by NRGeep
Instead of expanding South Station outward, is it feasible and realistic to have trackage gates underneath the existing station, similar to Grand Central Station?
Railroad Forums
Moderators: sery2831, CRail
jbvb wrote:I saw the lower level of the old South Station as it was being demolished, so it could be done. But it would likely cost a lot more and be much more disruptive than moving the Post Office and converting that space back to a similar number of platform tracks. And we apparently can't afford to do that...The old lower level was just baggage passageways, with the exception of the loop, which saw exactly one train. Only electrics could use an underground terminal, so that means Amtrak. With existing tunnels to the north, east and south, the grades would be fairly stiff, and the platforms short, ruling out locomotive hauled trains. Amtrak doesn't have any EMUs, though there might be some worn-out M2s and Silverliners on the market. And the T could have electrified the Providence line years ago - no interest.
Red Wing wrote:If the North South Rail Link gets built you would have a station underground.Yes, very deep to get under the Red Line at about 80 feet below the surface. Assuming a 10 car platform, 850 feet, and a 2% maximum grade means the approach would start almost a mile away, 4850 feet to be exact.
Gerry6309 wrote:The Providence line is already electrified, except for a few station tracks. Fairmont line would also be an excellent candidate for electrification, along with the Framingham Line out to Riverside or possibly Framingham. In order to make electric service feasible they need more storage space, some sort of repair facility, a good rate for use of Amtrak's electric catanery, low price of electricity and good pricing on electric locomotives or DMU's.jbvb wrote:I saw the lower level of the old South Station as it was being demolished, so it could be done. But it would likely cost a lot more and be much more disruptive than moving the Post Office and converting that space back to a similar number of platform tracks. And we apparently can't afford to do that...The old lower level was just baggage passageways, with the exception of the loop, which saw exactly one train. Only electrics could use an underground terminal, so that means Amtrak. With existing tunnels to the north, east and south, the grades would be fairly stiff, and the platforms short, ruling out locomotive hauled trains. Amtrak doesn't have any EMUs, though there might be some worn-out M2s and Silverliners on the market. And the T could have electrified the Providence line years ago - no interest.
Gerry6309 » Wed Aug 12, 2015 10:52 pmbut there would still be the problem of disruption and disrupted and angry voters.
...I wouldn't hold my breath for that one, unless someone discovers an infinite cache of cash!
NRGeep wrote:Instead of expanding South Station outward, is it feasible and realistic to have trackage gates underneath the existing station, similar to Grand Central Station?Do you mean Grand Central Terminal? Grand Central Station is in Chicago.
Diverging Route wrote:Yes. Was in Chicago.NRGeep wrote:Instead of expanding South Station outward, is it feasible and realistic to have trackage gates underneath the existing station, similar to Grand Central Station?Do you mean Grand Central Terminal? Grand Central Station is in Chicago.