St. Lawrence & Atlantic Railroad (SLR/SLQ)

gokeefe wrote:
I have serious trouble imagining that a fixed span over a gap of less than 200' feet would cost $40,000,000 to replace. This argument assumes that the approach trestle is largely undamaged and would be reused. I've always understood the case to be that the fire took place on the moveable span itself and not on the trestle. Anyways, that's what I'm seeing. I'd be interested to hear what others think and in particular if we can confirm whether or not the $40,000,000 estimate for replacement/construction was in fact for a drawbridge or moveable span. That in of itself might reveal certain things about the politics behind why this project hasn't been taken on yet.

No, 40,000,000 is for the approach spans as well. THAT is where the major cost would lie, as they ate rickety wooden supports that have seen virtually NO maintenance in close to 30 years. They would have to be completely replaced if passenger OR freight ever came back.
Also, I'm sure simply "re-gauging" the rests of the way to India street would not do either. The entire route would have to be excavated and ties, ballast and probably rails as well, replaced in order to reach India.

Cosmo wrote:

gokeefe wrote:
I have serious trouble imagining that a fixed span over a gap of less than 200' feet would cost $40,000,000 to replace. This argument assumes that the approach trestle is largely undamaged and would be reused. I've always understood the case to be that the fire took place on the moveable span itself and not on the trestle. Anyways, that's what I'm seeing. I'd be interested to hear what others think and in particular if we can confirm whether or not the $40,000,000 estimate for replacement/construction was in fact for a drawbridge or moveable span. That in of itself might reveal certain things about the politics behind why this project hasn't been taken on yet.

No, 40,000,000 is for the approach spans as well. THAT is where the major cost would lie, as they ate rickety wooden supports that have seen virtually NO maintenance in close to 30 years. They would have to be completely replaced if passenger OR freight ever came back.

Ok, that makes more sense then.

Cosmo wrote:Also, I'm sure simply "re-gauging" the rests of the way to India street would not do either. The entire route would have to be excavated and ties, ballast and probably rails as well, replaced in order to reach India.

Photos I've seen of the MNGRR operation show good ties and light but decent ballast. However, I think you've seen most of it it in person. I've only seen the very end by the Maine State Pier.

Yeah, they've been cutting the ties down to a more proper width for 2' operations. The ballast is fine for the relatively light 2' equipment, but for any sort of modern, std ga operations a wider base would be required, so you'd pretty much have to rip out what's there and do what they're doing in Westbrook.
That, plus the bridge, plus adding facilities for whatever service you would put in would make for a much more substantial sum.

Cosmo wrote:That, plus the bridge, plus adding facilities for whatever service you would put in would make for a much more substantial sum.

Was the new bridge going to be a fixed span?

PAR mileage Portland to Yarmouth Jct: 13.5, running time "back in the day": 20 min; GT mileage India Street to Yarmouth Jct: 12.2, running time "back in the day": 26 min+.
PAR mileage Portland to Danville Jct: 29.1; GT mileage India St to Danville Jct 27.6.

Initial conclusion: Only possible need for passenger service over former GT would be for local/commuter, as the line would offer no time/significant distance advantage between Portland and Yarmouth Jct/Danville Jct, where the PAR lines connect.

RE local service...

Greatest distance between lines: 1.25 miles. Orientation: Essentially parallel. Only community whose population would clearly be more advantageously served by the former GT: Falmouth. Distance from Falmouth to Portland: ~6 miles. Auto commute time FAL-POR in the worst traffic: 15-20 mins. Intermediate conclusion: For the greater Portland "diaspora", the GT line's only strategic advantage is its location in Falmouth... and Falmouth is too close to Portland to attract commuter rail riders. MDOT's recent study on Portland North commuter issues confirms this.

Which leaves GT's "advantageous" terminal location in Portland... Street running west of India Street is pure fantasy, so assume the terminus is at the former station location. GT to Congress Square: 1.1 miles; PTC to Congress Square 1.9 miles. (Old Union Station to Congress Square 1.1 miles.) Difference in station-office commute time: negligible, assuming comparable connecting bus service (which would be diluted should train traffic be diluted over two locations).

So how do you justify a $40 million+++ expenditure?

I just laugh whenever I'm reminded of MDOT's requirement for the MNG museum to use standard gauge ties. Luckily they didn't force them to re-gauge the rolling stock - just in case!

gokeefe wrote:

Cosmo wrote:That, plus the bridge, plus adding facilities for whatever service you would put in would make for a much more substantial sum.

Was the new bridge going to be a fixed span?

What new bridge?
The only plan I was aware of was either fix the old one, or build a completely new one connecting the Union Branch to the SL&A.

gokeefe wrote:

Cowford wrote:

gokeefe wrote:Every sign I can possibly see with this line is that the State is keeping their options open...

You've made a good point that I didn't fully consider... pulling the diamond would, in many respects, indicate abandonment... and unless MDOT had some sort of ironclad agreement with PAR to put it back it in at a later date, there would be a major challenge to get it back in. Realistically, the chances of that line's resurgence ever being service again are slim (marginal chance for incremental freight business) to none (passenger service - not in our lifetimes).

...

Here's another factor to consider. The $40,000,000 estimate may in fact have been for full replacement of the Back Cove Bridge as a moveable span or some kind of drawbridge. That being the case a fixed span would be certain to have lower costs for construction than a new span which preserves maritime transit into Back Cove. I do not know for what purpose it was ever necessary to construct such a substantial span to allow large vessels to access Back Cove, but from everything I've ever seen in that area such maritime activity has long ago ceased. That being the case the possibility that it might be acceptable to install a fixed span may actually be quite high and of course its corresponding costs quite low. As it stands Tukey's Bridge (carrying I-295) directly to the West already imposes a height limit on what can get into Back Cove anyways.

From what I have seen in old photos, Back Cove was quite industrialized at one time, and I believe several facilities there had their own docks. Of course, any thought of that resuming has long since passed with the construction of I-295. But regarding the bridge replacement, if there's a defined need of some sort to maintain the same navigational clearance that Tukey's Bridge offers (even if it's for pleasure sailboats), then I would think that the replacement rail span would have to have a draw as a fixed bridge at that level would likely have too steep an approach grade from the existing road on either end.

So far as maintaining the rail line goes, the Presumpscot Street corridor (at least between the street and the highway) is still a Medium-Impact Industrial zone, and I would think the city would want the state to preserve the line for that reason (especially since it still has an active, if low-volume customer). I wonder about Nappi's Distributors move to Gorham: do the major breweries no longer ship product by rail to the wholesalers?

I am pretty well certain (from conversation with those more local) that Back Cove channel is no longer maintained as navigable, and therefore the span need not be movable if repaired or replaced.

Cowford wrote:Intermediate conclusion: For the greater Portland "diaspora", the GT line's only strategic advantage is its location in Falmouth... and Falmouth is too close to Portland to attract commuter rail riders. MDOT's recent study on Portland North commuter issues confirms this.

The above intermediate conclusion was contained in a paragraph dealing with local service. I'll address a broader point but also this conclusion directly.

The GT line's primary strategic advantage is that it allows rail service to Lewiston - Auburn to bypass PAR. I will agree and acknowledge that there simply is no need or demand at this time or for the next 5 years (minimum) projected for Lewiston - Auburn to Portland passenger rail service.

There are two substantial bottlenecks that the line bypasses entirely, one in Deering and the other being the "Back Road" from Royal Junction to Lewiston.

The line also allows MDOT to bypass PAR on an administrative/tactical basis as well, should that be necessary. While this may not be necessary any longer should freight volumes ever change on PAR's lines the balance of the equation would change as well. In particular this would mean that if for whatever reason MDOT/NNEPRA wanted to run service to Lewiston - Auburn the track improvements required from PAR could be substantial (due to some kind of change in their freight operations).

One of the dominant reasons that the Brunswick Branch rehabilitation didn't cost more than it did was because PAR's freight volume on that line is very low. PAR felt comfortable with taking a branch rehabilitation and not asking for a lot of passing sidings because they knew the would likely always be able to work around whatever interchange traffic they would have with the MERR.

Using the Back Road to serve L/A might not be so simple. Furthermore should MDOT/NNEPRA ever start running other services to L/A or even the unrealistic possibility of Montreal the tracks through Deeing simply may not have the capacity that PAR feels they would need to assure minimal freight-passenger interference. I would generally agree that installing double track through Deeing to Royal Junction is likely cheaper than building a new bridge but when your start talking about additional improvements to the Back Road all the way to Lewiston I'm not so sure the equation stays the same, especially if you are looking for a sure-fire way to avoid delays and interference.

Cowford wrote:So how do you justify a $40 million+++ expenditure?

Right now you don't which is why it won't and shouldn't happen. However some small improvements here and there to keep the Right of Way viable into the future seem very prudent. When the time comes at least they'll still have the option should they think they need it.

The Back Road is a bottleneck? With, what, four trains per day? MEC ran probably two daozen trains/day through Deering years ago... I'm sure that could be replicated today without the need to rebuild the GT line.

We have, I think, 3 possible routings from Portland to Auburn:

1. PAR to Yarmouth Junction, GT to Auburn. This is the route the state report designated as the cheapest and easiest to get running since freight traffic between Danville and Yarmouth is minimal. It does not miss what gokeefe identifies as the Deering bottleneck, but if Track 2 between Allen and Riverside doesn't solve that the ROW is wide enough to restore 2 anywhere between Allen and Woodfords, or between Brighton and Congress (I'm assuming that double-tracking the residential stretch is going to be off the table).
2. PAR to Danville, GT to Auburn. The state report said that this could require double-tracking the whole Back Road. It also doesn't miss the Deering bottleneck.
3. PAR to the Union Branch (does the junction by McDonalds have a name?), a new Union Branch along the 295 ROW to a new trestle to the GT. This misses the Deering stretch but requires the new bridge and fails to leverage the rehab done for the Brunswick extension. The plan for running along 295 was also created before the Intermed building and the college apartments were built along Marginal Way, and while I'm sure the ROW is intact those would be likely to generate opposition that would not have existed when the north side of the street was vacant.

I've left out an India street routing, as I don't think either street running on Commercial or a new terminal at the GT site are viable choices.

Cowford wrote:The Back Road is a bottleneck? With, what, four trains per day? MEC ran probably two daozen trains/day through Deering years ago... I'm sure that could be replicated today without the need to rebuild the GT line.

Absolutely right. It is not a bottleneck right now hence no need for a new bridge.

However, should that ever change I think MDOT is concerned that their passenger option through Deering and then onto the Back Road for Auburn is going to dissapear. I know its unlikely. I'm pretty sure they know its unlikely to, hence no spending any money. On the other hand things sometimes change for reasons that are impossible to anticipate and railroad corridors are essentially impossible to restore once they're gone, hence keeping the corridor viable and making changes necessary to keep it relevant into the future.

One of the most obvious advantages of the PAR route is that it goes right through Auburn and Lewiston, while the SLR barely skirts the outer fringes of Auburn and does not go into Lewiston at all. For those going to L/A on business, they will be much closer (and thus a cheaper taxi ride) to most locations. The one exception being the airport, but that is not much of a passenger destination.

Why spend millions to rehab the SLR, when the PAR is in better condition, and much more user friendly?

merrman wrote:One of the most obvious advantages of the PAR route is that it goes right through Auburn and Lewiston, while the SLR barely skirts the outer fringes of Auburn and does not go into Lewiston at all. For those going to L/A on business, they will be much closer (and thus a cheaper taxi ride) to most locations. The one exception being the airport, but that is not much of a passenger destination.

Why spend millions to rehab the SLR, when the PAR is in better condition, and much more user friendly?

Remembering that we are talking in theoreticals I'll mention the following:

The state has given every indication that should it provide service to Lewiston - Auburn it has in some scenarios considered reactivation of the Grand Trunk spur into downtown Lewiston to, yes you guessed it, the old GT passenger station built in 1885 that still stands to this day on Lincoln Street. That's one of their answers to the access issue with Lewiston. Some locals have indicated that would strongly protest losing the walking path over the railroad bridge that they gained when it was converted to trail use.

One thought about using the SLR to Lewiston is that when this planning started eons
ago Guilford was a lot less cooperative- in fact antagonistic towards passenger train
expansion. By putting together a route using the Union Branch, a new Back Cove bridge
and the SLR, Guilford could be completely bypassed and avoided. Given current politics
such an extreme plan probably wouldn't be necessary but as already said the State is
hedging it's bets.
Regarding ever seeing a train at GT's old Lincoln St. depot- when the State proposed
linking SLR to Lewiston Lower Branch across Lincoln St. the city put up a howl about
losing the pedestrian walkway on the bridge. That's not really the problem people make
it out to be- a new walkway could be built on outriggers on the side of the bridge. The
Real problem is people (NIMBY / BANANA / etc.) dealing with trains in a newly redeveloped
area and the cost of removing new construction to make room for it.