Railroad Forums 

  • Pioneer Valley Commuter Rail/Western MA and Southern VT

  • Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England
Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England

Moderators: MEC407, NHN503

 #1274656  by trainhq
 
http://www.gazettenet.com/news/12061493 ... s-a-day-by" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;.
.....2016.

Or supposedly then, anyway. Does anyone know how serious this is? Certainly looks like a good
idea to me; the track and stations should be done by the end of 2014. They just need to get some rolling stock from the T and operating $$$$, and they can do it. Does anyone else have
more info on this?
 #1274659  by jrc520
 
That seems rather ... aggressive time wise. But if they can pull it off, it will be nice to see a project actually done at a decent speed. I don't know enough about the route to know how realistic the timeline is, but it will be nice to see more service!
 #1274666  by shadyjay
 
If all goes according to plan, the "Conn River" between Springfield and the VT border will be good for 79 MPH by year's end. There's some talk over on the Pan-Am forum here under the "Conn River Line" thread. There's some brief mentioning of a Pioneer Valley commuter rail, and there's mention that the line needs to get under Mass or MassDOT control before such commuter rail service can be initiated.

As part of the "Conn River" rebuild, stations will be constructed in Northampton and Greenfield, both underway. The primary reason for the upgrade of the 50-or-so-mile line is to reroute Amtrak's Vermonter to the more direct parallel-to-91 route vs the present Palmer dogleg. It seems that the closer the reroute comes to becoming reality, the talk of additional passenger service on the line increases. After all, why have a line good for 79 in a populous region and not have more than one daily roundtrip? I'm sure more "infill" stations would be added over time.... Holyoke has been mentioned before, and other towns along the line including Chicopee, Deerfield, Hatfield, and Whately might want to get on board.

Finally, IIRC there was a suggestion on extending some Amtrak shuttles from SPG north to Greenfield when the project is complete, and I believe Amtrak was against such an idea. They've mentioned a second roundtrip up to WRJ, but apparently aren't interested in the SPG-"GFD" short haul.
 #1274695  by NH2060
 
From what I understand -having read this in the Conn River Line thread- the state has budgeted/is budgeting $30M for the purchase and refurbishment of surplus T equipment that will be displaced upon delivery of the HSP46s and the new bilevels.
shadyjay wrote: There's some brief mentioning of a Pioneer Valley commuter rail, and there's mention that the line needs to get under Mass or MassDOT control before such commuter rail service can be initiated.
I thought the line was currently under state/DOT control with dispatching still handled by PanAm, no?
After all, why have a line good for 79 in a populous region and not have more than one daily roundtrip?
From what I've heard traffic can get pretty bad on I-91 north of Springfield so perhaps this is another reason to tap into the "commuter" market.
Finally, IIRC there was a suggestion on extending some Amtrak shuttles from SPG north to Greenfield when the project is complete, and I believe Amtrak was against such an idea. They've mentioned a second roundtrip up to WRJ, but apparently aren't interested in the SPG-"GFD" short haul.
Sounds more of an equipment availability issue than anything else. It's another 35-40 miles from SPG to GFD so to take one set that much farther up will keep it away from SPG for 2, 2.5, 3(?) hours at a time. Not to mention that the shuttles will remain post-2016-2017 implementation of NHHS in order for Amtrak to continue adequately serving the NHV-HFD-SPG market as an extension/branch of the NEC with a "reserved service" to connect to/from NEC trains without having to add more through trains from NYP and points south; as many of us know track capacity west of NHV doesn't allow for more through services at this time.

OTOH for all we know Amtrak might not want to combine the SPG-GFD-WRJ market with the NHV-HFD-SPG (NEC extension/Shuttle) market for such a reason and keep the "Knowledge Corridor" passengers on the Vermonter and any future extended trains to WRJ, etc. to avoid potentially having the Shuttles packed with non-NHV-HFD-SPG passengers.
 #1274718  by newpylong
 
The sale between Pan Am and MassDOT has been delayed, so Pan Am still owns and dispatches.

It will not be complete by the end of the year. They are looking to begin initial service (Vermonter) in early 2015 with the line being complete in 2016 (all the double iron changes, etc)
 #1274731  by Rockingham Racer
 
Does anyone find it odd that the Northampton economic development director is committing a big no-no by standing between the rails? Very bad example. :(
He could easily be struck by an Operation Lifesaver train! :-D
 #1369670  by Balerion
 
Planning is in the early stages, but a pilot program to run frequent north-south commuter trains on the "Knowledge Corridor" tracks from Springfield stopping in Holyoke, Northampton and Greenfield could begin a year from now in the spring of 2017.

Stephanie Pollack, Massachusetts secretary and chief executive officer of the state Department of Transportation, made the prediction Wednesday following a meeting with local transportation and transit planners and the mayors of Springfield, Holyoke, Northampton and Agawam.
http://www.masslive.com/business-news/i ... iver_index" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Worth nothing because Pollack is talking about it. That being said, does anybody believe that there will be commuter rail service in the Pioneer Valley in 12 months? In the long run it seems like there'd be so much more value to extending some NHHS trains to Greenfield, rather than creating a two-seat ride connecting Greenfield, Northampton, and Holyoke to points south of Springfield. That, of course, would require CT and MA to reach an understanding as well as more patience, since NHHS won't start until 2018 and will ramp up service levels over time.
 #1369706  by BostonUrbEx
 
I'd like to know where the equipment is coming from if they're starting within a year. The retirement of the F40PH's and the 500/1500 series coaches is well earned after some tiring years of service. So where is there equipment ready to be leased that can be operating on the Conn River is less than a year?
 #1369710  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
BostonUrbEx wrote:I'd like to know where the equipment is coming from if they're starting within a year. The retirement of the F40PH's and the 500/1500 series coaches is well earned after some tiring years of service. So where is there equipment ready to be leased that can be operating on the Conn River is less than a year?
Not to mention the facilities. MassDOT still refuses to contribute funding for Armory Layover, so CDOT and Amtrak have to mix nooks and crannies at Springfield Union and the old Amtrak mail station for layover space for the first several years of Hartford Line service. Because Armory Layover is a joint Amtrak/CDOT layover + MOW base, the Patrick Admin. determined that was the feds' problem, not theirs. While at the same time talking out the other sides of their mouths about this same service.

The Springfield Line is still short a large funding commitment to do all the north-of-Hartford track upgrades, and that is for damn sure higher priority for the next fed grant award than Armory Layover is because Hartford Line service can't increase enough to tap a full-service layover without it. So what's going to happen in the unlikely event MassDOT calls for fast starts on Pioneer Valley service? Amtrak tells them all the parking spots within a 1-mile radius of Springfield Union are spoken for for the next 8 years and they better start asking CSX across the river or PVRR up in Holyoke for some sidings or yard space to temporarily use. And to kindly wait before that situation changes, because even if Armory Layover were fully-funded today it's behind several much more important pieces of work in the priority queue.


→This← hand doesn't know what →this← hand is doing, etc., etc.
 #1369716  by BandA
 
Interesting that the state transportation secretary is talking about service starting in the upcoming fiscal year. Which means that there is money in the governor's proposed budget. And it's a way to gather support for that budget.

The PVRTA sees itself as a "feeder" for this rail, not as operator or sponsor, if the head of that agency is quoted correctly. So I ahhsoom the pilot would be run by the MBTA/Keolis under the aegis of the MassDOT. Unlike the Cape Flyer, which is sponsored by CCRTA.

If the HSP46s and Hyundai coaches suddenly become reliable, then enough MBB coaches & leaser locomotives MIGHT be available for a pilot.
 #1369717  by BandA
 
With all the money going to subsidize the MBTA, all the RTA's are just bus systems so strangely enough they seem to be looking for places to spend more operating money outside the MBTA system. Is highway congestion or parking in this area bad enough to justify commuter rail, or would they be better off just widening roads & adding bicycle commuter routes?
 #1369722  by Bramdeisroberts
 
BandA wrote:With all the money going to subsidize the MBTA, all the RTA's are just bus systems so strangely enough they seem to be looking for places to spend more operating money outside the MBTA system. Is highway congestion or parking in this area bad enough to justify commuter rail, or would they be better off just widening roads & adding bicycle commuter routes?
Part of me wonders if the plan is to eventually merge this service with NHHS. I'd imagine that there's the possibility for real ridership, but only if the terminal is Hartford, rather than Springfield.

If it's only a Springfield-terminating service, then I don't really see this thing attracting more riders than would fill a DMU or two.
 #1369760  by atlantis
 
Sounds like a good idea, if done correctly. Bicycle lanes may help but IMHO, bike lanes are no substitute for trains. Widened roads still foster more road use, and breed more traffic.
Maybe have some kind of "pilot project" for rail service, and see if it catches on. The cynical part of me, however, says that I statistically have a better chance of marrying Tove Lo before this happens! :wink:
 #1369889  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Bramdeisroberts wrote:
BandA wrote:With all the money going to subsidize the MBTA, all the RTA's are just bus systems so strangely enough they seem to be looking for places to spend more operating money outside the MBTA system. Is highway congestion or parking in this area bad enough to justify commuter rail, or would they be better off just widening roads & adding bicycle commuter routes?
Part of me wonders if the plan is to eventually merge this service with NHHS. I'd imagine that there's the possibility for real ridership, but only if the terminal is Hartford, rather than Springfield.

If it's only a Springfield-terminating service, then I don't really see this thing attracting more riders than would fill a DMU or two.
It's also premature. Why would MassDOT ever want to jump the gun on the Hartford Line? NHHS is the catalyst that makes Springfield Union the regional transportation center to end all regional transportation centers. Both for enabling Pioneer Valley rail service and for flushing PVTA buses full of demand to increase frequencies out of downtown. But it's a slow cooker that'll take 8 years or more to scale up from its skeletal starter schedule to the full-blown service goal of 32 trains per day.

You're right...you're not going to fill more than an RDC or two to Greenfield more than couple times per day until Springfield starts acting the part as the great transit distributor to the region. Particularly for commutes to the Hartford area where folks living as far north as Northampton have to fight I-91 backups to get to work. The baffling part is...we know within +/- a year or two when each of those Hartford Line frequency step-ups are going to come; those step-ups are real action items, not wishful thinking. So wouldn't the productive thing for MassDOT be to predicate its rollouts of Pioneer Valley transit enhancements timed with each new NHHS schedule increase? There's no bragging rights in finishing first, especially when that just leaves it vulnerable to getting cut or stunted when the Year 1 ridership isn't that hot.

-- Wouldn't it be better to have the connections in-place timed with the service start?
-- Wouldn't it be better to have beefed up PVTA bus service timed with the service start?
-- Wouldn't it be better and less costly to operate have some sort of pre-existing ops base in place timed with the service start? Especially if they're planning to dip into their own pool of rolling ruins to supply the equipment?
-- Wouldn't it be better and less costly to operate if all of the above timings happened to serendipitously coincide with the next scheduled MBTA and CDOT/MNRR equipment procurements, such that there'll be a lot better/fresher options for spare equipment to choose from on both sides of the state line as both sides of the state line scale up?


I don't understand this mentality, which seems to have survived intact from the Patrick-to-Baker handoff, that this service has to be rushed like a "use it or lose it" proposition. Why roll out lousy transit that can't connect to anything useful and is guaranteed to bleed red for its first 5 years, when simply exercising some patience and waiting the 5 years for the connections to fill in gives it a much better chance of hitting the ground with momentum that begs for future expansion? Jumping the gun on the rollout seems like a self-fulfilling prophecy where the early years of guaranteed losses becomes the excuse to never expand when demand does finally catch up. And by "expand" I don't necessarily mean the Greenfield train in isolation. Increased PVTA bus frequencies are arguably the most consequential share of purely intra-state ridership into Springfield Union once the terminal really gets cranking. But having one particularly high-profile intra-state service like the Greenfield train bleed money for its first years of service becomes the excuse to curtail service expansion in all modes of intra-state service.
 #1369897  by TomNelligan
 
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote: I don't understand this mentality, which seems to have survived intact from the Patrick-to-Baker handoff, that this service has to be rushed like a "use it or lose it" proposition. Why roll out lousy transit that can't connect to anything useful and is guaranteed to bleed red for its first 5 years, when simply exercising some patience and waiting the 5 years for the connections to fill in gives it a much better chance of hitting the ground with momentum that begs for future expansion?
Isn't at least part of this rush an effort to throw some highly visible transit money out west for the benefit of the local pols (whose votes Baker will need in connection with MBTA reform)? Making friends out in that wilderness beyond Worcester was certainly one of Deval's motivations.