Pan Am Worcester Main Line

Red Wing wrote:I"m not in that part of Clinton like I used to be but as I remember, wouldn't the train have to change direction once it got up onto the Agriculture Branch?

No, the old connecting track bed would send a train coming from worcester towards framingham once it completed the turn.

Thank you.

johnpbarlow wrote: ↑Sat Sep 14, 2024 2:04 pm I’m guessing CSX doesn’t have enough locomotives that have cab signals, I-ETMS PTC, and ACSES PTC to lead M426/M427, freights elsewhere in the CSX system where ACSES is needed (eg Selkirk - Oak Point NY), and Selkirk-Framingham?

I thought about that but the recent posts here indicate that the cab signal system is going to be removed on the B&A so that wouldn't be an issue.

I guess that would eliminate the need for the turntable too???

Perhaps CSX is contemplating removing cab signaling on its track west of Worcester but MBTA uses cab signaling on its track between Worcester and Framingham. And MBTA just installed cab signaling on the Fitchburg line.

Here are pix as of Sunday 9/15/24 of work ongoing at Millbrook St in Worcester-stone is being spread as you can see.

Here’s a view from 9/15/24 of the P&W looking south from the Millbrook St overpass showing recent veg trimming activity where the 2nd track is. No veg trimming has taken place north of Millbrook St as yet.

A small crew was working along the RoW at Chace Hill Rd overpass on Sunday 9/15/24. By appearance it looks like the clearance work here is mostly completed?

If the overhead road bridge, south of the overhead AG bridge,is over 2,000 feet away,the connecting track from WOR TO AG SUB would have a grade a little over1%.If they put the switch under overhead road bridge,NO SNOW, less than 1%.I noted before from an operational and economic view I think they will use connection for just traffic on the AG branch, and have a local go both directions.M426 could drop cars at Ayer or the siding at Clinton.From Marboro jct to framingham could be abandoned or sold to the state
.M436 could have blocks switched at Selkirk hump for Worcester,radville,walpole,mansfield and attleboro and go from Selkirk to Walpole Mansfield,or even attleboro ,This would let M436 not have to drop any cars between Worcester and Framingham.DO NOT FAINT! They could eliminate North Framingham yard and sell it to the state or build condos.The land is worth around 100 million and has a beautiful view of the reservoir, waterfront.I thought of this a year ago ,but DID NOT want to shock anyone. YOU BETTER BUY CSX STOCK!

On that theory, why did csx just install mainline weight cwr Clinton- northboro?

I don't have an answer as to why CSX would want to run 436/437 on this roundabout route to Framingham, that is way above my pay grade. I'm not saying that it is definitely going to happen.

The scuttlebutt is this is the long-term, by like 2030, plan, and I can see once severely overgrown areas being cleared.

johnpbarlow wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 9:34 am Here’s a view from 9/15/24 of the P&W looking south from the Millbrook St overpass showing recent veg trimming activity where the 2nd track is. No veg trimming has taken place north of Millbrook St as yet.

So this is a good pic that shows what I was trying to explain before. View is looking south, railroad west, towards Worcester. The switch on the right side goes to an old P&W customer that used to get covered hoppers of plastic pellets, not active for a while now.

The left side is of course the track in question that would be dedicated to CSX. CSX rules and depicted in the CSX timetable. That will be the case all the way to CP45.

The tree line on the far left will most likely be one of the last things removed. They will basically do, and have been doing, a bunch of prep, and then they remove that in quickly, like in a few days.

The "yard" will be to the left of that tree line.

The re-installation of yard/2d main track in Worcester makes obvious sense. The reroute of Framingham traffic via Clinton less so in the abstract. Among the unknowns is how strongly mass is incentivizing, positively or negatively, csx to move freight traffic off the B&A east of Worcester.
But installation of 136 lb and 115 RE cwr Clinton and south does support the notion of bigger plans for that segment

What is the distance from north of the tunnel in Worcester where it goes from 2 tracks to one to the switch for P AND W to Gardner.I would think they would need three tracks,where the middle track would be the interchange track.Than CSX and PW would have their own track and not have to deal with the other railroad.When in business, its not a good idea to have to depend on a competitor or others ,especially with the time CSX had to back the cars on a large train into PW yard.
On the other topic of M436 ,it is only 22 miles from Wrcester to Fram and only 2 or 3 street crossings, great rail and a mainline railroad,.It makes no sense to go through Clinton and about 20 crossings and meandering through residential areas, and multiple reservoirs. NO BRAINER

Yes, except passenger owner/operators have in the past very much encouraged a reduction in freight traffic on lines they own. Conrail for example ended up pulling most freight off the nec— which had great mainline track and high speeds, moving traffic to other more round about routes.
Csx sold the B&A east of Worcester 15 years ago to Mass and now plans are coming along for increased passenger service. Would not be surprised if Mass is pushing csx to minimize mainline freight trains on their tracks

copcars wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 6:13 pm What is the distance from north of the tunnel in Worcester where it goes from 2 tracks to one to the switch for P AND W to Gardner.I would think they would need three tracks,where the middle track would be the interchange track.Than CSX and PW would have their own track and not have to deal with the other railroad.When in business, its not a good idea to have to depend on a competitor or others ,especially with the time CSX had to back the cars on a large train into PW yard.
On the other topic of M436 ,it is only 22 miles from Wrcester to Fram and only 2 or 3 street crossings, great rail and a mainline railroad,.It makes no sense to go through Clinton and about 20 crossings and meandering through residential areas, and multiple reservoirs. NO BRAINER

This has been covered, there will be a small yard East of the two "through" tracks.

F74265A wrote: ↑Sun Sep 15, 2024 7:17 pm Yes, except passenger owner/operators have in the past very much encouraged a reduction in freight traffic on lines they own. Conrail for example ended up pulling most freight off the nec— which had great mainline track and high speeds, moving traffic to other more round about routes.
Csx sold the B&A east of Worcester 15 years ago to Mass and now plans are coming along for increased passenger service. Would not be surprised if Mass is pushing csx to minimize mainline freight trains on their tracks

I think this is basically the reason why. It's going to be a big change with Massachusetts plans of the T going all the way to Springfield, the inland Amtrak's and the 2 additional Amtrak's going all the way to Albany.

That poster I used to always argue with over PSR was partly right. He said all road freight trains would be removed from the B&A and run on the former B&M line. The B&A would be passenger and locals only. I didn't think it would go that far.

It looks like some kind of compromise was made to make Worcester the end, no road freight trains on the B&A east of Worcester.