• Housatonic Railroad Thread (Maybrook, Berkshire, Pittsfield)

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England

Moderators: MEC407, NHN503

  by NaugyRR
 
It needs it, regardless of opinion on the railroads involved. More rail connections and route redundancy in the state is a good thing, especially as extreme weather has become more common every year.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
How far will eighteen miles West from Danbury get the line (ready reference; Brewster is eleven highway miles)?

And at that eighteen miles. what's there?
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
OK, that's East, but I guess that article did not specify a direction. So, bad me!!

I thought there was a good sized lumber yard in Newtown. Guess their cost of doing business will be less with Housy back in the picture (rail generally less than truck).

Now will this extension restore a physical interchange at Cedar Hill?
  by NaugyRR
 
Via the New Haven main, yes. It'll give the Housatonic a second CSX interchange via P&W.
  by Jeff Smith
 
At Derby they can interchange with either Pan Am Southern or Providence and Worcester. However there may be a ConRail or CSX agreement that prohibits that; I don’t remember the details. The interchanges that have happened at Derby have been rare; it’s either been equipment or one-off type stuff. That said having an alternative would be nice.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Don't the several passenger train agencies (CDOT, Amtrak, CT Rail) that own and maintain the ROW place restrictions on the freight operator's (HRR, CSX, P&W, any others?) comings and goings?
  by Jeff Smith
 
The Maybrook in CT including the part from Derby to Danbury is owned by Housy. So is the portion of the Berkshire from Danbury to New Milford. So the only part that’s CONNDOT owned is Devon to Derby.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
OK; I get it!

The "Feddybux" are all directed towards getting the Maybrook into something resembling a railroad in Connecticut to again have a Cedar Hill interchange. Nothing is being done to the West beyond the existing end of track (Fair Grounds?).
  by Jeff Smith
 
Right, nothing west of Danbury to the state line. MetroNorth filed to abandon west of the state line, but due to a technicality that was denied. Look for CONNDOT to buy the connecting stretch in New York to the Harlem Line at Dykemans. Housy no longer has freight rights.

One other reason for the "Feddybux": the upcoming WALK bridge replacement in Norwalk. Although long and windy, this could be a potential detour if something goes amiss.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
SOOOOO;

Conn DOT has "visions" of extending passenger service from Danbury through Brewster and over to Dykemans?

I can recall going back to '54 when I had occasion to ride the Harlem; Millerton-White Plains (Indian Mountain School before I went to SKS) and there was the "great train race" between a New Haven freight handled by FA's and the Harlem Div train of maybe five cars and an RS-3. This was either side of Ice Pond between Dykemans and Brewster, and it was "neck and neck" for quite a distance (Harlem won).

That the NH was keeping a freight only line to same utility as a passenger line (whoever heard of the FRA track classes back then?) shows how important the NH held the Maybrook line to be.
  by Jeff Smith
 
Once upon a time the Maybrook was double track with ATC. Then the bridge burned.

But yes, the idea is to create a link to Southeast, FKA Brewster North. It's pretty involved. I forget where that thread is.
  by Gilbert B Norman
 
The Maybrook Line was doomed well before The Fire (Torch?).

New England simply was no longer a market for freight rail transportation. The nonferrous metal fixture manufacturing simply moved away, which meant overseas. Just think, that stuff weighed, and if there were a spill, OSD (damage) was very limited.

By the '61 Bankruptcy, one track had been chopped up. The '68 Penn Central merger meant Selkirk was their New England gateway. Come '76, Conrail simply meant what little interchange with the Erie remained was done for. There was no longer any reason to maintain the bridge and the routing it lynchpinned. That's why the Torching speculation raged on for as long as it did.
Last edited by Gilbert B Norman on Sat Sep 30, 2023 8:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
  by NaugyRR
 
Jeff Smith wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 9:40 am Once upon a time the Maybrook was double track with ATC. Then the bridge burned.

But yes, the idea is to create a link to Southeast, FKA Brewster North. It's pretty involved. I forget where that thread is.
Here you be el Jefe...
https://www.railroad.net/beacon-line-ma ... 9-645.html
  by NaugyRR
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Fri Sep 29, 2023 5:17 pm The Maybrook Line was doomed well before The Fire (Torch?).

New England simply was no longer a market for freight rail transportation. The nonferrous metal fixture manufacturing simply moved away, which meant overseas. Just think, that stuff weighed, and if there were a spill, OSD (damage) was very limited.

By the '61 Bankruptcy, one track had been chopped up. The Penn Central merger meant Selkirk was their New England gateway. Conrail simply meant what little interchange with the Erie remained was done for. There was no longer any reason to maintain the bridge and the routing it lynchpinned. That's why the Torching speculation raged on for as long as it did.
Slightly off-topic, but coincidental nonetheless... One of my customers is a train buff and retired as a lineman from Central Hudson. We were just talking about the Fire the other day; I loaned him a back issue of the NHRHTA Shoreliner on Hopewell Junction. He knows I'm a New Haven buff and was asking me about the Beacon Line/Maybrook, not realizing it was New Haven trackage. He mentioned that they couldn't access the substation under the bridge for days as spikes and tie plates were falling from the smoldering track like projectiles. Also coincidentally, he and I both agree that it was intentionally lit lol.
  • 1
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 59