Proposed E-line extension Heath St. to Hyde Sq.

Teamdriver wrote:

3rdrail wrote:I've had better offers than that from the Centerfolds girls- and they didn't include sausages, either !

My Rail , those sausages were better than anything you could get outside fenway, reallly sopped up all the beer so you could navigate home!

ah, yeah, ah hum

MarkB wrote:I stand corrected. From the Jamaica Plain Gazette:

"The poles have been unused and rusting since 1985, when the MBTA halted the Arborway Green Line trolley service through Jamaica Plain. It is technically possible that streetcar service could be restored by a still-pending legal decision, but the old poles could not be reused either way."

This is why you don't believe everything an uneducated journalist prints (uneducated in the topic at hand, that is). Travel along the active section of the E line, or Mass Ave. between North Cambridge and Harvard Square, or along the B line, etc. and study the poles. Compare them with the defunct re-purposed poles used by municipalities all over the system's service area. Then compare them to the poles along the abandoned portion of the E. They're no different. While there have been pole replacements on certain lines like most of the Belmont portion of the 73, I will say with some confidence that the majority of them date back to the Boston Elevated Railway days. The poles which stand between Heath St. and Arborway can most certainly be used, and likely will unless some new age modernization buff types decide to blow up the project cost by replacing them with "sleek new ones," which is entirely possible. They're tubes of metal between a half inch and an inch thick and, unlike salted rails, they aren't affected by whether or not they're used which makes them no worse off than the ones that have been in continuous service since well before 1985.

They'll have to install all new poles.
Running a pantograph causes the wire to flex, which periodically relieves the strain on the poles holding up the wire, so they wear out less quickly than a pole that holds up an unused wire. And poles with no load, after the wire's removed, don't have the balancing weight, and will after a while will start to lean away from the center of the street

If I remember correctly, I think they began to install some NEW poles in anticipation of the resumed service. I think the plan was to reuse the poles that were okay but replace the corroded ones. You can identify the new ones because they are a consistent diameter, top to bottom.

That's a complete 180 degree reversal from the sentiment only a few years ago to rid the route of the poles. A local politician proposed that they be removed as obsolete eyesores. Here's hoping that the pro-extension wave continues !

You are right, 3rdRail. They started putting up new poles - then when it became apparent the Arborway restoration was not going to happen, they stopped doing so. After a while local pols requested the T to remove all the poles, but the T replied that pole removal is not a priority and scarce funds should be used elsewhere. For the most part the poles are still there.

CRail wrote:

MarkB wrote:I stand corrected. From the Jamaica Plain Gazette:

"The poles have been unused and rusting since 1985, when the MBTA halted the Arborway Green Line trolley service through Jamaica Plain. It is technically possible that streetcar service could be restored by a still-pending legal decision, but the old poles could not be reused either way."

This is why you don't believe everything an uneducated journalist prints (uneducated in the topic at hand, that is). Travel along the active section of the E line, or Mass Ave. between North Cambridge and Harvard Square, or along the B line, etc. and study the poles. Compare them with the defunct re-purposed poles used by municipalities all over the system's service area. Then compare them to the poles along the abandoned portion of the E. They're no different. While there have been pole replacements on certain lines like most of the Belmont portion of the 73, I will say with some confidence that the majority of them date back to the Boston Elevated Railway days. The poles which stand between Heath St. and Arborway can most certainly be used, and likely will unless some new age modernization buff types decide to blow up the project cost by replacing them with "sleek new ones," which is entirely possible. They're tubes of metal between a half inch and an inch thick and, unlike salted rails, they aren't affected by whether or not they're used which makes them no worse off than the ones that have been in continuous service since well before 1985.

Careful CRail...how does that allow the engineering firms and contractors to land a fat contract out of it? "Oh no, these have all got to go..."

3rdrail wrote:That's a complete 180 degree reversal from the sentiment only a few years ago to rid the route of the poles. A local politician proposed that they be removed as obsolete eyesores. Here's hoping that the pro-extension wave continues !

The local pol asked that the poles be removed because constituents asked for it. This is the new Jamaica Plain,where everything has to be prettified - see the Casey overpass.

The Casey Overpass is a whole different issue. Reasonable people favor a new overpass, one that could accommodate the Arborway Line restoration if it should happen in the future.

Hence:

CRail wrote:... unless some new age modernization buff types decide to blow up the project cost by replacing them with "sleek new ones," which is entirely possible.

Patrick Boylan wrote:Running a pantograph causes the wire to flex, which periodically relieves the strain on the poles holding up the wire, so they wear out less quickly than a pole that holds up an unused wire. And poles with no load, after the wire's removed, don't have the balancing weight, and will after a while will start to lean away from the center of the street

By this logic the unused poles are better off than the ones still on the green line, because they never have strain on them while the ones in use do for about 99% of their existence, and all the ones on the trackless lines are completely useless because they've never been relieved by a pantograph. Not to mention all the poles on S. Huntington beyond Heath St. are leaning on the buildings because they don't have any balancing weight, except they aren't.

I won't be surprised if they get replaced, but it most certainly won't be because they need to be. The sooner people understand that something's age does not necessarily correspond with its ability to do its job, the more money will be saved by reducing inflamed project costs. We should be using a little more sense and responsibility with our capital funds.

highgreen215 wrote:The Casey Overpass is a whole different issue. Reasonable people favor a new overpass, one that could accommodate the Arborway Line restoration if it should happen in the future.

If you read comments online about both the Casey and Bowker overpasses, you'll find that 'ugly' plays a very big role in the criticism. it's often the first card people play.

Keep in mind that any new wire strung is very probably not going to be simple overhead like it was before, or like it still is on the TT lines. It will more likely be constant tension catenary, with the additional load of messenger wire, tensioning weights, more frequently placed traction power feeder cables, and who knows what else. How deep are the existing poles set? What is their overall condition given their age, especially at the bases and underground where they are exposed to salt from the streets and sidewalks? They may not be adequate any more given all of the above, and even if they were, many of them would have to be relocated to suit the support geometry of the new catenary system. Might as well replace them if you're yanking them out anyhow.

The Casey Overpass is not pretty in it's present state of disrepair. But you want ugly? Wait until the 24,000 cars a day that use the overpass now are added to the vehicle stew at the two planned surface intersections. Bridges can be nice looking, Frederick Law Olmsted used them in many locations. I think he would have preferred one at Forest Hills as part of his Emerald Necklace.

CPRail, when you quoted me you left out my smiloticons. My post was a joke. Were you taking it seriously? Remember, just like any automobile movement when honking a horn, we are all forgiven whatever we post with smilies.

highgreen215 wrote:The Casey Overpass is not pretty in it's present state of disrepair. But you want ugly? Wait until the 24,000 cars a day that use the overpass now are added to the vehicle stew at the two planned surface intersections. Bridges can be nice looking, Frederick Law Olmsted used them in many locations. I think he would have preferred one at Forest Hills as part of his Emerald Necklace.

When they take that thing it is going to become the biggest sh*tshow in the city.