Intermodal to Maine

Some of the work east of Ayer could be done if/when more double track is added for the Downeaster route?

BM6569 wrote:Some of the work east of Ayer could be done if/when more double track is added for the Downeaster route?

That doesn't matter as much as double stack clearances. It's proceeding to Ayer with the Hoosac given a large engineering design grant. Since that's more or less started the clock moving towards a final design/build on the toughest single structure the funding's going to mobilize in the next year or two to pick off the remaining structures. And probably start mixing in a fair amount of trackbed undercutting with these ongoing mainline upgrades for the parts PAS can do itself.


That starts leading things by the nose everywhere east. While Ayer-Portland clearances are a second priority more worth talking about at decade's end if not into the early 2020's, all of that intermodal increase to Ayer that comes with PAS double stack isn't just going to terminate there 100%. A goodly minority of that increase is going to keep pressing on out to Portland and up the priority on all manner of capacity increases. Double track. Preemptively pouncing on state-of-repair before the restrictions and slow orders pop up. More encouragement of passenger traffic as a means of piggybacking onto public-funded mainline improvements. And, yes, eventually real DS the whole way to Portland (and if they get to Portland, they're already cleared points north as far as Danville Jct.).

Not sure if this is relevant to the discussion (are we only talking intermodal on Pan Am?), but CN still has an intermodal terminal in operation at Auburn on the SLR.

Why is the clearance issue with Hoosac such a big deal? They got it enlarged for auto racks, and international double stacks a few years ago. Is it that big a deal to raise it another foot or so? Does the issue deal with the height of the brick arch in the west end, which can't be cut into?

One of the major deals will be getting clearance on both tracks. The Line 13 Must use clearance route is baloney. Where can they meet? Much of this is on the T tracks. As I pointed out, they took out many of the crossovers in the 4R project. This leads to a major bottleneck.

Engineer Spike wrote:Why is the clearance issue with Hoosac such a big deal? They got it enlarged for auto racks, and international double stacks a few years ago. Is it that big a deal to raise it another foot or so? Does the issue deal with the height of the brick arch in the west end, which can't be cut into?

One of the major deals will be getting clearance on both tracks. The Line 13 Must use clearance route is baloney. Where can they meet? Much of this is on the T tracks. As I pointed out, they took out many of the crossovers in the 4R project. This leads to a major bottleneck.

Norfolk Southern wants full domestic DS or bust, so the extra foot matters the world for them for their stake in PAS. I don't know what their specific motivations are since that's a pan-NS question, but those are the terms of engagement. There's no debate about how this is going to play out...it's going to play out. Soon, within this decade.


As for engineering the clearances all the way, the only thing that's had funding released so far is for tunnel prelim design since that's the most involved engineering. Everything else, including T territory, is subject to later appropriations and hasn't gone into prelim design. So a little premature for technical nuts-and-bolts at some structures. Most of these questions about specific constrictions are going to be resolved in the next couple years, as the sequence of engineering grants is going to time with what structures need the most design lead time before any construction begins. I wouldn't expect to hear much about where some simple, cheap track undercutting is going to happen until pretty late in the game while most of the focus on further action for '14, '15, '16 is going to be on the Hoosac and other highest-difficulty things to solve.

Engineer Spike wrote:Why is the clearance issue with Hoosac such a big deal? They got it enlarged for auto racks, and international double stacks a few years ago. Is it that big a deal to raise it another foot or so? Does the issue deal with the height of the brick arch in the west end, which can't be cut into?

One of the major deals will be getting clearance on both tracks. The Line 13 Must use clearance route is baloney. Where can they meet? Much of this is on the T tracks. As I pointed out, they took out many of the crossovers in the 4R project. This leads to a major bottleneck.

It is a big deal because it took them 2 years just to raise the clearances to what they are now. The brick at the west end is unstable and the track bed is already at the water table on the east end. If it was easy they would have gone for the 20+ feet to start. Also, trains need to continue running.

Clearance on both tracks is almost a non issue now. There exists no height restrictions on the PAS mainline between XO and Westminster. On the T owned track there are two restrictions, Westminster to FG #1 and Derby to Ayer #1. Requires planning but not as major of a bottleneck as assumed.

The Line 13's may be baloney to you, but they are there for a reason. There were two consecutive incidents in the early 2000s when they started double stacks that prompted them. A short train with double's pulled down the 1 track in North Adams and waited for another train with doubles to clear going east. Instead of backing back out at West Portal as was required (double stacks were not permitted per TT between the Adams Industrial switch and CPF 423) they pulled right on through and ripped all the stacks of the train. A similar incident happened in Athol as well. So, they may sound dumb, but they provide another method of protection and mindfulness.

newpylong wrote:It is a big deal because it took them 2 years just to raise the clearances to what they are now. The brick at the west end is unstable and the track bed is already at the water table on the east end. If it was easy they would have gone for the 20+ feet to start. Also, trains need to continue running.

CP Rail lined up a company from British Columbia to cut the 10 foot notch in the ceiling of the tunnel for the auto racks in 1997. That company (does someone remember the name of it?) has the most recent experience inside Hoosac. The brick at the west end is not that bad, no big cave-ins over the past many years that would necessitate closing the tunnel for any long periods of time. The west end between the west portal and the west shaft is a distance of around a 1/2 mile, remove for a few days and use a bulldozer or grader to lower the track bed sufficiently to put in a drainage pipe on each side with a new road bed on top of it. All of it is soft shale rock. It is east of the west shaft where it gets difficult with the hard rock. Walter Shanley built the tunnel in the 1870s so it cant be all hard to fix. The study money should go into doing the work, bring in the B.C. people as consultants if anything.

newpylong wrote:Clearance on both tracks is almost a non issue now. There exists no height restrictions on the PAS mainline between XO and Westminster. On the T owned track there are two restrictions, Westminster to FG #1 and Derby to Ayer #1. Requires planning but not as major of a bottleneck as assumed.

This is still a big issue for meets of multiple auto and double stack trains in and around meets of passenger trains. After the MBTA installed CPF-Derby made things better, but it still a problem. Lower the track under the Main Street Bridge in Ayer to fix at least from CPF-WL to CPF-FG for easier movements around Ayer. The Fitchburg Route was closed on weekends for much of last summer west of South Acton, Pan Am couldn't have taken the time to the lowering the tracks then? Fitchburg is a bigger problem with the two overhead bridges and a river between them. Couldn't the same design be completed on the #1 track as was completed on the #2?

newpylong wrote:double stacks were not permitted per TT between the Adams Industrial switch and CPF 423

Can meets be done between CPF-421 and CPF-423 now with autos and double stacks?

Anybody can do a little Monday morning quarterbacking after the job is done. Should have could have...But without proper engineering, studies and the like, the ground could become unstable, cause a shift in the portal walls, leading to a potential collapse if the ground is disturbed in the wrong way. If it was as easy as ripping up the track, bulldozing out the material and throwing in some under drain, then they would have done that. Studies, as unimportant as they seem, are often needed to see what it would take to get the job done.

CPF363 wrote:

newpylong wrote:It is a big deal because it took them 2 years just to raise the clearances to what they are now. The brick at the west end is unstable and the track bed is already at the water table on the east end. If it was easy they would have gone for the 20+ feet to start. Also, trains need to continue running.

CP Rail lined up a company from British Columbia to cut the 10 foot notch in the ceiling of the tunnel for the auto racks in 1997. That company (does someone remember the name of it?) has the most recent experience inside Hoosac. The brick at the west end is not that bad, no big cave-ins over the past many years that would necessitate closing the tunnel for any long periods of time. The west end between the west portal and the west shaft is a distance of around a 1/2 mile, remove for a few days and use a bulldozer or grader to lower the track bed sufficiently to put in a drainage pipe on each side with a new road bed on top of it. All of it is soft shale rock. It is east of the west shaft where it gets difficult with the hard rock. Walter Shanley built the tunnel in the 1870s so it cant be all hard to fix. The study money should go into doing the work, bring in the B.C. people as consultants if anything.

newpylong wrote:Clearance on both tracks is almost a non issue now. There exists no height restrictions on the PAS mainline between XO and Westminster. On the T owned track there are two restrictions, Westminster to FG #1 and Derby to Ayer #1. Requires planning but not as major of a bottleneck as assumed.

This is still a big issue for meets of multiple auto and double stack trains in and around meets of passenger trains. After the MBTA installed CPF-Derby made things better, but it still a problem. Lower the track under the Main Street Bridge in Ayer to fix at least from CPF-WL to CPF-FG for easier movements around Ayer. The Fitchburg Route was closed on weekends for much of last summer west of South Acton, Pan Am couldn't have taken the time to the lowering the tracks then? Fitchburg is a bigger problem with the two overhead bridges and a river between them. Couldn't the same design be completed on the #1 track as was completed on the #2?

newpylong wrote:double stacks were not permitted per TT between the Adams Industrial switch and CPF 423

Can meets be done between CPF-421 and CPF-423 now with autos and double stacks?

The notch in the rock was cut anywhere from 10-15 inches, not 10 feet. If there were cave-ins, we would be having a different conversation. That said, many a FRA glazed windows have been wrecked over the years due to falling bricks, they are not in as good of shape as you think. I almost was knocked unconscious when my train went into emergency in the tunnel and I had to go out and use the phone and one dropped next to me. Inside the west end there is steel lining because so much brick collapsed in the 70's. Like I said, it can be done, and probably will be, but it's not going to be easy and it won't be done in a few days or weeks. I will let the civil engineers figure out how best to do it.

Yes, as I said the entire PAS line is clear XO to Fitchburg.

newpylong wrote:The notch in the rock was cut anywhere from 10-15 inches, not 10 feet. If there were cave-ins, we would be having a different conversation. That said, many a FRA glazed windows have been wrecked over the years due to falling bricks, they are not in as good of shape as you think. I almost was knocked unconscious when my train went into emergency in the tunnel and I had to go out and use the phone and one dropped next to me. Inside the west end there is steel lining because so much brick collapsed in the 70's. Like I said, it can be done, and probably will be, but it's not going to be easy and it won't be done in a few days or weeks. I will let the civil engineers figure out how best to do it.

Yes, as I said the entire PAS line is clear XO to Fitchburg.

Should have used better phrasing, the notch was 10 feet across horizontally, not deep. Sorry that you almost were hit by a falling brick. In the many people out and around the tunnel that speak about it have not mentioned really anything about the condition of the brick arch. There have been some discussions about replacing the brick arch with a galvanized enforced concrete arch, but that would take a lot of planning, engineering and be big dollars to complete, all while maintaining train service simultaneously. If the railroad is looking fix clearances for full double stack, then hopefully the water issue can be fixed at the same time.

Hopefully, right now there is water up onto the ties in sections from center shaft to east portal. If you need to walk in there it has to be in the gauge, too deep on the sides. Not good for the ties. I think they were gonna put concrete ones in at one point.

The problem with the old GRS service between the Waterville Ramp and down to Ayer was the empty miles on the equipment sending it north/east to Maine.

Ayer is a ramp where more loads come in and than out, just like CSX-Worcester. Every load that goes west is at a reduced price as it is a backhaul. But at least Ayer and Worcester have inbound and outbound traffic. Waterville was challenged with being a ramp that had plenty of outbound paper traffic to run west, but nobody was shipping inbound into the ramp. Hence every container and flatcar had empty miles all the way from Ayer up to Waterville. That makes it very unprofitable since the rate running west with a load in it is still moving at the same low rates as an intermodal load moving west out of Ayer or Worcester. So all it did was create more costs, for less return.

Remember while Maine has most of New England's heavy industrial business left, it is far less populated, so there is less demand to go there.
And intermodal boxes that come into Ayer or Worcester can get trucked to Maine at 1 day less transit over forwarding the traffic on a train from Ayer to Waterville.

Then there is the boxcar issue. When a railroad can load a boxcar or an intermodal container at the same shipper, it makes more sense it be boxcar.
Intermodal rates are suppressed because trucking is still a strong competitor.

ProRail thanks for your post. This goes back to one of my original questions, why didn't the economics work if the loadings were there.

ProRail wrote:Hence every container and flatcar had empty miles all the way from Ayer up to Waterville. That makes it very unprofitable since the rate running west with a load in it is still moving at the same low rates as an intermodal load moving west out of Ayer or Worcester. So all it did was create more costs, for less return.

My question then is, don't trucks incur and pass on similar costs? For instance, a loaded container is made empty in Ayer, driven empty to a paper mill say in Lincoln, ME and then loaded and driven back south again to Ayer to be reloaded onto a train for shipment to say Chicago. Does the northbound trip from Ayer to Lincoln factor in to the Lincoln to Chicago rate? Stated another way, are truckers charging to make containers available in say Lincoln, ME or do they not include the deadhead container move in the overall pricing?

ProRail wrote:The problem with the old GRS service between the Waterville Ramp and down to Ayer was the empty miles on the equipment sending it north/east to Maine.

Ayer is a ramp where more loads come in and than out, just like CSX-Worcester. Every load that goes west is at a reduced price as it is a backhaul. But at least Ayer and Worcester have inbound and outbound traffic. Waterville was challenged with being a ramp that had plenty of outbound paper traffic to run west, but nobody was shipping inbound into the ramp. Hence every container and flatcar had empty miles all the way from Ayer up to Waterville. That makes it very unprofitable since the rate running west with a load in it is still moving at the same low rates as an intermodal load moving west out of Ayer or Worcester. So all it did was create more costs, for less return.

Remember while Maine has most of New England's heavy industrial business left, it is far less populated, so there is less demand to go there.
And intermodal boxes that come into Ayer or Worcester can get trucked to Maine at 1 day less transit over forwarding the traffic on a train from Ayer to Waterville.

Then there is the boxcar issue. When a railroad can load a boxcar or an intermodal container at the same shipper, it makes more sense it be boxcar.
Intermodal rates are suppressed because trucking is still a strong competitor.

Right on, Prorail. NS and CSX are doing just what the over-the-road truckload guys are doing in the New England market by using Maine's outbound paper to reload inbound equipment with a backhaul, especially valuable because, as you said, New England is heavily imbalanced inbound. It's a market that greatly expanded with Guilford's late-80's service issues helping improve over-the-road truckload competitiveness on inbound loads, too, with improved economics in New England. All you have to do is travel I-495 or 1-95 in northern MA to see the parade of dry vans heading north to get paper after delivering a load to a distribution center in southern New England. Fortunately, CSX and NS can compete and participate in this business. For this very reason, I believe that if Pan Am opens a Maine intermodal terminal for CSX and/or NS traffic it'll be located no farther north than the Portland area where you could still triangulate the trucking (drayage) from the railhead without having to reposition empty boxes via rail.

Word on street it will be north of Portland, most likely Waterville, where the carloads are. Portland is not far enough away from Ayer for the economies of scale to be on the railroad's side.