On the way out to the dentist this a.m. and I passed a bunch of signs for TRRAAC, the folks who live in the Farmingdale Road/Barrcrest area and oppose plans to move the Norfolk Southern rail yard into their backyards. There’s a meeting on the proposal tomorrow night, but as I read the story in this morning’s Intell - “Residents have new rail plan” - I saw little evidence that anyone had actually bounced that “new plan” off anyone from Norfolk Southern.

Which is rather important, after all. TRRAAC isn’t opposed to the relocation of the Dillerville Rail Yard, agreeing that it would benefit Lancaster City. But members believe there’s a better location for the new tracks; indeed, they’ve identified two possibilities, and 12 reasons why these sites would be a better alternative.

But the key question is, do they work for the railroad?

So I contacted Norfolk Southern spokesman Rudy Husband and asked him. In response, he forwarded me this letter, originally sent by Gannett Fleming Transit & Rail Systems to F&M spokesman Keith Orris, after Orris had been approached (a few weeks ago) from someone with TRRAAC who asked, hey, wouldn’t these alternatives work?

Short answer: No.

It’s a PDF file and I can’t cut and paste, so read it for yourself. Bottom line, Gannett Fleming says the proposed alternate sites are “not feasible for expanded rail operations” for a variety of reasons - not enough capacity, curved track or insufficient track length, etc.

The project team - NS, F&M, Lancaster General and Gannett Fleming - “took a close look at alternate sites,” said Husband; that search took three years and yielded the plan being pushed now.

Perhaps TRRAAC now engages its own expert to tell us why the alternate sites would work, though first and foremost they would have to convince Norfolk Southern. What might instead wind up happening is that instead of opposing the mere site of the relocation, TRRAAC may wind up opposing the relocation in its entirety, if there’s no other spot to which the railroad could feasibly move.