Cape Flyer

BandA wrote: ↑Thu Aug 22, 2024 11:48 pm Crossing the canal by car not a big deal in the winter, if they ever extend middleborough service to buzzards bay. Don’t understand why the governor & the mass delegation don’t lean on Biden/Harris/Buttegeig/DOD/Mayorkas to get the army corps to return canal priority to the railroad. It’s a simple zero expense transaction that would make everything better. So off season, terminal should be buzzards bay, summer 7 day a week service to Bourne, Yarmouth, Hyannis

Because it's not actually a zero expense activity. The only reason the army corps won't open more often is because they want the state to pay the cost, and the state isn't interested. It's not about Mass politicians leaning on the feds, it's about Mass politicians ignoring their own responsibilities.

The bridge is only there because the federal government built the canal. The federal government should pay all costs of the bridge, recouping them through canal tolls on shipping if need be. (Yes, I know canal, lock, etc., tolls are a big taboo, but should they be?)

If I understand the history correctly, the federal government built, maintained, and operated the bridge, and paid for all that, and trains had priority in most or all situations, for decades, until the bridge needed major work and federal money wasn't forthcoming. The feds said they wouldn't pay to fix the bridge (I'm guessing based partly on the fact that it was getting very little use), but agreed to pay if the state gave up the right to run as many trains as it wanted at whatever times it wanted.

Maybe that change was somehow fair when it was made, when the only trains were the trash train, some very occasional other freight, and potentially private tourist trains. Maybe one could argue that the RR and the bridge were obsolete so the canal owner shouldn't have to pay for the bridge any more. But it seems wrong to me that the state, not the canal's owner, would now have to pay to return the bridge to the type and level of use that it was built for: multiple daily trains to and from the Cape, for actual transportation.
?

the deal as i understand it was very simple .

The ACOE agreed to fully repair/rehabilitate the railroad bridge at their own cost in exchange for throwing the original new haven railroad right of way agreement out the window thereby permitting ACOE full power to regulate canal and railroad traffic as might be required. Mass DOT historically is all about saving money where possible. Since they don't actually operate the trains that run over the bridge with the implied costs for service delays by ACOE, Mass Dot has shrugged their shoulders and borrowed a line from alfred e. neuman, saying "what me worry? ".

I guess I'm saying that in fairness the ACOE (the federal treasury, in other words) should have paid to fix the bridge without the state having to give up the right of way agreement because the only reason state needed the bridge was the existence of the canal. I'm not arguing the facts, just complaining that the state and the potential rail passengers got a raw deal that feels weasely to me.

The canal was built by private enterprise and opened in 1914. The canal was purchased in 1928 by the federal government and greatly widened in the 1930s. With the 1928 purchase, the federal government assumed the rights and obligations to operate and maintain the canal. That included the road and rail crossings.

In recent years, the state entered a couple of Faustian bargains with the feds to maintain the canal crossings. The first was the recent rehabilitation of the railroad bridge. The federal government reluctantly funded it, as part of an apparent agreement where the state relinquished some railroad crossing rights. We see the fallout from that agreement today: Despite repeated requests to run an additional CapeFLYER roundtrip summer Saturdays for the benefit of Cape residents, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has refused the bridge crossings, citing the impact to maritime traffic.

The Army Corps' impact assertion is laughable. Consider the history of the past 40 years. In the 1980s, before rehabilitation, the railroad bridge saw much higher traffic with both the Cape Cod & Hyannis and Amtrak Cape Codder services. Since then, the bridge has been rehabilitated, and by the Army Corps' own admission, as published in their annual "Waterbourne Commerce of the United States," tonnage through the canal has dropped by nearly 60% since the 1980s. In 1985, 14,539 thousand tons transited the canal, while in 2019 (the last year before the pandemic), that number had dropped to 6,715. The later publicly available data shows a much sharper drop during the pandemic. Clearly commercial maritime traffic is not a reason there can't be increased rail use of the bridge, weekends or otherwise.

The state's second Faustian bargain is taking on ownership of the new highway bridges as an expedient for their construction. In essence, the state has agreed to take on some of the construction and all of the future maintenance costs of the new bridges -- items for which the federal government should be solely responsible as long as the canal is in operation.

Regarding the on-Cape 30 mph speed limit for the CapeFLYER, that's a deliberate choice by the CCRTA and the state. Back in the 1950s, passenger speed limit on the Cape was 50. It was higher than 30 for the CapeFLYER and Amtrak's Cape Codder in the 1980s, but I don't have an employee timetable handy to confirm the exact speed in those days. It might make sense that the speed limit in some segments is lower today, but certainly not for the entire on-Cape route.

Amtrak schedule for the 1993 Cape Codder with travel time from Buzzards Bay to Hyannis at 45 to 50 minutes with stops at Sandwich and West Barnstable. More stops than the Cape Flyer and a shorter travel time as well. The Cape Main has seen significant rail infrastructure improvements on the Cape since the Flyer started and the line is probably in the best condition it ever has been in, but yet it's slower than Amtrak's 1993 time. All I have heard is that CWR is needed to increase speed which shouldn't be the case as trains ran at faster speeds on the same rails in the 1950 / 1960's up to the 1993 Cape Codder. 1960 NH Schedule included also.

http://www.trainweb.org/usarail/capecodder.htm

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... etable.pdf

The cape main doesn’t have signals along the line like all commuter rail lines do. Can’t have faster speeds without signal display in the cab and wayside. Only places that I know they do is the Hyannis yard and canal bridge. Other than those spots and middleboro, the rest is non signal territory.

Stick rail supposedly wears at the end of each rail, especially if the ties are in poor shape. No direct corrolation with speed.

Commuterrail1050 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 10:55 am The cape main doesn’t have signals along the line like all commuter rail lines do.

New Haven RR installed signals but never turned them on from what I have heard as the remains of those signals still exist and are turned sideways with control boxes covered in graffiti on the Cape main, as seen along the line by the Sagamore bridge area. I also have seen historical photos of semaphore signals that were used at the North Falmouth sidings back when Otis AFB was in full use during WWII also. The Cape main has had consistent Tie & ballast replacement done on a yearly basis for many years now with crossing / signal upgrades, along with worn rail replacements as well. I would think by now after all the work that has been completed over the years that the Cape Main would be tested / evaluated for higher speeds. Seems like NH didn't need signals back in the 50's / 60's to run at higher speeds but was in the process of installing them but were never used.

There was a signal system installed in the 1980's by the state when the CC&H was running. It was never put into service, even though it was completed (as far as I know). Signals were installed from Hyannis to Middleboro and from Middleboro to Attleboro. These are the signals turned to the field you are seeing.

D

The Cape Codder was timetabled for 49 minutes Buzzards Bay to Hyannis, and 43 minutes returning, in 1986:
https://history.amtrak.com/archives/i-m ... table-1986

By 1995, it was 54 minutes eastbound (likely including padding) and 45 westbound. In both years, there were two intermediate stops. For a distance of 25 miles, this indicates that speeds higher than 30 mph were allowed.

The CapeFLYER is scheduled for 70 minutes Buzzards Bay to Hyannis, and 60 minutes returning, with one intermediate stop.

For comparison, in 1955, the Day Cape Codder was scheduled for 41-43 minutes eastbound and 37-47 minutes westbound, with three intermediate stops. (Note that the distance was about a mile shorter because the New Haven relocated the Hyannis station around 1953.)

As of 1:15pm today, 8/30, the 1129 was the West/South facing locomotive on the CapeFlyer. The 1138 is the East/North end

As for the 30 mph on the Cape side, on the Cape Main, it's because of the stick rail and its age

i live in Dennis and have used The Flyer often. There are a few points to commuter rail coming across The Canal that I personally don't think make it sustainable.. Reasons being,a good many of the towns here have a predominantly senior population.. In Dennis it's 65%.Sandwich and Barnstable other than Hyannis are probably close to the same,and I doubt either Sandwich or Barnstable would pay into it .That's not a commuter populous..To Buzzards Bay I believe it works.. Wareham has been growing through the years and BBay has the potential to expand it's demographics,but down Cape I don't think the demand is there...

Thats why the Cape Flyer is a seasonal service as it's ridership drops off sharply after Labor Day. Its season was extended once before but the ridership wasn't there to justify its continued operation. More ridership during the season would happen if they were allowed to run more trains but that doesn't seem to be in the cards to happen anytime soon. As far as faster speeds on the Cape Main line there are certainly a few different opinions as to why it can't happen, but the line is certainly in better condition now than it ever was in the past when trains ran faster with more stops.