Lewiston & Auburn Maine Passenger Stations

[gokeefe]

Much as was done several years ago for Portland I'd like to open this thread for consolidated discussion of railroad passenger stations in Lewiston & Auburn, Maine both past, present and future. Of couse there is no station presently in service for rail passengers anywhere in Lewiston/Auburn but a number of stations survivie intact. Furthermore, there are a number of proposals outstanding at this time for service resumption of one kind or another to Lewiston/Auburn all of which have substantial challenges in determining the appropriate location for station placement.


The former Maine Central Railroad passenger station on the "Back Road" at Ironhorse Court, 1 Bates Street, Lewiston, ME has been extensively renovated. The building is also notable as perhaps one of the largest and best surviving examples of former Maine Central Railroad passenger stations anywhere.

The entire Ironhorse Court, at the dead end of Bates Street behind Central Maine Medical Center, is like that: polished, glowing and renovated to its 1916 glory on the front, with modern fixtures and touches in the back. It's Roy's dream that the complex, the former Maine Central Railroad passenger depot and surrounding warehouses, will become a business magnet and help kick off the rebirth of the hospital neighborhood. "Who's going to move in here?" Roy asked. "I don' t know, but I hope someone will. It's a beautiful building with tons of historical relevance to this area. People came here on train for the first time in this building. People left for war there." Roy has recently wrapped up renovations of the depot building, rechristened the Royal Oak Room, and the adjoining office space.

The former Grand Trunk Railway station at 103 Lincoln Street, Lewiston, ME, is in the process of being renovated to house the Grand Trunk Cafe.

LEWISTON — The owner and developer of a railroad-themed restaurant said she's still planning to open at some point, but she wouldn't say much more. Karen Pulkkinen, the developer and would-be restaurant owner, said she is working toward a fall opening date for her Grand Trunk Cafe, despite issues with the building. "I have one dream and one dream only — and that's to open up this restaurant with a train theme and offer jobs to the community," Pulkkinen said.
...
Pulkkinen in January signed a roughly $21,000 per year lease with LA Railroad, owners of the historic building at 103 Lincoln St. It was built in 1899 and served as the landing spot for many of Lewiston-Auburn's Canadian immigrants. It's been on the National Register of Historic Places since 1979. Lucien Gosselin, president of LA Railroad, said Pulkkinen is current on her lease payments. "The lease does not have a drop-dead date on renovations," he said. "So there's nothing we can do at this point, except wait."

Some discussion has occasssionally surfaced regarding reusing the former Grand Trunk alignment all the way to the station site in Lewiston, however there is also generalized oppostion to this idea as it would result in the loss of the bridge for pedestrian access to and from Lewiston and Auburn. The former MEC station on the Back Road doesn't seem to come up at all but it is potentially a very strong candidate for consideration. The primary "new build" proposal involves the construction of a new station (for the most part only a platform with a very basic shelter) near the L/A airport at the Hotel Road.

[EDIT: Grammar]

[markhb]

For completeness, we can also mention the concept the Auburn City Council has floated for a downtown station, which I think is intended to go in the separate parking lot seen here.

[gokeefe]

For completeness, we can also mention the concept the Auburn City Council has floated for a downtown station, which I think is intended to go in the separate parking lot seen here.

Good catch! I had looked at some of that area but missed the way those parking lots are parceled out. I agree. If as you say that's the location they're looking at it would be very well placed. No real issues with train length there either especially from the southerly approach.

[BM6569]

I always thought the Lewiston MEC station would be a good one to reuse as a station but service will not be expanded past Lewiston on that line. However, the location where Auburn wants to put the bus station (and future train station) is on that line. Those two locations go hand in hand and the Lewiston GT station would best be used if a station was built out by the airport. Remember, the Auburn GT station was just on the other side of the river.

[gokeefe]

I always thought the Lewiston MEC station would be a good one to reuse as a station but service will not be expanded past Lewiston on that line. However, the location where Auburn wants to put the bus station (and future train station) is on that line. Those two locations go hand in hand and the Lewiston GT station would best be used if a station was built out by the airport. Remember, the Auburn GT station was just on the other side of the river.

I've been looking at the airport and frankly I can't see the value in locating a station out there. It reminds me of the Sanford Auto Train (SFA) terminal. Out in a completely industrial area that is almost entirely freight oriented.

[markhb]

I can see the airport location having merit under the following considerations/assumptions:

1. Any rail expansion beyond L/A would be towards Norway/South Paris and Bethel; this location is essentially on the way there.
2. The land is already publicly owned. Plus, the lack of nearby residences means that any maintenance facility to be built there (to handle additional trainsets) wouldn't need the expensive soundproofed building, and could just be outdoors like what currently exists in Portland.
3. There's room to get the platform track away from the STL main; that room doesn't really exist at either Railroad St. or the old Lewiston Upper.
4. There's plenty of room for parking.
5. The number of riders who would use the service to actually visit downtown Auburn or Lewiston is anticipated to be minuscule, and readily handled by a shuttle bus connection.
6. The target customers in the L/A area aren't anticipated to be "carless" downtown residents at all, but single-family residence dwellers from a much wider area than downtown L/A.

Comparing that to the potential downtown locations:

1. The Railroad St. location is on a curve and lacks much in the way of parking unless you're going to use Hannaford's lot.
2. Lewiston Upper is in what is currently a lousy area that isn't very convenient to anything you might want to visit in downtown Lewiston except the hospital (and the Dunkin' Donuts that actually makes donuts), and it has no room for parking.
3. Both Railroad St. and Lewiston Upper would clog up the PAR mainline.
4. Lewiston GT would require restoration of the Lewiston-Auburn railroad all the way across Washington St. (where the grade crossing has been removed), as well as de-pedestrianation of the bridge over the river which would undoubtedly be a seriously hot potato. At least it would be close to the millyard.
5. Auburn GT is near absolutely nothing and would be miserable to try to turn into a modern station.
6. As has been shown in other threads, the Lewiston Lower ROW is essentially decimated and would be seriously messy to try to restore to a useful station location.

[gokeefe]

I can see the airport location having merit under the following considerations/assumptions:

1. Any rail expansion beyond L/A would be towards Norway/South Paris and Bethel; this location is essentially on the way there.
2. The land is already publicly owned. Plus, the lack of nearby residences means that any maintenance facility to be built there (to handle additional trainsets) wouldn't need the expensive soundproofed building, and could just be outdoors like what currently exists in Portland.
3. There's room to get the platform track away from the STL main; that room doesn't really exist at either Railroad St. or the old Lewiston Upper.
4. There's plenty of room for parking.
5. The number of riders who would use the service to actually visit downtown Auburn or Lewiston is anticipated to be minuscule, and readily handled by a shuttle bus connection.
6. The target customers in the L/A area aren't anticipated to be "carless" downtown residents at all, but single-family residence dwellers from a much wider area than downtown L/A.

And this is exactly where I think we should be concerned. I am begining to think that the real push for service is going to be towards Bangor with Waterville as the intermediate step. Perhaps even Portland - Waterville in a single shot with another layover facility/track built in Waterville. I think it is much easier to justify going all the way to Waterville than it is to stub end the operation in Lewiston. Assuming certain improvements were made the Lewiston Upper location actually has quite a bit of room for parking including a vacant lot that could probably be converted to use as a parking lot for less than $200,000 (and maybe even less than that). I assume the warehouse building would be torn down and that an agreement could be made with the hospital (CMMC) in regards to their parking lot on Middle Street. The former warehouse lands would be converted to ground transportation facilities and accomodations (bus, taxi and pickup lanes) and the hospital parking lot would be part of the core parking for the station, or serve as some kind of shared space. The is also a large three story parking garage on Chapel Street that belong to the Peck building immediately to the south. Even though it is a private facility I would not rule out either a) acquistion or b) an agreement for certain spaces or c) an agreement for public parking rates.

Comparing that to the potential downtown locations:

1. The Railroad St. location is on a curve and lacks much in the way of parking unless you're going to use Hannaford's lot.
2. Lewiston Upper is in what is currently a lousy area that isn't very convenient to anything you might want to visit in downtown Lewiston except the hospital (and the Dunkin' Donuts that actually makes donuts), and it has no room for parking.
3. Both Railroad St. and Lewiston Upper would clog up the PAR mainline.
4. Lewiston GT would require restoration of the Lewiston-Auburn railroad all the way across Washington St. (where the grade crossing has been removed), as well as de-pedestrianation of the bridge over the river which would undoubtedly be a seriously hot potato. At least it would be close to the millyard.
5. Auburn GT is near absolutely nothing and would be miserable to try to turn into a modern station.
6. As has been shown in other threads, the Lewiston Lower ROW is essentially decimated and would be seriously messy to try to restore to a useful station location.

I agree that the Railroad Street location is constrained. It also would never have any space for a "real" station, just a platform. In regards to operational concerns I think these could be addressed by adding passing tracks either at the Auburn station location or the Lewiston station location. As best I can tell this may have been the case in the past anyways. I strongly agree that both of the GT options are terrible. I also agree that the Lewiston Lower is probably not the answer either but I have mixed feelings about it. Regardless, the Lewiston Lower serves neither long term interest of operating "through" to Bethel or to Waterville. So at least in that sense it is out entirely. The GT options would commit to providing "through" service to Bethel only (unless new connections were made somewhere in Auburn to PAR). The Lewiston Upper doesn't rule out Bethel but it would a very lengthy reverse move all the way to Danville Junction with the attendant inconveniences to the passengers. The Hotel Road option, especially if it is close to the Turnpike is pretty bad for transit oriented development and really doesn't seem to serve the needs of passengers traveling to Lewiston-Auburn at all. For example, it is 6 miles to the Hilton Garden Inn from the Hotel Road crossing.

Perhaps the most radical alternative of all would be to build at the Station Road right at Danville Junction (32 Station Road, Auburn, ME). There could be two platforms (just one initially), one on either side of the property with station and ground transportation facilities in the middle. It's a little out of the way but the roadways back into Auburn and Lewiston are much better than from the Hotel Road. Access to the Turnpike is good and in fact better than any downtown station location. One other major advantage is that the costs of building here would likely be much lower than anywhere else and the land parcels are likely already railroad owned.

[BM6569]

Lewiston Upper:

There was a yard there with a turntable at one time. There were several tracks on one side. I think there may have been another track between the main and station. I think that would be an attractive location with the hospital so close and downtown Lewiston not too long of a walk up the street. You've got the parking garage as George mentioned and I've never seen it full. I've walked to the top level to get shots of trains crossing the river and there's maybe a handful of cars parked there. The building as restored has a nice waiting room area. I don't see how this station fits it to current expansion plans unless maybe there was a future DE shuttle as hinted at by NNEPRA. With that shuttle, it may make sense to have a downtown location. At the moment, it looks like service to L/A is headed towards the SLR main with that hotel train. (Nothing will go past it on PAR to Waterville, that will happen via the lower road) I think some sort of station/platform will be constructed in the area of the airport. Except as mentioned, it's an industrial area and there is no parking or available locations at the moment for something like that. I think Auburn should have something if that service becomes a reality next year. We'll see if Auburn is part of the plan in terms of station stops along the route.

I think the Lewiston lower (GT) station is an interesting option. That whole area around the mills is making a come back and construction for that new hotel just down Lincoln Street is starting. You have the large parking garage a block away at the corner of Lincoln and Chestnut. The station is quite a long walk from either downtown but not terrible. You could have a nice waiting room with a platform. The restaurant that's supposed to go in there still hasn't opened up. Haven't heard any recent updates. Not sure how exactly this station would fit into the plans either. If a station was opened near the airport, you could have a shuttle from the Lewiston lower station or maybe it could become a stub end line. Hopefully we get some clarity next year from the MRTC if the hotel train works out. Maybe they will alter their plan if the SLR tracks get some upgrades for the proposed passenger service. Would be less money they'd need to raise, especially if this hotel train takes the SLR to Yarmouth. Could also get some plans moving for the Auburn/Lewiston shuttle service to the PTC depending on the route.

And the railroad street station location in Auburn will have the least amount of space, IMO. There were two tracks in that area right up to Spring St. None of the possible station locations are directly in the downtown center of either city but well within walking distance. I'd be driving in from Hebron, about 15/20 minutes. The airport would be closest for me but I wouldn't mind driving into Lewiston if that's where I had to board. Oxford or South Paris is also a 15 minute drive. Would beat driving down to Portland!

[MEC407]

Perhaps the most radical alternative of all would be to build at the Station Road right at Danville Junction (32 Station Road, Auburn, ME). There could be two platforms (just one initially), one on either side of the property with station and ground transportation facilities in the middle. It's a little out of the way but the roadways back into Auburn and Lewiston are much better than from the Hotel Road. Access to the Turnpike is good and in fact better than any downtown station location. One other major advantage is that the costs of building here would likely be much lower than anywhere else and the land parcels are likely already railroad owned.

Call me radical, but this is what I've been thinking about all along.

[gokeefe]

Perhaps the most radical alternative of all would be to build at the Station Road right at Danville Junction (32 Station Road, Auburn, ME). There could be two platforms (just one initially), one on either side of the property with station and ground transportation facilities in the middle. It's a little out of the way but the roadways back into Auburn and Lewiston are much better than from the Hotel Road. Access to the Turnpike is good and in fact better than any downtown station location. One other major advantage is that the costs of building here would likely be much lower than anywhere else and the land parcels are likely already railroad owned.

Call me radical, but this is what I've been thinking about all along.

Great minds think alike!

The problem that I see with this option is that it simply doesn't spur any redevelopment. The immediate Danville Junction area is not only rural (there's a large farmfield west of the SLR main) but it also has some wetlands which would effectively preclude future development of any kind ever. That being the case when we think of passengers and what the train is doing we are fundamentally thinking of people. These trains are designed to serve people. So when we consider station siting alternatives people are what we should be siting our stations close to.

Obviously the Danville Junction option makes the most operational sense but I think in the long run it might make the least economic sense. The other primary alternative that seems to be emerging in my mind is to have two stations Auburn (Danville Junction, two platforms, SLR & PAR) and Lewiston (Back Road @ Iron Horse Court, serving PAR). Even though they would be six miles apart I think there is a legitimate argument to be made in favor of doing it this way. Worst case scenario one of them could be used only on a seasonal basis.

[MEC407]

The problem that I see with this option is that it simply doesn't spur any redevelopment. The immediate Danville Junction area is not only rural (there's a large farmfield west of the SLR main) but it also has some wetlands which would effectively preclude future development of any kind ever.

The wetland issue may not be insurmountable. I've seen wetlands filled in/developed all over Maine, especially for municipal/state/quasi-gov projects. Often (but not as often as I'd like) they attempt to re-create the wetland somewhere else in the general area. As a nature lover I'm really not a fan of this, but it does happen a lot, especially for projects that are considered to be "for the greater good" — transportation-related projects in particular. For example, a large swath of marshy waterfoul habitat was filled in last year so that PWM could increase the length of one of their runways.

[Watchman318]

It's good to see somebody thinking this out, instead of automatically declaring "It ain't gonna work."
I hope one or all of you guys can provide some input to the people who might make this happen.
I hereby nominate all y'all to the planning commission.

[gokeefe]

The problem that I see with this option is that it simply doesn't spur any redevelopment. The immediate Danville Junction area is not only rural (there's a large farmfield west of the SLR main) but it also has some wetlands which would effectively preclude future development of any kind ever.

The wetland issue may not be insurmountable. I've seen wetlands filled in/developed all over Maine, especially for municipal/state/quasi-gov projects. Often (but not as often as I'd like) they attempt to re-create the wetland somewhere else in the general area. As a nature lover I'm really not a fan of this, but it does happen a lot, especially for projects that are considered to be "for the greater good" — transportation-related projects in particular. For example, a large swath of marshy waterfoul habitat was filled in last year so that PWM could increase the length of one of their runways.

I have little doubt that that old station footprint at the north end of the junction can accomodate a new facility. But as far as I can tell that would be the extent of the new infrastructure. In terms of private sector development, light or dense commericial or even mixed use the land down has either reverted to nature or is kept in a natural state (farm fields). Residential settlement down there is also low density. That is not to say that any of this could or couldn't be changed but at least for the moment if Danville Junction was chosen for a station site it would not directly serve the major population densities in downtown Auburn-Lewiston.

I think for both of us that's okay to a certain extent but at least for my part there is a certain sense of concern that this might be a real mistake that is being done for the sake of operational simplicity. In this case the routing serves the trains better than it serves the people. Is that the right thing to do and what is the return on investment for the municipality that would be responsible for maintaining a platform (or even platforms)?

Another angle is to ask if there is even the potential for future commericial development at Danville Junction? I would assume anything there would probably be low density, maybe a general store. That would certainly be a nice amenity for the residents but are talking about a neighborhood in which there can't possibly be more than 300 people living in the immediate area.

Let's take this question to the next obvious step. Say they do build a new station at Danville Junction. Perhaps just the SLR platform first. Plan the whole thing out. Leave room, plenty of room for a future PAR side platform. Do it all right. Then what? The parking lot has to be built, Station Road would probably need to be ground down and rebuilt from the sub-grade up and a whole host of other issues (like utilities) would have to be dealt with as well. Insurmountable? Not at all. More expensive than an existing site? Absolutely.

But as we all know siting a station off the SLR main introduces substantial complexity into the equation where there shouldn't be any.

I think the answer I could live with was a deliberate phased implementation that used a minimalist approach with extensive engineering and planning for the full solution which could be rolled out over time. Even then that still means we are stuck at Danville Junction for the Auburn station. I think in the long run that's okay, especially since it offers some better options in the future. We will just have to assume that the Auburn station would not involve as much, or any transit oriented development as reopening the Lewiston station would. I think people in Auburn would be okay with that but even then I'm not entirely sure.

The "real" option in all of this might just be connecting the LARR with PAR at Washington Street thus allowing for a reverse move in Auburn (or Lewiston) that doesn't cause an inordinate amount of lost trip time. The SLR has hinted as much in regards to their restoration of 6,000 feet of the Rangeley Branch in this article in the Sun-Journal from April.

AUBURN — Officials will cut the ribbon Wednesday for the ceremonial construction start of a rail line at the intermodal facility that will help freight service now and allow freight and passenger rail to coexist in the future, according to Bob Thompson, executive director at the Androscoggin Valley Council of Governments. The project is threefold: Restoring 6,600 feet of the old Rangeley Branch line, building a 400-foot spur and building 1,500 feet of siding so trains can more easily pull over to let another pass.

[elecuyer]

How about something real radical?

Construct a new railroad along the turnpike alignment from exit 80 to a spot roughly near Rumford Junction on the MEC. Use the power line alignment to cut over from the turnpike to the junction. Then reactivate the line from Rumford Junction, through the Martindale Golf Course, onto the reactivated Rangley branch. Put in wyes at Rumford, and 2 stations - one at the exit and another near the airport.

Operational flexibility at its best.

Too bad it would cost a fortune, making it impracticable.

[gokeefe]

Construct a new railroad along the turnpike alignment from exit 80 to a spot roughly near Rumford Junction on the MEC. Use the power line alignment to cut over from the turnpike to the junction. Then reactivate the line from Rumford Junction, through the Martindale Golf Course, onto the reactivated Rangley branch. Put in wyes at Rumford, and 2 stations - one at the exit and another near the airport.

Just for clarity I believe this proposal contemplates using the Lewiston Lower Road from Brunswick to Rumford Junction which was east of the mill district in Lewiston.