dmaze

An item in this morning's Metro pointed me to an op-ed in Saturday's Manchester Union Leader, in which Pan Am Railways CEO David Fink proposes not just that New Hampshire should go forward with its Lowell-to-Manchester commuter rail plans but that PAR should be the company to run it. This is fascinating given predecessor Guilford's general enthusiasm about not running trains (that long string of NHN hoppers next to I-93 exists because Guilford wanted to abandon its line to Ossipee, NH, and New Hampshire arranged a sale to Boston Sand and Gravel instead). It's somewhat consistent with the NS joint venture, where PAR wants to have good track but doesn't actually want to maintain it itself.

I'd be a little concerned where Fink states that "Pan Am has relied heavily on its past experience with...the Downeaster service from Portland to Boston". And, oh yeah, of course there's the little liability question, but nobody at all is even questioning renegotiating CSX's liability deal in Massachusetts (hint: it's a major block in selling the Framingham-Worcester line to the T). As I read the article he proposes going to Concord (the official NH plan stops in Manchester), and he hints at running trains through to Boston (the official plan requires a transfer in Lowell).

Here we're in "technical train question" territory, complete with ASCII art. Yesterday I was bumming around the Needham Heights commuter rail station. It's the end of the (largely single-track) Needham commuter rail line; that line runs north-and-south here, but northbound, the direction more towards Boston ("physical-inbound"), is the opposite direction from the way commuter trains to Boston actually go ("logical-inbound"). I suspect there's also some freight traffic, continuing physical-inbound across 128 into outer Newton industrial land. It looks like this:

-- To yard ----------\   (3)                 (4)(5)
-- To Boston ---------\------------------------------ To Newton ---
                 (1) (2) *** Platform ***    (4)

(1) is a three-head color-light signal, except it only has lights to show "stop" (red-red-red), "approach" (yellow-red-red), or "restricting" (red-red-yellow). (2) is a hand-thrown switch. (3) is what I'll call the "magic signal box"; it'd be on the right-hand side of a logical-inbound train at cab height. (4) are signs saying "END ABS" for logical-outbound trains. (5) is a single-head color-light signal with only red and yellow lights.

My GIMP foo is not good enough to get a non-garish picture of the magic signal box, but see here and here. It has, in four separate columns, position-light aspects for "clear", "approach medium", "approach", and "restricting", plus a red button.

If I was going to guess at this, I'd guess there would be an interlocking (0) off the left side of above. Logical-outbound trains would get a yellow signal there, taking them through the "END ABS" sign (4). Freight trains proceeding further (the right-of-way does look to be maintained) would have special clearance. Logical-inbound trains would get a red or yellow signal at (5) depending on whether the platform block is occupied or not, and the signal at (1) is either "enter yard" or "proceed on main line" depending on the switch (2). The "BEGIN ABS" sign is probably at (0). The box at (3) can be used by commuter train operators; if they press the button, the box lights up, showing "restricting" if the switch is set for the yard and otherwise repeating the signal aspect at (0). But this is all speculation.

Entries tagged with choo

PAR proposes to run NH commuter rail itself

What's up at Needham Heights?

Profile

Page Summary

Expand Cut Tags