Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

[BostonUrbEx]

Freight is (was?) in fact 5. I assume the one-train-at-a-time special instruction remained during the brief day or two that both tracks were available, since the special instruction was in place even with one track out of service.

[BM6569]

I remember shooting video of SEPO on that bridge a few years ago and it took a loooong time to cross. Especially with 100+ cars!

[gokeefe]

As the trackwork project in Massachusetts and the layover facility in Brunswick near completion I think its appropriate to write a more in depth piece on what lies ahead. The project focused orientation of the past 5 years during which the layover facility construction has almost overwhelmed all of the public discussion regarding the Downeaster is clearly coming to a close.

Two major but far less controversial projects, comprising funds projected to be around or in excess of $20,000,000 are coming up. These are the passing track in Falmouth and the "north leg" of the ex-Mountain Division wye. Each of these projects is expected to cost roughly $10,000,000. One of these projects, the passing track in Falmouth, is funded and projected to move forward next year. The wye addition is in preliminary engineering but appears very likely to be built within the next 5 years. Another project, a new train station in Portland remains in what appears to be a largely conceptual phase and dependent on progress at the Thompson's Point development. There has also been additional discussion of passing track extensions in Southern Maine but for the moment no engineering has been undertaken (at least none that has been publicly discussed). Kennebunk is expected to become a new seasonal station stop in either 2017 or 2018 and there have been regular, ongoing requests for year round service at Old Orchard Beach.

I expect that all three of the major projects will proceed forward with little, if any, controversy. The track projects in particular seem likely to prove exceptionally bland undertakings to the media. Boring, low impact and few if any abutters who will demonstrate any vocal interest in the planned construction. NNEPRA is very fortunate in this regard that the Cumberland County Sheriff's office occupies the land around the Right of Way that they will need in order to lay in the new tracks for the "north leg".

Where does all of this leave the Downeaster?

In my opinion this train is on the verge of a new era of growth. Capital projects that have detracted from or otherwise damaged service reliability are on the verge of completion. Other capital projects, the MA trackwork in particular, have the potential to vastly improve service performance. MBTA track miles usually comprise in excess of 60%-70% of delay minutes for the Downeaster. The new track appliances and facilities in Massachusetts are certain to reduce these delays and potentially allow for schedule changes that provide faster service between Haverhill and Boston North Station, which would affect a very high percentages of all trips taken on the Downeaster. Although it is easy enough to say that these capital projects will improve service performance I think the conventional wisdom in these forums may underestimate the combined effect that near simultaneous completion of MBTA trackwork and the layover facility will have on service growth.

In the equation of minutes improvement (mi) multiplied by growth factor (gf) = annual additional percentage ridership change (rΔ%), I believe the growth factor will be roughly 0.4 for at least a period of 5 years. Thus mi*gf=rΔ%. This is simply an intuitive guess based on my observation of the Downeaster ridership over the years. I will be interested to see how it goes. I should also specify that the percentage ridership change is "additional" in that it is change over and above the "natural" growth (or decline) of the service. I believe that barring an event that interferes with the growth of the service, such as the recent emergency trackwork, we will see some substantial new ridership that will bring the Downeaster above 600,000 riders per year no later than September 30, 2022. This would be the end of the first full five year period (federal fiscal year) during which the new tracks and layover facility will have been in service.

What I do not see happening for the next five years will be any additional route mile extensions to the service. NNEPRA has made it very clear that they are focused on building up to their "optimum" case which last I recall was 750,000 riders per year along with some improvement in cost recovery through improved revenues and responsible cost controls. I do not see a change to this consensus happening soon and this is in large part because so much really does remain to be done to ensure the Downeaster is able to achieve the best performance possible on its current route. "Consolidation" as opposed to "construction" will almost certainly define the next five years. Even though the proposed construction projects amount to a very substantial commitment of funds they are largely supporting actors to much more significant changes. "Consolidation" can also be seen through the development of an "in-fill" station in Kennebunk to capture some incremental additional ridership and the potential change of Old Orchard Beach to a year round station stop.

Beyond the five year horizon lie some obvious opportunities for service extension. In my mind that means a great deal of political effort will be spent over the next five years defining and discussing what that route extension might look like. This discussion probably will not happen within NNEPRA as much as it will within TrainRiders Northeast and political bodies such as the cities of Lewiston-Auburn, Augusta and Waterville. The good news about this dialogue, which I expect to be very sporadic at first is that it seems unlikely to affect the service at all as the "consolidation" projects continue to move forward.

[Trinnau]

Well it would be tough to put two trains on the bridge with only one track in service.

And the passenger speed limit during construction is 15, I believe. Freight I don't know.

It's been 15/5 and if a freight is on the bridge it has sole occupancy since 2009. There was a short period when it was one train only (even passenger trains). The construction is to fix this condition, and didn't start until 2014.

[Trinnau]

Very insightful post gokeefe, and I think you're pretty close to being spot on with most of it - this has the potential to really take off over the next 5 years. Comments on a few points below.

There has also been additional discussion of passing track extensions in Southern Maine but for the moment no engineering has been undertaken (at least none that has been publicly discussed).

You can bet there have been some concepts engineered - probably nothing build-worthy though so not worth releasing publicly. The most logical additional double-track in my opinion would be west of Saco through the industrial area that Pan Am serves (so the local and passenger trains don't tangle) and connecting Dover to Wells. That would provide about 17 miles of pure double-track (243 to 226) with no station work to do smack in the middle between Portland and Plaistow. (CPF-196 to CPF-226 is about 30 miles, CPF-243 to CPF-273 is about 30 miles).

In my opinion this train is on the verge of a new era of growth. Capital projects that have detracted from or otherwise damaged service reliability are on the verge of completion. Other capital projects, the MA trackwork in particular, have the potential to vastly improve service performance. MBTA track miles usually comprise in excess of 60%-70% of delay minutes for the Downeaster. The new track appliances and facilities in Massachusetts are certain to reduce these delays and potentially allow for schedule changes that provide faster service between Haverhill and Boston North Station, which would affect a very high percentages of all trips taken on the Downeaster. Although it is easy enough to say that these capital projects will improve service performance I think the conventional wisdom in these forums may underestimate the combined effect that near simultaneous completion of MBTA trackwork and the layover facility will have on service growth.

I completely agree this could see great growth going forward, especially if they start adding trips. NNEPRA is chomping at the bit to go to six round trips, and the grand plan is for seven (with five to Brunswick). I think a 6th trip will be in the making within 5 years. There have been rumblings about running the Western Route. The vision is certainly there on NNEPRA's behalf.

I'm curious where you got your delay minutes breakdown. One thing to consider is that once Downeaster shows up out-of-slot in MBTA trackage they go when they can. The brutal 2014/2015 delays were nearly entirely attributed to Pan Am's lack of maintenance and the really wet year. The delay minutes incurred in MBTA trackage were a direct result of Pan Am's failures. All Downeaster could ask of the MBTA was to be given the best shot possible whenever they showed up. But certainly added and restored infrastructure will mitigate any of those additional delay minutes.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

These track projects are not controversial in the sense that the public isn't actively raising hell about them, but each of these $10M expenditures are full of half-baked assumptions that provoke far more questions about NNEPRA's planning competence than they answer.


1) Passing on the MEC main is not a problem of timetable meets on single track from lack of other track. It's timetable meets on single track because PAR gobbles up all the extant double-track from Portland to Cumberland to park its OOS trains. Absolutely no brain cells are focusing on the core problem of why PAR is gobbling up all that capacity to can trains, what can be done to make them can fewer trains on the main, and how to leverage any upgrades of those existing lengths of DT to make suitable for passing (if they are not presently configured for that task).

Nope...not gonna address that. Who cares that there's 2.5 miles of existing DT inside of Portland that could be made fully functional for the task with some basic SGR track work and interlocking reconfig...it's a parking spot. Who cares that there's 1.5 miles of DT in North Berwick and 0.5 miles in Biddeford that are disconnected at one end and aren't being targeted for refurbishment...they're parking spots. Who cares that the Scarborough DT has a potential extra mile north of the crossovers to gain as fully functional mainline track re-spacing the interlocking closer to Rigby...it's a parking spot. 40% of the extant DT on the Maine side of the state line is being totally forsaken for parking spots. But they're going to drop 8 figures on cleanrooming equal mileage of all-new DT on the lowest-traffic portion of the Downeaster route, with no guarantees that it won't immediately become PAR's new favorite parking spot. All while writing off all those miles of sidings on the much busier south-of-Portland and intra-Portland portions as parking spots now, parking spots forever.

I'm sorry...that is not NNEPRA "making it very clear they are focused on building up their 'optimum' case" with improved cost control. This is the very antithesis of building a tight case. They are being called out on passing up much cheaper options for making all that existing DT available to them. And if PAR can be loudly called out by its industry and by its Maine abutters for all that haphazard canning, NNEPRA can't plausibly claim deaf/dumb/blindness to that burning issue with their track owner letting the whole side down. Their case for this very expensive upgrade is incoherently compartmentalized when it comes to acknowledging the primary aggravating factor for why there's a capacity bottleneck here.



2) How is it wise to spend $10M on a wye track when they haven't even conceptualized where their desired new train station is going to be??? Are they absolutely set on PTC/Thompson's Point being the one and only site under consideration, or on-mainline within range of the old Union Station site still under evaluation (depending on whom you ask on a Tuesday vs. a Friday)? How long is it going to take to peg site selection so we know with certainty it'll be on the Mountain Branch or mainline? Is this going to be a relatively quick process of 'conceptualization' or take a meandering 15 years to sort out...and thus Mountain Jct. needs shoring up for the mid-term regardless of where the future station gets sited? And given all they've left themselves ripe for criticism with Item #1 above...what is their traffic rationale that this project is absolutely necessary in spite of all the haziness about future station locations? Does Mountain Jct. need help ASAP because it's truly that mangled, or is it because PAR has eaten all the track capacity by canning OOS trains and being utterly inept at keeping to their HOS timetables?

Where's the proof that this is an immediate and necessary 8 figures while they're leaving the very station this expensive wye project serves to fuzzy conceptal TBD's? Where is the traffic modeling proof that the entire route inside the state of Maine is only improvable with these capital expenses and NOT their freight partner's slop-ops or all the infrastructure they're leaving on the cutting room floor? Shouldn't NNEPRA be spelling out what the "optimum case" is for these expenses amidst all the variables they're leaving to chance and TBD's if they're oh-so-focused on achieving full cost-optimal zen?



And...excuse me...focus on "optimum case" instead of linear extension within NNEPRA??? TRNE isn't the only party that's gotten pulled off-topic with blabbing about Lewiston-Auburn and Augusta. Ms. Quinn has let herself get drawn into quoteworthy speculation before at many of the same meetings where TRNE has been wildly free-associating about linear extensions. If the baseline service improvement truly is their all-consuming focus, where's the message control to not let themselves get quoted in the press engaging in less-than-"optimum case" speculation? Where's the PR muzzle for their partners at TRNE going off the reservation on a quarterly basis with press-covered expansion hype while NNEPRA is supposedly trying to steer the conversation towards "optimization"? Where's the expectation and enforcement that if TRNE wants a seat at the same planning table as NNEPRA and MEDOT that their overactive mouthpieces need to follow some basic rules of engagement instead of spewing whatever their id compels them to in the moment? This is Message Control 101...get those cats herded onto the same script, and make it clear that free-associative moments in front of a hot mic have consequences for the coalition. If TRNE is undermining their core message by being too free-spirited with their speculation, then it needs to be made clear to TRNE that undermining the coalition comes at cost to their access to the coalition. None of this "Welp...foamers will be foamers so what can 'ya do" learned helplessness. NNEPRA's the agency that's running point for the whole coalition. No one has greater ability to police the talking points to their partners than them. If message consistency is that hopeless a cause, then Maine has a very worrisome structural flaw to address in its very ability to manage major transpo policy.



I've said it before: this is not the picture of a state that's showing demonstrable progress getting its @#$% together on disciplined planning and advocacy. It points to the same underlying focus problems that have undercut their rate of progress with too many inefficiencies and too little attention to detail. The fact that they are making progress in spite of that inefficiency is not an indicator that everything is going according to plan. They are carrying around a very high burn rate for the resources they are getting when so many details are left to chance and TBD's. A lot of other states with passenger rail dreams have upped their game on that whole "optimization" thing re: making a bang-for-buck funding pitch.

I keep citing Vermont as the local example they need to watch out for. VTrans is gift-wrapping the feds lowballed figures for rapid service starts on the Western Corridor, and they aren't letting stuff like "Gee, I didn't even check if VRS is a total clownshow at clearing the mainline within HOS or not...let's not follow-up on that at all" advise their bigger-ticket spending decisions. Do you know how many state-sponsored passenger rail proposals are sitting around in conceptual study waiting for this Ethan Allen extension to prove itself 'the' bellweather template to follow for maxing out their chances in a crowded pool chasing limited bucks?

The Downeaster cannot compete with sales pitches like that year-in/year-out if the half-baked assumptions and placeholders behind these grants are their idea of greater "optimization". They're not going to get $10M for the next urgently needed passing siding if they can't show the math better than this. It's not a static playing field; the project competition for grants is getting too much smarter too much faster for this kind of inattention to detail to keep their window propped open. If they want to be "optimal"...show discipline as a future predictor of bang-for-buck. These grants aren't an auspicious start for that.

[MEC407]

Anybody got some croutons for this word salad?

[eustis22]

>Who cares that there's 2.5 miles of existing DT inside of Portland that could be made fully functional for the task with some basic SGR track work and interlocking reconfig...it's a parking spot. Who cares that there's 1.5 miles of DT in North Berwick and 0.5 miles in Biddeford that are disconnected at one end and aren't being targeted for refurbishment...they're parking spots. Who cares that the Scarborough DT has a potential extra mile north of the crossovers to gain as fully functional mainline track re-spacing the interlocking closer to Rigby...it's a parking spot.

I care.

Doesn't Maine DOT own the ROW?

[gokeefe]

These track projects are not controversial in the sense that the public isn't actively raising hell about them, but each of these $10M expenditures are full of half-baked assumptions that provoke far more questions about NNEPRA's planning competence than they answer.


1) Passing on the MEC main is not a problem of timetable meets on single track from lack of other track.

They are claiming that it is and I believe they have posted string charts in the Board materials previously demonstrating such.

[gokeefe]

>Who cares that there's 2.5 miles of existing DT inside of Portland that could be made fully functional for the task with some basic SGR track work and interlocking reconfig...it's a parking spot. Who cares that there's 1.5 miles of DT in North Berwick and 0.5 miles in Biddeford that are disconnected at one end and aren't being targeted for refurbishment...they're parking spots. Who cares that the Scarborough DT has a potential extra mile north of the crossovers to gain as fully functional mainline track re-spacing the interlocking closer to Rigby...it's a parking spot.

I care.

Doesn't Maine DOT own the ROW?

They do not. For the purposes of this discussion Maine DOT ownership starts at Church Road in Brunswick. They also own the tracks from North Deering in Portland to a point near Danville Junction on the SLR but that is not the subject of this topic.

[gokeefe]

I'm curious where you got your delay minutes breakdown. One thing to consider is that once Downeaster shows up out-of-slot in MBTA trackage they go when they can. The brutal 2014/2015 delays were nearly entirely attributed to Pan Am's lack of maintenance and the really wet year. The delay minutes incurred in MBTA trackage were a direct result of Pan Am's failures. All Downeaster could ask of the MBTA was to be given the best shot possible whenever they showed up. But certainly added and restored infrastructure will mitigate any of those additional delay minutes.

Delay minutes breakdown is from Amtrak's monthly performance reports. The delay minutes are broken out in a lot of detail for each route. While I would agree that showing up "out-of-slot" is going to affect operations its worth noting that the Downeaster likely has schedule issues on Pan Am as well but they apparently receive significantly more favorable dispatching. The MBTA cannot be as flexbile without affecting their own operations. This clearly points to the inflexibility of the infrastructure on the T and the very high likelihood of big improvements in on time performance that will come from the new switches and double track.

I would note that Amtrak accounts for delay minutes in much the same fashion as you describe above. That being the case the MBTA still ends up accounting for the overwhelming majority of delay minutes for the Downeaster. In effect a five minute delay on Pan Am (when that happens, which apparently is not often at all) then becomes an additional 15-20 minute delay on the T for a total of 20-25 minutes delayed.

Along with the recent tie replacement project this route is going to be in the best shape it has been in for over half a century. That means better OTP and potentially a schedule improvement of 5-10 minutes on the train's most important track miles (the Boston approach from Haverhill). An enormous percentage of all trips on the Downeaster travel across these tracks which means that value of the improvements is distributed across a very wide base of passenger trips. That's great news all around and I think will help support an increase in ridership. If there is a schedule change on this segment I will be watching for a possible double-digit percentage increase in ridership out of the New Hampshire stations.

[jonnhrr]

I wonder about the cost benefits of the additional wye track at Portland PTC. In return for saving maybe a couple of minutes in eliminating the backup move, you now have all Freeport/Brunswick passengers riding backwards for part of their trip. Also, won't changing ends at PTC require a brake test? If so that may eat up some of that saved time.

Also I agree with F-line about the proposed siding near Royal Jct. I mean that section of track regularly sees maybe 4-5 freights a day plus the DE. They really can't handle all that traffic without another siding? This isn't exactly the NHRR Maybrook Line in WW2 (a line that successfully handled several trains per hour on a single track).

Jon

[gokeefe]

They really can't handle all that traffic without another siding?

The schedule puts two trains on one track at the same time. Inevitablele conflict ensues. As noted in other discussions the schedule is based on MBTA track slots so I doubt there's much room for changes that would avoid this conflict. Plenty of room for debate and discussion of course but my impression is that this is a legitimate problem that is framed by their operating constraints.

[Red Wing]

I wonder about the cost benefits of the additional wye track at Portland PTC. In return for saving maybe a couple of minutes in eliminating the backup move, you now have all Freeport/Brunswick passengers riding backwards for part of their trip.

Jon

I believe you could use it like in Springfield. Your train is always going forward except for the small back up to get the train back on the mainline, giving your passengers a forward trip for the whole ride. There would be efficencies by getting rid of the cabbages, one less piece of equipment to take care off.

[Dick H]

The Downeaster coaches are set up with half the seats facing one way
and the other half facing the other way.

Just a reminder that this is the last week for the Dome car on the DE.
Sunday, the 18th is the last day.