NH Maine Passenger Service (with B&M/MEC/PRR/NYC)

Mr. Baer also discusses several lesser known trains, to include the original Down Easter (The Down Easter), and a completely obscure named train Waterville Express he also provides an interesting PRR history for the State of Maine.

STATE OF MAINE EXPRESS:
Est. 3/2/1913 from PORTLAND EXPRESS; Grand Central to Bangor and Rockland, Me.; in
3/23/25 is #93-94 GCT-Rockland; first established on PRR 9/29/1929 as #111-142, Washington
to New Haven, with through cars to Portland and Concord, N.H. via New London; combined with
MONTREALER/WASHINGTONIAN south of New Haven as #168/124-125/169 9/28/1930;
restored as separate train #111-142 4/26/1931; #142 (also 111?) discontinued eff. 9/27/1931;
#111 discontinued (after 7/12/36?); NB #111 is LEGISLATOR after 12/12/32 so only through
cars!; continues from Grand Central as #124-125 (eff. when?); last trip 10/29/1960. name at end
was STATE OF MAINE, via Worcester.

The summer of 1949 was the last summer that the East Wind ran out of Penn Station, New York so that was the last year that the Pennsylvania Railroad was involved in this operation. Starting in 1950 the East Wind was strictly a New Haven and Boston and Maine operation between Grand Central Terminal, New York and Portland, Maine.
In addition to this there were a number of trains which operated on the New Haven especially in the summer months that were mostly a New Haven, Boston and Maine and maybe Maine Central operation which operated out of Grand Central Terminal, New York but carried through sleepers from south of New York via the Pennsylvania Railroad. For the most part these particular cars were forwarded between PRR points and New Haven on trains 168 and 169 and switched at New Haven. The Night White Mountains to Bretton Woods, NH and the Night Cape Codder to Hyannis both had sleeper(s) to and from Washington and in the case of the Night Cape Codder these cars were switched at New Haven while the Bretton Woods cars were either switched at New Haven or at White River Junction. My old passenger timetables from the New Haven over the years gave details of these interesting operations, a lot of revenue passenger cars were switched at New Haven, both pullmans and coaches. In those days the New Haven had station switchers at both ends of the passenger station, the East End job and the West End job, there was a lot of work in New Haven in those days. There was an additional West End job on nights as well as a Mail Engine that just switched the mail house around the clock, it was that busy in those days.
Noel Weaver

gokeefe wrote:

eastwind wrote:According to New Haven Railroad ETT No. 177 (April 26, 1953):

Maximum speed on the Shore Line between Old Saybrook and Stonington, which included the New London-Groton (1.43 miles) segment, was 70 mph, with speed restrictions on the New London curves and over the bridge.
MAS Groton-Worcester (70.88 miles) was 50 mph, with a speed restriction of 35mph at Shetucket.
Total miles New London-Worcester via Norwich and Putnam: 72.31.

MAS Stonington-Readville, which included the Providence-Boston Switch segment (4.90 miles) was 75 mph. [On today's NEC, it is, for the most part, 125mph.]
MAS Boston Switch-South Worcester (37.47 miles) was 60 mph.
Mileage between Worcester and Providence was 43.29 and between Providence and New London was 62.25. Total miles New London-Worcester via Blackstone, Providence and the Shore Line: 105.54.

Although the route via Norwich was 33.23 miles shorter than the route via Providence, it had a lower Maximum Allowable Speed. The running times Worcester-New London were nearly the same: 1h51m for "Shoreliners" (RDCs) making 6 intermediate stops via Norwich, versus 2h25m for the State of Maine making one intermediate stop of 10m at Providence—thus 2h15m, a difference of only 24m. And remember, we are comparing speedy RDCs on a day run versus a heavy sleeping car train on a night run.

eastwind

Wow. Thanks for another great response.

So, perhaps this begs the question, given today's NEC speeds, which for a train operating to/from Maine would likely be with equipment certified for up to either 110 MPH - 125 MPH what would the transit times look like if they used the Worcester-Providence-Shore Line routing? I'm assuming they would be lower, even when compared against "fastest historical" timetable speeds?

To answer this question, we would need to know a couple of things.
(1) The distance between New London and Worcester via Putnam and the current MAS on that line, and
(2) The current travel time between New London and Providence, plus the distance between Providence and Worcester and the current MAS on that line.
Then, with a couple of calculations, we could come up with a rough estimate of transit times via both routes, and compare them.

We know the distance between Worcester and (1) New London via Putnam (70.88 miles) and (2) Providence (43.29 miles—actually 37.47 miles to Boston Switch in Pawtucket, where the route enters the NEC). These are historical distances; I'm assuming the station relocation in New London did not alter the distance by more than a few hundred feet, which can be ignored for our purposes here.

The historical MAS via route (1) was 50 mph, and via route (2) was 60 mph. They are lower today. But by how much?

(1) I have Richard E. Green's excellent "Connecticut Rail Track Map as of 1/30/11," which, alas, he has withdrawn from the web because he no longer owns the copyright. This map shows the MAS on the P&W between Groton and the Massachusetts border—route (1)—to be generally 40, with a few speed restrictions in the 10-25 mph range. So let's assume for the moment it's 40 for the whole line. Dividing the 70.88 miles by 40 gives an absolute minimum running time of 1h46m. This is unrealistic, given that the New Haven's running time on this line in 1953, with a MAS of 50, was 1h53m.

Let's look at this another way. Dividing 70.88 miles by the 1953 running time of 113 minutes gives an average speed of 37.6. This is 75.3% of the 50mph MAS for the line. Multiplying the current MAS of 40 by 75.3% gives a tentative average speed of 30.11 mph. Dividing the 70.88 miles by this speed gives an approximate running time of 2h21m, plus a few more minutes from Groton to New London. So let's say 2h25m Worcester-New London via Putnam.

(2) Current Amtrak running times for New London-Providence non-Acela trains range between 0h50m for Northeast Regional 166 and 1h26m for Northeast Regional 56, with the median running time right around one hour.

So that leaves the Providence-Worcester segment to be calculated. Assuming the same current MAS on this P&W line as on the other (I do not have this information; does anyone?), we can divide the 37.47 miles by the previously calculated 30.11 mph tentative average speed to come up with an approximate running time of 1h15m, plus about 7 minutes from Boston Switch to Providence (realistic?). So let's say 1h22m Worcester-Providence, plus 1h00m Providence-New London, for a total Worcester-New London via route (2) of 2h22m.

It's kind of a toss-up. One argument for running via Providence is to connect that city with Worcester, currently not available by rail but in the Rhode Island long-term rail plan, and to connect Maine and New Hampshire with Rhode Island as well as Connecticut without going through the Boston change-stations dance.

Raising track speeds, should you wish to do so, on the 37.47 miles between Providence (Boston Switch) and Worcester would undoubtedly be less costly than on the 70.88 miles via Putnam. Especially in view of the fact that New Haven's track speeds on those lines was probably the highest physically possible. A higher MAS on a shorter route, even though longer between endpoints, might make the difference in your decision.

eastwind

The line between Worcester and Boston Switch was at one time double track. At the time it was single tracked the New Haven provided a single track automatic block signal system which provided track circuit protection. They allowed a higher speed than 59 MPH for passenger trains although the New Haven did not run faster than 60 MPH. I worked a camp special on that line in the early 60's but after the State of Maine came off and at that time I think the automatic block signals were still in service but I would have to check back in my records to be sure. Even thought I think the Norwich Branch might be a bit better route, either line could do the job and provide for a good service between New York and Portland covering Worcester in the process. I don't think anything will happen here on either route anytime soon, unfortunately.
Noel Weaver

Noel Weaver wrote:The line between Worcester and Boston Switch was at one time double track. At the time it was single tracked the New Haven provided a single track automatic block signal system which provided track circuit protection. They allowed a higher speed than 59 MPH for passenger trains although the New Haven did not run faster than 60 MPH. I worked a camp special on that line in the early 60's but after the State of Maine came off and at that time I think the automatic block signals were still in service but I would have to check back in my records to be sure. Even thought I think the Norwich Branch might be a bit better route, either line could do the job and provide for a good service between New York and Portland covering Worcester in the process. I don't think anything will happen here on either route anytime soon, unfortunately.
Noel Weaver

I was wondering whether the line had ever been double track. The New Haven PTTs of the '50s-'60s had a map in the centerfold (forget Playboy; these centerfolds are the really hot ones) that purported to show how many tracks were on each segment of a line. From Boston to Forest Hills, for example, it shows four tracks (I remember seeing those four tracks in the '60s, with the outer two tracks weed-infested and looking like they hadn't been used in a long time), then three tracks to Readville, then two as far as Attleboro where it became four around the station and the connection to Taunton and Cape Cod, and three down almost to Hebronville.

On the Providence-Worcester segment, it shows four tracks as far north as Pawtucket & Central Falls (Boston Switch), then two tracks as far as Valley Falls, and single track beyond all the way to Worcester. But given how many night trains the New Haven had to field over that line and how many meets that must have involved, I did think that at one time it must have had greater capacity than just a single track. Nice to know it did. Thanks for the info. I wonder if the ROW is still wide enough for double-tracking? Oh, now I'm starting to foam...

Noel Weaver wrote:Even thought I think the Norwich Branch might be a bit better route

I'd be interested to hear why you think so.

Noel Weaver wrote: I don't think anything will happen here on either route anytime soon, unfortunately.

Sadly, I think you're probably right.

eastwind

Why do I think the Norwich Branch might be a better route? One thing a train could serve Norwich, Putnam and maybe Webster which would add support for passenger services in an area that presently does not have any. I have compared the running times between New London and Worcester: Via the State of Maine through Providence 2 hours and 17 minutes and via the Budd Car on the Norwich Branch 1 hour and 51 minutes. The variables include 8 minutes station time at Providence for the State of Paine and 7 intermediate stops for the Budd Car. From what I can find the automatic block signals came out on the Boston Switch - Worcester Line in 1963 but by that time the top speed had already been reduced from 60 MPH to 40 MPH as there was no longer any passenger service on that line except for specials. I remember camp specials headed to Maine out of New York and beyond and sometimes they ran via Norwich and sometimes via Providence. I worked one once and we ran via Providence and returned immediately to New Haven with the two engines light while the Boston and Maine took over the train at South Worcester and continued to Portland to turn the train over to the Maine Central. Apparently both the Boston and Maine and the Maine Central although they wanted no part of regular passenger trains were quite cooperative when it came to special trains like fantrips and camp specials both of which operated on these railroads from time to time during the 60's.
Noel Weaver

Noel Weaver wrote:Why do I think the Norwich Branch might be a better route? One thing a train could serve Norwich, Putnam and maybe Webster which would add support for passenger services in an area that presently does not have any.

The State of Connecticut would probably be in favor of that.

One other consideration is capacity on the Northeast Corridor. It's my understanding that Amtrak is currently restricted to 39 trains a day by the Coast Guard because of the drawbridges along the line which cannot be closed for trains more than a certain number of hours a day. (I wonder if the New Haven had that problem.) The bridge replacement program now under way will change that equation and increase capacity somewhat. But getting a train off the NEC at New London would mean fewer drawbridge closings east of there to haggle over. In addition, as RIDOT increases commuter service south of Providence, unless they restore a third track to Kingston or wherever they are aiming for, there will undoubtedly be capacity problems at some future time there, too.

You have a valid point. I have no preference for one route or another. And the decision is not mine....
I just would like to see a train to Maine from somewhere beyond North Station. Is that asking too much? All those years I lived in New York, the only reason I flew back to Maine was that there was no more train. I could have used it then. I could use it now.

eastwind

I second eastwind's sentiments. Although I never flew it into Maine (only LGA-Logan a few times), I bet he can regale us with tales of flying on Northeast Airlines DC-3's and Convairs. I remember not long after getting the lucrative NY-Florida run, one of their DC-6's crashed on Riker's Island, NY during a snowstorm. Believe it was 1957.

There were no restrictions on the Shore Line as to the number of trains that the New Haven could operate. In 1957 there were 23 round trips between New Haven and Providencecompared with 19 today but there were a lot of freight trains as well. In 1957 six round trips to Boston, one to South Braintree, one to New Bedford, two to Worcester and one to the CV at New London. This was just the regular trains. They often ran extras when there were cars to move. Date on this would be the employee timetable and the freilght symbol book for April, 1957.
Item with the drawbridges running a New York - Portland train via Norwich would only avoid one drawbridge, the one at Mystic. I think Amtrak made the agreement to limit the number of trains to avoid a long court battle with the boaters over bridge openings. I think it was a mistake on Amtrak's part as I think they could have won in court. Railroads are under federal regulations in this regard and not state regulations.
Noel Weaver

Ocala Mike wrote:I second eastwind's sentiments. Although I never flew it into Maine (only LGA-Logan a few times), I bet he can regale us with tales of flying on Northeast Airlines DC-3's and Convairs.

Don't get me started!

eastwind

Noel Weaver wrote:There were no restrictions on the Shore Line as to the number of trains that the New Haven could operate. In 1957 there were 23 round trips between New Haven and Providencecompared with 19 today but there were a lot of freight trains as well. In 1957 six round trips to Boston, one to South Braintree, one to New Bedford, two to Worcester and one to the CV at New London. This was just the regular trains. They often ran extras when there were cars to move. Date on this would be the employee timetable and the freilght symbol book for April, 1957.

I thought they had a lot more trains back then. You have more references than I do. Thanks for sharing.

Noel Weaver wrote:Item with the drawbridges running a New York - Portland train via Norwich would only avoid one drawbridge, the one at Mystic. I think Amtrak made the agreement to limit the number of trains to avoid a long court battle with the boaters over bridge openings. I think it was a mistake on Amtrak's part as I think they could have won in court. Railroads are under federal regulations in this regard and not state regulations.
Noel Weaver

So that's what happened.

Thank you, Mr. Weaver, for filling in those gaps in our collective knowledge.

eastwind

Noel Weaver wrote:I think Amtrak made the agreement to limit the number of trains to avoid a long court battle with the boaters over bridge openings. I think it was a mistake on Amtrak's part as I think they could have won in court. Railroads are under federal regulations in this regard and not state regulations.

Railroads may indeed be under federal regulation, but so are waterways. The Coast Guard has lots to say about keeping waterways unclogged.

The water traffic has the right of way since the waterway was there first.

Statkowski wrote:

Noel Weaver wrote:I think Amtrak made the agreement to limit the number of trains to avoid a long court battle with the boaters over bridge openings. I think it was a mistake on Amtrak's part as I think they could have won in court. Railroads are under federal regulations in this regard and not state regulations.

Railroads may indeed be under federal regulation, but so are waterways. The Coast Guard has lots to say about keeping waterways unclogged.

The water traffic has the right of way since the waterway was there first.

Henry, I believe you are correct BUT the local boaters in Connecticut is where the problem lies and I do not think they have the right to tell Amtrak how many trains they can run over their railroad.
Noel Weaver

If the boaters couldn't tell the New Haven how many trains they could run over their railroad, what made the boaters change their minds when Amtrak came along?

Sorry if this is O/T.