St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad (SLR/SLQ)

You should be able to find them at the local Whole Foods...

Actually, I think they're the ones locking $3000 bicycles to the chain-link fence which they then have to hop over to get from the Bayside Trail to Trader Joe's I'd love to see your analysis of the various political groups in play around this stuff.

There's a Powerpoint deck (translated to PDF) on the ATRC site dated yesterday; I am not sure whether it was for the Auburn or Bethel meeting (or both), but it has a lot of interesting info. A few things I noticed:

• They seem to be fine with having the L/A train station at the airport and using a shuttle bus to connect to the downtowns;
• The route (PAR or SLR) between Royal Junction and Auburn (or at least Danville) is considered TBD.
• There is some mention of the Downeaster layover facility being moved to Brunswick, which surprised me.
• The Montreal service they discuss would make 2 station stops in New Hampshire but none in Vermont.
• There is also discussion of additional Downeaster trips to Boston, but no mention that if they add more than 1 more round trip PAR will have to revisit their PTC waiver since that's predicated on no more than 12 one-way pax trips/day.
• At no point in the deck is the "$" character used

From the SJ article, here's the one thing that really threw me:
"Tony Donovan, a member of the Maine Rail Coalition, suggested using VIA Rail rather than Amtrak."

If anyone can tell me why VIA Rail would be interested in running a service from Montreal to Maine, or why PAR would let them run on its tracks, please let me know.

Personally, I believe the only way we will see a POR-MTR service is if it's part of a BON-MTR route. The real question to me around that is, is BON-MTR actually desired in and of itself, or is it just a Trojan horse to get the feds to pay to restore the 50 mile gap of track in NH?

I too am having trouble with the quotations so I'll just answer your queries as they come to mind...
The "Bayside Trail"? that one kills me!!! A recent proposal from a report by the American Institute of Architects, Sustainable Design Assessment Team outlined the possibility of installing a central biomass boiler (powered by Mtn Division Pellet mills...) to reduce energy costs for the public housing in the low income neighborhood of East Bayside. The only way to make the project feasible would've been to bring the biomass in by rail via the Union Branch... Now known as the "Bayside Recreational Trail"...But hey, at least the bike-peds can ride those $3000 bikes to Whole Foods and Trader Joes and they don't even have to worry about those undesirable poor people ruining their view because the fence blocks any access from the Bayside neighborhood it runs through...
Your observations regarding the MTR-POR study are pretty much correct, although Tony Donovan wasn't at the Auburn meeting... The VIA rail idea was based on theory that VIA has in fact run through Maine before, albeit only as a through route to St John I believe. I suppose the suggestion was meant as a point to be taken for consideration in the study, if the line proves to have more economic benefits to Montreal than to BOS or POR than maybe VIA would be interested in sharing the operational duties with Amtrak or NNEPRA. And where would they be running over PAR? I thought the entire route until Portland would be SLR...
The last station stop in NH is actually on the VT border and not too far from Canada anyway, so the theory is to maximize the affected area...
This is also the first that I have heard of the Brunswick layover facility...

Speaking of Brunswick... Hear me out on this... DMUs needed for commuter service... NNEPRA applying for location of test track because of state owned ROWs... NASB searching for tenants in the aerospace/transportation manufacturing field... US Railcar is out of business... Bombardier has both private aerospace and DMU divisions... Bombardier is based in Montreal... Republicans are interested in finding new ways to forge public/private partnerships in rail infrastructure... MBTA is considering Bombardier to manufacture DMUs for Fairmont Line... Pieces of a puzzle?

4266 wrote:One attended by Maine Rail TRANSIT Coalition director Tony Donovan, was held in Bethel

Yup, MRTC, not MRPC; bad recollection/lack of look-it-up on my part. :oops:

Awhile back, I think it was someone from MERR who mentioned a possible future railcar rebuilding operation at BNAS. How about some nice refurbed RDCs for commuter service? (Just kidding--mostly.)

Lots of new possibilities here.

Geez 4266, after an extended hiatus, you seem to have excess quantity of piss and vinegar! It's disappointing that you have to hurl such disparaging remarks to the members of MaST, as they seem to have the same goals that you espouse, namely, greater use of public/alternate transportation. It's particularly discouraging as it sounds like these people are actually doing something to change transit choices, like riding buses and walking/biking to work, etc. Possibly you feel the same as TRNE, GPCOG, et al., espousing greater use of public/alternate transportation so long as that alternative is rail. If so, that's a tad disingenuine. Interestingly, you didn't indicate whether you thought MRTC's claims regarding ZOOM buses between Portland and L-A are, in fact, legitimate... Let's see if I have this right: It is MRTC's contention that the Maine Turnpike between those two points has not the capacity to handle an additional vehicle every, say fifteen minutes in each direction. Dude, you're betting on the wrong horse.

Oh, by the way... once again, you got me: I have an expensive bike (and worth every penny) which I use to commute (and shop, etc) year 'round, barring ice and snow (and my "alternate" mode is the "L") - how do you commute? Heavens, not by car!?!? Oh, and I do own my fair share of Gore-Tex (excellent fabric, made in the US, your problem with it is?) But sorry, I have no pony tail. Granola's ok, but I prefer anything cooked in duck fat. Whole Foods (and anything differentially priced because it is "organic") is overpriced. I'm curious: Are you one of those that shops at Walmart and admonishes people to "buy American?"

Back to the topic at-hand:

Take note that the MDOT presentation specifically EXCLUDES rail commuter service between Portland and L-A. (Not surprising, given what research they've done shows little/no demand.) Given that, why MRTC's got an issue with adding bus service in the corridor is downright weird.

So the state is proposing eight (!) RT's POR-L-A and four (!!) round-trips/day to Bethel, with the town being a destination terminal. (I'm not sure if the 2 RTs to Montreal are on top of these four.)

And then next steps are to determine ridership and costs. Interesting. So they developed train length/frequency without knowing what ridership would be... Q: Sir: how many widgets do you plan to manufacture? A: 20,000 per year. Q: How many can you sell? A: I don't know yet. Q: So, you'll probably "forecast" your sales to be in line with what you plan to manufacture, right? A: Wink wink.

I guess they will have to build a transload facility in Portland to truck those pellets through the City. Can't get them there by rail. Oh, wait, that would mean extra handling and higher costs. Why not just truck them from E. Baldwin?

Mike

Mike, you bring up an interesting issue.

4266, you stated, "The only way to make the project feasible would've been to bring the biomass in by rail via the Union Branch... " Not sure if that's your conclusion or that of the organization you referenced, but how was that conclusion drawn?

4266 wrote:And where would they be running over PAR? I thought the entire route until Portland would be SLR...

I had meant to reply to this last night; the plan as depicted in the slide deck says that they intend to use the upgraded PAR tracks from Portland to Royal Junction. The route from Royal to Auburn is officially TBD, but the way the slide is designed with nice solid straight blue arrows depicting the POR-Royal segment and also the Royal-Yarmouth JCT - Auburn segment via SLR, as opposed to this little narrow squiggly red line depicting the PAR Back Road from Royal to Auburn, I think they have a preferred route.

Actually Cowford, the reason behind my "extended hiatus" is because I have joined the steering committee for MaST and I've been too busy doing real life things to spend my hours going tit-for-tat with you and MR.Mike... I thought everybody could use a good hippie joke now and then, but maybe I was wrong... Despite my tone, I wasn't advocating for either side of this issue, just thought I would point out the things going on in inter-organizational politics around Portland.
Now as to the pellet burner idea that you and Mike seem so eager to pile on. It was part of a recent study by the AIA for East Bayside where they send a team of architects and planners to a neighborhood and conduct of sustainability plan for free. The Pellet burner idea was explored in detail at one of the meetings but didn't make it into the final report because the tracks are now a trail. OH and it was the opinion of one of the architects that it would only be feasible if brought in by rail.

4266 wrote:The VIA rail idea was based on theory that VIA has in fact run through Maine before, albeit only as a through route to St John I believe.

Actually, it was the Montreal-Halifax service-- the Atlantic-- on the old Canadian Pacific/International of Maine routing via Jackman, Greenville, Brownville Jct., and Vanceboro. It traversed Maine in the dead of night and as you can tell from the above list of towns did a pretty good job connecting noplace to nowhere at least as far as Maine is concerned. The service was discontinued in the early-mid '90s-- maybe 1994-- in favor of the current all-Canada routing of the Ocean.

4266, I commend you for getting involved.

Real quick, about the wood pellet issue: As a point of reference, New England Wood Pellet Co. advertises bulk delivery (25T lots) for $4.50 per loaded mile + $75 per load. That works out to, say, $250/load from a typical Mt sub origin. (Using a tri-x trailer would push down that cost on a unit basis.) Four trucks: one covered hopper... so the architects think rail will be substantially cheaper than ~$1,000? MDOT's studies highlight revenue/car between $500-650 per car... call it $500. And PAR would get their cut, say, $450. And the covered hopper rental would cost anywhere from $150-300+ per load, depending on turns/month and off-season utilization. Add it up: Truck is $1,000; rail is $1,100-$1,250... plus labor to unload the car (drivers unload the truck). Here's my point: I don't claim to know the motivations behind that architect group, nor the reasons for/behind their conclusions. But the representation of spurious data as fact (and the spurious use of accurate data) is rampant in Maine's transit and rail coalition circles. (Not to single out MAST, but yesterday I googled Zoom ridership and found that the Maine Turnpike was extremely critical of MAST for such activity in a PPH editorial on Oct 11.) All this does is undermine public confidence in well-reasoned arguments in favor of increased rail/public transit efforts and compromises the "greater" transit movement in general.

Think of what the pellet conclusion theoretically could have done: 1) Nope, can't do rail, and truck too expensive. 2) Kill boiler project. 3) Base load business opportunity for planned pellet mill is reduced. 4) Mill project owners lower projected sales and because of this, can't get investment capital or otherwise decides to shelve project. 5) No new pellet mill.

Crazy idea time.

IF the train to Bethel becomes a reality, whether as an Amtrak service or a ski train, would it be possible to put 1 sleeper car and a Diner-Lite on the 11 Pm Downeaster out of Boston, layover x hours in Portland (after the 1:30 or so arrival), and run them through to Bethel early in the morning? The Diner-Lite could take the place of the cafe car on those runs, so they'd have to do without Business Class. The thought occurred to me because taking the late Downeaster to catch an early ski train out of Portland means you would have to find somewhere to sleep for a few hours during the layover. Unfortunately, it's too late for me to think clearly enough to try to work out the logistics.

Further discussion in the Amtrak forum has shown me the first flaw in my crazy idea: the Diner-Lounges are apparently all bilevel and the Downeaster requires single-level cars.

The issue I was trying to work out is this: The last Downeaster leaves BON at 11 or 11:20 Pm and gets to Portland around 1:30 or 2. A Portland-Bethel run serving skiers would not, I think, want to depart Portland before 5:30 or so, just for the sake of Mainers wanting to ride up in the morning. So, what do the passengers from Boston do between the arrival in Portland and the departure for Bethel? Hence my suggestion of a sleeper car; I added the Diner-Lite both because Amtrak generally wants to be able to provide meal service with rooms and because I think they might be able to make some money serving breakfast to coach passengers on the way up. The harder question is, what to do with those cars on other runs?

Incidentally, I did find the scanned Sunday River Express schedule; it's here, in the Maine Ski Trains thread. Comparing that schedule to the SLR milepost listing here and figuring the endpoints were close enough to MP's 2.4 (E. Deering) and 70.1 (old Bethel Station) has the old train going roughly 30-35 MPH. If the route were upgraded to Class 4 all the way up, they could run at 79 MPH which would cut the travel time almost in half. That, in turn, would be EXTREMELY competitive with if not faster than driving to Bethel, even with appx. 5 extra miles added to the trip (the difference between E. Deering-Yarmouth Junction and PTC or Commercial St. to Yarmouth Jct).

Edited because writing an entire paragraph as a single sentence is bad form.

A while ago- a year or so-, I seem to remember that there was a proposal to establish an ethanol blending facility in the Lewiston Junction area. Am I totally mistaken about this, or is it in the works?

S

hh660 wrote:A while ago- a year or so-, I seem to remember that there was a proposal to establish an ethanol blending facility in the Lewiston Junction area. Am I totally mistaken about this, or is it in the works?

You might be right about that, but given the slam that the Lewiston Sun Journal just took at ethanol, whoever proposed it might be pretending they "never said any such thing."
EDITORIAL: Time to cut fed subsidy for ethanol

Now I'm trying to remember where it was in that area that somebody had expressed an interest in bringing in bio-diesel via tank cars.

I don't think there was ever talk of an ethanol blending facility, but rather a transload... which if I understand correctly is already happening at Safe Handling.

Nice to see the Lewiston Sun Journal's position. As they state, ethanol is the only product in this country that has its production subsidized, sales mandated by law, and trade protection provided by tariff - all at the same time. The latter is outrageous, given that it prevents truly environmentally friendly sugar cane-based ethanol from being imported. Corn-based ethanol is "green," but only for the ADMs of the world. The only thing the paper got wrong: "It now seems clear that growing corn to produce ethanol makes neither business nor environmental sense..." It's been clear for YEARS. I met with ethanol market consultants in 2003 that stated it was essentially a big scam that would probably go away by ~2015. If logic prevails, they may be proved right.

But it's been AWESOME business for the railroads... low investment requirements, great revenue, little risk.