Moderators: CRail, sery2831
Obviously, this line should be a double-track diesel line.I personally 100% agree with this
Has the Taunton line always been single-track? Was the roadbed ever prepared for double-track?The line will be partly double tracked to allow for passing, the stations from North Easton to East Taunton seem to be one single track then one double track, like this
Trinnau wrote: ↑Thu Jan 20, 2022 10:05 pm The Army Corp laid it out as a requirement to operate through the Hockamock Swamp for environmental reasons, and the service pattern planned on 100mph operation with precise meets at either end of a 12-mile single track. Just a pure disaster in terms of resilient operations in New England. Not to mention it would require to the MBTA to operate over 80mph, which they currently don't do and opens a whole new can of worms in terms of equipment maintenance and certification levels. Long story short, it's not worth it in terms of operating/maintenance expense for a commuter railroad to operate over 80mph for the very limited amount of distance it would actually achieve these speeds - yes even with electrification improving acceleration. Very rare across the country.I heard someone in this thread theorize that the Army Corps of Engineers put all these requirements to lower the motivation for ever completing the project, thus sinking the project intentionally, I have no idea whether this is even a plausible theory or not, but I found it interesting nevertheless. 100 mph operation on what will be a 51 mile (to Fall River) and 54 mile (to New Bedford) Commuter Rail line definitely sounds pointless, the MBTA's top operating speed of 79 mph would be sufficient on a line like that.
It could be that the requirement for 100 MPH is only for the stretch of track to be built in the Hockomock Swamp.That is possible, but it makes such little sense to do so, its not going to hurt the swamp's ecosystem to run trains 20 mph slower, so why bother?
The EGE wrote: ↑Fri Jan 21, 2022 4:38 pm For lines with substantial express operations - Providence, Worcester, and Lowell ( if NH and/or Haverhill expresses are added) - 100 mph running would make sense because it could make a time difference measured in minutes versus 80mph. (For example, at 16 miles from Framingham to Lansdowne, or Sharon to Ruggles, there's about a 2-minute gain when you consider acceleration.)The problem isn't just the speed, it's the cost to attain that speed. Obviously the track infrastructure on the corridor is good for 100, but there is an incremental increase in the cost to certify and maintain equipment to operate at 100. And to do that for the 4 trains a day that actually make Mansfield/Sharon to Ruggles non-stop isn't worth it - the cost is simply too high against the benefit. As for the Worcester or any other line, the change in track maintenance is significant in addition to the equipment. Again, the cost/benefit just isn't there.