Re: Haverhill/Bradford "Rule 261" Project!

I was ridding on MBCR 233 tonight from Boston up to Haverhill, and was chatting with the Conductor as we were crossing the Merrimack River Bridge and he was telling me that the "Rule 261" project was stalled and all the workers were moved off of it to another project in Beverly? I guess they ran out of money and MBCR now owes $$ to pay for things that were bought and not used. This is just a conversation I had, not sure if it was 100 percent accurate.

What project, specifically, are you referring to? The only "project" I'm aware of is single tracking from CP AS east to the new Lawrence station.

Rockingham Racer wrote:What project, specifically, are you referring to? The only "project" I'm aware of is single tracking from CP AS east to the new Lawrence station.

From my "understanding" from my friend who works for MBCR, the "Rule 261 Project is as follows:

basically it is just putting 261 (NORAC Rule for Tracks singnaled in two directions) in between CPF-AS and CPF-273(Plastow)

1) Yes there will be "261" signaling between CPF-AS and Plaistow.
This project is part of the new Lawrence station project.
A new interlocking callled FROST is being installed just east of
the new Lawrence Station and before Marblehead St crossing.

2) I don't know that the project has stalled. Things might be slow
at this time as far as physical changes in the field. And don't
forget that there is the planned work on the Merrimack River
bridge to do first.

3) There is no single tracking between CPF-AS and the new station
in Lawrence. There still will be double track.
Unfortunately, its the design of the new station that will result in
"quasi-single track" operations for commuter rail. The new
station only has a platform on the inbound side. No center platform,
no outbound platform. Thus ONE train only in the station. And this
effectively extends the horrendous single track problem that
happens when you got late trains/equipment breakdowns/etc.
Look at the potential problems during the evening rush hour with
Amtrak 684, 227, 231, Amtrak 686, 233,235,236, Amtrak 685 and
237?

But don't get me started!

D

GP40MC1118 wrote:1) Yes there will be "261" signaling between CPF-AS and Plaistow.
This project is part of the new Lawrence station project.
A new interlocking callled FROST is being installed just east of
the new Lawrence Station and before Marblehead St crossing.

2) I don't know that the project has stalled. Things might be slow
at this time as far as physical changes in the field. And don't
forget that there is the planned work on the Merrimack River
bridge to do first.

3) There is no single tracking between CPF-AS and the new station
in Lawrence. There still will be double track.
Unfortunately, its the design of the new station that will result in
"quasi-single track" operations for commuter rail. The new
station only has a platform on the inbound side. No center platform,
no outbound platform. Thus ONE train only in the station. And this
effectively extends the horrendous single track problem that
happens when you got late trains/equipment breakdowns/etc.
Look at the potential problems during the evening rush hour with
Amtrak 684, 227, 231, Amtrak 686, 233,235,236, Amtrak 685 and
237?

But don't get me started!

D

Dave:


Any status on this or any other projects in the area's Between CPF-AS and Plaistow. Wasn't sure how "rule 261" was going, or if anything got started.

GP40MC1118 wrote:3) There is no single tracking between CPF-AS and the new station in Lawrence. There still will be double track. Unfortunately, its the design of the new station that will result in "quasi-single track" operations for commuter rail. The new station only has a platform on the inbound side. No center platform, no outbound platform. Thus ONE train only in the station. And this effectively extends the horrendous single track problem that happens when you got late trains/equipment breakdowns/etc. Look at the potential problems during the evening rush hour with Amtrak 684, 227, 231, Amtrak 686, 233, 235, 236, Amtrak 685 and 237?

But don't get me started!

Can someone please explain the logic behind this? I mean wouldn't the T want to aim toward double tracking the area that isn't??? It seems to me that they spent as little money as they could on this station. They royally screwed up with this one; what a waste of money on such an idiotic project. Who were the master minds behind this one?

Well, we've had this discussion before; and when your argument [and mine] came up, it was CSX Conductor, I think, who said something to the effect: "What do you expect?! We're dealing with the MBTA!"

You're right; this IS a royal screw-up for the reason you stated: the goal is to do MORE double tracking.

I know this subject has been talked about... I was just venting because the whole subject really gets my blood boiling.

Another question on the topic: we have the addition of Frost as a new interlocking plant. Will Brad and Hall become interlockings, and will they place the signals at Rosemont in service?

I think Rosemont will be history if and when this project gets
going again. But the way things are going, 2006 is looking like
a wash....

Can't remember if Hall or Brad will be interlockings. Hopefully
at least one location will be.

d

If Brad and Hall became CPFs, I could see a different operating pattern here: outbound MBTA trains could run left-handed Frost to Hall; no need for the DS to give them permission to cross over at Hall like now; just clear the signal behind the train at Hall to run back west to Haverhill. Amtrak could run either track from Plaistow to Frost or AS, as well as freights. If there's an MBTA running east between Frost and Hall, the westbound would just go track 2 at Plaistow, or Hall for that matter.

I'm sorry to hear that the project seems to be stalled, though. Haverhill to Reading could definitely used more fluidity.

Just heard the same rumor the other day that this project is stalled. Too bad. The congestion is getting worse, especially when westbound freights get a wide load message at Exeter, they need to run wrong iron either from Plaistow or Hall to get around the Lawrence station platform. The 261 sure would be nice, even without the new interlockings.

One plan called for universal crossovers at Hall and Frost, with a rebuilt track from Frost to Lawrence yard (currently where the "temporary" outbound Lawrence platform sits). I wish they did the signal/track upgrades before they built the new Lawrence station....

eastendTD wrote:Just heard the same rumor the other day that this project is stalled. Too bad. The congestion is getting worse, especially when westbound freights get a wide load message at Exeter, they need to run wrong iron either from Plaistow or Hall to get around the Lawrence station platform. The 261 sure would be nice, even without the new interlockings.

One plan called for universal crossovers at Hall and Frost, with a rebuilt track from Frost to Lawrence yard (currently where the "temporary" outbound Lawrence platform sits). I wish they did the signal/track upgrades before they built the new Lawrence station....

Well, in CTC territory, there's no such thing as running "wrong iron", as you're probably aware. MAS on either track, in either direction. In the evening rush is when things get really sticky, I'd imagine. I was on 686 last week, and observed that the turned signals at Rosemont have been taken out, and new intermediates are in place between Rosemont and Hall, but not in service [turned]. In Lawrence, track 17 is still there, I think, with a hand-throw somewhere near the future Frost interlocking is. At least it used to be there, but who knows with all the changes!
A freight could be put there out of the way, if it's short enough.

Track 17 isnt connected right now. The temp platform for the outbound of Lawrence Station is also built right on top of track 17! From what I understand, 17 will be tied into Frost

Also Hall is going to be an interlocking, I think Brad will still just be hand operated switches that no one is strong enough to operate!