshire to New Milford as a commuter rail hold since the recent Danbury Branch study pegs the New Milford extension as possibly the highest-upside new commuter service to pursue after NHHS, since US 7 congestion is slowly choking that corridor to death. They already own to the state line, and contrary to Massachusetts Gov. Patrick's kool-aid drinking about major passenger service there...CDOT does not share similar enthusiasm. All they want is for HRCC to go away, that plucky low-margin shortline to take its place and backstop the decay, and maybe some excursion service a la Berkshire Scenic to do something useful in pretty country. But that's it. Preservation and clean bill of health, not strategic expansion beyond the NM commuter rail bona fides.


You have to read that context into the State Rail Plan. The eye-popping investment figures itemized for Housy were supplied by Housy, just like all the other freight carriers supplied theirs. Of course it's unranked in CDOT's eyes. And of course the bills for the P&W and NECR mains are going to dwarf virtually every other potential freight project combined with possible exception of Springfield Line load capacity to Hartford benefitting 3 carriers at once.

Ridgefielder wrote:

Noel Weaver wrote:Most likely the track and ROW will continue to deteriorate and decay until it reaches a point where not even an emergency move of equipment will be possible.
Noel Weaver

Only way that *doesn't* happen is if the Housy goes completely belly-up and gets acquired by (or conveyed by the State to) P&W. I could see P&W bringing the line between Derby Jct. and Danbury back into service in order to avoid having to service Danbury/Bethel via the Danbury Branch and a reverse move at South Norwalk-- and maybe moving their interchange point for some Connecticut traffic from Worcester to Pittsfield.

With regard to the railroad between Derby Junction and Danbury, I agree with this one. The Providence and Worcester wants and needs this railroad in order for a straight away move with loaded trains of stone to Danbury. Actually the Housatonic is probably the most negative railroad anywhere in the northeast and maybe beyond as well. The best thing that could happen is probably for the Housatonic to go "belly up" and the sooner this happens the better chance of meaningful change for the better can happen in Western Connecticut. I think there is a chance that you could see some fairly major changes in the railroad situation in the Greater Danbury area and maybe the Housatonic Railroad will just go away.
Noel Weaver