Why was the Boston & Albany single tracked?

hey crew i got a quick question. If the B&A is the heaviest tonnage line in New England, why did Conrail make it single track for most of the route? When did the B&A undergo this construction?

The Boston and Albany might be the heaviest tonnage line in New
England but that is not saying a lot for it. There is nowhere near the
demand for freight especially in Southern New England that there was in
years past. Although the tonnage is heavy compared to the other lines,
what do you compare it with? The former Boston and Maine territory is
only a shadow of what it once was while through freight activity on the
former New Haven Railroad is gone forever.
Conrail took up the second track over a good portion of the Boston and
Albany simply because they did not need it for their operations at the time
in the mid 1980's. The remaining track was improved on with new rail,
ties and signals. Today even with the single track operation over much of
this line, it is capable of handling more traffic than it presently does.
One reason railroads will take out the second track whenever they think
they can is because of the tax structure of both the states and local
communities that they pass through. They tax every tie, rail, switch,
structure and anything else that they possibly can.
In some cases I think the railroads have gone overboard in tearing stuff
out but I do not think Conrail did that in this case.
Noel Weaver

It's also been rumored that CSXT wants to make the line double-track again between CP-171 in Canaan,NY and CP-150 in Pittsfield,MA. But like I said, it's only a rumor.

Plans to single track the B&A dated back to the NYC in the 1950's. Traffic density, while the heaviest in New England, is well within the capabilities of CTC with passing sidings +/- 10-15 miles apart. What finally lead
to this project taking place was the need to replace the antiquated block signal system, Conrail's push to rationalize rights-of-way to save the cost of maintaining track, and, the steadily-improving financial situation with Conrail in the early 1980's. The B&A received a state-of-the-art CTC system that Stanley Crane, Conrail's president at the time, was very interested in, though, suffered initial reliability problems, particularly during lightening storms. Had the NYC's (or PC or early CR) financial
situation allowed for greater monies for capital projects, we probably
would have seen the B&A go single track CTC much sooner.

IIRC, the B&A was single-tracked in 1986.

The process was started in the 1950's when the Berkshire Spur of the NY Thruway was built. They only built a bridge to carry a single track!

kinlock wrote:The process was started in the 1950's when the Berkshire Spur of the NY Thruway was built. They only built a bridge to carry a single track!

That's right. I think the crews had a special nickname for this bridge
(suicide bridge?) because the first train in opposing moves to hit the signal circuit controlling movements from the doubletrack to single iron over the bridge got the block (automatically). Of course, once CTC was cut in on the B&A that changed. Perhaps CSX Conductor can clarify and/or add to this.

Single-tracking of the B&A took a few years to complete, from 1985-1988.
As for the single track bridge spanning the New England Thruway Extension in East Chatham, trains were lined for the proper track with the use of spring switches at either end of the bridge. Since the old westbound main (track 1) was the "straight iron" at both ends of the bridge, the switch at the west end was normally lined for track 1 (straight) and the switch at the east end was normally lined for track 2 (old eastbound main) diverging route.

I've read that that bridge was originally built with a gauntlet track. I don't think it took them too many years to change it to switches, though.

The B&A got cab signals when they redid it all, the only signals you see are at controlled points (interlockings).

The CSX map I saw of the line shows a good deal of it is still essentially double tracked if you count the long sidings as double. If the proposed commuter plan goes forward, I would guess that double tracking would be necessary. Just my 2 cents.

New Haven 1 wrote:The CSX map I saw of the line shows a good deal of it is still essentially double tracked if you count the long sidings as double. If the proposed commuter plan goes forward, I would guess that double tracking would be necessary. Just my 2 cents.

This line is already double track between Boston and Worcester. There is no commuter service west of Worcester and it is
not likely that there will be any anytime soon so a second track west of Worcester is not needed.
Noel Weaver