North-South Rail Link Discussion

trainhq wrote:I just rode the Vancouver skytrain last week. It is quiet, but those are new, special 4 car electric trains, not MBTA diesels, which would be much noisier. At any rate, as stated above, elevated will never happen again in Boston.

A few years ago, I proposed having the T design a special fleet of DMU/EMUs that could fit in the Orange Line tunnels. Overall, this would be much cheaper than rebuilding the tunnels. It would obviously be limited by Orange Line usage; however, as I pointed out, if done properly, these units could actually function as substitute Orange Line trains, or even be used to create new lines by say, connecting to the Fitchburg, Worcester, or Haverhill lines, where DMU service to Waltham or Route 95 could have significant ridership.

This would not be the best solution; however, I believe it would provide acceptable service. In particular, a DMU/EMU through running Downeaster could be implemented, as well as (limited) through running on the commuter lines with special trains. It's an idea that a lot of people will dismiss now; but 20 years from now, looking at more than 10 billion for a new N/S rail link, it may look like a good idea.

It sounds like you're proposing an S-bahn type of service on the Orange Line. I think an Orange Line S-bahn may be the next best solution if building the N/S rail link is too expensive and time-consuming to do. You can have direct service from the Northside to the Southside and be able to serve most of downtown and the Longwood area (if people use the shuttle bus from Ruggles). You probably wouldn't want service going all the way Fitchburg or Worcester, but maybe if you had the S-bahn trains terminate closer to Boston (say, Waltham, Wakefield or Needham), I think you'd have a pretty well-used service. I think dual-mode rolling stock is best for the new service, so there are no problems with third-rail gapping at railroad crossings. Plus, the T already has experience with dual-mode trains on the Blue Line. The railcars should also have commuter rail-like seating (i.e. forward facing 2-2 seating). Clearly, they'd have to be shorter than standard North American commuter railcars, but can they be longer than the current OL cars? Another plus would be that parts of Boston, Cambridge and Somerville that are far from subway stations would have more frequent rail service than they currently do.

Of course, there are some logistical issues to address, such as the type of railcars used, which have to fit in the Orange Line tunnels and be able to hold up to FRA crash standards. Would fares be collected on the trains like commuter rail or would you pass through turnstiles like on the current OL? How would fares be set? Other issues include not being able to directly serve South Station. Also, trains coming from the Fairmount or Old Colony lines wouldn't be able to use the OL tunnel. Furthermore, it really wouldn't lend itself well to connecting the Downeaster service to the rest of Amtrak's network because the cars would be narrower and shorter than typical Amtrak stock and Amtrak may not want to invest in rolling stock that can't be operated elsewhere in its national rail system. Gap fillers would have to be used at high-level platforms. Also, low-platform stations would have to be converted to high level, or train doors would have to have stairs for low-level platforms.

Lastly, where would the OL S-bahn lines end? I'm thinking they should go as far as Commuter Rail Zone 2, so that they wouldn't be going too far out of Boston. They would stay inside Route 128. They can terminate north of Boston in Lynn, Wakefield (extended from Oak Grove), Medford Hillside, and Waltham and south of Boston at Route 128/Westwood, Needham (extended from Forest Hills), Dedham Corporate Center and Riverside (via the Framingham Line). You can also still have trains running from Oak Grove to Forest Hills.

Overall, though, I think it's a very good suggestion.

Re: using the Orange Line tunnel for S-Bahn-like service: There are no curves that restrict car length North of Haymarket, or South of Chinatown. If there is anything that limits cars to the length of the current H-S fleet, it's at State St. Anyone know for sure?

Diverging Route wrote:1) Through Amtrak service from Portland to the NE Corridor
2) Through routing of commuter rail service from the north and south sides, such as Lowell to Providence or Haverhill to Worcester.

For example...

DR: This map is quite interesting...How were the North and South Side routes matched up?

One I find interesting is Rockport to Needham...I think Rockport to Providence would probably be
a better match...This is the SEPTA-type unified MBTA CR system map that I want to study some more...

MACTRAXX

MACTRAXX wrote:

Diverging Route wrote:1) Through Amtrak service from Portland to the NE Corridor
2) Through routing of commuter rail service from the north and south sides, such as Lowell to Providence or Haverhill to Worcester.

For example...

DR: This map is quite interesting...How were the North and South Side routes matched up?

One I find interesting is Rockport to Needham...I think Rockport to Providence would probably be
a better match...This is the SEPTA-type unified MBTA CR system map that I want to study some more...

MACTRAXX

I suspect a planner back in the day did an O/D study, but probably not anything very rigorous. I would expect that when and if the NSRL is moved to the front burner, there will be many such studies. My breath is not being held...

Back when the N/S Rail Link was first proposed, the Boston Globe ran a story on it which had a graphic of a proposed map of how "through-running" would work. I clipped this for a scrapbook that is somewhere in my basement.. I want to say this story ran some time between 1987 and 1990.

Anyway, the map linked above looks very similar to the Globe map with some obvious changes (there was no Anderson RTC at the time) and I remember seeing the solid line between Lowell and Providence. Also, I seem to recall that the Greebush line did NOT have a corresponding "north side" line - but the Old Colony was still a long way from opening.

Reading this thread, I'm reminded of discussions of energy. There's always someone talking about 'pebble reactors,' or some such pie in the sky. Such people do no harm, and on the internet, they don't even waste paper.

There will be no north south rail link. There is no need for a north south rail link. Boston is the northern end of the population-dense northeast corridor. The (relatively) new north south underground road link will burden taxpayers for a long generation. Putting aside logistics, which would require a nuclear blast to deal with, there is no money. Those who insist on the plausibility of a north south rail link for Boston resemble Trekkies to a remarkable degree.

MarkB wrote:Reading this thread, I'm reminded of discussions of energy. There's always someone talking about 'pebble reactors,' or some such pie in the sky. Such people do no harm, and on the internet, they don't even waste paper.

There will be no north south rail link. There is no need for a north south rail link. Boston is the northern end of the population-dense northeast corridor. The (relatively) new north south underground road link will burden taxpayers for a long generation. Putting aside logistics, which would require a nuclear blast to deal with, there is no money. Those who insist on the plausibility of a north south rail link for Boston resemble Trekkies to a remarkable degree.

MB: I disagree with you-a unified MBTA CR system could have major benefits for the Boston area...
Will the Downtown Boston link ever be built is the question...

The link-or at least the provisions for it-should have been built along with the Big Dig project noting
the cost overruns which if the extra funding was applied may have gotten this project built...

I am not trying to politicize this subject but wasn't the bulk of the Big Dig project built under
former Governor Mitt Romney's watch? I recall that his relationship with the MBTA was not good...

MACTRAXX

MarkB wrote: There will be no north south rail link. There is no need for a north south rail link. Boston is the northern end of the population-dense northeast corridor. The (relatively) new north south underground road link will burden taxpayers for a long generation. Putting aside logistics, which would require a nuclear blast to deal with, there is no money. Those who insist on the plausibility of a north south rail link for Boston resemble Trekkies to a remarkable degree.

I agree with Mark if this project was purely for Amtrak. However, this is really an MBTA improvement project. If it is ever built, I'd imagine it would do for Boston what the CCCT did for SEPTA. If the CCCT was worth it, than I'd say the North-South rail link is also worth it. That said, in the current climate, an infrastructure improvement undertaking the size of the Big Dig or North South Rail link is simply out of reach.

NJTSmurf wrote:

MarkB wrote: There will be no north south rail link. There is no need for a north south rail link. Boston is the northern end of the population-dense northeast corridor. The (relatively) new north south underground road link will burden taxpayers for a long generation. Putting aside logistics, which would require a nuclear blast to deal with, there is no money. Those who insist on the plausibility of a north south rail link for Boston resemble Trekkies to a remarkable degree.

I agree with Mark if this project was purely for Amtrak. However, this is really an MBTA improvement project. If it is ever built, I'd imagine it would do for Boston what the CCCT did for SEPTA. If the CCCT was worth it, than I'd say the North-South rail link is also worth it. That said, in the current climate, an infrastructure improvement undertaking the size of the Big Dig or North South Rail link is simply out of reach.

While it is true that functionally the NSRL would do for MBTA commuter service what the CCCT did for SEPTA, there are several aspects to the SEPTA situation that so not apply here, and make the whole project less favorable:

1. The SEPTA service was already completely electrified so running through the tunnel just meant adding catenary on the new tunnel section. OTOH MBTA would have to first convert to electric propulsion on the south side plus electrify the north side plus any south side lines that were to be run through, adding significantly to the cost. (i'm assuming that diesel traction in the tunnel to be impractical)

2. The former PRR end of the SEPTA system was already terminating in an underground station which made it a relatively simple proposition to extend from that station through to the RDG side. The RDG terminal had to be replaced, but it was already obsolete (although impressive as one of the last train sheds in use in the US, and has been recycled very effectively as a convention center). In Boston you have 2 recently modernized stub terminals neither of which is amenable to running through to the tunnel, so new underground stations would be needed for each, which then means a duplication of facilities. No doubt many trains could continue to terminate in the existing stations but then that means not taking full advantage of the NSRL.

Jon

That was exactly the plan - through-running trains would co-exist with trains terminating at North or South Stations.

A bit of a summary on some of the salient points of this project for questions that might be asked shortly.

- Yes, it was proposed in the 1980s. Then they tried to piggy-back it on The Big Dig. Unfortunately they only got as far as digging the slurry walls further down so that in later years, you could excavate under I-93. So the slurry walls are there, but nothing else.

- Electrification was one of the 'options' when they were spitballing the costs.

- Another 'option' was Central Station, who's sole purpose appeared to be creating a link between the Blue Line and Commuter Rail (the Blue being the only line with NO CR link). That was for airport access, before the Silver Line tunnel (South Station - Seaport District) was considered.

- The MBTA said they'd save operating costs with through-running (less idle time).

- This would also relieve subway congestion. For example, if you were coming from Lowell and wanting to go to a job in the Financial District, you wouldn't need the Green/Orange and Red Line connection.

- There were 4 portals way outside Boston because of the long inclines required to get deep enough to get under North and South Stations. On the South side, there was one for the Worcester Line and one for the NEC (linking up somewhere around Back Bay). On the North side, there was one portal on the Fitchburg line out past the BEC, and the other was in Somerville, I think (yes, the tunnel would go under the Charles River).

- They thought they could do it for $1B-$2B back in 1989 or so.

To me, it would seem that the primary problem is a sense of necessity. North Station is currently only used for Commuter Rail and the Downeaster. Unless at least MBTA and then Amtrak were going to Electrify most, if not all, of its owned trackage, it would not make sense to connect North Station to the NEC as trains would have to either switch engines or regional trains would have to use heavier electric-deisil hybrid locomotives which are expensive as well. Now if HSR initiatives were to go ahead where North Station would be used to launch electrified trains either to Portland or Montreal, then there could be some justification. But for now, I do not believe ridership demands electrification. Although extending the electrified NEC all the way to Portland would be awesome.

Catenary all the way to Portland doesn't make any sense either. Not enough rail volume to justify the enormous cost.

It's a very expensive pipe, which would need to be filled. As much as I hate the big dig, it runs at or over capacity at rush hour, and heavily travelled the rest of the time. To justify N-S rail link, you need Amtrak + Commuter rail + subway + freight trains all to be using it all of the time. That means electric only, innovative dispatch and signal systems, automatic coupling/decoupling, harmonious coordination of all the railroads, and throwing the normal FRA rules out the window. Perhaps a piggyback service, featuring steeper than normal inclines supported by cable assist or magnetic propulsion, then normal electric catanery in the tunnel. Perhaps piggyback for non-FRA and electric pusher engines for everything else.

To justify the cost of new construction you need to fill the pipe all day long. Think NYPenn type headways. Think highway competitve speed and accelleration, regenerative braking.

highgreen215 wrote:Catenary all the way to Portland doesn't make any sense either. Not enough rail volume to justify the enormous cost.

Since when has that kept any government from doing anything?

PBM

If only addressing layover capacity issues, could a bit of eminent domain be used on the interior of Widett Circle for a NYC West Side sized yard?



Alternatively, the property in the top left between Widett Circle and I-93 is city owned, housing mostly parking lots along with the DPW and some other services. Not as spacious as Widett Cir, but it's already city owned and the buildings there could probably be moved somewhere else.