Railroad Forums 

  • CNZR - Armory Branch

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England

Moderators: MEC407, NHN503

 #1311907  by whatelyrailfan
 
When I was delivering for the local NAPA store in Enfield, I sometimes delivered to the Hallmark facility on Bacon Road. This was 1986-1987 and I vaguely remember a spur going to the plant, but it's long gone now. Bing Maps shows what might be a spur where the spur may have come off of the main.
Peace,
Jonathan
 #1335389  by LReyomeXX
 
If CNZR does actually monitor these forums, they may be interested in knowing that Western Mass News (ABC40/CBS3) today did a story on the St James Avenue overpass here in Springfield, about how it's becoming unsafe. I wrote on their Facebook page about they should fill in or remove the bridge, due to the railroad tracks never coming back (never going to be an answer from MassDOT on this, it's also not in their future rail plans).

What are the railfanners thoughts on this?
 #1335604  by FLRailFan1
 
My thoughts on it is that Massdot needs to figure out how to keep the RIGHT of way, because it might be needed soon. What I mean is that with all the new traffic on Amtrak's line, CSO and PAS could use the Amory branch. It would help CNZR, too.

By the Way, welcome...
Last edited by Jeff Smith on Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Remove nesting quote from immediately preceding quote (indexing)
 #1335687  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
ex-Armory Jct. is going to be the site for the new Hartford Line layover yard. It'll trail the opening date of the service by 5 years because that's part of the still-unfunded slate of north-of-Hartford improvements that need another appropriation, and the service density on the starter schedule is light enough to (uncomfortably) fit inside Amtrak's existing Springfield Union layover spots for the first couple years. The only yard renderings I can find right now are ancient ones from the DEIR that are way out-of-date and too tiny and pixelated to squint at the street names and get a sense of how far back it'll go. I swear there were some more up-to-date ones out there somewhere as of a few months ago that shows the updated track layout and location of support buildings on the site. I'll keep digging for that.

Basically, the facility is going to be pretty narrow and long to fit in the contours of the old junction and accept train storage long enough for a full-size Northeast Regional. Armory St. overpass will get completely done over as a result, and the yard will stretch at least as far back as Glen Rd. for tying in driveway access. The entire layout would support one yard track being given over to a mainline track or freight spur should the Armory ever be reconnected or the businesses on Albany St. need a freight siding accessible through the yard. With power switch to the mainline and crossover reconfiguration into Springfield Union supporting free movements to/from the branch should it ever get extended beyond the yard. The layover at least takes care of reserving the junction-proper and the area from the curve to the junction. St. James Ave. overpass is out of project scope being too far back, but lack of any action on fixing it probably does have project dependencies on the rest of the layover land being cleared so MassDOT has a brush-cut shot in underneath to get trucks easily in to do the bridge rehab work. Safe to say if the ROW gets any more rail trailing it's not going to extend north of Bay St. because the layover and security fencing + tree buffer around it would prevent dumping a trail head any further up up the ROW to nearest at-grade access point around Campus Pl. Everywhere south of Bay has the underground gas pipeline preventing permanent structures from being built on the ROW so it'll never be truly encroached even if it is trailed. Though obviously reactivation has many difficulties if any more does get tapped for recreation.

MassDOT just for reasons unknown can't be bothered to feign interest in any preservation no matter how often CDOT asks them. And reconnection to Springfield and "discussions with MassDOT" therein about preservation steps is an official long-range line item in the CT State Rail Plan (see the appendixes, CNZR itemization). State Rail Plans being a USDOT mandatory filing once per decade, so that's about as "official" as it gets for itemizing long-range priorities for the federal record. Doesn't mean MassDOT ever has to reciprocate the interest, but it's an official filing by CT which puts it in a more official wishlist category than just us spitballing on this forum. For whatever that ends up being worth (or not worth) in the real world.
Last edited by Jeff Smith on Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:06 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Remove nesting quote from immediately preceding quote (indexing)
 #1335962  by FLRailFan1
 
I would love to see it back. I mean, if NS heritage unit in a Virginian sceme, it would be great. Just thinking about it makes me go railfanning this weekend.
Last edited by Jeff Smith on Sun Aug 09, 2015 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total. Reason: Remove nesting quote from immediately preceding quote (indexing)
 #1336055  by Jedijk88
 
Are there any online documents available from MassDot, etc. about the development of this yard at Armory Junction?
 #1336083  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Jedijk88 wrote:Are there any online documents available from MassDot, etc. about the development of this yard at Armory Junction?
CDOT's the lead agency on that. They did the scoping study and EIS on the site, and will be doing the engineering. MassDOT is either just writing a check or...more likely...the federal money eventually allocated for the Phase II/north-of-Hartford upgrades will get cashed in for that, since Amtrak is going to be a co-tenant of the layover.


Found some info on the NHHS website. . .

-- Layover analysis report (2011): http://www.nhhsrail.com/pdfs/ea/appendix_04.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
3 sites studied, Armory Jct. got the final recommendation hands-down.

-- Design concept, from 2012: http://www.nhhsrail.com/pdfs/ea/volii_1_03.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (page 14)
-- Site photos, from 2012: http://www.nhhsrail.com/pdfs/ea/volii_1_02.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (page 29). Note how much of it has been bulldozed since 2012 by comparing on Google Maps.

Preliminary concept rendering, as this won't advance to engineering without the north-of-Hartford funding dump. 7 trains of Amtrak + NHHS storage, and an inspection building with 1 NHHS bay and 1 Amtrak bay. Amtrak I presume would get the northernmost tracks since a Northeast Regional runs a lot longer than the 500' berths on the southerly track. They have not gotten as far as designing anything about what the facilities will be equipped with; it's just the track geometry map with a single rectangle reserving space for the maint building. There's the issue of fueling facilities, and the issue of MOW storage. Amtrak will need to weigh in on its needs, and they are going to need to leave means of expansion in the design if MassDOT joins the party in the future with its north-of-Springfield commuter service. They have to decide if it truly needs spaces for 35 employees on a parcel that small, or if this is going to become a much bigger facility and spill underneath the bridge. So the parking lot could end up getting cut down to size, scrunched against the Taylor Ave. embankment on space the concept rendering doesn't put anything on...anything. And they may indeed have to poke a track under the bridge if an MOW yard on the now wiped-clean Agnew St. cul de sac is necessary. It's all that preliminary from an ops standpoint...totally un-designed save for property lines, EIS on the parcel, and general track tie-in.


The Armory mainline is on the triangle-shaped Conrail property easement, so the switch to the southernmost tail track would be where it forked off and headed under the bridge in a restoration scenario. If this is the final configuration (highly unlikely for all of the above reasons of this being a property-only rendering) then they'd have to slice it across the employee lot and re-shape the parking area. But...if they need the MOW yard to store work equipment, ties, rail, whatever...then they've got no choice but to go under the bridge and you've got your first 1500 of "mainline". If I had to guess, the MOW considerations probably do force them to expand by +1 parcels on the Agnew St. side of the bridge. Simply because it makes zero sense to site it anywhere else. And Amtrak might be the one to put their foot down on that since they're the line owner in charge of actually doing all on-the-ground track work.
 #1340711  by LReyomeXX
 
My hope would be that CSX would try to persuade MassDOT to agree to consider restoring the branch for freight service once the NHHS is complete, hopefully before the 2030 full build dateline
 #1340720  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
LReyomeXX wrote:My hope would be that CSX would try to persuade MassDOT to agree to consider restoring the branch for freight service once the NHHS is complete, hopefully before the 2030 full build dateline
CSX doesn't have enough to gain from it. Central CT freight is the size of a zit vs. what they run through West Springfield west-to-east. That's why Conrail dumped the Springfield Line in the first place. There are many, many reasons why restoring the Armory would be a good thing for all involved, but CSX's self-motivation isn't one of them. They'll get more interchange business from Connecticut sooner by the CT River bridge in Windsor Locks being rehabbed and CSOR gaining ability to take 286K loads between Hartford and West Springfield. What happens after that is not their concern other than passively them wishing every other party well in their endeavors to send more interchange biz to W. Springfield.

Frankly, MassDOT has been completely limp and disinterested at doing its fair share with NHHS. It is a pretty good match for their blasé attitude about the Armory ("Oops...I guess we never went for the land. Doesn't that suck for you."). They got the spiffy new Springfield Union Station makeover and called it a day, even though the track from the border still needs to be funded for resignaling and that layover has to be built. They've basically punted to the feds to pay for everything related that's within their borders...and that expectation isn't doing anything to speed up the NHHS rollout while Congress is gridlocked. Instead they've engaged in abject fantasies like Berkshire Rail...which CDOT would have to pay for most of. And talked up starting Knowledge Corridor commuter rail right this instant despite their own NHHS intransigence leaving that service with crippled transfers and no layover at the start. All while their slightly more realistic dreams of Amtrak Inland service returning are likewise dependent on not falling asleep at the switch on the NHHS follow-through.


It's a completely dysfunctional transportation relationship with their neighbor to the south. I have to chalk it up to some beef between Deval Patrick's administration and Dan Malloy's. Because it was Patrick's flaks alone who were rubbing CT the wrong way with Berkshire Rail and their fantasy list of NHHS-dependent projects, while keeping icy silence on the Big One™ itself. Your guess as good as mine what that was all about, but the degree to which they were talking over each other's heads on passenger rail projects was the elephant in the room. And MA seemed to be the initiating party. Patrick's gone now, Berkshire Rail is deader than dead, and people seem to be coming to their senses that Knowledge Corridor rail--other than some additional Amtrak backstopping in the interim--is pointless until Hartford Line frequencies increase enough to give it some useful transfer options to latch onto. Maybe that'll signal some sort of thaw. I'm a little less optimistic about it spurring a new spirit of cooperation, but at least they won't be antagonizing each other while refusing to talk.

But as for the Armory, it'll probably take a pretty pro-freight MassDOT administration to start any talks there. Not even action...just talks, maybe kicking off a study. It remains to be seen if Charlie Baker's MassDOT is going to be engaged by private-sector freight; he's too new, and there really hasn't been a single opportunity statewide in only 6+ months in office to put any sort of stamp on a freight project. A lot of what's going on with that is stuff underway inherited from his predecessors. So it's way too early to tell how that's going to play out.


Restoring the Armory ain't gonna be easy. It will need strong steering from the MassDOT mothership to settle the screaming from abutters in the heart of the Springfield density. The best we can hope for right now is exactly what CT's State Rail Plan asks for: cooperation between the two DOT's to discuss it and give it a serious study. Can't have the basis for anything more until they do that. But that's a start. And it's certainly not asking the moon in $$$ commitments to run some numbers on what it would mutually do economically to open up a high-and-wide clearance route between West Springfield and Hartford Yard. In the meantime, that underground pipeline protects the ROW from cannibalization. Any encroachers who plunk a jungle gym or metal storage shed on the ROW are illegally squatting and have no indemnification if the gas company has to dig up the squatters' handiwork. It's certainly not stoppable with a court case by the encroachers if the rails come back.
 #1340842  by RonM
 
My view from the couch. It appears there's just not enough business interest in the Enfield area. There's an oil dealer and a concrete plant on the active part that are not using rail and another oil facility and warehouses up in the Moody / Shaker Road area. I'm sure they have been approached and/or aware of the railroad. Maybe they can't justify the expense of setting up for rail(?). Any new business looking to set-up shop could just as easily set-up in current CSOR or CNZR Griffin Line zone. And that is happening on CSOR. There's been chatter of a new rail user in Enfield... Whatever happened to that? Economy downturn spoilage?

Then there's the issue of the number of grade crossings on the line and the nimby/banana crowd. The residents of East Windsor just shot down the CT State Police Training facility interest. One can only imagine the uproar if frequent freight trains start rumbling by. It could most likely develop into another G&U scenario.
 #1340847  by Lincoln78
 
I drive 191/Broad Brook Road between East Windsor and Enfield occasionally. Some of the concrete ties have been laid/tracked (past year?) but I haven't seen any recent signs of activity.
 #1340886  by Larry
 
They were suppose to put the track back in where the cement company is up on the little hill this past spring but something must have happened or that would have been done. Cement ties and rail is all set on both sides just waiting to be connected. They finished their loading ramp just south of this and I am hoping they get to work on this crossing very soon.
 #1340908  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
RonM wrote:My view from the couch. It appears there's just not enough business interest in the Enfield area. There's an oil dealer and a concrete plant on the active part that are not using rail and another oil facility and warehouses up in the Moody / Shaker Road area. I'm sure they have been approached and/or aware of the railroad. Maybe they can't justify the expense of setting up for rail(?). Any new business looking to set-up shop could just as easily set-up in current CSOR or CNZR Griffin Line zone. And that is happening on CSOR. There's been chatter of a new rail user in Enfield... Whatever happened to that? Economy downturn spoilage?

Then there's the issue of the number of grade crossings on the line and the nimby/banana crowd. The residents of East Windsor just shot down the CT State Police Training facility interest. One can only imagine the uproar if frequent freight trains start rumbling by. It could most likely develop into another G&U scenario.
CNZR locals aren't the driver for CDOT's expressed interest in a partnership with MassDOT to reconnect the Armory. It's all about clearing the overhead freight congestion off the Springfield Line north of Hartford and opening up a double-stack clearance route to Hartford. The thinking goes:

Springfield Line-specific considerations
-- Springfield Line where it parallels closest to the river is the most unexpandable portion of the line. It can never be >2 tracks.
-- All points south of Hartford the Springfield Line either has available freight bypasses (Valley + Air Lines) or additional 3-4 track capacity (Hartford-Newington Jct.) to tap. In Hartford-Newington's case the Busway boondoggle is on a revokable Amtrak easement, which Amtrak has stated may be needed--and which they will not hesitate to take back--if their 2040 inland HSR plans send high-speed rail onto the Springfield Line to Hartford either from the west @ Danbury or from the south @ New Haven. Therefore, this is the only portion of the Springfield Line that has no deep long-term options for load-spreading freight traffic is the Hartford-Springfield portion. And passenger loads will eventually reach the point where this becomes a problem.
-- From the northern tip of Hartford Yard to Springfield there is no local freight except for the CSOR Bradley Branch jobs and 1 local customer, Enfield Lumber. >90% of current and potential freight traffic--CSOR and PAS--runs strictly overhead between Springfield and Hartford and could be diverted.
-- If a bypass existed all CSOR and PAS thru traffic can be re-routed to the Armory on overhead rights, while CNZR retains local rights and gains the interchange.

Armory-specific considerations
-- Double-stack route from West Springfield to Springfield. There are only 3 overhead structures on the entire Armory Branch: Armory St. in Springfield, St. James Ave. in Springfield, I-291 in South Windsor. Then 3 more on the Manchester Secondary: Riverside Park access road in Hartford, I-91 in Hartford, Rev. Moody Overpass in Hartford. 91 and Moody Overpass already clear for DS according to Nat'l Bridge Inventory data. 291 per the NBI is just shy, but close enough to track-undercut. Not sure about Armory St., St. James, or Riverside...but they're all ancient overpasses due for replacement over the next 20 years. Cost for achieving the clearance is bare minimal with a maximum of 4 structural touches (it could be less if the 3 local-street overpasses are undercuttable like 291). ROI is very good despite the middling carloads from smaller carriers because of the trivial expense for those clearances. In fact, probably the only case in the Northeast where cost of DS clearances has justifiable ROI for midrange=or-lower carloads.
-- More carriers than just CSX-to-shortline(s) can move tall loads to Hartford with a reconnection. PAS has existing 19'6" clearances from East Deerfield to Springfield (or it will when one decrepit wood local street bridge in South Deerfield is replaced), and its own mainline double-stack project ongoing to feed East Deerfield. It has an interchange with NECR in Millers Falls just outside East Deerfield for 19'6" loads. Norfolk Southern is 50% of PAS, and is expected fait accompli to be buying out Pan Am's 50% in no less than 2 and no more than 5 years. Putting a non-CSX Class I carrier in direct reach of Hartford. They have much better potential for generating overheight traffic to Hartford than CSOR-via-CSX or CNZR-via-CSX.
-- The Manchester Secondary and Armory have pre-existing 286K weight ratings, which can now be utilized since the CT River bridge between Hartford and East Hartford has been repaired. The Springfield Line will ultimately get its uprate to 286K between Springfield and Hartford Yard for CSOR's and PAS's benefit when its CT River bridge between Windsor Locks and Enfield is rehabbed (planned but unfunded for design). The cost for achieving 286K rating on a re-connected Armory is limited to only the Massachusetts section and repairs to 1 undergrade structure: Watershops Pond bridge in Springfield. This enhances the ROI of being able to get the DS clearances for cheap since the weight limits come at little to no additional cost.
-- With no passenger considerations the line is viable at Class 1 speeds and a lot of grade crossings. PAS and CSOR would have no more than 1 round trip per day running nonstop, CNZR probably no more than 1 local round-trip per day. Traffic disruption considerations are likely minimal if hours of operation are spread around.
-- Since only 1 track would be needed the entirety of the East Longmeadow rail trail can be relocated in some stretches and left in place some stretches as rail-with-trail with chain-link fence between it and the tracks. As of now there is no proposal to extend the trail into Springfield because of gas company objections around areas of constrained access to the pipeline, contaminated abutting industrial backlots, and stripped bridge deck on the Watershops Pond bridge.
-- The NIMBY's in Enfield cannot block the reconnection or increased traffic since the tracks to the state line are already active and protected by every interstate commerce law that bats away such nuisance challenges. They can use the tried-and-true tactic of going after individual customers CNZR tries to recruit, but it would have no effect on ability for all 3 carriers to run thru traffic across the state line.
-- As mentioned a few posts up, the Hartford Line/Amtrak layover at Armory Jct. preserves the immediate junction to the CSX mainline and potentially reserves the first 1000+ feet of "mainline" spilling onto the east side of the Armory St. overpass if a rear MOW is desired by either tenant. This covers virtually all of the ROW not already occupied by the underground gas pipeline, which stays on a north trajectory (follow the clearing in the woods next to Oak Grove Cemetery) while the line makes its sharp west curve towards the junction.


Yes, the NIMBY's in Springfield are going to be a problem. And that not only could kill it dead, but is quite likely to unless MassDOT gets behind the project with vigor. Nobody said this was anyone's idea of a high-priority freight rail project, and CDOT's official State Rail Plan documentation lists every such caveat. The reason joint MA/CT pursuit of reconnection and reconnection studies exist as a line item in the CT State Rail Plan is because CDOT has determined that the very low cost and high ROI for gaining a clearance route makes it worth pursuing with MassDOT on the odds that they can clear those hurdles. There is nothing critical riding on it if they can't do that, because this is the ultimate low-hanging fruit project they can live without if it's not meant to be. And therefore there's clear limits to how willing anyone is to stick their necks out beyond their means to topple the Springfield opposition if that opposition is just too stiff.

It's not a foamer fantasy, nor are they being unrealistic at how they're approaching it. This gets filed under the category of "no harm, no foul, no money wasted giving it an honest look; life goes on if that look doesn't turn up favorable." Pretty much exactly what you want to see as far as covering all angles for sake of Greater Hartford freight revenue growth without going overboard.
 #1341057  by bwparker1
 
There was a mention of double stacks in Hartford... Does anyone know for certain, because i have done very limited searching online and couldn't find any pictures, if CSX can run double stacks across the Hudson on the Alfred Smith bridge to points east of Selkirk?
 #1341080  by csor2010
 
CSX has full 20' 2" clearances for domestic doublestacks (2 domestic/high cube boxes) from Selkirk to Worcester. Up until about 3 years ago there had to be at least one international container (international boxes are shorter) in the stack, but the state of MA and CSX removed the clearance obstructions as part of the deal to move intermodal ops out of Beacon Park.
  • 1
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 13