Pan Am Worcester Main Line

F74265A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 4:30 pm Out of all the things that have come out of the CSX acquisition of Guilford/Pan Am-- if this comes true --this is the single most surprising development of them all. Would love to see Clinton become a mainline jct.

What happens to Westboro tranflo operation? is the intent to move all freight off the B&A worc-framingham or merely minimize it? Lots of things yet to develop.

Westboro and the G&U will be served directly from Framingham by a local like how it was before the pandemic and early PSR days. It's going to go back to the Selkirk crew bringing the 436 directly to the yards in Framingham, but via the WML and not the B&A proper.

They only changed it to the way it is now, parking the trains on the main and using the Worcester intermodal yard as a general freight yard, which it was never designed for, in '20 and it was a huge mistake born out of PSR nonsense. Now, no Selkirk crew is qualified east of CP-42 in Worcester., and the whole thing has caused a constant cluster in Worcester.

Simply, wow. Worc-Clinton may be a very busy piece of railroad with the NS stacks, 426/427, any additional train pairs north to Ayer given that 426/427 are often very large, plus the potential Framingham pair. I wonder if they regret giving in to MWRA on the 25mph max through the reservoir area....... Given this, not too crazy to speculate that more track capacity may be needed worc-clinton at some point. the entire ROW is, of course, double track width......

Are westboro and GU not served by a Framingham local currently?

They are served by a local out of Framingham, but they take the whole 436 train that came from Selkirk that is usually parked on main 1 in Worcester for nearly 12 hours before the local even goes on duty.

It's not really a local when you are switching out with a huge road train on the main line. With Selkirk crew bringing it directly to the yard again the local crews can deal with just a handful of cars and get their work done more efficiently.

What you see now with the train was a PSR attempt to cut crews, and it failed.

F74265A wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 5:00 pm Simply, wow. Worc-Clinton may be a very busy piece of railroad with the NS stacks, 426/427, any additional train pairs north to Ayer given that 426/427 are often very large, plus the potential Framingham pair. I wonder if they regret giving in to MWRA on the 25mph max through the reservoir area....... Given this, not too crazy to speculate that more track capacity may be needed worc-clinton at some point. the entire ROW is, of course, double track width......

Yes, it looks like the WML is going to be the main corridor. I don't think the 25 for the reservoir will be an issue, as I've said they are running Selkirk to Philly single crew with lots of 10 and 15 MPH trackage around North Jersey and Philly.

I wouldn't expect full double track, it won't be that busy.

agree no full double track
but I could see a siding somewhere to park a 10k foot train for passing.

taracer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 4:16 pm Yes, I don't have a timeline on this, I can say the connection is being cleared. My guess is well before 2030. Also expect cab signals to be removed on the B&A from Selkirk to Worcester, expect wayside ABS signals to come back.

Considering the STB would look at this as a signal system downgrade on a major main line and say absolutely not, I don't think it's likely.

Haven't other RRs ditched cab signals for a modern PTC system on mainlines with stb approval?

https://www.up.com/aboutup/community/in ... 230206.htm

I agree, the whole drop the 80 cars a day on the main in Worcester just to send it East as a "Local" has been ridiculous. That train needs to go direct to Framingham.

The reservoir is a couple miles of 25 MPH in the grand scheme of things that's nothing. What will make the biggest difference in velocity is to cut the P&W out of CP-45 to Barbers and extend the DCS from Burncoat down to 45. I guess the connector in Clinton would likely remain other than main but the Leominster Industrial would likely again befome a subdivision with TWC as well (I think they changed it to an industrial a while ago?).

Residents of Framingham, Southborough, Northborough, etc are going to love having 1+ mile long freights crossing rte 9, rte 20, and numerous other roads twice each day in addition to the current M-Fr L004 local that serves Ag Branch customers. Some good news is that there's about 1.25 to 1.5 miles of track between CP-22/Nevins Yard and the first grade crossing on the Ag branch north of S Framingham to permit construction/deconstruction of a road freight that used to be doubled into/out of Nevins yard from the B&A.

I'm guessing CSX will be encouraged to operate the Selkirk-Framingham road freights at night so as not to paralyze Metrowest traffic anymore than it currently is!

Silly question but is the Ag branch cleared for double stacks should the need ever arise?

Other than DS municipal waste, i cant see any other DS traffic east of worcester (toward framingham) given the retreat to worc some years ago and the boston region’s hostility to freight rail infrastructure
No idea if DS trash could clear on the ag branch.

As for track space, looks like the row north out of Framingham was once double track

newpylong wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 3:56 pm Say what now? 436 is going to go up to Clinton and then over to Framingham on the Aggy?

Really? Does that make sense operationally vs. the way they are doing things now?

I realize East Worcester was strictly designed for intermodal and they are leaving trains tied down on the main and perhaps the storage track, but it's roughly 20 miles from CP44 in Worcester to the CP yard at CP 23 over 40 or 50 MPH track. It's (guessing here) 35+ miles from Worcester to Clinton to Framingham on the Agi which is currently 10 MPH (soon to be 25MPH??).

Will the radius on the connecting track in Clinton be too tight for six-axle power?

Also, if you have a long M436, will it fit onto the North Framingham yard without fouling the Maple St. or even the Rt. 9 grade crossings?

Knucklehead2 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 12:02 pm

newpylong wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 3:56 pm Say what now? 436 is going to go up to Clinton and then over to Framingham on the Aggy?

Also, if you have a long M436, will it fit onto the North Framingham yard without fouling the Maple St. or even the Rt. 9 grade crossings?

Looks like it's roughly 1.3 miles from the south end of the yard to Maple St and 1.9 miles from the south end to Route 9. I could see them fouling Maple St. a decent amount but Rt. 9 should be ok especially as they can technically continue around the corner into Nevins Yard without causing any issues on the MBTA mains.

Knucklehead2 wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 12:02 pm ...Will the radius on the connecting track in Clinton be too tight for six-axle power?

The Clinton connecting track was put in place as part of an early 20th century grade-sepation regimen put in place by the Commonwealth. The NHRHTA Shoreliner, vols. 1 and 2 covers that regimen in depth as applied to Brockton. Perhaps those issues are available through the NHRHTA website.
Small 2-8-0s for big power and 30' freight cars were standard for the time, NH passenger trains between Fitchburg and Worcester being interchanged with the B&M at Sterling Junction. The NH was elevated, but the B&M stayed at existing level, possibly because Sterling Street was not heavily traveled at the time and a number of mills were served by street-level ROW. Strike 3 could have been the cost of elevating the B&M ROW for a distance, large amounts of Commonwealth money having been recently spent in and around Clinton on the Wachusett Reservoir and the Central Mass. relocation.
Could the connecting track be reformatted for 6-axle power and double-stacks? Yes, but at a cost that stake-holders may not wish to pay. Other stake-holders would be those who live, work, and drive in the area.
A lesson that the Hoosac, certain through-truss bridges, certain OHBs, and certain other pieces of RR infrastructure repeatedly teach us is that what is adequate for one generation may be less than so for following generations. Actually, that pretty much applies to everything.

The connecting track is not too sharp that 6 axles would not be able to negotiate it. It's actually a fairly mellow curve.