Berkshire Flyer: Pittsfield - New York City Service via Albany

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 29, 2022 6:05 pm They would likely double track east of Springfield. . I would agree that it may not be necessary west of Springfield.

IMO that seems reasonable. For west of Springfield would like to know length of sidings and how far apart in train times both passenger and freight.

There's 27 miles of double iron between CP 123 and CP 150, and a 25,000 foot siding in Chatham.

lordsigma12345 wrote:I would agree that it may not be necessary west of Springfield.

About 15 years ago I was on the LSL eastbound and we had to wait a really long time--like half an hour--for a westbound freight to come upgrade on single track. I think the conductor told us it was something like 17 miles. That was the only time it happened to me, but that can't happen to a short-distance train or it'll ruin the credibility of the service. Whether it would be cheaper to avoid that kind of delay by double-tracking, adding sidings, or simply paying CSX enough money to delay it's own trains in all such situations, I have no idea.

west point wrote:Persons west of Back Bay can take MBTA to Worcester to connect and all points west.

Or Framingham. Wouldn't Inland Route and Pittsfield/Albany-Boston trains stop at Framingham like the LSL?

Safetee wrote:if it comes to pass, it's definitely looking to be the foot in the door for an inland route alternative to the shoreline in case of flooding etc in rhode island.

Good point. Even with the sea levels and hurricane frequencies/strengths of a century ago, the shore line has been blocked by actual ships before now. I remember reading about a crash between a train and a schooner, I think in the 1800s.

Question: Isn't Amtrak planning to order some semi-permanently coupled trainsets? Would it be possible to order that kind of equipment made in such a way that trains could combine/divide at Springfield, so that an Albany route train and an Inland Route train could be one train from Springfield to Boston, without requiring a lengthy brake check?

I would expect that the first iteration of this will be extending some Regionals from Springfield to Boston (from WAS/NYP) - but then 2tpd Albany-Boston seems the plan on top of that. Hopefully timed with NYP-ALB arrivals on to interesting places and position Albany as something of a 'scissor hub'.

While the B&A is not as busy as it once was has anyone asked CSX how they feel about all this new service? How about Keolis? I'm sure they would like to know also. Has anyone on here ever been stuck behind a CSX freight on its knees climbing the mountain out of Pittsfield or Worcester because the pencil jockeys said its enough HP on the head end to get the train over the road, done the B&A shuffle? CSX really does not care if we are on time or not, watched just a few weeks ago as the MTO melted down as he watched both a very late 449 and Berkshire Flyer get screwed by a freight switching in Pittsfield.

NHV 669 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:12 am There's 27 miles of double iron between CP 123 and CP 150, and a 25,000 foot siding in Chatham.

How long is their longest freight train?

Longer than 25,000 feet? Nope, double-track it more.

The second track was removed over a few years from the mid to late '80's. It was also converted to cab signals without wayside ABS signals during this time.

Prior to that, although there were two tracks it was not a double track line. It was two main tracks, each signaled in one direction. Track 2 was signaled for eastbound movement, track 1 for westbound. There were hand lined crossovers at several places that required the crew to line and lock them normal after each use. Easy to do back in the day of full crews, with a head brakeman and a rear end crew. This is known as ABS 251 rules, an old way of operating that is basically not used on any real mainline now but may be seen on secondary lines. The third and fourth tracks in spots were removed long before this.

CSX has already signed off on the Amtrak service expansions as part of the Pan Am deal, but they won't be paying for any infrastructure to accomplish it.

I expect to see a second track to be installed at state and federal expense. Third track on both sides of the mountain and likely by the auto site in East Brookfield.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 4:17 pm

NHV 669 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 30, 2022 8:12 am There's 27 miles of double iron between CP 123 and CP 150, and a 25,000 foot siding in Chatham.

How long is their longest freight train?

Longer than 25,000 feet? Nope, double-track it more.

The longest a train can be on the B&A is 14,000 feet, and there is a grade crossing in there, which can't be blocked over a certain amount of time. Otherwise the crossing has to be cut.

taracer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 4:02 pm The second track was removed over a few years from the mid to late '80's. It was also converted to cab signals without wayside ABS signals during this time.

Prior to that, although there were two tracks it was not a double track line. It was two main tracks, each signaled in one direction. Track 2 was signaled for eastbound movement, track 1 for westbound. There were hand lined crossovers at several places that required the crew to line and lock them normal after each use. Easy to do back in the day of full crews, with a head brakeman and a rear end crew.

Back in the day, even with full crews and cabooses, pretty much without exception, block operators manning temporary block stations were used to execute single-track operation, including throwing the hand-lined crossovers. It was their work and subject to a day's-pay claim for a block operator were the work performed directly by a train crew. Anyhow, wouldn't want to have had to wake up any sleeping train full-crew members!

CSX has already signed off on the Amtrak service expansions as part of the Pan Am deal, but they won't be paying for any infrastructure to accomplish it.

I expect to see a second track to be installed at state and federal expense. Third track on both sides of the mountain and likely by the auto site in East Brookfield.

From the details of those CSX agreed-upon conditions with Amtrak, MASSDOT's plan, and where market demand and political power behind this resides, infrastructure additions will at best involve double track, possibly not for the entirety CP-150 to CP-187, with the likely addition of one passenger train pair and no more than 2 west of Springfield.

Only place in the plan at this point for a 3rd track is CP-60 - CP-64 at the auto site and were there to be additional demand and justification for a 3rd track, it more likely would be somewhere between Worcester and West Natick or CP-98 and CP-96 in Springfield.

Given the huge cost to triple track the east side of the mountain where none existed before, that prospect coupled to the more-likely prospect, that alone would spur exploration of alternatives, of high-speed Springfield-Worcester if not only from the volume & mix of freight and passenger traffic planned over that section of the B&A, to consider instead spending less money to upgrade parallel Pan Am Southern/Berkshire & Eastern and connections to relocate & reduce B&A freight traffic, as has been done elsewhere.

taracer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 4:02 pm
Prior to that, although there were two tracks it was not a double track line. It was two main tracks, each signaled in one direction. Track 2 was signaled for eastbound movement, track 1 for westbound.

Taracer you have it backwards. Double track is two tracks each only signaled in one direction. with ABS. If a train has to use the wrong direction the train has to get a form with it limits. The signal system will th wrong main all red wrong main forward until past a CP. A train operating wrong main requires the form and operate as unsignaled track until goes correct main. 49 MPH max freight and 59 MAX passenger.

Two main tracks or three main tracks, etc has bi direction signaling both tracks however some RR districts would have some islands signaled both direction and usually called double track.

Two main tracks are usually CTC but does not require CTC with just ABS signaling. Have no idea if that practice is still done anywhere. Anyone??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-track_railway
https://www.bing.com/search?q=two%20mai ... cc=0&ghpl=

QB 52.32 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 10:03 am

taracer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 4:02 pm The second track was removed over a few years from the mid to late '80's. It was also converted to cab signals without wayside ABS signals during this time.

Prior to that, although there were two tracks it was not a double track line. It was two main tracks, each signaled in one direction. Track 2 was signaled for eastbound movement, track 1 for westbound. There were hand lined crossovers at several places that required the crew to line and lock them normal after each use. Easy to do back in the day of full crews, with a head brakeman and a rear end crew.

Back in the day, even with full crews and cabooses, pretty much without exception, block operators manning temporary block stations were used to execute single-track operation, including throwing the hand-lined crossovers. It was their work and subject to a day's-pay claim for a block operator were the work performed directly by a train crew. Anyhow, wouldn't want to have had to wake up any sleeping train full-crew members!

CSX has already signed off on the Amtrak service expansions as part of the Pan Am deal, but they won't be paying for any infrastructure to accomplish it.

I expect to see a second track to be installed at state and federal expense. Third track on both sides of the mountain and likely by the auto site in East Brookfield.

From the details of those CSX agreed-upon conditions with Amtrak, MASSDOT's plan, and where market demand and political power behind this resides, infrastructure additions will at best involve double track, possibly not for the entirety CP-150 to CP-187, with the likely addition of one passenger train pair and no more than 2 west of Springfield.

Only place in the plan at this point for a 3rd track is CP-60 - CP-64 at the auto site and were there to be additional demand and justification for a 3rd track, it more likely would be somewhere between Worcester and West Natick or CP-98 and CP-96 in Springfield.

Given the huge cost to triple track the east side of the mountain where none existed before, that prospect coupled to the more-likely prospect, that alone would spur exploration of alternatives, of high-speed Springfield-Worcester if not only from the volume & mix of freight and passenger traffic planned over that section of the B&A, to consider instead spending less money to upgrade parallel Pan Am Southern/Berkshire & Eastern and connections to relocate & reduce B&A freight traffic, as has been done elsewhere.

I'm referring to the west side of the mountain, from CP147 to CP140, where the third track existed. On the east side they can put the old 300 car, or 12K feet in old 40-foot boxcar length, siding back in. They wouldn't want to stop a westbound freight there, but they could use it to park an eastbound or two. Or to run around a slow westbound doing 10 mph or less.

No one is thinking about adding the second track back all the way to CP187.

west point wrote: ↑Sat Sep 03, 2022 2:12 pm

taracer wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 4:02 pm
Prior to that, although there were two tracks it was not a double track line. It was two main tracks, each signaled in one direction. Track 2 was signaled for eastbound movement, track 1 for westbound.

Taracer you have it backwards. Double track is two tracks each only signaled in one direction. with ABS. If a train has to use the wrong direction the train has to get a form with it limits. The signal system will th wrong main all red wrong main forward until past a CP. A train operating wrong main requires the form and operate as unsignaled track until goes correct main. 49 MPH max freight and 59 MAX passenger.

Two main tracks or three main tracks, etc has bi direction signaling both tracks however some RR districts would have some islands signaled both direction and usually called double track.

Two main tracks are usually CTC but does not require CTC with just ABS signaling. Have no idea if that practice is still done anywhere. Anyone??

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-track_railway
https://www.bing.com/search?q=two%20mai ... cc=0&ghpl=

Railroaders do not care if it is double triple or what ever track except when it come time to pass the physical characteristics tests. What we do want to know is what rules are in effect. Rule 251 or 261, ABS, Cab signal, ABS with Cab signal or are we going on paper, Form D Form M EC-1. Then we would like to know what the designation of the track Main, Yard, Siding, because all three have an effect on the speeds at which we can travel and what rules will be and could be in effect.

Re last-mile service in the Berkshires: the local transit authority does reach some towns (see the map at https://berkshirerta.com/wp-content/upl ... -FINAL.pdf), and although the schedules are skimpy, they might allow some connections to and from the train if not a way to get around the area carfree.

If someone said double track or two main tracks I would assume they meant a bi-directional signal system since anything set up after about 1950 would be bi-directional.

BandA wrote: ↑Tue Sep 06, 2022 7:30 pm If someone said double track or two main tracks I would assume they meant a bi-directional signal system since anything set up after about 1950 would be bi-directional.

If you pull out a BNSF employee timetable (the ones publicly on FoBNR's site available are 10+ years old by agreement with BNSF), DT (double track) implies 251 signaling: one way signals aligned with current of traffic and reverse direction operation by special GCOR Form (don't ask me which letter A, B, C, or D). 2MT on the TT implies 261 operation with CTC.