Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

One local crank writing an op-ed is not indicative of much.

This doesn't buy Pan Am a whole lot - other than a little less conflict. The Brunswick end of the siding is beyond Pan Am's freight mainline. Pan Am will still be primarily using the same track they've always been on - except when the local runs to Brunswick they'll have another option.

The reality here is that NNEPRA is playing a very long game in incremental steps. They have an ideal schedule in mind and it requires passing trains at certain points. Those points are based on track speeds, existing side tracks, preferred schedule times and interface with the MBTA's schedules in Massachusetts. Believe it or not, moving a train meet 5 miles one way or another has huge ramifications when trying to hit slots in pre-existing schedules and infrastructure. Using tried-and-true stringlines tells you exactly where to build your sidings to make your schedules work. So the selected siding location is simply a point where two lines (representing trains) cross on a piece of paper. And there are likely multiple such crosses at this location.

The recent upgrades in Massachusetts at Wilmington Junction were largely funded by a TIGER grant obtained by NNEPRA along with MBTA funds to close the gap. Why did NNEPRA go after a project in Massachusetts? Because it's a capacity improvement necessary to hit their ideal schedule.

I miss the information and perspective of GOKEEFE. I haven't seen him post in a while. Wonder if he is still with Trainriders Northeast?

Alan

Hamhock wrote:One local crank writing an op-ed is not indicative of much.

There are also several insightful commenters to the article, most of whom I would characterize as skeptical of the need to give $10M of taxpayer money to PAR to accommodate DE service expansion in the face of 3 to 4 weekly freight trains.

I'm more concerned about the continued push for service to Lewiston-Auburn at a cost of $150 million to $200 million — which, according to a Maine Turnpike document I just saw, would have only slightly more riders and would be even less cost-effective than a theoretical Mountain Division service from Portland to Windham.

Can you share that document?

I'd be happy to but I'm not sure if I can post PDFs here.

They estimate annual ridership in the year 2040 to be only 95,900 for the Lewiston/Auburn route and 81,750 for the Standish/Windham route. Estimated ridership in the year 2040 for the Boston-Brunswick route is 1.2 million.

Estimated capital cost for the Standish/Windham route is $42 million. Estimated capital cost for the Lewiston/Auburn route is $100 million to $250 million.

Operation and maintenance costs, which I assume are annual, are estimated at $6 million for Lewiston/Auburn and $4 million for Standish/Windham.

johnpbarlow wrote:in the face of 3 to 4 weekly freight trains.

Unless service has worsened even further, I believe there are at least three road freights per day, plus any as-needed locals such as for the CMQ Rockland Branch interchange or any unusual extras. POWA and WAPO daily, plus a PORU or RUPO on alternating days. I don't know what the status of AYWA/WAAY is at this point, but that is a potential other trip or two per day. The double track through Portland and Falmouth tends to fill up with freight queuing up for a plugged Rigby Yard. Also, if this siding was designed right (ties in to the Brunswick Branch east of where the Freight Main Line diverges), it'll actually be more cumbersome for Pan Am to actually use it as a staging point for Rigby and it may keep clear. In addition to the freight activity and scheduled Downeasters, there are occasional Downeaster extras returning from Southampton Yard in Boston (about once per week) and moves shuttling Downeaster equipment between Portland and Brunswick.

Now, do all these crumbs add up to this siding being absolutely necessary right here? I don't know that and I don't think so, but I'd need more information on the Downeaster's long-term scheduling goals to know that. I think lengthening existing sidings where meets are planned to occur would be more worthwhile, but I don't know where those meets are projected to be under a fully realized schedule and with everything running out of Brunswick.

BostonUrbEx wrote:

johnpbarlow wrote:in the face of 3 to 4 weekly freight trains.

Unless service has worsened even further, I believe there are at least three road freights per day, plus any as-needed locals such as for the CMQ Rockland Branch interchange or any unusual extras. POWA and WAPO daily, plus a PORU or RUPO on alternating days. I don't know what the status of AYWA/WAAY is at this point, but that is a potential other trip or two per day. The double track through Portland and Falmouth tends to fill up with freight queuing up for a plugged Rigby Yard. Also, if this siding was designed right (ties in to the Brunswick Branch east of where the Freight Main Line diverges), it'll actually be more cumbersome for Pan Am to actually use it as a staging point for Rigby and it may keep clear. In addition to the freight activity and scheduled Downeasters, there are occasional Downeaster extras returning from Southampton Yard in Boston (about once per week) and moves shuttling Downeaster equipment between Portland and Brunswick.

Now, do all these crumbs add up to this siding being absolutely necessary right here? I don't know that and I don't think so, but I'd need more information on the Downeaster's long-term scheduling goals to know that. I think lengthening existing sidings where meets are planned to occur would be more worthwhile, but I don't know where those meets are projected to be under a fully realized schedule and with everything running out of Brunswick.

My mistake as I misunderstood where this $10M siding is being constructed (http://www.nnepra.com/projects/royal-junction-siding - I thought incorrectly it was east of Royal Junction. But having said that, isn't there already an approximately 1.8 mile long controlled siding only 7 miles west of Royal Junction between CPF-192 and CPF-194? Or is this one of the staging sidings that PAR frequently uses to tie down freights?

I'm not sure where all the sidings are, but one thing I'm sure of is that siding placements determines schedules on a single track line. If a schedule change is desired, there's a very good chance siding placement changes are also required.

johnpbarlow wrote:But having said that, isn't there already an approximately 1.8 mile long controlled siding only 7 miles west of Royal Junction between CPF-192 and CPF-194? Or is this one of the staging sidings that PAR frequently uses to tie down freights?

That is a two mile stretch of double track with no grade crossings, which is why it's an ideal parking lot and thus unreliable for scheduled meets. The new siding has, I believe, 4 or 5 grade crossings so I think it's less likely to be clogged.

johnpbarlow wrote:Or is this one of the staging sidings that PAR frequently uses to tie down freights?

Yes, that stretch of double track is sometimes called the Falmouth Siding (but it is technically double track, designated as No.1 and No.2 tracks). Westbound trains will tie down at "Allen Ave" (CPF 194) and eastbounds will tie down (not as often, more a last ditch effort to get a late train out of a clogged yard) at "Falmouth" (CPF 192). There have been times where Rigby is bad enough and neighbors at Allen Ave complain enough that they've cut away the power entirely from whole trains here, or left one engine as a pumper to keep the air brake test good, but otherwise leave the train for hours or days. Sometimes they'll pull the POSE traffic off and haul it to Rigby, but leave the rest of the cars behind here. I recall at least one time (I think it was the Winter of '15) where a SEPO was actually run past a train already tied down at Cooks, right past the plugged Rigby Yard, and down to Falmouth.

How much of this is due to the significant number of tracks in Rigby that were removed a few years ago? And from the railroad's perspective, wouldn't it have been less expensive to keep those yard tracks in place — and maintain them to minimal yard track standards — than to maintain that two-mile stretch of Number 2 track to whatever standard it's maintained to?

Ten million bucks would probably also modify Portland AND Brunswick stations to allow buses to drive right up to the platform for wicked easy transfers to guaranteed-connection buses, one for Lewiston and one for Rockland. Trunk-and-branch. Now were to find the money for an extra coach for each train to hold the hypothetical two buses full of new pax.

Extra good ridership numbers this week for the DE.
#682, #685 and #687 sold out most of the week,
including showing sold out tonight and tomorrow.
Patriot's Day, which usually sells out, but
the windswept rain kept some riders home. School
vacation week this week for Maine..