Rail Related Development in Northern New England

the MEPFA study isn't specific to maine. rather, it's aimed at the entire new york/new england region.

perhaps the biggest obstacle to meeting the objective of the study isn't the wood (or silviculture), but instead is the loss of access to timberlands, as large parcels get chopped into smaller parcels, often with little thought to future timber harvesting on those smaller lots.

higher use of wood/biomass for thermal energy is certainly possible, and sustainable. many of the new wood/pellet boilers, and wood stoves for that matter, are capable of very high efficiency in operation, and there is an abundant supply of raw material growing throughout the northeast.

i don't know if 25% of the energy supply can be provided through biomass by 2025, though. that will neccessitate an investment in several new wood-fired powerplants in the region.

the best way for the northeast to deal with that isn't to use more efficient appliances/lights/etc. it's to reduce consumption/demand. we don't really need 70% of the households in the northeast to have a/c units. that's a discussion for another forum, though.

They have been doing a lot of work on the tracks here in St Albans. Not sure how for south they are going.

Also, I noticed they did some work around the station in Rouses Point. Doesnt look like they did much to improve the actual building. Its looking sad.

Cowford wrote:It's interesting to consider the reactions to the paper mill closings on this site. I haven't seen one proposal that government take over and operate the mills, or at least purchase the mills and hold them in mothballs until such time as they can serve the common good again. ("Paperbanking??") I'm going to posit that most folks realize that times have changed, and these mills have unfortunately run their course. After all, business operations have a life cycle. (And, to be sure, the remaining mills in Maine are also subject to this inevitability.) It remains curious to me as to why moribund rail lines are viewed in such a different light.

Cowford:

First thing that occurs to me is that it is a heck of a lot easier to build a papermill than a railroad. Also, I would assume that paper-making machinery is fairly specialized-- you can't repurpose it to make doughnuts or lightbulbs or Fords-- whereas a railroad can serve multiple different industries and functions which evolve over time. For example, Metro-North's Danbury Branch was originally conceived as a freight hauler with water connections, was briefly part of a through route between Boston and New York, reverted to a classic country branchline for decades albeit with decent on-line freight, and is now a heavily-used commuter line.

In a sense the road in "railroad" is the most important thing to remember. Railroads, like roads, ports and pipelines, don't themselves generate economic activity (aside from in their construction phase) so much as facilitate other kinds of economic activity-- mining, tourism, logging, what have you. If you accept that premise, then it makes sense for states to attempt to preserve rail infrastructure in the event that future economic activity may make rail access usefull or desireable.

With regard to the paper mills up north, I'd be interested to know how much of their problems are due to the overall economic malaise in the United States as opposed to factors specific to Maine and New Hampshire. An economy with 9.6% unemployment (and underemployment >15%) is not healthy, and a lot of businesses are struggling-- particularly capital-intensive businesses like paper manufacture that may have loaded up on debt when times were good. Unless there is something specific to Northern New England-- suboptimal pulpwood, say, or extremely high energy costs-- what's to say the mills won't reopen under new management when the economy improves?

-R

Ridgefielder wrote: With regard to the paper mills up north, I'd be interested to know how much of their problems are due to the overall economic malaise in the United States as opposed to factors specific to Maine and New Hampshire. An economy with 9.6% unemployment (and underemployment >15%) is not healthy, and a lot of businesses are struggling-- particularly capital-intensive businesses like paper manufacture that may have loaded up on debt when times were good. Unless there is something specific to Northern New England-- suboptimal pulpwood, say, or extremely high energy costs-- what's to say the mills won't reopen under new management when the economy improves?

the wood is not suboptimal, in terms of its quality for pulp production. electricity costs in new england are by far the highest by region in the US. the issue facing most domestic paper mills is cost to produce paper. the US has exhorbitant workers compensation costs, wages, insurance costs, environmental regulations, ad nauseum. compare the costs to, say, brazilian-sourced paper, and it becomes pretty obvious why domestic consumers purchase paper made in other countries, consequences be damned. it is all about price.

some of the mills won't reopen, because they have been dismantled [berlin].

Ridgefielder, easier? Paper mills are hellishly complex compared to a railroad. The most complicated part of constructing a railroad from scratch is securing the right-of-way. The only complicating factors on returning a rail trail to an active line are political/regulatory. And paper mills face the same headwinds. What would be easier to obtain: 1) Approval to build a rail spur to a gravel pit in Fryeburg, or 2) Approval to build a pulp mill in Fryeburg?

You've a point that paper mills are purpose-built... a newsprint mill's options outside of producing pulp and newsprint are pretty limited. However, railroads are often purpose-built, too. Line extensions to the PRB were built for one reason: coal. Despite the lines' capacity to carry other things, once the coal goes away, so will the railroads 'cause there ain't nothin' else to haul out there. As a New England example, the Mountain Sub's purpose? To serve as an overhead route. It was made redundant in the 80s. I certainly agree with your premise that railroads can facilitate economic activity, but the mere existence of a rail line hardly guarantees that. Does anyone REALLY think that today's Westbrook-Fryeburg "Mountain Corridor" economic landscape would be markedly different had GRS continued to operate the line to present day. More telling, still: I challenge someone to name a business that had to close due to the Mountain ceasing operations.

On the topic of line preservation, it's interesting that rarely, if ever, are calls heard to reactivate once-closed lines that have been ripped up but the right-of-way is, in whole or large part, intact. For instance, I haven't seen anyone (thankfully) advocate relaying the line between Livermore Falls and Farmington.

>>The most complicated part of constructing a railroad from scratch is securing the right-of-way. The only complicating factors on returning a rail trail to an active line are political/regulatory. <<

Correct, IMHO. It's not the rails, it's the right of way that begs to be preserved, whether it's for rail renewal, electric power transmission, natural gas pipeline, fiber optic line, or whatever. The establishment of a new r-o-w anywhere for these purposes cannot be achieved at any reasonable cost, given that the attempt to do so will accomplish nothing more than provide years of employment for the graduating classes from law schools.

Along with many others, I believe that the Saint Lawrence Seaway ended the principal economic need for the Mountain Division (and the Grand Trunk); it continued successfully for years as a competitive route to the west, before Guilford.

The MMA ex-BAR lines situation is different. There appears to be a genuine need for this route to the south and the rest of the U.S. rail system; currently for freight, and arguably, potentially tomorrow for "high speed" passenger, depending on the economic development strategy of the State of Maine.

PBM

Cowford wrote:Ridgefielder, easier? Paper mills are hellishly complex compared to a railroad. The most complicated part of constructing a railroad from scratch is securing the right-of-way. The only complicating factors on returning a rail trail to an active line are political/regulatory.

I should have been more clear. I did not mean to imply that a papermill was mechanically more complex than a railroad, but that the overall process of constructing one from scratch would be easier in total-- including fundraising, permitting, site acquisition, etc-- than that of constructing a moderately long railroad line. Right-of-way acquisition across several towns or local jurisdictions would be far more complex, for instance, than acquiring a single parcel of land for a mill site. Environmental permitting would be another multi-year headache: if you're not already familiar with the story, read up on the efforts of the Dakota, Minnesota & Eastern to build into the Powder River Basin.

Cowford wrote:You've a point that paper mills are purpose-built... a newsprint mill's options outside of producing pulp and newsprint are pretty limited. However, railroads are often purpose-built, too. Line extensions to the PRB were built for one reason: coal. Despite the lines' capacity to carry other things, once the coal goes away, so will the railroads 'cause there ain't nothin' else to haul out there. As a New England example, the Mountain Sub's purpose? To serve as an overhead route. It was made redundant in the 80s.

In my opinion, the better New England comparison with the Powder River lines would be the Branford Steam Railroad, in Connecticut: it exists only to serve the traprock quarries in North Branford and haul stone down to interchange with P&W and barges on Long Island Sound. The northern New England equivalents would I suppose be the long-gone lumber roads of Maine and New Hampshire, and the granite haulers of Vermont. I don't think the comparison to the Mountain Sub is valid-- the Mountain, after all, was not built with the idea of being a bridge road to Canada, or even going to Montreal at all; the Portland & Ogdensburg was trying to get to Lake Ontario and a connection with the west. In that respect its was already an example of a route that had evolved away from its original purpose at the time it was shut down.

Cowford wrote:I certainly agree with your premise that railroads can facilitate economic activity, but the mere existence of a rail line hardly guarantees that. Does anyone REALLY think that today's Westbrook-Fryeburg "Mountain Corridor" economic landscape would be markedly different had GRS continued to operate the line to present day. More telling, still: I challenge someone to name a business that had to close due to the Mountain ceasing operations.

No, the existence of a rail line does not guarantee economic activity. However, the absence of rail access can certainly come into the balance when a shipping-dependent business of whatever sort is searching for a location. All other things being equal, I think most businesses dependent upon frequent large shipments of whatever would chose a site with rail access, or the potential for rail access, over a site with no possibility of rail access whatsoever-- particularly if that business wants to factor in the possibility of sharp rises in the price of road diesel, and therefore truck freight rates, in the future.

Cowford wrote:On the topic of line preservation, it's interesting that rarely, if ever, are calls heard to reactivate once-closed lines that have been ripped up but the right-of-way is, in whole or large part, intact. For instance, I haven't seen anyone (thankfully) advocate relaying the line between Livermore Falls and Farmington.

Well, no, but nobody that I know of is seriously advocating relaying the Sandy River & Rangeley Lakes either...

Cowford wrote: On the topic of line preservation, it's interesting that rarely, if ever, are calls heard to reactivate once-closed lines that have been ripped up but the right-of-way is, in whole or large part, intact. For instance, I haven't seen anyone (thankfully) advocate relaying the line between Livermore Falls and Farmington.

the Northern is one that i can think of.

wally wrote:

Cowford wrote: On the topic of line preservation, it's interesting that rarely, if ever, are calls heard to reactivate once-closed lines that have been ripped up but the right-of-way is, in whole or large part, intact. For instance, I haven't seen anyone (thankfully) advocate relaying the line between Livermore Falls and Farmington.

the Northern is one that i can think of.

Also the Eastern Route from Newburyport to Portsmouth... and haven't some people pushed for the Manchester & Lawrence to be reopened?

In my reference to calling for line reopenings, I meant from the perspective of freight haulage.

Ridgefielder - the Mountain's purpose didn't really change over time. It was conceived as a bridge route and served as such until the end. It's location (and western connections) allowed its routing possibilities to morph over time based on the rise and fall of its connections.

Ridgefielder wrote:No, the existence of a rail line does not guarantee economic activity. However, the absence of rail access can certainly come into the balance when a shipping-dependent business of whatever sort is searching for a location. All other things being equal, I think most businesses dependent upon frequent large shipments of whatever would chose a site with rail access, or the potential for rail access, over a site with no possibility of rail access whatsoever-- particularly if that business wants to factor in the possibility of sharp rises in the price of road diesel, and therefore truck freight rates, in the future.

I agree. So where are all those businesses that must be popping up at all the rail-served locations in Northern New England? There have only been a handful in the last 20 years, and most of those are actually not shippers at all, but rail-truck transfer operations. Which brings me back to the question that's never answered: In the future, what rail-dependent businesses are we talking about here?

Some interesting notes from the column "Parallel 44" by Colin Woodard, in the November issue of The Working Waterfront. I don't think this column is on-line yet, but the newspaper is free, if you're near anyplace where it's available.
In "Maine's struggling ports get some gifts," rail is mostly mentioned as a competitor to marine shipping: "Potential importers like L.L. Bean or Reny's have noted that barge service has remained uncompetitive with trucks and trans-continental rail. (L.L. Bean, for instance, lands their Asian manufactures on the West Coast, then picks them up at a rail yard in Auburn.)"

It looks like $4.5 million of the $5.5 million going to ports from last year's transportation bond is earmarked for an "advanced conveyor belt system" for moving pulp and other bulk cargoes around the freight yard at Eastport. A quote from Chris Gardner, executive director of the port: "This is the last place on the East Coast where the forest touches the sea. We see a big market not just for [hardwood] pulp, but for softwood pellets or chips as well."

Searsport is mentioned in the last paragraph: "Searsport's niche--bulk and special cargoes*--is to be enhanced by the purchase of a large mobile harbor crane, which the Maine Port Authority claims will 'give the facility a competitive edge over its Canadian counterparts in Halifax and Saint John, Canada.' The federal grant application mentions a possible opportunity to import pig iron from Eastern Europe and Brazil on behalf of steel manufacturers in the Midwestern U.S." [Italics added.]

*"Special cargoes" is industry parlance for things like wind turbine parts. John Henshaw, the executive director of the MPA, hopes that demolishing part of the old passenger terminal at the International Marine Terminal in Portland will make unloading of special cargoes more efficient. He also mentioned strengthening the former parking areas to support loaded containers.

Gee, I hope at least some of that stuff moves by rail while it's on land.

Cowford wrote:

Ridgefielder wrote:No, the existence of a rail line does not guarantee economic activity. However, the absence of rail access can certainly come into the balance when a shipping-dependent business of whatever sort is searching for a location. All other things being equal, I think most businesses dependent upon frequent large shipments of whatever would chose a site with rail access, or the potential for rail access, over a site with no possibility of rail access whatsoever-- particularly if that business wants to factor in the possibility of sharp rises in the price of road diesel, and therefore truck freight rates, in the future.

I agree. So where are all those businesses that must be popping up at all the rail-served locations in Northern New England? There have only been a handful in the last 20 years, and most of those are actually not shippers at all, but rail-truck transfer operations. Which brings me back to the question that's never answered: In the future, what rail-dependent businesses are we talking about here?

As a sidebar here, since this thread morphed out of a thread on the Mountain Division, I'm assuming that by "Northern New England" we are talking about a region roughly defined as Vermont north of White River Jct., New Hampshire from the White Mountains north, and Maine north and east of Portland.

Back to your question-- not knowing the future, I can't answer. Clearly the region I just described produces lumber and wood products such as paper. Stone products also made up outbound loadings in the past, and within the last year we've seen rail shipments of Vermont granit resume. And there's always the possibility of getting some agricultural products back on the rails (i.e. potatoes from the County).

Looking beyond that, tell me this-- what are the barriers to a manufacturer of, say, washing machines choosing to locate in Berlin, NH? We think of Northern New England being remote, yet it isn't really-- the town I just named is within 200 miles of Boston and Montreal, and within 400 miles of New York City. With decent transportation links that compares favorably to the Carolinas, let alone Mexico or China.

Washing machines are a good pick; appliances are within a commodity group that moves by rail to a significant degree (from manufacturer to regional distribution centers) in boxcar and intermodal. The industry's manufacturing locations are (at least now) centered in the midwest (IA, WI, OH, MI, IN, KY, TN). I say "at least now" as a lot of appliance manufacturing is migrating to Mexico. I don't know too much about the industry, but believe their location choice is based on location relative to (a) their primary raw material: coiled sheet steel, and (b) their customer base. You can draw a good comparison with GE's "Appliance Park" in Louisville, KY and a possible site in Berlin, NH. There are multiple sources of steel within a few hundred miles of Louisville. I don't know the nearest source to Berlin... western PA? (Possibly Quebec?) That affects delivered cost and logistics complexity. RE the customer base, the Northeast (New England, NY, PA, NJ) contains about 18% of the US population. A range of 800 miles gets you maybe 25% of the US population... to Cleveland and Pittsburgh (to the west) and Richmond to the south. A range of 800 miles out of Louisville covers everything east of eastern TX, save New England and southern FL. More importantly, Louisville's in short range of all the major regional distribution centers. Berlin, NH would enjoy a fair position for the Northeast DCs only. Add in the Midwest's cheaper (and more easily buildable) land, fewer building/zoning/permit complications, more favorable tax rates, and (I'd suspect) lower labor costs... it would be a challenge.

On the subject of appliance manufacturing in the United States: I discovered last summer that it's virtually impossible to find a window-mount air conditioner that is built in the United States. GE, Frigidaire, Whirlpool, Maytag, Fedders, Friedrich -- all big "American" air conditioner names -- and they're all manufactured in China now. It may not be long until all of our washers and dryers are made there, too.

Before China fully has monopolized it, how about "green energy" manufacturing potential?
Solar panel and windmill factories could be a 21st century angle for increased Northern New England rail exports to the rest of the country and beyond.