Rail Related Development in Northern New England

"Likewise with the Rumford Branch, I think PAR would have no problem signing off on some kind of an agreement with the state, perhaps one that stabilized the freight tariff from those locations for a period of X years. I'm sure that would help the paper mills."

I would be highly surprised... no, shocked... if ANY road would agree to rate "stabilization" in exchange for public funding. PAR has stated that it is content being a low speed railroad. They see no significant benefit in higher track speeds. Many here will take issue with that, but with the majority of Maine shippers it's been transit time consistency, not transit time that has been the focus of their concerns.

PAR seems to be doing just fine without public funding. The only "cause" I could see that would benefit rail and shipper alike is in increasing lines to 286K. (I don't know the details of, say possible Rumford branch conversion rates needed to determine such a cost-benefit, so can't say definitively that 286K would be a worthwhile aim, and NO! I am not trying to start another 286K flame war as found in another thread.)

"...Short of full rehabilitation they wanted to relay the track that was torn up as an incremental step in maintaining the RoW. I think MDOT was wise in doing so as otherwise someone, somewhere in that area would eventually have come up with the money to build a trail directly on the RoW, thus likely forever ending future possibilities for service."

GO'K, in earlier posts on the Mountain, you had portrayed MDOT as being indifferent to the cause of the Mountain. MDOT was, in effect, placating local support for line rebuilding/reactivation. And now the expenditure of $5 million to relaying part of the line- without connecting the the existing trackage to the west- should be viewed as precient? Also, consider that the trail now in place along the existing track has rendered the roadbed unstable to the point that it cannot safely support rail traffic in many locations. Another case of MDOT foresight?

Cowford wrote:

gokeefe wrote:Likewise with the Rumford Branch, I think PAR would have no problem signing off on some kind of an agreement with the state, perhaps one that stabilized the freight tariff from those locations for a period of X years. I'm sure that would help the paper mills.

I would be highly surprised... no, shocked... if ANY road would agree to rate "stabilization" in exchange for public funding. PAR has stated that it is content being a low speed railroad. They see no significant benefit in higher track speeds. Many here will take issue with that, but with the majority of Maine shippers it's been transit time consistency, not transit time that has been the focus of their concerns.

I think the points regarding rate stabilization are very reasonable and likely true. However, to be clear I am not proposing upgrading the Rumford Branch to Class IV. Merely, making sufficient repairs and improvements that it would be Class II and remain free of slow orders for an extended period of time. I'm under the impression that the Branch is troublesome for PAR and that they have a hard time keeping it even up to Class II standards (as they do with much of the system, District 1 in particular).

Cowford wrote:PAR seems to be doing just fine without public funding.

Very true in the big picture. However, I'm under the impression that the Rumford Branch remains a significant challenge for them and also a vital source of traffic.

Cowford wrote:The only "cause" I could see that would benefit rail and shipper alike is in increasing lines to 286K. (I don't know the details of, say possible Rumford branch conversion rates needed to determine such a cost-benefit, so can't say definitively that 286K would be a worthwhile aim, and NO! I am not trying to start another 286K flame war as found in another thread.)

Rehabbing the branch would certainly include upgrades to 286K. On much of their system the issue is one of ties, ballast and heavier rail. It's not as if their subgrade isn't well built enough to handle it.

Cowford wrote:

gokeefe wrote:...Short of full rehabilitation they wanted to relay the track that was torn up as an incremental step in maintaining the RoW. I think MDOT was wise in doing so as otherwise someone, somewhere in that area would eventually have come up with the money to build a trail directly on the RoW, thus likely forever ending future possibilities for service.

GO'K, in earlier posts on the Mountain, you had portrayed MDOT as being indifferent to the cause of the Mountain. MDOT was, in effect, placating local support for line rebuilding/reactivation. And now the expenditure of $5 million to relaying part of the line- without connecting the the existing trackage to the west- should be viewed as precient?

I think it is possible these views are two sides of the same coin. 1. Go along with local interests. 2. Preserve the RoW. To my memory your characterization of my previous posts is largely correct. However, I do think MDOT does have a strong tendency to try and keep their RoWs intact. My thinking has definitely developed on this issue, especially in regards to the Mountain. I am conflicted on just exactly how well thought out the project was and certainly can see it being reasonable to say it was all a big waste. The other side of that is that without track on the ground this RoW was in danger of being lost forever. That may not ultimately matter is trains never roll over those tracks but the global economy is in a major state of flux. Old patterns, or new versions of old patterns of development could reappear and have already started to reappear elsewhere.

Cowford wrote:Also, consider that the trail now in place along the existing track has rendered the roadbed unstable to the point that it cannot safely support rail traffic in many locations. Another case of MDOT foresight?

Certainly not. However, that is the first that I have heard of this. I certainly find it credible and, sadly, am not surprised. But that's the first time I remember reading that the trail construction had compromised the track subgrade. Perhaps at the time MDOT felt they had to go along with the trail in order to keep the rails. I think we all have to acknowledge that MDOT's overriding priority for rail for the past 30 years (or more), since GRS began major abandonments of the ex-MEC system, has been preservation of existing corridors. They didn't do this in the '60's when the B&M abandoned the Eastern Route. That may not be a problem for them because the Western Route is so well built (and also a two track RoW), but other places, like the Rockland Branch are the only railroad serving the area. The Mountain is difficult at least in part because the SLR is nearby with a very very well built and maintained corridor. On the other hand it keeps coming up and not just from the enthusiast community either.

"I think we all have to acknowledge that MDOT's overriding priority for rail for the past 30 years (or more), since GRS began major abandonments of the ex-MEC system, has been preservation of existing corridors."

I would agree that this has been their priority, for better or worse. It would be interesting to understand why so much effort remains focused on the Mountain, while they (IMO, correctly) allowed the Calais branch to be ripped up. Perhaps you're right: Perhaps MDOT is merely catering to the local "squeaky wheels" in western Maine... kinda like consultants that tell you what you want to hear. I have a hard time believing they haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, though. We certainly view MDOT from different perspectives: You give them the benefit of the doubt, and I just give them doubt!

Cowford wrote:

gokeefe wrote:I think we all have to acknowledge that MDOT's overriding priority for rail for the past 30 years (or more), since GRS began major abandonments of the ex-MEC system, has been preservation of existing corridors.

It would be interesting to understand why so much effort remains focused on the Mountain, while they (IMO, correctly) allowed the Calais branch to be ripped up. Perhaps you're right: Perhaps MDOT is merely catering to the local "squeaky wheels" in western Maine... kinda like consultants that tell you what you want to hear. I have a hard time believing they haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, though.

From my point of view "up here" it is very very clear that the Mountain Branch/Division has some major supporters in both the State Legislature and local government who for better or worse have forced MDOT to pay attention. I have very little doubt whatsoever that without this kind of political support MDOT would not be paying such close attention to this line. In regards to whether or not the civil servants in the rail division are "sold" on the idea of rehabilitation of the line being some kind of economic panacea (or even simply beneficial) I don't think that's likely. Look where the money really goes. My best example being the reconstruction of Danville Junction. There was little if any political involvement, it was a very sensible project from an operational standpoint and MDOT was definitely involved.

Cowford wrote:We certainly view MDOT from different perspectives: You give them the benefit of the doubt, and I just give them doubt!

I give them the benefit of the doubt because I live and work around the folks who have to deal with these issues. The head offices of the State government in Maine are very very small. When legislators at the State House decide they want something, everybody knows about it. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I just think that this is a very transparent situation for people who are close to it. The civil servants are very common sense about these types of situations. They deal with them routinely and they do their best to ensure that no one is able to influence their work outside of formal legislative, executive or regulatory channels in which policy is actually decided or legislation is crafted and passed.

The Legislature can be very deferential to MDOT on questions of technical expertise (such as return on investment or cost-benefit analysis). That's another reason why I think restoring the "gap" in the track on the Mountain Division to me is a political compromise between losing the RoW and spending money on a questionable rebuild project. The necessity to "fill in the gap" may be more an indicator of the concerns over the political strength of the trail advocates than an actual indication of the political strength of the rail advocates.

Hopefully the next time the Legislature decides to spend millions of dollars on rail projects it will be on a line of greater significance and worth than the Mountain. As mentioned the Rumford Branch would be a great candidate, as would the Somerset (Hinckley) up to SAPPI, or the Bucksport Branch to VERSO.

Not really "development," but it shows somebody's putting some thought into it:
"Study examines benefits of Bangor-Searsport logistics corridor"

Investment also must be made in various parts of the infrastructure, the report noted.

“The current rail network connecting Searsport to Bangor and the rest of Maine with the United States is in unexceptional condition,” the researchers noted.

Overall investment in rail and, possibly, development of an intermodal facility near arterial roadways is needed, they wrote. Additionally, the current road conditions in the area are “not well suited to a large increase in truck traffic,” the report found.

And thanks to this article, I now know what "torrefied" means.

Thanks for posting. Unfortunately, it appears to be another feel good "build it and they will come" report that seems to miss the point. Example: “If [BIA] established more regular flights to major global hubs, it would attract more companies...”

I certainly hope the torrefied wood project advances to fruition; looks like there's a reasonable chance of it happening. The report authors are, however, naive in thinking that the Panama Canal will increase Searsport's prospects as a container terminal. First off, the general consensus is that most of what has been predicted to shift to East Coast ports already has. And the report is somewhat contradictory in saying that the port may provide needed capacity due to impending congestion on the East Coast... and then saying that Searsport will see greater opportunities as a feeder port to those congested ports. (Maybe all those feeder vessels would be causing all that congestion?!?)

What I can't figure out: Why the emphasis on perishables? What does Maine produce in that category, other than potatoes, blueberries, and seafood?

Cowford wrote:
What I can't figure out: Why the emphasis on perishables? What does Maine produce in that category, other than potatoes, blueberries, and seafood?

Dairy.

I should have rephrased the question: What does Maine produce in quantity? Maine's dairy production is not significant - even southern New England produces more milk. I'm just not seein' container vessels with plug-ins calling on Searsport to pick up another load of cheese.

Cowford wrote:I should have rephrased the question: What does Maine produce in quantity? Maine's dairy production is not significant - even southern New England produces more milk. I'm just not seein' container vessels with plug-ins calling on Searsport to pick up another load of cheese.

Maybe Froyo...

Looks like the torrefied wood plant will be happenin', assuming MDEP approves.
Plan for torrefied wood plant approved in Millinocket

'Cate Street' still needs to get two more permits from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection in order to proceed with the project. The company is hoping to break ground on the plant by September and be making torrefied wood in Millinocket by next summer.

There's even a train in the picture at around 00:40 in the video.

If they're planning on exporting this through Searsport that would be a very nice increase in annual traffic for MMA.

This may help a little?... http://www.laidlawenergy.com/NH_Project

The Bangor Daily News ran an article about the upcoming transportation bond (Question 4) which will be on the November ballot.

AUGUSTA, Maine — Maine voters will see something on the Nov. 6 ballot they haven’t seen in two years: bond issues.

Four borrowing proposals adding up to nearly $76 million will appear just below the public question that has drawn the most attention leading up to the election: same-sex marriage.

Two-thirds of the total borrowing the state seeks is for highways, bridges and other transportation projects. The rest is for public higher education, clean water projects and land conservation.
...
• $51.5 million for transportation projects. The bulk of the money is for improvements to Maine’s highways and bridges, with the rest going to projects including shipping port upgrades at Searsport and Eastport, transit buses, airports and expansion and improvement of medical evacuation helicopter facilities.

I was pretty sure there weren't any major rail proposals in the legislation and this was correct.

The only rail related funding was for the Industrial Rail Access Program (IRAP).

Sec. 5. Disbursement of bond proceeds from General Fund bond issue. The proceeds of the sale of the bonds authorized under this Act must be expended as designated in the following schedule under the direction and supervision of the agencies and entities set forth in this section.
TRANSPORTATION, DEPARTMENT OF
...
Provides funds for the Industrial Rail Access Program to be matched by at least $1,500,000 from private sources.

Total $1,500,000

To date my impression is that most of the IRAP funds seem to end up supporting customers seeking access to the SLR. With PARs new desire for incremental business we could see this trend reverse itself.

Interesting that the bond issue includes $2 million for "material handling equipment" at Mack Point (to be matched with private investment... praise the Lord! Still a BS subsidy, but at least they are actually getting user skin in the game). I'm thinking this is the torrefied wood potential (?)

If it is let's hope it doesn't go the way of Maine's other wood energy-related logistics investments: $5 million for the Mountain Sub. No pellet mill, no freight, no nothing; $7 million for Eastport expansion. No wood chips flowing, no freight, no nothing.

Note that the bond issuance would provide $1.5 million to the port of Eastport for a warehouse. For...?

Ironically they didn't manage to get the wood chips flowing the way they wanted to but now all of a sudden they are the primary export point on the East Coast for live cattle. Too bad that isn't something that's handled by rail anymore (not that this would work all that well anyways with the Calais Branch being gone).

When is the last time stockyard received cattle by rail? Does this even occur anymore? I'm assuming it doesn't.