Naugatuck Platform Relocation

Believe any change to an existing platform footprint or building a new platform requires conforming to all ADA requirements.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

Jeff Smith wrote:Any clearance issues with high level platforms with the otherwise infrequent PAS freights?

No. PAS accesses via the Springfield Line, which is a non-clearance route; so the Highland + Waterbury down to Derby Jct. have no clearance exemption.

What about hypothetical interchanges from the Housatonic? I know nothing about the Housy other than there is zero interchanging between them and PAS at this time. If it is the only way wide loads could reach PAS's CT operations, would they want to preserve that possibility and what rights do they have to protect those interests?

I suppose you'd have to have controlled gauntlets in that case. But this scenario is not at all likely as the HRRC below Danbury is OOS as they have not maintained it. PW& has to use it's less desirable Danbury branch routing to access their stone customer in Danbury now.

Housatonic has no interchange rights anywhere on Metro North.
MN is not going to limit its way of doing business , just because someone in future might want to think about something that never might happen.

DutchRailnut wrote:MN is not going to limit its way of doing business , just because someone in future might want to think about something that never might happen.

Of course they wouldn't, but do they have the legal right to make the decision or does any law or paper barrier require them to consult others first?

with no existing customers and no pattern set for wide loads, both MN and CDOT can set any rules they want.
For example on Harlem line all freight north of Mount Vernon yard all way to Wassaic is gone, not be returning anytime.
as for written, with no interchange agreement in place, both HRRC and Panam can whistle dixie.

Freight rights for Derby Junction belong to Housy, P&W, and PAS. But as Dutch says, there's no interchange in place. P&W and HRRC don't exactly play nice, either. I'm not sure why there'd be any need for interchange there anyway.

I'm not sure what agreements were put in place when ConRail kind of dumped everything back in the 80's. I know there are competitive restrictions elsewhere in New England. A good question for the NE Railfan Forum. But freight here is secondary to MNRR with the exception of the Maybrook proper (HRRC in CT only), north and east of Waterbury (PAS) and Berkshire north of Danbury (HRRC). Interestingly, Waterbury was never upgraded for high level (except Waterbury itself); I'm sure that wasn't intentional for freight clearances. And it's been threatened by past (GOP) governors.

Does PAR/PAS interchange Ballast Hoppers near Derby Jct with MN,or is that changing to the PAR/PAS side of
Waterbury Yard?
That was brought up somewhere in the MN forum.
You still need clearance the high level platforms to allow work trains to pass!

Backshophoss wrote:Does PAR/PAS interchange Ballast Hoppers near Derby Jct with MN,or is that changing to the PAR/PAS side of
Waterbury Yard?
That was brought up somewhere in the MN forum.
You still need clearance the high level platforms to allow work trains to pass!

The only freight clearance route here is Cedar Hill - Devon - Derby Jct. - Danbury. And at this point that may only exist as legalese on some yellowed piece of paper in a file cabinet from back when Conrail conveyed rights to P&W, because P&W doesn't have wide clearance on the Shoreline out of Groton to reach New Haven in the first place. North of Derby Jct.--the only place there are actual stations to pass--there never was a restriction on high platforms. There's no exemption on the AMTK-owned Springfield Line (even though only now are we seeing high platforms go up), so from the day Boston & Maine bought its way into Connecticut in '82 there's never been a legally unbroken clearance route for PAS & predecessors to reach Waterbury/Derby. The only reason full-highs don't exist here other than Waterbury-proper is because CDOT didn't care enough to put 5 cents worth of capital in the branch until now.

Majority of freight car types, including container well cars, can pass a full-high just fine. It's mostly high-capacity boxcars that have an issue and need Plate F clearance, but only certain customers like big printers getting gigantic rolls of paper can't live without those. On a light-traffic branchline with sidings of a handful of cars each...railroad and customers aren't going to sweat it if they have to take the normal-size boxcars. The high-capacity boxes, the autoracks...everything else with a wide turning radius sticks to the mainlines of Massachusetts and the I-395 corridor where the capacity nets the railroad measurable profit. They don't waste their time with that stuff on the far-flung locals unless it's a big customer that can't physically take its load without Plate F. No such customers in CT anywhere west of the NECR main.

If MNRR extends to New Milford they'll probably have to honor the legacy clearance route with passing tracks at would-be Brookfield and NM stations (not that Housy uses the capacity, but the legal status conveyed by Conrail will be upheld unless the incumbent freight carrier voluntarily waves it...regardless of whether CDOT buys the line and Housy or successors operate on trackage rights). Moot point there because the extension stops are going to be single side platforms near the end of the line at locations that used to be double-track generations ago; there's plenty of room.

MN does not interchange with Panam at all, MN ballast cars get interchanged on Waterbury branch before MP 1 just north of Devon in P&W freight territory.
HRRC would still preserve clearances for high, but nothing has been shipped in wide status in over 20 years even the transformers moved to Hopewell and to Danbury for road transport to s Norwalk.
bigger problem on that end is bridges and lack of maintenance.