It was a tourist line for some of the late 1980s and early 1990s. In fact, I rode it around 1992 from Morrisville to somewhere near Joe's Pond. Tracks looked bad (a pair of rails showing up between grass/high weeds) but we moved right along. Around 1995, the railroad's cars showed up at the VRR in CT and that was "all she wrote". Several years ago, a group called (IIRC) Vermont Rail Link was looking to restore freight and perhaps excursion service (with a steam locomotive) but alas, VAST won. I don't know how much business an excursion line would generate that far north. There were only a handful of riders in 1992. Too far north to generate any business from Stowe visitors. And most to/from Smuggler's Notch would go other ways to/from their destination.
A couple weeks ago, I did some survey work along the far eastern portion in St J where a bike path is being built. Not much left, except for some buried bolts, joints, etc, which makes finding survey markers difficult. Bike path in this area is only projected to run on a small portion of the old ROW, from the yard, west to the other side of the ball fields.
-Jay H.
Railroad Forums
Lamoille Valley thread and Conversion to Rail Trail
- Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
Moderators: MEC407, NHN503
by thebigham
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll ... 003/NEWS02
Lamoille rail trail plan draws praise, fire
November 29, 2006
By Carla Occaso Times Argus Staff
LYNDON CENTER – A 95-mile multi-use recreation path proposal for a discussed railroad bed connecting St. Johnsbury to Swanton could boost tourism, but sleep deprivation, herbicide use and accessibility dominated public concerns at a hearing Tuesday night.
The proposed Lamoille Valley Rail Trail would allow snowmobiles in winter, but other seasons would be restricted for non-motorized use. Written public comment on the $7 million Lamoille Valley Rail Trail recreation path must be postmarked no later than Dec. 7, said Bryant Watson, executive director of the Vermont Association of Snow Travelers Tuesday night during the final of several public hearings via Vermont Interactive Television.
VAST is the nonprofit organization based in Berlin that oversees snowmobiling in the state, and preserving the trail's use for winter snowmobiling has long been a goal as VAST faces increasing pressures on its 6,000-mile trail system, most of which is on private land.
Participating interactive television sites Tuesday included Johnson, St. Albans, Williston and Lyndonville.
The Vermont Agency of Transportation chose VAST over other organizations bidding to oversee that trail and implement a management plan for its use, Watson said, explaining why VAST is in charge of the statewide recreation project.
Watson said his organization agreed, "to produce and maintain a premier year-round recreation path/trail that will have national and international recognition in U.S. and Canada." Up to 75,000 people could use the trail, Watson estimated.
However the snowmobiling emphasis VAST places on the trail management plan prompted comments from some people who prefer non-motorized use or who own land along the trail.
"Our house is 55 feet from the trail," said Kate Scarlet of East Hardwick "Our cow barn is 50 feet from the trail … we have been woken out in all hours of the night (by snowmobiles)."
Others, including Phil Gimli-Mead of Danville, agreed with Scarlet, saying, "My problem with this whole plan is you guys aren't being good neighbors. … If you want to buy my house, that is fine, but if you are telling be you are going to change the use on that system and subject everyone living along it to staying up all night, I don't believe that is workable."
Responding to criticism from landowners against snowmobiles, Ken Gamell of St. Johnsbury said, "I'm a Caledonia County director for VAST. We do manage 6,000 miles of trail and we have over 10,000 landowners and many are very happy." The project would bring in millions of dollars in tourism and tax money to the state of Vermont, Gammell said.
Only a minor portion of the trail is currently used for snowmobiling, and many of the bridges need to be repaired or replaced, so full development of the trail would open up a whole new corridor for permanent recreation use.
Some of those participating praised VAST for its ability to pull together a plan promising economic development potential that is open to snowmobilers and non-motorized users, including walkers, cross-country skiers, hikers, bicyclists and horseback riders.
"I appreciate VAST branching out … you are obviously expanding the scope of your corporate purpose," a man speaking from the Johnson site said. However he criticized VAST for proposing including the use of herbicide to control brush.
The rail trail would be opened to snowmobiles from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., prompting some to complain of sleep deprivation while others asked who would enforce speeding and trespassing violations. County Sheriff departments from Caledonia, Franklin and Lamoille counties would work with the Vermont Department of Fish and wildlife "to provide necessary enforcement," Watson said. Individual towns could enact more restrictive speed limits and curfews, he said.
"This past year, Sen. Susan Bartlett, chair of Senate Appropriations Committee, added $25,000 to fund some law enforcement for the Lamoille Valley Recreational Trail," Watson said.
Making the trail accessible to those in wheelchairs concerned some, including Roger Damon of St. Johnsbury, who said, "Rest rooms, including ADA restrooms (and) good surfacing. This will make the difference between something like a rut in the woods and a world class (trail)."
The planned trail surface is Sta-Mat and a "compacted granular surface," Bryant said.
Some expressed concerns about ATVs using the trail, but Watson said ATV use is currently prohibited.
"We envision a rural rail/trail facility which will provide an environment so all users can enjoy nature and the scenic Vermont landscape to its fullest," the plan says. "This environment away from vehicular traffic will become an inviting place where the elderly and persons with disabilities can enjoy more leisurely endeavors and bicycle riders can set their own pace with short rides or multi-day trips."
Lamoille rail trail plan draws praise, fire
November 29, 2006
By Carla Occaso Times Argus Staff
LYNDON CENTER – A 95-mile multi-use recreation path proposal for a discussed railroad bed connecting St. Johnsbury to Swanton could boost tourism, but sleep deprivation, herbicide use and accessibility dominated public concerns at a hearing Tuesday night.
The proposed Lamoille Valley Rail Trail would allow snowmobiles in winter, but other seasons would be restricted for non-motorized use. Written public comment on the $7 million Lamoille Valley Rail Trail recreation path must be postmarked no later than Dec. 7, said Bryant Watson, executive director of the Vermont Association of Snow Travelers Tuesday night during the final of several public hearings via Vermont Interactive Television.
VAST is the nonprofit organization based in Berlin that oversees snowmobiling in the state, and preserving the trail's use for winter snowmobiling has long been a goal as VAST faces increasing pressures on its 6,000-mile trail system, most of which is on private land.
Participating interactive television sites Tuesday included Johnson, St. Albans, Williston and Lyndonville.
The Vermont Agency of Transportation chose VAST over other organizations bidding to oversee that trail and implement a management plan for its use, Watson said, explaining why VAST is in charge of the statewide recreation project.
Watson said his organization agreed, "to produce and maintain a premier year-round recreation path/trail that will have national and international recognition in U.S. and Canada." Up to 75,000 people could use the trail, Watson estimated.
However the snowmobiling emphasis VAST places on the trail management plan prompted comments from some people who prefer non-motorized use or who own land along the trail.
"Our house is 55 feet from the trail," said Kate Scarlet of East Hardwick "Our cow barn is 50 feet from the trail … we have been woken out in all hours of the night (by snowmobiles)."
Others, including Phil Gimli-Mead of Danville, agreed with Scarlet, saying, "My problem with this whole plan is you guys aren't being good neighbors. … If you want to buy my house, that is fine, but if you are telling be you are going to change the use on that system and subject everyone living along it to staying up all night, I don't believe that is workable."
Responding to criticism from landowners against snowmobiles, Ken Gamell of St. Johnsbury said, "I'm a Caledonia County director for VAST. We do manage 6,000 miles of trail and we have over 10,000 landowners and many are very happy." The project would bring in millions of dollars in tourism and tax money to the state of Vermont, Gammell said.
Only a minor portion of the trail is currently used for snowmobiling, and many of the bridges need to be repaired or replaced, so full development of the trail would open up a whole new corridor for permanent recreation use.
Some of those participating praised VAST for its ability to pull together a plan promising economic development potential that is open to snowmobilers and non-motorized users, including walkers, cross-country skiers, hikers, bicyclists and horseback riders.
"I appreciate VAST branching out … you are obviously expanding the scope of your corporate purpose," a man speaking from the Johnson site said. However he criticized VAST for proposing including the use of herbicide to control brush.
The rail trail would be opened to snowmobiles from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., prompting some to complain of sleep deprivation while others asked who would enforce speeding and trespassing violations. County Sheriff departments from Caledonia, Franklin and Lamoille counties would work with the Vermont Department of Fish and wildlife "to provide necessary enforcement," Watson said. Individual towns could enact more restrictive speed limits and curfews, he said.
"This past year, Sen. Susan Bartlett, chair of Senate Appropriations Committee, added $25,000 to fund some law enforcement for the Lamoille Valley Recreational Trail," Watson said.
Making the trail accessible to those in wheelchairs concerned some, including Roger Damon of St. Johnsbury, who said, "Rest rooms, including ADA restrooms (and) good surfacing. This will make the difference between something like a rut in the woods and a world class (trail)."
The planned trail surface is Sta-Mat and a "compacted granular surface," Bryant said.
Some expressed concerns about ATVs using the trail, but Watson said ATV use is currently prohibited.
"We envision a rural rail/trail facility which will provide an environment so all users can enjoy nature and the scenic Vermont landscape to its fullest," the plan says. "This environment away from vehicular traffic will become an inviting place where the elderly and persons with disabilities can enjoy more leisurely endeavors and bicycle riders can set their own pace with short rides or multi-day trips."
by Jo Jo Kracko
The line looks better now as a trail, then it did when there was a neglected and overgrown railbed with just about every major crossing paved over.. It's a shame that the LVRR was left to extinction, but if there was no business justification for it, then it wasn't meant to be saved.. If any RR company in VT could have made it work it would have been Vermont Railway, and more than likely could not see any financial reasons to make the LVRR work.. I used to drive Route 15 a lot before and after the tracks got torn up, and seeing the line all neglected and all the washouts were not a pretty site.. Then again, neither am I.. 
by tj48
For 6 years in the mid 70's my family and my cousins family would vacation on Caspian Lake in Greensboro. We would travel rte. 15
and as a young teenage railfan I would always hope to catch a glimpse of whatever railroad (STJ&LC, VN, LC, LV etc.) happened
to operating at that time. In those 6 years all I ever caught a glimpse (from a distance) of was a STJ&LC RS3 and a VN C420.
Two of my favorite places I always wanted to catch a train, but never did, was Greensboro Bend and the Fisher Covered Railroad
Bridge in Walcott.
This leads me to my questions:
1. Does anyone know why the rail line made that odd (to me anyway) detour to Greensboro Bend?
2. Does the Fisher Covered Bridge still exist?
and as a young teenage railfan I would always hope to catch a glimpse of whatever railroad (STJ&LC, VN, LC, LV etc.) happened
to operating at that time. In those 6 years all I ever caught a glimpse (from a distance) of was a STJ&LC RS3 and a VN C420.
Two of my favorite places I always wanted to catch a train, but never did, was Greensboro Bend and the Fisher Covered Railroad
Bridge in Walcott.
This leads me to my questions:
1. Does anyone know why the rail line made that odd (to me anyway) detour to Greensboro Bend?
2. Does the Fisher Covered Bridge still exist?
by shadyjay
Yes, the covered bridge still exists. Its (at least) a state landmark and there's a placque next to it, though its been a while since I've been by it. In fact, I think the last time I went by it was actually thru it, c 1992 or so. My job doesn't take me to that part of Rt 15.
Just as an FYI, the former LVRC coaches are alive and well on the Valley RR (Essex Steam Train) in CT. One was converted to an open car, one has been given the full repainting and furnace installation, and two others are still in LVRC paint/lettering, and used as backups as needed. The former 1001-1004 are now VRR 600-603.
Just as an FYI, the former LVRC coaches are alive and well on the Valley RR (Essex Steam Train) in CT. One was converted to an open car, one has been given the full repainting and furnace installation, and two others are still in LVRC paint/lettering, and used as backups as needed. The former 1001-1004 are now VRR 600-603.
by Oliva77
Why the bend? To gain elevation. At one point south of the 'Bend village the east and west legs of the line are about 1200' apart horizontally and 220' apart vertically.
by Highball
It is a prudent decision to ban the use of motorized vehicles, outside of winter, upon the proposed Lamoille Valley Rail Trail.My area lost a great deal of rail branch lines by the mid 1990's and soon thereafter, a growth of recreationals trails was prevalent on some of the abandoned lines.
I've seen the detrimental effects of ATV's on Rec trail surface infrastructures, such as rutting and the removal of the fine granular stone. The granular surface is necessary for biking and hiking / walking purposes.
Most often, while biking on my local trails, I've had to position myself to the extreme edge of the right of way, upon approach of a ATV, buzzing by at high speed, along with ensuing noise and gas fumes.........certainly destroys the tranquility of being with nature.
Motorized vehicles are not compatible with other trail uses, such as biking, hiking, horseback riding. Enforcement will prevent, in most cases, misuse of the trail for undesireable means in areas of towns, villages etc., where controls can be more easily applied, as compared to the " open " spaces and remote areas.
If enforcement is not apply applied to trail uses, by motorized vehicles, then I would not wish to be living along its route.
by wally
Highball wrote:Most often, while biking on my local trails, I've had to position myself to the extreme edge of the right of way, upon approach of a ATV, buzzing by at high speed, along with ensuing noise and gas fumes.........certainly destroys the tranquility of being with nature.please don't take this the wrong way. i just happen to disagree with you.
Motorized vehicles are not compatible with other trail uses, such as biking, hiking, horseback riding.
one, biking/walking a rail trail isn't "nature", so any atv "buzzing" past you isn't destroying the tranquility of it (nature).
two, while i do agree that motorized vehicles aren't compatible on single-track (not railroad, i mean in the sense of being about the width of a true hiking trail) trails with those other uses, their use on nh class vi, vt class 4 and other public roads, is compatible with the listed uses. do they "belong" on rail trails? maybe not. but mt. bikes don't always belong on hiking trails, either. nor do horses.
during the "work week", i spend most of my time "in the woods, walking". generally, the last thing i want to do with my "free time" is hike. instead, i enjoy the legal use of my old cj on class vi town highways throughout much of the year. while i don't own or use an atv, i can certainly understand their appeal to some folks. do some riders abuse trails? absolutely. but don't condemn all users as inconsiderate. i also see plenty of trash on "pure" hiking trails. that trash was deposited by hikers.
the point here is that there are inconsiderate folks in all forms of recreation, not just motorized recreation. i wish that it weren't so, but that's how it is. in reality, the different recreational "groups" should be working together towards common goals, rather than pointing fingers at one another. the motorized group can be a tremendous asset, especially in trail building and trail maintenance.
again, please don't take that as some flaming attack. it's just my view, and it's based on trying to find more harmony among the disparate recreational uses out there.
edit: to enable bbcode.
wally
Last edited by wally on Fri Jan 11, 2008 3:45 pm, edited 2 times in total.
member, new hampshire timberland owners association
by RussNelson
I agree with Highball that ATVs damage the trail for other users ... and for some other ATV users (e.g. I've seen ATV tracks go around puddles created by ATV use). I also agree with Wally that most ATV riders are respectful of other users of the trail. In my area, people compete to be "Politer Than Thou". Highball may live somewhere infested by jerks; who knows?
