AMTRAK NEC: Springfield Shuttle/Regional/Valley Flyer/Inland Routing

[Greg Moore]

The Lake Shore Limited Schedule shows 2 hours 13 minutes
Worcester-Boston, and only 1:07 hours from Boston-Worcester,
but the driving time is still faster than that!

Plenty of padding in there. Now that Massachusetts controls
the commuter route, perhaps its planned upgrades can get
some time out of the current runs for its trains, and Amtrak's.

But 2:13 hours for the LSL Worcester-Boston, that's 44 miles,
does not much raise my hopes for good times Springfield-Boston,
currently 6:10 hours over 98 miles (while Boston-Springfield
is 2:15.)

In fairness, Springfield-Worcester-Boston trains suffer from
congestion Buffalo-Albany, a route with notoriously terrible OTP.
(Gov Cuomo, are you listening? No?)

The half-full glass: there's PLENTY of room for improvement!

Not really most of the EB LSL time is more "make-up" time than anything else.

The time is still horrible. (and I'd blame Ohio as much on the LSL as NY)

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

MassLive.com has a long article:

Increased Boston-to-Springfield passenger rail service may one day become a reality
---
Today, Amtrak runs the lone daily train, the Lake Shore Limited, from Boston to Chicago with four Massachusetts stops: Framingham, Worcester, Springfield and Pittsfield.
…
For travelers coming from Boston, the quality of the track declines west of Worcester, moving from two generally straight rails to one curvy rail that lacks spaces for slower trains to pull off to allow faster trains to pass. The MassDOT plan, known as "The Way Forward - A 21st Century Transportation Plan,"  calls for the installation of a second set of rails, an improvement of the signals along the route, a widening of several bridges, new passenger train equipment and constructing or renovation of stations.
...
Train Riders Northeast Chairman Wayne Davis...said it needs to travel at least 79 mph--otherwise, it isn't worth it.

boston.com
TOP 10 STATIONS WHERE IT’S FASTER TO DRIVE
INTO BOSTON THAN TAKING THE TRAIN

1. Worcester/Union Station
Line: Worcester/Framingham

Station: South Station
Train: 96 minutes
Car: 64 minutes
Differential: 32 minutes

The Lake Shore Limited Schedule shows 2 hours 13 minutes
Worcester-Boston, and only 1:07 hours from Boston-Worcester,
but the driving time is still faster than that!

Plenty of padding in there. Now that Massachusetts controls
the commuter route, perhaps its planned upgrades can get
some time out of the current runs for its trains, and Amtrak's.

But 2:13 hours for the LSL Worcester-Boston, that's 44 miles,
does not much raise my hopes for good times Springfield-Boston,
currently 6:10 hours over 98 miles (while Boston-Springfield
is 2:15.)

In fairness, Springfield-Worcester-Boston trains suffer from
congestion Buffalo-Albany, a route with notoriously terrible OTP.
(Gov Cuomo, are you listening? No?)

The half-full glass: there's PLENTY of room for improvement!

The lack of crossovers in MBTA territory is killer for running anything express. East of Framingham the only ones west of Beacon Park are right before Wellesley Farms station and at Framingham Jct. Framingham-Worcester it's a bit better because of the freight crossover placement that spaces them between the yards at Worcester, Westbourough, and Framingham. But it might still be a sub-ideal placement for passenger trains. This ruins any passing opportunities, especially inside Framingham where nothing can pass inside of Route 128, and nothing can pass between 128 and Framingham.

The inside-128 crossovers must be fixed if the T has any hopes of running its South Station-Riverside DMU line mixed with an ever-growing Worcester schedule. Probably 2 or 3 more sets have to get laid down. They also plan to keep ramping up and up the schedule of Worcester super-expresses that more or less skip everything except Framingham and Worcester and trim rush hour travel time to Worcester to under an hour. Those make exactly the same stops as Amtrak, so the LSL and Inlands will be able to shed all their padding here when the T's success with super-expresses is predicated on having no flab in the schedule. Definitely going to need to drop more crossovers between 128 and Framingham, and probably between Framingham and Worcester to support those expresses. But because the focus is so much on improving commuter rail and introducing those overlapping DMU hyper-local, Framingham/Worcester local, and Worcester express service patterns the upgrades for passing opportunities will give Amtrak everything it needs to make good time through T territory.


Speeds should also improve inside Worcester. It's rumored the cab signal territory Framingham-Worcester is getting pushed to Class 4/79 MPH as early as this summer. Inside Framingham is ancient ABS signaling capped at 59 MPH. That'll be an expensive replacement, but hopefully some of this Inland funding will go to that because it's probably more consequential to everyone's schedules to get continuous Class 4 in T territory vs. pushing speeds a whole lot between Springfield and Worcester (where gains are pretty much limited to just west of Palmer). Besides DT the only thing it really needs out there are a few widely-spaced sets of crossovers for passing a long slow freight, not the kind of precision passing T territory needs ASAP for its numerous service patterns about to pack every nook and cranny of the line.

[Woody]

The Lake Shore Limited Schedule shows 2 hours 13 minutes
Worcester-Boston, and only 1:07 hours from Boston-Worcester,
but the driving time is still faster than that!
. . .
Plenty of padding in there. Now that Massachusetts controls
the commuter route, perhaps its planned upgrades can get
some time out of the current runs for its trains, and Amtrak's.
. . .
In fairness, Springfield-Worcester-Boston trains suffer from
congestion Buffalo-Albany, a route with notoriously terrible OTP.
( Gov Cuomo, are you listening? No? )
The half-full glass: there's PLENTY of room for improvement!

Not really. Most of the EB LSL time is more "make-up" time than anything else.
The time is still horrible. (and I'd blame Ohio as much on the LSL as NY)

Interesting. Which side of Cleveland causes the Ohio problems?
I keep wishing for investment Cleveland-Toledo-South Bend-Chicago.
If that becomes a corridor a la St Louis-Chicago, taking even one hour,
or much better take two hours, out of that segment would transform
the LSL by giving better departure and arrival times all along the
route. But if Cleveland-Erie is the problem segment, I'll have to
wish for more!

Meanwhile, looking at the tolerable times Boston-Springfield-Albany
(5:35), makes me think a second frequency on this route, connecting
to the earliest Empire train to Buffalo, might work out OK.

Not any high priority. But I used to be strongly opposed, seeing it
as wasteful. Now I'm thinking, 5:35 ain't so bad. Then cut 15 to 30
minutes out of Boston-Springfield and a second train wouldn't be
so wasteful. And it would be Massachusett's problem to pay for it,
not Amtrak's.

[Greg Moore]

Interesting. Which side of Cleveland causes the Ohio problems?
I keep wishing for investment Cleveland-Toledo-South Bend-Chicago.
If that becomes a corridor a la St Louis-Chicago, taking even one hour,
or much better take two hours, out of that segment would transform
the LSL by giving better departure and arrival times all along the
route. But if Cleveland-Erie is the problem segment, I'll have to
wish for more!

Meanwhile, looking at the tolerable times Boston-Springfield-Albany
(5:35), makes me think a second frequency on this route, connecting
to the earliest Empire train to Buffalo, might work out OK.

Not any high priority. But I used to be strongly opposed, seeing it
as wasteful. Now I'm thinking, 5:35 ain't so bad. Then cut 15 to 30
minutes out of Boston-Springfield and a second train wouldn't be
so wasteful. And it would be Massachusett's problem to pay for it,
not Amtrak's.

Not sure about the Ohio part, that's just my memory.

As for ALB-BOS, welcome to the the dark side. I've been saying this for years. Though honestly, I'd prefer a morning train to BOS from Albany.

Though I like your idea of connecting to a Buffalo train too.

(Then there's the argument of making a day train from ALB-BUF->points west).

[lirr42]

As for ALB-BOS, welcome to the the dark side. I've been saying this for years. Though honestly, I'd prefer a morning train to BOS from Albany.

Though I like your idea of connecting to a Buffalo train too.

(Then there's the argument of making a day train from ALB-BUF->points west).

How about the Coldfish State?

[Komarovsky]

boston.com
TOP 10 STATIONS WHERE IT’S FASTER TO DRIVE
INTO BOSTON THAN TAKING THE TRAIN

1. Worcester/Union Station
Line: Worcester/Framingham

Station: South Station
Train: 96 minutes
Car: 64 minutes
Differential: 32 minutes

Going to say false on this on both fronts, the driving and the riding. I live in Worcester and work in Back Bay and the drive to get to my office if I leave at 6:20am usually takes me 70-80+ minutes depending on traffic. If I take the super express at 6:20 it take me 77 minutes. If I take the 7:00 express it takes me 82 minutes and the drive will take 90+ minutes, and can start getting on 2 hours with that traffic.

[Greg Moore]

boston.com
TOP 10 STATIONS WHERE IT’S FASTER TO DRIVE
INTO BOSTON THAN TAKING THE TRAIN

1. Worcester/Union Station
Line: Worcester/Framingham

Station: South Station
Train: 96 minutes
Car: 64 minutes
Differential: 32 minutes

Going to say false on this on both fronts, the driving and the riding. I live in Worcester and work in Back Bay and the drive to get to my office if I leave at 6:20am usually takes me 70-80+ minutes depending on traffic. If I take the super express at 6:20 it take me 77 minutes. If I take the 7:00 express it takes me 82 minutes and the drive will take 90+ minutes, and can start getting on 2 hours with that traffic.

Other big difference, you can nap on the train, or do work.

I find the other drivers and police get very upset if they notice me falling asleep behind the wheel, even if I promise to wake up in time for the curves.

I've started to call this "effective time". Sometimes it may be faster to drive, but less desirable.

[David Benton]

Lol. Reminds me of the joke, "My grandfather died peacefully in his sleep.Unlike his passengers,who were screaming in terror".

[The EGE]

Current scheduled times, many of which are to drop by several minutes when the new schedules come out.

Peak:
P500: 106 (all stops local)
P502: 92 (express from Natick)
P504: 101 (all stops local)
P582: 83 (super-express)
P506: 101 (all stops local)
P508: 88 (express from Natick)
P512: 93 (local - all stops except Newton)
AVERAGE: 95 minutes

Off-peak trains are mostly 95-minute locals. The super-late inbound is all-flag-stops and takes 80 minutes. Weekend trains make most or all stops and take 90-95 minutes.

The schedule that was to take place last month had the following times:

500: 99 (all stops local)
502: 88 (Natick express)
504: 99 (all stops local)
582: 72 (Ashland express)
506: 99 (all stops local)
508: 88 (Natick express)
512: 91 (local)
AVERAGE: 91 minutes

Off-peak locals were to average about 89 minutes, or 94 with Newton flag stops. Weekend all stops locals were to take 90 minutes.

The LSL is scheduled for 63 minutes westbound. It almost always departs Worcester 5-10 minutes late, although the stop at Worcester tends to be a long one.

[Komarovsky]

Thanks EGE for posting the times!

[BandA]

boston.com
1. Worcester/Union Station
Line: Worcester/Framingham

Station: South Station
Train: 96 minutes
Car: 64 minutes
Differential: 32 minutes

Add 1/2 hour to car at rush hour.

Can't the train run faster? 44.2 Miles in 96 minutes is < 30MPH. At 60MPH average track speed, high level platforms, electric doors, rush hour trains could match or beat the off-peak automobile.

Medium term solution: Turn the train at Worcester onto the P&W. Run to 146/90 interchange. Run bus from 146 to Springfield.

Most of the interchanges on the Pike need $$$millions$$$ replacement, which you could do with federal money if the tolls were removed.

[Dick H]

The Federal Highway Trust Fund is financed by the federal gasoline tax.
Because of the refusal of the politicos of both parties in Washington
to gradually increase the gasoline and diesel fuel tax to keep up with
inflation, a portion of the highway trust fund has been financed from
general tax revenues, which makes it a political football every five
years when the trust fund has to be reauthorized. In fact, I believe
the highway fund was only reauthorized for two years this time around,
rather than the five years, due to the political shenanigans in DC.

With this situation, the amount of highway reconstruction is falling
every year. While taking the toll off the Mass PIke might get some
federal funding, it would be a hit or miss situation, as the states
across the country without tolled Interstate highways would certainly
be crying foul. And the so-called red states would be screaming that
this was another Yankee plot to take money from them. Enough said.

[StephenB]

I took the Pike to Westfield and back to I-495 last week. It was the first time I was on the Pike west of 495 in some years and I was really amazed at how lousy the condition of the pavement really has deteriorated to, at least compared to back in the 1980s when I went to school in Rochester, NY. Some bumps were frost heaves that will probably relax come spring, but there were hundreds of spots where some of the previous pavement layers had been ripped up. No particular section stood out either as it was pretty choppy all the way from 495 to Exit 4 I think it was and both EB and WB too.

The Pike has some serious repaving to do and fairly soon. Throw in the typical Weston to Sturbridge traffic headaches and it's not a route I'd care to drive all that much, even in a bus, never mind my car.

I did happen to drive under the Pike where it crosses by that old paper mill and river just before the Pike begins the Becket climb and the underside of that major bridge looked like it had recently gotten a lot of work. Hopefully many of the other Pike bridge undersides look as nice. But like I say, the pavement....

I saw the WB LSL pass through Huntington, MA too. Fun.

[jonnhrr]

Also the interchange at 128/95 needs serious redesign, it's a joke. And apparently MA hasn't heard of open road tolling as NH and ME already have at several interchanges. They are really behind the times.

Sounds like that car timing from Worcester to Boston must have been on Sunday at 5 AM

As for the continuing on P&W, I think there was once a proposal to extend the service to Webster but nothing ever came of it. The I90/146 interchange sounds intriguing, but is there a place to put a decent park and ride there?

Jon

[deathtopumpkins]

And apparently MA hasn't heard of open road tolling as NH and ME already have at several interchanges. They are really behind the times.

Not to drag us off topic, but MA certainly has heard of ORT, and it is coming soon. It is in place already on the Tobin Bridge (but the transition will not happen until the state completes testing), and both the Turnpike and the harbor tunnels should have it by the end of 2015.