AMTRAK NEC: Springfield Shuttle/Regional/Valley Flyer/Inland Routing

Looks like it won't happen for a few years; no activity in next two. But going back to a two-track bridge will bring the Hartford Line, fka NHHS Rail, closer to final fruition.

No sign of electrification. That would go a long way to making the Inland Route more feasible.

Here's a link to the PDF linked in the Trains in the Valley document: https://trainsinthevalley.org/wp-conten ... cks-CT.pdf

Noticed on I-91 in Greenfield, MA today that the sign advertising the "Greenfield Olver Transit Center" has been modified. Didn't get a pic, but here is the original:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.5919828 ... ?entry=ttu
In Place of "Exit 43" it now says "COMMUTER RAIL" and the "EXIT" at the top of the sign has a "43" next to it.

The Northampton station sign, of the same design, remains unchanged (still with "EXIT ##" at the bottom, and the blank "EXIT" up top), and Holyoke is of a different design without the two "EXITS".

So does MassDOT think commuter rail is coming to Greenfield in the duration of the sign? Quie the pre-emptive strike, if you ask me! I can see someone pulling up to Greenfield station now and looking for the "T" to Boston!

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Thu Jun 08, 2023 6:35 amNo sign of electrification. That would go a long way to making the Inland Route more feasible.

Electrification to Worcester makes sense for the T. Electrification to SPG is right on the edge of what makes sense for CTRail. To do inland route, you'd still have to close the SPG-Worcester gap which would just be for inland route.

Electrification with a DMU shuttle SPG-Greenfield and revamped SPG station with an under or over connection so that passengers could transfer while CSX is running through the mains could really improve service by untying service north of SPG from CSX's schedule of running DPU monsters through. Further improvements to the line SPG-Greenfield could improve service frequency there.

Half hourly service to Greenfield? That seems a little excessive. The Connecticut river bridge in East Windsor did not make the cut this year but I’m sure it’ll be resubmitted for the next round. Electrification out to Worcester may make sense. The entire inland route would be costly and possibly not cost effective and with Amtrak’s future dual mode fleet it’s not essential to have the entire thing electric as you aren’t going to have engine changes to worry about. Additionally this is another area I disagree with the author. With the new dual mode fleet which makes traversing between the Springfield line and New Haven line seamless you might as well just run the train through to New York. Why make people connect.

I'm thinking that since the current ridership figures from Greenfield are not exactly stellar, the powers that b on all this stuff must have concluded that express service is all that is required to get local folks to ditch their cars and jump aboard these speedy trains.

In the meantime, until Rhode island gets a decent tidal surge that covers the corridor, inland service outlays will probably remain at slow approach.

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 22, 2024 7:08 amHalf hourly service to Greenfield? That seems a little excessive.

Who said half-hourly service to Greenfield? Now there are 3 trains/day, so there's a lot of space between 3 trains/day and half hourly.

A rail train is waiting on the siding just north of OAKWOOD interlocking; I would assume that is for the Windsor Locks-Conn River Bridge double tracking. There are three separate contracts, the others are for OAKWOOD to PARK in West Hartford and two miles in Enfield.

More details here: https://trainsinthevalley.org/infrastru ... uble-track

If dual modes were to operate BOS - SPG - New Haven - NYP electrification should only be applied to the portions of the WOR - SPG route that will not be bypassed by track improvements that allow faster speeds,-