B&M Connecticut River Line???

Look for some info on exactly what parts of the CT River line were owned by B&M? Some accounts say it ended at Windsor VT. But signs show they owned up to White River JCT then on to Wells River VT. You can see B&M signals all up and down the line? So what was the relationship between CV/B&M....and what exactly did Amtrak sieze and sell to CV?

Also, which parts had former CTC and what parts are still active CTC. I can see signals in Windsor VT...(random signal and nothing else until you pass White River JCT)...then signals on up near St. Johnsbury VT.

Any insight on this confusing story would be helpful.

Thanks!

The Connecticut River Line between East Northfield, Mass, and White River Junction was a mix of B&M and CV ownership and was jointly used by both companies. Between East Northfield and Brattleboro there were originally lines on both side of the river. The trackage on the east side was B&M owned and used by northbound trains of both railroads, and the line on the west side was CV owned and used by southbounds. North of Brattleboro, the B&M owned the line as far as Windsor, and CV owned Windsor-White River Junction. Windsor marked the property line, but freight interchange, and power and crew changes on through passenger trains, happened at WRJ.

North of there, in modern times the B&M owned as far as Wells River, north of which was Canadian Pacific territory. In ancient times the B&M owned trackage all the way to Sherbrooke, Quebec, via Newport, but the section north of Wells River was sold to the CP in the early 20th century.

All of this trackage had automatic signalling in B&M/CV days. Amtrak's legal action in the early 1980s transferred ownership of the line south of Windsor from the Guilford-owned B&M to the CV, with the B&M retaining freight trackage rights.

I believe the B&M bridge from East Northfield Ma to Hinsdale/Dole Junction was deemed unsafe around 1970 after a conductor in the caboose experienced a big "thump" while crossing the bridge. After that, all traffic was on the Vermont side from East Northfield to Bratt though the B&M and later GMRR backed into Dole Junction for Ashuelot branch freights till '84 from Bratt.

The B & M section from Dole Junction to Brattleboro, east side Connecticut River was built about 1910 or even a little later. I think it had a lot to do with the Grand Trunk's plans for the"'Titanic Railroad," Palmer to Providence. At one time, until the resolution of its 1893 bankruptcy, the Vermont Central controlled through lease, the Rutland, Sullivan County, and Vermont Valley. About 1930, the B & M and CV signed an operating contract that put the B & M in charge of dispatching and operations from White River Jct. to East Northfield. B & M style signals were used between White River Jct. and Windsor for continuity. The CV did not have any automatic signalling on its other trackage. CV personnel maintained signal, track and bridges WRJ to Windsor. The freight interchange point B & M/CV was WRJ. CV conducted no local freight business Windsor to Brattleboro or on the east side of the Conn. River between Brattleboro and East Northfield. B & M conducted no local freight business WRJ-Windsor or on the west side of the Conn. River Brattleboro to East Northfield. Getting back to the "Titanic Railroad" comment, above. I believe the B & M had surveys made for proposed constructiion, east side Conn. River, Balloch, NH (opposite Windsor) to Lebanon, NH. The B & M Yard along the Conn. River, south of WRJ (New Yard) dates from late 1920s and probably had something to do with rationalizaion of its facilities with the Wells River-Sherbrooke section leased and later sold to CP and the downsizing of Woodsville.

Thank you for the great explanation. Exactly what I was looking for. So it seems that signals north of Brattleboro still are lit when active. So do trains travel using CTC or train orders and the signals are simply ABS? They even installed a new signal in Windsor. Are there plans to have CTC all the way from Springfield to St. Albans VT. Any chance of the line from WRJ to Concord NH being rebuilt? I bet it had signals as well.

cu29640 wrote: Any chance of the line from WRJ to Concord NH being rebuilt? I bet it had signals as well.

No, and yes. As a practical matter, any restoration of Boston-Montreal passenger service will run via the B&A and Connecticut River line, which actually have passenger-ready track rather than grass and weeds, and there's no potential for rail freight business between Concord and Lebanon either. The line northwest from Concord was signaled into the 1960s, but became manual block shortly after passenger service ended in 1964 or thereabouts.

TomNelligan wrote:

cu29640 wrote: Any chance of the line from WRJ to Concord NH being rebuilt? I bet it had signals as well.

No, and yes. As a practical matter, any restoration of Boston-Montreal passenger service will run via the B&A and Connecticut River line, which actually have passenger-ready track rather than grass and weeds, and there's no potential for rail freight business between Concord and Lebanon either. The line northwest from Concord was signaled into the 1960s, but became manual block shortly after passenger service ended in 1964 or thereabouts.

It's also a grade crossing nightmare with too many curves and all-around lousy ROW for sustaining decent speeds. The only reason that got thrown into the national HSR corridors conversation was to give New Hampshire a slice of the pork.

B&A-->Palmer, NECR-->Northfield, Vermonter/Montrealer route rest of the way is the current study corridor for the one daily round-trip Boston-Montreal proposal under consideration. NECR as noted is passenger-ready on the Palmer-Northfield stretch and Massachusetts is self-motivated to find some re-use for the Amherst stop. B&A/Worcester Line is the ideal place to concentrate improvements because of the commuter rail and restored Inland Regionals primary users. While the Worcester Hills will never be all that fast there's definitely big schedule gains that could be had in MBTA territory with speed improvements.

For future corridors when B&A congestion gets a little hairy and formal relocation is worth exploring, I gotta think there will be better ones proposed than the ex-Northern.
-- Speed-boosted MBTA Lowell Line to Lowell if it ever goes Class 5 to boost the Downeaster + rebuilt Stony Brook Branch to Ayer + upgraded Pan Am Southern main via Ayer-Fitchburg-Deerfield + Vermonter/Montrealer Greenfield-north. At least that's a heavily-used existing line that had prior Class 4 speeds. New Hampshire traffic transferring onto it at Lowell (main reason--along with better NH Main potential speeds--for that routing instead of sticking entirely on the MBTA Fitchburg Line out of Boston).

-- Lowell + Ayer + Fitchburg and restoring the ex-Vermont & Massachusetts RR from Ashburnham to Bellows Falls via Keene...since that's at least straighter than the Northern. NHDOT owns the entire corridor, so it's protected.

-- NH Main to Concord and ex-Claremont & Concord. Less curvy than the Northern. The only reason the Northern was chosen is because NHDOT owns it and doesn't own the ex-C&C east of Newport.

-- NH Main to Claremont & Concord until it meets up with I-89. Then graft it onto I-89 until it meets the Northern in Lebanon just outside White River Jct. I'm gonna assume this is only for some halfway-real HSR effort because of the heinous expense involved in grafting rail onto highway. And even then I'm not sure if I-89's grades would support rail.



Any which way from the cheap bootstraps to the more invasive de-abandonments is going to be better than the Northern. The Northern is just a study placeholder. And in some scenarios...so is the whole transit-apathetic state of New Hampshire.

I agree it would not be sensible to totally rebuild a piece of railroad with not one freight customer or potential freight customer for a distance of about 70 miles. I do think a better route from Boston to the Conn River would be via Fitchburg and Greenfield. It would be quite a bit shorter and the railroad would probably give them better cooperation than CSX would between Worcester and Springfield (134 miles vs 105 miles).
Noel Weaver

Noel Weaver wrote:I agree it would not be sensible to totally rebuild a piece of railroad with not one freight customer or potential freight customer for a distance of about 70 miles. I do think a better route from Boston to the Conn River would be via Fitchburg and Greenfield. It would be quite a bit shorter and the railroad would probably give them better cooperation than CSX would between Worcester and Springfield (134 miles vs 105 miles).
Noel Weaver

This plan would require a North Station departure, with the attendant equipment moves between the northside and Southampton Yard via the Grand Junction. Clumsy, but doable.
I think the population base is larger on the B&A than it is on the Fitchburg [Worcester is the second largest city in the commonwealth, and Springfield is three]. Two reasons [for me] to keep this service on the B&A, especially when MA comes up with the money for two main tracks between Worcester and Springfield. Just my .02!

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

TomNelligan wrote:

cu29640 wrote: Any chance of the line from WRJ to Concord NH being rebuilt? I bet it had signals as well.

No, and yes. As a practical matter, any restoration of Boston-Montreal passenger service will run via the B&A and Connecticut River line, which actually have passenger-ready track rather than grass and weeds, and there's no potential for rail freight business between Concord and Lebanon either. The line northwest from Concord was signaled into the 1960s, but became manual block shortly after passenger service ended in 1964 or thereabouts.

It's also a grade crossing nightmare with too many curves and all-around lousy ROW for sustaining decent speeds. The only reason that got thrown into the national HSR corridors conversation was to give New Hampshire a slice of the pork.

B&A-->Palmer, NECR-->Northfield, Vermonter/Montrealer route rest of the way is the current study corridor for the one daily round-trip Boston-Montreal proposal under consideration. NECR as noted is passenger-ready on the Palmer-Northfield stretch and Massachusetts is self-motivated to find some re-use for the Amherst stop. B&A/Worcester Line is the ideal place to concentrate improvements because of the commuter rail and restored Inland Regionals primary users. While the Worcester Hills will never be all that fast there's definitely big schedule gains that could be had in MBTA territory with speed improvements.

For future corridors when B&A congestion gets a little hairy and formal relocation is worth exploring, I gotta think there will be better ones proposed than the ex-Northern.
-- Speed-boosted MBTA Lowell Line to Lowell if it ever goes Class 5 to boost the Downeaster + rebuilt Stony Brook Branch to Ayer + upgraded Pan Am Southern main via Ayer-Fitchburg-Deerfield + Vermonter/Montrealer Greenfield-north. At least that's a heavily-used existing line that had prior Class 4 speeds. New Hampshire traffic transferring onto it at Lowell (main reason--along with better NH Main potential speeds--for that routing instead of sticking entirely on the MBTA Fitchburg Line out of Boston).

-- Lowell + Ayer + Fitchburg and restoring the ex-Vermont & Massachusetts RR from Ashburnham to Bellows Falls via Keene...since that's at least straighter than the Northern. NHDOT owns the entire corridor, so it's protected.

-- NH Main to Concord and ex-Claremont & Concord. Less curvy than the Northern. The only reason the Northern was chosen is because NHDOT owns it and doesn't own the ex-C&C east of Newport.

-- NH Main to Claremont & Concord until it meets up with I-89. Then graft it onto I-89 until it meets the Northern in Lebanon just outside White River Jct. I'm gonna assume this is only for some halfway-real HSR effort because of the heinous expense involved in grafting rail onto highway. And even then I'm not sure if I-89's grades would support rail.



Any which way from the cheap bootstraps to the more invasive de-abandonments is going to be better than the Northern. The Northern is just a study placeholder. And in some scenarios...so is the whole transit-apathetic state of New Hampshire.

There are no sharp curves to speak of between Concord and Enfield. There are some gentle curves where the tracks used to bound the Merrimack between Franklin and Concord. Between there and Enfield it's all tangent connected by light curves. Wouldn't even need to slow down. Couldn't go NEC speeds but 79 no problem.

It is a high speed rail corridor because it is the most direct route between Boston and Montreal not so NH have have a "slice of the pork". It will never get built because you essentially need to have 110 miles of new roadbed between Lowell and White River. No one will pay for that, definitely not us in NH.

Using the NECR at Palmer makes no sense. The track is 55 mph and dark. You entirely skip Springfield and all that nice new signaled, and straight iron on the Conn River. It's worth going the extra 15 route miles to Springfield.

All the other stuff like rebuilding the C&C is more of a pipe dream. The Fitchburg was never Class IV either.

Any way you look at it any route is going to take massive work or go long out of the way.

cu29640 wrote:Thank you for the great explanation. Exactly what I was looking for. So it seems that signals north of Brattleboro still are lit when active. So do trains travel using CTC or train orders and the signals are simply ABS? They even installed a new signal in Windsor. Are there plans to have CTC all the way from Springfield to St. Albans VT. Any chance of the line from WRJ to Concord NH being rebuilt? I bet it had signals as well.

Yes it is full CTC between West River and WRJ, not Track warrants w/ABS like up on the Maine Central. No CTC or ABS from WRJ to St. Albans or West River to East Northfield.

West River to the MA border was supposed to be done with the grant, not sure if they ran out of money. Not sure what plan is from WRJ to St. Albans - probably nothing unless they turn the Vermonter into the Montrealer.

Doesn't MBTA want to run commuter trains at least to Concord up from Boston? I can see that making some sense...even moreso to Manchester.

So are there sidings with power switches between East Northfield and WRJ? I have never seen them during my times up that way.

cu29640 wrote:Doesn't MBTA want to run commuter trains at least to Concord up from Boston?

Not quite. The MBTA doesn't want to; they're just willing to serve as an operator when and if New Hampshire comes up with a funding plan. The MBTA doesn't run anything out of state on its own dime. (Rhode Island DOT helps pay for the Providence/Wickford Junction service). I wouldn't be shocked to see a passenger service restoration at least as far as Nashua at some point, but given the current track conditions north of Lowell plus the need for ongoing funding, New Hampshire is going to have to contribute a good sized pile of money, and to date New Hampshire's contribution to both commuter and intercity rail service subsidies has been zero.

Just FYI:

For those of you who have questions/comments about present and future operations on the Conn River Line, there is an active and interesting topic in the Pan Am forum:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=76506&start=1065#p1300865