Will a Train Revival in the Northeast Kingdom Deliver Jobs or Just Dust? A Vermont Reality Check
Vermont Rail System (VRS) is working to reopen a dormant rail segment between Whitefield, New Hampshire, and Gilman, Vermont with a long term goals of restoring freight service to to St. Johnsbury.
Gilman, Vermont — In recent months, the possibility of freight trains rumbling back through Gilman has shifted from speculation to public conversation. What does that mean for property owners, for local economic development, and for the future of rural infrastructure in Vermont? Below: a comprehensive look at what is known, what is unknown, and what questions Vermonters should demand answers to before this project moves forward.
What exactly is being proposed?
Vermont Rail System (VRS) is working to reopen a dormant rail segment between Whitefield, New Hampshire, and Gilman, Vermont. According to VRS, the goal is to connect that segment with VRS’s existing network via Gilman, restore freight service into the community, and eventually reacquire and rehabilitate approximately 20 miles of track running from Gilman west to St. Johnsbury, currently owned by CSX (part of the Mountain Subdivision). (According to Trains magazine)
The Whitefield–Gilman segment is seen as the more immediately actionable piece; VRS management has described the longer east–west portion as a heavier lift, both technically and financially. (According to Trains)
Locally, the town has scheduled public meetings—such as one March 10, 2025, featuring Vermont’s Transportation Secretary and state senators—to bring transparency to the corridor’s future. (According to the Lunenburg/Gilman town website)
Why now? What has changed?
Several developments have aligned to make this rail revival more credible than merely aspirational:
Acquisition of New Hampshire Central (NHC). In 2024, VRS acquired the New Hampshire Central Railroad, giving it operating control over lines in northern New Hampshire. That gives VRS a vested interest in connecting eastward through Vermont. (According to VRS announcements)
Rail grant funding (CRISI and similar programs). The federal Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI) program has become a key vehicle for financing short-line track rehabilitation, bridge work, crossing upgrades, and safety improvements. VRS sees these grants as essential to making this reactivation viable. (According to FRA / industry sources)
Strategic freight logic. By reconnecting the Whitefield–Gilman–St. Johnsbury corridor, VRS hopes to avoid circuitous detours (for example, routing equipment through Québec) and better integrate freight movements in the region. (According to VRS, referenced in rail media)
Thus, what seemed a speculative talk years ago may now rest on convergent incentives.
The promise: economic, environmental, and logistical upside
Freight cost savings and modal shift
If enough local shippers (e.g. forest products, aggregates, paper byproducts) commit to rail, the cost per ton-mile for bulk freight may drop compared with trucking to distant railheads. That would free up road capacity, reduce diesel emissions, and potentially lower shipping bills.
Attracting industrial tenants
The former Gilman mill site is now marketed as the “Gilman Business Park,” and its owner, Ampersand Energy Partners, has publicly expressed support for rail access as a selling point for light manufacturing, agricultural processing, and forest-product firms. A functioning rail link could shift the balance for prospective tenants weighing whether to locate in Gilman.
Siting leverage and rural infrastructure
Once the track is active, local land that touches the corridor may gain in value (especially for industrial use). Road drainage and right-of-way maintenance may also benefit from a responsible railroad operating on a repaired bed rather than a neglected one.
Alignment with state planning goals
Vermont’s updated Rail and Freight Plans aim to increase rail usage, expand capacity, and strengthen rail’s role in economic development. The CCRPC’s March 5, 2025, presentation on Vermont’s Rail Plan names “expand capacity” and “enhance safety/resilience” as core goals. (According to the CCRPC presentation)
Yet the railroad’s promise is just a possibility until it survives the rigorous test of volume, revenues, and long-term commitment.
The risk side — technical, legal, community, and financial
Technical and capital challenges
The stretch from Whitefield into Gilman is relatively more accessible, but the CSX-owned portion toward St. Johnsbury is reportedly overgrown, with washouts, degraded drainage, and missing infrastructure. (According to Trains) Rebuilding will require replacement of ties, ballast, culverts, possibly rebuilding bridges, and restoring drainage.
Moreover, design standards matter: if VRS intends to run standard modern freight cars (e.g. 286,000-lb capacity), the track bed, bridges, and alignments all need to meet those higher specifications.
Uncertainty in freight volume
Railroads with similar ambitions often require “anchor tenants” — shippers who commit to multi-year contracts — to make the line financially sustainable. If traffic remains intermittent or too small, the corridor may stall or revert to minimal use. VRS has publicly cited forest-industry interest, but no detailed, publicly disclosed forecast (e.g. projected carloads per year, revenue estimates, break-even volumes) is available to date.
Property rights, right-of-way, and encroachments
Many homeowners in Gilman have used parts of the corridor—yards, paths, even hammocks—for decades. The railroad has cited a 33-foot clearing on each side of track, but the real question is: what does VRS actually own or control by deed or easement? The recorded right-of-way behind each parcel, as mapped, becomes critical.
When operations resume, property owners will want clarity: Which encroachments must be removed? What happens to fences, gardens, trees now in that space? What compensation or mitigation will be offered? Without clear agreements, disputes may follow.
Preemption and local control constraints
Under federal law (49 U.S.C. § 10501), the Surface Transportation Board (STB) preempts most local regulation of railroad operations. That means a town cannot veto train frequency or general routing just by zoning. However, certain state and federal obligations—public crossing safety, environmental permits, hazardous material handling—are not immune to oversight. Communities will have leverage in negotiating crossing improvements, fencing, drainage, and emergency access—but not in blocking legitimate freight operations.
Safety, crossings, and emergency planning
Each public road crossing will require devices (signs, flashers, gates) adequate to protect motorists and pedestrians. If crossings are upgraded later (or grandfathered), the community may bear part of that cost unless negotiated. Hazardous material movements would trigger federal reporting and local emergency planning. Residents will rightly want assurances about freight commodities, emergency response protocols, and derailment risk.
Noise, scheduling, and quality-of-life concerns
While VRS has said initial service may run during daylight hours, the schedule could evolve. Even occasional night runs, horn-blowing at crossings, and train-induced vibration are real concerns. Communities can ask for “quiet zones” or restrictions, but those require extra safety upgrades.
Financial risks and project viability
Restoration costs may outpace anticipations. If traffic or revenues fall short, the railroad might defer maintenance, reduce service, or abandon portions again. For taxpayers and neighbors, the worry is being stuck with risks without benefits.
What must Vermonters demand to judge this fairly
Transparent business plan and timeline
VRS should commit to a publicly viewable phased plan: which segments first, train frequency, likely customers, revenue projections, and schedule of capital investment. The public should see the assumptions and risk margins.
Parcel-level ROW and encroachment plan
The railroad needs to furnish maps showing exactly which tract of land it claims or will reclaim behind each property, and propose mitigation—setback fences, screening, or buffer zones—for impacted homeowners.
Crossing, access, and trail negotiations
If the community values pedestrian trails, river access, or farm crossings, they should negotiate formal crossing points or dedicated parallel trails (rail-with-trail) where feasible. Some communities have succeeded in combining freight and recreation, but it takes design and funding.
Drainage and infrastructure guarantee
Given past flooding and washed-out roads in the area, residents should ask for a maintenance commitment of ditching, culverts, and embankment monitoring, with clear points of accountability and response time.
Safety, emergency protocols, and hazardous cargo disclosure
VRS should share what commodities it expects to carry, provide emergency responders with access and information, and commit to safe practices and derailment response.
Binding community engagement and checkpoints
Rather than one-time outreach, towns should insist on periodic public reviews, milestone triggers (e.g. conditional on grants), and escalation pathways if railroad performance falls short.
Funding transparency
Because much of this rests on grants (CRISI or others), residents should demand a public accounting of which funding is committed, which is pending, and what happens if a grant is delayed or denied.
What to watch over the next 12–18 months
Whether the CSX–VRS deal for the St. Johnsbury segment closes (Trains reports that VRS is working toward that acquisition).
Whether VRS is awarded key grants (CRISI or state matching) to reconstruct track, crossings, and bridges.
The filing of STB or regulatory documents, which may contain traffic forecasts and cost estimates.
Whether VRS or the town releases parcel-level ROW maps and mitigation plans.
How communities like Whitefield, N.H., respond (one local library expansion was delayed by surprise railroad activity).
Whether the Vermont Rail Plan or Freight Plan incorporate this corridor as a priority, which may unlock further state support. (The CCRPC presentation shows that “expand capacity” is a major goal of the updated rail plan.)
Conclusion: balancing hope with caution
Gilman is at a crossroads. The return of freight rail could breathe new life into an industrial site, reduce trucking pollution, and reconnect infrastructure long dormant. But those benefits are not guaranteed. They rest on credible traffic, solid capital, careful agreements, and community protections.
For Vermonters watching this unfold, the yardstick should not be whether rail is good or bad in principle—but whether this plan respects property, sustainability, safety, and clarity. If the railroad’s commitments are binding, transparent, and responsive, then residents will be in a position to say, “Yes, bring the trains back.” If those commitments are vague, unilateral, or speculative, the community should reserve judgment until clarity arrives.