Beacon Line Maintenance / Current Status / Background

A few years ago, MNRR had a contractor lay a com cable (fiber) in the right of way . I think this is used or is going to be used as a back up for the code lines that run the signal system now.

MN bought the former Maybrook line from Housatonic RR (CDOT did not purchase the portion in Ct. ) in 1993 for $40 million, which works out to about $1 million per mile. A lot of money to spend on something that gets so little use.

I would LOVE to see MN trains rumbling through downtown Danbury on the way to Brewster, but:

1) There's quite an elaborate bridge system in Brewster, and it's my understanding that it needs semi-major repairs before anything can run on those tracks on the way to Southeast (where I assume the connection would be made).

2) Even on a good day, the time factor on that route wouldn't save any time from the current Danbury branch route. The Maybrook winds up and down little hills around the old Danbury Hat Factory locations, and has several major grade crossings at White Street, Main Street, and at the Danbury Fair Mall. It's slow traveling.

3) Perhaps most importantly, even if the bridges were fixed and the connection made, there's little potential net gain to MN ridership by making this connection. For all the hassles they would have to deal with to make it happen, there's nothing in it for the railroad.

But it's still fun to think about.

capecodlocoguy wrote:I once spoke to then MN President Don Nelson and he told me that MN purchased the line to keep it from being ripped up.

That about sums it up.

HVCEO (and others) have concluded that it really isn't worth the expense for a marginal improvement in service.
Regional Transportation Plan: Part 6 Rail Passenger Service

Unless considerable (and expensive) improvements are made, the bus will beat the train every time.

Back in the '80's, I ran a train, equipment move from Brewster to Danbury. The services may not be connected, but the lines ARE. Slow going, 10 mph, lots of crossings. I think it was DRN who mentioned that MN has 5 engrs & 1 cdr who are qualified to make moves there, now.

keotaman wrote:I think it was DRN who mentioned that MN has 5 engrs & 1 cdr who are qualified to make moves there, now.

Yes, he did. Since they all have regular jobs, even the (expensive) emergency move(s) are out of the question unless there is a catastrophic event.

Last year we removed all the high way warning equipment from evey crossing from Beacon to the state line . All the crossings now only have a railroad crossing sign and a exempt sign on it ,

Crossing equipment even if active would need to be stop and warn anyway due to rusty rail conditions, so why maintain them.
When MNCR bought the line the Crossing equipment was more sophisticated than any other MNCR crossings they had micro procesors and nearly all equipment was brand spanking new, even Mr Drake and Polo where impressed.

MNRR Signal MTR wrote:Last year we removed all the high way warning equipment from evey crossing from Beacon to the state line . All the crossings now only have a railroad crossing sign and a exempt sign on it ,

I remember being pissed that I did not take any pictures before they ripped all the gear out. But seriously, could you imagine 100+ car freights or regular passenger trains crossing Route 9 these days? While I know that the original poster was referring to the Danbury-Brewster section of the line, any real service improvements would have to eliminate that grade crossing and probably a few others.

Does MN have any desire to restore the bridge that is OOS near Brewster?

not unless somone finds $$$$$ in the budget to do so.

Nester wrote:

MNRR Signal MTR wrote:Last year we removed all the high way warning equipment from evey crossing from Beacon to the state line . All the crossings now only have a railroad crossing sign and a exempt sign on it ,

I remember being pissed that I did not take any pictures before they ripped all the gear out. But seriously, could you imagine 100+ car freights or regular passenger trains crossing Route 9 these days? While I know that the original poster was referring to the Danbury-Brewster section of the line, any real service improvements would have to eliminate that grade crossing and probably a few others.

Does MN have any desire to restore the bridge that is OOS near Brewster?

Crossing route 9 or route 52 or any of the other state highways that the
Beacon Branch (Hopewell-Beacon) crossed, we did it in the early 1970's
at 10 MPH with some very long trains and the cars and people waited
just like they would today, just like they do on the CSX River Subdivision
which goes right through some towns in New Jersey and New York with
many more than the four trains that operated on this route. It ties up the
town or the crossing for a time but if a decision was made today that it
was necessary to again run through freight trains this way (I doubt it very
much if it will happen) a way would be found to run them regardless of
traffic, towns, crossings or anything else.
A big stink took place when Penn Central restored this line to heavy use
but the trains kept running.
I can well remember going over all of those crossings sometimes at 10
MPH or even less with a heavy train uphill. I well remember charging
slowly up the grade through Beacon and whistling for Churchill Street and
East Main Street with traffic stopped, woke up and tied up the town for a
short time, then we were gone. They were lucky, there were only four
trains most days.
Noel Weaver

Still, no one has clarified why MNRR would spend 40 million to preserve rails they don't ever intend to use. Why would they care if the rails were ripped up if they don't intend to use them, ever? Perhaps it was great forsight? As the population grows and the commuters push further north the demand for rail may grow.

Nobody said ever, a big study was done in past to run commuter service from Hopewell Jct to Brewster and GCT a few years back.
the problem with an available rail line is if you let the rail be ripped up you will never see railroad again.
Nowhere in USA has any rails for trails ever been reversed back to railroad, so once the rail corridor goes stuff starts to be built on it and treehuggers take over.
MNCR did a wise investment to keep the line for future use and utility right of way.

Noel Weaver wrote: Crossing route 9 or route 52 or any of the other state highways that the
Beacon Branch (Hopewell-Beacon) crossed, we did it in the early 1970's
at 10 MPH with some very long trains and the cars and people waited
just like they would today,

I know you're retired, Noel, but do you get up to Dutchess County often these days? Everything west of the Taconic and south of the Mid-Hudson bridge looks more like Long Island, and has the traffic (of LI) to boot. Any long train crossing Route 9 at track speed could easily back traffic up to the I-84 interchange. There are simply too many cars running up and down the road during the day for people not to complain about a long train crawling through.

Since you would have to *way* out of the way to find an overpass, Rt.9 (along with a few other crossings) would be ripe for elimination.

Since the STB squashed any chance or HRRC interchanging at Beacon a few years ago, this is all moot for now.

DutchRailnut wrote:Nobody said ever, a big study was done in past to run commuter service from Hopewell Jct to Brewster and GCT a few years back.

They found it was cheaper and quicker to add more parking at existing stations. So guess what they did??