Jackinbox1 wrote:Okay. Let's figure out something here. You don't believe freight will return, so you think our arguments don't make any sense. Okay. Im more annoyed by the fact that you related this to an argument about religion, because the opposing side doesn't make any sense to you. That's a baaaad thing to say. This is the twenty first century. People can and will get offended by anything, especially religion. The fact that you don't think freight doesn't mean anything about religion is off-topic, though, so let's get back to our debate.
You are warping the comment completely out-of-context by reducing it to one trigger word in isolation, and omitting the operative word--"
arguing"--to frame in a transparently invented context. Not cool, and not fooling anyone. I was saying (and you are doing absolutely nothing to dissuade that notion by digging in ever more abrasively) that this discussion has turned pointless and circular because cited facts are getting drowned out by
intensity of personal belief repeated, repeated, and repeated doubled-down some more. As I said before, as if this were a contest in who believes harder. There is no longer a debate or discussion because you are refusing to engage facts with other facts.
The line was abandoned because it wasn't maintained, because they didn't have enough industry, because they didn't have the line go all the way to Manchester.
And how many people in this and the other thread have to cite fact after fact after fact setting the record straight on that before it sinks in?
The line was NOT abandoned because of maintenance. It was abandoned because every single customer had gone out of business or switched to cheaper trucking. Trucking being far cheaper than rail when a business is so small that they can only muster a couple carloads per month. Customers can't get ahead doing rail when the carloads are so sparse and sporadic that the annual surcharge for the railroad maintaining their mainline switch is enough to make trucks cheaper. The physical plant (which Guilford was not going to keep pouring money into for such increasingly sporadic moves) made no difference. The changing economics of freight is what did it, and there's a mountain of citations in this thread detailing how and why. But again...this discussion goes nowhere because you just double-down on your own personal opinion without engaging those facts.
You are correct that the industry left. What you have to explain, though, is how the industry is going to return. It's not "if you build it, they will come". A 14-year-old citation from an advocacy group staffed by railfans and one quote from a Salem pol not acquainted with the industry do not make it so. You need to cite evidence of where there's smoke, there's fire. OK...I described in detail about rail-to-truck transloads from a yard, and how that's becoming a very viable way for small customers to tap the cost savings of rail delivery. The railroad can string together enough carloads of mixed small customers to make a profit and give a good rate, and the customers can send their
own trucks to do the last-mile pickups instead of relying on an outside trucking company. This is a genuine growth strategy. One that if a company takes enough advantage of such that their transloaded carloads start to swell bigtime...they will start to desire their own siding and/or think about relocating a couple miles to an active rail like like the NH Main, Western Route, or Hillsborough Branch. So it can also be a transitional strategy that leads to real door-to-door carloads further in the future. Now...if there was smoke indicating future fire on the I-93 corridor in NH, you would see more interest poking and prodding around transloading possibilities at any of 3 different Pan Am yards surrounding the corridor: Lawrence, Nashua, and Manchester. That is not happening. Manchester, the one closest to the M&L corridor, has never seen
less activity than it is now. If you wanted to make an empirical counterargument that the freight potential is there, you'd be positing a theory about a pending spike in transload activity in NH as possible leading indicator of that potential. Go for it...there's a workable theory served up on silver platter, and all you need to do is make some predictions with cited facts. You're not doing that. This is instead more covering one's ears, shaking one's head, and doubling/tripling down on this "NUH UH! I believe it'll happen!" There's no discussion going on here.
The "line not going to Manchester" had jack squat to do with it. If you hadn't noticed, there's an airport runway that severed the ROW eons ago. Everything north AND south of the airport remained intact, serving exactly the same customers on exactly the same intervals via twin locals out of Lawrence and Manchester. Thru routing doesn't matter for anything except passenger service; MANY lines, even the intact ones, run their locals by proximity to nearest yard and not as run-thru. The Western Route in NH and ME is divided up between Lawrence-north and Rigby-Rockingham Jct. locals, because ranging close to a home base is cheaper than outlawing a crew far from point of origin. Lack of run-thru as cited reason for the line's failure is a red herring. Furthermore, the spur north of the airport survived in-service longer than anything in NH besides the couple miles from MA state line to Salem Depot. The line is still--to this day--intact from the switch in Manchester Yard to the first 1 mile south,
grade crossings and crossing protection and all. Anyone who wanted to make a push for rail service on that spur has had 15+ years to state their case. They haven't. Nobody filed for adverse abandonment because Guilford was trying to terminate active customer contracts. There were no customers whatsoever with rail delivery contracts left to serve when the abandonment filings for each segment were filed. Other posters in the thread have provided you with the exact PDF's of those STB filings where it is stated for the legal record exactly how long it has been since there last was an active customer. Your personal intensity of belief does not make those legally-vetted statements null, void, or baseless.
The nh state rail plan even states this. Less well maintained tracks, increased travel time. Increased travel time, more costly for the companies along the line. More expensive to pay for rail services, they go to trucking. It's a vicious circle. Also, this isn't the midwest. Railroading is different here. Transloading requires trucks and rail, which can still do a number on the environment (wouldnt want that happening in the leaf-peeper state), so it can be better to just have on-site loading and unloading. If a business wants to use rail, and a rail line is right at their front doorstep, they aren't going to drive a whppe bunch of miles to a transload site.
The
NH State Rail Plan states this? I assume you mean page 111, Section 5.1.1, "Freight Rail Issues", paragraphs 1-3. But you conveniently omit paragraph 4:
NH State Rail Plan wrote:It should be noted that due to the nature of freight railroad operations, decreased volume invariably leads to decreased service levels while increased volume provides the basis for increased service. In New Hampshire, freight rail volume relative to railroad mileage has declined in recent years and currently is extremely low, even for regional and short line operations. The commonly used “rule of thumb” for management of a rail line establishes approximately 100 rail car shipments per mile (SPM) per year as the minimum required to maintain a railroad, provide acceptable service and sustain profitability. The New Hampshire system as a whole yields about 140 SPM annually. However, much of the freight volume is concentrated on a few lines and therefore the volume on most branch lines is considerably less than what is needed for rail carriers to provide profitable and competitive service.
Do you have a counterpoint for that, or are we just going to pretend the powers-that-be who wrote that federally-mandated state rail plan...didn't actually provide the math that sets the bar for what a viable number and frequency of carloads are? Now where are those carloads going to come from on this corridor for freight on a cleanroom reboot of the M&L if the only businesses there are a much-dwindled collection of the same tiny blips that couldn't muster anywhere close to that rate of shipping before?
And finally, how are the economics of transloading sooooooo regionally different in New Hampshire compared to how they are in
Massachusetts and Maine? Not the Midwest, but right down the street on the very same highway and on the very same freight carrier. Pan Am just signed on its second large truck transload center in Woburn, MA right off an I-93 exit...to go along with the very lucrative Tighe Warehouse transload it signed on off another I-93 exit in Winchester roughly 5 years ago. It's just beefed up its intermodal ramp in Auburn, ME right off an I-95 exit. Why is New Hampshire so different that the economics don't work when these things are sprouting like weeds across every one of their state lines and attracting exactly the kinds of customers who can't justify the cost of their own sidings (or outright relocation to a rail line) but want/need to tap the longer-distance savings of rail freight? Can you explain why p. 47 of the NH Rail Plan describes exactly those advantages of using trucks for last-mile from a transload? Why are you citing (red herring alert!) the environment when that does not play at all into a customer's cost decision on shipping mode, and the use of rail to get everywhere but the last 5 miles is a significantly greener activity than the other alternative: trucking out of Worcester or Albany...or Chicago.
I'm sorry. You do not get to pound fist on the table trying to impose your will on the discussion by refusing to engage reams of factual information provided to you, selectively cite document fragments where the carefully omitted next paragraph contradicts your own assertions, and throw out rhetorical distractions and baseless accusations at other posters to try to confuse the issues. If you want a reality-based discussion or debate...act the part and start using all this wall-to-wall evidence to construct a coherent argument or counterargument. It's a colossal waste of time to try to have a nuts-and-bolts discussion when there's nothing but "I believe harder than you!" being shouted back.