Fitchburg Line Upgrade Discussion

newpylong wrote:41-43 #1/#2 70mph
43-43.54 #1 50 /#2 no change
43.54-OX #1/#2 79mph
OX-47.7 #1/#2 75 mph
47.7-FG #1/#2 70 mph

It must be challenging for the T to exploit the speed limits on this 7 to 8 mile stretch of track as it is shared with Pan Am's often slow moving freights (and in many cases long intermodal trains terminating/originating at Ayer) plus the N Leominster T station at MP 45.34 is in the middle of the 43.54 - OX 79mph stretch. But this is progress.

There is what happened to the CSX NA Desk once the T bought the line out to Worcester. That could serve as a precedent -- implicitly, at least -- as to what might happen if PAS doesn't permit the T to fully exploit the new and expensive capabilities on line that the T already owns. Particularly once the Extension gets realized, any PAS-related delays will probably be the subjects for frank and open discussions and a full exchange of views, to borrow the phrasing of polite conflict.

There is no reason that PAS can't move 50 mph to make things more fluid either. Same applies to Portland Divions and Conn River or anywhere track is maintained to passenger standards.

Is there an expected completion date for restoring double-track operation through Concord? And is there a proposed timetable (or does anyone have a link to the old timetable from before the single-tracking)?

Ha!

On a positive note, it is moving faster than the Haverhill double track project!

D

newpylong wrote:There is no reason that PAS can't move 50 mph to make things more fluid either. Same applies to Portland Divions and Conn River or anywhere track is maintained to passenger standards.

Actually, there is a reason. Signal spacing is based on the braking distances of freight trains. If you up the speed, the braking distance increases, and all the signal locations are wrong (too closely spaced to be more precise).

boblothrope wrote:Is there an expected completion date for restoring double-track operation through Concord?

I don't know exactly when they'll restore double-track operation, but the schedule for the bridge replacement work in Concord lists "MBCR Install Track (Trk 2) PH 4 20.61" on Aug 30, 2015 and "MBCR Install Track (Trk 1) PH 4 20.61" on Sept 23, 2015, so I don't think it'll happen before then.

You can see other plans and info here: MBTA - Concord, MA Projects

If they're waiting for MBCR to install the track, it'll never happen!

Eager for signs of activity -- any activity -- on the Extension?
~0730, a Volvo excavator was clearing the snow away from the old James River access road on the 1 side of the Princeton Road UGB at Wachusett, and further east, a tree crew was doing what tree crews do along the ROW across from the 50-50 and/or 50/50 Diner between the 2 River Street UGBs.

130MM wrote:

newpylong wrote:There is no reason that PAS can't move 50 mph to make things more fluid either. Same applies to Portland Divions and Conn River or anywhere track is maintained to passenger standards.

Actually, there is a reason. Signal spacing is based on the braking distances of freight trains. If you up the speed, the braking distance increases, and all the signal locations are wrong (too closely spaced to be more precise).

Really? Even though passenger trains can now go at 79? I know this an unscientific observation. But generally speaking, when looking at ETTs, 79-80 mph railroads generally allow freight speeds of 50 mph or better. Perhaps I'm overlooking something.

And what are the MP locations of OX and FG if I may ask?

Wingnut wrote:

130MM wrote:

newpylong wrote:There is no reason that PAS can't move 50 mph to make things more fluid either. Same applies to Portland Divions and Conn River or anywhere track is maintained to passenger standards.

Actually, there is a reason. Signal spacing is based on the braking distances of freight trains. If you up the speed, the braking distance increases, and all the signal locations are wrong (too closely spaced to be more precise).

Really? Even though passenger trains can now go at 79? I know this an unscientific observation. But generally speaking, when looking at ETTs, 79-80 mph railroads generally allow freight speeds of 50 mph or better. Perhaps I'm overlooking something.

And what are the MP locations of OX and FG if I may ask?

It all goes back to signal spacing. It is designed for 40 MPH freight. If you want higher freight speeds, then you would have to move the just installed signals to get proper braking distance for freight trains. I assume that on those other RR's the spacing takes into account the desire to run freights at 50, and they were built that way.

OX is MP 46.75 and CPF-FG is 48.10

Under PanAm's definition 30 mph is fast! They are comfortable at 15 or even 10! That's the way they operate.

They have adopted part of the old B&M mantra:

Uphill Slow … Downhill Fast … Revenue First… and Safety Last (as related by a former B&M employee back before Guilford was nothing more than a town in Connecticut)

Gerry6309 wrote:Under PanAm's definition 30 mph is fast! They are comfortable at 15 or even 10! That's the way they operate.

Actually they are VERY uncomfortable with 15 mph. NO place on Pan Am(B&M rules) are you allowed to operate 15. If you cannot maintain 25 mph you must reduce to 10 mph due to harmonic rocking. All the speed restrictions are either 5, 10, or 25 mph if you ever get to see the speed restriction summary.

sery2831 wrote:

Gerry6309 wrote:Under PanAm's definition 30 mph is fast! They are comfortable at 15 or even 10! That's the way they operate.

Actually they are VERY uncomfortable with 15 mph. NO place on Pan Am(B&M rules) are you allowed to operate 15. If you cannot maintain 25 mph you must reduce to 10 mph due to harmonic rocking. All the speed restrictions are either 5, 10, or 25 mph if you ever get to see the speed restriction summary.

I admit to exaggeration.

If you blink, you miss the Downeaster at Walkers Crossing! If its Pan Am, you'ld better have some reading material!

One Night ca. 2013, I was sitting in Seashore's Bunkhouse Kitchen, when I heard a whistle blow. I assumed it was for River Rd., about a mile away. Several minutes later, I heard a rumble, and the whistle started again. A long drawn out toooooooooooooooot, tooooooooooooooooooot, toot, toooooooooooooooooooooooooot was followed by a distinct series of clickity claks as each car crossed Log Cabin Road. It must have taken 20 minutes! It was a bit longer before the rumble from the head end finally faded away into the night.

130MM wrote:

Wingnut wrote:

130MM wrote:

newpylong wrote:There is no reason that PAS can't move 50 mph to make things more fluid either. Same applies to Portland Divions and Conn River or anywhere track is maintained to passenger standards.

Actually, there is a reason. Signal spacing is based on the braking distances of freight trains. If you up the speed, the braking distance increases, and all the signal locations are wrong (too closely spaced to be more precise).

Really? Even though passenger trains can now go at 79? I know this an unscientific observation. But generally speaking, when looking at ETTs, 79-80 mph railroads generally allow freight speeds of 50 mph or better. Perhaps I'm overlooking something.

And what are the MP locations of OX and FG if I may ask?

It all goes back to signal spacing. It is designed for 40 MPH freight. If you want higher freight speeds, then you would have to move the just installed signals to get proper braking distance for freight trains. I assume that on those other RR's the spacing takes into account the desire to run freights at 50, and they were built that way.

OX is MP 46.75 and CPF-FG is 48.10

Couldn't some reprogramming take care of this?

For example, instead of what would now be a stop, approach, clear, it would be reprogrammed so that you would have stop, approach, advanced approach.