79 MPH running

[Rockingham Racer]

Where's the Downeaster running 79 between Plaistow and Rigby?
MP locations would be appreciated.

Thanks.

[wolfmom69]

I know that they can do 79 mph from Scarboro Beach,about 2 miles west of Rigby,across the Scarboro Marshes to the Old Orchard area,where they have to slow down for grade crossings,even when the Old Orchard station is closed for the seasons. Good place to catch it is on the Route 9 overpass in the Pine Point section of Scarboro. Bud

[MEC407]

Yup, 79 across Scarborough Marsh. 70 in a lot of other areas, especially the long straight sections.

[Rockingham Racer]

Seems like an awful lot of legal wrangling took place for only a couple of miles of 79 MPH running. There must be other places--I hope! The old Budds used to do 80 between Lowell Jct. and N. Reading.

[MEC407]

Many parts of the line would be good for 90 MPH if cab signals were installed. That is according to the FRA and AAR. But they aren't the ones who own the tracks.

[Noel Weaver]

In my opinion 79 MPH is plenty fast on this line and the extreme cost to
put in cab signal equipment on the right of way and on Guilford's
locomotives would not justify the major expense by the feds, state or
Guilford.
While this is a heavy freight route for Guilford, they would incur very little
benefit from cab signals and would incur a rather large expense to equip
many more engines with cab signal equipment.
Makes no sense to me.
Noel Weaver

[Noel Weaver]

Seems like an awful lot of legal wrangling took place for only a couple of miles of 79 MPH running. There must be other places--I hope! The old Budds used to do 80 between Lowell Jct. and N. Reading.

At no time and at no point on this route was the speed ever 80 MPH for
anything. For a period after the Boston and Maine started putting diesels
in service, there were areas where diesel powered trains were allowed
75 MPH but this did not last too long.
Another thing, even 70 MPH is a big improvement over 59 MPH, it is not
necessary to do 79 MPH over the entire line to improve the schedules.
Noel Weaver

[MEC407]

I wasn't suggesting that cab signals be installed and that the speed be raised to 90. Guilford would never go for it anyway. I was just pointing out that according to the feds the tracks themselves are good enough for that speed on some parts of the line. Guilford's contention has always been that the 115lb CWR isn't sturdy enough for 79, which has been repeatedly proven not to be true. The feds say it is sturdy enough for 90, so surely it is sturdy enough for 79. Most of the places where 79 isn't currently feasible could be brought up to 79 if the curves were superelevated, which is another thing Guilford doesn't want to do.

[Noel Weaver]

I wasn't suggesting that cab signals be installed and that the speed be raised to 90. Guilford would never go for it anyway. I was just pointing out that according to the feds the tracks themselves are good enough for that speed on some parts of the line. Guilford's contention has always been that the 115lb CWR isn't sturdy enough for 79, which has been repeatedly proven not to be true. The feds say it is sturdy enough for 90, so surely it is sturdy enough for 79. Most of the places where 79 isn't currently feasible could be brought up to 79 if the curves were superelevated, which is another thing Guilford doesn't want to do.

I am not convinced that 115 pound rail is good enough for a combination of 90 MPH running passenger trains and heavy freight trains on a single
track line.
Although I do not and have not always agreed with the management of
Guilford, I think their concerns regarding the weight of rail in this type of
service on this line were very legitimate.
I know lighter rail has been used on some passenger lines but not in cases
where it is desired to run fast passenger trains and heavy tonnage freight
trains on the same track of a single track railroad.
Superelevation of curves demands more in track maintenance which
Guilford should not have to be responsible for at least from a financial
standpoint.
I do not think Guilford is as anti passenger as they have been made out
to be, they want a decent, safe operation and who can blame them for
that.
I think their attitude with regard to passenger trains has improved some-
what over what it was say ten years ago. The on time performance of
the Boston - Portland trains is very good and they certainally worked with
Maine in getting that train to Rockland started up.
The Boston and Maine made good time between the two cities on this route at speeds not exceeding 70 MPH.
Noel Weaver

[MEC407]

The Boston and Maine made good time between the two cities on this route at speeds not exceeding 70 MPH.

True, but it is definitely worth mentioning that most locomotives back in those days didn't have speedometers or speed recorders!

[Noel Weaver]

The Boston and Maine made good time between the two cities on this route at speeds not exceeding 70 MPH.

True, but it is definitely worth mentioning that most locomotives back in those days didn't have speedometers or speed recorders!

I do not know about the Boston and Maine but on the New Haven Railroad
the road locomotives had speed indicators on them, maybe not quite as
good as the ones today but nevertheless speed indicators. Budd cars came factory equipped with speed indicators and I seem to the the Boston
and Maine Budd cars had them too.
I rode the line quite a few times in B. & M. days and although we always
made decent time, I never recall any earth shattering runs except for the
steam trip with 3713 in 1956.
Noel Weaver

[Rockingham Racer]

Quoting Noel: At no time and at no point on this route was the speed ever 80 MPH for anything. .


This is true; all I was saying is that when I was in the cab of one run, the speedometer read 80. Around 1958 or so. Jointed rail, too!

[MEC407]

This is true; all I was saying is that when I was in the cab of one run, the speedometer read 80. Around 1958 or so. Jointed rail, too!

That was the other point I was trying to make: even on locos that did have speedos back then, there may have been instances (and perhaps quite often) when the engineer went faster than the speed limit in the timetable. That sort of thing rarely, if ever, happens today because the rules and regulations are much more strict, and the technology is much more advanced. But back in those days when life was a little bit simpler, the engineers had a bit more freedom to make up lost time when necessary.

A friend of mine had a grandfather who worked on the B&M during the '20s and '30s. The steam locos he ran definitely didn't have speedos, but he was able to judge his speed by counting mileposts, and he said that he often "opened her up" as they left Rigby and came close to 90 on Scarborough Marsh. Even if a member of management had been out in the field watching the train go by, I'm not sure if he would have been able to tell the difference between 75 and 90 just by eyeballing it.