Worcester Main Derailment In Lancaster

QB 52.32 wrote:

newpylong wrote:What is this supposed to prove? The B&M went a hell of a lot faster and put on more of a show when they left the rails than Pan Am? If so, that's true. At 10 MPH trucks are in the ballast. At 40 they're in someone's house.

36 derailments in 1969? The B&M went bankrupt the following year so that isn't surprising. Pan Am doesn't report minor derailments, but there have been around two dozen in Deerfield alone so far this year.

Those 36 derailments in 1969 averaged $158,000 in 2014 dollars per incident and like today were reported only when above a threshold, so it makes you wonder how many "trucks in the ballast" occurred in East Deerfield and elsewhere during that same year.

What this tells you when you step back and look objectively, is that the same issues both seen and underlying, including their outward public relations image shortcomings, present today were also present 45+ years ago, leading one to conclude that the names may change but the story stays the same.

Huh???? There is almost no continuity 31 years into the MellonFink administration from who was running what 45 years ago on the eve of B&M's bankruptcy. Management is ancient history, generations of employees are ancient history, the employee unions at the time are ancient history, hundreds of miles of track are ancient history, every railroad they competed with (with possible exception of passed-intact Central VT) is ancient history and now part of a completely different route network, the very economics of privately-owned railroads and freight rail of that era are ancient history. Very little is the same except some of the lengths of stick on the Worcester Branch.


If you're trying to make a point here...make it without resorting to disingenuous logical fallacies, please.

Any word if this line has been reopened and where is the traffic running or is it?

It's open, a 426 ran up to Barber to a hand-off to the Pan Am crew the other night, and a bloated 10,000 ton 427 came down early this morning. Needless to say, it stalled on the mountain, just west of Chester and had to get pushed over.

Another 426 is on it's way today.

2nd train was parked at Barber's tonight at 06:00pm, with a serious cut of cars....bet they get stuck on Washington hill...

J

Ironman wrote:It's open, a 426 ran up to Barber to a hand-off to the Pan Am crew the other night, and a bloated 10,000 ton 427 came down early this morning. Needless to say, it stalled on the mountain, just west of Chester and had to get pushed over.

Another 426 is on it's way today.

I saw this morning's train stopped at Clinton. It looked like a crew change was going on. I believe there were only two CSX locomotives on the train and they picked up the NS unit that was sitting on the Clinton siding. Do you know if the NS unit continued over the B&A on 427?

Yes it did. Just saw Q427 sitting on track 1 at West Springfield yard with 2 ES44's and the NS 3482 trailing. It appears to have canned right here at CP 100.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Huh???? There is almost no continuity 31 years into the MellonFink administration from who was running what 45 years ago on the eve of B&M's bankruptcy. Management is ancient history, generations of employees are ancient history, the employee unions at the time are ancient history, hundreds of miles of track are ancient history, every railroad they competed with (with possible exception of passed-intact Central VT) is ancient history and now part of a completely different route network, the very economics of privately-owned railroads and freight rail of that era are ancient history. Very little is the same except some of the lengths of stick on the Worcester Branch.

If you're trying to make a point here...make it without resorting to disingenuous logical fallacies, please.

F-Line, if you're trying to make a point here, please get it right.

First, to your point about the administration, management, employees, and I guess what you mean as union leaders, I wrote "the names have changed".

Second, to your point about every railroad they have competed with, route networks, and about the eonomics of privately-owned railroads you are wrong. Railroads are an old legacy network business and that often continues to inform the fortunes of particular carriers or what has become franchises within bigger systems. The issues of length of haul and the role played within the larger rail network and what that informs economically has not changed over the past 45 years.

Lastly, to your points about track reduction and the "very" economics of freight railroading, yes deregulation has brought about market freedom and new labor agreements have lowered relative labor costs, but, on the other hand New England has de-industrialized, highway competition has increased as truck size/weight restrictions have been liberalized, medical/disability costs have skyrocketed, and, the competition to attract capital has also increased during this time period.

The "story has stayed the same".

QB 52.32 wrote:

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Huh???? There is almost no continuity 31 years into the MellonFink administration from who was running what 45 years ago on the eve of B&M's bankruptcy. Management is ancient history, generations of employees are ancient history, the employee unions at the time are ancient history, hundreds of miles of track are ancient history, every railroad they competed with (with possible exception of passed-intact Central VT) is ancient history and now part of a completely different route network, the very economics of privately-owned railroads and freight rail of that era are ancient history. Very little is the same except some of the lengths of stick on the Worcester Branch.

If you're trying to make a point here...make it without resorting to disingenuous logical fallacies, please.

F-Line, if you're trying to make a point here, please get it right.

First, to your point about the administration, management, employees, and I guess what you mean as union leaders, I wrote "the names have changed".

Second, to your point about every railroad they have competed with, route networks, and about the eonomics of privately-owned railroads you are wrong. Railroads are an old legacy network business and that often continues to inform the fortunes of particular carriers or what has become franchises within bigger systems. The issues of length of haul and the role played within the larger rail network and what that informs economically has not changed over the past 45 years.

Lastly, to your points about track reduction and the "very" economics of freight railroading, yes deregulation has brought about market freedom and new labor agreements have lowered relative labor costs, but, on the other hand New England has de-industrialized, highway competition has increased as truck size/weight restrictions have been liberalized, medical/disability costs have skyrocketed, and, the competition to attract capital has also increased during this time period.

The "story has stayed the same".

Nice job still not explaining the relevance of your original post.

Should we conclude that your presence in this thread is to continue trying to rile up the PAR employees--one of them apparently above all others--in continuance of the running theme from the last few pages of the Patriot Corridor thread?

I have no skin in railroader-on-railroader fight club, but if you're going to throw some seemingly non-sequitur red meat into these threads it would help to provide a coherent explanation to the rest of us slack-jawed foamed as to why it's truly on-topic. You're not making the slightest attempt to do that here.

mdamico23 wrote:With the Worcester Main out of commission for the next 3-4 days, is there a contingency plan to run SEPO/POSE? Can they run on the Boston & Albany to Beacon Park, then over the Grand Junction to the area around Boston Engine Terminal and then up the Lowell Line/Wildcat Branch? Not sure what the freight car clearances on this route, including whether it would allow "Plate F" boxcars. Then also, you would have to deal with MBTA Worcester and Lowell Line Passenger Traffic, plus the many grade crossings on the Grand Junction.

Or, would another alternative be through Worcester, over the P&W to Gardner and then the B&M main line west? I think this would involve a run around move in Gardner, as I think I've heard there is no east wye off the P&W to the B&M in Gardner.

The only other alternative that I can think of is CSXT to Rotterdam Junction, NY and then run east end to end over the Pan Am mainline. Out of the three alternatives, this is probably what we will see... What does everyone think?

-mike

It didn't really effect operations on the CSX end that much, so there was no need to make crazy detours. Selkirk is seriously backed up, the eastbound freight trains were not even built and were already days behind schedule, it's not like they were sitting in Selkirk ready to go. Westbounds are being held way out side the yard in most cases too, as far back as West Springfield and Palmer.

You might see some bloated 426/427's the next week or so, but they will all be running the normal route.

QB 52.32 wrote:

Lmiller wrote:

Lmiller wrote:I remember one they had there when I was knee high to a grass hopper, had to be around 1970, couple hundred yards south of there, south of the High St. bridge in Clinton,,, if I remember right , I think a box car went into a house !!!

I stand corrected, that is the Main st bridge

The derailment occurred June 28, 1968 when a 128-car southbound "Bullet" derailed rolling a "State of Maine" car loaded with paper into the Morgan family's home, splitting the house into two and setting it on fire. It was later reported in the newspapers that Mrs. Morgan's "relationship with the railroad after the accident was "disappointing""! Puts into context the current state of affairs for all things Pan Am as does the following:

12/63 38 cars derailed in S. Roylston; 3/64 25 cars derailed in Orange; 7/66 26 cars derailed in Athol; 8/67 35 cars derailed in Westminster; 2/69 app. 50-60 total cars derailed in both Baldwinville and Clinton, with an additional 8 cars in Westminster, 3 cars at Barbers, 2 cars in Leominster (with one car on top of the 2nd on its side and crashed into a warehouse), 19 cars in S. Acton, 29 cars in Zoar/Charlemont, and, 11 cars in Athol reported derailed within that same time period heading toward 1970. During 1969 hearings the Massachusetts Dept. of Public Utilities reported that the B&M logged 36 derailments in the Commonwealth for that year alone.

Thanks for that info, I remember my dad taking us to see it , I was 5 years old at time....

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:
Should we conclude that your presence in this thread is to continue trying to rile up the PAR employees--one of them apparently above all others--in continuance of the running theme from the last few pages of the Patriot Corridor thread?

I have no skin in railroader-on-railroader fight club, but if you're going to throw some seemingly non-sequitur red meat into these threads it would help to provide a coherent explanation to the rest of us slack-jawed foamed as to why it's truly on-topic. You're not making the slightest attempt to do that here.

Former PAR employee

I have no skin in the game nor an ax to grind despite being labelled as otherwise. Many friends on the RR at all levels, engineer to management. I just call it like I see it, good or bad.

Moderator Note:

Unless anyone has anything to add about the derailment on the Worcester Main in Lancaster, newpylong's post will be the last word. The discussions about railroad management and railroad history are more than welcome to continue, but please take them to the appropriate threads for those subjects. (There are existing threads about Guilford/PAR management philosophy, B&M management history, etc. Let me know if you need help finding them.) Thank you.

Never heard, did they haul the Deerfield wrecker out for this one, or just the side booms and truck cranes?

According to messages on the Yahoo Guilford Sightings Group, the Deerfield wrecker went to Fitchburg but there were no reports of it at the derailment site, there was also report of a mobile crane seen returning to Billerica.

Still 5 MPH speed limit through the derailment site. Roughly taking up to three hours to make the run from the Hill Yard to New Bond Street. Wonder if any of the track work that has been working on the Portsmouth Branch over the past few months will make their way to the Worcester Route before winter to pick up some of the slow speeds on the line.