Beacon Line Maintenance / Current Status / Background

The only way I can see this working is when/if passenger service is extended north of Danbury to Brookfield, New Milford, or as some have proposed, all the way to the Berkshires. Is someone going to get on a train at Danbury and ride out to Southeast when they could just drive there in probably less time? Seems like a lot of work for a little gain.

It seems to be it would be easier to get NY to widen a mile or so of I-84 between the CT state line and I-684 (might as well make the 84WB->684 and 684NB->84EB ramps 2 lanes while we're at it). That right there would relieve most of the congestion.

The station plans are interesting. While they did study building a connector track between the Maybrook...err... Beacon Line from the west to the Danbury Branch below the curve into Union, the solution they went with for this report is a platform at Union Station, but putting a high level platform where one of the existing 2 tracks is on the "Maybrook" side of Union. This would require passengers who parked at the Danbury "commuter" station to walk a few blocks to get to the platform. Too bad they moved out of Union Station, but I bet the idea of restoring service to/from the west probably wasn't on anyone's vision at the time.

As I've said before, and as you noted Jay, work does need to be done on the 684/84 intersection. However, that doesn't account for the current access to Southeast, which requires a double-back down a hill. NYS fixing the intersection doesn't seem to be on the horizon either.

I really think the the main destination for Danbury is either White Plains, SoNo, or Stamford. I do think NYC bound commuters will save more than just a few minutes due to the traffic.

It will be an awkward transfer, so they will need to create a path along the track from Union to Danbury. That makes the walk a bit more palatable.

I perused the study. I think they were too quick to discount the idea of street running. You know, if you look at it on Google Maps, it shouldn't be all that difficult with only a small amount of street running. Simply cut it over at Balmforth Avenue with a tiny length of Patriot Drive. It's not impossible.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Fri Jan 27, 2023 9:06 am I perused the study. I think they were too quick to discount the idea of street running. You know, if you look at it on Google Maps, it shouldn't be all that difficult with only a small amount of street running. Simply cut it over at Balmforth Avenue with a tiny length of Patriot Drive. It's not impossible.

wouldn't that require using only M-8s ?. cannot have 3rd rail on a street ?

Electrification is a bridge too far. It doesn't mean anything if they don't also electrify the branch.

Looks like the abandonment is a done deal...

Housatonic filing from January 30:
https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 306070.pdf

Clearly some money changed hands (or other agreements were made) behind the scenes.

I've put in several FOIA requests with MNRR on this matter.

Current Developments: https://dcms-external.s3.amazonaws.com/ ... 306383.pdf

Housatonic will retain a right to provide contract freight service but will convey to MNRR reactivation rights.

The line, as it exists in New York, will be rail-banked.

...
HRRC has discontinued its trackage rights and intends to convey its right to reactivate
service in the future on the Line to Metro-North. HRRC wishes to divest itself of its entire
interest in the Line except for a retained right to provide contract freight carriage over the Line in
Putnam County only, and therefore, consents to this Petition.
...
Metro-North intends to use the Line as a public trail and potentially for other public
purposes. On February 24, 2023, Metro-North submitted a Petition for Notice of Interim Trail
Use (a “NITU”) for the Line pursuant to Section 8(d) of the National Trails System Act, codified
at 16 U.S.C. §1247(d), and 49 C.F.R. §1152.29 (collectively, as such statutes and regulations
may be amended, the “Railbanking Legislation”). Metro-North will be the trail manager of the
Line and acknowledges that its use of the Line for public trails will be subject to the potential
future restoration of rail service over the Line pursuant to the requirements of the Railbanking
Legislation.
...

https://highlandscurrent.org/2023/03/31 ... ail-trail/
Read this the other day.... I was always hoping that at some point they would add shuttle service between Beacon and Hopewell Jct. and Southeast to Danbury. I'm not sure if there is anything new with the Southeast to Danbury proposal. But as far as Hopewell to Beacon is concerned, this looks like the end of that possibility. I remember talking with employees from MTA and them saying that they only bought the line in order to run their communications lines underground from Beacon to Southeast and that they never had any thoughts of running trains on it...

I recently messaged Metro North on FB and when I asked about the rail with trail they said this: https://prnt.sc/ViXITz2XbImW

Also, I don't know if this has been posted but here is a trolley study from 2003 with crossing protection pictures:
https://beaconny.gov/wp-content/uploads ... -Study.pdf

Denied: STB

The Board denies Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company’s request for issuance of a notice of interim trail use or abandonment for a rail line in New York and its related petition to acquire the residual common carrier rights and obligations for the line, including the right to reactivate rail service on the line.
...
Request for NITU in Docket No. AB 733 (Sub-No. 1X). The Board will deny Metro-North’s request for issuance of a NITU. The Board’s regulations implementing the Trails Act provide for the issuance of a certificate of interim trail use or abandonment (CITU) in “[a]bandonment application proceedings,” see 49 C.F.R. § 1152.29(c), and a NITU in
“[a]bandonment exemption proceedings,” see 49 C.F.R. § 1152.29(d). See also 49 C.F.R. § 1152.29(a) (stating that parties interested in acquiring a right-of-way of a rail line “proposed to be abandoned” for the purpose of interim trail use/railbanking must file a trail use request in the abandonment application or exemption proceeding).8 The Board has also held that lines held pursuant to Common Carrier Status of States, State Agencies & Instrumentalities, & Political Subdivisions, 363 I.C.C. 132 (1980), aff’d sub nom. Simmons v. ICC, 697 F.2d 326 (D.C. Cir. 1982),9 are available for interim trail use/railbanking under the Trails Act. See Wis. & Calumet R.R.—Modified Rail Certificate, FD 31340 (STB served Apr. 24, 2023); City of Fishers—Pet. for Partial Revocation of Exemption, FD 36137, slip op. at 6 (STB served May 31, 2018) (holding that the availability of trail use procedures in Common Carrier Status of States
cases is tied to the status of a line as authorized for abandonment but remaining in the Board’s jurisdiction).
...
Petition to Acquire the Residual Common Carrier Rights and Obligations in Docket No. FD 36681. The Board will deny Metro-North’s petition to acquire from Housatonic the residual common carrier rights and obligations for the Line, including the right to reactivate rail service on the Line. First, the petition, insofar as it seeks to acquire reactivation rights, is premature because there is no right to reactivate rail service under the agency’s Trails Act regulations until a CITU or NITU has been issued. See 49 C.F.R. § 1152.29(c)(2), (d)(2). Here, the Board has not issued a NITU for the Line, and as explained above, the Board will not issue a NITU in the discontinuance docket, AB 733 (Sub-No. 1X).
...

At least 7cites. Sounds like some one who wrote the petition did not know what the requirements to the STB are.

I thought I saw them (pic online, dying to go up to see it myself) doing tie work on the switch by the old Fairgrounds. It may have been just the headsticks but could be tie replacement to get it up to 15. Anyone know? Thanks in advance!

I have not been out to Danbury in awhile but I thought they had removed the switches and the siding that ran along I-84 by the old fairgrounds. The only switch that I remember still being there was the one to the O and G yard. I believe there was talk several years ago of them bringing aggregate by rail from up north in CT down to Danbury by HRRC. I wonder if this is for that reason? Also, I was along the line in Fishkill last week. There's numerous places where the rail is completely up in the air or broken off from the tie plates. Along with that the brush has grown so high you can't even see the ROW in areas... I'm surprised no one ever though it was worth keeping the line in service even as an alternative to run detours etc, in the case there was a potential issue along the hudson line. Amtrak, CSX or MTA could still operate over the line and access the city either down the Harlem line or down the Danbury branch... And also MTA could run there shuttle service up the danbury branch into Southeast and in the next decade or so from Beacon to Hopewell Jct. I know the agency is bleeding money but I think its just alittle short sighted....
Has there been any more news about the line since STB turned down MTAs request???

AMK0123 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 27, 2023 8:40 am ... I'm surprised no one ever though it was worth keeping the line in service even as an alternative to run detours etc, in the case there was a potential issue along the hudson line. Amtrak, CSX or MTA could still operate over the line and access the city either down the Harlem line or down the Danbury branch...

If you read through all of the back-and-forth between MTA and HRRC, the line was supposed to be kept in servicible condition (at least at Class 1 level). The MTA clearly decided that they weren't interested in doing that, and until the line was proposed for abandonment, HRRC had no interest in holding MTA accountable for that lack of interest.

No news.