Portsmouth Branch Activity

Very interesting photos. It is very unlikely that what you saw on the flat car was any kind of nuclear waste. It is much more likely that large box like object is some type of transformer which could have been filled with PCBs. Even if all the PCB oil has been drained from such a device, it is still considered to be contaminated and therefore would have to have hazardous material placards on it. A company similar to Clean Harbors would have removed the oil before the transformer was moved.

Mark

I was up in the Portsmouth area and heading over the Rt 95 bridge I could see some loaded center beams in the old lumber yard, which is almost under the bridge. The yard has been empty, but yet here are some loaded cars. Have they re-activated the location, or are they offloading for transport to another location?

highrail wrote:I was up in the Portsmouth area and heading over the Rt 95 bridge I could see some loaded center beams in the old lumber yard, which is almost under the bridge. The yard has been empty, but yet here are some loaded cars. Have they re-activated the location, or are they offloading for transport to another location?

The moved the business to a larger location, but still receive rail deliveries and then truck them over to the new place.

[quote="At 7:35 p.m. on April 02, 2013, In an article entitled "Extensive damage from ship crash will close Sarah Mildred Long Bridge 2-4 weeks", Andrew Neff of the Bangor Daily News staff"]
PORTSMOUTH, N.H. — Civil engineers have determined that the Sarah Mildred Long Bridge will be closed to vehicular traffic for two to four weeks after they performed a detailed examination of the damage caused Monday by an adrift, 473-foot tanker.

Bill Boynton, New Hampshire Department of Transportation public information officer, said experts from Hoyle, Tanner & Associates Inc. — a consulting and engineering company in Portsmouth, N.H. — conducted a comprehensive inspection of the bridge throughout Tuesday.

“That confirmed fears that they had beams that need to be repaired or replaced before it can be restored to motor traffic, and more that need to be repaired or replaced to allow rail traffic on the lower railroad bridge,” said Boynton. “They’ll be diving tomorrow to inspect two bridge piers to make sure there’s no further damage.”[/quote]

Read more at The Bangor Daily News' web site

The days of using the Sarah Long Bridge for rail traffic to and from the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard are likely numbered. The Navy only uses rail now for transport of
nuclear waste, which is very infrequently.

Supposedly, Maine and New Hampshire have asked the Navy to pay $30 million
to have the rail line on the new Sara Long Bridge, construction of which is
supposed to start in 2014. However, the Navy has stated that they will move
the haz-mat material by barge or road and will not fund the rail line on the bridge.

There was additional coverage in the 04-03-2013 Boston Globe, but without mention of the lower deck, at least in the edition I read.

Dick H wrote:The days of using the Sarah Long Bridge for rail traffic to and from the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard are likely numbered. The Navy only uses rail now for transport of
nuclear waste, which is very infrequently.

Supposedly, Maine and New Hampshire have asked the Navy to pay $30 million
to have the rail line on the new Sara Long Bridge, construction of which is
supposed to start in 2014. However, the Navy has stated that they will move
the haz-mat material by barge or road and will not fund the rail line on the bridge.

Confirmation of the above..

[quote="At 2:00 AM on March 16, 2012 In an article entitled "Official: Navy has not requested funds for Long Bridge rehab", Deborah Mcdermott of the SeacoastOnline staff"]

Official: Navy has not requested funds for Long Bridge rehab
Amidst cuts, funding for Sarah Long yet to be allotted

PORTSMOUTH — The U.S. Navy has "not requested or budgeted" any money for its portion of the rehabilitation work on the Sarah Mildred Long Bridge, although a two-state task force expected the Navy to kick in $30 million.

The Navy goes even a step further. Lt. Cmdr. Alan Garas, a public affairs officer with the Navy, said, "should the rail line that is supported by the bridge structure not be available, the Navy will explore other alternatives."

The rail line underneath the Long Bridge deck services only the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. The Navy has been the one unknown in funding a rehabilitation on alignment of the Long Bridge, which is expected to cost $118 million.

The Maine Turnpike Authority remains committed to buying the portion of Interstate 95 from the York toll plaza through Kittery from the Maine Department of Transportation at a cost of $28 million, said MTA Executive Director Peter Mills. The remaining costs were expected to be split between Maine and New Hampshire.

Work on the Long Bridge was expected to commence in 2014, although that may be delayed. The N.H. Department of Transportation wants to expand the center span or build a new bridge to accommodate ship traffic upriver at a potential additional cost of $40 million to $60 million.

Asked whether the Navy will commit in the future to the bridge, Garas declined to comment. But Paul O'Connor, president of the shipyard's Metal Trade Council, said don't count on it.

"I'm not at all surprised the Navy has said that," O'Connor said, adding the Department of Defense is facing $487 billion in known cuts over the next decade, and potentially another $600 billion in cuts by the end of this year. "There's not going to be much spending on anything."

The Navy's contribution to the Long Bridge rehabilitation project was laid out in the report of the Bi-State Funding Task Force, formed by both states' governors in 2010 to come up with immediate and long-term funding solutions for all three Piscataqua River bridges. The task force determined the value of the rail line in relation to the overall capital costs of a rehabilitation at $30 million. "This value is derived by assessing the physical components needed for the rail portion of the bridge, $13 million, and adding in the value derived from the joint use (rail and vehicular) of the bridge," the report states.

The rail line is owned and maintained by Pan Am Railways of North Billerica, Mass. Company Vice President Cynthia Scarano said she did not have enough information to comment on Thursday, but did expect to be able to discuss the issue in the near future.[/quote]


Read more at SeacoastOnline's web site. Note that they consider it "Premium Content" and limit free access to 10 times per month.

I do wonder how well any road/highway movement of "the haz-mat material" would sit with the locals..

Shipment of spent fuel via roads = dumb. Let's hope they find a common ground.

I was reading about the route 16 construction up in Newington area. I wasn't sure if this has been covered somewhere. They are planing a future elevated rail connection with the Newington branch to connect with the Pease tradeport. If they did this is there enough industry in the tradeport to support such a project?

Another update on the future replacement for the Sarah Long Bridge...

SeacoastOnline.com wrote:Van Note said prior to the filing of the grant application, a number of financial discussion were held over many months with shipyard leaders, the Navy, the Department of Defense and Pam Am Railway, which owns and maintains the line.

The goal was to determine if any contribution could be made to the cost of the rail line. The end result was a catch-22 with no easy solutions. For instance, federal highway funds can't be used for rail and federal rail funds can't be used on bridges.

Van Note said officials spoke to barge operators and trucking companies to see if the waste could be hauled out via a different means. "We wanted to know, is there a way to avoid that cost?" he said.

Barge operators said the dangers were too great and they weren't interested in taking on the liability. Trucks "would have to have heightened security" not only at the yard but along the route.

"The rail goes right into the shipyard proper, and security is there," Van Note said. "The shipyard engaged in this conversation, and it was clear they were not comfortable with the alternatives."
. . .
He said officials also approached Pan Am Railways and were told it did not make economic sense.

"To Pan Am, it's two trips a year (to the yard)," Van Note said. "And they don't make a lot of money on two trips a year. The idea that they would come up with millions of dollars for something that's used so infrequently didn't make sense to them. I understand that."

Read more at: http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/ ... -306090360" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MEC407 wrote:Another update on the future replacement for the Sarah Long Bridge...

SeacoastOnline.com wrote:Van Note said prior to the filing of the grant application, a number of financial discussion were held over many months with shipyard leaders, the Navy, the Department of Defense and Pam Am Railway, which owns and maintains the line.

The goal was to determine if any contribution could be made to the cost of the rail line. The end result was a catch-22 with no easy solutions. For instance, federal highway funds can't be used for rail and federal rail funds can't be used on bridges.

Van Note said officials spoke to barge operators and trucking companies to see if the waste could be hauled out via a different means. "We wanted to know, is there a way to avoid that cost?" he said.

Barge operators said the dangers were too great and they weren't interested in taking on the liability. Trucks "would have to have heightened security" not only at the yard but along the route.

"The rail goes right into the shipyard proper, and security is there," Van Note said. "The shipyard engaged in this conversation, and it was clear they were not comfortable with the alternatives."
. . .
He said officials also approached Pan Am Railways and were told it did not make economic sense.

"To Pan Am, it's two trips a year (to the yard)," Van Note said. "And they don't make a lot of money on two trips a year. The idea that they would come up with millions of dollars for something that's used so infrequently didn't make sense to them. I understand that."

Read more at: http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/ ... -306090360" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thorny problems aside, that sounds slightly more hopeful than it did a few months ago in that they're talking more about solutions now and not so much existence of a track deck on the next bridge. Everybody seems to acknowledge that losing it would be bad and that they need to try to work something out to make the cost palatable. ID'ing the red tape on the funding loopholes goes a long way. The Catch-22 is mitigatable with an exception or a minor rule change...especially in this era of accelerated bridge replacements. But you first have to promote the problem to get the attention of someone capable of addressing it.

Yes that does sound more hopeful. Last article made it sound like the track was a goner.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

MEC407 wrote:Another update on the future replacement for the Sarah Long Bridge...

SeacoastOnline.com wrote:Van Note said prior to the filing of the grant application, a number of financial discussion were held over many months with shipyard leaders, the Navy, the Department of Defense and Pam Am Railway, which owns and maintains the line.

"To Pan Am, it's two trips a year (to the yard)," Van Note said. "And they don't make a lot of money on two trips a year. The idea that they would come up with millions of dollars for something that's used so infrequently didn't make sense to them. I understand that."

Read more at: http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/ ... -306090360" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thorny problems aside, that sounds slightly more hopeful than it did a few months ago in that they're talking more about solutions now and not so much existence of a track deck on the next bridge. Everybody seems to acknowledge that losing it would be bad and that they need to try to work something out to make the cost palatable. ID'ing the red tape on the funding loopholes goes a long way. The Catch-22 is mitigatable with an exception or a minor rule change...especially in this era of accelerated bridge replacements. But you first have to promote the problem to get the attention of someone capable of addressing it.

This is why they applied for the $25 million under a TIGER grant, it sidesteps all those restrictions, no rule change needed.

Here is MDOT's page with the TIGER application. The only other application Maine has in the mix is one for c. $9 million to replace a highway bridge in northern Penobscot County (Howland-Enfield).

Looks like there might be more traffic heading to Portsmouth and the Newington Branch.

Sea-3's proposal filed in Newington represents a shift from importing to exporting. The company has traditionally shipped imported propane across New England by truck, but the company's proposal would allow it to "provide bulk volume available for shipping by sea to accommodate domestic and foreign product price fluctuations," according to a letter from Haight Engineering to the town planning office.

The expansion, according to the letter, would increase the volume of product the existing facility can off-load from rail cars and store in existing on-site tanks.

Included in the plan are upgrades to the existing railroad siding, installation of a new railroad siding with discharge pads to accommodate additional rail cars, and installation of three 90,000-gallon above-ground tanks and associated chilling and pumping equipment required for propane storage.

Cynthia Scarano, executive vice president of Pan Am Railways, said the company does not talk about specific customers, but noted the line is getting more business, not only from Sea-3 but also from other customers along the corridor.

She said Pan Am has five "very active customers" and another two or three that occasionally use the freight line; most are located along Shattuck Way, she said.

Freight trains currently travel to Newington on an as-needed basis that amounts to three times a week on average, according to Scarano. If business growth goes as projected, that will increase to one trip daily, seven days a week, she said.

If such an increase takes place, Pan Am would have to hire at least two more crews, according to Scarano.

"We're very excited," she said.