286K Infrastructure, Investments & Procedures in New England

286K should already be in place pretty much everywhere from Ayer to Portland save for the Merrimack Bridge. If there's any deficient structures that 10 years/2 rounds of Downeaster construction didn't touch they're got to be very few and far between at this point. So they'll quite likely be certified for heavyweights to Portland and Brunswick within 3-4 years when the big bridge is replaced and all other work is wrapped. What they then do with the rest of MEC territory is up to them, but any particularly high-return projects might catch the state's eye as worthy of some investment. SLA is close enough that it would seem like low-hanging fruit to uprate that interchange if SLA itself had the capacity to make it useful. But I sort of doubt PAR's going to want to put their eggs in the MEC that quickly. They've still got a long way to go getting Mechanicsville-Ayer and Ayer-Lawrence-state line upgraded to second-gen DS. And it's getting the 286K+DS finished on the trunk that's going to be the all-consuming priority over uprating anything north of Portland.

MEC may actually take a back seat in the end to 286K+DS on the Worcester Branch first if they think they need the CSX and P&W connections merging at Ayer to truly load up traffic to Portland to the max before branching north. This seems to be more about new sources of goods originating from the west than bigger loads of paper product originating from the east.

http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents ... 2-8-12.pdf

CT Rail Plan, p.85. Overview of 286K status and plans in-state.

Wow...Connecticut's got a lot more pre-existing 286K miles than I thought they had.
-- NEC New Haven-RI state line (P&W). Clearly this got upgraded when the Shore Line was rebuilt for the Acela.
-- Berkshire Line, Danbury-MA state line (HRCC). Actual results may vary due to deferred maintenance.
-- Maybrook Line, Derby-NY state line (HRCC). In theory...if it were in operable shape.
-- Armory Branch (CSO/CNZR)
-- Manchester Secondary (CSO)
-- Suffield Branch/Bradley spur (CSO)
-- Griffins Industrial (CNZR)
-- P&W main (P&W). Caveat: only rated that if cars alternate 286/263/286/263/... Not totally there yet.

CSO and CNZR territory are interesting cases. The state just appropriated money to fix the CT River Bridge in Hartford, which was temporarily preventing heavy loads east of river due to weight restrictions from deferred maintenance. And Bradley Branch needs some work or it's in danger of falling out of compliance. But once the bridge work is done and they move onto Bradley with the same type of recent patch work they've been doing elsewhere, both Hartford-area shortlines are 100% rated for it on their local miles. The last remaining restriction is hooking those loads up to the outside world across the deficient CT River Bridge in Enfield on the Springfield Line. It's still unfunded for improvements with the Springfield appropriations to-date, so that's a max priority. Fix that and CSO and CNZR can interchange heavy carloads in Springfield with PAS and CSX and turn Hartford Yard into a major 286K node, a large net-gain in capacity for the region. I'm somewhat surprised it hasn't gotten more priority as a result with the more-impressive-than-you'd-think tonnage numbers CSO racks up.

This is a big potential bonanza for RailAmerica when you consider that NECR is going 286K from St. Albans to Deerfield with the Vermonter upgrades and is pushing its Canadian gateway to the hilt. The Conn River Line is getting full 286K with the Vermonter. NECR has no current connection to RailAmerica corporate mates CSO, and won't unless the Manchester Secondary ever gets restored back to Willimantic. There's a potential bonanza here for PAS if they became the go-between down the Conn River to pass heavyweight goods between NECR and CSO from Deerfield to Springfield/Hartford. Maybe enough of a bonanza with them shortlining that transfer to make it worth their while to do the seemingly logical move of dumping their low-use Highland/Canal/Waterbury holdings on CSO to develop the local business there. They will probably make more money as RailAmerica's go-between than if they worked the Central CT branches themselves. Could be a lot of dominoes tied to that one bridge in Enfield with how nicely the 286K connections on each side lines up for all of the regional carriers.

CNZR deserves lots of kudos for putting in the effort on a shoestring budget. They're now sitting pretty when that Enfield bridge gets repaired.


Official 286K requests on Rail Plan filed by carriers:
-- Springfield Line, Hartford-Enfield (CSO, CNZR, PAS) - See above.
-- Springfield Line, Hartford-New Haven (CSO, PAS) - Not doable until fate of Hartford Viaduct (weight-restricted) determined. If the I-84 Viaduct replacement plan goes as currently proposed, the RR Viaduct gets torn down and relocated in a tunnel/cut on the opposite side of the highway. If not, it has to get a full rehab. TBD...nothing can happen here until the 84 rebuild is a-go.
-- New Haven Line (CSX, P&W) - CSX can't haul anything heavy to Cedar Hill. P&W can get 286K to Cedar Hill on the Shore Line but limited usefulness because of CSX's limit. 23-mile gap of 263K between New Haven and Devon/Derby means they can't hit the 286K Maybrook. You can see why they've been lawyering up on HRCC over the Maybrook now. That MNRR gap to Devon is a bridge-few section where the 4th track restoration project is very likely to kill 2 birds with one stone and give them that desired contiguous 286K route to Derby and Danbury-via-Maybrook. They want this bad.
-- Waterbury Line (P&W, Naugy) - See above re: P&W to Derby. Also is Naugy's potential 286K connection to the outside world if the Waterbury Line had a connection where PAS (or future-CSO) could short-line goods to the Derby interchange. 2 birds/1 stone potential with the Waterbury Line signal + improvements project, since that would replace some old rail and touch up some bridges. Naugy likely has to wait awhile on PAS/etc. on the Highland because of that Hartford Viaduct blocker.
-- Torrington Branch (Naugy) - See above. They immediately can seek more business with bridge repairs and replacement of the stretches of flimsy rail Penn Central left behind. They're not far off from an uprate as presently constituted if those handful of deferred maint blockers got settled.
-- Danbury Line (P&W) - Probably only included because it's not that far from ready and the ongoing signal/track upgrades get it closer. I'm not sure there's much to do here if P&W can get 286 overhead to Danbury on the Maybrook and work the ends. If it weren't easy and due for passenger upgrades, I doubt it would've made the uprate list.

TBD per plan:
-- NECR main - Not sure why it's marked TBD because there's ongoing work to uprate portions in-state. They're hamstrung in the interim by the MA section south of Deerfield still being a 263 gap, but CT has a lot to gain if they can get CSX goods from Palmer down from state line to Willimantic, then New London.
-- Willimantic Secondary (P&W) - Marked TBD, but I believe the ongoing work rebuilding the track settles it.
-- P&W main (sort of). Obviously they need the main firmed up a little more so they don't have to pull the every-other-car gimmick. But I think P&W is floating most of that incremental cost itself so state's more focused on chipping away at more DS.
-- HRCC (maintain at 286K). Ongoing concern, of course, because they're slipping on track maint. But those dominoes that could start falling if Hartford gets 286K...that has impacts here if CSO can expand. They'll want to use Derby interchange too, which ups the pressure for the state to intervene on its most dysfunctional shortline. Wondering just how many dominoes have to fall before the state makes a buy-low move on the remaining HRCC-owned track in exchange for public support rebuilding what the RR has been unable to.
-- Highland Branch (PAS) - Hartford Viaduct makes it sort of moot until that's settled...can't get there from here today. The whole Busway vs. commuter rail war another wildcard for potential upgrades. The whole whither-PAS-selling dilemma another. Can easily be upgraded west from Waterbury to Plainville if the 286K connections from MNRR and Naugy were there, but not useful to any current/potential carrier until Hartford Viaduct is settled.
-- Air Line/Middletown/Wethersfield Sec. (P&W) - P&W has a lot more to gain getting heavy loads to Derby/Danbury first. They're simply not big enough in Greater Hartford yet unless they make an acquisition for PAS territory, so this would be their last in-state priority.

Not planned:
-- Valley Line (Valley RR) - They have more to gain getting their Middletown connection restored. Waste haul business not overly dependent on 286K. Old Saybrook/P&W is 286K, but Wethersfield Sec. would have to be upgraded to get the Hartford end (where the big trash-to-energy plant is) accessible. Well down the priority list.
-- Branford Steam - They didn't file a request when asked, so they likely don't transport anything needing it.
-- New Caanan Line - No freight.
-- Belle Dock (P&W), Groton Industrial (P&W), Stratford Industrial (CSX) - Unknown. My guess is either they're ready now (Groton?) or the state doesn't care because they're all privately held, very short, and expect the carriers to pay their own way if it matters that much.

for background- I ran waste mgmt wallingford sludge 89' at 286K from cedar hill to springfield and beyond 1994-1997. some were more than 286k ( nature of the material in the containers). stopped because the service was terrible. actually trucked the containers to harlem river yard to use our train there. blew a few tires on 95.
i'm of the opinion 286 is creating public expense for no good reason. little traffic increase, little impact on existing rail, no change in rail pricing. why? rail buffs think it a field of dreams. i agree some minimal new traffic could benefit but existing traffic is already at the max volumes/weights -wise i.e. murphy road c&d . so why re-work bridges etc? remember, the impact on bridges is a function of wheel spacing and roundness. i ran 89' cars with new wheels. i suspect 60' with flat spots had more impact but should we spend taxpayer money to back-stop car owners? anyways, postings data is impressive. ken patrick

Here we go again. . .

f-line

in the land of the blind etc. someone pure needs to offer experience-based knowledge to counter the lemming-like kool-aid drinkers. ken patrick

KEN PATRICK wrote:f-line

in the land of the blind etc. someone pure needs to offer experience-based knowledge to counter the lemming-like kool-aid drinkers. ken patrick

You're kidding, right?
You think EVERYONE except YOU is "amongst the blind?"
Gee... not TOO self-important are we Ken?

KEN PATRICK wrote:in the land of the blind etc. someone pure needs to offer experience-based knowledge to counter the lemming-like kool-aid drinkers.

If there was a like button, I would have just hit it. I think that you hit the nail smack dab on the head interms of traffic generation. How do you merrit the tax payers paying for the work to be done if it's not going to be used. In New England (with a few exceptions) there is not enough of a gain to merrit the captiol improvements and financial outlay. I will use an example. The people of Vermont gave quite a lot of money (along with the federal govt) to lower the Bellows Falls tunnel and make it accessable to double stack and container trains. Since the project was finished, they have run a test train (an engine and 1 well car) and.....well there was the....ummm....well, it was a great way to spend a few million dollars of tax payer money just for the sake of spending tax payer money.....Long and short of it is there aren't unit double stacks or container trains on the way to and from Canada on the NECR.

Now I'm not saying that the 286 isn't a good idea in princiapl. As a matter of fact, a lot of the state rail plans lean towards upgrades to the major freight lines to and including 286. But we need to remember that the money has to come from somewhere, and the cash strapped railroads aren't going to do it. Not for a negligable return on the investment.

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

Addressing only the case to clear for doublestack from the Massachusetts border through to Mattawamkeag and only regarding the potential (not the capital costs), I would say it would not be an easy case to make, unless you're spending some one else's money (eg taxpayers) without accountability and lacking a SYSTEMS-approach to understanding the business. It's one thing to believe that clearing for doublestack will automatically generate business and another to understand there's marketing and operational dynamics which will ultimately determine demand. As is the case in CT, MA, and RI, our transportation planners have taken a simple-minded approach, thinking that clearing for stack on secondary routes will change the existing centralized hub terminal-based intermodal system. In my opinion, it would take large-scale changes to the underlying economics to drive this kind of fundamental change to our contemporary intermodal system, and while that may happen given trucking (drayage) cost inflation due to fuel, labor and congestion, there's reason to believe there's as much chance that technological innovation and the prohibitive capital costs to build a restructured rail intermodal system will maintain the economic status quo and, therefore, hub terminal structure.

For traffic destined to/originating from ME, like CT, RI and VT, the existing system is based upon large out-of-state centralized hubs (North Jersey, Mechanicville, Springfield, Worcester, Ayer, and for the time being, Boston) fed by trucks. Using highway in this fashion allows the railroads to maximize the number of boxes per train (the trucks provide a defacto classification system), simplified operation that allows for the fastest and most-efficient rail operation, terminal economies-of-scale, and service advantages. Given this, I don't see NS nor CSX wanting to move beyond I-495 in MA, which, in my opinion, would mean not much farther east than say, Lowell or Haverhill, MA, if at all further east of Ayer or Worcester, MA. For Maine in particular, which is the one New England state that generates more outbound dry van freight than inbound, there's the issue of equipment supply which is generated from the empties made available after delivering freight in southern New England. This is a key part of the issue because adding a terminal in Maine would not reduce terminal demand in Massachusetts and require operational costs to re-position empties into Maine. Trucks are able to more-flexibly and more-economically deliver a load into southern NE, repo. the empty to Maine, and then return with an outbound load.

For traffic traversing Maine to/from the Maritimes to/from the US, I don't see the traffic density or length-of-haul in this marketplace necessary to support a dedicated intermodal lane let alone one that would require large capital costs (to clear for stack).

DING DING DING!!!!! Like button. DING DING DING!!!!!!!

Wow! Almost some of the fun and much of the phrasing of the MSNBC and/or Politico sites!
Mebbe there's a way of setting up an anti-crankiness algorithm so that posters who feel the need to vituperate can purge themselves, but one in which the vituperation gets reformatted to a reasonable and reasoned submission so that the purged crankinesses do not infect/affect those others of us readers. If I might seem overly optimistic, I do not believe in the Easter Bunny except when he, she, or it offers me something better than Creme Eggs.

Cadbury Creme Eggs > 286K infrastructure


I'm glad we're all in agreement on this universal truth.

*Boing-boing-boing..* CHIRP! *hop-hop-hop*
(Hoppy Easter.)

There are several good points here. However the entire Springfield Line regardless of the Enfield bridge and Hartford viaduct is limited to 263,000. Special permission is required for overweight moves, i.e. transformers and such. At one time 315,000 cars were run into Hartford Yard for the non existing cement place "back in the day." Most if not all of Metro North's track WAS rated at 315,000 until a few months ago. I am not sure about P&W or NECR, but HRRC was rated at 286,000 last I knew. Getting the Springfield Line or the Armory Branch or Wethersfield Secondary up to 286,000 would simply be a waste for the effort involved. The current "industry standard" or goal if you will is 286,000 with most railroads elsewhere in the country striving for 315,000. If any improvements are made they should be to 315,000 at a MINIMUM, but they should ultimately strive for higher because by the time the work is done the rest of the country will be striving for a higher standard. It is a known fact that the transloads in Massachusetts are currently eating the lunch of the freight carriers in this state and putting more trucks on our highways. Again this is not an opinion, it is fact, as there are many consignees who have to transload out of state due to weight limits on the rail lines coming into this state,primarily central Connecticut.

Highlandrail/DEY-7 652 wrote: am not sure about P&W or NECR

The NECR got money in the form of a TIGER III grant to upgrade the entire line from East Alburgh, VT to New London, CT. This (as some people here have noted) was not paid for totally by the railroad, but by the tax payers. In CT, the NECR was only expected to match 20% of the money. I'm trying to get an exact number for the cost in CT. Along the NECR between Palmer and St. Albans, they were given $54,000,000.00 from the TARP bill to upgrade the line that the Vermonter runs on. The remainder of the $74,000,000.00 project was funded though another grant and $20,000,000.00 in organic assets by Rail America. For a 74 mil investment from the tax payers and organinc assets, the benifit will be a long time coming. Amtrack is only showing a total of +/-213 daily and 77,783 total passengers for FY (Fiscal Year) 2011 on the train. Amtrack shows that the train had a revenue of $3,961,115 for FY11, a 17% decrease from FY10.
Anyway, I digress. Back to the 286K. With this upgrade there are only projections for traffic right now, but (IMO) they are a little generous. The projections coming out of the NECR, Federal Government (and state DOT rail divisions) put an increase of 40% to just over 50,000 cars a year. Now the NECR is in the 38,000 range. At 50,000 cars a year, it is hard to justify such an outlay in organic assests, when the last "Great Project" didn't even result in a single train, but cost the tax payers a few million dollars to drop a tunnel that has yet to see the traffic it was rebuilt for. So making the arguement that the railroads can just go ahead and do the upgrades doesn't hold water when the car loadings don't match the need. However, that being said.....if the future growth of New England railroads is ever going to match that of the rest of the country we need to get into a mentality that will allow the kind of "out of the box" thinking that will allow the forward movement towards liquidity of the indivisual companies. The issues of terminals have been touched on, but all of the improvements in the world are all for nought if the equipment that you are improving for can't be utilized by the customer and or end station. In New England, bridge traffic is almost dead with only a couple of exceptions, so upgrades soly based on bridge traffic are a mute point. The justification of doing all of this just to spend tax payer money doesn't really make sence....or does it?