Commuter Rail to New Hampshire?

I think the first two stations are in play, as the City of Nashua itself would like to see this go through. Still not nearly as likely without NH state support.
 
Chickenman said:
I think the first two stations are in play, as the City of Nashua itself would like to see this go through. Still not nearly as likely without NH state support.
Click to expand...

There are a couple train station / rail projects included in the last federal RAISE grant award cycle, so a city could certainly apply and win (not saying the overhead and match wouldn't be major challenges but still - there's a potential path).
 
Does anyone know the exact nature of the rights and responsibilities of the MBTA and the ex B&M to operate on each other's tracks? What maintenance minimums does each owe the other? Who has the legal right of dispatching?
 
Tallguy said:
Does anyone know the exact nature of the rights and responsibilities of the MBTA and the ex B&M to operate on each other's tracks? What maintenance minimums does each owe the other? Who has the legal right of dispatching?
Click to expand...
CSX's rights were conveyed via B&M's 1976 asset sale agreement with the MBTA. B&M's successors pay $0 in trackage rights fees to use MBTA territory, but are responsible for maintenance on all non-MBTA used tracks within MBTA territory (examples: NH Main from Lowell Station to state line, Peabody Branch, Billerica Shops cluster, Greenville Branch). They retained dispatching authority over the Freight Main territory (Freight Main = Fitchburg Line west of Willows Jct. in Ayer, Haverhill Line north of Lowell Jct. in Andover), on a small Lowell Line overlap between Lowell Station and the former Lowell freight yards next to the Concord River, and anywhere the T doesn't run (though if T service were to resume the North Chelmsford-Lowell overlap on the NH Main would get re-grouped under the Freight Main's authority). The overlap east of Lowell Station to the former yards is supposed to go away if/when the MBTA ever gets around to reconfiguring the interlockings at Bleachery; they agreed to that during the 2008 GLX land swaps, but handover hasn't been implemented yet as the freight traffic is so sparse it hasn't been anyone's priority. That dispatching authority is also required to be staffed in-state (presently at the T's/Pan Am's joint Billerica operations center); it's booby-trapped from CSX ever moving those jobs out-of-state. The Freight Main was declared a protected high-and-wide clearance route by the '76 sale agreement, and so were the Wildcat Branch and Lowell Lines (done as a trade-in for the Fitchburg Cutoff so the Red Line could claim it); all are listed as such in the T's Commuter Rail design guide. The T can levy no restrictions on quantity of freight trains run by B&M's successors over any MBTA territory; the trackage rights are infinitely permissive on scheduling, subject only to common-courtesy dispatching priority of passenger trains where the T is dispatcher. However, years of Pan Am being Pan Am has whittled down the traffic to bare minimums and CSX's adherence to "Precision Scheduling Railroading" practices (i.e. running fewer trains longer and farther) doesn't figure to increase quantity of trains on the schedule even if they greatly increase carload business...so there'll never be a scenario where as many freight trains end up roaming the system as there was in 1976 when the agreement was crafted.

B&M's successors retain right of first refusal to resumed freight service on any abandoned/landbanked lines should they be reactivated for service. Danvers Branch, Topsfield Branch, Stoneham Branch, North Reading Branch, and the like (East Boston Branch is considered out-of-service/non-abandoned, so rights are "active" there). Also included in the right-of-first-refusal is any renewed freight on the active Newburyport and Rockport Branches. Guilford/Pan Am filed freight (but obviously not passenger) abandonment north of Beverly Depot in 1984 to force discontinuance of service on the last few active freight customers north of Salem, so their trackage rights are currently considered extinguished there. So should any lines be reactivated or any new freight customers come calling on the upper Eastern Route...CSX would have to be offered as a courtesy, but if they don't want it the T can solicit other carriers (not that there'd really be any others).


EDIT: As for maintenance minimums...B&M's successors are certainly obligated to pay for switches only they use, like freight customer switches and freight-only turnouts. And they are almost certainly obligated to pay in for interlocking maintenance on signalized switches they--and not passenger trains--primarily use (Salem Jct., the Yard 21 leads, Lawrence Yard switches, Billerica Shops interlocking, Everett Jct., Anderson RTC passing track, some crossovers). Standard railroad insurance would apply for property damage, such as derailing on passenger tracks or smacking a platform edge. But beyond that there's probably not much they're obligated to pay for. And Pan Am made a career out of ducking every possible expense, even when it worked against them. Even basic Freight Main maintenance in the T district post-'76 like cycled rail replacement has largely come through combo state and federal grants.
 
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley said:
CSX's rights were conveyed via B&M's 1976 asset sale agreement with the MBTA. B&M's successors pay $0 in trackage rights fees to use MBTA territory, but are responsible for maintenance on all non-MBTA used tracks within MBTA territory (examples: NH Main from Lowell Station to state line, Peabody Branch, Billerica Shops cluster, Greenville Branch). They retained dispatching authority over the Freight Main territory (Freight Main = Fitchburg Line west of Willows Jct. in Ayer, Haverhill Line north of Lowell Jct. in Andover), on a small Lowell Line overlap between Lowell Station and the former Lowell freight yards next to the Concord River, and anywhere the T doesn't run (though if T service were to resume the North Chelmsford-Lowell overlap on the NH Main would get re-grouped under the Freight Main's authority). The overlap east of Lowell Station to the former yards is supposed to go away if/when the MBTA ever gets around to reconfiguring the interlockings at Bleachery; they agreed to that during the 2008 GLX land swaps, but handover hasn't been implemented yet as the freight traffic is so sparse it hasn't been anyone's priority. That dispatching authority is also required to be staffed in-state (presently at the T's/Pan Am's joint Billerica operations center); it's booby-trapped from CSX ever moving those jobs out-of-state. The Freight Main was declared a protected high-and-wide clearance route by the '76 sale agreement, and so were the Wildcat Branch and Lowell Lines (done as a trade-in for the Fitchburg Cutoff so the Red Line could claim it); all are listed as such in the T's Commuter Rail design guide. The T can levy no restrictions on quantity of freight trains run by B&M's successors over any MBTA territory; the trackage rights are infinitely permissive on scheduling, subject only to common-courtesy dispatching priority of passenger trains where the T is dispatcher. However, years of Pan Am being Pan Am has whittled down the traffic to bare minimums and CSX's adherence to "Precision Scheduling Railroading" practices (i.e. running fewer trains longer and farther) doesn't figure to increase quantity of trains on the schedule even if they greatly increase carload business...so there'll never be a scenario where as many freight trains end up roaming the system as there was in 1976 when the agreement was crafted.

B&M's successors retain right of first refusal to resumed freight service on any abandoned/landbanked lines should they be reactivated for service. Danvers Branch, Topsfield Branch, Stoneham Branch, North Reading Branch, and the like (East Boston Branch is considered out-of-service/non-abandoned, so rights are "active" there). Also included in the right-of-first-refusal is any renewed freight on the active Newburyport and Rockport Branches. Guilford/Pan Am filed freight (but obviously not passenger) abandonment north of Beverly Depot in 1984 to force discontinuance of service on the last few active freight customers north of Salem, so their trackage rights are currently considered extinguished there. So should any lines be reactivated or any new freight customers come calling on the upper Eastern Route...CSX would have to be offered as a courtesy, but if they don't want it the T can solicit other carriers (not that there'd really be any others).


EDIT: As for maintenance minimums...B&M's successors are certainly obligated to pay for switches only they use, like freight customer switches and freight-only turnouts. And they are almost certainly obligated to pay in for interlocking maintenance on signalized switches they--and not passenger trains--primarily use (Salem Jct., the Yard 21 leads, Lawrence Yard switches, Billerica Shops interlocking, Everett Jct., Anderson RTC passing track, some crossovers). Standard railroad insurance would apply for property damage, such as derailing on passenger tracks or smacking a platform edge. But beyond that there's probably not much they're obligated to pay for. And Pan Am made a career out of ducking every possible expense, even when it worked against them. Even basic Freight Main maintenance in the T district post-'76 like cycled rail replacement has largely come through combo state and federal grants.
Click to expand...
Thanks! So, how about NH border to Manchester? Does CSX now "owe" the T a certain level of maintenance if they ever decide to operate there?
 
Tallguy said:
Thanks! So, how about NH border to Manchester? Does CSX now "owe" the T a certain level of maintenance if they ever decide to operate there?
Click to expand...
Trackage rights to Concord were covered in the 2008 PAR-MBTA land swap deals, though it was just a small blurb amid pages of detail on the land transactions so it wasn't detailed enough to spec out maint responsibilities. CSX owns the whole joint up there, but if there's passenger service the freights would be single digit % of the traffic since there's only 1 daily Nashua-Concord turn, 1 daily Nashua yard-stocker run, and a couple of Bow coal trains per month. NHDOT would probably be paying >90% of the maintenance based on usage levels, though CSX would be tasked as owner with performing said maintenance.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Trackage rights to Concord were covered in the 2008 PAR-MBTA land swap deals, though it was just a small blurb amid pages of detail on the land transactions so it wasn't detailed enough to spec out maint responsibilities. CSX owns the whole joint up there, but if there's passenger service the freights would be single digit % of the traffic since there's only 1 daily Nashua-Concord turn, 1 daily Nashua yard-stocker run, and a couple of Bow coal trains per month. NHDOT would probably be paying >90% of the maintenance based on usage levels, though CSX would be tasked as owner with performing said maintenance.
Click to expand...
How about Fitchburg west of Gardner?
 
Tallguy said:
How about Fitchburg west of Gardner?
Click to expand...
They don't have trackage rights west of Westminster layover, so anything like the Northern Tier Passenger Rail Study would be subject to fresh negotiations.


The only 'foreign' territory where the T has trackage rights are:
  • Pan Am Southern, Fitchburg-Westminster
  • CSX NH Mainline, state line to Concord (unused)
  • CSX Worcester Branch, Worcester-Ayer (seldom used for non-revenue contingency moves)
  • CSX Stony Brook Branch, Willows Jct. in Ayer to North Chelmsford Jct. (unused)
  • CSX Lowell Branch, Lowell Station to Lowell Jct. in Andover (unused)
  • CSX Western Route Mainline, state line to Plaistow @ end of double-track (unused...was intended for Haverhill-Plaistow extension until NH turfed that)
The T doesn't contribute to maintenance on the non-revenue and unused ex-Pan Am trackage. Per the 2008 PAR agreement those are considered "Level 1" trackage rights, with freights getting absolute scheduling priority and as-is maintenance. Fitchburg-Westminster is considered "Level 2", with passenger trains getting scheduling priority and the T contributing maint premiums. "Level 1" rights can be converted into "Level 2" rights (e.g. New Hampshire) with a passenger feasibility study that's advanced to build. It's a permissive deal that benefits the T overall, but came at the cost of the T forever waiving a per-carload fee on the ex-B&M that dates back to the '76 deal (pretty much the only maint contribution PAR was still obligated to pay for running on the shared mainlines). But that's just PAR being PAR...they'd give the shirt off their backs to avoid ever having to pay anyone anything for any reason.
 
Last edited:
How about the Ag Branch? I know that pass rail was studied at one point in time
 
Tallguy said:
How about the Ag Branch? I know that pass rail was studied at one point in time
Click to expand...
No trackage rights whatsoever there. CSX would probably make the state buy the Fitchburg Secondary outright in order to run passenger service there, since there are so few freight customers left.
 
whighlander said:
F-Line -- not "Prius" locos -- Prius involves both Internat Combustion and batteries

No these should be based on the concept for an electric bus which runs off trolley poles where there are wires and then turns to Fuel Cells when it goes up some remote hillside, etc.

Ballard Power Systems -- A Canadian company has been testing / test marketing fuel cell power for busses for about 5 years -- the Fuel Cell cores are still expensive and the best run off hydrogen -- but progress in the technology is rapid with new materials, tooling and methods of fabrication

http://ballard.com/fuel-cell-applications/bus.aspx
Click to expand...
I like the idea of fuel cells, but we don't need to wait for pure hydrogen to make it work. Bloom Energy has been making solid-oxide fuel cell systems for about fifteen (15) years now, and they use Natural Gas with a reformer to feed hydrogen into the cell array. The output power is 480VAC, three-phase, 50/60 Hz power, which could be used to drive three-phase servomotors connected to the drive wheels. Bloom Energy was featured on a report on CBS' 60 Minutes by Leslie Stahl about ten (10) years ago. Here's a link to their web page:


P.S. Using Ammonia for fuel works also.
 
Last edited:
I was just up in Portsmouth for the first time in almost 20 years and I began to wonder why, specifically, the Newburyport Line hasn't been extended up there yet?
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
I was just up in Portsmouth for the first time in almost 20 years and I began to wonder why, specifically, the Newburyport Line hasn't been extended up there yet?
Click to expand...

As it is, it's over an hour just from Newburyport to NS. Then you most likely would have to get on the subway... I'm sure there are people crazy enough to commute from there but any further and you are getting into really crazy.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
I'm not thinking about commuters, I'm thinking about the tourists! Portsmouth was hopping. It's right next to Maine as well, so there'd surely be demand.
Click to expand...
I believe the line is essentially gone. Rail trailed and built over.
 
vanshnookenraggen said:
I was just up in Portsmouth for the first time in almost 20 years and I began to wonder why, specifically, the Newburyport Line hasn't been extended up there yet?
Click to expand...
We’ve definitely discussed the Eastern Route on AB and I recall:
1) getting through the nuke plant at Seabrook was tricky
2) I don’t remember that there were full breaks in the ROW, just a rail trail issue
3) the bridge In Newburyport $$$
 

Attachments

  • IMG_2807.png
    IMG_2807.png
    4.2 MB · Views: 91
Checking out OpenRailwayMap, it also seems like the simplest solution is to just run off the Downeaster route, or if we are getting crazy, extend the Haverhill Line (or some version using the Lowell Line).
 
Arlington said:
We’ve definitely discussed the Eastern Route on AB and I recall:
1) getting through the nuke plant at Seabrook was tricky
2) I don’t remember that there were full breaks in the ROW, just a rail trail issue
3) the bridge In Newburyport $$$
Click to expand...
The nuke plant isn't tricky. The RR came before it and the charter is intact. You obviously just need to have some interagency cooperation on the maintenance windows, and emergency protocol filed in the event that a disabled train needs to be evacuated on the property. But that's it. And the plant is old; it's not going to be active too many decades longer.

There are no breaks in the ROW. In Downtown Newburyport and (partially) Salisbury you have standard revokable 99-year rail trail leases. That of course comes with all the standard challenges of trying to de-landbank a ROW, but if it can be done anywhere it can be done here.

The bridge in Newburyport would have to have its derelict swing span replaced with something new, and one set of girders on a small portion of the Newburyport-side approach span were chopped down to build the Harborwalk below, but a feasibility study 20 years ago found the approach spans to be in solid structural shape so some recycling of infrastructure is feasible for cutting down the cost.


The last feasibility study found solid ridership and an attractively fast schedule for the service. The problem is simply schizo NH politics. If a slam-dunk like the Capitol Corridor can't get through a single legislative session of short-attention span political theatre there's very little hope for a longer-game (if straightforward) service restoration with de-landbanking like this. There has to be a sea change in how Live Free Or Die politics approaches transit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top