Pan Am Worcester Main Line

newpylong wrote:No loads will be taken away from PAS/NS if Pan Am and CSXT begin service out of Waterville. That is beyond Ayer dray distance.

Im sure anyone who regularly travels down 95 amid the myriad of Hunt, Hub Group, Schneider and UMAX containers to/from Maine will hope that they do.

jaymac wrote:Let's see-- a coupla miles of 263K PW line keeps 286K loads from the 315K-capable CSXT Boston Line away from the 286K-capable PAR Worcester Main Line. Also, under the new order of things, Davisville auto traffic via NS-CP-PAS-PW gets a more favorable-to-PW rate division (presumably) because of the increased PW mileage. Might it be totally inconceivable that, as PAS continues to become more 286K-capable, NS might be desirous that future 286K traffic to/from northern New England be routed via PAS and not CSX?
More than occasionally, one hand washes the other.

My point exactly. I think we may see the tenant (CSX) fix the landlord's (PW) issues to keep a level playing field. PAR has the rights but not the will or the money to do it. CSX has everything to gain.

Is there any reason that NS can't extend their Ayer container trains eastward to Portland and Waterville?

fogg1703 wrote:

jaymac wrote:Let's see-- a coupla miles of 263K PW line keeps 286K loads from the 315K-capable CSXT Boston Line away from the 286K-capable PAR Worcester Main Line. Also, under the new order of things, Davisville auto traffic via NS-CP-PAS-PW gets a more favorable-to-PW rate division (presumably) because of the increased PW mileage. Might it be totally inconceivable that, as PAS continues to become more 286K-capable, NS might be desirous that future 286K traffic to/from northern New England be routed via PAS and not CSX?
More than occasionally, one hand washes the other.

My point exactly. I think we may see the tenant (CSX) fix the landlord's (PW) issues to keep a level playing field. PAR has the rights but not the will or the money to do it. CSX has everything to gain.

Yep. I'm sure it's a very small thing to settle up if somebody's willing to take the lead on it. But I'm wondering if that somebody is going to be the state, because the way CSX drives a hard bargain they are quite willing to wait it out to fetch more public money for their initiatives.

As for P&W, the MBTA just took some space in the main yard for a few more Worcester Line layover pads serving the expanded commuter rail schedule. P&W wooed them in because they had the space, an easier electrical hookup from their yard buildings for the loco plug-in pads than any other area site, and offered labor for the installation and dirt cheap rent. And they're doing some labor for them in the yard replacing windshields on some of the T's revenue locos and doing prelim testing on the first HSP-46 unit before that gets delivered to Boston (which finally happened yesterday). I'm sure scratch-your-back/scratch-mine was P&W's motivator for inviting the state into their house for home-cooked dinner, since they don't have much 'in' with the T on any shared territory inside MA like CSX and PAR do. That would suggest a little jockeying for attention going on in the Worcester area with the CSX mega-deal, the PAR trackage rights agreement to the T for the W. Branch, and this P&W deal for layover + labor outsource all happening in consecutive years.

CPF363 » Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:10 am
Is there any reason that NS can't extend their Ayer container trains eastward to Portland and Waterville?

In theory, no, but Ayer is close to capacity now. When the full effects of the Wachusett Extension come into play, there'll be a need to keep the mains more open than they currently are. When 206 has pigs to set off before going to the new auto yard, Ayer can be effectively down to 1 track for +/- an hour, a strong argument for a pig-free 206. If a Maine block were set off from 22K at Fitchburg and PAR power then took that block east, that would keep things from getting further complicated/congested at Ayer. The traffic from Maine could marry 23K at Fitchburg for the same reason. There would need to be more crews, reliable and dedicated power, and reliable coordination, including a policy-level commitment to not change crews -- at least pig crews -- in or around Lowell.

CPF363 wrote:Is there any reason that NS can't extend their Ayer container trains eastward to Portland and Waterville?

NS already has haulage rights to Waterville, so they could be used.

jaymac wrote:

CPF363 » Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:10 am
Is there any reason that NS can't extend their Ayer container trains eastward to Portland and Waterville?

In theory, no, but Ayer is close to capacity now. When the full effects of the Wachusett Extension come into play, there'll be a need to keep the mains more open than they currently are. When 206 has pigs to set off before going to the new auto yard, Ayer can be effectively down to 1 track for +/- an hour, a strong argument for a pig-free 206. If a Maine block were set off from 22K at Fitchburg and PAR power then took that block east, that would keep things from getting further complicated/congested at Ayer. The traffic from Maine could marry 23K at Fitchburg for the same reason. There would need to be more crews, reliable and dedicated power, and reliable coordination, including a policy-level commitment to not change crews -- at least pig crews -- in or around Lowell.

The long term plan is to interlock the west wye and turn the Camp into a running track/freight main and same goes for something east of the wye (triple track to the Willow) for making the set outs in the yard. I imagine they will put a pad on Track 3 once things get too tight in the Hill yard.

Sometime in the next several weekdays, expect a 6-hour and presumably daylight service interruption on the Worcester Main. A new gas main is being buried from West Boylston along Prescott Street to run to the sand and gravel pit just south of Sterling Center. As of 0730/10-26-2013, the preliminary trenching was up to the MCI fiber optics ROW parallel to and south of the WML at the Prescott Street crossing. Depending on how any waiting EBs and WBs are handled, there could be photo opportunities. Vehicular traffic has already been diverted from Prescott and Bean Road -- the Sterling name -- during construction activity and whether pedestrian access for site photos will be allowed is a guess.

jaymac wrote:Let's see-- a coupla miles of 263K PW line keeps 286K loads from the 315K-capable CSXT Boston Line away from the 286K-capable PAR Worcester Main Line. Also, under the new order of things, Davisville auto traffic via NS-CP-PAS-PW gets a more favorable-to-PW rate division (presumably) because of the increased PW mileage. Might it be totally inconceivable that, as PAS continues to become more 286K-capable, NS might be desirous that future 286K traffic to/from northern New England be routed via PAS and not CSX?
More than occasionally, one hand washes the other.

Two years back, P&W was wrestling legally and via STB filings with National Grid about getting the utility to relocate encroaching poles to enable double tracking between Barbers and Worcester. Per the attached link, it looks like P&W and NG finally decided to work things out via negotiations. I'm not sure what happened here but perhaps this held up any investment by P&W in enabling this short stretch of track to accommodate 286K cars?

http://www.stb.dot.gov/Decisions/readin ... enDocument

I recall there is a 2nd set of tracks that runs along side of the P&W section, behind the Greendale Mall. Unused for many years from what I saw...

J

Some gearth surfing will confirm frrc's eyeball observations. Unfortunately, there is -- with the possible exceptions of the NSA or insider disclosure -- no geath surfing analogue for outsiders to provide insight to johnpbarlow's post about possible PW motivations, both for the STB filings and the subsequent apparent lack of activity. As evidenced by the Wachusett Extension, things railroad move at their own speed or apparent lack thereof and for reasons that can sometimes surpass understanding.

frrc wrote:I recall there is a 2nd set of tracks that runs along side of the P&W section, behind the Greendale Mall. Unused for many years from what I saw...

J

That's because that second track on the east side of RoW is disconnected from the running track. Looking at Google sat maps from north of Garden St, Worcester, where the double track from Union Station converges to single track, to just north of Rte 12 overpass at Barbers shows missing rail and switches on the 2nd track. There are also high tension lines/poles along the east portion of much of the RoW which I'm guessing is causing P&W angst wrt re-instituting double track.

Its interesting that Garden St has been brought up because if I'm not mistaken a couple participants of this discussion also mentioned a while back on the CSX forum that CSX had a small former BM yard at Garden St pegged as possibly 3rd on a short list of potential engine terminals sites. Any new news on that front? While it seems it may be a shot in the dark, if CSX was to go forward with engine terminal plans at Garden St, that would certainly be the impetus for a much needed upgrade, most likely right through Barbers.

From the RR.net CSX B&A Line board Jul 20 2013

csxb&aconductor wrote:

9axle wrote:Nothing going in Jamesville, now the buzz is up the branch, where the old B&M yard was along 190.

that place is 3rd on the list, csx can't have ups power trapped by other rr's.jamesville is the top choice csx owns the land and its dbl track.just have to come to agreement with national grid

A 10-31-2013/0645 eyeballing showed the Prescott St., W. Boylston, crossing undisturbed. There was still northbound pipe to be buried south of the crossing, and it looked like preliminaries were ongoing north of the crossing. It was still dark enough that contractor crews weren't yet around to find out if a service interruption had been scheduled.

fogg1703 wrote:Its interesting that Garden St has been brought up because if I'm not mistaken a couple participants of this discussion also mentioned a while back on the CSX forum that CSX had a small former BM yard at Garden St pegged as possibly 3rd on a short list of potential engine terminals sites. Any new news on that front? While it seems it may be a shot in the dark, if CSX was to go forward with engine terminal plans at Garden St, that would certainly be the impetus for a much needed upgrade, most likely right through Barbers.

From the RR.net CSX B&A Line board Jul 20 2013

csxb&aconductor wrote:

9axle wrote:Nothing going in Jamesville, now the buzz is up the branch, where the old B&M yard was along 190.

that place is 3rd on the list, csx can't have ups power trapped by other rr's.jamesville is the top choice csx owns the land and its dbl track.just have to come to agreement with national grid

Nothing new. They are still favoring the site near the Auburn/Worcester town line. P&W had some unsurprising...concerns...about the Garden St. site. I can't see that one ever working with the landlord + 2 tenants 'coopetition' situation on the G. Branch in Worcester. The state would almost have to buy that track to keep them all from killing each other.

They're taking their sweet time evaluating sites, so I would suspect this is going to go at a very leisurely pace. They're content to keep cycling power out of Selkirk on short-duration stays, rationing their refueling out of tanker cars in the yards for the ones that can't complete a cycle back to Selkirk on a tank of diesel, and relying on the P&W shop if they need any emergency repairs to get a crippled car or loco in enough shape to get towed back to Selkirk. The whole reason they let Beacon Park engine house close with no replacement secured was that they were unconcerned. The crews think this is insanity; the bean-counters in Florida think this is noble cost control.