why did the eastern route fail?

[HSSRAIL]

In browsing on the Internet the Portsmouth Newspaper had an article that stated thru service thru Portsmouth from Boston to Portland ought to be revived. Property values along the Downeaster route have substantially increased as a result of the new Amtrak Passenger service. This situation is putting preassure on Portsmouth, NH insofar as they stand to lose commerce with the western route. As gasoline is slated to hit $6.00 a gallon by 2009 Portsmouth's lack of rail service could take a bite out of its economy. Insofar as a route I see no reason tracks could not be placed in a median strip along Interstate Hwy 95. Chicago has been very aggressive in this respect and New York has placed an elevated transit route to JFK in the median strip of the Van Wyck Expressway.

As of right now Airlines are eliminating service to some cities entirely and severely cutting back on flights. In looking at airline costs a 1/3 increase in fuel prices means $2 billion dollars more expense for a major airline. Truckers are already being driven to the wall now let alone $6.00 a gallon diesel fuel.

The Eastern route to Berwick may be revived someday as economic preassures build on Portsmouth, NH.

[b&m 1566]

In browsing on the Internet the Portsmouth Newspaper had an article that stated thru service thru Portsmouth from Boston to Portland ought to be revived.

I can't see a new ROW being built for the eastern route north of Portsmouth; it’s too bad much of the Eastern Route from Kittery to Berwick is obliterated.

2. The need to completely rebuild the bridge over the Merrimack River in Newburyport. This bridge has probably not been used since the early 1980s, and at this point is probably ready to be demolished.
3. Security around the Seabrook Nuclear Plant. The ROW could probably be rerouted around the plant, but this would probably open a whole new can of worms with residents and environmentalists. Does anyone know if the ROW is still intact through the plant property?

The last train to cross over the bridge in Newburyport from what I've been told was in the late 60's early 70's, however I always though Amesbury saw service into the late 70's early 80's.
The tracks near the Nuclear Plant are still in place but there are sections to the south of the plant that are gone, particularly behind the Wal-Mart in Seabrook.

[Dick H]

I really don't see the Eastern route being rebuilt between Newburyport and Portsmouth.
In adddition to the aforementioned Merrimack River Bridge, the narrow overpass on Low St. was removed long ago to widen the road. Also, there has been a large condo project built very close to the right of way approaching the river and there would be an all-out effort to reconstruct the rail line in that area. An overpass on Rt.#1 in Salisbury is long gone also.

Moving into NH, I believe an overpass in Seabrook has been removed also. The rail line does not run anywhere near the beach in Seabrook, Hampton or Rye, so there are no benefits there for the tourist trade. The amount of available land in Portsmouth itself is fast disappearing, so I don't see much further overall growth there. I live in NH, so don't forget that NH pays for very little public transportation. NH so far has not paid one dollar of state funds to support the Downeaster.

PAR/GRS receives an annual subsidy from the federal government to maintain the line from Rockingham Juntion to Portsmouth and on to Kittery, so that the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard can have service. Other than an infrequent shipment of nuclear material, the Yard has not used rail service in many years. There are a few other customers in Portsmouth and Newington and PAR/GRS sends a local freight to service them once or twice a week.

If Portsmouth were to get passenger rail service, it would be much less expensive, although not cheap, to upgrade the line between Portsmouth and Rockingham to passenger standards. This would require pretty much a total rebuild of the line, as it has had a 10MPH speed limit for many years. In addition, there is a wooden trestle over the Squamscott River, east of Rockingham, that would require replacement. Commuter service could run to Rockingham and then down the Western Route to Exeter and Mass.

Dick

[jbvb]

The Newburyport draw was last used early in 1965. The last freight to Amesbury (and probably the last move west of Seabrook) was in 1968. There was a lot of traffic to Seabrook while the nuke was being built, but there weren't any other customers west of Hampton, and the track was torn up circa 1980.

Replacing the Low St., MA 110 and US 1 bridges would cost a considerable amount, but less than a new Merrimac River bridge. The RoW is grade-separated at most major roads, a legacy of high-speed passenger service before 1952. 30 years ago, US 1 moved fairly freely, but now it's approaching traffic-light-per-block in Portsmouth, Hampton and Seabrook, and locals don't expect NH to put in more interchanges on the toll interstate 95. The alignment is straight enough that non-stop Portsmouth - Boston could be done in an hour, 7 or 8 stops in 90 minutes. One problem with serving Portsmouth via the Western Route is that every train that turns at Rockingham Jct. will be a train that doesn't serve Newmarket, Durham and Dover. The other is that Seabrook and the Hamptons get nothing. I think I may live to see it happen, barring enough sea-level rise that the marsh crossings become problematic.

[B&Mguy]

Wow, it was the long ago that the drawbridge was last used? Was the bridge actually put out of service in 1965, or was there just no traffic left? I guess all freight for Salisbury and north could come down from Portsmouth. If that's the case, that bridge will definitely have to be torn down and rebuilt if this line ever gets restored.

I don't see the point of serving Portsmouth from the Western. While it would give the city rail service, as well as towns along the branch line, it bypasses all the towns along the coast, and would really not alleviate an traffic on route 1. Someone above already mentioned this, but it's an excellent point that makes a lot of sense. At the very least, the town of Hampton should also be served, as it seems to have a dense population, and I'm sure many people from the area drive down to Newburyport. Have they ever done a count of how many NH cars are parked at Newburyport each day?

[truman]

Lots of talk about how much things would cost "if"...
Considering current economic trends, how much will it cost if nothing is done?

[TomNelligan]

Wow, it was the long ago that the drawbridge was last used? Was the bridge actually put out of service in 1965, or was there just no traffic left? I guess all freight for Salisbury and north could come down from Portsmouth. If that's the case, that bridge will definitely have to be torn down and rebuilt if this line ever gets restored.

That was when passenger service was cut back from Portsmouth to Newburyport (1/65), and there was no need to maintain the bridge for local freight service when what was left of it north of the river could be covered from Portsmouth. The B&M was hard up for cash and the bridgetender was an expense that could easily be eliminated.

I'm not a bridge engineer, but I do have experience working with corrosion in industrial environments, and I agree that after 43 years of not rotating plus no maintainence other than what might have been necessary to keep pieces from falling onto boaters, that bridge would have to be removed and rebuilt, probably with a higher fixed span.

[#7470]

Kinda of a big bump here but here is a ton of info on the Easter Route.

http://www.oldrr.com/eastnidx.htm

[NH2060]

Just from looking at maps of the ROW this looks like an excellent candidate for high speed rail. The route is, for the most part, essentially a straight line with minimal curves (especially east of Salem). Even if it weren't to be electrified (which would be an obvious advantage) they could still easily hit 125mph with whichever diesel power Amtrak, MBTA or whoever else would operate the service would purchase. And just the list of towns and cities it passes through would justify the expense of rebuilding the line: Revere, Lynn, Salem, Beverly, Ipswich, Newburyport, Salisbury, and Hampton.

[canobiecrazy]

I personally think that if traffic to Portland gets dense enough this will be restored. I mean, yes, the Western Route is better for freight, but it has many sharp turns and regular freight movements. The Eastern Route has only commuter trains and the occasional freight movement, and overall, a much more streamlined route. The only major issues I can see are the Salem Tunnel and the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.

[b&m 1566]

Just from looking at maps of the ROW this looks like an excellent candidate for high speed rail. The route is, for the most part, essentially a straight line with minimal curves (especially east of Salem). Even if it weren't to be electrified (which would be an obvious advantage) they could still easily hit 125mph with whichever diesel power Amtrak, MBTA or whoever else would operate the service would purchase. And just the list of towns and cities it passes through would justify the expense of rebuilding the line: Revere, Lynn, Salem, Beverly, Ipswich, Newburyport, Salisbury, and Hampton.

There’s a slight problem; the Eastern Route dead ends in Portsmouth. As previously stated the line east of Portsmouth is no longer a ROW. Not to mention the Western Route (which has already been listed as a future high speed rail corridor) is the fastest route between Boston and Portland, hence the demise of the Eastern Route.
The route would work out well as a commuter rail line between Boston and Portsmouth.

[jbvb]

For genuine, 160 MPH high speed rail, the cost to put two tracks alongside ME 236 from Kittery to where it turns north off the old RoW would not be out of the question; much of the post-abandonment development has been strip malls and businesses. And they'd probably at least consider restoring the old PS&P alignment North Berwick - Portland; it's much straighter than the B&M and has a smaller grade crossing/NIMBY cross section.

[NH2060]

Actually to add to that, If putting them alongside 236 were to not pan out, what about running them parallel (either right next to it or a certain distance away from it) to I-95 before re-joining the main line at Wells?

[b&m 1566]

It will never happen for a number of reasons.

1. When the Eastern Route continued east of Portsmouth, the US – 1 Bypass did not exist. When it was built, it was after the B&M abandoned the line from Kittery to Portland. The Eastern Route technically ends right at the east end of the bridge, however service on the York Branch (not sure if that is its actual name), to the Portsmouth Naval Ship Yard is still active. Since it's still active across the river the US – 1 Bypass had to be built over the ROW, which resulted in a large amount of fill on the Kittery side and a new bridge to accommodate both highway above and railroad below and its only wide enough for one track.
To accommodate the Eastern Route, a new bridge would have to be built over the river that would have room for double tracking. The highway above would have to be detoured during removal of the current draw bridge and the construction of a new draw bridge. Fill on the Kittery side would have to be removed and the bridge extended eastward to allow the tracks to pass under the highway. The intersection of Bridge Street and the bypass would have to be moved further east or eliminated altogether, putting strain on the 103 intersection. Keep in mind the nearby streets (Oak Terrace for example) has houses off of it, so access to those streets is a must during construction and likely and at grade crossing under the highway would need to be constructed for the Oak Terrace neighbor hood.

2. I’m not sure how accurate it is but Google maps shows the property lines and going by that map, a lot of the ROW revered to nearby landowners, which would require taking the land back.

3. An over pass would have to be constructed for Interstate 95, which would involve temporarily rerouting 95 around the construction zone.

4. East of 95 where 236 takes over the ROW it would not be possible to have both side by side, do to residencies and businesses in close proximity. Either 236 would have to be relocated or the ROW would have to veer off its old alignment and it would have to remain that way until the two separate near the Jct of 91 (the old Jct of the Portsmouth, Great Falls & Conway Railroad).

5. After the Jct. of 236 and 91 the ROW is virtually open and in tacked, however you would still have two more overpasses to construct one for 95 (again) and another for 195.
• Among other things, I don’t know what would need to be done in North Berwick, where the Eastern crosses the Western. I don’t know if it would be a diamond, overpass/underpass, or something else.

[jbvb]

Double track through Portsmouth would require a new bridge and probably a substantial realignment. But the Eastern Route went through to North Berwick until 1952, so when the 1939 lift bridge (Rt. 1 Bypass) was built, it was located a few yards north of the Kittery Depot and the main line passed through a long, sharply angled underpass just E. of the depot which was intact the last time I looked. I've never walked down there to see if it would accommodate double track, but next time I visit the Trading Post I will try to take the time.