Railroad Forums 

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

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1298681  by Arlington
 
[quote="F-line to Dudley via Park"So what's it gonna be? 10-15 years and for-reals feasibility on the routing that's just fine and dandy for every interested passenger except the ones with a crippling and incurable case of Transit OCD...of a lonely multi-decade vigil holding out for utter perfection? Jeez...this isn't hard to grasp.[/quote]
Yes, nobody in Maine or Mass has the $ to lavish on rail that will get used 2x per day in passenger service.
 #1298742  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Suburban Station wrote:I'm not interest ed in arguing. What routing is Lowell to Worcester? Is that the Boston north routing you are talking about?
Pan Am Worcester Branch - Worcester Union Station to Ayer
MBTA Fitchburg Line - Ayer to Willows Jct., Ayer
Pan Am Stony Brook Branch - Willows Jct., Ayer to North Chelmsford Jct.
MBTA Lowell Line - North Chelmsford Jct. to Bleachery Jct., Lowell (immediately east of Lowell station)
Pan Am Lowell Branch - Bleachery Jct., Lowell to Lowell Jct., Andover
Downeaster - Lowell Jct., Andover to Maine


Trace is here on Pan Am's system map: http://www.panamrailways.com/includes/t ... stemap.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The dashed lines in Ayer and Lowell are the very tiny portions (~4.5 miles total) of overlap with MBTA territory, state-owned track, and Class 4 track. All of the rest of it is freight-only Class 1 track, 10 MPH, privately-owned. The PAR Stony Brook and Lowell Branches do have a signal system; the Worcester Branch does not.


It's not economically viable to upgrade these lines for state-sponsored passenger services that omit the one state (MA) that is the only potential public funding conduit to all that privately-owned track that has absolute zero passenger potential for anything commuter rail or multi-times-daily regional rail frequencies. Purely in terms of shuttling $$$ around, it's a "can't get there from here". There are 2 options:

-- If you're going through MA on a state-sponsored trip without an MA audience served, it has to bootstrap onto existing Amtrak territory in absence of an MA funding interest.

-- If it's going to get MA state-paid investment, it has to engage Boston.

In this case, the only Amtrak territory it can bootstrap on engages Boston...so the answer is the same either way. Portland-NYC operates with a stop at Boston North Station, or it doesn't operate at all. And this is not a bad thing, because by virtue of operating to North Station the state of Massachusetts is going to have an interest in funding it. Which will result in better track speeds on some combination of the Springfield Line, B&A, and Downeaster legs of this route.


This is the difference between private railroad routings and state-sponsored public transit. The resources cannot realistically be apportioned to any route under the sun when it's a chain-link linking multiple states. It's not a funding scenario that follows real-world logic. If Massachusetts is the linchpin you have to traverse, then the ability to launch this route sooner requires engaging Massachusetts as the linchpin. Holding out for the bypass routing requires holding out for an era in which funding mechanisms change so radically they allow Massachusetts money to be bypassed. You're going to be waiting a good 3 or 4 decades for that. In this particular case there's no reason to because following Massachusetts' self-interest to the hilt by pressing for higher, higher, higher speeds on the Springfield Line, B&A, and Lowell Line will eventually give you better travel times than the old State of Maine schedules and whatever tippy-top that curvy-as-hell freight route is geometrically capable of. So there's really nothing to complain about. Just follow the money and everyone gets what they want...sooner.
 #1298838  by Arlington
 
Suburban Station wrote:Thanks for the map. It sounds like they are proposing to bypass boston doesn't it? (Whether it's right or wrong)
Railfans in Maine (and in the Downeaster thread) like the idea of bypassing Boston and going direct to NYP, duplicating the old State of Maine route (a named train from bygone days that used the route that F-Line describes). Enamored of this historic route, they even proposed a sleeper train to give passengers something to do during the 10mph-but-direct circumferential crawl from Haverhill to Worcester (rather than into and back out of BON). Utterly un-economic.

To me, its obvious that F-Line is right. If Maine gets service to NYC in the next 30 years, it will be a Downeaster trainset does a reverse at North Station and that leverages Massachusetts' extensive passenger-capable system, generally, and places Amtrak is qualified today to operate, in particular. There's only one such route (given that there's no practical North to South connection in Boston):

Downeaster-North Station (crew changes ends)
North Station to West Station (proposed) via Grand Junction (which rotates Amtrak equipment in non-rev moves today)
West Station to Worcester on MBTA owned/dispatched/sped-up rails
Worcester to Springfield on CSX (Amtrak's Lake Shore Limited's route, but no Mass State service today)
Springfield to ...as close to NYP as Maine and Massachusetts can negotiate

Mass will have something of an interest all along this route, and the service gets all its rails for free, except from CSX, which will have to be in a package deal that Mass needs for better Worcester-Springfield service anyway. If the train provides a practical trip to Mass "locals", Mass will be open to helping, even as they do with the Downeaster in MBTA territory today.

Folks along the Haverhill Commuter Line (into North Station) and all from West Station to Worcester would probably appreciate a train to SPG each day at the same times/frequencies that would make it attractive to Maine.
 #1298867  by NH2060
 
Bypassing Boston is one of those ideas that sounds "bad" and "pointless", but -in this case- is probably necessary for this train to work. WHY would you want BON-POR/BRK riders booking seats that would otherwise be used by NYP/STM/NHV/HFD/SPG/WOR,etc.-POR/BRK riders? The latter = more $$$ and therefore more incentive to keep such a train operating. If they need to reverse and can't do my suggested "around the horn" approach that's one thing, but dropping off and picking up passengers doesn't have to be done. IF the train is ever in need of a boost in ridership stopping at BON would be the best backup plan.

If having MA adequately served by train to/from NYC from/to Maine is essential to seeing it become a reality putting in a station @ Cambridge near Mass Ave. or Main St. (right in the heart of MIT) could satisfy that in spades. If anyone is meeting up with anyone from Boston enroute, as F-Line suggested, they can hop on at Cambridge (I doubt there are more than a handful of people who would have such an arrangement to begin with). I actually wouldn't be surprised if the proposal for upgrading the Worcester-Lowell tracks instead of the Grand Junction is because those in Maine wanted to avoid having Boston passengers eat up the North of Boston to Worcester, Springfield, Hartford, etc. reservation possibilities. I do think it's imprudent though to upgrade them when fixing up the Grand Jct. is a piece of cake compared to rebuilding the Pan Am tracks.

Any NYC-Maine service will NOT be a Downeaster set as they're already stretched thin on equipment and the Cabbages would have to be removed/tacked on @ New Haven since they can't be used into NYP due to clearance issues. Either a cab car or double Gennies will need to be used. And if stopping @ North Station is going to be on the table then having a 6-8+ car consist better be on the table as well. You're talking about serving New York, Stamford, New Haven, Hartford, Springfield, Worcester, North Station, New Hampshire, Portland, Freeport, Brunswick ALL on one train. With the variety of travel patterns possible there better be seats to make it possible, especially if those longer distance ticket revenues are ever going to see the light of day.

To the mods: Could this be merged with the DE or an already existing thread on NYC-Maine or even it's own thread? This obviously isn't the proper thread to discuss this, but the discussion IMO is solid gold nonetheless.
 #1298877  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
NH2060 wrote:Bypassing Boston is one of those ideas that sounds "bad" and "pointless", but -in this case- is probably necessary for this train to work. WHY would you want BON-POR/BRK riders booking seats that would otherwise be used by NYP/STM/NHV/HFD/SPG/WOR,etc.-POR/BRK riders? The latter = more $$$ and therefore more incentive to keep such a train operating. If they need to reverse and can't do my suggested "around the horn" approach that's one thing, but dropping off and picking up passengers doesn't have to be done. IF the train is ever in need of a boost in ridership stopping at BON would be the best backup plan.
No, it's $$$ without a funding source to upgrade the bypass tracks. It doesn't matter what the merits are on such a routing, there is no funding conduit for the track if you bypass Boston on a state-sponsored route. And Amtrak will not operate in new un-upgraded territory. The end. That's the be-all/end-all...don't engage Massachusetts, can't get there from here, train never happens.

If you want a NY-Portland train to ever happen in our lifetimes, you must stop at a terminal in Boston. This isn't about the perfectness of the routing, it's about the structural feasibility of making it happen. It can't happen any other way. Debating the perfectness of the routing gets you not one year closer to making it happen in your lifetime. Perfect's the enemy of good here.
If having MA adequately served by train to/from NYC from/to Maine is essential to seeing it become a reality putting in a station @ Cambridge near Mass Ave. or Main St. (right in the heart of MIT) could satisfy that in spades. If anyone is meeting up with anyone from Boston enroute, as F-Line suggested, they can hop on at Cambridge (I doubt there are more than a handful of people who would have such an arrangement to begin with). I actually wouldn't be surprised if the proposal for upgrading the Worcester-Lowell tracks instead of the Grand Junction is because those in Maine wanted to avoid having Boston passengers eat up the North of Boston to Worcester, Springfield, Hartford, etc. reservation possibilities. I do think it's imprudent though to upgrade them when fixing up the Grand Jct. is a piece of cake compared to rebuilding the Pan Am tracks.
Such a platform is proposed for that location in a Worcester Line-North Station study from about 6 years ago. However, the station location there is a full 2-block walk from the Red Line station. And will have zero parking. Absolute no-go. MassDOT is not going to allow the one and only Boston stop to be parceled out to a station that doesn't have direct-connect subway access (of which North Station feeds 2 lines), a ticket office, and staffing help for all the weekenders carrying luggage. Appealing to Amtrak instead will get it shot down for the same reasons. Trying to shiv in something at that new West Station the MBTA wants to build isn't going to work either, because that too has no direct subway connection that doesn't require walking a couple blocks.

It takes both MassDOT and Amtrak to tango no matter what New York City and NNEPRA prefer, and you won't get their buy-in without a stop at North Station. Structurally engage the parties on this route as they are, not as you want them to be from a perch outside the state's borders looking in. There is no bypass of North Station in existence that incentivizes MassDOT and Amtrak to get onboard with this, no funding source from an outside-Massachusetts state that overrules that objection. To get that overrule have to first establish a bureaucratic mechanism for pipelining the money totally from outside the state borders. As this isn't a federally-operated route and NNEPRA doesn't have that kind of power, such a mechanism doesn't exist. So...you can either daydream up pitch-perfect scenarios that logistically can't happen with the physical plant and/or oversight, or take the path of least resistance and get something useful done.
Any NYC-Maine service will NOT be a Downeaster set as they're already stretched thin on equipment and the Cabbages would have to be removed/tacked on @ New Haven since they can't be used into NYP due to clearance issues. Either a cab car or double Gennies will need to be used. And if stopping @ North Station is going to be on the table then having a 6-8+ car consist better be on the table as well. You're talking about serving New York, Stamford, New Haven, Hartford, Springfield, Worcester, North Station, New Hampshire, Portland, Freeport, Brunswick ALL on one train. With the variety of travel patterns possible there better be seats to make it possible, especially if those longer distance ticket revenues are ever going to see the light of day.
Yes...equipment would come from the general pool. But that's not something you can get around. People aren't getting kicked off the train in Boston, so there's already a mismatch that scatters DE equipment if you don't keep the New York trainset separate from the one that spends its entire rotation self-contained in New England. That's not a big logistical barrier to square...keep trainsets intact and stuff stays in alignment.

I don't see what the problem is with the train being popular. All but 1 of those stops is served on any which NY-Portland routing. Do you think these trains are going to run 4-5 cars and empty from New York through Worcester on a weekender route that was never available to those folks before? You're going to need a longer consist for that by default; it will be popular. Why would the presence of New Yorkers onboard +1 frequencies swell North Station boardings to crush load when those folks have 5 (and probably more) options per day for Maine and nearly infinite options for NYC between the NEC and future Inland Service? If the train's crowded, it's going to be nearing capacity before it exits Connecticut and be stuffed before it ever hits the New Hampshire border no matter what routing you take. Missing the forest for the trees to nitpick BON as the point of collapse. If BON is the point of collapse you've got a pre-existing capacity problems to address before running this train on any routing. And I somewhat doubt that's really going to be a problem.




The only reason I'm harping on this is because bureaucratically the links on the chain pay the way. You can't break the Massachusetts link by attempting to skip Boston and get a route. It doesn't work. There is no higher power to appeal to when their money is dependent on a route happening at all. Amtrak's going to back MassDOT up on this; it's a P.I.T.A. for them if they aren't stopping at a Boston terminal, and they have no incentive to relent. So first and foremost to get a route from NY-Portland that bypasses Boston you have to reform the entire structure of state-sponsored route funding in 4 New England states (and since this precedent impacts routes across all of New England...make that 6 in reality) so the authority can make decisions not subject to each individual link in the chain and not driven top-down by the states with the biggest share of the pie (namely, Massachusetts). NNEPRA doesn't have that clout. Structurally, this is not going to happen this decade. And probably not next either. So you are left with the same choice: hold out a lifetime for something perfect, or engage the stakeholders as they are and get something really good sooner. Any answer for a routing that skips or attempts to substitute for BON has to answer for this appeal-to-authority issue head-on. If it doesn't, you're wasting your time.

Continuing to "Yeah, but...", "Yeah, but..." means--in the real world--you don't think the route is viable unless it's the perfect that can't bureaucratically happen. In which case...the whole last 2 pages of this thread are moot because there's no possibility of an NY-Portland train in the next 20 or fewer years and it doesn't wash on the merits for the only way it can happen. Problem solved.


I happen to think it is a useful train. One worth dealing with conditions as they are to make happen in the short-term. But I may be the minority there. Just realize that "conditions as they are" is not a variable when it comes to who makes the money decisions, it's a constant. So expending a lot of energy trying to change the constant into a variable isn't a good use of time.
Last edited by F-line to Dudley via Park on Mon Oct 20, 2014 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
 #1298889  by Arlington
 
NH2060 wrote:WHY would you want BON-POR/BRK riders booking seats that would otherwise be used by NYP/STM/NHV/HFD/SPG/WOR,etc.-POR/BRK riders? The latter = more $$$ and therefore more incentive to keep such a train operating....Any NYC-Maine service will NOT be a Downeaster set as they're already stretched thin on equipment and the Cabbages would have to be removed/tacked on @ New Haven since they can't be used into NYP due to clearance issues.
1) The Downeaster's 3 trainsets are today underutilized, with one set idling most of the morning instead of operating a BON-AM-Northbound, and really only 2 trains per day max out their passenger loads (unsurprisingly, it is basically one AM into BON and one PM out of it).

2) Downeasters that tagged BON and then went to SPG and NHV would probably fill trains that are today very empty, rather than over-filling those peak trains...either a new very-early train from POR (5am), or the midday ones, or even a night coach train. The DE schedule today could be operated with two trains, except for a few hours each evening when all 3 trainsets are in revenue service. The DEs are under-operated and under-utilized.

3) The Cabbages' clearances are the least of your worries beyond NHV. Whatever different cabs would cost (maybe Keybagges from the Keystone, filled with cement and a door cut in the side ;-) its chump change compared to funding/bribing your way past New Haven. Frankly, Given that SPG-NHV trains (mostly serving Connecticut) can't get Connecticut's permission to operate on the NEC more and must do their cross-platform transfer and then turn back, and that Mass is unlikely to get anything much better for any joint CT-Mass-(VT?) "commuter" trains, it is near-impossible to imagine that Maine will somehow manage to get past NHV any time soon. Just like on the LIRR "all change at Jamaica", NHV is going to be a connecting point, and only a "thru point" for Amtrak premium trains (Acela 2.0 and NER 1.5)

4) In general, the rails problem is several orders of magnitude larger than the rolling stock problem. CSX wants $300m to $400m (From Mass) just for increased WOR-SPG frequencies. To do the circumferential routing is going to run you $1b just to get you rails that aren't in imminent risk of derailment, while total operating costs on the DE are just $13m per year. If you begin with fleet assumptions, you're not just letting the rolling stock tail wag the right of way dog, you're letting a flea on the tail...maybe 0.5%...wag the dog.
 #1298916  by jbvb
 
I came upon this while away from my references, but IIRC as of 1960 the B&M allowed passenger trains at least 60 MPH Worcester - Ayer, Willows - North Chelmsford and Bleachery - Lowell Jct. Alignment isn't an issue east of Willows, there are no sharp curves except at junctions and next to the Lowell station. There are probably some places between Worcester & Ayer where the alignment won't allow 79 MPH.

Given the MBTA's current funding situation, it isn't going to happen soon, but if Springfield - Greenfield T service gets off the ground, the time will come when someone needs votes in the Merrimack Valley and Worcester. And to get them, they may have to promise a second independent-of-Boston service.
 #1298925  by Ridgefielder
 
jbvb wrote:I came upon this while away from my references, but IIRC as of 1960 the B&M allowed passenger trains at least 60 MPH Worcester - Ayer, Willows - North Chelmsford and Bleachery - Lowell Jct. Alignment isn't an issue east of Willows, there are no sharp curves except at junctions and next to the Lowell station. There are probably some places between Worcester & Ayer where the alignment won't allow 79 MPH.

Given the MBTA's current funding situation, it isn't going to happen soon, but if Springfield - Greenfield T service gets off the ground, the time will come when someone needs votes in the Merrimack Valley and Worcester. And to get them, they may have to promise a second independent-of-Boston service.
I thought there was some long-term (emphasis on long) plan out there on the part of the T to run an "I-495 belt" service on a Lawrence-Lowell-Worcester-Providence routing. Did I imagine this, or am I mistaking some foamer-nonsense for an actual plan?
 #1298926  by Arlington
 
jbvb wrote:the time will come when someone needs votes in the Merrimack Valley and Worcester. And to get them, they may have to promise a second independent-of-Boston service.
No. The economics of hubs and concentrating service at the center are timeless and universal, and precisely the process that has caused the former 60mph circumferential line to fall into disuse as a 10mph freight will continue to disfavor it from ever returning to passenger service.

At any given time ,on any time horizon that any now living will see, politicians get more votes by promising Merrimack & Worcester voters increased service TO Boston (and all its jobs, events and connectivity) than you'll ever get by promising service that goes around it.

Can't point to any service that bypasses NYP, PHL, WAS, or CHI, and there won't ever be any that bypasses Boston either. Freight may accept a bypass, but people will not.

[This answers Ridgefielder's question too...the *only* Belt of transit for Boston is the Urban Ring (and that is no more than 2mi from the very center at any point). All else is radial in-out spokes on the Boston hub. Only Paris--in its *most* rail-happy moments--has circumferential line plans out as far as 10 miles...nothing happens 20 miles out (where I-495 is).]
 #1298951  by Dick H
 
Before there are any real proposals for a Maine-NYC train, NNEPRA really needs
to get the current BRK-BON route up to "speed", pun intended. PAR has dragged
their feet on maintaining the current route over the last two years, with speed
restrictions that go on for many months and even the whole two years. And the
prospects for 2015 are no better. The current tie replacement job reportedly
will end on October 31st, as the track crew and equipment are needed "elsewhere".
I doubt they will make it even halfway to Portland from the MA/NH border in 2014.
Even on this job, I don't believe any new ballast is being added. So, is this work
really a high quality, long lasting job?

It was mentioned above that part of the POR-NYP route would include the trackage
between Lowell Jct and the Willows (Ayer), which is mostly 10 MPH. In 2011, PAR
did a track project on much of this line to get it up to 25MPH, but the work has
already failed for the most part in under three years.

And the Haverhill Bridge project aside, that will take years, the MBTA seems to be
dragging its feet on the double tracking project south of Lawrence. For several
years, the DE was said to be working toward a 2 hour, 15 minute POR/BON trip.
The current timetable calls for 2:30, but not a single train makes it in that time.
There is still mention of a sixth round trip. It won't happen without many millions
of dollars to PAR for doubling tracking at least from Plaistow to Newfields (15 miles).

Bottom Line: Take care of BRK/BON, before even talking about POR/NYP.
 #1298983  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Ridgefielder wrote:
jbvb wrote:I came upon this while away from my references, but IIRC as of 1960 the B&M allowed passenger trains at least 60 MPH Worcester - Ayer, Willows - North Chelmsford and Bleachery - Lowell Jct. Alignment isn't an issue east of Willows, there are no sharp curves except at junctions and next to the Lowell station. There are probably some places between Worcester & Ayer where the alignment won't allow 79 MPH.

Given the MBTA's current funding situation, it isn't going to happen soon, but if Springfield - Greenfield T service gets off the ground, the time will come when someone needs votes in the Merrimack Valley and Worcester. And to get them, they may have to promise a second independent-of-Boston service.
I thought there was some long-term (emphasis on long) plan out there on the part of the T to run an "I-495 belt" service on a Lawrence-Lowell-Worcester-Providence routing. Did I imagine this, or am I mistaking some foamer-nonsense for an actual plan?
The T secured trackage rights on a bunch of Pan Am track when it did a set of land swaps with them for the Green Line Extension in Somerville. Includes irrevocable and permanent operating rights to Concord on the NH Main, and between Worcester and Ayer on the Worcester Branch. The T's primary motivation for it was non-revenue equipment swaps. It came in very handy last year when the Grand Junction had to be shut down for several weeks for emergency structural repairs on the Charles River bridge. Even though it takes over 5 hours to go Widett Circle-Worcester-Ayer-Boston Engine Terminal because of the track speeds. I don't believe they got rights on the Stony Brook and Lowell Branches as part of it; those are parts of the PAR mainline Mechanicsville-Portland so they don't just give away future slots for nothing.

There were no plans for it. "Irrevocable" and "permanent" means 100 years from now if they come up with an excuse to run commuter rail from the five million-population megalopolis of Worcester after sea level rise submerges Boston and New York into giant coral reefs...they got it in-pocket. It was the Legislators, Beacon Hill, and the local MPO's who started dreaming up bizarre passenger schemes of South Station-Worcester-Ayer-Fitchburg service (yes, I know there's awkward reverses in there...no, I don't think the simpletons who thought that one up knew or cared). As if anyone would sit on a commuter rail coach for a whole extra hour for sole sake of avoiding a 7-minute subway transfer. It was not serious.



At any rate, it's moot. Just do a Street View tour to see how very far away that track Worcester Branch track is from 60 MPH after 30 years of Guilford/Pan Am doing what it does best (*cough*). Then mosey on over to the Pan Am forum to find out what derailed out there this week. The Conn River looked positively immaculate pre-rebuild compared to this branch.
 #1299015  by Ridgefielder
 
F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:The T secured trackage rights on a bunch of Pan Am track when it did a set of land swaps with them for the Green Line Extension in Somerville. Includes irrevocable and permanent operating rights to Concord on the NH Main, and between Worcester and Ayer on the Worcester Branch. The T's primary motivation for it was non-revenue equipment swaps. It came in very handy last year when the Grand Junction had to be shut down for several weeks for emergency structural repairs on the Charles River bridge. Even though it takes over 5 hours to go Widett Circle-Worcester-Ayer-Boston Engine Terminal because of the track speeds. I don't believe they got rights on the Stony Brook and Lowell Branches as part of it; those are parts of the PAR mainline Mechanicsville-Portland so they don't just give away future slots for nothing.
OK, so the Ayer-Worcester rights are akin to MNRR's acquisition of the Beacon line. Makes sense.

So, anyone have any more news about the actual topic of this thread? Seems like hypothetical Maine through service is a long way from the Springfield Line in Connecticut, whether it uses the Worcester Branch or the Grand Junction. :wink:
  • 1
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 155