COMPASS RAIL: Pittsfield / Springfield / Boston East-West Passenger Rail

This is a solid investment. Springfield to Boston could be 90 minutes with EMU service and a few more upgrades . That's a game changer for Springfield, ESPECIALLY with the new post Covid hybrid norm.

And on top of the successful CRISI grant we’re now admitted into Corridor ID. Mass DOT got in for “Boston and Albany Corridor” and CTDOT got in for “Hartford Line Corridor.”

lordsigma12345 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 08, 2023 1:28 pm And on top of the successful CRISI grant we’re now admitted into Corridor ID. Mass DOT got in for “Boston and Albany Corridor” and CTDOT got in for “Hartford Line Corridor.”

Now just combine the 2. Then you have the inland route as an alternate for the shore line.

I'm hopeful that the DOT corridor planners will recognize that the best $/rider gains will be made on the Worcester/Boston segment and program funds to fixing existing issues that will only be made worse by increasing the frequency of trains on the line(eg downtown Framingham, South Station congestion). In the long term, hopefully this federal recognition will provide a funding pipeline for the really transformative project the corridor needs like electrification and rolling stock that can negotiate the curvy segments of the line at higher speeds than the current equipment.

I assume there’s no prayer in hell of ever getting an overpass/underpass in Framingham?

In the not too distant past, folks in Framingham strongly voiced that they would like to see a tunnel before any high speed rail traffic happens. And I'm sure if you asked them they probably would love to see all the north south freight activity go some place else as well.

There is no question that a two track tunnel underneath the streets of Framingham would be wonderful for the city and the railroads. The multi billion dollar question is, who will pay for it.

And it's not simply a question of lowering the main line - you would also need to lower the connections to the yard, the station itself, and the northern end of the Framingham Secondary. Raising the roads would be cheaper - but just as impractical. I might venture to guess that by the time everything was rebuilt, you'd be well past the multi-billion dollar mark, and might even have to add an extra "0" or two...

A look at any map of Framingham shows a midsize body of water just north of the tracks and just west of North Yard. A bit west, a river parallels the CSX main after it leaves Ashland.
In short, any tunneling in Framingham would be through saturated soil.
Remember the Big Dig?

Safetee wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2023 1:52 pm In the not too distant past, folks in Framingham strongly voiced that they would like to see a tunnel before any high speed rail traffic happens. And I'm sure if you asked them they probably would love to see all the north south freight activity go some place else as well.

There is no question that a two track tunnel underneath the streets of Framingham would be wonderful for the city and the railroads. The multi billion dollar question is, who will pay for it.

The latest plan is over a decade old and the preferred alternative was to put Waverly St under Concord St, which only addresses traffic issues, not the grade crossing problems.

Putting the tracks in a trench like at Natick would be the money no object solution, and if you could convince CSX to give up their connection with the Framingham Secondary maybe it would be a little cheaper because you wouldn't have to build an overhead structure to carry the connecting track. Still, you're looking at a large amount of money to properly fix the issue, or you can pull a Brightline and just throw up your hands and be OK with people dying on the tracks on the regular.

When looking at Framingham's challenges and opportunities, including within the context of bigger, long-term issues and facing backwards to peer into the future, focus and change will involve reducing freight's impact amid growing passenger rail and redevelopment, including in their street v. rail traffic issue and as it relates to prohibitive local infrastructure investment.

One of the reasons CSX purchased Pan Am Railways is for the strategic capability to decrease freight demands east of Worcester while also pursuing regional growth.

Looking around and at past behavior, their accompanying half-ownership stake in Pan Am Southern yet remains interesting within the context of the long-term and possibility for not only decreasing freight demands east of Worcester, but also for the potential toward reducing freight activity as well further west to Springfield against passenger rail possibilities. We'll see.

You could raise an embankment, put the passenger trains on it, build an elevated station. Leave at least one track at-grade for freight. Would need at least two station tracks and a bypass track. Or maybe quad-track with all tracks accessible to the station. Maybe 100s of millions instead of billions. Would also need to address the parking (build a big honking garage and pretend it is for electric automobiles) and road congestion issues (no practical solution)

Maybe, but the billions in your comparison with 100s of millions doesn't pertain to Framingham, that would only apply Worcester & west.

We were talking about Framingham Union Station and the 126/135 grade crossing clustermess. What is acceptable for a one-a-day not at rush hour Lake Shore Ltd won't fly in the future. (1:25PM westbound, 7:58PM eastbound) Heck, upgrading Framingham Station really won't make any difference as far as timekeeping as all trains presently have to stop.

BandA wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 5:23 pm You could raise an embankment, put the passenger trains on it, build an elevated station. Leave at least one track at-grade for freight. Would need at least two station tracks and a bypass track. Or maybe quad-track with all tracks accessible to the station. Maybe 100s of millions instead of billions. Would also need to address the parking (build a big honking garage and pretend it is for electric automobiles) and road congestion issues (no practical solution)

An elevated solution for the passenger mainline would probably be cheaper. The Fountain St bridge would almost certainly have to go, either removed totally or rebuilt to accommodate the grading needed to bring the trains up above street level.

The Hingham tunnel cost $40mn in 2007 for 900 feet. Realistically the Framingham trench would probably have to be 4500 feet long, so ~5x the length, so between the increased length and 50% inflation since 2007 we're talking >$300mn but likely less than $1bn once you've added in the overhead freight track structure and the brand new station, but subtracted the cost of the expensive ROW and abutters that Hingham had.

Neither solution is cheap, and unless MA gets another Tip O'Neill who decides to go to bat for this particular project, I don't think we'll see anything as exotic as either of the things we've mentioned.

BandA wrote: ↑Wed Dec 13, 2023 6:51 pm We were talking about Framingham Union Station and the 126/135 grade crossing clustermess. What is acceptable for a one-a-day not at rush hour Lake Shore Ltd won't fly in the future. (1:25PM westbound, 7:58PM eastbound) Heck, upgrading Framingham Station really won't make any difference as far as timekeeping as all trains presently have to stop.

As was I, and in terms of frequency and duration of trains occupying those grade crossings, how reducing freight's impact east of Worcester will play an important part in helping deal with 126/135 & area surface road traffic issues and, more generally, in light of the high cost of grade separation. Coming on the heels of my post, in your cost comparison without the alternative spelled out, appeared as though you were comparing freight reduction costs to an elevated railroad grade separation option.