Commuter Rail to Rhode Island Discussion

The EGE beat me to it, but Track 3 for the most part is undercut for most of its journey between Boston Switch and PACKARD, sometimes a good amount but a foot or more at some spots...this allows for the OHB clearances not so much the catenary...seeing as Track 3 isn't electrified

So if I'm reading all of this correctly:

1) A new "Track 4" passing track along with a Track 4 platform are both planned to be installed at a later date.

2) The above is also proposed for Wickford Junction (though as a dead end track?)

3) If Amtrak installs its own platform it will be placed in between Track 1 and 2 (requiring a re-working of the track layout there and hence the extra space between the passing tracks and the main tracks to accommodate the relocated NEC main trackage)?

Also as a side note: Could the Wickford Jct. and T.F. Green track + platform additions with the local tracks getting their own platforms while the main NEC tracks stay clear of any platforms be the template for the long-term plans for rebuilding the NEC between Providence and Boston for the NextGen high speed rail corridor (either with just 4 tracks through the station areas or with longer stretches of 4 track ROW)?

I was curious about plans for any new interlockings. Looking at Google satellite in the area north of TF Green, there doesn't seem to be any connection off of the FRIP until you get up to where the Warwick La Quinta is, and that crossover only connects to track 1, there is nothing to get to track 2 there which means Boston bound trains are running wrong rail for a while. If I am reading the satellite picture right the first crossover 1-> 2 isn't until north of Roger Williams Ave, after the curve.

Seems that could be a bottleneck if/when service is increased. Although not as much of an issue when track 4 is added as Northbound trains won't be on the FRIP/track 3 anymore.

Jon

NH2060 wrote:So if I'm reading all of this correctly:

1) A new "Track 4" passing track along with a Track 4 platform are both planned to be installed at a later date.

2) The above is also proposed for Wickford Junction (though as a dead end track?)

3) If Amtrak installs its own platform it will be placed in between Track 1 and 2 (requiring a re-working of the track layout there and hence the extra space between the passing tracks and the main tracks to accommodate the relocated NEC main trackage)?

Also as a side note: Could the Wickford Jct. and T.F. Green track + platform additions with the local tracks getting their own platforms while the main NEC tracks stay clear of any platforms be the template for the long-term plans for rebuilding the NEC between Providence and Boston for the NextGen high speed rail corridor (either with just 4 tracks through the station areas or with longer stretches of 4 track ROW)?

Yes. There's RIDOT documents spelling it out, or you can look at the Amtrak NEC Master Plan track schematics which show the 4th track + platform.

1) If you look at the opposite end of the T.F. Green platform you can see space left for a 2nd platform and a 4th track: http://goo.gl/maps/zIDHa" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. It would make the entire station symmetrical...matching turnout, matching platform on the opposite side. Track 4 would begin from the south right after the Connector Rd. overpass, then spread around the Coronado Rd. overpass abutments on the north end (can see the space widened out underneath), then merge back somewhere on the straightaway to the north.

This gets dropped in as soon as commuter rail frequencies get high enough to merit it.


2) Ditto. Note the 4-track bridge over Victory Hwy. right where the stub track ends: http://goo.gl/maps/ANehj" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. Platform track gets tied into the mainline (that's happening soon so Purple Line can serve renovated Kingston station), and then when service levels increase the matching 4th track + platform gets dropped on the other side. Note that the parking garage stairs/elevators at Wickford are perfectly positioned for sticking a walkway across the tracks. Note: P&W freights have already turned out to Davisville here, so no FRIP track or special clearances. The only freight down here is a very small run-as-directed to a lumber yard at Kingston station.


3) This I don't know how is going to work, because looking overhead there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of room for an island on the center tracks. RIDOT's docs say it's provisioned, but whether that means it's an offset platform south of the overhang I do not know. Amtrak does not have this listed on the NEC Infrastructure Plan, which means they do not see a demand for it prior to 2030. And that's probably an accurate take. Green's not nearly big enough yet for a Regionals stop. Airport's got a lot of expansion to do before they reach demand levels that are going to generate Amtrak noticeable boardings/alightings that can't be substituted by a backtracking transfer at Providence to a (to-be much more frequent) local train.



Note that all other stations--including the infill builds--are going to be built to the same 4-track/2-side platform configuration everywhere between Attleboro and Wickford, with only Kingston and Westerly (no freight at each, both Amtrak stops) staying 3-track (Kingston being renovated now, Westerly next up in the funding queue).

-- Attleboro gets its platforms raised in-place and extended to regulation 800' length. No track reconfig needed since it's already quad track.
-- South Attleboro gets a total blow-up/rebuild for 2 side turnouts to the new platforms and 2 center passing tracks. T co-signed on this as a commitment for the NEC Master Plan, but it's obviously a lower priority we're not going to see funded this decade.
-- Pawtucket infill (which is first in line for new stops) gets this: http://projects.vhb.com/pawtucketcommut ... tation.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. 2 side, 2 center, P&W on a passing track other side of the southbound platform. That is expected to be adequate to accommodate Providence-Woonsocket service. When passenger service on the P&W main increases enough to need more capacity at this stop the P&W track gets a gauntlet installed, a platform edge gets installed on the P&W-facing side of the southbound platform, and it gets turned into a full-service island.
-- Cranston, East Greenwich, and West Davisville are mirror images of Green's layout: FRIP track on one side, 4th track turnout on the other side, 2 Amtrak passing tracks in the middle.


The only thing the NEC Master Plan doesn't spec are 4-track mods north of there, which is kind of weird given that the traffic levels don't drop off and this is 150 MPH territory where Amtrak needs the most passing room at commuter rail stops.
-- Sharon and Mansfield are going to be full-highs with a single passing track (also mandatory at Mansfield also for CSX's clearance route to Attleboro-Middleboro if they ever want to install full-highs there. A widened bridge deck over Route 106 and taking the first row of parking on the southbound side of Mansfield is more than enough room to go quad-track. Ditto Sharon on the west side (smaller lot), where the Route 27 overpass leaves tons of room for +2 tracks around the abutment where the current stairs are.
-- Canton Jct. stays a 2-track squeeze when the mainline gets expanded to tri-track elsewhere, because of Canton Viaduct. I'm going to assume that there'll be some platform reconfiguration on both the Providence and Stoughton sides behind the junction when the tri-track south of Readville, since they'd need more room at the junction switches themselves and would have to 1) get rid of the Stoughton/NEC platform overlap closest to the Spaulding St. overpass and 2) extend both lines' platforms back a bit to compensate and round them up to full-regulation 800' length (i.e. fix that extremely short northbound Providence Line platform. NEC side could easily get a southbound turnout with center passing track if they likewise took the first row of parking in the smallest of the lots. There's plenty of room to merge back to 2 tracks before the Viaduct approach. So that was a weird omission from the Master Plan. I suppose the T can just do it anyway if they really want, but I'm surprised Amtrak was OK with the pinch here.
-- Route 128 just gets the third track dropped behind the southbound platform, turning it into an island (it's clearly provisioned for that). But the northbound side has so much room I'm surprised they didn't propose widening the northbound platform into a full 12' width island and dropping a 4th track turnout behind that so Amtrak had 2 platforms and the T had two platforms. That's a peculiar one given that South Coast FAIL has to skip this station on all schedules because 3 platform tracks isn't enough. Hell...they have enough space on that empty half of the 128 overpass to do FIVE platform tracks with +2 turnouts and terminate the Fairmount Line there with no overcrowding. I guess that's another one the T has TBD discretion to expand on its own accord, but another strange omission for Amtrak.

jonnhrr wrote:I was curious about plans for any new interlockings. Looking at Google satellite in the area north of TF Green, there doesn't seem to be any connection off of the FRIP until you get up to where the Warwick La Quinta is, and that crossover only connects to track 1, there is nothing to get to track 2 there which means Boston bound trains are running wrong rail for a while. If I am reading the satellite picture right the first crossover 1-> 2 isn't until north of Roger Williams Ave, after the curve.

Seems that could be a bottleneck if/when service is increased. Although not as much of an issue when track 4 is added as Northbound trains won't be on the FRIP/track 3 anymore.

Jon

See here: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/870/270/Nor ... r-Plan.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

p. 79 of the PDF shows the recommended track layout in the NEC Master Plan. Several new interlockings get installed, heaviest concentration around Providence station for tying in the FRIP track. Note this is 4+ years old, so the Pawtucket plan has been superseded by the RIDOT design I linked in my last post from their presentation 2 weeks ago. And all of this is subject to change because it's an Amtrak recommendation for satisfying their traffic needs mixed with commuter rail. The needs of commuter rail operations for commuter rail operations' sake can shift stuff around, add things (such as the T's discretion to go with more turnout capacity Mansfield-north if it wants), etc. The Amtrak study basically gives all the other users from D.C. to Boston (incl. freight) all the traffic and demand modeling required for Amtrak ops that they need to know in order to plan their own commuter and freight lives on the NEC for the next 20 years.

From looking here https://www.google.com/maps/dir/41.6525 ... m2!4m1!3e2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; it looks as if the stretch along Rocky Hollow Rd. is the exactly the spot/section where the East Greenwich station would go in. By roughly measuring the stretch between the southernmost 4 track cat tower and 2-track cat poles to the north there would be enough room for Wickford Jct. length turnouts on each end on the SB side and with no 2 track cat poles installed on the NB side above the northernmost 3 track cat towers there's enough room to take the new Track 4 all the way up to the Rocky Hollow Rd. overpass.

Went to PVD yesterday. Noticed all the trains were using the 1 and 2 tracks only. Is this typical of a weekend, or are weekdays like this, too?

BostonUrbEx wrote:Went to PVD yesterday. Noticed all the trains were using the 1 and 2 tracks only. Is this typical of a weekend, or are weekdays like this, too?

On my trips to Providence on the T (both weekday and weekend), and through it on Amtrak, Amtrak has always used the eastern platform, while the MBTA has always used the western platform. Signage styles (T vs. Amtrak) even reflect this usage.

I don't 100% recall the track numbers, but I think 1 & 2 are the T, and 3 & 4 are Amtrak.

Order from nothwest to southeast is 7,5,platform,3,1,platform,2.

P&W uses 7, MBTA 5 and 3, Amtrak 1 and 2.

The EGE wrote:Order from nothwest to southeast is 7,5,platform,3,1,platform,2.

P&W uses 7, MBTA 5 and 3, Amtrak 1 and 2.

In the regards of Track assignments for particular RR's, not the case. Amtrak has used tracks 3 and 5 in the past....there is no **designated track** in PVD, it is whatever the Amtrak Mainline Dspr. wants to do with his/her territory. P&W freight is always and only restricted to Track 7 though, that I'll give to yah EGE

Interesting, I stand corrected. How often are the tracks I listed incorrect? I've been there a fair number of times and not seen differently.

The EGE wrote:Interesting, I stand corrected. How often are the tracks I listed incorrect? I've been there a fair number of times and not seen differently.

It depends on the situation that is presented at any given time, also the time of day. I've been in PVD sitting on Track 2 on my train in the early AM hours, and have had both a WB Acela #2153 and WB AMTK #95 come in on Track 3 in PVD due to switching problems just outside of PVD station. Amtrak was very smart in making sure wire was hung on all 4 passenger station tracks in the station. Also depends on how EB Amtrak trains are running during the day. MBTA #815 used to turn on Trk 2 in PVD for the return to Boston, but ever since this winter mess, and with train times are all over the place, track 3 or 5 is the go to, gets our trains off the Mainline (straight running section for the Liners, no diversions needed) Our trains are turned on Tracks 3 & 5 because it gets us out of the way in case a problem develops before departure time, which as everyone knows these days, is a high probability

South County ridership well below expectations:
http://wpri.com/2015/05/18/south-county ... ons-may15/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ridership at South County’s new Wickford Junction commuter rail station remains far below projections used to secure funding for the multimillion-dollar project and will likely fail to meet expectations, according to a Target 12 review of transportation data.

MBTA calling for RI to reimburse the T an additional $6M:
http://wpri.com/2015/05/19/mbta-ri-owes ... in-losses/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

An MBTA invoice obtained by Target 12 says the Massachusetts agency spent $10 million providing commuter rail service to the two South County stops – T.F. Green Airport in Warwick and Wickford Junction in North Kingstown – between November 2010 and June 2014. But it only collected $3.68 million in fares, leaving a shortfall of $6.36 million.

Target 12 first reported Monday that ridership at the three-year-old Wickford Junction station stood at 391 trips a day as of last September, far below the projections used to fund the project, which forecast it would see 3,386 trips a day by 2020. T.F. Green station ridership was at 412 trips a day; the projection there is for 529 trips by 2020. Low ridership has resulted in low fare revenue.

...and the "T" is billing them back to 2010, when they are supposed to bill every 3 months. And RI is paying with all federal money!

Target 12 doesn't pass my math test. If, at year 4 of 10, Wickford Jct. has less than 15% of the projected year 10 ridership, there's clearly a problem But if T.F. Greene already has nearly 80% of the projected 2020 ridership, it's well on the way. Alas, that isn't enough to help the overall picture for the route.