Grand Junction Branch (The North/South Side Connection)

I feel like there may be some issues tying in near the Boston Engine Terminal once the Green Line Extension is built. It's going to become a lot more crowded in that area, specifically near the McGrath Highway Bridge. It would be nice if the Grand Junction were to be double tracked, but it might be difficult and would probably mean replacing the bridge.

SM89 wrote:I feel like there may be some issues tying in near the Boston Engine Terminal once the Green Line Extension is built. It's going to become a lot more crowded in that area, specifically near the McGrath Highway Bridge. It would be nice if the Grand Junction were to be double tracked, but it might be difficult and would probably mean replacing the bridge.

Green Line wouldn't affect any current RR opps at the junction save for cannibalizing the freight siding on the third Fitchburg track that Pan Am uses for storage. The Medford Hillside branch passes under the bridge on currently trackless former B&M yard ROW, and the Union branch and maint yard connections peel off on the BET side on a flyover junction that'll bridge over all current CR and BET lead tracks. The only lost RR capacity is the Valley Tracks being eaten up by the GL yard connection, but they're just refurbishing the tracks on the other side along New Washington St. to handle Pan Am's needs.

Grand Junction was at one point fully double-tracked, which is why the MIT air rights buildings over the tracks are built to handle that width. And they've got an easement that can go away over the former 2nd track for an alley between Mass Ave. and Main St. The McGrath bridge looks like it has a wide enough space underneath to handle a second track. Millbrook Cold Storage behind the shopping plaza clearly looks like it had a freight siding running along the building. The way the ROW is still cleared out around that facility that siding must've lasted until the last 30-40 years, well after the McGrath bridge was built (double-tracking on the full line was gone prior to McGrath's construction). I don't think there would ever be a need for double-tracking with such limited commuter rail service over the line, but for an Urban Ring branch of the Green Line if that ever happens it looks like there's plenty of space to run a second track.

I know that it could be possible in terms of track in general to make the grand junction doubled tracked, but i don't believe there is enough room underneath the current bridge in between the columns for additional turnouts, etc.

diburning wrote:I love how the people here are really anal and make personal attacks against people they disagree with or correct someone as soon as they make a typo or post something that requires clarification. Congratulations, people, here's your shiny internet police badge. (that was sarcasm). Some of the people on here are just plain rude and treat others like they are stupid. Regardless of whether the person actually is stupid, it doesn't justify the rudeness. Being right is one thing. Being rude is another. Not everyone knows everything. We all ask questions and learn.

Practice as you preach. I'm not being opinionated, I have a low tolerance for the same nitpicking that you speak of, especially when it is "know-it-all-ism" shooting down someone's point, and then particularly if it's not completely or at all correct. I'm also never guilty of a personal attack, as very few on this site are personal acquaintances. Should I attack anything, it is a statement, never a person. Now that the air has been cleared I hope and expect that we can move forward without further issue.

Regarding the McGrath Highway bridge, it appears that the right of way under the bridge is wide enough for at least 6 tracks. This would allow 2 for the Green Line, 2 for the Fitchburg line, 1 for the siding, and 1 track space for whatever special work is necessary. I would expect that the green line diamond would be at grade with signal protection and perhaps some conventional "Crossing at Grade" signals (crossbuck and crossing signals) and rules would apply. Perhaps this would require a more complex set up but I don't believe such to be the case. It will be an interesting junction to say the least.

kwf wrote:I did the CR from North Leominster to Porter...Red Line to Kendall for about 5 years in the beginning of the decade. It was a long ride, but very do-able....

Did you do this every day? My commutes are usually much shorter and I still dread them (and I'm supposed to LIKE this stuff)! Being someone that did pretty much the exact commute that we're talking about, wouldn't you prefer the one seat ride if it were available (not that it would be because as I pointed out, "you can't get there from here," so to speak)? But it's still a valid question regarding the Worcester line.

Without a Mass Ave over or underpass it seems like a non starter for increased traffic on the branch.

NRGeep wrote:Without a Mass Ave over or underpass it seems like a non starter for increased traffic on the branch.

Not if you're only talking a few rush hour runs per day. It's not going to be a full-schedule CR line by any means with 1 train every half-hour most hours of the day. And the crossing won't be tied up by 10 MPH crawls like it is now the couple times per day it's used. Mass Ave. can handle the limited schedule, and it plus the other crossings will get gates installed.

BTW...there are MIT plans in their deep long-term campus vision to bury Mass Ave. from Memorial Drive to almost Albany St. under a pedestrian plaza similar to the Cambridge St. tunnel at Harvard Square. The tracks (and they're thinking by this point decades in the future they'd be converted to Urban Ring use) would stay on the surface hugging the portal's edge and the only remaining surface road crossing the tracks would be an inter-block connection between Albany and Vassar Streets and some sort of ramps down/up from Mass Ave. That would pretty much eliminate 95% of the auto traffic crossing it by the time the Grand Junction ROW has anything resembling rapid transit-level service traversing it.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:BTW...there are MIT plans in their deep long-term campus vision to bury Mass Ave. from Memorial Drive to almost Albany St. under a pedestrian plaza similar to the Cambridge St. tunnel at Harvard Square. The tracks (and they're thinking by this point decades in the future they'd be converted to Urban Ring use) would stay on the surface

How would someone find this plan?

In the current political climate, this project would be a non-starter. Cambridge wouldn't even let Harvard build a pedestrian hallway tunnel between the new CGIS buildings on Cambridge Street a few years ago. And just repaving and realigning the curbs on this stretch of Mass Ave took several years -- I can't imagine how long a tunnel would take.

boblothrope wrote:

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:BTW...there are MIT plans in their deep long-term campus vision to bury Mass Ave. from Memorial Drive to almost Albany St. under a pedestrian plaza similar to the Cambridge St. tunnel at Harvard Square. The tracks (and they're thinking by this point decades in the future they'd be converted to Urban Ring use) would stay on the surface

How would someone find this plan?

In the current political climate, this project would be a non-starter. Cambridge wouldn't even let Harvard build a pedestrian hallway tunnel between the new CGIS buildings on Cambridge Street a few years ago. And just repaving and realigning the curbs on this stretch of Mass Ave took several years -- I can't imagine how long a tunnel would take.

Having trouble finding it on MIT's website, but it's mentioned in a huge set of long-term campus vision PDF's they put out 5-7 years ago around same time Harvard put out its big glossy report on grand plan for its Allston campus and additional transit links.

Important to note that they were talking in the 20-30 year time frame, independent of current conditions (and reduced endowments). Like a lot of Harvard's plans, this isn't even studied...just noted with official trustee backing on the vision statement that they want this studied and want to bargain with the state, Cambridge, and T next time either the Mass Ave. corridor and/or the Urban Ring corridor are up for major-investment upgrade consideration. Which is probably in the quarter-century range away. Putting it in writing now simply notifies the other parties that they want a seat at the table when the time comes to talk and have incentives to offer. Doesn't matter whether said notice sits mothballed for a couple decades or not, so long as it's duly noted.

Well MIT's student news has finally picked up on this...though the 2012 date seems far too soon.

"Railroad May See Commuter Traffic by 2012" http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N64/traintracks.html

csor2010 wrote:Well MIT's student news has finally picked up on this...though the 2012 date seems far too soon.

"Railroad May See Commuter Traffic by 2012" http://tech.mit.edu/V130/N64/traintracks.html

Student NIMBY's? I guess that's what happens when regular NIMBY's send their kids to college.

I don't see this being a big issue. Of course Murray is jumping the gun on this and probably hasn't discussed with the City of Cambridge, so that's a fair point. But I can't see the city opposing this if the ultimate upside is MIT eventually getting a commuter rail stop. Besides, it's not like trains are going to crawl 10 MPH through Mass Ave., Broadway, and Main St. like they do today on FRA-excepted track and no gates at the crossings. Commuter train going 30-40 MPH on upgraded track through protected crossings is not going to tie anything up longer than a normal traffic light cycle. And all of these major crossings are located near dense traffic light concentrations, which mutes the overall effect to negligible.

I doubt that there will be much in the way of student NIMBY-ism (noise-wise there are already plenty of horns from B721 as well as MBTA and Amtrak moves); I feel that was more of a wish put forth by the councilors in hopes that it would generate more opposition. In general I doubt MIT would be very opposed to commuter rail access, and given the previous posts it seems that they're expecting it to happen at some point. East of there most of the adjoining properties are commercial/light industrial, though there are some residential areas between Binney Street and Cambridge Street. Speed-wise, I think that the curve next to the Main St. crossing (and the connection to the Fitchburg at the east end) might require a bit of a restriction, but other than that speeds could probably increase. Honestly it seems like a good idea to me, but I don't see it happening for a while.

csor2010 wrote:I doubt that there will be much in the way of student NIMBY-ism (noise-wise there are already plenty of horns from B721 as well as MBTA and Amtrak moves); I feel that was more of a wish put forth by the councilors in hopes that it would generate more opposition. In general I doubt MIT would be very opposed to commuter rail access, and given the previous posts it seems that they're expecting it to happen at some point. East of there most of the adjoining properties are commercial/light industrial, though there are some residential areas between Binney Street and Cambridge Street. Speed-wise, I think that the curve next to the Main St. crossing (and the connection to the Fitchburg at the east end) might require a bit of a restriction, but other than that speeds could probably increase. Honestly it seems like a good idea to me, but I don't see it happening for a while.

The major thing it is contingent on is CSX vacating Beacon Park. That's still nominally scheduled for next year, but fat chance of it actually happening on-time thanks to the City of Worcester shaking them down for more more money and NIMBY's in Westborough and Framingham doing their thing. Figure that their transition out of the yard would have to be drawn down to a bare residual presence before work can begin in the yard. Then the T has to go in and do the track work inside the yard to reinstate the innermost yard track as a running track, reconfigure the crossovers on it from yard duty to mainline duty (including tying in the switches to central control), and reconfigure the junction onto the GJ in front of Nickerson Field so it 1) doesn't take a slow and schedule-killing trip through yard tracks to get from the congested main to/from the GJ, and 2) so one of the yard tracks can still be used to stage the remaining 1-2 per day CSX freights to Everett and 1-2 per day Amtrak/MBCR reverse-move equipment transfers.


On top of that the mainline's going to have a major re-signaling project starting after Beacon Park closes to install cab signals from Boston to Framingham Jct., the only segment of the whole southside that's still wayside and a major capacity crunch unto itself for running more Worcester trains. I don't think MBCR's going to be comfortable crossing over across oncoming outbound traffic to get from the inbound main to the GJ on wayside signals. The only places on the wayside-only northside where that happens in revenue service outside of yard limits is the Newburyport/Rockport split on the Eastern Route, and the very sparsely-used Wildcat split off the NH main. Each of those splits are right at stations at slow speed, nowhere near the max speed Worcester trains would be traveling through Beacon Jct. to/from South Station. Plus the GJ itself would have to have full continuous welded rail installed end-to-end; all grade crossings replaced; 5 sets of crossing gates installed (only Medford St. and the MIT ped crossing currently have them);and fencing and security measures put in place to end the student pastime of climbing onto the Charles bridge, clear out the hobo colony living under Memorial Drive, and corral those gigantic white geese off the tracks so there aren't feathers and bloodsplatter on the front of every locomotive; and installing signals on the line (probably wayside under northside control). And do so while keeping the line open for CSX's required daily trip to Everett.

Any of that GJ-proper work can be done now without waiting for Beacon Park to close, but as most of it isn't funded yet you're probably not going to see large-scale progress in 2011. Throw on top of that the yard work that has to wait for CSX to get out of town, and the delays out west in actually getting CSX to start moving out of town. And then throw yet more on top of that the (still unfunded) mainline signal project. North Station service could operate on a limited basis without that, but it would be severely speed-restricted at the junction without cab signals and delay-filled when the mainline resignaling project actually gets moving. Then figure legislative election in 2012, presidential and Congressional elections in 2012, and Gov. election in 2014 that could potentially affect the last of the funding.

I think we're looking at 2014 at least for the first revenue trains on limited service. And maybe 2015 before service is ramped up to a truly difference-making level. And that assumes Murray's pet project doesn't get kneecapped for funding before then. I really wish the state would back off on over-promising 2012. It's way too overzealous to be plausible, and they can only pander laughable dates on so many projects (see Green Line extension, FR/NB) before the public and political critics order a time-out to get their priorities straight.

Actually Worcester has been fairly cooperative with CSX on the yard expansion, the main concerns have been by private individuals and businesses that are concerned about increased traffic, businesses that will have to relocate, and the closure of Putnam Lane which is the only connection between Shrewsbury St. and Franklin St. in the area and will require major detours for people in the neighborhood. I think actually things are progressing about as well as can be expected in this day and age.

Not sure what NIMBYs in Framingham and Westboro would be upset about since they are getting a decease in freight traffic and increase in commuter rail, sounds like a plus to me. But who knows the mind of a NIMBY.

Jon

Was walking around on this great day, and I passed over the BU Bridge: looking down I happened to spot about 5-6 kids clambering on the rail bridge. Not sure what they were doing -- urban exploration? -- but they got to the middle of the span and then climbed down underneath the tracks.

Maybe the were taggers doing more grafitti on the bridge.