St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad (SLR/SLQ)

I heard the Pan Am dispatcher give them the OK to pass the signal.

393 out of Lewiston Junction at 22:05 tonight.

There is no longer a diamond at Danville Junction. This is why there was no signal indication.

CN9634 wrote:There is no longer a diamond at Danville Junction. This is why there was no signal indication.

I think he was referring to Yarmouth Junction.

So, to be concise the signals on the SLR where it crosses PAR at Yarmouth Junction do not appear to be in service at this time. Interestingly the signals on PAR at Yarmouth Junction have recently been photographed in service. So apparently on part of the signal system can be shutdown without affecting the other, i.e. there are two freestanding signal systems one for SLR the other for PAR each with their own respective power sources and wires connected to the other railroads tracks to detect trains?

The visible approach signal on the SLR for Yarmouth Junction from the south is always lit Yellow. Can be seen from 115.

Last I knew, the signals at YJ were controlled by Dist. 1. They could be out of service for the time being due to the ongoing work for the Diowneaster extension. The approach signla mike refers to is a separate and permanent yellow advance warning light for the diamond. It never changes and is not considered a governing signal.

BR4 wrote:Last I knew, the signals at YJ were controlled by Dist. 1. They could be out of service for the time being due to the ongoing work for the Diowneaster extension. The approach signla mike refers to is a separate and permanent yellow advance warning light for the diamond. It never changes and is not considered a governing signal.

I had seen a track diagram showing projected improvements that seemed to indicate Yarmouth Junction's signals were going to be converted from an isolated ABS system to CTC controlled by PAR.

Incredible. All to take an occasional carload down to the beanery.

Cowford wrote:Incredible. All to take an occasional carload down to the beanery.

It was part of the improvements for the Downeaster. CTC is being extended the length of the "Brunswick Branch" from Royal Junction through to Brunswick. I do not enough about rail signal systems to say its mandatory to convert the junction but I'm having a hard time imagining an ABS block with overlaid CTC right through it. Getting rid of potentially conflicting systems using separate technologies seems reasonable in that sense.

[edited for grammar]

From what I gather, the last remaining customer on the former GT's ~26 miles east of Danville Jct is the beanery at the end of track... and they receive an average of one car per week. There are no prospects for additional business. It defies all logic to maintain that line for continued operations. The diamond should have been ripped out during the track rebuild.

"Defies all logic", that is why it is owned by the State of Maine.

Cowford wrote:From what I gather, the last remaining customer on the former GT's ~26 miles east of Danville Jct is the beanery at the end of track... and they receive an average of one car per week. There are no prospects for additional business. It defies all logic to maintain that line for continued operations. The diamond should have been ripped out during the track rebuild.

I don't think they're maintaining the line or rebuilding the diamond just for the sake of some brick oven baked beans. Every sign I can possibly see with this line is that the State is keeping their options open in the event that someday they decide to rebuild the Back Cove Bridge. Rail corridors that penetrate the downtown central business district such as this one are "lost and gone forever" once you let them go. I think their perspective on it is a) rebuild the diamond because you're going to be able to anyways b) keep the line open so its available for future use c) not hurting anything by making sure the bean plant can still receive rail shipments.

I also think they have concerns that should PAR for unknown reasons ever see a major traffic increase they might have to reroute the Downeaster over this line to avoid Royal Junction. Highly speculative on my part but I really think that having the option to work around PAR's bottleneck in Deering if necessary is part of the reason for it. I think its smart and at least for now still a relatively low cost strategy (since the feds are paying for the signal upgrades anyways).

can anybody tell me why there are a bunch of piggyback cars sitting on the sidings in yarmouth just north of the diamond and in north deering?

Did SLR survive Irene? Any damage reports?

"Every sign I can possibly see with this line is that the State is keeping their options open..."

You've made a good point that I didn't fully consider... pulling the diamond would, in many respects, indicate abandonment... and unless MDOT had some sort of ironclad agreement with PAR to put it back it in at a later date, there would be a major challenge to get it back in. Realistically, the chances of that line's resurgence ever being service again are slim (marginal chance for incremental freight business) to none (passenger service - not in our lifetimes).

Trainmancs, "piggyback" cars? You have a reporting mark/number?

Cowford wrote:

gokeefe wrote:Every sign I can possibly see with this line is that the State is keeping their options open...

You've made a good point that I didn't fully consider... pulling the diamond would, in many respects, indicate abandonment... and unless MDOT had some sort of ironclad agreement with PAR to put it back it in at a later date, there would be a major challenge to get it back in. Realistically, the chances of that line's resurgence ever being service again are slim (marginal chance for incremental freight business) to none (passenger service - not in our lifetimes).

While I agree with the long odds (even with 0 or close to 0 for passenger service) I think its important to remember this line is one $40 million dollar bridge away from being relevant - extremely relevant to questions about transportation in Portland.

There are many many many projects in Maine (and certainly elsewhere) that one might say, "Oh if I only had $40,000,000 then I could do it!", however very very few of these projects involve a single point along an entire Right of Way. This is not a project that would require spreading out and fixing an entire line. Sure there are crossing improvements that would have to be worked on and yes the line to India Street would have to be regauged to standard gauge but the fact of the matter remains that the Back Cove Bridge is probably 80% or more, costwise of what would need to be done to use the line for service from downtown Portland.

That fact alone, in of itself, is what I think keeps MDOT interested in the line. Bridge projects are expensive, and can take a lot of time to complete but the engineering and environmental reviews would be very short because there's really only one package to work on and the rest of the line is still active with the MNGRR on one side and SLR on the other.

In short although the financial barriers to reactivating the line are quite high the engineering and environmental thresholds are remarkably low, in fact they are likely lower than practically any other single possible means of access to downtown Portland by rail without using PAR.

The only other one that even appears to come close might be the Union Branch. Even then this would require a reverse move, would use PAR for access and unlike the Mountain Division there does not appear to be sufficient space to build a connecting leg that would eliminate the reverse move. Any new Right of Way construction is almost indisputably more expensive than rebuilding the Back Cove Bridge, so that, in my mind is why MDOT is doing what they're doing.

Here's another factor to consider. The $40,000,000 estimate may in fact have been for full replacement of the Back Cove Bridge as a moveable span or some kind of drawbridge. That being the case a fixed span would be certain to have lower costs for construction than a new span which preserves maritime transit into Back Cove. I do not know for what purpose it was ever necessary to construct such a substantial span to allow large vessels to access Back Cove, but from everything I've ever seen in that area such maritime activity has long ago ceased. That being the case the possibility that it might be acceptable to install a fixed span may actually be quite high and of course its corresponding costs quite low. As it stands Tukey's Bridge (carrying I-295) directly to the West already imposes a height limit on what can get into Back Cove anyways.

I have serious trouble imagining that a fixed span over a gap of less than 200' feet would cost $40,000,000 to replace. This argument assumes that the approach trestle is largely undamaged and would be reused. I've always understood the case to be that the fire took place on the moveable span itself and not on the trestle. Anyways, that's what I'm seeing. I'd be interested to hear what others think and in particular if we can confirm whether or not the $40,000,000 estimate for replacement/construction was in fact for a drawbridge or moveable span. That in of itself might reveal certain things about the politics behind why this project hasn't been taken on yet.