Guilford views on passenger rail

Does Guilford comment on its views with regard to the restoration of passenger services over tracks that it controls?

I understand that reinstatement of the Downeaster service a couple of years back was delayed due to constant bickering and prevarication. If I recall correctly this centered around track speed and the quality of the rail. I don't know whether this was a "real" reason or just a reason put forward by Guilford to stop or delay the service reinstatement.

At the same time I have heard from Mayor Baines in Manchester that Guilford is a supporter of the reinstatement of service from Lowell to Nashua.

So what's the story? Anyone know, or how to find out?

Cheers.

"Delayed" is putting it nicely. Guilford fought for over ten years to prevent Amtrak from runnning trains to Maine. Eventually we won and were able to get the service going, but we're still fighting over track speed, despite the fact that the Federal Railroad Administration has deemed the tracks safe for 79 MPH running.

Guilford would have preferred 132LB rail (rather than 115LB) because it would have meant less maintenance. The "safety issue" was just an excuse, and has been disproven over and over again.

Down with Guilford!!!!, I hope the town of Waterville claims Guilford's property under the tax forfeiture laws, It's not hard to profit, if you don't pay your taxes!!!($300K PLUS) That is shabby business practice!! Smarten up Guilford, or stay out of Maine!!!! Also I think Guilford would do ANYTHING to prevent any kind of competition. I'm not wild about Amtrak, but They are a lot better than the big G!

There is a disconnect between what Guilford has publicly stated regarding passenger service and what they actually do. Over the years when GRS has wanted public funding for a bridge or crossing replacement or the rehab of a line their spokespeople have always thrown out the possibility of future passenger service. Of course if some one actually attempted to initiate service on their property, well to quote the Chrysler ad, " this changes every thing".
This of course is just a personal observation.

pharmerphil54 wrote:This of course is just a personal observation.

I'd say it's a pretty darn accurate observation.

NHOwl wrote:At the same time I have heard from Mayor Baines in Manchester that Guilford is a supporter of the reinstatement of service from Lowell to Nashua.

I've heard too that Guilford is for Nashua commuter rail, but from the Nashua Regional Planning Commission. My jaw dropped after hearing this from the director as I had remembered the troubles with the Downeaster.

Matt


Nashua City Station
http://www.nashuacitystation.com

Guilford's saying they support the reinstate should set of all sorts of red flags here....Obviously, they're going to want, or demand, most likely, some kind of concession or special requirement to reinstate the service. Actually, they probably figure they're safe in backing the proposal....New Hampshire's state bureacracy also has a well know reputation for foot dragging, and a miserly streak that makes Ebenezer Scrooge look like the soul of philanthropy. Guilford probably figures Hell will freeze over before they ever have to let the trains run again, so why not try for some phony goodwill??

I heard a few months ago that Guilford was also interested in extending commuter trains from Newburyport to Portsmouth, NH. "They were open to the idea". It seems that for obvious reasons it would be a benefit to them--open a revenue stream and new track paid for by state and gov.

It blows my mind they wouldn't be open to commuter access to all of their lines with the infrastructure improvements that naturally occur as a bi-product. Perhaps its less good will than common sense.

Newspaper article this week,that the "courts" just said that NO money from the New Hampshire Gas Tax can go to rail;specifically,the rehab of the Lowell-Nashua line for commuter rail use. This means,NO $ from the Feds! How much more can the "highways" take?? Bud

All I have to say about New Hampshirians refusing to fund rail with road is don't look at me when they can't go anywhere because all of their roads being locked into total gridlock.

I once read an editorial in the Union Leader that claimed the MBTA and the entire commuter rail network surrounding Boston did absolutely nothing. I would love to see what would happen if commuter rail in the Boston area stopped completely, then he might think about this assertion a bit more.

Trevor H.

Like it or not, GRS had a legitimate gripe about rail size. If you look at Amtrak/MBTA, new lines, e.g., to Newburyport and replacement rail is 132lbs/yd standard... and most of those lines see little if any freight service. So why spec a smaller size for a route with exponentially more ton-miles?

Because 132LB rail is more expensive, and this project is being paid for by taxpayers, as most conservatives are quick to remind us and admonish us about. And Guilford has been unable to prove that 115LB rail is unsafe for 79MPH passenger trains. When they finally gave up on that, they started complaining that more ballast was needed. They couldn't prove that either. So then they said there were too many grade crossings. They just keep coming up with new excuses.

Gee, and here I was thinking all along that MBTA and ATK investments are taxpayer funded, too! Thanks for the clarifcation, 407!

well I emailed the MBTA on the reinstatement of rail service in NH. The only one they are aware of is the Lowell to Nashua extension. The only thing they are waiting for is the state of NH to say ok. I know one of the reasons it is taking so long is that the truckers union is sewing the state of NH for the money they are using to fund the project. See I was told that the projected was to co-inside with the widing of route 3 and the truckers union doesn't want the state to spend the money on something else, they want the state to find another way to fund the rail projects. That also puts a hold on the Manchester Lawrence branch too, because that was/or the state wants to include it with the widing of I93, tho the MBTA doen't have anything on the Manchester Lawrence branch at this moment. There is also no talk about the seacoast branch... for one the ROW runs through the nucler power plant in Seabrook, NH tho it was designed to have future train service run throught it...but since 9/11 i dont think the federal goverment will allow a train to pass through there anymore, tho a train never did pass through because it was abandoned before the power plant was built. The tracks are still there tho, and the power plant only as a few more years left before they shut it down so I've been told.

There is no doubt in my mind that heavier rail should have been used in
this case. This line is handling fast passenger trains, heavy tonnage
freight trains and whatever in an area that can be subject to extreme
temperature readings, as high as the 90's or better and below zero in the
winter time.
I agree that Guilford management are not saints but I tend to agree to the
point that the heavier rail should have been put down. Having already
installed the 115 pound rail, now what, well for now run the trains at 70 to
79 MPH but as rail wear or other problems come up, replace the rail with
much heavier rail and good sections of the 115 pound rail ought to be adequate for branch line or commuter lines with lighter traffic conditions. Some of the commuter lines today carry no freight and 115 pound rail
sould be OK for that type of use.
I do not think it is fair to expect Guilford to bear the full expense of
maintaining the line to 79 MPH standards as long as this 115 pound rail is
still in use. The expense in maintaining this line for speeds above 60 MPH
probably should be the responsibility of others at least until heavier rail
has been put in place.
Just my opinion.
Noel Weaver