Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Elcamo
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:03 am

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by Elcamo » Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:55 pm

Most recent reference of the branch I can find is here: http://www.salemdeeds.com/view_image.as ... geType=jpg
It appears the branch was still running as of 1953. Looks like (aside from the byway and bike path) it still has a straight shot down webb street to attach to the mainline. Looks much more feasible now, I thought originally that it would've connect via Derby (which would be impossible), thus saying it was hard to do.

canobiecrazy
Posts: 62
Joined: Mon May 09, 2011 3:48 pm
Location: Lynn, MA

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by canobiecrazy » Sat Jul 07, 2012 7:34 am

This is a bit off topic, but in that diagram, at the top of Cat Cove, right under Winter Island, there is a swimming pool? I always presumed that that pool was something to do with the power plant. Anyone have pictures of it when it was a swimming pool or remember it?

Also, as for the freight line being put back into use, I don't see it happening. If it is being converted to natural gas especially. It looks like a good route for a pipeline or something, though.
Bring the Blue Line to Lynn!

Elcamo
Posts: 65
Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 2:03 am

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by Elcamo » Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:53 pm

That area is called Smith's Pool, and can still be seen here: http://maps.google.com/maps?rlz=1C1TSND ... a=N&tab=wl

I haven't seen it in person before, so I don't really know what purpose it serves. The new plant is going to only take up 1/3 of the old plant's property, the rest of which is supposed to be used to restoring Salem's waterfront, and for cruise ships to port there.

User avatar
BostonUrbEx
Posts: 3835
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Winn to MPT 8, Boston to MPN 38, and Hat to Bank

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by BostonUrbEx » Mon Jul 09, 2012 10:14 pm

As noted, it is a manmade pond of sorts, named Smiths Pool. It's basically like Pleasure Bay in South Boston.

MBTA3247
Posts: 2740
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:01 pm
Location: Milton

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by MBTA3247 » Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:26 pm

Elcamo wrote:That area is called Smith's Pool, and can still be seen here: http://maps.google.com/maps?rlz=1C1TSND ... a=N&tab=wl
That link is invalid.
"The destination of this train is [BEEP BEEP]" -announcement on an Ashmont train.

blackcap
Posts: 131
Joined: Thu May 06, 2004 10:53 am
Location: Magna, UT (formerly of Gaston County, NC; Olathe, KS; and Woburn, MA)

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by blackcap » Wed Jul 11, 2012 7:40 am


FatNoah
Posts: 1062
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:10 am

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by FatNoah » Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:51 pm

If you look closely, you can see the branch in this picture as well:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... 001218.jpg

The EGE
Posts: 2605
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: Waiting for the N Judah

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by The EGE » Mon Dec 10, 2012 9:53 pm

The MBTA's list of upcoming solicitations includes one for a $28 million contract for the Gloucester Draw, to be listed in May 2013.

MBTA1016
Posts: 1713
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 12:16 pm
Location: Walpole MA

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by MBTA1016 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:12 pm

Does this draw or any others open up anymore? It seems like these should have been replaced before this happened.
Josh.W
Formally mbta fan
WE ARE BOSTON, WE ARE BOSTON STRONG


Flicker: http://www.flickr.com/photos/116905626@N06/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Blog: http://jpwilkinson2448.blogspot.com/?m=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

sery2831
Posts: 5138
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Manchester, NH

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by sery2831 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:15 pm

The draw bridge works and opens daily. Ships need to pass under, if the bridge was to be closed, it would be closed to trains. All the draw bridges on the RR are operational and are in use.
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

User avatar
BostonUrbEx
Posts: 3835
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Winn to MPT 8, Boston to MPN 38, and Hat to Bank

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by BostonUrbEx » Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:23 pm

sery2831 wrote:if the bridge was to be closed, it would be closed to trains.
Why's that? I would think a service hundreds of commuters rely on would be more important than the convenience of a few pleasure boaters.

The Annisquam River is a tidal river, with water flowing in from the Atlantic in the north, and flowing back into the Atlantic in the south. They could keep the bridge lowered permanently and no boats would be trapped "up river".

sery2831
Posts: 5138
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Manchester, NH

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by sery2831 » Tue Dec 11, 2012 11:37 pm

Boats do have the right of way over trains.
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

Arborwayfan
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:27 am
Location: Terre Haute, Indiana

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by Arborwayfan » Thu Dec 13, 2012 12:51 pm

Ships/boats on navigable waterways are protected from being blocked by anything by law (enforced IIRC by the Coast Guard) probably on the theory that the rivers were there first. Back in hte 1830s or 40s steamboat owners tested this by steaming into a new bridge at St. Louis and damaging it. A. Lincoln was cousel for the bridge, and won hte right of bridges to exist, but that's only as long as they don't actually prevent river traffic. USCG still has to approve heights and alignments on coast waters I think. Anyone know if places like the Charles upstream of the East Cambridge Viaduct are permanently OK to block, or if someone could, in theory, make the T "open" the viaduct? I assume there's a sort of abandonment process for the navigable waterways that have fallen out of use, but I don't know.

sery2831
Posts: 5138
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Manchester, NH

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by sery2831 » Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:11 pm

I agree there has to a process to abandon draw bridges. The Green Line viaduct is not really an example though. At one time that was tidal, but new locks and a new damn was put in place between the North Washington St and the railroad making that bridge high enough for the traffic that goes through there. But the North Washington St bridge does not open anymore.
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority

diburning
Posts: 3062
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Practicing safe CSX by using Three-Step Protection

Re: Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion

Post by diburning » Thu Dec 13, 2012 1:14 pm

The Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) was not passed until 1899 which prohibited unauthorized obstruction of navigable water in the US.

Most of the bridges on the Charles would be grandfathered in as they were all built before that act was passed, not that ships would want to go that way anyway because of the Watertown Dam. There's really nothing on the river to accommodate anything that wouldn't fit anyway.

Return to “Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)”