Portland Passenger Rail

[TC_zoid]

Because there is no longer a median on that stretch of 95. It was removed as part of the widening to three lanes. It would thus require additional widening to maintain DOT standards. You're adding SIGNIFICANT cost at that point.

Going down the middle of 95 in between the three lanes with one track. There is just enough room to do this, and if a few more feet are needed to satisfy DOT then one side of lanes could be re-striped. A break-down lane can be reduced to less than half its normal width. It's not unusual to see this, or certainly in Boston. Maine? I don't know. Three bridges would need the center support moved to the ends with some center reinforcement. It's not an engineering marvel here, but some substantial tweaking, yes. The problem with a new station sets the city back to a station center that is underwhelming and will not increase ridership, but reduce it due to isolation and serious safety concerns. PTC is a busy place now with both buses and trains. It needs expansion and could use a food court for increased revenue. A big parking garage and waiting area could be built on the other side of the tracks with a connecting bridge. A new station next to the Tyson factory and that isolated and off putting industrial area is going back in time, in effect to what the old Greyhound terminal presented in a former gas station. A transportation terminal is a gateway to the city and anything depressing is a first impression. "You never get a second chance to make a first impression."

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Going down the middle of 95 in between the three lanes with one track. There is just enough room to do this, and if a few more feet are needed to satisfy DOT then one side of lanes could be re-striped. A break-down lane can be reduced to less than half its normal width. It's not unusual to see this, or certainly in Boston. Maine? I don't know. Three bridges would need the center support moved to the ends with some center reinforcement. It's not an engineering marvel here, but some substantial tweaking, yes. The problem with a new station sets the city back to a station center that is underwhelming and will not increase ridership, but reduce it due to isolation and serious safety concerns. PTC is a busy place now with both buses and trains. It needs expansion and could use a food court for increased revenue. A big parking garage and waiting area could be built on the other side of the tracks with a connecting bridge. A new station next to the Tyson factory and that isolated and off putting industrial area is going back in time, in effect to what the old Greyhound terminal presented in a former gas station. A transportation terminal is a gateway to the city and anything depressing is a first impression. "You never get a second chance to make a first impression."

Your detour takes 2-1/2 extra miles--with at least two speed-killing sharp curves--to cover the same distance at hundreds of millions of dollars more cost (because 95 does not have the room most of the way for even a single track, and you'll be blowing-up/rebuilding every single interchange to boot). That proposal is the very definition of Transit OCD superperfectionism losing its plot.

If the chosen mainline station site is so objectionable, simply choose a better mainline station site. PTC is not so extremely valuable that you need to move heaven and earth to keep it, damn the costs and damn the time penalties.

 

[MarkHB]

PTC is private property. Concord Coach owns it, and it's the only stop on the Downeaster where NNEPRA has to pay rent (to the tune of $50k/year the last time I looked at the budget details). That's an expense they want to get out of, with the presumption that, like the rest of their Maine stations, MaineDOT will build and own new-POR and let the Downeaster use it for free.

Also, we keep saying that it saves 15 minutes between Portland and Brunswick. Sure, but that's 30 minutes * crew count of extra work time per round trip (2.5 hours per crew member per day on the current schedule). Beyond the salaries, where does that put their HOS? How much margin do they have before timing out? So that's another reason to get onto the mainline.

I just discovered Friday that Sid Harvey's had moved from their longtime space on St. John in front of the Ferguson building, to Haigis Parkway in Scarborough. Their old building is now home to a renovation company, but if NNEPRA and MaineDOT could help them find new digs, that spot might be available to use as well.

Another point in favor of the proposed location is parking. Not at St. John St., but across the tracks, in the Mercy Hospital complex. They could partner with Mercy (who already have staff parking issues) to build a garage there that could be shared between the hospital and NNEPRA. Plus, since they're already talking about a shuttle between the new train station and PTC, the Maine-DOT owned lot over there could also be in play.

To me, it boils down to: the proposed site isn't perfect, but the other two are impossible (even if CSX would let them grade up high enough to overpass Congress St., that still doesn't solve the fact that they can't build a second platform on the west side of the tracks there; the jail won't let them). So if moving onto the peninsula (which is only the space between the VMB and I-295) is a hard and fast requirement, then I think the proposed site has enough pro's that the city should let them move forward. Bus routes are malleable.

 

[Portlander]

So if moving onto the peninsula (which is only the space between the VMB and I-295) is a hard and fast requirement, then I think the proposed site has enough pro's that the city should let them move forward.

Concur, be thankful for the $48M gift from the Federal Railroad Administration and get this transportation project moving forward.

 

[Dr. StrangeHat]

Isn't the most cost-effective and easiest thing to do just building out the wye here? Doesn't that eliminate the backing move? Sure, you'd have to relocate the entrance to the county jail and change things up at the crossing at Congress, but with all the other options on the table, this seams the simplest and least expensive.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Isn't the most cost-effective and easiest thing to do just building out the wye here? Doesn't that eliminate the backing move? Sure, you'd have to relocate the entrance to the county jail and change things up at the crossing at Congress, but with all the other options on the table, this seams the simplest and least expensive.

View attachment 75010

You would have to change ends at PTC and do FRA-mandated brake tests when restarting the train from the cab car (or from the cab car to the locomotive). That takes a minimum of 10 minutes, so you're only saving 5 minutes at most. At most.

Mainline station is still going to beat anything you do to try to preserve PTC.

 

[TC_zoid]

Another option (though up 95 can work with slower speeds) is dealing with Maine Health. They bought the shopping center and land that the old Union Station was on. They paid 16.8 million for it in 2022. Why does Maine Health and its massive footprint and wealth get to dictate what happens for the good of the community? Maybe the station is built above the tracks here and out to half of the lot, then the other half can be used for their future expansion. Let them build a hi-rise. But why should they get this land, at all? If you include their entire footprint on the hill, the old hospital on Brighten Ave., the Scarborough Research campus, the medical billing building in Westbrook, and all the outpatient clinics, BY FAR they dominate the city as one private entity. They have a de facto monopoly on health care here. Some Mainers go to Boston for procedures because it's cheaper there (PPH article). Or take back all of the old Union Station land by eminent domain. Get tough. Otherwise, this silly podunk-town-like station (looks like the Old Saybrook one in CT) will set Portland back--way back.

In Boston, their city planning board operates as a redevelopment arm too (It used to be called the Boston Redevelopment Authority). Portland's only looks at and approves things. Boston's understands city needs and takes and develops ideas and plans for the future. That's why it can build something like the Big Dig (painful construction years though the result is wonderful). Portland's city government is primarily reactive. Portland needs to plan for the future as it will continue to grow at this steady pace. We've never really had a strong leader, or in recent times. I explained what was happening to a Boston architect about this station quagmire. He laughed at how foolish it all is.

 

[RandomWalk]

I admit that I am from away, but it seems like the former station location is table stakes. All the other locations hamstring the size, access to downtown, or growth options.

 

[Stlin]

You would have to change ends at PTC and do FRA-mandated brake tests when restarting the train from the cab car (or from the cab car to the locomotive). That takes a minimum of 10 minutes, so you're only saving 5 minutes at most. At most.

Mainline station is still going to beat anything you do to try to preserve PTC.

I realize that this is totally an aside... But theres got to be a way to do better than that on this continent generally, rather than spend the millions on infrastructure when the improvement can be operational. The FRA has a lot of American exceptionalism in its regulation, but I think we need to see how we can move to a more global operating model. I concede that I'm about to reference British operations which I don't think call for fresh brake tests, but which are also not necessarily the consumate example of global operational best practice - yet I've encountered timetables there where trains turn twice to accomplish their schedules, timetabled for just about 2-3 minutes at terminal stations for the driver to walk back and get going again

For my example... See this thing. That isn't two branches, that service operates on all legs of that wye, running Dinting - Glossop - Hadfield - Dinting. Officially terminates at Hadfield, but that's a single track station and the inbound runs 2 minutes later. These 3 stations are just about a mile apart from each other, where the driver has to change ends thrice in 10 minutes by the timetable. Granted, 3 car EMU - but there's even faster with the automated reverse on the Elizabeth line.

*And yes, some of the most British place names ever on that line.

 

[TC_zoid]

I admit that I am from away, but it seems like the former station location is table stakes. All the other locations hamstring the size, access to downtown, or growth options.

We will have this underwhelming and embarrassing new station if we allow it, and it looks like the city will fall in line for it. Federal money presented this fast is easy to spend. My point again, in Boston they discuss redevelopment at an upper and qualified city level along with its intelligentsia. They go bigger and smarter because they know the growth will follow. I attended one of the NNEPRA meetings and the director kept griping about the pressure she was getting from some Brunswick passengers about the extra 30 minutes for the round trip (15 min. each way). Now, it looks like she will satisfy those few in Brunswick to the chagrin and detriment of the rest of us. Portland is seeing unprecedented growth now. If no one really cares, then fine. Go for it. But after Roux gets humming along (they've trial ballooned 8,000 students by 2031) and with nearly 1,000 new housing units completed by 2028, it will feel like and be a different city, except for the podunkish new train station. I've reached out to the PSA to see what they think. But my impression so far is that they seem more interested in social events, not politics. And that's okay too.

Don't know if you've noticed, but the Jetport has snuck in a new long term parking lot at the end of District Road. Also, Hertz has a new area to park its rental cars. You can see it from Google Earth and Street View, though that imagery is from 2 years ago. Imagine what they have now? People are moving here and tourism will only increase too. It's almost like, let's ignore it and maybe it will go away?

 

[MarkHB]

I realize that this is totally an aside... But theres got to be a way to do better than that on this continent generally, rather than spend the millions on infrastructure when the improvement can be operational. The FRA has a lot of American exceptionalism in its regulation, but I think we need to see how we can move to a more global operating model. I concede that I'm about to reference British operations which I don't think call for fresh brake tests, but which are also not necessarily the consumate example of global operational best practice - yet I've encountered timetables there where trains turn twice to accomplish their schedules, timetabled for just about 2-3 minutes at terminal stations for the driver to walk back and get going again

For my example... See this thing. That isn't two branches, that service operates on all legs of that wye, running Dinting - Glossop - Hadfield - Dinting. Officially terminates at Hadfield, but that's a single track station and the inbound runs 2 minutes later. These 3 stations are just about a mile apart from each other, where the driver has to change ends thrice in 10 minutes by the timetable. Granted, 3 car EMU - but there's even faster with the automated reverse on the Elizabeth line.

*And yes, some of the most British place names ever on that line.

I have no idea of the systems on British EMU's, and to be honest all I know of US train operations I have gleaned from message boards, but I think it may be relevant that, in the case of the Downeaster, we are dealing with diesel locomotives in mixed traffic with (also diesel) freight trains. Maybe the air brake systems are similar to Britain's; I don't know. But I can't imagine that eliminating something that even faintly smalls safety-related would fly. Especially given that this part of the country is far too close to Lac Megantic for "let's not test the brakes" to sound right. (Even if the LM tragedy is irrelevant, it SOUNDS relevant.)

 

[MarkHB]

Another option (though up 95 can work with slower speeds) is dealing with Maine Health. They bought the shopping center and land that the old Union Station was on. They paid 16.8 million for it in 2022. Why does Maine Health and its massive footprint and wealth get to dictate what happens for the good of the community?

You did mention massive wealth, after all.

But there's also this. The goal is for the station to have platforms on either side of the tracks. Here's the Union Station area:

That blue area is all owned by Cumberland County. The large building (for those who don't know) is the county jail. The Sheriff's department is adamantly opposed to having platforms on their side of the tracks, or even a train station at all in the immediate area, because they create a very convenient flight route for escapees. And their land cannot be taken by eminent domain.

So, on one side of the tracks you have an unwilling seller with Zurich-level gobs of money ready to throw at lawyers, and on the other side you have an unwilling seller whose hand cannot be forced.

Digging heels in on the Union Station site is the epitome of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I have no idea of the systems on British EMU's, and to be honest all I know of US train operations I have gleaned from message boards, but I think it may be relevant that, in the case of the Downeaster, we are dealing with diesel locomotives in mixed traffic with (also diesel) freight trains. Maybe the air brake systems are similar to Britain's; I don't know. But I can't imagine that eliminating something that even faintly smalls safety-related would fly. Especially given that this part of the country is far too close to Lac Megantic for "let's not test the brakes" to sound right. (Even if the LM tragedy is irrelevant, it SOUNDS relevant.)

Changing ends entails a Class 3 brake test, as opposed to the more-involved Class 1 test for trains that are split/combined or been powered off for greater than 24 hours. The regulations are extremely complex and hard to change, and even stuff like syncing the U.S.'s regs with Canada's for how many miles an intact consist can go between mandatory brake tests has been met with violent opposition from labor and various public safety groups (i.e. Lac Megantic fearmongering).

Counting on federal laws being changed to enable a more convenient ends-changing procedure so Portland doesn't have to move train stations is not a bet anyone would be willing to make. The North American continent has the widest variety of train traffic types in the world living under single regs on a single common-carrier system. Europe's insane rules fragmentation is definitely not something to aspire to bureaucratically, and there are far worse instances of FRA backwardness to target than the brake test.

 

[Stlin]

Changing ends entails a Class 3 brake test, as opposed to the more-involved Class 1 test for trains that are split/combined or been powered off for greater than 24 hours. The regulations are extremely complex and hard to change, and even stuff like syncing the U.S.'s regs with Canada's for how many miles an intact consist can go between mandatory brake tests has been met with violent opposition from labor and various public safety groups (i.e. Lac Megantic fearmongering).

Counting on federal laws being changed to enable a more convenient ends-changing procedure so Portland doesn't have to move train stations is not a bet anyone would be willing to make. The North American continent has the widest variety of train traffic types in the world living under single regs on a single common-carrier system. Europe's insane rules fragmentation is definitely not something to aspire to bureaucratically, and there are far worse instances of FRA backwardness to target than the brake test.

So, having read that, it seems to boil down to - apply the brakes, check if those on the rear cars applied, release and confirm they released and that system pressure is returning via end of train telemetry. Given the rapid speed at which braking systems are meant to operate in service, I still don't see how that actually takes 10 minutes.

I'll confess to not having actually looked up the British practice at 5am, nor have I now been able to actually find documentary evidence of how British railroads manage it, as their regulation is much vaguer and less specific than the CFR, but what I could find on British train forums seems to indicate that that brake continuity tests are also typically required from both cabs.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

So, having read that, it seems to boil down to - apply the brakes, check if those on the rear cars applied, release and confirm they released and that system pressure is returning via end of train telemetry. Given the rapid speed at which braking systems are meant to operate in service, I still don't see how that actually takes 10 minutes.

I'll confess to not having actually looked up the British practice at 5am, nor have I now been able to actually find documentary evidence of how British railroads manage it, as their regulation is much vaguer and less specific than the CFR, but what I could find on British train forums seems to indicate that that brake continuity tests are also typically required from both cabs.

That question has been asked a thousand times on RR.net. Brake tests are but one of the procedures engineers are required to perform when changing ends. It's not the only one. There's a whole required checklist of things that must be done to vacate and tie down one operator's cab, move down the train, and activate the operator's cab on the other end. Engineers who do it every day consistently say changing ends takes a minimum of 10 minutes...sometimes more...regardless of whether it's in a push-pull w/loco set or xMU setup.

 

[riptide]

Changing the FRA’s regulations would a hell of a lot harder than changing NNEPRA’s mind about an individual station location…and we all know how successful the latter effort has been, despite all the pushback NNEPRA’s gotten from key stakeholders like the city and the MPO.

Unfortunately NNEPRA’s “fake it til you make it” approach to establishing public support for the St. John Street site has now been rewarded with tens of millions in grant funding. I expect the major players will now fall in line. After all, if NNEPRA’s proposal was good enough for the FRA to give them $48 million, why shouldn’t it be good enough for the city or regional governments? Even for lesser amounts, it’s rarely a good look to turn up your nose at “free money.”

Practically speaking, all we can do now is stock up on as much lipstick as we can…because this pig’s gonna need it!

 

[riptide]

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/portland/portland-rail-officials-disagree-over-location-of-new-train-station-maine-transportation-downeaster-amtrak/97-13cced27-edff-433a-8efb-17b5f0f15d30

And a timely article given the point in my previous post about the grant award probably convincing other stakeholders to fall in line on the station location issue:

The question now is how much influence Portland will ultimately have over the decision

“I think the city believed it had some leverage moving forward because the NNEPRA folks would require some matching funds," Dion said.

That calculation may have changed following the recent announcement of nearly $50 million in federal funding for the station. It could allow NNEPRA to build the project without additional financial support.

"If not, NNEPRA can move forward through the Planning Board process and get the project approved," Dion said.

 

[TC_zoid]

https://www.newscentermaine.com/article/news/local/portland/portland-rail-officials-disagree-over-location-of-new-train-station-maine-transportation-downeaster-amtrak/97-13cced27-edff-433a-8efb-17b5f0f15d30

And a timely article given the point in my previous post about the grant award probably convincing other stakeholders to fall in line on the station location issue:

The city understands that this station should be a more pleasant gateway for the city. As I said earlier, work with Maine Health on the shopping plaza location (the old Union Station). They have so much money, and ask if they can be a good community partner and agree to build above the station (a la the Verizon tower above North Station). Relax, it's okay to build something that doesn't look like it belongs in Maine if it solves an important problem. It would be a great entrance visual to the peninsula both from the arriving trains and cars passing by on 295. And if you, NNEPRA want to get back at Concord Coach for charging so much to use their facility over the years, have this new partnership build a part of their big new garage to accept buses. And ask Greyhound to resume service in this new facility. Yes, competition for bus travel. Who wins? We do with lower ticket prices.

 

[BosMaineiac]

I think there needs to be a much more informed argument over where this station goes in the public conversation. All I hear are arguments over which property *might* be more willing to sell. The report did not dig into more technical criteria such as track geometry, grade separation, traffic impacts in the local roads, potential for TOD, etc.

The most informed I am on the NNEPRA proposed location is from what people have posted on this board, which is a problem. The biggest problems I’ve heard on this location are track geometry, ability for freight to pass, and platform lengths. Basic necessities for a train station! There’s been not much more than crude renderings from the “Authority”. Could their station work? Maybe! I think it’s a good location for roadway access and could anchor future developments. But none of that matters if trains are limited in using the platforms IMO.

 

[PWMFlyer]

Casco Bay Rail is starting operations on the Berlin Line from Portland to Auburn, now what happens about the trail?

Casco Bay Rail

Rail & Logistics Solutions Serving Maine & New England

cascobayrail.com