Sorry I've been so long in following up to my statement of two days ago that the photo mystery has finally been laid to rest.
It's been a fun ride!
Below is cut-and-pasted email correspondence in which I have been included, but largely as an observer and questioner. I noted earlier that there is considerable history behind the depicted section of the Conn River, both detailed and fascinating. I had known none of it previously. I and my friend Chris, who initiated this whole discussion, plan to go to Charlestown sometime this spring and investigate all of this in detail. For those of you unfamiliar with the area (and I'm not terribly familiar with it myself, except for occasional rides-through), the spot in the picture would be almost unrecognizable today.
Sat., Feb. 20, from Chris Coyle, Athol, Mass., railfan who first passed the photo on to me:
I believe this to be taken just north of Charlestown, NH looking northward. That looks like Mt. Ascutney (and my uncle's farm) to the north, the B&M Conn River line and Springfield Electric diverging from its parallel trackage with the B&M as it heads toward the Cheshire toll bridge and into Springfield.
Referred to Alden Dreyer, Shelburne, Mass., former dispatcher for B&M/Guilford's Fitchburg and Conn River lines; in turn referred the same day to Doug Manson, Conn River Valley resident and engineer for PanAm Southern and Amtrak's Vermonter, who responded:
The Springfield Terminal diverged at the north end of the tangent just north of the Charlestown depot, just short of the right hand curve so it can't be that. Also there is no overhead wire for the track diverging. It was taken from an overhead bridge as you can see the tell-tale for the southward track. Interesting that the crossing has a cattleguard both north and south of it, suggesting open range. Strange for New England. It does look like Mt. Ascutney. Around the curve just north of where the ST diverges, are two locations the B&M called "Mud Cut" and "Bull Run". B&M mile post 93 and 94 respectively. There is an overhead bridge there which separates the two locations and this looks like it could be taken from that bridge looking north. So Mud Cut would be behind the photographer, it was an area with alot of water and in the spring they used to run work trains with a link belt crane to scoop out the mud that had slid down toward the track. The picture is would be looking north, down Bull Run. A name which came about, as I understand it from the ole timers I fired for, from a type of steam engine that were nicknamed "Bulls", and they used to let them run as fast as they could here to get a run on the hill up to South Claremont. The track going off to the left baffles me though. Perhaps it led to an area where they removed material for the fill required in the relocation, which this picture looks down, and hadn't removed the track yet. There was line relocation in this area with the original line being too the left but that track doesn't fit into that as the old line went off to the left part way into the curve just north of the Jct with the ST which is more than a half mile south of this location. Looking way down the tangent you can see where the line curves to the left and climbs up along the side of the hill toward South Claremont, which is just what it still does today. And you can still see where the original road bed was all along up the hill, just like north of Claremont Jct, leading to the High Bridge and for several miles beyond.
Just my guess. I'd be interested in what everyone else thinks.
Thanks for sending. Very interesting photo.
Sun., Feb. 21, from Alden Dreyer:
I think Doug has pinpointed the location pretty well as looking north from Bridge 92.70. There should be style B semaphores before the bridge, but maybe the photographer shot over them. I'm guessing that the bridge had just opened, or was under construction, to replace the grade crossing.
The original grade running down from Mud Cut to Bull Run, was 1.00%, reduced to 0.60 when the line was relocated. Bull Run was raised 42 feet. And I'm guessing that the track going down the hill connected to the original line to aid in the reconstruction effort.
The pole lines were interesting. Almost looks like they constructed a single track on the left, placed poles, and then added a second track and decided the poles were not high enough. Or something......
Mon., Feb. 22, from Scott Whitney, Bellows Falls-Charlestown area resident; engineer, Vermont Rail Systems:
All speculation should be laid to rest on the location. It is definitely the ST curving off to the left and the wire is there but just can't be seen in the poor image reproduction. I would LOVE a full size scan of this. For the crossing I was trying to find out what the date it was replaced with a bridge over the road. It was certainly quite a drop from the main street in Charlestown down to and UNDER the tracks. When I first started railfanning in the mid 70's the bridge was still there but Route 12 had long been filled in and relocated to parallel the B&M north with a new bridge over Springfield Station to get to Springfield. I think it was 78-79 that the underpass was finally filled in and the girders removed.
What I do know is this is before the track relocation from Springfield Station up through Bull Run took place. I had once assumed that this relocation came about in the very early 1900's but have to wonder now if it was done at the same time as the West Claremont project. Alden says below that Bull Run was raised 42 feet. However, in the past I have travelled the old right of way (can't now as it is gated) and I had doubted that number. After researching it a bit more I have come to find that indeed it is true and the old Bull Run had a dip with a .48% grade down leading to a sudden .85% upward. That's quite a roller coaster ride. The odd thing is that you can't see that dip today. I believe it has all washed away. So, I as if anyone has seen photo documentation of this relocation. Everything else done at that time period was well covered.
Tues., Feb. 23, from Scott Whitney: A 3D attachment of the site depicted (see below).
Later the same day, from Mr. Whitney:
I went through the day today pondering the whys and wherefores of the relocation at Bull Run in Charlestown. I believe I know WHY the project to raise the track level by 42 feet took place but I need one last date to be certain. Indeed it may have been a part of the general upgrades for heavier faster power on the B&M but there is one last factor I had overlooked. That was the river level itself. While on the surface one would think that the location many miles north of Bellows Fall would not see a change, indeed it did happen to be part and parcel of the building of the power dam at BF. I'm fairly certain that a requirement of the building of the dam that the power authority also had to pay for raising the level of any railroads that could be affected by it. The Rutland certainly was one and the B&M was the other. 42 feet lower on Bull Run would have the track under water today.
Now, my real mystery is how it was accomplished. I would love to see the land valuation maps of the area but right now all indications are that the low point actually lies beneath the present Bull Run This would involve keeping the railroad operating while systematically raising double tracks by the 42 feet. That in itself is a major feat. The other consideration is why relocate? I think the reasons were many and in no particular order due to: curvature, grade, ability to create a highway overpass and lastly, fill. While it would be many more years before the Lovers Lane overpass would be built, the old location was nearly an impossible spot to do so. moving the mainline remedied this. Secondly is fill. Raising track 42 feet is huge. Even the West Claremont High Bridge project only raised track 30 feet. All that fill came from the new cut created for the relocation. It certainly makes sense to me to get some sort of improvement for your efforts.
Tues., Feb. 23, from Alden Dreyer, his final word:
This location is exactly where I first thot it was based upon my track charts. Being between MP91 & 92. But the more I studied it, the most confused I became.
Then Doug Manson suggested Bull Run between MP93 & 94. Hmmmmm.
All I had to go on was two track charts: one from 1915 and the other from 1961. And the topo maps. The 1915 chart said you slid down a 1.00% grade to Bull Run, elevation 301 feet, than started the northward climb up the 0.85. The 1961 chart reduced the 1.00% down to 0.60 and the bottom was now at 343 feet, where you again soon hit the 0.85% for about a half mile.
My 1961 chart shows both the overhead bridge, 91.54, and the grade crossing, 91.62. Your 3D rendition, Scott, is worth a 1,000 words, so I'll shut up now.
