Andover complains about Pan Am train parking

octr202: are you smelling anything?

Used to, not there any more!

In the summer you could tell when one of Pan Am's "honorary Alcos" came through town, that's for sure!

Re: Andover complains about Pan Am train parking

Postby BostonUrbEx » Thu Feb 09, 2017 12:49 am

From my understanding, the reason it went to Pan Am is because they were able to successfully argue that only they had the rights necessary to switch the customer. They dug deep into records on trackage and haulage rights, and even sifted through the history of the layout of tracks (B&M vs B&A) and what rights were secured by who. Perhaps they did not need to bring their evidence up, though, if their bid was lower anyway. CSX isn't too interested in performing switching in Eastern MA anymore -- they just want to handle the long haul and hand it off to captive shortlines.


- You hit the nail on the head in the last, sentence. It was CSX's decision to avoid doing the switching, unless the price was right.

"It's all about the dollars." - Nicky Santoro (Joe Pesci) in CASINO

From the Andover Townsman:

Andover Townsman wrote:Cynthia Scarano of Pan Am said this week that town officials and residents living along the railway corridor may not have realized it at the time it was built, but the MBTA needed the double-track to get freight trains off the commuter rail to prevent back-ups and delays.

"The track was built for that," she said Tuesday. "It was part of the whole project to improve MBTA service. There was an area of Lawrence where we could hold the trains. But they needed to change that ... to meet the needs of commuter service. So they built that stretch of track, over 1,700 feet long," in Andover as a place to store long lengths of freight — up to 100 cars long — being towed by diesel engines.
. . .
Salafia added, "if that's what it's for, you (Pan Am and MBTA) never sold it to us that way. We just thought it was going to commuter rail increase service. During that 8- to 10-year period (of planning and construction) not once was it ever sold as a place to park trains. It was always to increase service to the commuters."
. . .
Kerry Poe of Fleming Drive told selectmen during a recent hearing on the subject that trains have been idling in her back yard for years.

"We were told when the second track was done, it would stop," she said. Instead, "it's become worse. When they stop, the noise, the coupling and uncoupling, vibrated glasses off our shelves. ... The idea they can't go elsewhere, that they have to be there, is a fallacy."
. . .
Dozens of residents living along the railroad corridor near North Main Street are expected to turn out for a meeting with railway officials to discuss the growing nuisance of trains idling overnight and on weekends near their homes. The meeting, according to Salafia, is tentatively set for Monday, Feb. 27 at 7 p.m., in the Town Offices building on Bartlet Street.
. . .
Salafia said he is hopeful that officials from the MBTA, which actually owns the tracks, will attend the Feb. 27 meeting. As track owners, they have some authority over users of the track, like Pan Am.

"If we can get the MBTA there as well, we can accomplish a lot more at the meeting," he said. "Our state delegation is trying to accomplish that. Pan Am is a tenant of the MBTA. That's how this is going to work. Pan Am can make some decisions on their own, but there's a lot of influence by the MBTA. A lot of this is imposed on Pan Am by the MBTA."

Read the rest of the article at: http://www.andovertownsman.com/news/pan ... 34608.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cynthia Scarano wrote:"The track was built for that," she said Tuesday. "It was part of the whole project to improve MBTA service. There was an area of Lawrence where we could hold the trains. But they needed to change that ... to meet the needs of commuter service. So they built that stretch of track, over 1,700 feet long," in Andover as a place to store long lengths of freight — up to 100 cars long — being towed by diesel engines.

What kind of black magic are they using to fit 100-car trains onto a 1,700-foot siding?

MEC407 wrote:

Cynthia Scarano wrote:"The track was built for that," she said Tuesday. "It was part of the whole project to improve MBTA service. There was an area of Lawrence where we could hold the trains. But they needed to change that ... to meet the needs of commuter service. So they built that stretch of track, over 1,700 feet long," in Andover as a place to store long lengths of freight — up to 100 cars long — being towed by diesel engines.

What kind of black magic are they using to fit 100-car trains onto a 1,700-foot siding?

Extended by that length.

It took 8-10 years to build 1700 feet of second iron?

The crux of the problem, as I see it, is that it is typically taking 8 to 16 hours for re-crews to happen (according to neighborhood residents and town officials, and apparently not denied by PAR management).

Is this because PAR does not have enough crews?

If yes, the problem could be solved by hiring additional crews, could it not? And/or by increasing train velocity (such that the crews would run out of time somewhere other than Andover)? (Decreasing train velocity could also have that effect, and would be the most Guilfordian solution of all, yes?)

Any of which could be accomplished much more quickly than adding even more length to this already-lengthened passing track?

If the answers to any of those questions is yes, does it stand to reason that PAR has not done any of that because they don't want to spend the money?

No, it took that long to extend the #1 down to CPF-Vale in Andover and allowed for extending the Lawrence yard lead to CPF-JK.

According to Google Maps, there's a track just to the east of the new # 1 track that runs from Andover St [MP 284.96], almost to the new interlocking at I-495. Why is it not possible to extend that track as a runner down to the Shawsheen River culvert [MP 286.68]? That would give them about 1.5 miles to stash a train. [The mileposts are from an unofficial track chart.]
Looks like some infill would have to happen for that to occur.

I know, it means spending some money on capacity improvements, and that's against PanAm's policy.

MEC407 wrote:Is this because PAR does not have enough crews?

PAR doesn't have enough crews, but they also wouldn't need so many crews if the trains moved faster. When a crew comes on, their train should be ready to leave Rigby. None of this "yard the eastbound from Cooks, first," "break apart and put together power," and "test some more cars to double onto the train." It is insanity.

Rockingham Racer wrote:According to Google Maps, there's a track just to the east of the new # 1 track that runs from Andover St [MP 284.96], almost to the new interlocking at I-495. Why is it not possible to extend that track as a runner down to the Shawsheen River culvert [MP 286.68]? That would give them about 1.5 miles to stash a train. [The mileposts are from an unofficial track chart.].

That is Track 1 (yard, not mainline) and Track 17 East (depending on what side of Andover St you're on). They could just as easily use mainline No. 1 for that. Either way, you hem in the west end of Lawrence Yard and can't switch on that end. The more infrastructure you give to Pan Am, the more they'll use, anyway. Track 1 is supposed to be a through-track or yard-lead for Lawrence, but often has cars or trains on it because Pan Am doesn't maintain the inside of the yard.

No, Track 1 is the new main [the former Running Track and Eastward Main]. The track I'm talking about is the next one to the east of that, and it runs all the way west to past So. Union St., where there's a 2-mast home signal. I don't know if there's a pot signal to direct westbound movements onto Main 1 from it or not. In any case, the track in question is connected to Track 17, and so has direct access for trains arriving from the east to do their work [or outlaw]. All a train needs to do is pull by JK switch make the cut, and reverse back into the yard there. If they were to extend the track in question down to the Shawsheen River, they'd have at least 30 cars of headroom to clear JK. Does Lawrence ever get that many drops or pickups? I doubt it. But PanAm has to spend a little money to add some capacity, instead of taking a newly constructed two main track railroad and making it a single track railroad again. And they won't do that, I'm quite sure.

BTW, does anyone know if the MBTA is okay with Pan Am making their railroad a parking lot? Haven't heard one way or the other.

Here's the latest installment of Andover v. Pan Am train parking dispute. Here are two article excerpts:

The new, 1,700-foot stretch of train track running through Andover that is parallel to the MBTA rail line was built and designed to serve as a holding area for diesel trains, according to the vice president of Pan Am Railways.

Cynthia Scarano of Pan Am said this week that town officials and residents living along the railway corridor may not have realized it at the time it was built, but the MBTA needed the double-track to get freight trains off the commuter rail to prevent back-ups and delays.

"The track was built for that," she said Tuesday. "It was part of the whole project to improve MBTA service. There was an area of Lawrence where we could hold the trains. But they needed to change that ... to meet the needs of commuter service. So they built that stretch of track, over 1,700 feet long," in Andover as a place to store long lengths of freight — up to 100 cars long — being towed by diesel engines.

Andover town officials aren't buying what Scarano is selling

"Not once was that ever indicated to the public," Salafia said, adding that Scarano mentioned her view of the double-track's use at a meeting recently with town officials, to which Town Manager Andrew Flanagan responded, "well then just rip it up."

http://www.andovertownsman.com/news/pan ... 34608.html

Hard to believe that PAR management thinks this a credible, defensible response.

Wow...that claim took some brass ones. Think the MBTA now has no chpice but to intervene and set the record straight.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Wow...that claim took some brass ones. Think the MBTA now has no chpice but to intervene and set the record straight.

One has to wonder if PAR has quietly assured the MBTA that this practice will cease once the Everett Casino dirty dirt operation stops which will make more crews and track space in Lowell available. According to another thread here it's supposed to end by March.