Railroad Forums
Gloucester Draw Failure Discussion
- Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.
I like how the T is saying that the Bridge is safe to use even though they will limit a trains speed to only 10mph while crossing it.. That would make me really wonder just how safe it is.
I wonder if those wood pilings sitting in that salty river are all 100+ year originals? Hmm.
|| REGIONALRAIL ||
NH2060 wrote:Better late than never I supposeKey detail. . .
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/local/x4 ... ge-in-2013
Fay, Spofford & Thorndike proposed repairs that would cost around $25 million and would close the bridge for an estimated seven months. But the plan was left off the MBTA's commuter rail capital planning list, effectively blocking — at that point — any progress for funding the bridge reconstruction for the next five years....but they'll jump on replacing it right away when the repair bill gets higher than the cost of a new span. $40M for a one-and-done replacement or $25M in repairs based on conditions prior to this most recent failure. Bet you that's now a near-wash. Must be refreshing taking those vexing financial dilemmas off the table...and having the free time to concentrate fully on more minor secondary details like whether their bridges are gonna fall over and kill somebody next week.
Looks like they are indeed going ahead with a new bridge.
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/topstori ... ail-bridge
http://www.gloucestertimes.com/topstori ... ail-bridge
The first sentence of the Gloucester Times article begins:
"In 1911, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority built the Annisquam River drawbridge for commuter trains"
Should I bother to read any further?
"In 1911, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority built the Annisquam River drawbridge for commuter trains"
Should I bother to read any further?
The editor/proofreader needs a history lesson,ouch!!
The Land of Enchantment is not Flyover country!
On the article's site a user name DamonC made this comment: "Will it be strong enough to carry freight trains? The state is pressing for short sea shipping in our commercial harbors but the fact that we have no rail access for freight here is a drawback for us."
Is there a legitimate possibility of freight running over this part of the line? I don't really see the demand for it there, especially when 128 serves the area just fine.
Is there a legitimate possibility of freight running over this part of the line? I don't really see the demand for it there, especially when 128 serves the area just fine.
Elcamo wrote:On the article's site a user name DamonC made this comment: "Will it be strong enough to carry freight trains? The state is pressing for short sea shipping in our commercial harbors but the fact that we have no rail access for freight here is a drawback for us."I don't really see any freight in East Gloucester's or Rockport's future, except maybe a couple boxcars for some trackside warehouse. Unless there's some demand for seafood to be shipped out on high priority trains. The state might want bigger ports, but they're going to upgrade existing ones, such as Conley and ... er- New Bedford? I think?
Is there a legitimate possibility of freight running over this part of the line? I don't really see the demand for it there, especially when 128 serves the area just fine.
|| REGIONALRAIL ||
This brief suggests that the Commonwealth intends to use Gloucester, Salem, Fall River, and New Bedford as coastal shipping ports.
I would suspect that the new drawbridge is likely to be overbuilt and thus not an obstacle to freight. The more difficult issue is that the rail line is a fair distance from the port itself.
I would suspect that the new drawbridge is likely to be overbuilt and thus not an obstacle to freight. The more difficult issue is that the rail line is a fair distance from the port itself.
The EGE wrote:This brief suggests that the Commonwealth intends to use Gloucester, Salem, Fall River, and New Bedford as coastal shipping ports.Yeah, I would say freight on the Rockport Line is unlikely in our lifetimes. But the bridge is designed to last a minimum 75 years, so they've got to think beyond our lifetimes. Any brand new bridge structure that gets built these days is likely to be fully up-to-spec for 286K rail cars no matter where it goes or what its freight prospects are.
I would suspect that the new drawbridge is likely to be overbuilt and thus not an obstacle to freight. The more difficult issue is that the rail line is a fair distance from the port itself.
The EGE wrote:This brief suggests that the Commonwealth intends to use Gloucester, Salem, Fall River, and New Bedford as coastal shipping ports.That's what I figured, but just wanted to double check in case I was wrong. The idea of Salem growing as a port is much more interesting IMO, although I doubt it would happen. The land best suited for it, the power plant property planned to be torn down and renovated, is impossible to reach with rail and would plague downtown Salem with unwanted and unncessary truck traffic if implemented. The only possible rail connection would be if the port was made at the existing Salem station, where the water is barely deep enough for barges currently, and where there isn't a whole lot of space for a good sized port.
I would suspect that the new drawbridge is likely to be overbuilt and thus not an obstacle to freight. The more difficult issue is that the rail line is a fair distance from the port itself.
EDIT: Sorry for getting off topic there, just thought it was an interesting (yet flawed) idea.
Elcamo wrote:The power plant was once served by rail. A spur which is now a bike/walking trail. Also, the property is not to be destroyed, but converted to natural gas. The traffic impact would actually be minimal, except for the crossing which would have to be installed across the new Rt 1A bypass road.The EGE wrote:This brief suggests that the Commonwealth intends to use Gloucester, Salem, Fall River, and New Bedford as coastal shipping ports.That's what I figured, but just wanted to double check in case I was wrong. The idea of Salem growing as a port is much more interesting IMO, although I doubt it would happen. The land best suited for it, the power plant property planned to be torn down and renovated, is impossible to reach with rail and would plague downtown Salem with unwanted and unncessary truck traffic if implemented. The only possible rail connection would be if the port was made at the existing Salem station, where the water is barely deep enough for barges currently, and where there isn't a whole lot of space for a good sized port.
I would suspect that the new drawbridge is likely to be overbuilt and thus not an obstacle to freight. The more difficult issue is that the rail line is a fair distance from the port itself.
EDIT: Sorry for getting off topic there, just thought it was an interesting (yet flawed) idea.
It would actually be an excellent idea, but the residents would never allow that any time soon.
|| REGIONALRAIL ||
Only a 1/3 of that property is going to be used for the new plant, the rest of it is open for comercial/industrial building. I believe that trolleys ran out to Salem Willows, but I don't know how or where a freight line would connect. I'm taking a ride out that way tommorow, I'll check out the ROW you're talking about.
The ROW pretty much parallels Webb St, on the north side of the street. The branch would connect to the mainline at approximately Lemon St.
|| REGIONALRAIL ||