Downeaster Trackwork & Upgrades

I noticed that CPF227 at Wells was in service last month as well.

Is Hall going to be a remotely contolled CP?

Rockingham Racer wrote:Is Hall going to be a remotely contolled CP?

Yes. From Portland to Mechanicville, all control points (Including Hall and Frost) will be remote controlled from North Billerica. Manual crossovers, such as the current crossovers at Hall and at places like Rosemont St and Bradford are not considered Control Points in that area.

Once the work is completed between FY and Plaistow, it will be 261 control with control points at Plaistow, Hall, Frost, Andover St and FY. No more Form D's for passenger trains crossing over and no more Form D's and running "Wrong Iron" from CPF273 when trains get hits on the wide load detector at Exeter. Basically it will be run like a real railroad.

Pardon my ignorance, but how does one define "like a real railroad?" Are we basically saying that, once the new signals are operational, trains can be lined for the "wrong way" track and proceed from there using normal signal indications, without the need for a Form D?

Finch wrote:Pardon my ignorance, but how does one define "like a real railroad?" Are we basically saying that, once the new signals are operational, trains can be lined for the "wrong way" track and proceed from there using normal signal indications, without the need for a Form D?

True. It will be Rule 261, signalled for either direction on either track. But what I'm a'wonderin', is what good this will do the passenger trains, which presumably have to be lined for inbound and outbound platforms. At least the freights can routed around them.

True. It will be Rule 261, signalled for either direction on either track. But what I'm a'wonderin', is what good this will do the passenger trains, which presumably have to be lined for inbound and outbound platforms. At least the freights can routed around them.

Thanks.

My only thought on the passenger operations is that when MBTA trains turn at Haverhill, I think they currently need a Form D to get onto what will be their inbound track. Perhaps the new setup would save a minute or two in this situation.

It seems to me that the "inbound" and "outbound" terms need to be replaced with "Track 1" and "Track 2" in the new CTC territory; sorta similar to someone saying "running wrong main" when--in CTC territory--there's no such operation anymore. Basically, the only "problem station" would be Bradford for an MBTA train, since it's the only station between Frost and Haverhill where a passenger has the possibility of being on the wrong platform to catch a train. But who's going to take the train from Bradford to Haverhill, anyway. Theoretically, then, it would be quite possible to run an outbound train from Frost to Haverhill on Track 1 without too much trouble. Not so, though, for Boston-bound trains on Track 2, since people expect to board on Track 1 as a general rule.
The benefit comes, I think, to Downeaster and freights. They don't have to wait for a Boston-bound train to depart Haverhill. Just run them on Track 2 west, if there's no opposing traffic.
In my dispatcher's simulation of District 2, I do just that. You can also let an eastbound freight out of Lawrence yard on 2, while running MBTA east on 1 if traffic permits. Life would be alot easier, though, if it were 261 territory to at least LJ. There are some very tight meets in the current schedule at AS, and Boston-bound trains can get delayed there pretty easily.

Finch wrote: My only thought on the passenger operations is that when MBTA trains turn at Haverhill, I think they currently need a Form D to get onto what will be their inbound track. Perhaps the new setup would save a minute or two in this situation.

They won't, once CP Hall is operating. It will be signal indication operation. One thing that would greatly improve operations, and reduce "dipatcher" talk, would be a controlled signal at the west end of the Haverhill platform where the current single-head signal is. Then trains could turn at Haverhill station , instead of at Hall, and proceed to Boston or into the layover yard on signal indication [assumign the train arrives on Track 1]. No need to go up to Hall and back again in that scenario. There'd need to be a power switch into the yard, though, to accomplish this. I would imagine that the indication for that move would be restricting.

Finch wrote:
My only thought on the passenger operations is that when MBTA trains turn at Haverhill, I think they currently need a Form D to get onto what will be their inbound track. Perhaps the new setup would save a minute or two in this situation.

It's alot more then a minute or two. Currently passenger trains need a form D each time they cross over at Hall (DOZENS per day) as well as any westbound freight that is by Plaistow needs a Ford D to not pass MP34. Between giving the Form D, operating the crossovers, passing through them, then closing them, then cancelling the From D, your talking 5 minutes or more. Times that by how many trains do that per day and the time savings will be incredible.

Keep in mind, each of these form D's need to not only be given, but they then need to be cancelled. This ties up the radio and puts a huge workload on the dispatcher. Not to mention, slows down trains which have to stop and have a Conductor manually operate crossovers TWICE. The new system will eliminate ALL Form D's and eliminate crews from having to operate any crossovers except for signal issues and other unforseen problems.

Once this work is complete, things are going to be MUCH smoother. The radio will be much quieter and the dispactchers can now pay more attention to keeping things moving rather then having to be constantly giving and cancelling Form D's. Freight trains can now go track speed right through Plasitow all the way to AS on signal indication on EITHER TRACK. They can enter the yard at Frost through the new power switch onto 17 East and clear up even while a train is in Lawrence station. Not to mention, just having 17 East back in service all the way to Frost will allow a 100+ car Eastbound train to be out of the way of switching at Lawrence and be ready to leave the yard on a 30mph track.

Not sure what the total plan is at AS, but changes will be made to bring the speeds up to at least 30mph on both tracks. Another HUGE bottleneck will be gone. All westbounds on the #1 track currently have to go 10MPH through AS. Slowing down for this restriction kills all your momentum before climbing the steep grade from AS to the end of Lawerence yard. Again, add up all the freights that take as long as 10 minutes (Slowing down, passing through, then speeding up) to clear and then you will see the difference that will make.

As for people boarding inbound and outbound trains on either track, it's really not that big a deal. The biggest station on the route east of Anderson is Lawrence and it can handle inbounds and outbounds on the same platform. You have Control Points virtually at both ends of the station (AS and Frost) so that will be a breeze. As for Haverhill, Hall will make that simple as crossing over can be done in seconds. Bradford is really the only place where people might have to walk 100 or so feet to the other side if a train is routed differently on occasion. Not a big deal.

The design is great. Now lets just see them actually complete it this summer as planned.

Well the design of Lawrence station stinks. This should be setup like
Anderson (two tracks/center platform), NOT one track for MBTA trains.
You have effectively extended the single track from Reading/Wilmington
to CP-Frost. And that's the last thing we need up there.

And what might negate the addition of Frost and Hall for a short time
is the impending repair work to the Merrimack River Bridge.

Dave

GP40MC1118 wrote:Well the design of Lawrence station stinks. This should be setup like
Anderson (two tracks/center platform), NOT one track for MBTA trains.

That would be impossible on a mainline seeing as many freights as it does. It would be impossible to move any wide loads. As it is now, any wide load or car that gets a wide load hit on the detector at Exeter has to cross over at Hall or wrong on a Form D from Plaistow on the #2 track.

A center platform is not the best idea anyhow. The ideal station is platforms on both tracks with a pedestrian bridge connecting them (No issues of idiots walking in front of trains) AND, using Gantlet tracks on both that bring the passenger trains in to the platform. A well designed passenger station has ZERO pedestrian grade crossings.

No issues with any wide loads on either track, no issues with trains passing through an occupied station.

But the MBTA cannot afford to build new stations of any kind as it is thanks to the ridiculously stupid current FRA rules and the budget issues, and even when they do, they really don't care about accomodating freight trains anyhow so forget them spending money on things like gantlet tracks.

Take a look at places like Metro North's Harlem and New Haven lines. Every major station is full length high level AND has an overhead pedestrian bridge with elevators on both sides.

GP40MC1118 wrote:Well the design of Lawrence station stinks. This should be setup like
Anderson (two tracks/center platform), NOT one track for MBTA trains.
You have effectively extended the single track from Reading/Wilmington
to CP-Frost. And that's the last thing we need up there.

And what might negate the addition of Frost and Hall for a short time
is the impending repair work to the Merrimack River Bridge.

Dave

I would love to see them double track the whole line from WWJ all the way up with stations on both sides. But the speed stuff gets done, i would guesstimate 20 years before that happens.

Any word on when they are going to start those bridge repairs?

NV290 wrote:

GP40MC1118 wrote:Well the design of Lawrence station stinks. This should be setup like
Anderson (two tracks/center platform), NOT one track for MBTA trains.

That would be impossible on a mainline seeing as many freights as it does. It would be impossible to move any wide loads. As it is now, any wide load or car that gets a wide load hit on the detector at Exeter has to cross over at Hall or wrong on a Form D from Plaistow on the #2 track.

A center platform is not the best idea anyhow. The ideal station is platforms on both tracks with a pedestrian bridge connecting them (No issues of idiots walking in front of trains) AND, using Gantlet tracks on both that bring the passenger trains in to the platform. A well designed passenger station has ZERO pedestrian grade crossings.

I seem to recall that Roselle Park, NJ (NJT Raritan Valley Line/Conrail SA/ex-LV) was set up with a center high platform on a freight main. IIRC they used the gauntlet tracks for the freights there, so they could swing wide of the platform. I wonder if something like that would have worked at Lawrence. It seems like the ROW is straight enough approaching the station that it wouldn't introduce reverse curves that are too severe.

At least it would have been nice to trade off the single track station for some restored double track or a passing siding somewhere south of Lawrence -- I've been thinking of late how the end of the Wildcat could have been made into a controlled siding, but that's another thread in another forum. Having run that same dispatcher simulator that Rockingham Racer mentioned, its hard to imagine keeping the line fluid without the extra flexibility.

Back to basics - I need some things clarified.

1. Heading east (away from Boston), track 2 would be on the right and track 1 on the left, correct?

2. Interlocking locations (or control points, I dunno which term is more correct, if any). Hall is somewhere east of Haverhill, looks like a bit east of Rt. 495? Frost is just east of the Lawrence station. And I gather that "AS" is west of the Lawrence station, but where is it exactly and what does "AS" stand for?

3. What is this talk of single track through Lawrence? I know there are two tracks there, so it seems we are talking of a "virtual" single track in some situations. What does that have to do with the design of the Lawrence station?

Correct