Noel Weaver wrote:Strange thing about this line is that it could have been a main through freight route between Springfield, Hartford and Cedar Hill. It provided for a straightaway freight move at Springfield from the EB B & A to Hartford without a reverse move or a runaround all of which consume much time especially in a congested area like Springfield. For one or two trains a day they probably could have done some track work and crossing protection and been done with it. I guess Penn Central decided it was not worth the expense of upgrading this line and did the Beacon Branch which involved less trackage but had other problems. Too late now with trackage on the north end of this line gone.
Noel Weaver
CDOT still hasn't removed the item about cooperation with state of MA for restoring the Armory connection from the long-term portion of its recently revised state rail plan, even though they've been shot down by MA a couple times already and Longmeadow's now trailing it over. It'll never be outright blocked as the gas main running underneath keeps building foundations off the ROW, but they've encroached about as close as they can get and put all manner of private parks and driveways there. Sucks because Amtrak charges such a fortune for overhead freight that it's constraining CSO's expansion, was one of the reasons PAR cut back to 1 day a week, and is preventing CNZR from being able to afford to interchange in Springfield. I'm not sure what the point is for continuing to chomp at that bit, but I wonder if CDOT's keeping that on the plan as an expressed written paper placeholder on the 0.001% chance Amtrak starts barking about booting freight traffic onto a bypass if/when the line's up to HSR speeds. And then hoping MA is motivated enough with Fed teeth to make a go at those individual encroaching parcels in Springfield. Highly, highly remote but Amtrak's already requiring the Busway to vacate their ROW whenever they deem it necessary to tri-track the line. I can't imagine the line owner's going to get
more welcoming of freight traffic over time, esp. with future electrification imposing permanent height restrictions.
I don't think it'll happen, but this is Exhibit Q of why Mass needs the state rail plan it's drafting now. They've been totally incoherent on preservation policy, identifying on public record which ROW's
might be needed in the future, and letting the locals eat the infrastructure alive via their own disorganization. CT's official plan is refreshingly direct by comparison: "These are the potential future reactivation corridors: here, here, here, and here. Any questions?"