Eastern Railroad Discussion > Status of NS Ayer MA Intermodal Route Change

I haven't seen any status info/update for some time on this topic. Specifically, is there a new target date for when NS will commence moving their Ayer MA intermodal trains to run via trackage rights on ex-B&A via Worcester?

No one seems to know for sure.  Allegedly clearance work is now underway on the last low bridge on the Worcester Main (or whatever CSX calls it now), but now the village of Vorheesville (N.Y.) is jerking them around over a building permit.  (My SWAG is the mayor knows he has no case, and is trying to extract some kind of concession from NS.)

There is also quite a bit of speculation in New England railfan circles that the trains might not get rerouted after all, and if they do, will get moved back over the B&M route eventually.

pennsy3750 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is also quite a bit of speculation in New
> England railfan circles that the trains might not
> get rerouted after all, and if they do, will get
> moved back over the B&M route eventually.

I'd like to know more about this speculation.  The whole reason for the project is so NS can run double stacks to Ayer which can not be run through the Hoosac Tunnel on the Berkshire and Eastern RR which runs the former B&M route.

I'm aware of the reason for it; I'm also aware that NS has already spent most of the money for the project.  But they're clearly not in any hurry to get it done, and as we've seen, they can obviously make it work over the B&M route, even if tunnel clearances make that option less than ideal.  CSX has also imposed some operating conditions for the trains over the Boston & Albany route; assuming they actually hold NS to the terms, it might get to the point where it easier for NS to just stick to their own route.

On top of that, if NS waits long enough, it may not be their problem.  It will be UP's problem.  Let their people deal with it.  

Jeff Gast
Greenwood, Indiana

Could NS (or UP) look to at least temporally, routing the intermodal via the B&A while lowering the track under the stone and brick archway at the west end.  Then re-open the tunnel and have periods of closure while removing rock from the ceiling over the remainder.  This would be similar to how CSX worked the Howard Street Tunnel project.  Would of course be dependant on whether the railroad's management believes it is worth it in the end financially.   

pennsy3750 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm aware of the reason for it; I'm also aware
> that NS has already spent most of the money for
> the project.  But they're clearly not in any
> hurry to get it done, and as we've seen, they can
> obviously make it work over the B&M route, even if
> tunnel clearances make that option less than
> ideal.  CSX has also imposed some operating
> conditions for the trains over the Boston & Albany
> route; assuming they actually hold NS to the
> terms, it might get to the point where it easier
> for NS to just stick to their own route.

Apart from the Voorheesville connection upgrade (which was completed some time ago), NS had no infrastructure work to "not be in much of a hurry about", as the vertical clearance improvements were not on NS trackage.

And the terms of access restrictions on CSX have been known and agreed to for some time as well.

Finally; NS has a lot to gain in service quality and cost savings running double stacked on a faster route to Ayer. And another potential cost savings (at least unless and until Ayer volume grows) is the (also speculated) combining of the Chicago-Buffalo IM train with the Chicago-Ayer one.

So I'm skeptical of this speculation. 

Speaking of cost savings, does anyone know if the new routing relieves NS from assigning an ACSES PTC equipped leader or does it still traverse MBTA territory to get to the ramp?

pbouzide Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Speaking of cost savings, does anyone know if the
> new routing relieves NS from assigning an ACSES
> PTC equipped leader

Yes it does

In addition to clearance issues on the B&M, I had heard from some Pan Am guys that there were structural issues with Hoosac that would eventually need to be addressed and that NS decided it was not financially worth it for two trains a day each way. Anyone know more on this?

ST214 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> heard from some Pan Am guys that there were
> structural issues with Hoosac

I was told the opposite by a dispatcher I talked to.  He claimed that when they shut down Hoosac for repairs a few years ago, tunnel specialists were brought in from out west somewhere, numerous issues were addressed, and the tunnel is now in good shape.