Does this look good for freight in Reading?

I'm sorry to inform you, that this has nothing to do with the segment from Wilmington Jct. to Boston via Reading. There hasn't been any freight business (other than the flood re-routes earlier this past Spring) on this line in years, any consignees that were still getting cars when Guilford took over in 1984, have long since gone to trucks and their sidings have been abandoned, and in some cases, torn up altogether.

yeah, unfortunately its still single tracked alot of the way, the wellington tunnel and all the other bs. there arent any more customers on the line. i dont know if they stopped getting service, or if guilford just abandoned service. alot of companies stopped getting service at about the same time, my guess it that the big g wanted out.

The thread linked below has all the info you need on this project. In short - it's a much needed capacity improvement on one of the busiest single-track sections of railroad in the Northeast.

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... 65&t=65470

Since they went with the double track all the way to Ballardvale, am wondering why they didn't go the extra mile or less to Lowell Jct which would have given them a lot more flexibility with moving freight trains along that corridor? Was there a big ticket item between Ballardvale and Lowell Jct, like a bridge, wetlands, etc that would have significantly added to the price I wonder?

Ballardvale station. If they double track through both Andover and Ballardvale, they would have to construct a new platform at one of the stations, as the platforms are on opposite sides of the current single track. At Ballardvale, a new platform for the current track (which would be the inbound/westbound track if double tracked) would end up on current private property. At Andover, a platform on the outbound/eastbound side should be doable, but with the town planning to move the DPW yard that is adjacent to the station on the east of the station, and redevelop the site, I'm betting that they want any station expansion/improvement to wait for and be tied in with that project.

That's even before the issue of new rules requiring full-length high platforms versus an active freight mainline get tackled. Those two stations could get very expensive very quickly when they go to the drafting table.

octr202 wrote:Ballardvale station. If they double track through both Andover and Ballardvale, they would have to construct a new platform at one of the stations, as the platforms are on opposite sides of the current single track. At Ballardvale, a new platform for the current track (which would be the inbound/westbound track if double tracked) would end up on current private property. At Andover, a platform on the outbound/eastbound side should be doable, but with the town planning to move the DPW yard that is adjacent to the station on the east of the station, and redevelop the site, I'm betting that they want any station expansion/improvement to wait for and be tied in with that project.

That's even before the issue of new rules requiring full-length high platforms versus an active freight mainline get tackled. Those two stations could get very expensive very quickly when they go to the drafting table.

They wouldn't do all-highs on a freight mainline, and I can't imagine that's an ironclad FRA requirement. New construction projects elsewhere, like the New Haven-Springfield commuter rail line, aren't doing more than mini-highs at the all-new or expanded stations because of the freight. It would be insane because of the associated loss of revenue for not being able to run full-dimension freights, and mini-highs with ramp achieve ADA compliance so it's pointless overkill not worth the downside to mandate it.

There's only 2 lines anyway with substantial freight that have the extra track capacity or potential for it to bypass high platforms at full dimension: the 3-tracked portions of the NEC, and the Worcester line from 128 to Worcester that maintains the former 4-track width to Framingham and former 3-track width to Worcester on ROW, all bridges, and even a few stations where the tracks conspicuously spread out at platforms. In each case with future 3-tracking upgrades they'd be able to go all-highs, bypass platforms, and run wide-load freight as they want. Any other line with highs, such as the Old Colony lines or Worcester inside of Beacon Park, either has no freights or only small-dimension locals. The only lines with future potential to upgrade to all-high because of vacated freight are the Reading Line (already has highs at Malden Ctr. and Oak Grove, only runs freights when the NH Main is flooded), Needham Line (no more freight, no more potential for it), and Stoughton Line (including any restoration to Taunton, but NOT on the Fall River and New Bedford branches). Potentially also Worcester east of Framingham post-yard move, but I doubt they'd ever constrain CSX's dimensions for servicing their northside-via-Grand Junction customers. The others have enough extant freight to limit to mini-highs, and Lowell, Haverhill north of Lowell Jct., and Fitchburg to Ayer are Pan Am mains critical to the region's freight rail plan, and the Franklin Line northeast of Walpole is CSX's Readville access. There is no way they'd install new highs except in chance circumstances (Lawrence? South Acton depending on where platforms are located?) where passing or yard tracks are available. None of those lines, including southern end of NH Main because the Green Line eats 2 of 4 track berths, have ROW's wide enough to expand to 3-track or 2 + platform passing sidings.

roberttosh wrote:Since they went with the double track all the way to Ballardvale, am wondering why they didn't go the extra mile or less to Lowell Jct which would have given them a lot more flexibility with moving freight trains along that corridor? Was there a big ticket item between Ballardvale and Lowell Jct, like a bridge, wetlands, etc that would have significantly added to the price I wonder?

Simply they ran out of money from the grant, coupled with moving a station as noted already. Additionally 1 of the 2 Shawsheen River bridges that are in dire need of repair is in this short stretch (just east of LJ). I've heard rumor too that they are going to make the interlocking at Ballardvale a crossover with a short stub track west of the new double track (toward the station). That's certainly a pretty good sign they are planning to continue the double track toward Boston in the not-to-distant future.

Hey Guys,

I guess you're not following my question.

If you read in the article, they're looking to eventually expand upon ballardvale.

I know this article does not cover beyond Wilmington, but it would make sense to expand to the second track in Reading.

I live next to the tracks in Reading and they are clearing out holes/spaces for a possible set of tracks. This is why I asked.

I know about the restrictions and what not .. but freights did not have a problem getting Through Reading during that fitchburg flood.

Thanks,
Dave

Freights did have a problem via Reading due to height restrictions west of Reading. None of the detour
freights had cars Plate F or over. The detours actually happened more slowly due to the fact that
they had to throw out Plate F boxcars out of the consists at E. Deerfield and Lawrence/Rigby.

There are no plans to double track Wilmington Jct to Reading anytime soon. If anything, the priority
is Wilm Jct to Lowell Jct after the other second track is restored.

Restoring double iron to Reading is a no brainer, but considering what ahead of it in terms of
projects, we'll have to live with it.

D

Well those holes are certainly not for grade crossings. Gravel is being spread out .. tie replacement is out of question as well.

Well have to see

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

octr202 wrote:Ballardvale station. If they double track through both Andover and Ballardvale, they would have to construct a new platform at one of the stations, as the platforms are on opposite sides of the current single track. At Ballardvale, a new platform for the current track (which would be the inbound/westbound track if double tracked) would end up on current private property. At Andover, a platform on the outbound/eastbound side should be doable, but with the town planning to move the DPW yard that is adjacent to the station on the east of the station, and redevelop the site, I'm betting that they want any station expansion/improvement to wait for and be tied in with that project.

That's even before the issue of new rules requiring full-length high platforms versus an active freight mainline get tackled. Those two stations could get very expensive very quickly when they go to the drafting table.

They wouldn't do all-highs on a freight mainline, and I can't imagine that's an ironclad FRA requirement.

It is not an FRA requirement; it is an ADA requirement. And, despite the logic and detail of your analysis, the T is moving forward with the understanding that any new platforms will be full length, high level. And that any work on a platform above any relatively small threshhold, will cause the requirement for full length high level platforms to kick in.

DAW

130MM wrote:

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

octr202 wrote:Ballardvale station. If they double track through both Andover and Ballardvale, they would have to construct a new platform at one of the stations, as the platforms are on opposite sides of the current single track. At Ballardvale, a new platform for the current track (which would be the inbound/westbound track if double tracked) would end up on current private property. At Andover, a platform on the outbound/eastbound side should be doable, but with the town planning to move the DPW yard that is adjacent to the station on the east of the station, and redevelop the site, I'm betting that they want any station expansion/improvement to wait for and be tied in with that project.

That's even before the issue of new rules requiring full-length high platforms versus an active freight mainline get tackled. Those two stations could get very expensive very quickly when they go to the drafting table.

They wouldn't do all-highs on a freight mainline, and I can't imagine that's an ironclad FRA requirement.

It is not an FRA requirement; it is an ADA requirement. And, despite the logic and detail of your analysis, the T is moving forward with the understanding that any new platforms will be full length, high level. And that any work on a platform above any relatively small threshhold, will cause the requirement for full length high level platforms to kick in.

DAW

Then that's the T's decision contrary to the state's own freight rail plan. It's not in the cards for a number of other passenger rail projects in the country at stations deemed "new construction". So either it's a state-level ADA added requirement, or just MBTA policy independent of the law.

the longest stretch is six miles between the Reading and Ballardvale stops.

"If we double-tracked that, it would be a big benefit," said Richard Davey, general manager for the Massachusetts Bay Commuter Railroad Company, which operates and maintains commuter rail service for the MBTA.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Then that's the T's decision contrary to the state's own freight rail plan. It's not in the cards for a number of other passenger rail projects in the country at stations deemed "new construction". So either it's a state-level ADA added requirement, or just MBTA policy independent of the law.

I believe it is a state ADA requirement. The T did not just it make a policy. A requirement of the original P&S for the B&M property prevents the T from restricting freight moves they had at the time of the sale unless the railroad signs off on it.

DAW