Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Mon Sep 14, 2020 1:40 pm
Some familiar concepts in the article that have been discussed here before, including --snip-- and inland service to BON and beyond via Grand Junction. --snip-- No discussion on modes: catenary; DC (over/under); and diesel. --snip-- I like the inland idea as well, but is there an alternative to Grand Junction?
The alternatives to Grand Junction are:
#1 - going north from Worcester on the P&W / PanAM "Worcester Main" skipping existing Framingham Station, proposed Kendall Square Cambridge (Cambridge-MIT), skipping North Station, connecting at existing Anderson-Woburn Station. Requires upgrades to freight-only track and bypassing Boston, not very good.
#2 - North-South Raillink tunnel between BOS-BON. $3B minimum and will be >20 years in the future as state is not behind this.
Grand Junction - Requires neutralizing wealthy, connected NIMBYS who don't want three busy grade crossings to be blocked for a couple minutes at a time. MIT Acoustic & Vibration Laboratory is supposedly next to the tracks, would have to be relocated. A signal system is needed, crossing upgrades & timing changes. Awkward move or backing move through Boston Engine Terminal / yard, or construction of a Wye or most likely a flyover. BON requires reversing direction therefore a full brake test. Intriguing and desirable for Amtrak & MBTA.
Amtrak Thruway Bus between BOS & BON - that could be done in conjunction with local bus service or existing corporate or casino shuttle services, also been talked about.
All Inland Regionals, Grand Junction, and Downeaster would have to run diesel mode north/east of New Haven. So dual-mode locomotives or old-school engine change at New Haven if thru-running through NYP is important.