CSX Acquisition of Pan Am Railways

Can anyone point to a complete listing of high-cube DS clearance restrictions between Barbers and Mattawamkeag? (Or, in its absence, create one?) Curious to know how big a nut this would be to crack.

Oh, going back to the IMT... I'm not sufficiently charitable to give MDOT and MPA passes on this one. There were definitely ways to reconfigure the parcels to a more sensible conclusion. If Sprague's lock on that land was ironclad, the terminal shouldn't have been built; it would have made more sense to work an agreement with PAR at Rigby or even Turners Island RR.

Which reminds me: It's 2021 - we're coming up on the 10th anniversary of the Mountain rebuild to nowhere!

States possess the power of eminent domain and can and do take private property for projects. That could have been used here but was not

Not sure if it's a deal breaker or not but at one point heard that there's a major clearance problem under I-495 or one of its' off-ramps in the Lawrence area. I think it may be a case of not being able to dig down which would require a major bridge re-design and a very expensive construction job. Am guessing the very urbanized Lowell - Lawrence - Haverhill stretch would need a lot of work.

F74265A wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:58 pm States possess the power of eminent domain and can and do take private property for projects. That could have been used here but was not

We aren't talking taking 10 feet of your yard to put a sidewalk in here. This wouldn't likely stand in court - the taking of land to the benefit of a terminal serving private enterprises.

Supreme Court in kelo V. City of new London held in 2005 that a government generally may take private property and turn that property over to another private party in order to foster economic development. Obviously it is a highly controversial practice but it is permitted.

I am willing to bet Phinias Sprague would give them a run for their money in court which is why he got his price.

Perhaps. Note that in that in the Kelo case the Court allowed the city to take someone’s house to allow a private developer to redevelop an area of the city. The law on eminent domain is so shockingly broad that some jurisdictions have passed laws blocking themselves from using it abusively

Cowford wrote: ↑Sun Jan 03, 2021 4:51 pm Oh, going back to the IMT... I'm not sufficiently charitable to give MDOT and MPA passes on this one. There were definitely ways to reconfigure the parcels to a more sensible conclusion. If Sprague's lock on that land was ironclad, the terminal shouldn't have been built; it would have made more sense to work an agreement with PAR at Rigby or even Turners Island RR.

From the news coverage at the time, I don't recall truck-to-rail intermodal even being discussed; I was surprised to hear that it was happening, and that was from this thread years ago (EDIT: Sorry, it was the Waterfront Operations thread; I lost track of which thread I was in). The original point of the terminal was ship-to-rail to service Eimskip; I don't think TI has the space to support the customs impound area (plus, MPA already had the land in Portland) and Rigby has a distinct lack of salt water. Honestly, I think the only reason truck-to-rail became important at all was that PS wanted to use it.

Final East-West Report:
https://www.mass.gov/lists/east-west-pa ... -documents

• Continue discussions with CSX to ascertain the basis for their
policies and requirements related to shared operations with
passenger service and whether their support for an East-West
passenger service is possible and, if not, what other options exist;

roberttosh wrote: ↑Sat Dec 26, 2020 5:07 pm Springfield would certainly be a much easier interchange point if the connector tracks were in the Northwest and Southwest quadrants of the diamond allowing for progressive EB moves both North and South. I read somewhere that when the railroads were built way back when, since Boston was the starting point and since that is where most traffic flowed to or from, most of the big interchanges points such as Springfield, Palmer and Worcester had connecting tracks built to accommodate progressive moves to or from Boston. At the time it made sense, but now with Boston being the end of the line and the vast majority of New England's rail traffic coming from the West not so much.

"Back in the day" there would have been no need to interchange freight between the N/S Conn River at Springfield and the E/W B&A. The NH's Canal Line, which came up from New Haven via Plainville and Simsbury, interchanged with the B&A at Westfield and the B&M at Holyoke (Westfield-Holyoke is now Pioneer Valley.) Meanwhile, east of the river, the NH's Armory Branch came up from East Hartford through East Windsor and East Longmeadow to junction with the B&A near Armory Street. The Springfield interchange was pretty much passenger-only.

bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Mon Jan 04, 2021 2:09 pm Final East-West Report:
https://www.mass.gov/lists/east-west-pa ... -documents

• Continue discussions with CSX to ascertain the basis for their
policies and requirements related to shared operations with
passenger service and whether their support for an East-West
passenger service is possible and, if not, what other options exist;

I note the potential "phased approach" in the Executive Summary. Anyone taking bets on whether the "extend to Pittsfield" phase would actually happen?

I have my doubts about going all the way to Pittsfield. Most folks out that way are more focused on Albany than they are on Boston, aren't they? Now, if the service was a cooperative effort between New York and Mass., I'd say going to Pittsfield -and beyond to Chatham and Albany--would make a lot more sense.

A phased approach seems an obvious desirable approach. Splitting it into phases could help with the cost benefit part of it as the first phase would likely have better CB numbers than the second. Additionally there is less CSX traffic east of Springfield so CSX may be more willing to play ball on the Springfield - Worcester section.

Rumor mill is saying mid-month for STB application.

Rockingham Racer wrote: ↑Wed Jan 06, 2021 5:55 am I have my doubts about going all the way to Pittsfield. Most folks out that way are more focused on Albany than they are on Boston, aren't they? Now, if the service was a cooperative effort between New York and Mass., I'd say going to Pittsfield -and beyond to Chatham and Albany--would make a lot more sense.

Correct. Berkshire county gets its power, Internet, news, largely commutes to and shops in the Capital District. Boston is only useful to go the Red Sox once a year and to take their tax money. No one is going to ride with frequency from Pittsfield to Boston.