Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

NRGeep
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:33 pm

Re: Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

Post by NRGeep » Thu Jun 28, 2018 3:50 pm

newpylong wrote:
CPF363 wrote:Has the MBTA ever considered rebuilding the former New Haven between Framingham and West Concord for shuttle moves between the north and south sides? While it is true that much would have to be done to make it happen, such as rebuilding three miles of track in Sudbury, a new bridge over the Assebet River and installing the diamond in West Concord, the rest of the old line is still in place physically. Using this line would be much shorter run between the two ends verses going to Worcester and Ayer and would be entirely under the T's control. Hopefully, the T will keep this line in place as an eventual rail line over turning it into a future bike trail.
They would never bother going through all of that hassle (if it was even feasible) for the handful of occasions they have to run out to Worcester.
If there are ever serious plans/funds for a North Station/Worcester connection this line would seem to make sense in many ways, though not likely to happen. An even more unrealistic connection would involve a spur from Weston off of B&A to old Central Mass which would connect to Fitchburg line all within nimby Weston. :wink:

Arborwayfan
Posts: 897
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:27 am
Location: Terre Haute, Indiana

Re: Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

Post by Arborwayfan » Thu Jun 28, 2018 5:03 pm

It is not exactly NIMBYISM to get to like having a bike trail. I ride to work on one and would not like to see it torn up. (Little risk of that, since it the Pennsy and the NYC were parallel and Conrail took the best of each> NYC from Indy to Terre Haute and Pennsy to at least Effingham.) Bike trail users are different from NIMBYS (who often don't like bike trails either); actual busy bike trails become part of a conflict over the use of a right of way. NIMBYS sometimes use the idea of a bike trail to get rid of a rail line, but a successful bike trail builds its own actual support. In most places it's not a problem.

EuroStar
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:26 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere

Re: Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

Post by EuroStar » Fri Jun 29, 2018 8:40 am

I did not say that bike trails are a problem, just that there is no example of one going back to rail. And while NIMBYs might not like bike trails, practically all of them will defend bike trails over the alternative of trains coming back (diesels will be claimed too noisy and electric will be deemed too disruptive to the greenery around).
Last edited by CRail on Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Unnecessary quote removed.

NRGeep
Posts: 1076
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 2004 9:33 pm

Re: Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

Post by NRGeep » Fri Jun 29, 2018 11:39 am

Weston until last year balked at converting Central Mass line into bike trail.
Last edited by CRail on Fri Jun 29, 2018 6:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Unnecessary quote removed.

User avatar
BandA
Posts: 2858
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

Re: Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

Post by BandA » Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:11 am

That's Westons' choice. They can build bike trails next to roads like they do in several parts of town. There is a need for the Central Mass ROW as either CR or other form of motorized transportation because the highway was never built from 495 to 128. If two towns build bike paths but the town in between doesn't, that town has to figure out what to do with the bike riders who will now be riding in their streets!!

User avatar
Rockingham Racer
Posts: 3606
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:25 pm

Re: Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

Post by Rockingham Racer » Sat Jul 07, 2018 5:18 am

By "highway", do you mean I-290?
Last edited by CRail on Sat Jul 07, 2018 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Unnecessary quote removed.

Area4
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 9:00 pm

Re: Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

Post by Area4 » Mon Jul 09, 2018 3:27 pm

Is B721 back? Not seen it at the usual times.
GP40MC1118 wrote:The Readville Switcher was supposed to be the first move today, but never materialized.

CSX is not due to start until next Sunday.

D

GP40MC1118
Posts: 3647
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 8:06 pm

Re: Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

Post by GP40MC1118 » Tue Jul 10, 2018 12:43 am

B721 is still on duty at 130pm Sunday-Thursday at Framingham. They didn't run this past
Sunday, but were around their usual time Monday.

D

User avatar
BandA
Posts: 2858
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

Re: Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

Post by BandA » Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:35 pm

Rockingham Racer wrote:By "highway", do you mean I-290?
Yes, I-290 or MA 200. Basically US-20 can't handle the load even with the series of bypasses that have been built piecemeal. But this topic is for north-south transportation rather than east-west!

bostontrainguy
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:14 am

Grand Junction is Saved

Post by bostontrainguy » Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:14 am

Although the new approved Allston plan puts the Mass Pike at ground level, it appears the Grand Junction connection is going to survive somehow:

"Preserve the potential for a future public transit service running through the throat area between Allston and Cambridge using the Grand Junction Railroad Corridor."

http://blog.mass.gov/transportation/mas ... l-project/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Charliemta
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:51 pm

Re: Grand Junction is Saved

Post by Charliemta » Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:55 pm

Yes, under all options proposed for the Mass Pike, there will be a two-track Grand Junction crossing of the Charles, continuing west to the Beacon Yard, in addition to the two tracks for the Worcester line. So a total of 4 tracks alongside the Pike through the interchange rebuild area.
"The penny candy store beyond the El
is where i first fell in love
with unreality.....
Outside the leaves were falling as they died.
A wind had blown away the sun."
----Lawrence Ferlinghetti

CRail
Posts: 2381
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 8:27 am
Location: Eastie

Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

Post by CRail » Sat Jan 19, 2019 4:11 pm

Despite some dull noise from a couple nitwits about a linear park, there was never any real threat to the Grand Junction. It is a vital connection and is sought by many activists for use by passenger rail service (not just equipment moves), it was never going anywhere.
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).

EuroStar
Posts: 746
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2012 8:26 pm
Location: Middle of Nowhere

Re: Grand Junction is Saved

Post by EuroStar » Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:24 am

Charliemta wrote:Yes, under all options proposed for the Mass Pike, there will be a two-track Grand Junction crossing of the Charles, continuing west to the Beacon Yard, in addition to the two tracks for the Worcester line.
Is this somewhere in official documents? preserving the two tracks for Grand Junction is good, but is it official?

bostontrainguy
Posts: 1600
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:14 am

Re: Grand Junction is Saved

Post by bostontrainguy » Thu Jan 24, 2019 9:11 pm

The maps and cross section diagrams all show a two track main alongside a two track Grand Junction. Someone is thinking ahead (finally).

newpylong
Posts: 4289
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2007 12:32 pm
Location: NH

Re: Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

Post by newpylong » Fri Jan 25, 2019 10:57 am

There was never any intention of doing away with it, no threat.

Return to “Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)”