CSX Track Upgrades & Infrastructure of Pan Am

cu29640 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:41 pm Sorry if I missed this. I realize CSX has started to upgrade Worcester to Ayer. Will this eventually be CTC with 50 MPH trains? Remote sidings? And does CSX have the same plan north of Yarmouth JCT to the end of PanAm in Maine? They surely must want to be able to do better than 10mph. They could upgrade to welded rail, replace the CTC from MCE days and add a few strategic modern sidings. Also a modern cleared ROW. There is a lot of brush and near encroachment on that part of the line through towns.

BTW How far up did CTC go in Guilford Era on the Maine Central?

It's all going to be brought up to 25 and then beyond that. No CTC for the Worcester Main.

As for the MEC they had an odd mix of CTC and DCS w/ABS that has been decommissioned over the years. Try to get your hands on a Springfield Terminal Timetable (pre Pan Am) to look at what it looked like throughout the 90s into the early 2000s.

Traffic density doesn't require reinstallation of CTC at this time up there.

CTC on the Maine Central pre-Guilford was controlled from three locations. PT Tower controlled from
Rigby Yard to Sodom on the Lower Road Main Line including the approaches on the Mountain Subdivision
at Mountain Jct. (to Larrabee Rd.) and the Back Road Main Line at Royal Junction. Tower A in Waterville
controlled to Farnham Brook in Pittsfield and Tower RD in Bangor controlled from Farnham Brook to
Bangor. Rigby controlled the interlockings at both ends of Rigby but the yard tracks in the middle were
not signal territory. In Bangor Tower RD also controlled the interlockings at the Kenduskeg Bridge,
Calais Jct and the Waterworks. I don't know if the Main Line tracks through the yards at Waterville and
Bangor were signal territory or not- the employee timetable infers they were not. I never worked east of
Monmouth (Back Road) or Vassalboro (Low Road) as that was a different signal dept. seniority district.

cu29640 wrote: ↑Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:41 pm Sorry if I missed this. I realize CSX has started to upgrade Worcester to Ayer. Will this eventually be CTC with 50 MPH trains? Remote sidings? And does CSX have the same plan north of Yarmouth JCT to the end of PanAm in Maine? They surely must want to be able to do better than 10mph. They could upgrade to welded rail, replace the CTC from MCE days and add a few strategic modern sidings. Also a modern cleared ROW. There is a lot of brush and near encroachment on that part of the line through towns.

BTW How far up did CTC go in Guilford Era on the Maine Central?

Why? The speed increases yes, but CTC is not needed and will likely not be for some time. They only have the current mixed traffic with no container contracts. Even then, look at how CP is struggling to get enough traffic to warrant more than one train pair per day. It will be years before CSX gets enough Intermodal to warrant another train pair and thats even if the port works out at all.

I guess this could be considered an infrastructure upgrade. Out and about yesterday we had the radio on, encountering A693 passing 255. As we approached 256 we heard an HBD announcing at 253.3, Newmarket. When the Exeter detector was moved to E. Kingston, it went out of range, and since we don't get over that way much, we don't know if it's still in operation.

Under the grant that PAR got CTC was supposed to be extended to Leeds Jct. Has that changed?

Being awarded for something and doing it are two different things. I wouldnt extend it if it were me. More maintenance for not much traffic.

CPF66 wrote: ↑Sat Mar 25, 2023 12:23 pm Why? The speed increases yes, but CTC is not needed and will likely not be for some time. They only have the current mixed traffic with no container contracts. Even then, look at how CP is struggling to get enough traffic to warrant more than one train pair per day. It will be years before CSX gets enough Intermodal to warrant another train pair and thats even if the port works out at all.

Not sure how CP is "struggling" when the port is at capacity (125K TEUs per annum) so you can't add any more container traffic today without blowing it up... the expansion work is complete is May with the commissioning of the new cranes and new surface gear allowing for 300K per annum. 2024 is the in-fill to get the port to 800K TEUs. CP is doing exactly as planned-- building out the rail capacity now because the port expansion is going to add more steamship services. CSX is going to move forward on the signaling from 183 to Leeds as well as the Keag upgrades for the same reason....

New rail has been laid in Nashua.

CN9634 wrote: Not sure how CP is "struggling" when the port is at capacity (125K TEUs per annum) so you can't add any more container traffic today without blowing it up... the expansion work is complete is May with the commissioning of the new cranes and new surface gear allowing for 300K per annum. 2024 is the in-fill to get the port to 800K TEUs. CP is doing exactly as planned-- building out the rail capacity now because the port expansion is going to add more steamship services. CSX is going to move forward on the signaling from 183 to Leeds as well as the Keag upgrades for the same reason....

I was referring more to the fact that the container traffic dropped off drastically last fall to the point where CP had to reduce their schedule. Last time I talked to one of the engineers I know at Irving, they were only operating 6 days a week with only one regular train pair. And I highly doubt they will ever extend the signaling system beyond Old Town even if the containers ever materialize. Considering there are no passing sidings east of Old Town and with the geography in that region, it wouldn't be cost effective to install signals.

I didn't think anyone had even mentioned signals past Old Town at this point - the original question was about the grant to re-install signals to Leeds Jct (well short of Bangor, let alone Old Town), and (separately) grants/plans to refurbish the tracks east to Keag.

The plan to have an extended, controlled siding at New Gloucester makes the rest of the signal improvements easier. There would be a relatively short gap to the west end of the existing ABS west of Danvile Jct. From there the existing ABS extends through Lewiston to Merrill Road a couple of miles east of the siding at the Fairgrounds. This stretch of ABS was reworked a few years ago with buried cable replacing much of the pole line and some signals relocated. From Merrill Road to Leeds Junction is another relatively short gap. The short stretch of ABS through Leeds Junction has been out of service for some time now and would likely be replaced by modern equipment. It's really not the enormous project some people make it out to be as TCS overlays ABS fairly easily. Like others, I question the need of a control system for four trains a day and it's hard to envision large traffic increases anytime soon.

Here are some details

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBmEpjn9dxM

S1f3432 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:21 pm Like others, I question the need of a control system
for four trains a day and it's hard to envision large traffic increases anytime soon.

I can understand if the traffic was there already and they had contracts in the pipeline, that those upgrades would be necessary. But seeing any noticeable traffic increases are 5-10+ years down the road (if ever). Thats years of maintenance and upkeep on a system that isn't even needed. With CSX in full PSR mode, I don't see them wasting that kind of money just yet.

CN9634 wrote: ↑Sun Mar 26, 2023 7:52 pm Here are some details

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jBmEpjn9dxM

Thanks for the link!

Ditto -- looks like all sortsa thaws might be happening.