B&M Eastern Route Quad Tracking + Harbor Tunnel

C

CheapLeak

New member
Joined
Oct 29, 2023
Messages
22
Reaction score
4
*I also posted this on railroad.net, in case this seems similar

I’ve heard about plans from the early 1910’s about electrifying, quad tracking the B&M eastern route, as well as creating a harbor tunnel to connect it to south station when the B&M was controlled by the New Haven Railroad. I recently found this and was curious if anyone has more information or pictures about the plans beyond that and basic info on some Wikipedia pages.
 
It didn't get very far. The New Haven quickly gave up control of the B&M to get Fed anti-trust forces off their backs, and the B&M had to heavily reorganize itself in the late-1910's/early-1920's to shave off its big debt load it was carrying from the original acquisition of the Eastern Railroad. They did the ROW widening from the Saugus River to Swampscott Jct. coincident with a mass grade separation project in Lynn that kicked off in 1909, but all the other pieces never got off the ground because of all the corporate turmoil at the time. It never went beyond the scoping study phase, of which that schematic you linked to is one of the few surviving documents.
 
Ah makes sense, thank you. What are the other remaining docomments?
 
Last edited:
Tangentially related to the topic: How easy is it to quad-track the Eastern Route through the marshlands south of Point of Pines for BLX to Lynn? I've seen people saying that expanding the ROW through the marshlands would result in cost blowouts or even make BLX infeasible altogether (although I personally disagree). But if there were plans to quad-track them more than 100 years ago, I imagine that must be doable, even though the standards for environmental reviews were vastly different from today.
 
Teban54 said:
Tangentially related to the topic: How easy is it to quad-track the Eastern Route through the marshlands south of Point of Pines for BLX to Lynn? I've seen people saying that expanding the ROW through the marshlands would result in cost blowouts or even make BLX infeasible altogether (although I personally disagree). But if there were plans to quad-track them more than 100 years ago, I imagine that must be doable, even though the standards for environmental reviews were vastly different from today.
Click to expand...
I think it depends on the alternative, but I don’t know much about costs. If it was the preferred alternative which has it connecting with the Eastern Route around Oak Island, a grade crossing would have to be eliminated. this would require either an underpass or an overpass as well as the demolition of some homes. If it ended up being an overpass, I’d guess they would make the entire thing until River Works elevated for climate safety reasons. (or that’s at least what I would do)
 
CheapLeak said:
I think it depends on the alternative, but I don’t know much about costs. If it was the preferred alternative which has it connecting with the Eastern Route around Oak Island, a grade crossing would have to be eliminated. this would require either an underpass or an overpass as well as the demolition of some homes. If it ended up being an overpass, I’d guess they would make the entire thing until River Works elevated for climate safety reasons. (or that’s at least what I would do)
Click to expand...
For wetland preservation, an elevated viaduct over wetland areas is much preferred over filling in the wetland.
 
I have to think that someone somewhere would want to elevate the whole ROW somewhat, given how close to the water it is and how much sea level is supposed to rise in the next 30 years.
 
Aprehensive_Words said:
I have to think that someone somewhere would want to elevate the whole ROW somewhat, given how close to the water it is and how much sea level is supposed to rise in the next 30 years.
Click to expand...

10-12 inches (which is a lot), according to NOAA, for those who may not be up-to-date on the latest reports.

For perspective, this is equal to the rise measured over the last 100 years.
 
I had a lot of experience with obtaining wetland permits from the US Army Corps for road projects. Expanding the railway from 2 tracks to 4 would best be done by elevating on a viaduct the additional 2 tracks. But it would be even better to elevate the entire 4 tracks, excavating out the existing 2 track embankment down to the level of the surrounding wetlands, and establish wetlands across the entire right-of-way, with the new 4-track viaduct elevated above it. This would enable cross-flow of water, facilitate storm water surges, and advance the health of the entire wetland area.
 
Teban54 said:
Tangentially related to the topic: How easy is it to quad-track the Eastern Route through the marshlands south of Point of Pines for BLX to Lynn? I've seen people saying that expanding the ROW through the marshlands would result in cost blowouts or even make BLX infeasible altogether (although I personally disagree). But if there were plans to quad-track them more than 100 years ago, I imagine that must be doable, even though the standards for environmental reviews were vastly different from today.
Click to expand...
The quad-tracking wasn't the cost blowout. Crossing Diamond Creek marsh on a long trestle is the big cost blowout, with the grade separation of Oak Island Rd. being a secondary irritant. When the state last benchmarked Alts., the "skip everything" Diamond Creek priced out higher than Point of Pines with all its encroachment. And yes, Diamond Creek's flood profile is quite a bit worse than Point of Pines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top