Railroad Forums 

  • The Maine Central Railroad Mountain Division

  • Discussion relating to the pre-1983 B&M and MEC railroads. For current operations, please see the Pan Am Railways Forum.
It is currently Fri May 10, 2024 12:44 am

The Maine Central Railroad Mountain Division

Discussion relating to the pre-1983 B&M and MEC railroads. For current operations, please see the Pan Am Railways Forum.

Moderator: MEC407

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by b&m 1566
 
4266, I agree with you the status quo needs to change in Maine if there ever going to turn things around.
What concerns me about this project is the lack of marketing and development and I haven’t seen anything concrete showing otherwise. Just for comparison: the Grafton and Upton Railroad down in MA is doing the very thing the state of Maine is trying to do but with one big difference, private money vs. public money. G&U is slowly making progress through marketing and development and is spending money wisely, I think if the state of Maine really wants to make this project successful they need to take a similar approach to that of the G&U. MEDOT needs to hire someone who can lead this project through marketing and development and as of yet, I haven't seen a shred of evidence to support such a move.

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by Cowford
 
4266, I'm going to assume you were being facetious, but I'm not quite sure where you're directing your ire. My comments (and that of Mike) were not (for a change) directed at the aim of this project, i.e., renewing operations on the Mountain, but in the way the project is being executed.

I have to assume that crossing and bridge work is being excluded as MDOT realized that $5 million (or whatever the funding was) isn't enough to complete the project. That brings up a bunch of questions, like: Who wrongly estimated the cost in the first place? And why start a project that has not the funding to be completed? And if they REALLY need to move forward, but don't have the money for completion, why not construct a contiguous line from Westbrook as far west as the money will take them? It would make track construction much easier (and cheaper). Just think about the ballast issue: I'm guessing that the number of dump truck loads of crushed rock needed for this project is upward of 1,000+ (I actually calculated 1,200-1,400, but they'll probably go super-cheap on spreading rock). If the line was contiguous, they could lease a ballast train from PAR and easily source the rock from Blue Rock in Westbrook. The way it appears set to go, that rock is going to have to be trucked in by hi-rail equiped dump... and each truck is going to have to mount the rail prior to dumping and dismount subsequent to dumping. What a nightmare.

And Mike has a great point. If this needs to be done "on the cheap," why not use relay rail and ties? It's obvious in their tie size choice that they're expecting neither significant tonnage nor significant speed... Relay material is probably available at a more favorable cost.

As most parents of teenagers have probably thought (or said): If you're going to do something stupid, at least do it right.

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by Ridgefielder
 
Cowford wrote:I have to assume that crossing and bridge work is being excluded as MDOT realized that $5 million (or whatever the funding was) isn't enough to complete the project.

I admit I haven't had time to read the bid request or other documents, but is it possible that they are excluding the highway crossings and bridges because those are going to be undertaken either by the DOT itself or different contractors under separate contracts? It just seems really strange otherwise, particularly as the Maine DOT has prior experience in this sort of thing.

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by Cowford
 
Following is an excerpt from the project description:

The purpose of this project is to reinstall the rail infrastructure that was previously removed. The construction will be completed in phases. The first phase (phase I) is to install as much track as possible while skipping over the paved road crossings. Subsequent phases will occur to finish the track and crossing work. Please note that the paved at-grade crossings with Bridge Street, Pierce Street, Presumpscot Estates Subdivision Road, Rousseau Road, Depot Street and Route 4/202 as well as the bridge crossing with Mallison Falls Road are excluded from this project. Track installation associated with this scope of work will stop approximately 50 ft. from existing paved road crossings and approximately 300 feet from the Mallison Falls bridge.

Odd, too, that they say "..install as much track as possible..." How the hell does a bidder interpret that!?!

And subsequent phases (plural)? As in, one crossing at a time???

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by Mikejf
 
I think the Mallison Falls bridge is the one that was taken out last fall by a bucket truck. Knocked the bridge right off the abutments. I would guess the state plans to increase the underclearance of this by raising it up. That would be the reason for the 300 foot on either side.

4266, there are 2 sides to everything. I don't believe in throwing a ton of money at something that may not produce the desired results. I understand about how this could bring business to the area. But so couldn't a four lane highway. But they aren't pushing for that. Why not? Because the traffic isn't there? Exactly my point about the rails. Why build a line for the Bullet Train when all you may get is the Little Engine that Could?

Mike

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by markhb
 
miketrainnut wrote:I think the Mallison Falls bridge is the one that was taken out last fall by a bucket truck. Knocked the bridge right off the abutments. I would guess the state plans to increase the underclearance of this by raising it up. That would be the reason for the 300 foot on either side.

4266, there are 2 sides to everything. I don't believe in throwing a ton of money at something that may not produce the desired results. I understand about how this could bring business to the area. But so couldn't a four lane highway. But they aren't pushing for that. Why not? Because the traffic isn't there? Exactly my point about the rails. Why build a line for the Bullet Train when all you may get is the Little Engine that Could?

Mike
Mallison Falls Bridge presumably is this one that crosses Mallison Falls Rd. just below the Maine Correctional Center. I have no idea if it's the one you were thinking of but it seems like a likely candidate.

Does anyone else notice the irony in that they aren't going to fix the grade crossing at Depot St.? (I think the old depot building is still there; there's definitely a building that looks like it used to be a station at least.)

So far as the 4-lane highway goes, find a way to add an Interstate-class connector from the Turnpike to North Windham and I guarantee it would see plenty of traffic. No rails anywhere near that area, though.

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by Ridgefielder
 
Cowford wrote:Following is an excerpt from the project description:

The purpose of this project is to reinstall the rail infrastructure that was previously removed. The construction will be completed in phases. The first phase (phase I) is to install as much track as possible while skipping over the paved road crossings. Subsequent phases will occur to finish the track and crossing work. Please note that the paved at-grade crossings with Bridge Street, Pierce Street, Presumpscot Estates Subdivision Road, Rousseau Road, Depot Street and Route 4/202 as well as the bridge crossing with Mallison Falls Road are excluded from this project. Track installation associated with this scope of work will stop approximately 50 ft. from existing paved road crossings and approximately 300 feet from the Mallison Falls bridge.

Odd, too, that they say "..install as much track as possible..." How the hell does a bidder interpret that!?!

And subsequent phases (plural)? As in, one crossing at a time???
Very, very odd, is all I can say. Certainly would never want to sign a contract with that much ambiguity.

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by Hux
 
Ridgefielder wrote:
Cowford wrote:Following is an excerpt from the project description:

The purpose of this project is to reinstall the rail infrastructure that was previously removed. The construction will be completed in phases. The first phase (phase I) is to install as much track as possible while skipping over the paved road crossings. Subsequent phases will occur to finish the track and crossing work. Please note that the paved at-grade crossings with Bridge Street, Pierce Street, Presumpscot Estates Subdivision Road, Rousseau Road, Depot Street and Route 4/202 as well as the bridge crossing with Mallison Falls Road are excluded from this project. Track installation associated with this scope of work will stop approximately 50 ft. from existing paved road crossings and approximately 300 feet from the Mallison Falls bridge.

Odd, too, that they say "..install as much track as possible..." How the hell does a bidder interpret that!?!

And subsequent phases (plural)? As in, one crossing at a time???
Very, very odd, is all I can say. Certainly would never want to sign a contract with that much ambiguity.
It is like building multi-storey house, but without putting stairs into the place.

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by Mikejf
 
markhb wrote:Mallison Falls Bridge presumably is this one that crosses Mallison Falls Rd. just below the Maine Correctional Center. I have no idea if it's the one you were thinking of but it seems like a likely candidate.

Does anyone else notice the irony in that they aren't going to fix the grade crossing at Depot St.? (I think the old depot building is still there; there's definitely a building that looks like it used to be a station at least.)
Yes, that is the bridge. You can see the modifications made to it by the snowmobile club. Taken after the truck hit it.

And for the station/depot, the freight shed still stands, I don't know if the building behind was railroad owned or not. the station was moved across the tracks, and kind of looks like the building that is south west of the two trackside buildings. I never investigated the buildings, but using google, the roof line looks correct. Could be it.

Mike

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by Mikejf
 
Looks like Maine Track Maintenance will be performing the work. Not awarded yet but the State has a history of going with the low bidder. And Maine Track has done a lot of work for them in the past. Only slightly over 2 Mil spent, wonder where the other 2 Mil will go (4 Mil was approved for this).

http://www.maine.gov/mdot/comprehensive ... 860.01.pdf

Mike

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by gpcog
 
4266 wrote:I'm still trying to figure out the whole cross-posting thing-
by miketrainnut » Thu Oct 28, 2010 7:55 pm
I see why I haven't seen this place yet, if it is under construction or in use. Tucked away on a back road

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&source= ... 8&t=h&z=14

Have you ever heard those stories of Google maps being wrong, i.e., drivers being led down dead end roads that exist only on paper? All I can say is I have been to the site. And the location Google displays is simply not it.
Location: Maine

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by markhb
 
Incoming Portland legislator Ben Chipman (I, formerly G) is all hot to trot for commuter service on the Mountain Division according to this story in The Portland Daily Sun:
The Portland Daily Sun wrote: Coming soon ... a train ride from Portland to Windham

In a message via Facebook, Chipman recalled: "I made a strong case for commuter rail service to ease traffic congestion and parking ... problems in Portland, reduce pollution and make transportation choice a reality for people in Portland and the surrounding communities. There are no tickets available yet, but by June there will be high speed track installed from Windham to Westbrook. The idea is to continue to Portland. We are probably at least two years away from commuter rail service from Portland out to Windham but things are moving in the right direction."
The story has some seemingly sloppy reporting (the P&O was planned to connect to the St. Lawrence Seaway?), but it also has a claim from Chipman that the commuter rail service will "pay for itself" after the initial investment. Personally, I wonder how it is that a train to South Windham will relieve traffic on US 302 / Forest Avenue; I lived up there for a long time, and I don't know anyone who would drive 5 or 6 lateral miles on their morning commute just to catch a train at Little Falls.

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by Mikejf
 
P&O's grand plan was to go to New York and beyond, and become a bypass for the St. Lawrence Seaway.

It's too bad some are gullible enough to believe that commuter rail will actually work on the Mountain Division. Don't get me wrong, there will be riders, but it will not improve traffic or have the amount of riders they expect. There will be to much hassle on the other end. Portland is quite spead out when you look at where everyone is going at 8am. One will have to take the train, then a bus or taxi to get to where they want to go. The 2007 study shows it wont work.

We live in a world of convenience. People will not take two or three modes of transportation to get where they need to go, especially if it makes thier commute longer.

Mike

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by Mikejf
 
Quoted from the 2007 study. Page E-9
2007 HNTB Study
Using census data showing the number of Portland bound commuters within the Corridor we
estimated the number of commuters that may use a commuter rail service. That indicated that about
90 one-way commuters and about 200 total daily boardings would be anticipated. The operating cost
would be about $4,000,000 annually resulting in an operating subsidy of about $72 per boarding.
Even doubling average daily boardings to 400 would result in an operating subsidy of about $36 per
boarding.
There are several facts that sway us towards a low capture ratio:
• The present Portland Transportation Center is too far removed from the area of Portland
with higher employment densities. Most would have to transfer to a local bus.
• The combined total trip time of a three seat ride (car, train, bus) would be substantially
greater than a one seat auto trip, even with some traffic congestion along the way.
• The location of the Mountain Division in Gorham (along its northern border) would require
almost all Portland bound commuters in Gorham to drive away from Portland to reach the
railroad.
Remember, this study was done before the financial crash of 2008. Also, just what is a ticket going to cost. If the Subsidy is going to be an estimated $72 per person, how much is the person going to have to pay?

Also who would be responsible for subsidizing this? $72 per person per day would go a long way to solving the traffic problems in other areas. Or then again, it could be taking away from areas that need improvement/repair.

Mike

Re: Reactivating the Mountain Division?

  by markhb
 
miketrainnut wrote:P&O's grand plan was to go to New York and beyond, and become a bypass for the St. Lawrence Seaway.
I realize they were trying to get to Ogdensburg in 1870, but the "St. Lawrence Seaway" didn't exist until 1959. They might have been trying to bypass the St. Lawrence River, but that's not what the article said. (Sorry, I spend too much time reading media critic columns :-) ).

But ITA, Portland has done such a horrible job in maintaining and strengthening the business community downtown that the area has become too decentralized for commuter rail to still be an option. No one is going to take the train to Thompson's Point or Preble St. only to take METRO from there to Southborough or Tyler Technologies. I said in the commuter rail thread that I think they could possibly get some ridership if the businesses on far-outer Congress (Stroudwater and beyond) ran a dedicated shuttle bus service from a platform near the Congress St. grade crossing, but other than that I don't think the ROI is there.
  • 1
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 135
 Return to “Boston & Maine (B&M) | Maine Central (MEC)”
 - All times are UTC-05:00 -