RailRoadFan.com

When was the branch to the St. Mary's Cement plant in Charlevoix abandoned? I was surpised to see that Google Maps still shows a rail line going into the plant on the default map.

Early 80's when Chessie abandoned the line north of Williamsburg is when the line to the south was abandoned.

MIGN attempted to continue service to the plant from the east-north/Petoskey but for whatever reason (no rail business/NIMBY's protesting the rail bridge over Lake Charlevoix) it didn't transpire.

AARR wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:15 pm

Early 80's when Chessie abandoned the line north of Williamsburg is when the line to the south was abandoned.

MIGN attempted to continue service to the plant from the east-north/Petoskey but for whatever reason (no rail business/NIMBY's protesting the rail bridge over Lake Charlevoix) it didn't transpire.

The washout just south of Petoskey in the early 80s sealed that line's fate pretty quickly.

Good point SD80

SD80MAC wrote: ↑

Wed Mar 24, 2021 3:53 pm

The washout just south of Petoskey in the early 80s sealed that line's fate pretty quickly.

Posted by Alex Huff on 1/4/2012, 1:10 pm, in reply to "Re: Charlevoix Memories from anyone?"
What follows isn't guaranteed to be 100% accurate. When MIGN was operating the north end of the AA, C&O proposed to abandon their line up to Petoskey. It was offered to MIGN for $1.00 from Bayview (Petoskey interchange) to the south side of the swing span in Charlevoix to a point where MIGN could switch the cement plant. The rail interest in the plant was to try and capture a sand move from a station on TSBY. I think the origin was in the thumb area, but I'm not sure. TSBY borrowed a multi hopper bottom car used in unit coal train service that dumped practically instantly and demonstrated it with a load of sand. The president of the cement company was impressed and told the plant superintendent he was in favor. The plant superintendent was not, he was alleged to have a financial arrangement with the trucking company that had the contract move. I don't know why the president didn't overrule the superintendent. Without the sand business, MIGN didn't want the line. The swing span, if not used, was required by Federal law to be removed to three feet below the mud line as the canal was a navigable river. A self-unloading coal boat came through on occasion. The cost of removing the bridge exceeded the salvage value of the portion of the line the C&O was willing to sell. MIGN was told by a C&O bridge engineer that the bridge was being used to justify the abandonment, but in fact, it was sound and only needed some piling redriven which the swing span used as an anchor in the open position.

Posted by Alex Huff on 1/6/2012, 12:52 pm, in reply to "Re: Charlevoix Memories from anyone?"
Per my previous too-lengthy post, the cost of meeting Corps of Engineer requirements about removing the swing bridge, piling, etc. exceeded the salvage value of the line from the cement plant to Petoskey. Bridge removal on navigable waterways is expensive. Craig Burroughs, an early modern day shortline entrepreneur, was able to buy what had been a shortline, Louisiana Midland, from the Illinois Central for $12,000. Included in the deal were three ex-GM&0 RS-1's, forty pulpwood flats, three cabooses, twenty-plus miles of welded rail to be taken up and delivered by the IC, and one office car. IC, which was compelled by the ICC to buy two shortlines, as part of the approved merger with the GM&O, made the rational decision that the costs of maintaining and then removing after abandonment three lift bridges on a navigable waterway was so expensive that taking Craig's offer was in their best interest.