NYC27 wrote:Also keep in mind that two custom stops in the post 9/11 era would be a major inconvenience for through travelers and slow the trip down. It is only about 7 miles shorter via the ex-CP from Halifax to Montreal (get a Canadian Trackside Guide and do the math) and that distance advantage wouldn't translate into faster transit times because of the grades, curves and track conditions of the route. Sure Saint John is off the Via network but when you look at it objectively, Saint John really isn't big enough to justify a passenger train.This would seem to me to argue for a straightened route with deviations to create a more significant distance advantage.
RailNutNE wrote:All good discussion. No, I was referring to the whole thing going under, not just Millinocket to Madawaska. Just curious if anyone else was hearing anything.I understand that fact what I'm saying is if the entire line was going down why would they bother trying to dump a part of it? They wouldn't go through all the paper work time and effort to reduce miles if they saw the writing on the wall, they would have just dumped the whole thing. We all know the railroad is not doing well but they still have some steam left.
This would seem to me to argue for a straightened route with deviations to create a more significant distance advantage. Surely rail freight from Halifax to Montreal could run faster via MaineThe Maine vs all Canadian mileage difference between Halifax and Montreal is minimal (~759 vs ~825). The traffic moving between the Maritimes and the rest of North America doesn't justify three bridge lines (CN, NBSR/MMA, and NBSR/PAR). One would do quite nicely... and since the the CN and PAR are worthy on their own right, i.e., the lines enjoy on-line business and/or serve other functions, it would make sense from an academic perpective to close the MMA line between Keag or Brownville and as far west as it is non self-supporting as a local line. I say academic as the MMA obviously doesn't share that view, and they exaccerbate and perpetuate the issue by keeping the line open through some fuzzy math and government subsidy. I can't say I completely blame them, as relations have never been great with PAR and antecedents, and to quit the old CP would create MMA dependence on PAR bridge services.
RailNutNE wrote:CN...They are obviously going to try and salvage anything they can (State $$$) and still keep the operation in tact. Any non-foamers have an opinion?Sir,