Pan Am Worcester Main Line

[johnhenry]

Anyone know the location of the "No Name" siding that is either on the Worcester Branch of the Hill Yard (east of Harvard)?

[newpylong]

Well there is "No Name Crossing" at the west end of the yard, and the "Emma" track just south it. It's a few cars long and uses for rips mostly.

[johnhenry]

10-16-13 AY-4 engine 603 with a single stubby covered hopper (abrasive?) for Saint Gobain (formerly Norton) was brought down the Worcester branch, arriving at Greendale around 1:30pm. Used the Greendale siding to switch ends, then called the P&W dispatcher to get permission onto the P&W Gardner branch (the P&W Gardner local had just passed northbound). The Saint Gobain siding is south facing points off the Gardner branch, but has a switchback swith in the middle of it (hence the swapping of ends). I think this occasional single hopper is all that Saint Gobain receives by rail now. I can remember in the 1990's coal and other covered hoppers being delivered by AY-4 as well as boxcars to a siding opposite the Greendale runaround.

[boatsmate]

They still receive Coal, I have seen coal hoppers there as few as a month and a half ago on the Greendale siding. they get serviced as needed.

[frrc]

I think Norton is the only customer left in Worcester. They used to spot cars at Greg's Packing on a weekly basis down the line, but that's been a few years.

J

[SpiderHill]

Greg's is no longer in business and the building is now for sale. Back in the late 80s I worked for a company that did business with Greg's and I was in there a lot. I remember one day where they had a full crew in to break down fifty pound bags of potatoes into smaller bags for distribution to supermarkets. The boss was screaming on the phone because Guilford had not delivered his boxcar of product. I was back later that day and saw the boxcar being spotted. That might have been the last car they got as I never saw one there again. The boss was less than happy and kept saying never again.

I know Barber's is the interchange point but does anyone know where ownership changes between B&M and P&W? I believe it is Barbers which would mean B&M would have trackage rights from Barbers to some place towards Union Station. This would allow them to server Norton and the Greg's siding. I also remember in that 80s timeframe the Circus train would get split and half would be stored on the Greg's side of 290 and half would be stored on the other side (there were tracks where Peterson and CK Smith Oil are now). I remember going to see the train departing north and talking to a Guilford crew member. There is also a customer that receives covered hoppers on a siding that can be seen from 190. If I recall correctly, I believe the P&W serves this customer. This customer would be between Greg's and Norton. The P&W purchased the Gardner branch in the early 70s so there must have been some type of agreement on serving customers on this stretch as part of the sale.

Does anyone know if Norton still has the two GE 70 tonners? Do they ever get out and about? I know Norton is a shell of what it used to be but there is still a fair amount of activity there.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

I know Barber's is the interchange point but does anyone know where ownership changes between B&M and P&W? I believe it is Barbers which would mean B&M would have trackage rights from Barbers to some place towards Union Station. This would allow them to server Norton and the Greg's siding. I also remember in that 80s timeframe the Circus train would get split and half would be stored on the Greg's side of 290 and half would be stored on the other side (there were tracks where Peterson and CK Smith Oil are now). I remember going to see the train departing north and talking to a Guilford crew member. There is also a customer that receives covered hoppers on a siding that can be seen from 190. If I recall correctly, I believe the P&W serves this customer. This customer would be between Greg's and Norton. The P&W purchased the Gardner branch in the early 70s so there must have been some type of agreement on serving customers on this stretch as part of the sale.

Barbers is the division post. P&W's Gardner Branch ownership includes everything down to Union Station and the tracks ducking under the B&A into the P&W yard. It's all trackage rights there for PAR. I'm surprised Guilford let P&W have it all when they sold the Gardner Branch instead of protecting that short link. It's kind of a capacity problem today because Worcester Branch has an official 286K rating, but the P&W gap from Barbers is a 263K restriction.

[GP40MC1118]

Norton (now Saint Gobain) does not have any 70T GE's. They still have a 65T GE centercab
last I knew...

D

[fogg1703]

It's kind of a capacity problem today because Worcester Branch has an official 286K rating, but the P&W gap from Barbers is a 263K restriction.

What is the obstacle, a structure needing a rebuild or a trackwork problem?

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

It's kind of a capacity problem today because Worcester Branch has an official 286K rating, but the P&W gap from Barbers is a 263K restriction.

What is the obstacle, a structure needing a rebuild or a trackwork problem?

Dunno. There's a viaduct from Union Station and the B&A junction to the tunnel under Worcester Medical Ctr. and another bridge out the north portal over MLK Blvd. But the tunnel + immediate approaches are new construction from when the Med Ctr. was built. Other than that it's at-grade or in a cut all the way to Barbers with zero undergrade structures. Mainline track looks to be all CWR in good condition, crossings all gated with surfaces in fair/decent condition. Whatever is holding it back from an uprate can't be anything major or costly. Might just be that the Gardner Branch post-split is still in 'rustic' B&M-era condition so P&W is just not ready to sink the resources into it. Both P&W mainlines are every-other-car 286K, so their capital and public grant thrust right now is getting those 100% up-to-spec for every car. It's going to be awhile before the G. Branch gets some love, though the State Rail Plan does pin it as a future double-stack route after all the top PAS, NECR, and P&W mains priorities are settled up.

P&W has also had a somewhat passive-aggressive relationship with PAR over the years over that shared trackage. They want more double-tracking to the junction because they think their overhead users bogart too much of their space; PAR doesn't want to contribute. There's probably some element of holding out. Plus the upside is more PAR's and CSX's than P&W's because Gardner interchange serves their present needs well enough. PAR kind of has to initiate a push for more Ayer-Worcester interchanging for it to be worth P&W's while to clear the way.

Frankly, the state ought to buy this short stretch of track to keep the peace between the 3 carriers sharing it and ensure that it's the dominant ruling party for any increased MBTA usage like equipment swaps. Too much that can go sour if P&W, PAR, and/or CSX start getting pissy with each other over this connection.

[fogg1703]

Thanks for the info F Line. While doing a little more research on the matter, it seems that in the "darker" GRS days the CR interchange was moved from Rotterdam Jct to Barbers in order to reduce maintenance costs along the west end. I bet CSXT appreciates this arrangement as it keeps a strong hand for them at the table for NE and maritime traffic as well as reduces transit times over D3 for CSXT bound traffic. I wonder if Waterville intermodal gets going if PAR and CSXT (mostly CSXT) will just upgrade whatever the obstacle is without state intervention. I'm sure PW wont mind. Depending on the scope of the project, a small price to pay to take some IM loads away from PAS/NS.

[newpylong]

No loads will be taken away from PAS/NS if Pan Am and CSXT begin service out of Waterville. That is beyond Ayer dray distance. SLR would be hurt if anything at Auburn, but the majority of those loads go to Canada anyway.

Your premise about the west end is true. Traffic shifted back there around the time Conrail was broken up (~99/2000). It shifted back to Barbers once again when Pan Am Southern was formed.

[SpiderHill]

Barbers is the division post. P&W's Gardner Branch ownership includes everything down to Union Station and the tracks ducking under the B&A into the P&W yard. It's all trackage rights there for PAR. I'm surprised Guilford let P&W have it all when they sold the Gardner Branch instead of protecting that short link. It's kind of a capacity problem today because Worcester Branch has an official 286K rating, but the P&W gap from Barbers is a 263K restriction.

Wasn't the sale of the Gardner branch just after the P&W became independent again? That would have been years before Guilford was in the picture.

[SpiderHill]

Thanks for the info F Line. While doing a little more research on the matter, it seems that in the "darker" GRS days the CR interchange was moved from Rotterdam Jct to Barbers in order to reduce maintenance costs along the west end. I bet CSXT appreciates this arrangement as it keeps a strong hand for them at the table for NE and maritime traffic as well as reduces transit times over D3 for CSXT bound traffic. I wonder if Waterville intermodal gets going if PAR and CSXT (mostly CSXT) will just upgrade whatever the obstacle is without state intervention. I'm sure PW wont mind. Depending on the scope of the project, a small price to pay to take some IM loads away from PAS/NS.

I believe this arrangement came as a byproduct of Ford wanting to use trilevel racks for their automobile shipments into Ayer. The west end clearances prevented this so clearances were raised between Worcester and Ayer. There was a combination of undercutting and bridge raising. This included raising the Fitchburg secondary track that crosses the Worcester branch in Clinton. I am sure Conrail paid for much if not all of this work. I remember seeing trains with just racks. Later on came general freight. With a rebuilt line for the auto traffic in place, moving the rest of the interchange traffic over was probably an easy decision that resulted in the west end downgrade.

[jaymac]

Let's see-- a coupla miles of 263K PW line keeps 286K loads from the 315K-capable CSXT Boston Line away from the 286K-capable PAR Worcester Main Line. Also, under the new order of things, Davisville auto traffic via NS-CP-PAS-PW gets a more favorable-to-PW rate division (presumably) because of the increased PW mileage. Might it be totally inconceivable that, as PAS continues to become more 286K-capable, NS might be desirous that future 286K traffic to/from northern New England be routed via PAS and not CSX?
More than occasionally, one hand washes the other.