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

TomNelligan wrote:

So while we are surely talking about giving up BON, BOS, RTE and BBY we aren't necessarily giving up those markets per se especially if we are looking at people who are driving into the city to take the train. Not mentioned here of course is what we are gaining which is WOR, and even more significantly, HHL, EXR, DHM and DOV which of course at present have absolutely no direct service at all to NYP.

Gee, it must be nice to have enough free time in one's life to memorize every city code in the Amtrak network.

[Chuckle]

TomNelligan wrote:As for north-of-Boston patronage, that's not my part of the metropolis, but my guess from a more local perspective than yours is that driving to Worcester versus taking a commuter train from Lynn or Melrose to North Station, the Orange Line to Back Bay,, and a reasonably fast NEC train from there would seem an unlikely choice for most folks. And with respect to Downeaster stations, I'll repeat for the umpteenth time that the existing North Station-Back Bay connection via the Orange Line is fast and easy, even for an old guy like me. While I know that there are at least a few potential customers who are deterred by the thought of changing trains in the big horrible dangerous city full of Terrible People Not Like Them, I suspect that most of them would survive untraumatized if they actually tried it. (Most recent personal experience: A couple months ago I had occasion to arrive in Boston around 8 AM on Amtrak 66. I got off at Back Bay and caught the Orange Line to North Station to connect with a commuter train to my town. I wasn't the only one... about 15 of my fellow passengers from #66 did the same thing based on the crowd on the subway platform. And we all lived to tell about it!)

While I'm sure there are plenty of people in NH who are more than willing to make the transfer via the Orange Line, as Arlington has posted numerous times in the past travelers value the direct connection in ratios vastly disproportionate to indirect connections. In short convenience matters, a lot.

TomNelligan wrote:Finally, while I certainly acknowledge that Worcester would present some level of potential business for reasonably fast direct daytime rail service to New York, remember that your proposed overnight Portland-New York trains would pass through there in the middle of the night and that the Worcester business at 2 AM or whatever is going to be minimal. Don't count on Worcester to support an overnight as opposed to daytime service.

I should have been clearer that any discussion of a Northeast Regional would in my mind involve "day" service. Although I favor the State of Maine restoration as an overnight train NYP-POR I think this thread has substantially changed my opinion of the likely viability of a day train. The "day" option appears now to be the more viable of the two and the more feasible of the two given present fleet conditions and all other considerations.

Unfortunately, the Inland route seems to be a no-win scenario and just from the Amtrak side, I'm not even talking about the CSX slot needed from SPG-BOS/BON/Wherevertheheckitterminates.
Let's list a few facts first though:
Train time NHV-SPG-BOS is about 1 hour longer (4:20) than the shoreline currently (using Shuttle and LSL times)
Most of the shoreline population is concentrated in Providence and the end point, Boston
Most of the inland population is more spread between Worcester, Springfield, Hartford and other places

The issue I see, and others have pointed out, is the MNRR slot. The obvious solution for starters is to extend an existing regional, so WB that's 141, and EB that's 148. So let's use the LSL's time between SPG and BOS to see when approximately the WB would leave, and the EB would arrive if simply extended, this is 3:17 per Amtrak.com. So using that time, 141 would have to leave BOS at 2:38 a.m....ICK! Using that time for 148 would put it arriving BOS at 1:27 a.m....also ICK! and then you probably couldn't turn the trainset in time for its 2:38 AM departure so you run into equipment issues. So if you want to run inland service without adding any slots, you could flip a shuttle and regional: make the regional run into BOS via SPG, with a cross-platform transfer to a "shuttle" at New Haven servicing the shoreline...that sounds absolutely wonderful...in the most sarcastic sense of the word. So the only real solution I see at this point for not only inland service, but a one-seat ride to New York, is to split/join the train at New Haven, which presents its own problems. An "easy" solution could be to put a cab car in the middle of the train facing forward. Then you tack on a diesel on the rear of the train, the front half separates and can proceed onwards. One issue is the design of the next-gen single-level corridor cars. I believe the front half of the car was supposed to be baggage space so you run into issues with passage there. I believe the current Metroliner cab cars wouldn't have this problem, but how much longer do they have left? Another major issue is the loss of capacity on the Shoreline trains. Perhaps the Inland trains would only need two cars as the Shuttles now have, but with slightly greater population, and a one-seat ride to New York and Boston would that be enough? Amtrak doesn't have cars to throw around I don't think, so the only current way to add these trains to the Inland route, is to remove capacity from the Shoreline, even if you aren't removing entire trains.

The previous paragraph assumes a train running all the way from New York to Boston via the Inland route (one-seat ride). So what about extending the shuttles? From my point of view, you're still looking at equipment constraints. Could the two-car trains have enough capacity to handle the new passengers? Even so, with the extra mileage, you'd have to add at least some equipment, or reduce frequencies...which might be possible when the Springfield line commuter rail becomes active, but even with that I believe the intent is to run still more Amtrak trains along the route rather than reduce them. Or probably more accurately, would the required cross-platform transfer at New Haven still attract enough ridership to make the CSX upgrades, and funding the operations of the extended train worthwhile?

So to bottom line this barely-organized rambling, I find it unlikely we'll see Inland service unless Amtrak can grab another slot (or two or four or...) on MNRR, and in Penn Station (rush hour), and has the equipment for the extra trains. The options for running any kind of service just don't seem to make sense from a scheduling, or equipment standpoint, at least until Amtrak gets a new single-level fleet, but that could be a decade or more off. Then there's still the issue of CSX.

MattW wrote: The issue I see, and others have pointed out, is the MNRR slot. The obvious solution for starters is to extend an existing regional, so WB that's 141, and EB that's 148. So let's use the LSL's time between SPG and BOS to see when approximately the WB would leave, and the EB would arrive if simply extended, this is 3:17 per Amtrak.com. So using that time, 141 would have to leave BOS at 2:38 a.m....ICK! Using that time for 148 would put it arriving BOS at 1:27 a.m....also ICK! and then you probably couldn't turn the trainset in time for its 2:38 AM departure so you run into equipment issues.

In a 2003 schedule, an Inland Route regional #147 (SaSu) departed BOS at 10:15 AM, arrived SPG at 12:55 PM for a 2:40 trip time. The LSL schedule is padded both ways, although the padding is huge eastbound. The LSL is 2:15 BOS-SPG westbound. Much of the thinking behind a return of the Inland Route Regionals is that the NHV-SPG corridor will see considerable trip time improvement with 110 mph tracks and high level platforms at all the stations. The SPG to WOR to BOS trip time projected improvements and the stages they might be done in is yet to be stated, but a 2:10, then in a few years a less than 2 hour BOS-SPG trip time should be achievable. MA will put some funding into upgrading the SPG-WOR and WOR-BOS corridors. The cost of the low hanging fruit upgrades is small compared to many other transit and highway projects. MA is spending $18 million (or was it $17M) to buy the CT River Line from Pan Am after all.

Edit: Should double check projected trip time numbers before submitting a post quickly dashed off late at night...

The Lake Shore Limited is scheduled to depart BOS at 11:55 AM and arrive at SPG at 2:10 PM, representing a trip time of 2:15. When they start bumping speeds on the Worcester Line, that 2:15 could become very reliable.

Greg Moore wrote:You know, I love fantasy routes as much as the next guy. There's a lot of potential out there obviously.

But, you know, I also love learning the actual details of what's involved in new routes, etc.

I think the Inland route is a great idea.

Sounds like though:

CSX doesn't have the capacity between SPG and BOS or BON. Sure, they'd LOVE to add it. Where's your checkbook again?

And even if THAT is solved, you can't ADD a train from NYP since there's no slots available in MNRR territory.
You don't want to STEAL a train from the Shore line

This limits you to extending a shuttle from SPG, which sounds like would be tight equipment-wise.

Now, most of these could probably be solved with sufficiently large applications of "green" but that's in awfully short supply.

Have I got it about right?

This sums it up but leaves out an important question. If you have the green, is this the best use for it? Would it you get more bang for your buck if you invested in another Pennsylvanian or another Adirondack? Maybe it is better to throw everything at reinstating the Montrealer or Cape Codder.

It's not a bad idea but with all the operational challenges, it should be low on the list.

Ah yes, my mistake on the time of the other Lake Shore Limited, I quickly darted to Amtrak.com and used the first time for the LSL that came up. And I miscalculated my times slightly, but it seems that the comparison I listed (about an hour slower) is the same (but would have been wrong had the 3:17 time been correct). The rest of my points I believe still stand, but thanks for the corrections and old timetable info.

ThirdRail7 wrote:

Greg Moore wrote:You know, I love fantasy routes as much as the next guy. There's a lot of potential out there obviously.

But, you know, I also love learning the actual details of what's involved in new routes, etc.

I think the Inland route is a great idea.

Sounds like though:

CSX doesn't have the capacity between SPG and BOS or BON. Sure, they'd LOVE to add it. Where's your checkbook again?

And even if THAT is solved, you can't ADD a train from NYP since there's no slots available in MNRR territory.
You don't want to STEAL a train from the Shore line

This limits you to extending a shuttle from SPG, which sounds like would be tight equipment-wise.

Now, most of these could probably be solved with sufficiently large applications of "green" but that's in awfully short supply.

Have I got it about right?

This sums it up but leaves out an important question. If you have the green, is this the best use for it? Would it you get more bang for your buck if you invested in another Pennsylvanian or another Adirondack? Maybe it is better to throw everything at reinstating the Montrealer or Cape Codder.

It's not a bad idea but with all the operational challenges, it should be low on the list.

Good question. To be fair, I was sort of assuming MA would be putting up a chunk of the change (for example fixing the CSX capacity problem.) So, I don't think MA would be interested in another Pennsylvanian or Adirondack.

That said, while I love the idea of the Cape Codder, I'm not sure I see it as much more than a seasonal train. I may be wrong, but I can't see it doing as well as a n Inland NEC train.

ThirdRail7 wrote:This sums it up but leaves out an important question. If you have the green, is this the best use for it? Would it you get more bang for your buck if you invested in another Pennsylvanian or another Adirondack? Maybe it is better to throw everything at reinstating the Montrealer or Cape Codder.

It's not a bad idea but with all the operational challenges, it should be low on the list.

Does Amtrak have any improvements between NLC and BOS still on their list or is that section considered "complete" for the moment?

I ask as this could be yet another priority to consider before looking at the Inland Route.

While I'm sure there are plenty of people in NH who are more than willing to make the transfer via the Orange Line, as Arlington has posted numerous times in the past travelers value the direct connection in ratios vastly disproportionate to indirect connections. In short convenience matters, a lot.

This is pretty spot on. I'm often in N. Station on the weekends and encounter Downeaster Passengers making an NEC connection about once a month. All but one or two groups of passengers were making their way to South Station. One issue with making the North Station to Back Bay transfer is that South Station is far more pleasant place to wait for a train for any length of time. Sure, there are many place near Back Bay to wait, but a tourist is unlikely to know them or want to traipse about the city with luggage in tow.

gokeefe wrote:Does Amtrak have any improvements between NLC and BOS still on their list or is that section considered "complete" for the moment?

I ask as this could be yet another priority to consider before looking at the Inland Route.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/870/270/Nor ... r-Plan.pdf

Not many, if you count the expensive South Station/terminal storage improvement needs in a different category from mainline improvements. The Amtrak NEC Master Plan doc lists the needs by track section. All incremental stuff.

-- 3rd track restoration, Readville-Canton Jct.
-- Readville Jct. traffic mitigation: add'l crossovers + restore double-track Franklin Line platforms
-- 4th track restoration, Forest Hills-Readville
-- Sharon, Mansfield, Westerly station passing tracks
-- Electrify remaining unwired tracks (Attleboro, RI), finish FRIP track upgrades north to Boston Switch
-- S. Attleboro station 4-track (2 local turnouts + existing tracks as non-stop)
-- Drop in add'l center platforms at T.F. Green when Amtrak wants to use that station (station already configured to add them), install freight gauntlet track for P&W


...and then the purely commuter rail stuff, station work funded by the two states. All of them do come with indirect Amtrak advantages for enhancing thru traffic flow:
-- MBTA station work tied to above track work: Reconfigure Hyde Park outbound around 4th track, reconfigure S. Attleboro platforms around 4 tracks.
-- Raise all remaining mini-high MBTA platforms to 800 ft. full-highs.
-- Build add'l Ruggles platform.
-- Add add'l side CR platforms to T.F. Green and Wickford Jct. + crossovers for full inbound/outbound CR loading.
-- Build new RIDOT Pawtucket station. To be configured to allow Providence-Woonsocket CR on P&W main and northern-terminus routings from South County.
-- Reconfigure Westerly platforms + yard access as terminal stop for RIDOT South County commuter rail and SLE extension.
-- Build Cranston, East Greenwich, West Davisville RIDOT intermediate stops (all either 3-track w/ 1 center passing track or 4-track with local turnouts + 2 center passing)



The MBTA's cap improvements docs lists only 1 bridge on the line that needs structural replacement, and it's a small one. So general state-of-repair is pretty pristine out here.

FatNoah,
How long is the length of time about which you're talking? And pleasanter place to wait is extremely subjective. In May 2000 I missed a southbound Amtrak at Back Bay, with my then 75 year old mother and luggage. We waited about an hour, and had live entertainment: a nearby ballet school was giving a show in the middle of the concourse.

If we were going to use taxi to get from North Station, I can definitely see going to South Station makes sense over Back Bay, it's a cheaper cab fare. But if I was already traipsing with luggage, which I have often done, I think Orange line to Back Bay's easier, and faster, enough than Orange or Green to Red to South Station to offset however less pleasant the ordinary prudent person would feel it to South Station.

Greg Moore wrote: Good question. To be fair, I was sort of assuming MA would be putting up a chunk of the change (for example fixing the CSX capacity problem.) So, I don't think MA would be interested in another Pennsylvanian or Adirondack.

That said, while I love the idea of the Cape Codder, I'm not sure I see it as much more than a seasonal train. I may be wrong, but I can't see it doing as well as a n Inland NEC train.

Yes, MA is not going to provide state funds for routes in NY or PA. As for the Cape Codder, MBTA will be starting a Boston South station to Hyannis weekend service this summer. Boston.com article on the announcement. One of the categories listed in the MA transportation plan is $20 million for rail to Cape Cod which is to provide upgrades to grade crossings, interlockings, bridges, drainage. If the MBTA service does well, there might be some interest in bringing back the Cape Codder from NYC. But under the new subsidy rules, MA would have to provide subsidy support for a Cape Codder service.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Not many, if you count the expensive South Station/terminal storage improvement needs in a different category from mainline improvements. The Amtrak NEC Master Plan doc lists the needs by track section. All incremental stuff.

-- 3rd track restoration, Readville-Canton Jct.
-- Readville Jct. traffic mitigation: add'l crossovers + restore double-track Franklin Line platforms
-- 4th track restoration, Forest Hills-Readville
-- Sharon, Mansfield, Westerly station passing tracks
-- Electrify remaining unwired tracks (Attleboro, RI), finish FRIP track upgrades north to Boston Switch
-- S. Attleboro station 4-track (2 local turnouts + existing tracks as non-stop)
-- Drop in add'l center platforms at T.F. Green when Amtrak wants to use that station (station already configured to add them), install freight gauntlet track for P&W

Should also list the high level platforms and 3rd siding track for Kingston RI station which is funded. Westerly is to get high level platforms as well. The high level platforms won't directly improve Acela trip times, but they should trim Regional trip times. Of course, there are also improvements both planned and underway for the NHV to NLC segment with the CT River bridge replacement as the big ticket item

afiggatt wrote:

Greg Moore wrote: Good question. To be fair, I was sort of assuming MA would be putting up a chunk of the change (for example fixing the CSX capacity problem.) So, I don't think MA would be interested in another Pennsylvanian or Adirondack.

That said, while I love the idea of the Cape Codder, I'm not sure I see it as much more than a seasonal train. I may be wrong, but I can't see it doing as well as a n Inland NEC train.

Yes, MA is not going to provide state funds for routes in NY or PA. As for the Cape Codder, MBTA will be starting a Boston South station to Hyannis weekend service this summer. Boston.com article on the announcement. One of the categories listed in the MA transportation plan is $20 million for rail to Cape Cod which is to provide upgrades to grade crossings, interlockings, bridges, drainage. If the MBTA service does well, there might be some interest in bringing back the Cape Codder from NYC. But under the new subsidy rules, MA would have to provide subsidy support for a Cape Codder service.

I took the Cape Codder from Newark, NJ back when. Enjoyed the trip, of course. Would likely take it again, if offered. Route by Boston MBTA service would be too long time-wise for me unless I had some other reason to be in Boston so would be more feasible.

-from Train 2160 somewhere in Connecticut

afiggatt wrote:

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:Not many, if you count the expensive South Station/terminal storage improvement needs in a different category from mainline improvements. The Amtrak NEC Master Plan doc lists the needs by track section. All incremental stuff.

-- 3rd track restoration, Readville-Canton Jct.
-- Readville Jct. traffic mitigation: add'l crossovers + restore double-track Franklin Line platforms
-- 4th track restoration, Forest Hills-Readville
-- Sharon, Mansfield, Westerly station passing tracks
-- Electrify remaining unwired tracks (Attleboro, RI), finish FRIP track upgrades north to Boston Switch
-- S. Attleboro station 4-track (2 local turnouts + existing tracks as non-stop)
-- Drop in add'l center platforms at T.F. Green when Amtrak wants to use that station (station already configured to add them), install freight gauntlet track for P&W

Should also list the high level platforms and 3rd siding track for Kingston RI station which is funded. Westerly is to get high level platforms as well. The high level platforms won't directly improve Acela trip times, but they should trim Regional trip times. Of course, there are also improvements both planned and underway for the NHV to NLC segment with the CT River bridge replacement as the big ticket item

Yeah, strictly east-of-New London it's a bunch of fiddely bits like this designed to encourage passing of slow MBTA trains, prepping for the RIDOT South County rollout, and solving the traffic conflicts with all the multiple CR branches inside Canton Jct. Even small, totally non-Amtrak stuff like going to 100% level boarding is going to make tangible difference. The T can't use its automatic door coaches on the Providence Line today because of the lows. And there are still substandard-length platforms like Canton Jct. inbound that can't open doors to the last cars of a long consist. Stuff like that that'll shave 30 seconds to 2 minutes off the dwell times at each stop from not using stairs, not having a conductor flip the trap door...makes an aggregate difference. The combo of more passing sidings and getting stopped CR trains moving sooner...also a big aggregate difference at opening up a ton more opportunities for passing.