From: M00209@MBVM.Mitre.Org
Subject: Re: 200-mile rail network under study in Vermont.
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA 01730
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:49:46 GMT

In article <CB.92Sep9183628@oddjob.mitre.org>
cb@oddjob.mitre.org (Christopher M. Byrnes) writes:
 
>  It's my understanding that several potential traffic patterns are
>being explored.  One is to route some of the existing Conrail traffic
>that is overloading their Westborough freight terminal from Worcester
>to Ft Devens, much as Conrail now runs Ford's enclosed auto triple
>racks up the existing B&M Worcester branch to the unloading ramps near
>Ayer (and Ft Devens).  Another is to lower Hoosic Tunnel and run all
>manner of stack trains off the CP/D&H in Mechanicsville to Ft. Devens
>along the length of the B&M.  A third that was explored by a test
>train last year is to route D&H stack trains through Whiteburgh, N.Y.,
>across the C&P (now a D&H branch) to Vermont, down the length of
>Vermont to Bellows Falls via VTR and GMRC, then down the CV to
>Greenfield, MA, where they connect to the existing B&M mainline that
>goes to Ft. Devens.  This more complex route avoids Hoosic Tunnel and
>the construction costs involved, although I never did hear how many
>bridges would have to be adjusted to allow stack trains on this other
>route.
 
Let's pick a few nits here!  It's "HOOSAC" Tunnel, not "HOOSIC", "WHITEHALL"
not "WHITEBURGH", and "MECHANICVILLE" not "MECHANICSVILLE".  Also the line
between Whitehall and Rutland is a FORMER D&H Branch, now owned (for legal
and accounting purposes) by the Clarendon and Pittsford Railway, which is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of the Vermont Railway.  The VTR operates the line as
an integral part of its system, but if you look sharp, you will see a small
"C&P" (or it is "CLP" which I believe is the actual reporting mark - I forget)
painted under the number on some of the locomotive cabs.  If the trains were to
use this route (and it's the one I've heard mentioned most often), it would
probably be via CV to MILLERS FALLS, MA, not Greenfield.  The track between
East Northfield and Greenfield is still Guilford/B&M/ST.  I don't know whether
this would be considered "new business" that under the condemnation act has to
be given to CV or whether Guilford could somehow get the right to take it from
Bellows Falls to Greenfield/East Deerfield.  The problem with this route is
that there are too many carriers involved;  VTR (CLP), GMRC and probably CV to
get from the D&H to the B&M, and it would I should think be an operational and
accounting headache of major league proportions unless all parties could be
persuaded to enter into some kind of run-through agreement.  Since Guilford is
one of the parties, I personally would doubt that any sort of amicable agree-
ment would ever be reached!  From a strict infra-structure point of view, it
would seem to be the easiest route to implement however, except of course for
using Conrail between some point in the Albany area and Worcester, which
defeats the whole purpose of creating a double-stack route competitive with CR.
 
>The clearance between Ft Devens and the Moran container shipping
>terminal in Charleston (the intended destination of these New England
>stack trains) only allows a single container.  That's one reason for
>the interest in the Ft. Devens rail facility; the proposal is to stack
>and unstack between single and double in Ft. Devens (there's not
>enough room for this in Charleston anyways), much as Conrail currently
>does to its stack trains in Syracuse.
 
Again, nit picking.  "CHARLESTOWN" not "CHARLESTON".
A number of years ago, the clearance between Lowell and Boston was improved to
allow tri-level auto racks, but you are correct in stating it is insufficient
for double-stack containers.  The proposals I have heard all involve breaking
up the trains at Fort Devens and running single-stack container trains between
there and Boston, I would presume via Lowell.  One hopes that this would be
competitive in cost and time with hauling the containers by truck.  Perhaps the
infamous Route 93 traffic would make the difference!
 
>I'm not sure a Ft Devens-based terminal (intended as a replacement for
>the one in Westborough, not the ones in Worcester) would be that much
>of a threat.  Much of Worcester's existing stack traffic is generated
>for Worcester-area businesses and by the P&W's efforts to promote
>Providence, RI as a rail shipping port.  This proposal is intended to
>promote the Port of Boston, not to cut into Worcester's traffic base.
>
I agree.  The Worcester terminal was (at least for public consumption)
stated as principally a connection to the P&W.  I'm not sure about what
has actually happened in practice, though.
 
 
Len Bachelder        Archives Committee, Boston and Maine RR Historical Society
MITRE Corp.           Secretary, Massachusetts Bay Railroad Enthusiasts
Bedford MA 01730      Member, 470 Railroad Club
<M00209@mbvm.mitre.org>
 
"Amazing love, how can it be that Thou, my God, should'st die for me!"
                                                 - Charles Wesley