Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New York State.

Moderator: Otto Vondrak

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby Matt Langworthy » Thu Aug 30, 2018 2:54 pm

An FRA inspection train visited FGLK today, then departed via NS shortly after 1 PM.
Matt Langworthy

"It is highly likely that the 1990s were an overrated decade."
User avatar
Matt Langworthy
 
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:02 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby D Alex » Sat Oct 20, 2018 8:20 am

FWIW, there is a public meeting in Victor this week to discuss traffic plans. I would assume one of the things to be proposed is claiming the old LVRR right of way for a street, to relieve congestion on 96. I would assume this would result in abandonment of all the track from the edge of fishers to at least rt.332, maybe all the way to Manchester. I don't believe there is any customer on this stretch other than the insulator plant in Victor.
D Alex
 
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Dec 08, 2017 5:15 pm

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby Otto Vondrak » Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:07 pm

D Alex wrote:I don't believe there is any customer on this stretch other than the insulator plant in Victor.


Did Victor Insulator stop getting cars?

-otto-
----------------------------------------------
Moderator: New York State Railfan :: New York Central :: Toy Trains
NYW&B Fan Site :: A Magazine I Read Often :: A Museum I Volunteer At
User avatar
Otto Vondrak
 
Posts: 20272
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: New York

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby CPSmith » Fri Oct 26, 2018 4:05 pm

D Alex wrote:FWIW, there is a public meeting in Victor this week to discuss traffic plans. I would assume one of the things to be proposed is claiming the old LVRR right of way for a street, to relieve congestion on 96. I would assume this would result in abandonment of all the track from the edge of fishers to at least rt.332, maybe all the way to Manchester. I don't believe there is any customer on this stretch other than the insulator plant in Victor.


This is BS. There's no process to "claim [sic] the old LVRR right of way for a street, to relieve congestion on 96".

It is an active piece of railroad and neither the county (property owner) nor the railroad (operator) have any interest in ending service.
peddle your shorts
CPSmith
 
Posts: 415
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 10:15 am

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby lvrr325 » Sun Oct 28, 2018 11:10 pm

Otto Vondrak wrote:
D Alex wrote:I don't believe there is any customer on this stretch other than the insulator plant in Victor.


Did Victor Insulator stop getting cars?

-otto-


They get a greatly reduced number of cars from years past after being forced to use trucks during the traffic meltdown of the CR split and finding it easier to unload them. This was discussed either previously in this thread or in another thread in this board.

Adams St. in the village is already on the ROW. The road could probably be extended east to meet Brace Rd. and extended west to Route 251. With the low level of rail traffic the road and a single track could probably share the corridor east of NY-444. Google shows a siding still goes into NVR (former Ryan Homes, I presume), guessing they're not active. West of School St. has only been used for car storage for a long time, the customer at the end of the line is not active. Their building constructed out onto the ROW precludes a bypass from continuing west to a more natural split.

However, it will be expensive to add another bridge and reconfigure the roads at the east end. Just adding a road from School St. to 251 would appear to not be expensive or affect rail operation in any way except perhaps the loss of that portion of track. How much traffic it could alleviate is another story.
lvrr325
 
Posts: 4534
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: New York State

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby BR&P » Sun Nov 18, 2018 1:21 pm

lvrr325 wrote: West of School St. [Victor] has only been used for car storage for a long time, the customer at the end of the line is not active. Their building constructed out onto the ROW precludes a bypass from continuing west to a more natural split.


The County right-of-way does extend westward to MP 371. When Iron City was planning the building expansion, specific provisions were made for retaining access to the westernmost part. At that time, the potential for additional rail-served development was much greater than it is today. A switch was installed just west of Rt 251, and the railroad retained the right to construct a track along the south side of the ROW past the building and back onto the LV alignment. This was sometimes referred to on the ONCT as "the Road to the Future". Despite a couple nibbles, nothing actually developed out there, and given the transformation of Victor into a more upscale bedroom community, it's not going to happen.

Interesting side note, after the FGLK takeover there was need for a turnout, I believe it was for the Manchester Yard expansion. FGLK track guys were measuring the switch for removal when someone from the electronics plant came out and told the crew it wasn't their track. While the siding itself was indeed Iron City's, the railroad had an ownership in the turnout. Nobody at FGLK bothered to investigate farther, they accepted what the track guys had been told, and the switch remains there today as far as I know.
confused2.gif
confused2.gif (4.39 KiB) Viewed 2798 times
BR&P
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:58 pm

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby lvrr325 » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:21 am

My point was the building extending onto the ROW makes it much more difficult to build a road through there, particularly with modern construction standards for intersections and so forth.
lvrr325
 
Posts: 4534
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: New York State

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby BR&P » Mon Nov 19, 2018 11:21 am

lvrr325 wrote:My point was the building extending onto the ROW makes it much more difficult to build a road through there, particularly with modern construction standards for intersections and so forth.


I see what you're getting at - speaking of the highway, bearing off eastbound about where the car dealership is. I agree.
BR&P
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:58 pm

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby lvrr325 » Wed Dec 26, 2018 5:07 pm

NY-174 is closed between Camillus and Marcellus because the tunnel's falling apart at Martisco. Not going to collapse, but it needs a new liner.


"The concrete inside the tunnel is flaking off, and could damage a vehicle’s windshield or the body of a car, said David Smith, president of Finger Lakes Railway, which owns the tunnel. While the underpass is structurally sound, it needs to be repaired, he said.

Engineers and state DOT officials are meeting today to determine whether to make temporary repairs or take a long-term approach, Smith said."


https://www.syracuse.com/news/2018/12/r ... dered.html

Of course they got Mike Smith's name wrong. Also, does the railroad actually own the tunnel or did they do a deal where the county owns it and Finger Lakes is essentially permanent designated operator, to reduce the taxes?
lvrr325
 
Posts: 4534
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: New York State

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby The Man » Wed Dec 26, 2018 6:27 pm

“David Smith??? Lol😂😂😂😂😂 I see the post sub-standard is in full swing. The only rag I know that is worse is the Post Star in Warrensburg. Lol
The Man
 
Posts: 243
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 3:13 am
Location: I am never sure

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby Matt Langworthy » Fri Dec 28, 2018 9:05 am

lvrr325 wrote:NY-174 is closed between Camillus and Marcellus because the tunnel's falling apart at Martisco. Not going to collapse, but it needs a new liner.
Also, does the railroad actually own the tunnel or did they do a deal where the county owns it and Finger Lakes is essentially permanent designated operator, to reduce the taxes?


It is a state highway, so the country is not directly involved. Under the PILOT program, FGLK leases the ROW to the county for the cost of property taxes, who in turn leases it back to the RR at reduced rate. FGLK still holds the title to most of its ROW. The state might hold the title to the culvert or it might have an easement under the RR.
Matt Langworthy

"It is highly likely that the 1990s were an overrated decade."
User avatar
Matt Langworthy
 
Posts: 3371
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:02 pm
Location: Rochester, NY

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby lvrr325 » Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:24 pm

Worth noting also that when repairing a bridge just south of the tunnel the state considered a detour via Martisco Road that would have entailed re-opening the abandoned portion north of the tracks and upgrading the entire road.

If they'd chosen to do that then, they could use it again now. I've forgotten if they would have installed a temporary bridge over the creek or a permanent one, but a temporary seems more likely, so they'd have to do that a second time.

Would be interesting to see the sort of crossing protection they'd have to set up there.
lvrr325
 
Posts: 4534
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: New York State

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby BR&P » Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:30 pm

lvrr325 wrote:Would be interesting to see the sort of crossing protection they'd have to set up there.


I would guess advance signs, crossbucks at the tracks, and possibly a stop-and-proceed or a stop-and-protect for the train.
BR&P
 
Posts: 3990
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:58 pm

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby Trainman14 » Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:26 am

How much mileage would this detour add?
Trainman14
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2018 1:50 am

Re: Finger Lakes Railway (FGLK) Discussion

Postby lvrr325 » Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:53 am

The two roads parallel one another for about 3/4 of a mile, Martisco Road just went over and up by the station and back down, so perhaps a few hundred yards would be added. The bigger issue would be making the road so large trucks could use it. Not that they don't, now, but rarely is opposing traffic an issue.
lvrr325
 
Posts: 4534
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 5:42 pm
Location: New York State

Previous

Return to New York State Railfan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dick H and 6 guests