Eastern Railroad Discussion > The only limitation.

This is the tunnel at Bellows Falls, Vermont on Rail America subsidiary New England Central Railroad (NECR). The existence of this structure prevents double stacks from being carried on both the NECR and Guilford Rail System’s EDWJ. The only traffic limitation on the entire line combined with the current direction of international trade, creates a strategic traffic limitation for the NECR which should become more evident in the months ahead. Currently, there is at least one unsubstantiated rumor circulating on trainorders.com of the possible sale of the Delaware & Hudson (D&H) to a number of companies including the Genesee & Wyoming Railroad. The NECR parallels and duplicates the D&H through upper state New York, and with the rising value of the Canadian currency plied against expanding regional markets shows how a small tunnel in southern Vermont becomes an example of traffic loss instead of a vital link.

---

So you say the close-clearance tunnel at Bellows Falls limits the New England Central's potential traffic, which is fairly hard to argue. But what exactly does that have to do with Canadian Pacific's potential sale of the D&H property? You say the NECR parallels and duplicates the D&H across upstate New York, but I don't see Buffalo, Harrisburg, or northern New Jersey on the NECR's map. If anything, I see the NECR competing with CSX's ex-Conrail Montreal Secondary for traffic, since there was a time when Conrail received a good chunk of CN interchange via the Central Vermont, but a lot of that overhead business disappeared once CN shed the CV to RailTex.

Now, perhaps had the Fellows Balls tunnel been less restrictive, Guilford might have favored the B&M Conn River Line over the D&H Canadian Main when it controlled both during the 1980s, and thus led to a reversal of today's situation in which the D&H has Canadian Pacific intermodal traffic and the Conn River is barely alive. But I don't recall Guilford ever running stacks or racks down from Montreal on the D&H when it had the property, and the CP intermodal running along Willsboro Bay is primarily Montreal-New York oriented, isn't it? Maybe a bigger tunnel would let the NECR forward intermodal business to Mass Central at Palmer, or develop its own intermodal facilities in, say, New London -- but this wouldn't have much to do with the D&H.

So just single stack the stupid things and be done with it.

Practice Safe CSX

CSX_CO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So just single stack the stupid things and be done
> with it.
>
> Practice Safe CSX

Hoooo! If only CSX would single stack; the James River could have some intermodal. Indeed when single stack was all there was, ala piggy back trailers, the James had them! And yet the clearance limitations in place could be fixed with two pieces of dynamite. Nope too simple I guess.

It would take a little more than dynamite to solve the Bellows Falls problem -- a good chunk of town is right over the tunnel. In fact, if it weren't an inhabited area, it probably would have been daylighted some time ago. And the track can't be lowered because of the nearby Connecticut River.

toledopatch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you say the close-clearance tunnel at Bellows
> Falls limits the New England Central's potential
> traffic, which is fairly hard to argue. But what
> exactly does that have to do with Canadian
> Pacific's potential sale of the D&H property?
> You say the NECR parallels and duplicates the
> D&H across upstate New York, but I don't see
> Buffalo, Harrisburg, or northern New Jersey on the
> NECR's map. If anything, I see the NECR competing
> with CSX's ex-Conrail Montreal Secondary for
> traffic, since there was a time when Conrail
> received a good chunk of CN interchange via the
> Central Vermont, but a lot of that overhead
> business disappeared once CN shed the CV to
> RailTex.
>
Actually, it isn't hard to argue. The NECR route from
Eastern Canada to destinations on the eastern seaboard is
actually closer and less rail mileage. The underlying issue is
both the historic rates charged by the carriers and the tunnel
at Bellows Falls. It also has everything to do with the likely
sale of the D&H. By now it should be fairly well established on trainorders and
elsewhere that the D&H is a bridge pool of red ink. A bridge pool of red ink
that I believe faces an uncertain future. Whatever entity purchases this carrier has some immediate strategic and capital decisions to make. Incidently, very similar
decision(s) that are currently being
made on the M,M&A. And somehow I don't think the canadian mainline will be at the forefront of D&H viability efforts.
The rising strength of the Canadian dollar against U.S.
currency will play a decisive factor as well. Clearly, the limitation at Bellows
Falls inhibit double stacks and also one of the last lucrative U.S. export products
double enclosed auto racks. I'd definately agree with CSXCOND position on "single
it and be done with it." but in this business environment of cost austerity, is
this really the best use of equipment and limited resources? (No).

> Now, perhaps had the Fellows Balls tunnel been
> less restrictive, Guilford might have favored the
> B&M Conn River Line over the D&H Canadian
> Main when it controlled both during the 1980s, and
> thus led to a reversal of today's situation in
> which the D&H has Canadian Pacific intermodal
> traffic and the Conn River is barely alive. But I
> don't recall Guilford ever running stacks or racks
> down from Montreal on the D&H when it had the
> property, and the CP intermodal running along
> Willsboro Bay is primarily Montreal-New York
> oriented, isn't it? Maybe a bigger tunnel would
> let the NECR forward intermodal business to Mass
> Central at Palmer, or develop its own intermodal
> facilities in, say, New London -- but this
> wouldn't have much to do with the D&H.

Actually, Guilford did favor the Conn. River over the
D&H. Its shorter. It came down to a rate issue with the CV.
No stacks or racks were run south from Montreal with
exchange rates in the 1990s of a strong U.S. dollar and a
weak Canadian dollar and why should they? Today, the financial
environment between the U.S. and Canada is completely different.
In addition to a declining U.S. dollar against the Canadian dollar
other rail hauled commodities like Canadian lumber are also increasing
in value, today 11.00 alone! The markets and demand will speak for
themselves. However, the tunnel at Bellows Falls will prove to be a costly
limitation for a line that has the potential to be one of the most
viable in the northeast.

>
>
>

You must be a registered subscriber to watch videos. Join Today!

jonnycando Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> CSX_CO Wrote:
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So just single stack the stupid things and
> be done
> > with it.
> >
> > Practice Safe CSX
>
> Hoooo! If only CSX would single stack; the James
> River could have some intermodal. Indeed when
> single stack was all there was, ala piggy back
> trailers, the James had them! And yet the
> clearance limitations in place could be fixed with
> two pieces of dynamite. Nope too simple I guess.
>

Ideally, they could just undercut the tunnel. Works best on straight tunnels. Don't know about the C&O's JR sub, but NS' Pokey has too many curved tunnels and undercutting wouldn't be enough.

NSTopHat

First, we have a misunderstanding. When I said it is "hard to argue" I meant it is "hard to dispute." I agree, the B-F tunnel is a serious constraint on what can run on the NECR.

But I still don't think the potential change in ownership of the D&H and the impact of the tunnel's existence on NECR's potential traffic base can be connected to each other. If the D&H becomes a friendly connection for the CN, then the NECR is screwed, tunnel or no tunnel. (If Genesee & Wyoming gets the D&H, watch out -- five years from now, we'll be reading about CN buying GWI, just like it did with Wisconsin Central.)

Furthermore, where does the NECR go that a substantial amount of traffic would be diverted to it if that tunnel weren't there? Palmer, to interchange with CSX? CSX can get traffic from Montreal to Palmer on its own rails. New London? Only if some sort of terminal were built there would that matter. Boston, via CSX or Guilford? Again, why involve another carrier when those railroads can do it themselves -- admittedly by longer routes, but in the deregulated era the mileage is no longer particularly relevant.

I'll admit, I'm looking at this strictly from a logistics point of view, since I'm not as dialed-in to the commodities markets as you clearly are. But while exchange rates, commodities prices, and tariffs clearly affect what products are moving across the border and in which direction, and the tunnel affects which way traffic goes between New England and Montreal, I don't see how the exchange rate bears on WHICH ROUTE a shipper uses to move his merchandise across the border.

Assuming it's mostly loads inbound to New England that would be contained in these single or double stacks, then the little utlitized MC container terminal at Palmer should be sufficient to address Boston metro area, CT, RI, and even metro NY area as all are reachable by 2-3 hour drayage on I90/I91/I84. No need to go to Ayer (GRS) or to already over-utilized CSX facilities at Worcester or Beacon Park.

But as someone else said, the Bellows Falls tunnel hardly needs to be enlarged to test and exploit the market. CSX moves single stacks today between Boston and Dewitt (~250 miles), where double stacks are configured for transport cross country.

Looks to me that the tunnel has been undercut already. No reason they couldn't go a little more. There are plenty of tunnels that are below a neigboring waterbody, no reason it couldn't be done here.

It looks to me that the width of the tunnel maybe more of an issue, especially where it starts to crown at the top. Also the wingwall just to the right in this photo would also need to be undercut. No simple task. Would think the State would have fronted money to come up with a solution on this point.

Cjv the civil E

This is a great discussion and the reason I subscibe to TO. I never cease to be amazed at the expertise and detail the members can put forth in an issue and not become argumentative. Thank you all for sharing with the rest of us.
Larry