• Housatonic Railroad Thread (Maybrook, Berkshire, Pittsfield)

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England

Moderators: MEC407, NHN503

  • 673 posts
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 45
  by Otto Vondrak
 
Ridgefielder wrote:Dutch- O/T but I thought the Maybrook was the New Haven's large dimension freight route-- didn't they use it for auto racks, amongst other things? Or have the clearances changed over the years?
I don't know about any of that, but the route of this proposed service (north-south on the Berkshire route) only crosses the Maybrook (an east-west route).

=otto=
  by Noel Weaver
 
Otto Vondrak wrote:
Ridgefielder wrote:Dutch- O/T but I thought the Maybrook was the New Haven's large dimension freight route-- didn't they use it for auto racks, amongst other things? Or have the clearances changed over the years?
I don't know about any of that, but the route of this proposed service (north-south on the Berkshire route) only crosses the Maybrook (an east-west route).

=otto=
Actually the Berkshire and the Maybrook are one line between Berkshire Junction and Danbury a distance of 3 miles.
Noel Weaver
  by DutchRailnut
 
Autoracks 25 years ago were far lower than todays, and as for Maybrook it was always restricted by wire east of Devon.
Current MNCR restriction is 15' 6" or about a foot higher than a FL-9
  by Otto Vondrak
 
Noel Weaver wrote:Actually the Berkshire and the Maybrook are one line between Berkshire Junction and Danbury a distance of 3 miles.
Absolutely right, thanks for that clarification.

-=otto-
  by Ridgefielder
 
DutchRailnut wrote:Autoracks 25 years ago were far lower than todays, and as for Maybrook it was always restricted by wire east of Devon.
Current MNCR restriction is 15' 6" or about a foot higher than a FL-9
OK that makes sense. And I should have said the Maybrook was part of the route only as far as Derby, where traffic would be routed up the Naugy and over the Highland.
Otto Vondrak wrote:I don't know about any of that, but the route of this proposed service (north-south on the Berkshire route) only crosses the Maybrook (an east-west route).
Actually, I think that in one of these articles they mention a possible routing to a Harlem Division connection at Brewster, in which case they would use a decent chunk of the Maybrook. Doesn't make much sense when you consider the current station arrangements at Danbury, though... but then again neither do the bi-levels.
  by Hoghead
 
As for the Maybrook resticted, I bet if the HRRC found out about that it would be changed quickly ! The HRRC still markets the Maybrook and has it Marketed for OD moves and as part of the Agreement for trackage rights when sold it MUST be maintained. AS for crews south or west of Danbury Jaap is correct, but you should never say NEVER although I don't think things will ever change.This I would also say about the HRRC finding some equipment that would fit for the service cheap !
  by Otto Vondrak
 
Ridgefielder wrote:
Otto Vondrak wrote:I don't know about any of that, but the route of this proposed service (north-south on the Berkshire route) only crosses the Maybrook (an east-west route).
Actually, I think that in one of these articles they mention a possible routing to a Harlem Division connection at Brewster, in which case they would use a decent chunk of the Maybrook. Doesn't make much sense when you consider the current station arrangements at Danbury, though... but then again neither do the bi-levels.
Over tracks they don't own? Even better! Track from Dykemans to state line is owned by Metro-North.

This conversation feels like we're grasping at straws here. There's been no real news on this proposal nor has there been any official response from any state transportation agency.

-otto-
  by Ridgefielder
 
Otto Vondrak wrote:Over tracks they don't own? Even better! Track from Dykemans to state line is owned by Metro-North.
Well considering the fact they're also apparently proposing to run bilevels into GCT behind FL9s it sort of fits, doesn't it? :wink:
  by Jeff Smith
 
It's all gamesmanship at this point. CDOT wants service to New Milford but HRRC owns that stretch. They want improvements to more than the "South Berkshire". CDOT then throws in Pittsfield in phase II of the study, since they own the "North Berkshire" that Housy runs over to get to "South" and the Maybrook. CDOT can claim the need to access the "North" over the "South". So Housy counters with their own passenger proposal and throws in Brewster just for the he!! of it.

Meanwhile, Housy and P&W do battle over Derby.

Alan Parson Project: Games People Play
  by GP40 6694
 
This all sounds like it would depend on the $117B Danbury-routed NEC. I'm serious and joking here.

FYI, the breakeven point for just going to Southeast instead of Danbury to connect with MNCR is about 35 minutes between the two on the Maybrook, and the lower Harlem has a much more advantageous schedule, and would avoid another connection at SoNo that most Danbury line runs have to make (other than the couple of GennieBomb trains a day).

I still can't figure out who would actually ride this thing. What could be less impossible is a service to run from New Milford to Southeast, with the Danbury-Southeast part in less than 30 minutes. It would be a good competitor to the Danbury line for occasional travel to NYC.

Also, why can't manual door equipment run safely on MN? CDOT runs it on SLE, and that's mostly high-level too.
  by Otto Vondrak
 
GP40 6694 wrote:I still can't figure out who would actually ride this thing. What could be less impossible is a service to run from New Milford to Southeast, with the Danbury-Southeast part in less than 30 minutes. It would be a good competitor to the Danbury line for occasional travel to NYC.
I'll say it again, I do believe there is potential if this was operated as a seasonal excursion, from May to October, to bring people up to the Berkshires for the weekend (with connecting jitneys for the hotels and attractions in the area). Anything other than that is in the fantasy realm.

-otto-
  by Jeff Smith
 
Nothing really solid, but a development, nonetheless:

http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_17329962
Were the company to commit to the project, Housatonic Railroad would resuscitate and upgrade at least 90 miles of railroad tracks and related infrastructure between Pittsfield and Danbury at a cost of between $100 million and $150 million. The rail line would have its northernmost terminus at the Joseph Scelsi Intermodal Transportation Center, and its southern point in Danbury would connect to commuter rails to New York City, Pease said on Tuesday. The trains would also have wi-fi connectivity, Pease said.

While Housatonic Railroad runs seasonal sightseeing excursions along portions of it, the rail line hasn't been in full operation as a passenger service since 1971.
  by Otto Vondrak
 
Jeff Smith wrote:http://www.berkshireeagle.com/ci_17329962
While Housatonic Railroad runs seasonal sightseeing excursions along portions of it, the rail line hasn't been in full operation as a passenger service since 1971.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Housatonic hasn't run a passenger train since at least 1989... So now they are taking credit for the Berkshire Scenic's operation??
  by 161pw165
 
Maybe the article's author was mistakenly referring to past years when the Scenic used the Housatonic's RS-3 on their excursions?
  by CannaScrews
 
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Housatonic hasn't run a passenger train since at least 1989... So now they are taking credit for the Berkshire Scenic's operation??

Perhaps, the explanation is that The Berkshire operates under Housatonic Rules, therefore, the HRR is responsible for the operation of the trains.

Maybe too confusing for the "Civilians".
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 45