Railroad Forums 

  • Premature abandoments(?)

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England

Moderators: MEC407, NHN503

 #1095201  by newpylong
 
BowdoinStation wrote:I am well aware of the geography of Swampscott and Marblehead and who is to say your opinion is the end all and mine is not. This is purely a hypothetical thread, and these are my opinions. We are dealing with hypotheticals here since these lines are long gone anyway. Enjoy your bus ride into town.

No, but our tax dollars aren't hypothetical. Every town can't have their own Commuter Rail line. As the previous poster said those two communities are well served by existing rail and bus to warrant any additional branches to them.
 #1095207  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
newpylong wrote:
BowdoinStation wrote:I am well aware of the geography of Swampscott and Marblehead and who is to say your opinion is the end all and mine is not. This is purely a hypothetical thread, and these are my opinions. We are dealing with hypotheticals here since these lines are long gone anyway. Enjoy your bus ride into town.

No, but our tax dollars aren't hypothetical. Every town can't have their own Commuter Rail line. As the previous poster said those two communities are well served by existing rail and bus to warrant any additional branches to them.
Bringing the Blue Line to Lynn alone would improve transit to Marblehead tenfold. All those express buses that have to fight traffic out to Wonderland would have a vastly more efficient transfer only needing to serve Lynn, and that would in turn generate tons more bus riders out of Marblehead for the easier trip.

Marblehead Branch out of Swampscott (the one that hits higher density) is near-perfectly preserved by power line ROW with just about zero encroachment. It definitely would be well-patronized if still around. But unfortunately it was abandoned pre-landbanking and doesn't have a surviving operating charter. The land's also largely municipally-owned. So doing anything on it is tantamount to all-new service on all-new ROW acquisition. If you think that's tough enough to pull off on a legally protected landbanked corridor, then the odds are infinitessimally small on an abandoned-abandoned line with lapsed charter and property ownership. Especially through the residential density of an upscale bedroom communities like Swampscott and Marblehead.

Really is too bad B&M divested it about 10 years too soon for the landbanking era, but the paper barriers are just too impossibly steep for this one even given the remarkably well-preserved ROW.
 #1095318  by B&Mguy
 
BowdoinStation wrote:I am well aware of the geography of Swampscott and Marblehead and who is to say your opinion is the end all and mine is not. This is purely a hypothetical thread, and these are my opinions. We are dealing with hypotheticals here since these lines are long gone anyway. Enjoy your bus ride into town.
Hey BowdoinStation, I apologize if you took my statement the wrong way, and nowhere in my post did I claim that my opinion was more correct than any others. As you said, this discussion is hypothetical, and we're all entitled to our opinions. Like many others have done in this thread, I was simply stating some facts as to why the Marblehead Branch was abandoned, and in no way was it meant to make your post less of a part about this discussion.
 #1098447  by MikeVT
 
rjones2 wrote:Ferroequinarchaeologist,
You are absolutely correct with your statement on the abandonment of the line between Woodsville and Berlin. What is interesting to note is that there has been *talk* about reactivation of the line for VRS from St. Johnsbury thru North Concord, Gilman and South Lunenburg to Whitefield, where it would connect with the active NHCR line to Groveton. This track is in pretty bad shape (tree and shrub growth, washouts, etc.), however, there are potential active shippers on that line, as well as the talk of the potential biomass plant in Berlin, NH.

Now, presently, that line is owned by Guilford, but was leased to the Twin States RR (this line hasn't seen activity in years). Why am I bringing this up? Because, this line would provide a direct connection (via the NHCR) to the St. Lawrence and Atlantic RR, as opposed to VRS going up to Newport, connecting with MMA, then MMA connecting with the STL&A.

Since 1997, the Littleton, NH area has seen an increase in Box Stores- Lowes, Home Deport, Wal-Mart, etc. which could have all used rail for shipments. Now, the only way they could be reached is if something came via Whitefield, but I am unsure where the track ends in Littleton.
The line between St J and Whitefield is in bad shape. Best thing for it might be a rail-trail. At least the ROW would be maintained. Snowmobile clubs are keeping the line clear from Whitefield to Littleton. The rail ends just south of downtown and its a rail-trail to Woodsville.

With the inventory managment system and business model box stores use I dont think you will ever see them use rail to a store. Maybe a distribution center. I cant think of any bulk customers along either line.
 #1100073  by neroden
 
Not technically in New England at all, but the New York & Harlem (northern Harlem Line) should have been retained, as both the Shore Line and the Hudson line are flood-prone -- the Harlem Line would allow for a totally Inland Route from New York to Boston, which is getting to seem more and more useful with every flood!
 #1100331  by v8interceptor
 
shadyjay wrote:One possible "what-if", if the Air Line east of Portland had been retained, is that it may have been a more suitable candidate for Amtrak's Boston-New York high speed route. I had a copy of a report issued in the late 1970s/early 1980s evaluating the three New York to Boston routes for Amtrak high speed service including electrification. One was the present Shore Line route, one was the Inland Route, and one was the Air Line. If the Air Line had survived east of Portland, it could very well be a double-track electrified route hosting Amtrak. It is after all, the shortest NY-Boston route. Granted, a lot of infrastructure improvements would have been required, even if the rails had remained intact, though several of the bridges along the line were designed for future second track installations which never came to be.


One of the routes proposed for Amtrak's "Corridor II" high speed rail study (which came out a couple of years back would follow the old airline ROW for large stretches. I'm a littel dubious about any of the alternatives actually getting built but it shows that the airline routing does make some sense..
 #1100344  by TomNelligan
 
As I wrote a few pages back, consultants get paid to consider all options, but an Air Line route for Boston-New York high speed service was politically dead on arrival because it bypassed Providence, New England's second largest city, and would alienate the Rhode Island congressional delegation as well as kissing off the business that market generates for Acelas. And that's before you get into the huge cost of rebuilding and regrading a twisty abandoned right-of-way and dealing with the NIMBY opposition to restoring trains where they haven't run in 40 to 50+ years.
 #1100607  by jaymac
 
Adding onto the dynamic of serving population centers is that population centers generally avoid tortuous topography (dag -- alliteration!). While inland Connecticut may not be the Rockies, changes in elevation would demand expensive construction for a diminished market potential. Also, while we have current evidence about the risks to ROWs close to shore, not that long ago, Irene gave us evidence about the risks to ROWs in places of topography-determined run-off. The length of time and costs to restore last year's disruptions in the Berkshire-associated ranges and river valleys were instructive. Freight railroads can generally find work-around routings for temporary outages. High-speed electrified passenger service work-arounds -- as we are temporarily witnessing -- are less easy. The Shore Line will continue to work for numbers of reasons. The Air Line disappeared for numbers of reasons.
 #1104989  by dlezette
 
Severing or abandoning the network of branches between Woodsville, NH and Whitefield that fanned out to Groveton, Berlin and St Johnsbury seems shortsighted. The paper mill traffic at the ends of the NH branches is not be what it used to be, but with VRS taking over the CP and upper Conn River, there might have been some new opportunities. And regardless of what's happened in a few places, once the rails are removed, good luck getting them back. The resulting "rail bank" will never become a commuter line-- and even there, as Mass. is finding, it's an uphill costly fight to restore service.

I'll throw out another possible premature abandonment: The Providence & Worcester seems to have pulled the plug on several branches in Rhode Island earlier than it might have. Scanning aerial maps of the Washington Secondary thru Coventry and the Pontiac Branch in Cranston always gets me wondering. I believe some customers were receiving carloads even at the time of abandonment in the late 80's and early 90's. They tracks were torn up right around the time transload facilities were taking off. (they probably ended up along the Seaview.)

The one big impediment to freight service-- sharing the mainline with Amtrak-- has now been largely solved with the parallel freight line to Quonset. But the branches were long gone by the time the P&W and govt made this improvement.

Doug
 #1160659  by rjones2
 
"Severing or abandoning the network of branches between Woodsville, NH and Whitefield that fanned out to Groveton, Berlin and St Johnsbury seems shortsighted. The paper mill traffic at the ends of the NH branches is not be what it used to be, but with VRS taking over the CP and upper Conn River, there might have been some new opportunities."

With the Gennesse and Wyoming acquistion of RailAmerica, a couple interesting thoughts have come into mind.

Does anyone know how much interchange is handled indirectly between New England Central and the St. Lawrence and Atlantic Railroad's?

Would we ever see some sort of consolidation/agreement to utilize VRS and New Hampshire Central (NHCR) rights for eventual traffic to connect these two G&W properties? The trek is around 95/100 miles from White River Junction, VT to Groveton, NH. Currently, the line is out of service east of St. Johnsbury to Whitefield and in service from Whitefield to Groveton- although a lot of work would need to be performed. I ask this, because the VRS line has seen upkeep in maintenance and traffic the last few years, potential for additional economic development, etc.

Again, hypotheticals:Would G&W benefit from this potential route? There is already existing salt traffic. Lumber traffic, woodchips, etc. would be additional on top of anything else.
Would the investment be too burdensome?
 #1160684  by Dick H
 
I do not know the specific legal details, but I believe the former NH&VT and PAR still have some
sort of ownership between St. Johnsbury VT and the NH state line. If this is the case, the state
of VT will likely have to jump through a number of hoops, to say nothing of many dollars for
acquisition and rebuilding the line. Surely, PAR will not be cooperative if they determine that
traffic between Vermont and Maine, that they currently handle, might be diverted to a NECR,
WACR, NHCR and SLR routing.

PAR does have rights to operate between East Northfield MA and White River Junction VT on the
NECR. However, in recent years, PAR has used these rights relatively infrequently, but they
announced last fall they would be increasing their level of service to WRJ. I do not know the
current level of service. The Conn River line between East Northfield MA and Springfield MA
gets rebuilt this year and next, PAR freight traffic will benefit from the higher speeds.
 #1161357  by ferroequinarchaeologist
 
>>I do not know the specific legal details, but I believe the former NH&VT and PAR still have some
sort of ownership between St. Johnsbury VT and the NH state line.

I do. :-) The NHVT attempted to salvage the tracks but the STB affirmed that the Maine Central was the owner, NHVT was only the lessor.

PBM
 #1162255  by necr3849
 
While no part of it has been abandoned except branches, one has to wonder how much of the Central Vermont would be in this category of "premature..." if the New Haven ever got its hands on it.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7