MidlandMikeFor Danbury-Brewster-GCT run-throughs, maybe this would be a good place for a battery dual mode EMU.
I'd be concerned, though, about both the buff/draft and sideswipe standards necessary for the EMU to coexist with other equipment, including perhaps maintenance equipment, on the Harlem Line.
Of course there could easily be two classes of vehicle, one a run-through EMU and the other (for off-peak and fill-in) a lighter vehicle that does not need to 'coexist' ... more like light rail. Or even an Evans-style bimode.
OvermodPerhaps the more important issue is the cost for the Danbury to Southeast remediation. Housatonic owns the line to the 'border' and, presumably, they have kept it in better shape despite having little or no 'through' trackage-rights operation west of there. The issue then becomes the less than 14 miles from Danbury to Southeast and the junction with the Harlem Line, plus any "passenger-grade" connection onto that line if runthroughs are intended (this almost certainly workable with only one approach quadrant for bidirectional push-pull traffic). I assume the issue of whether or not to electrify this comparatively short stretch for run-through, now that there is a 'trail in being', is factored adequately into the sensible part of the planning going forward, the consideration for TLMs being the periodically longer tie provision to be made whether or not active third rail is installed at the time.
I am guessing the 14 mile figure between Danbury and Brewster is via the Dykemans connection which requires going about 2 miles north and then 2 miles back south to Brewster. The TT milage Danbury to Brewster is 10 miles but would require rebuilding the connection at Putnam Junction, hard by the Brewster yard and the Southeast platform. For Danbury-Brewster-GCT run-throughs, maybe this would be a good place for a battery dual mode EMU. The Maybrook trail will connect to the Putnam trail at Brewster, and I have not heard that Brewster-Danbury is also proposed for a trail (yet). I also wonder if Danbury-Dykemans is in better shape, as I believe this segment was the most recently used freight trackage rights. MN also used it to move stranded equipment during a washout on the Danbury branch.
PattersonThe rails are in no condition to support rail traffic. Several of the bridges have had the rails removed. Along the whole length the ties are rotted and on some of the curves you can visually see the rails have started to straighten thenselves. It would take a 100% renewal of the ROW to restore rail service. I do not think that is an investment MNCRR can afford.
My suspicion is that there isn't, and probably wouldn't, be the money to restore the track to Beacon (and little incentive for MN to do it for their own prospective purposes). If it were, though, a modern TLM would make reasonably short work of the job, even if some of the subgrade and drainage need remediation or improvement at the same time.
Perhaps the more important issue is the cost for the Danbury to Southeast remediation. Housatonic owns the line to the 'border' and, presumably, they have kept it in better shape despite having little or no 'through' trackage-rights operation west of there. The issue then becomes the less than 14 miles from Danbury to Southeast and the junction with the Harlem Line, plus any "passenger-grade" connection onto that line if runthroughs are intended (this almost certainly workable with only one approach quadrant for bidirectional push-pull traffic). I assume the issue of whether or not to electrify this comparatively short stretch for run-through, now that there is a 'trail in being', is factored adequately into the sensible part of the planning going forward, the consideration for TLMs being the periodically longer tie provision to be made whether or not active third rail is installed at the time.
I continue to think that the 'first best' approach to this is a Connecticut-owned shuttle, more a railbus than a full car or train, with MN trackage rights west of the line. That eliminates many of the concerns with equipment proximity to hikers, Metro-North equipment use and crew concerns over state boundaries, having two different sets of destination out of GCT (or longer routes via Danbury in and out), and service vs. equipment cost concerns. What this does not address is the cost split to renovate the track between Danbury and Southeast, which would only be on a 'pro rata' basis if an adequate return (or proportional subsidy) were provided to New York since the real proximate benefits are to Connecticut.
Before it offically opened I had the opportunity to explore the full length of the new Maybrook Rail Trail. I covered Brewster to Hopewell and back over several trips.
The rails are in no condition to support rail traffic. Several of the bridges have had the rails removed. Along the whole length the ties are rotted and on some of the curves you can visually see the rails have started to straighten thenselves.
It would take a 100% renewal of the ROW to restore rail service. I do not think that is an investment MNCRR can afford.
If you can visit the area, and own a bicycle, come in the spring and take a tour of the Maybrook Line. With most of the rails still in place it is not hard to imagine what it was like to take a locomotive over the summit at Poughquag.
And, as someone mentioned, the up hills are for a RR so the inclines are long but easy.
MidlandMikeThe Housatonic RR is fighting the abandonment.
What's useful is that Housatonic intends to contest abandoning the Beacon 'river access' all the way across to where its current ownership of the Maybrook Line begins, at the Connecticut line. The Trains story didn't make this part of the idea clear, but Housatonic certainly acts as if it wants to continue keeping its trackage rights open over that whole portion of the line (which includes the steep portions of grade). Whether this might imply some sort of railbus connection not just at Southeast, but Beacon certainly would remain to be seen; I doubt there is any point to it from MN's perspective although connection of some kind between the ferry across the Hudson as well as the Hudson Line at Beacon with the Danbury 'connection' might be an interesting opportunity later on.
What's useful is that Housatonic intends to contest abandoning the Beacon 'river access' all the way across to where its current ownership of the Maybrook Line begins, at the Connecticut line. The Trains story didn't make this part of the idea clear, but Housatonic certainly acts as if it wants to continue keeping its trackage rights open over that whole portion of the line (which includes the steep portions of grade). Whether this might imply some sort of railbus connection not just at Southeast, but Beacon certainly would remain to be seen; I doubt there is any point to it although connection of some kind to the ferry across the Hudson at Beacon might be an interesting possibility.
MidlandMikeHowever, if any part of the line is reactivated, I don't know if a trail with commuter trains wizzing by 3 feet away would be found desirable.
Were this to be a smaller railbus-size train-connecting shuttle, it could be made less traumatic. One thing that seems almost too clearly obvious is that the service to Danbury will not likely 'run through' on the Harlem line, which uses third rail.
The Housatonic RR is fighting the abandonment. Scroll down to third item:
https://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2021/02/15-digest-austin-transit-agency-halts-rail-operations
OvermodOvermod wrote the following post 23 hours ago: MidlandMike They want to use the Hopewell-Brewster ROW for a trail. As of January 6th it is open as a trail -- appropriately called the Maybrook Trailway -- all the way from Brewster via Southeast to Hopewell Junction. (Contemporary news coverage calls this trail "essentially free of hills" which is a bit ironic considering a couple of other posts here.)
The line was originally double track, and some of the photos show that the bed of the former 2nd track apparently remains as a (MOW?) vehicle roadway, so I guess there is a ready made trail. However, if any part of the line is reactivated, I don't know if a trail with commuter trains wizzing by 3 feet away would be found desirable.
BaltACDMany 'railroad hills' can only be detected by watching the load meter on the locomotive. Visually everything appears flat - load meter goes to bigger numbers going uphill and smaller number going downhill.
Absolutely. And when you can actually see the grade, watch out...
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
tree68 Overmod (Contemporary news coverage calls this trail "essentially free of hills" which is a bit ironic considering a couple of other posts here.) Well, there's railroad hills and people hills. Most people wouldn't even realize they were going uphill on a 1% grade.
Overmod (Contemporary news coverage calls this trail "essentially free of hills" which is a bit ironic considering a couple of other posts here.)
Well, there's railroad hills and people hills.
Most people wouldn't even realize they were going uphill on a 1% grade.
Many 'railroad hills' can only be detected by watching the load meter on the locomotive. Visually everything appears flat - load meter goes to bigger numbers going uphill and smaller number going downhill.
Grade means different things when you are pedaling a bicycle or hauling 10K tons.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
MidlandMikeThey want to use the Hopewell-Brewster ROW for a trail.
Specifically mentioned (and rather obvious given the $1 million study and various articles regarding proposed service from Danbury as far as Southeast) is that at least one full track remains and wasn't removed for trail construction, as the above comment seemed to be concerned about, and the result certainly appears to be full 'rail with trail' should commuter service be provided to the link with the Harlem Line. Noted there and in a couple of other articles is that the route via the Maybrook Line and Harlem Line saves 'about an hour of time' over existing service via Norwalk -- for much less cost to Connecticut and little apparent incremental train-on cost to MN.
MidlandMikeThe benchmark elevation at Hopewell Jct is 257'.
The helper era was more in time of the 2-10-2.
Even if it's propaganda, you can see the amazing improvements in train operation on that route that came from proper early dieselization, a reasonable follow-on from adoption of the DL109s with their full 'dual service' capability for the nonelectrified territories...
The benchmark elevation at Hopewell Jct is 257'. So a 500' climb up to the summit. The helper era was more in time of the 2-10-2.
MidlandMikeI would guess that CDOT would not be in favor of a shuttle to the Harlem Division diverting many passengers from the largest city on their branch.
MidlandMike... the Maybrook Line goes over the mountain, starting from sea level at Beacon, to 750’ near Whaley Lake...
CDOT's Danbury Branch only has 8 trains per day in each direction, and all but 1 each requires a change at Norwalk. I would guess that CDOT would not be in favor of a shuttle to the Harlem Division diverting many passengers from the largest city on their branch.
Oops. Sorry, Mike.
Lithonia OperatorBut your first link has nothing to do with MNCR.
The proposed Danbury service relies on reaching Grand Central via the Metro-North Harlem Line, and would presumptively involve either Amtrak or Metro-North as the actual contracted operator for the 'Danbury direct' service... probably the latter, using the same sort of arrangement with CDOT (but reversed) that MN has with NJT for a destination 'out of state' from the rest of the service. (There is I believe some CDOT service via the old NH Danbury branch ultimately going to Penn Station; how CDOT would allocate "revenue loss" on this vs subsidy for perhaps shorter Connecticut mileage over to the Harlem line would be up to them.)
It would probably make better overall sense for Danbury to operate directed shuttle service on those 14 miles, timed like the Princeton dinky to 'meet key trains' both ways on the Harlem line, rather than extended trains diverting via Southeast that give a one-seat ride expensively and perhaps congestively at peak parts of the day. But there's little sizzle for a mayoral campaign directed around getting Danbury back on track in running a trolley that meets all the trains...
Interesting post, Mike. I know that area fairly well.
But your first link has nothing to do with MNCR.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.