Track 17 in Lawrence

Recently I was up there visiting my family, and noticed that track 17 ends at the "temporary" platform for track 1. I thought I heard track 17 was going to be put back in service, no? Frankly, though, I think a high-level platform is a better idea so this doesn't have to happen in the future, as it did last week:

Inbound MBTA going west on track 1, passes Lawrence station to clear the west limits of AS, then backs east on track 2 to make the station stop. Lost 10 minutes at least on the schedule on that move.

I know there's two topics here, but I had to get my two cents in about a second permanent platform for Lawrence.

KEEP DREAMING! Track 17 was supposed to become an express track for the "Downeaster", the outbound platfiorm was only temporary until CTC signals were installed and is now out of service. For 29 years now, the MBTA has promoised to put back the double track from Reading to Lawrence.

Given how close Guilford came to being put in receivership this fall (courts don't like companies that agree to settlements and then don't honor the agreement), if finishing track 17 requires GTI money, don't hold your breath. The power switch for the easterly end is in place, and there's only 100 yards of track to build (plus tie replacement on another 200 yards).

Of course, if it's awaiting MBTA money, it's lower priority than fixing the sub-standard bridges on that line: I still haven't heard what they don't like about the two Shawsheen River bridges in Andover (10 MPH since October), and it appears that the Merrimack River bridge in Haverhill won't be back to normal in Gov. Patrick's first term...

Track 17 isn't waiting for MBTA money. The agreement is that Pan Am will put that track and the freight runner in Lawrence Yard back to passenger standards to pay off money owed to the T from Pan Am. I think they had like a 3 or 4 year time frame to accomplish this task. Not saying Pan Am will not try to shake down Maine for the money to do so since it will help the Downeaster.

They are not going to demo the temp platform until the new signal system has more bugs worked out. They have been putting trains over there every now and then when things are backed up out there.

The track in question, 17 EAST was do to be put back this summer, but budget and time issues on PAR kept it, as well as many other projects from happening. The ultimate plan is for 17 EAST to tie directly onto what is now the Lawrence running track and become a 30mph track from CPF-FY to CPF-FR (Shawsheen to Frost). But that will not happen untill all of CPF-AS is reconfigured, and that may be years away. In the meantime, putting 17 EAST back in service will allow alot more flexibility with getting freights into and out of Lawrence yard without tying the mainlines up as much.

No track work is going to happen before spring at the earliest.

And it can't happen until the T really wants to have the temp platform removed from official service!

sery2831 wrote:And it can't happen until the T really wants to have the temp platform removed from official service!

The temporary platform was removed from service for awhile over the summer, but it's now back in service. And the T would take that platform out in a second if PAR would put the rest of the track in. PAR having a way to get off the mainline that much sooner was benifit MBCR far more then that little platform. The platform is only in the way of the last few hundred feet of completing the work on 17 EAST. It's not like the platform still being in place is slowing down the rehab of the existing 17 EAST, nor the addition of new track. The work is not being done because of money issues. Nothing to do with the MBCR.

NV290 wrote:The track in question, 17 EAST was do to be put back this summer, but budget and time issues on PAR kept it, as well as many other projects from happening. The ultimate plan is for 17 EAST to tie directly onto what is now the Lawrence running track and become a 30mph track from CPF-FY to CPF-FR (Shawsheen to Frost). But that will not happen untill all of CPF-AS is reconfigured, and that may be years away. In the meantime, putting 17 EAST back in service will allow alot more flexibility with getting freights into and out of Lawrence yard without tying the mainlines up as much.

No track work is going to happen before spring at the earliest.

The Lawrence Runner is the former eastward main, so wouldn't track 1 between FR and AS tie directly into it? Track 17 goes into the east end of the yard.

Rockingham Racer wrote:The Lawrence Runner is the former eastward main, so wouldn't track 1 between FR and AS tie directly into it? Track 17 goes into the east end of the yard.

Track 1 could tie into the runner, and that may be what happens. Which would in effect make the double track begin and CPF-273 and go all the way to CPF-FY. That would be one option, the other would be to leave the start of the double track at CPF-AS and then make 17 EAST tie onto the runner and make one long siding. That latter is what i was told will happen simply because if they give the runner up and make it an extension of track one, you now lost the ability to switch on the west end of Lawrence yard with anything more then a few cars and you lost a parking space for freights waiting out the commuter rush.

I wonder, then, how the B&M road freights switched Lawrence yard when the current runner was used for eastward trains. Can't they upgrade a track next to the current runner to become the new runner between FY and AS? I used to spend time up in FA tower, and can't remember the drill, except for the fact that freights in both directions came onto and off of both mains to/from the yard. Those were the days when the Bluebirds [GP-9s] were the hot item on the railroad.

I first saw Lawrence worked circa 1970; the switchers would make up blocks for the road freights, which would usually pick up and drop from the two outside sidings between AS and the Shawsheen River bridge (beyond current Frost). Pre-1965, when there were passenger trains to dodge all day, I expect freights often pulled in to one siding or the other and got the power out of the way while a yard switcher swapped blocks.

If AS were re-aligned so #1 track ran through (i.e. restore the eastward main), and the other crossovers were left as they are, then there would be enough room for most GTI freights to clear on #17 between Frost and AS. Picking up and dropping wouldn't be a problem - when I worked at Billerica in 1977, I was told the original motivation for the single-tracking from AS to LJ was primarily relay rail from lightly-used double track, but Fry was located where it is so that LM-1 could double out of the yard without fouling the main. There's little chance (certainly under GTI ownership) that Lawrence will need to originate 100-car westward freights regularly again. Regardless, I think there is room to extend the original lead through the Rt. 28 overpass; it would have to end before I-495, but that's ~30 more carlengths.

jbvb wrote:I first saw Lawrence worked circa 1970; the switchers would make up blocks for the road freights, which would usually pick up and drop from the two outside sidings between AS and the Shawsheen River bridge (beyond current Frost). Pre-1965, when there were passenger trains to dodge all day, I expect freights often pulled in to one siding or the other and got the power out of the way while a yard switcher swapped blocks.

If AS were re-aligned so #1 track ran through (i.e. restore the eastward main), and the other crossovers were left as they are, then there would be enough room for most GTI freights to clear on #17 between Frost and AS. Picking up and dropping wouldn't be a problem - when I worked at Billerica in 1977, I was told the original motivation for the single-tracking from AS to LJ was primarily relay rail from lightly-used double track, but Fry was located where it is so that LM-1 could double out of the yard without fouling the main. There's little chance (certainly under GTI ownership) that Lawrence will need to originate 100-car westward freights regularly again. Regardless, I think there is room to extend the original lead through the Rt. 28 overpass; it would have to end before I-495, but that's ~30 more carlengths.

I remember this period as well since I grew up in Andover during the 1970s. There were quite a few cars and quite an interesting operation I would say until 1984/85. I can remember when B&M took out the track between LJ and Frye. There were some signal realingments done in Andover between Ballardvale and the road into the cemetery. I beleive you are correct in your assesment of the room for additional track at least to the South Union Street (not 28) overpass. There used to be at least 4 tracks leading into the yard throat there and an additional track leading down near route 495, which I think was the lead to the old roundhouse located in the vicinity of the skating rink. The last time I looked, there was a trucking company of sorts that took over the roundhouse and the pit was filled in.

John