Railroad Forums 

  • NEC Right-of-Way through Old Saybrook

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1566790  by Traingeek3629
 
Looks like the entire right-of-way along the NEC through Old Saybrook was built with 4 full tracks (three of which are electrified) and there are hints in Old Lyme and Westbrook of a three or four track RoW. Does anyone know the purpose of full four tracks there rather than the typical two found elsewhere in this vicinity? My personal guess is relating to the status of Old Saybrook as a major junction, but a history lesson would be much appreciated. :-D
 #1566793  by The EGE
 
In the early 20th century, the New Haven had plans to fully quad-track from NYC to Boston. Structures built at that time were intended for quad tracks - the Connecticut River (1907) and Thames River (1919) bridges have abutments and piers for four tracks, as do some bridges around Westerly (1912). The viaduct at Attleboro (1906) and the cut at Pawtucket/Central Falls (1915) were constructed with four tracks. Even some earlier projects like the 1889 cut through Groton seem to have eventual quad-track in mind.

Old Saybrook actually had four tracks back in the day. I'm not sure whether that was a relic of the quad-tracking plans, or to serve the junction; perhaps both.
 #1566850  by Traingeek3629
 
Train322 wrote: Wed Mar 24, 2021 6:27 pm Old Saybrook, through the station had four tracks prior to the new raised platforms. The line is four tracks for a short distance, just west of the station.
And east, all the way to the bridge.
The EGE wrote:In the early 20th century, the New Haven had plans to fully quad-track from NYC to Boston. Structures built at that time were intended for quad tracks - the Connecticut River (1907) and Thames River (1919) bridges have abutments and piers for four tracks, as do some bridges around Westerly (1912). The viaduct at Attleboro (1906) and the cut at Pawtucket/Central Falls (1915) were constructed with four tracks. Even some earlier projects like the 1889 cut through Groton seem to have eventual quad-track in mind.

Old Saybrook actually had four tracks back in the day. I'm not sure whether that was a relic of the quad-tracking plans, or to serve the junction; perhaps both.
Thanks, I thought it may have been something like this because of the bridge piers.
 #1567010  by shadyjay
 
Essentially, 4-tracking through OSB existed from the station area, west to the area [just east] of the Rt 153 overpass in Westbrook. When the station got high level platforms, the trackage was reworked, eliminating the 4th track (the center platform was built where a track was). Just west of the platforms, the 4th track now begins, and 4 tracks continue to the area around the Ingham Hill Rd overpass. I believe at least 3 of the tracks are electrified - the 4th may be as well. An article in R&R back in the 90s about Shore Line East service talks about the line and says the 3rd and 4th tracks were cut back since "long freights no longer run on the corridor". It would've been nice to have 3 tracks to the Westbrook commuter station to give Amtrak/SLE a little more flexibility.

To the east of the station, the track does reduce, and one track serves as a stub end for Amtrak storage, while the other is for TILCON. Four reduce to 2 just past TILCON, heading out to the marshes approaching CONN draw. Only the two mains for Amtrak are electrified - I don't believe the stub or TILCON tracks have wires. No need for them, as they are stubs.

As for the need for OSB to have 4 tracks... I'm sure it was to hold freights in the clear to not interfere with passenger traffic. You also had the Valley branch coming down from Middletown/Hartford, but that line was never really a thru route, so you mostly had locals traversing it, some worked part way up the line in between serving the Shore Line itself.
 #1567210  by Ridgefielder
 
shadyjay wrote: Fri Mar 26, 2021 4:58 pm As for the need for OSB to have 4 tracks... I'm sure it was to hold freights in the clear to not interfere with passenger traffic. You also had the Valley branch coming down from Middletown/Hartford, but that line was never really a thru route, so you mostly had locals traversing it, some worked part way up the line in between serving the Shore Line itself.
In the 1890s-1900s, when the New Haven reworked the trackage through here, the Valley Branch actually crossed the Shore Line on a diamond and continued on a couple more miles to docks at Fenwick Point. You can clearly see the old causeways still on the Google satellite images. This was a pretty busy junction back in the day-- plenty of need for four tracks.
 #1577252  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Now, while I haven't been up that way since taking an Acela joyride during pre-9/11 '01, and I was accompanied by an SKS classmate (it was my 40th up there) who had dropped to follow his dreams (and they weren't Ivy League), served in the Army, had a contractor job in 'Nam, hired on as an Electrician (while on the side building his own electric car from a VW Rabbit while Elon was in swaddlings) with MNR, moved to Amtrak as same, and retired as a Passenger Engineer -Mr. Railnut likely knoweth of whom I speaketh.

Now, to my knowledge, the CT River bridge has been replaced during the Amtrak era, just as has the Thames. Why they were replaced as lift bridges escapes me. Even at its existing location, there was room to have built the ascents for a fixed bridge, which looking at Chart 12375 shows 81ft MHW fot the Baldwin and Chart 13213 135ft MHW for the Gold Star.

Now the "real hot set-up" would have been to tunnel at both locations to avoid first the little "detour" at OSB and all of curves and street level grade x-ings at NLC. Oh, but wake me; were over here, and not over there (Europe of Asia; take your pick).
 #1577270  by Ridgefielder
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 7:50 am Now, to my knowledge, the CT River bridge has been replaced during the Amtrak era, just as has the Thames. Why they were replaced as lift bridges escapes me. Even at its existing location, there was room to have built the ascents for a fixed bridge, which looking at Chart 12375 shows 81ft MHW fot the Baldwin and Chart 13213 135ft MHW for the Gold Star.
For the Thames: seems like you'd need one heck of a grade on the approach to get up from basically sea level at Union Station to, say, 145' on the bridge deck. It would also by necessity sever the west leg of the wye onto the Norwich Branch which starts within 300' of the east end of the bridge. And you'd need to do a heavy reconstruction/reconfiguration of the I-95 Exit 85 ramp which crosses over the tracks ~3,000' east of the bridge. Just doesn't seem worth it.

As for Conn River-- remember the ROW here runs through Federally-protected, environmentally-sensitive salt marshes for about a mile either side of the bridge. You're not going to get a permit to just dump fill willy-nilly to support a new roadbed.
 #1577330  by CVRA7
 
"Now, to my knowledge, the CT River bridge has been replaced during the Amtrak era, just as has the Thames." I am fairly certain that the Conn. River bridge has never been replaced during Amtrak ownership and remains the most original of them all. It did receive major work including a new cabin, but the lift and fixed portions are pre-Amtrak. All other Amtrak movable bridges in former New Haven Railroad territory have been totally or partially replaced. I had the pleasure of tending the Niantic River Amtrak drawbridge for about 3 years prior to retirement - it totally replaced its predecessor.
 #1577383  by shadyjay
 
At one point in the 96-98 timeframe, Conn was closed for a weekend or two for work. Not sure what the work entailed, but my Amtrak train to Boston that weekend was bustituted. Pics of Conn from the 1930s-1940s are pretty similar to how it looks today, minus the catenary of course. Its still strange going to Ferry Point park and seeing up-close the piers that would've supported a second span, for 4 tracks. The latest plans for Conn's replacement show all new piers... guess they don't want to use the existing ones since the lift portion will be moved more to the center of the river.

There's at least one if not more bridges west of NHV that haven't been replaced either since electrification. Devon comes to mind, as a picture of that before electrification shows the same bridge, minus the catenary and its overbuild. Oh wait, we said Amtrak territory. Nevermind.
 #1577412  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Mr. Hogan, considering how there appears to be adequate distance between the existing OSB station and the present bridge, and that the line is predominately passenger, a 2% ruling grade would not be unreasonable.

Let's see; to ascend to the 81 feet MHW level of the Baldwin, at 2%, that means a 4000 ft approach on either side. I don't recall all that much development around there. While in the Fairfield Navy, I sailed up that way on occasion.

And to whomever holds the freight rights over that end of the Corridor, well guess you'll have to assign an additional unit to your trains.
 #1577426  by Ridgefielder
 
CVRA7 wrote: Mon Aug 02, 2021 10:20 pm "Now, to my knowledge, the CT River bridge has been replaced during the Amtrak era, just as has the Thames." I am fairly certain that the Conn. River bridge has never been replaced during Amtrak ownership and remains the most original of them all. It did receive major work including a new cabin, but the lift and fixed portions are pre-Amtrak. All other Amtrak movable bridges in former New Haven Railroad territory have been totally or partially replaced. I had the pleasure of tending the Niantic River Amtrak drawbridge for about 3 years prior to retirement - it totally replaced its predecessor.
The only moveable bridges that have been replaced since the end of the New Haven are Thames, Niantic and Peck (in Bridgeport). Conn River, Devon, Saga, Walk and Cob are all pre-WWI.

Walk, the oldest, a swing span from the early 1890's, is in the process of being replaced by a lift span.
 #1577434  by pbj123
 
Mr. Ridge. Both Shaw's Cove in NLC and Mystic River were completely replaced too. I believe in the 80's
Mr. Norman. I had the great pleasure to work with the tinkering genius engineer ,Bob R. He was one of a kind.
 #1577456  by shadyjay
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Wed Aug 04, 2021 8:54 am Mr. Hogan, considering how there appears to be adequate distance between the existing OSB station and the present bridge, and that the line is predominately passenger, a 2% ruling grade would not be unreasonable.

Let's see; to ascend to the 81 feet MHW level of the Baldwin, at 2%, that means a 4000 ft approach on either side. I don't recall all that much development around there. While in the Fairfield Navy, I sailed up that way on occasion.

And to whomever holds the freight rights over that end of the Corridor, well guess you'll have to assign an additional unit to your trains.
Hahahahahahaha ...... I can just imagine the panic reaction from the townspeople in Old Lyme. Oh no! You're destroying our quaint little town! The wealthy gentleman (Bostonians may have bought a car or two from his dealers over the years) who lives at the end of Ferry Rd in Old Lyme may have something to say too, as it may interfere with his helicopter flight paths.

"Oh, but wait... we can take our yachts out whenever we want? Oh, we may let you build it, then".

P&W freights through OSB generally have more than enough power on them, usually fore and aft, to make switching easier. So the grade shouldn't be a problem. This isn't 1943 and there aren't 100 car freights traversing the Shore Line route anymore.

In reality, such a proposal would raise the pricetag through the roof, enviornmentalists would have a field day, and none of us would live through the decades of study. I'm not sure how far along the present proposal is, whether its just waiting for funding or even fully designed.

A high level option I'm sure was discussed and studied by Amtrak and I'm sure if it was logically possible, they'd do it, even if just for the sake of being able to run more trains over the river. But in reality, a high level wouldn't get you any more trains, since you still would have movable spans at NAN, Shaw's Cove (and further east, Thames & Mystic). High levels between CONN and SHAW really would only benefit CTRail commuter trains since more in theory could be added to the schedule if you had no more bridge openings to contend with. Maybe CT didn't want to pony up any extra money to get CONN higher, knowing its not the only obstacle, and they're going to have to finance bigger bridges to the west of CONN in the years ahead.