Pan Am Worcester Main Line

There was a small yard on the grade connecting the 2 lines there in Clinton, not a single connecting track. I walked in there one time years ago when there were still rotted ties and heavily rusted rails. Whether there is enough room there for a modern single track with acceptable curvature, on an acceptable grade, I don't know. Assuming there is truth to this report, the CSX engineering dept must have a way to make it work.

Jaymac is 100% right that the connection, when it functioned--which I suspect was far more than 50 years ago--was for dramatically smaller equipment.

How many degrees in a typical mellow curve?

In terms of grade let's assume a best-case scenario. There's about a 1/2 mile to work with between the the New Harbor Rd bridge and where the connecting track would need to cross over Main St. The elevation of the Worcester SD at that point (per ST track charts) is 427' (the tracks drop as they head east toward the CSX bridge). Unfortunately, neither the Conrail track charts, nor the older New Haven diagrams I have show the elevation. They show the grade, but not the actual elevation. They do, however, show the connection as still in place as of 1960. Does anyone know what the track elevation is on the Fitchburg Branch where it crosses over Main St? That will determine what the gentlest possible grade would be for a connection.

Assuming a 25-30 foot difference at the point of crossing, add a bit over 1% to whatever the grade is already from new harbor road over that approx 1/2 mile

I used the open railways map alignment of the connector and measured it as 2,273 feet long in GIS. The elevation at the Worcester-Ayer (B&M) junction is 321 feet elevation using high-resolution elevation data (LiDAR ), and 328 feet at the junction with the Agricultural branch for a gradient of 0.31%. The interesting thing, and the thing that probably makes it workable, is that the B&M line goes down gradient from the junction to the bridge location (309' elevation on the ground below the bridge, 328' at the deck).

Here is a aerial with the open railways map layer showing the junction connector

jamoldover wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 6:22 pm

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.

They have already removed the cab signals on the RF&P, back in June.

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?

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?

There are a few future operational issues that you are missing. One is they are no longer going to be able to park trains on main 1 in Worcester, due to the T and the additional Amtrak trains. that also means no more putting an ACESs equipped engine on point for Keolis in Worcester as they do now most times.

Another thing is once they remove the cab signals on the B&A, they will be using any engine as leaders on the trains, from the older AC44CW's to even foreign power. And the AC44CW rebuilds (7000 number series) that didn't already have cab signals are not being rebuilt with them. Only the 426 and 427 will still have ACESS equipped leaders out of Selkirk.

The T going to Springfield and the inland Amtrak's are changing everything.

Last thing, track speed means nothing anymore, most times we go at least 10MPH under MAS. Another 30 or 40 miles at 20 to 25 to go Selkirk to Framingham on a drag freight is not going to matter, we will still make it.

It's different for the 426/427 since the goal is Selkirk to Portland.

Would the additional passenger trains not trigger a PTC requirement? Or is the yearly tonnage too low?

A bit before 0700/09-14-2024 looked like a job briefing for R.J. Corman crew with mebbe 1/2 doz trucks by the Worcester Sub between the Secondary OHB and Sterling Street, Clinton.

Re: additional passenger trains west of Worcester on the B&A, I guess MBTA trains would have to support CSX's current I-ETMS in addition to ACSES II PTC for operation east of CP-45. Amtrak P42s already do but by 2026, Amtrak claims it will be using Siemens Airo trains for Downeaster, Northeast Regional, and Conn River service. But Amtrak will still likely have to accommodate host RR I-ETMS PTC systems.

There was a small yard on the grade connecting the 2 lines there in Clinton, not a single connecting track.

Here's what it looked like in 1971 from Historic Aerials. There's a 1985 photo, but it's so blurry it's hard to tell what's going on, though the 1992 photo shows that the bridge over the Worcester Main is down to one deck and the connection between the WML and Ag Branch appears to finally be gone: https://www.historicaerials.com/locatio ... 5/T2012/16

taracer wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 10:03 pm
There are a few future operational issues that you are missing. One is they are no longer going to be able to park trains on main 1 in Worcester, due to the T and the additional Amtrak trains. that also means no more putting an ACESs equipped engine on point for Keolis in Worcester as they do now most times.

Another thing is once they remove the cab signals on the B&A, they will be using any engine as leaders on the trains, from the older AC44CW's to even foreign power. And the AC44CW rebuilds (7000 number series) that didn't already have cab signals are not being rebuilt with them. Only the 426 and 427 will still have ACESS equipped leaders out of Selkirk.

The T going to Springfield and the inland Amtrak's are changing everything.

Last thing, track speed means nothing anymore, most times we go at least 10MPH under MAS. Another 30 or 40 miles at 20 to 25 to go Selkirk to Framingham on a drag freight is not going to matter, we will still make it.

It's different for the 426/427 since the goal is Selkirk to Portland.

I'm not understanding this. If you can make it from Selkirk to Framingham, why is the problem parking a train on the main in Worcester? Why won't you be able to run right through Worcester?

I’m guessing CSX doesn’t have enough locomotives that have cab signals, I-ETMS PTC, and ACSES PTC to lead M426/M427, freights elsewhere in the CSX system where ACSES is needed (eg Selkirk - Oak Point NY), and Selkirk-Framingham?

I"m not in that part of Clinton like I used to be but as I remember, wouldn't the train have to change direction once it got up onto the Agriculture Branch?