Pan Am Worcester Main Line

Couldn't they just run the one big train overnight? Maybe there was a financial incentive. This is at least a very interesting development. The Route 9 crossing has to finally be made into a real railroad crossing. Just don't tell the NIMBY towns along the line.

I think the deal was made years ago, before Beacon Park was closed. They were willing to give up control of the B&A from Worcester to Beacon Park for the huge benefit of having the state of MA subsidizing the clearance on the entire B&A in the state of Mass. Remember that they used to have to fillet the stacks in Syracuse, and now less than half the number of van trains run today as compared to before the clearance and closure of Beacon Park.

I don't think any would have predicted that CSX would buy the ex-B&M lines, but they did. They wanted it so bad they signed off on having NS run on the B&A, the enemy! No one saw this 15 years ago.

If there is one thing I know about CSX, it is that they like control. I've touched on this already. They are not going to be dictated to by the Keolis Worcester Main Line dispatcher about when they can run trains or what engine has to lead per some other railroads rules when they have an alternate route. An all-CSX route.

The route 9 crossing or the NYIMBY's won't stop anything. They are going to have to fund a bridge like West Springfield has finally done if they don't want to deal with it.

CSX will cooperate with funds but won't pay for the whole thing outright.

Just to explain further, the engine utilization thing is huge. The only lines left on all CSX that need captive engines on mainline trains are on the B&A and Hudson lines. The former RF&P cab signals have been removed. Yard and local engines can be captive, but the big road engines can't.

It's an operating method, power is mostly hot swapped among any train, sometimes directly with the next crew. Having one territory that doesn't fit with this plan causes huge problems.

The Hudson line is different because there is only one manifest train a day, and it swaps crews halfway. So, they can use a captive fleet of engines.

Speaking of NS on the worc main, we are here in sept, clearance work is ongoing, VO connection is done, most trackage rights agreements filed, but no evidence so far of a start up date. Not sure what the snag is with the Pw agreement.

taracer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:40 pm Just to explain further, the engine utilization thing is huge. The only lines left on all CSX that need captive engines on mainline trains are on the B&A and Hudson lines. The former RF&P cab signals have been removed. Yard and local engines can be captive, but the big road engines can't.

It's an operating method, power is mostly hot swapped among any train, sometimes directly with the next crew. Having one territory that doesn't fit with this plan causes huge problems.

The Hudson line is different because there is only one manifest train a day, and it swaps crews halfway. So, they can use a captive fleet of engines.

Don’t they also need captive locomotives on 426/427 for the ex B&M mbta territory?

IMO the CSX Ag Branch crossing at Rte 9 will need improvements such as crossing gates across all 4 lanes. I've attached a photo taken in 2020 of northbound B724 stopped at rte 9 to make sure signals are red and flashing and that the cars are stopped before venturing across. Also I've attached a snapshot of rte 9 traffic around the Ag Branch grade crossing as of 0830 Wednesday 9/18/24 rush hour.

If CSX really decided to do this gates aren't something a company with $14.5B in yearly revenue would really bat an eye at.

It's not a question of willingness - it's one of legal rights and requirements. According to the 1919 valuation map, the railroad was there first, and granted permission for the road to be built. Assuming that nothing changed in terms of rights since the crossing was first opened and that I understand the rules correctly, the state, as owner of the road, would need to pay for any crossing improvements. If the railroad stepped in and said "we'll pay for this one" it creates a large opening that they really don't want to go through.

Why are we even talking about this? This is not Pan Am, if an improved crossing is required due to increased traffic it's going to be put in regardless of who pays.

Suggest this part of the discussion gets moved to Fitchburg secondary thread

Lots of track work being done under the twin Rt 12 and West Mountain St bridges in Worcester this week. I Don't know if they undercut the tracks or are just putting things in order.

They had a big problem with overgrowth over the years. They also had a terrible drainage problem up to the N Burncoat Street crossing. CSX dredged out both sides of the track and installed drainage and a lot of stone especially on the south side of the tracks.

F74265A wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:44 pm

taracer wrote: ↑Tue Sep 17, 2024 6:40 pm Just to explain further, the engine utilization thing is huge. The only lines left on all CSX that need captive engines on mainline trains are on the B&A and Hudson lines. The former RF&P cab signals have been removed. Yard and local engines can be captive, but the big road engines can't.

It's an operating method, power is mostly hot swapped among any train, sometimes directly with the next crew. Having one territory that doesn't fit with this plan causes huge problems.

The Hudson line is different because there is only one manifest train a day, and it swaps crews halfway. So, they can use a captive fleet of engines.

Don’t they also need captive locomotives on 426/427 for the ex B&M mbta territory?

Yes, and they rotate with the Hudson Line train. There are only a handful of Acess equipped engines, and within the next 5 years there will be no cab signals on any CSX governed territory. The B&A is the only one left.

So, they will keep a small captive fleet in Selkirk but reducing it by one train seems to make sense to them. That and they want to max out the 436/437 pair with DP and the T has a limit of 130 cars for freight. Also, that it will be hard to yard a big train on the B&A main side in Framingham without causing a delay for all the passenger trains that are planned in 5 years.

As I've said, I'm not management, I don't know the big picture and I'm just guessing the reasons why. I'm offering informed scuttlebutt.

I think that at the end of the day they are just going to wash their hands of the B&A east of Worcester since there is an alternate route that they fully control.

Going further, it's not about speed, it's not about moving freight. The 436 sits in Worcester on main 1 for at least over 8 hours now. 437's cars sit in the Worcester yard or on the siding for 12 hours or more. They managed to find a way to juke the numbers during PSR so that they delay in Worcester doesn't show.

Trip optimizer forces us to run the trains well under track speed on these drag freights all the time, even downhill.

I'm probably going to stop posting now since I'm letting too much out but expect some big changes.