Railroad Forums 

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

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1118827  by TomNelligan
 
As Mr. Weaver notes above, sometimes bus service provides adequate public transportation on a route, and it doesn't need the massive infrastructure investment and operating subsidy that rail service requires. In this case, the Mass Pike is already there, and it's not owned by CSX, and if a person in Springfield wants to get to Boston by public transportation there are frequent Peter Pan buses that make the trip in about two hours. You may prefer to ride a train, as I would, but the fact is that the market does currently have significant service without cost to us Massachusetts taxpayers. And if you're going from Springfield to New York, the existing Amtrak service will be supplemented by CDOT commuter trains in a few years.

For whatever reason, the air travel market out of Worcester is essentially zero. Every recent attempt at scheduled air service from Worcester has failed due to lack of business. People drive to Providence or Boston.
Even if the MBTA commuter service on BOS-WOR gets "filled out" to BOS-PVD levels consider that BOS-PVD still has both Acela and Regional on top of that.
Well, Boston-Worcester MBTA service is expanding now that the state owns the trackage, and as for using Amtrak between Boston and Providence, yes the trains are there for those who want them but have you compared Amtrak's fares with the MBTAs? Amtrak strongly discourages short-haul ridership by charging high fares.
 #1118860  by Arlington
 
If there's a killer, it would likely be CSX's demands. I'm perfectly willing to be told that they'd demand too much for service that would amount too little.

I don't see Bus competition as a stopper, and I don't see the MBTA as an alternative (presumably CSX would hold up an MBTA SPG-WOR-BOS express for just as high a price as they'd demand for Amtrak, so the MBTA isn't cheaper from a ROW-improvements standpoint and may yet be an inferior offering--and MBTA's low "commuter" prices aren't "free." The MBTA is cheaper in part because it is more heavily subsidized. I think limited Amtrak service would be both better and cost the state a smaller--or zero--operating subsidy)

Almost everywhere it goes (and succeeds) Amtrak is succeeding in a niche above Peter Pan and Commuter Rail and below Air Travel. The presence of these other modes on 100 to 400 mile trips is more validly used to confirm demand and provide a ready pool of non-drivers than it is to say that the competition will win. Air, interstates, and buses have been available up and down the East Coast and yet the NEC makes money.

While I site SPG, WOR and BOS as big cities, I didn't hear myself say that SPG-BOS is the killer app, rather it would be the whole NEC (Clearly, SPG-NYP and SPG-PHL are going to be winners on the Knowledge Corridor trains without an inland route, but loading WOR-NYP and WOR-PHL and HVN-WOR and HFD-BOS and, yes, targeted rush-hour SPG-BOS trips onto the same trains could fill marginal seats).

Here are things the train can do that the other modes can't:

1) More like air (but cheaper), it is a premium experience covered (and easily justified) by expense accounts. You can actually open and use a laptop on the train. It just feels wrong to say that Peter Pan (or the private auto) has the market covered, especially for the "business day trip" or the exurban tele-commuter's once-a-week trip to the Big City.

2) Unique among modes, it can get in & out of downtown during rush hour. Try that in a Peter Pan or taxi from the airport. And a good share of drivers can't arrive for a client meeting 'ready to go' after driving themselves. Boston's rush hours are a big reason the Downeaster rush hour trains have beat the buses on I-93/95, and getting to NYP, New Jersey, and PHL are also high-fare, serious-demand markets. True, if you can schedule your meeting for 11am and be out of town by 3pm then car or bus is the winning mode, but I've been very selective in hoping for just rush-timed (ish) trains.
Last edited by Arlington on Thu Dec 13, 2012 10:45 am, edited 6 times in total.
 #1118861  by Greg Moore
 
TomNelligan wrote:As Mr. Weaver notes above, sometimes bus service provides adequate public transportation on a route, and it doesn't need the massive infrastructure investment and operating subsidy that rail service requires. In this case, the Mass Pike is already there, and it's not owned by CSX, and if a person in Springfield wants to get to Boston by public transportation there are frequent Peter Pan buses that make the trip in about two hours. You may prefer to ride a train, as I would, but the fact is that the market does currently have significant service without cost to us Massachusetts taxpayers. And if you're going from Springfield to New York, the existing Amtrak service will be supplemented by CDOT commuter trains in a few years.

For whatever reason, the air travel market out of Worcester is essentially zero. Every recent attempt at scheduled air service from Worcester has failed due to lack of business. People drive to Providence or Boston.
Is that air service from or TO Worcester. I'm sure the folks there would love to fly out, but it's an economically depressed area. And as for flying in? Why would you want to?

(apologies to anyone from Worcester, one of my best friends is actually from there, so she'll probably slap me if she reads this :-)
 #1118887  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Arlington wrote:If there's a killer, it would likely be CSX's demands. I'm perfectly willing to be told that they'd demand too much for service that would amount too little.

I don't see Bus competition as a stopper, and I don't see the MBTA as an alternative (presumably CSX would hold up an MBTA SPG-WOR-BOS express for just as high a price as they'd demand for Amtrak, so the MBTA isn't cheaper from a ROW-improvements standpoint and may yet be an inferior offering--and MBTA's low "commuter" prices aren't "free." The MBTA is cheaper in part because it is more heavily subsidized. I think limited Amtrak service would be both better and cost the state a smaller--or zero--operating subsidy)

Almost everywhere it goes (and succeeds) Amtrak is succeeding in a niche above Peter Pan and Commuter Rail and below Air Travel. The presence of these other modes on 100 to 400 mile trips is more validly used to confirm demand and provide a ready pool of non-drivers than it is to say that the competition will win. Air, interstates, and buses have been available up and down the East Coast and yet the NEC makes money.

While I site SPG, WOR and BOS as big cities, I didn't hear myself say that SPG-BOS is the killer app, rather it would be the whole NEC (Clearly, SPG-NYP and SPG-PHL are going to be winners on the Knowledge Corridor trains without an inland route, but loading WOR-NYP and WOR-PHL and HVN-WOR and HFD-BOS and, yes, targeted rush-hour SPG-BOS trips onto the same trains could fill marginal seats).

Here are things the train can do that the other modes can't:

1) More like air (but cheaper), it is a premium experience covered (and easily justified) by expense accounts. You can actually open and use a laptop on the train. It just feels wrong to say that Peter Pan (or the private auto) has the market covered, especially for the "business day trip" or the exurban tele-commuter's once-a-week trip to the Big City.

2) Unique among modes, it can get in & out of downtown during rush hour. Try that in a Peter Pan or taxi from the airport. And a good share of drivers can't arrive for a client meeting 'ready to go' after driving themselves. Boston's rush hours are a big reason the Downeaster rush hour trains have beat the buses on I-93/95, and getting to NYP, New Jersey, and PHL are also high-fare, serious-demand markets. True, if you can schedule your meeting for 11am and be out of town by 3pm then car or bus is the winning mode, but I've been very selective in hoping for just rush-timed (ish) trains.
Before I owned a car I used to take Peter Pan from Boston to visit my folks in Hartford. The Pike is horrifying between I-290 in Auburn and I-84 in Sturbridge because of the rush hour backups at the tolls, and not much better on a Sunday night either when everyone's getting home from the work week. It is routinely +30-45 minutes because of that. I've done the L-shaped route BOS-SPR-HFD when 84 has been hosed and the bus has had to skip to Springfield to get around the backups. The 4-lane portion of the Pike ain't a picnic at rush either between Ludlow and I-291. I am positive that certain hours of the day the train on the L-shaped route is going to handily beat the bus. Not most hours of the day, but critical hours of the day. Schedule certainty is a major attraction to that route vs. Peter Pan.

There's chatter from employees on the MBTA forum that speeds Framingham-Worcester are going to get a bump to Class 4 next year. I would imagine if it's as easy as they're suggesting and CSX bureaucracy has been the primary reason for the 59 MPH restriction that it's not far-fetched to get SPR-WOR up to Class 4 quickly too (excepting the localized geometry-induced restrictions). Double-tracking isn't a cost-prohibitive proposition either. Just break it into two phases...Springfield city line to Palmer, Palmer-Worcester city line. PTC isn't cost-prohibitive...it's already got cab signals west of Framingham (Framingham-east...different story). Remains to be seen how fast the Springfield Line is ultimately going to go, but if it's really going to have Class 5 or 6 track...Class 5 or 6 + Class 4 is damn competitive. That would be a huge deal in bad weather if Logan or Bradley flights have to get switched between the two, or if airfare prices cheaper at one or the other. It would be a huge deal for college kids who are the primary market for the Peter Pan bus (I know...I used to be that market). All the Boston-area colleges, Framingham State, all the Worcester- and Springfield-area colleges, Univ. of Hartford in city bus distance...maybe even shuttle bus distance from UMass if a bare single-car mini-high on stilts got installed in Palmer by popular demand. Plus just general-use where I-91, I-84, and the Pike are too high-stress and folks would rather relax. Of course the Shoreline is going to be the route of choice for NYC-BOS, but there is a wide wide market for the L-shaped route, the Springfield Line's getting a huge paid-for performance boost, and the necessary upgrades to the B&A are very low-hanging fruit because it's just not that far off from full Class 4 double-track.

And as far as CSX goes, the traffic's probably going to temporarily decline with double-stack eliminating a couple superfluous runs and majority of the freight schedules no longer having to bother with east-of-Worcester. The loading cranes at Worcester also make it easier to do long consists vs. Beacon Park's inefficient side-loading, so they've got a lot more flex to stack AND lengthen. Even if their carloads grow through the roof, they're probably going to hold the schedules steady for a number of years. And they can't resist opportunities to sell-high their infrastructure. It is possible...maybe even likely...that the B&A east of Springfield is going to be under state control within 5-7 years coinciding with Amtrak ramping into gear on the Inlands and upgrades. So the P.I.T.A. dispatching is going to have more passenger flex for multiple reasons...track capacity, freight schedule consolidation with CSX's added capacity, and public ownership probably buying them more priority (although I doubt WOR-SPR is going to be as cheap as the stunning bargain the state got from PAS this summer for the Conn River).

But BOS-SPR is only part of the story. This is really about BOS-Connecticut. And I agree that the T has no business getting involved. This ideally should be an extension of the current SPR Regionals schedule + a joint state-sponsored revival of the soon-to-be commuter rail-displaced Shuttle pinging NHV-BOS via SPR and with the state sponsoring netting some cost-managed fares like the current Shuttle. And, hey, if they see enough value in upgrading the Grand Junction there's your State of Maine train revival starter service at 1 round-trip per day. I'm bullish on the whole package of options this opens up. I don't expect this is going to be particularly frequent service at the start, but it's got a pretty high growth ceiling.
 #1118908  by Arlington
 
Ahh! Thanks F-Line. You make my suggestion look much better than I was doing.

In future, I promise to drop New Haven's airport code (HVN) in favor of the rail code (NHV), but have confirmed that Amtrak uses SPG for Springfield MA ;-)
 #1118925  by jbvb
 
An important thing about buses vs. trains is that, in every case where I've used (or looked seriously at using) an intercity bus, they don't stop where they can help it. They apparently can't make money doing local stops, and when they do stop, it's as close to the off ramp as possible. Passenger trains go through places where people live, and can achieve car-competitive timing while providing useful service to intermediate points. So, as with other Amtrak services that compete with buses or planes, the intermediate trips (e.g. Framingham - Palmer) will be important in justifying the capital and operating expenditures to restart Inland Route service.

There will be capital expenditures - most or all of the double track that Conrail removed after the 1980s-era Inland Route service ended will have to go back for more than a couple of trips a day. And having spent some time with 1950s public and employee's TTs, I believe it will take considerably more money to raise anything but Springfield - Palmer to 79 MPH. Faster timings than NYC RDCs achieved when they had the money and appeared to care will take realignments. The available track chart CDs will probably suggest a number of potential starting points.
 #1119103  by hi55us
 
Love the discussion that's going on. I really feel like the ALB-SPG-BOS is severely under served. Also, the BOS-Vermont market is being severely underserved. I feel like a morning BOS-SPG-ALB train would be highly successful, as the train would be early enough to connect with the Adirondack (which departs ALB at 11:00) and it would be early enough to connect with the Vermonter (which departs SPG at 3:15). A train following the same schedule eastbound (leaving ALB in the early morning) I feel would also be highly successful.

What was the reason for the discontinuance of the old Inland route train? (which ran until 2005 or so as I recall)
 #1119122  by Arlington
 
hi55us wrote:Love the discussion that's going on. I really feel like the ALB-SPG-BOS is severely under served. Also, the BOS-Vermont market is being severely underserved. I feel like a morning BOS-SPG-ALB train would be highly successful, as the train would be early enough to connect with the Adirondack (which departs ALB at 11:00) and it would be early enough to connect with the Vermonter (which departs SPG at 3:15). A train following the same schedule eastbound (leaving ALB in the early morning) I feel would also be highly successful.
I can't bring myself to imagine routes that don't have at least NYP (or PHL) as their southern/western anchor. NYC and PHL are huge, high-fare, congested-airport, dense-core kinds of places where rail can really dominate both to- and from- trips. If I know a train is anchored at NYP, I can even imagine it going NYP-HVN-SPG-WOR-POR (bypassing Boston as Maine is now talking), but with only Boston as the northern/eastern end I don't see getting all the way to ALB from BOS. Coming from BOS, I'd rather turn north at Palmer or SPG and pick up in-state *political* patronage in Northampton/Amherst rather than slog across the Berkshires for real-but-minimal commercial patronage.
hi55us wrote:What was the reason for the discontinuance of the old Inland route train? (which ran until 2005 or so as I recall)
I think if you read back in this thread, it was a state-supported train (by MA) that lost its support and was poorly-patronized because it was too slow both from NHV to SPG and from SPG to WOR to BOS. NHV-SPG and WOR-BOS are now being upgraded, so it gives me hope that the route will knit back together from both ends (with the closing the SPG-WOR gap being the hard part).
 #1119151  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Arlington wrote:
hi55us wrote:Love the discussion that's going on. I really feel like the ALB-SPG-BOS is severely under served. Also, the BOS-Vermont market is being severely underserved. I feel like a morning BOS-SPG-ALB train would be highly successful, as the train would be early enough to connect with the Adirondack (which departs ALB at 11:00) and it would be early enough to connect with the Vermonter (which departs SPG at 3:15). A train following the same schedule eastbound (leaving ALB in the early morning) I feel would also be highly successful.
I can't bring myself to imagine routes that don't have at least NYP (or PHL) as their southern/western anchor. NYC and PHL are huge, high-fare, congested-airport, dense-core kinds of places where rail can really dominate both to- and from- trips. If I know a train is anchored at NYP, I can even imagine it going NYP-HVN-SPG-WOR-POR (bypassing Boston as Maine is now talking), but with only Boston as the northern/eastern end I don't see getting all the way to ALB from BOS. Coming from BOS, I'd rather turn north at Palmer or SPG and pick up in-state *political* patronage in Northampton/Amherst rather than slog across the Berkshires for real-but-minimal commercial patronage.
hi55us wrote:What was the reason for the discontinuance of the old Inland route train? (which ran until 2005 or so as I recall)
I think if you read back in this thread, it was a state-supported train (by MA) that lost its support and was poorly-patronized because it was too slow both from NHV to SPG and from SPG to WOR to BOS. NHV-SPG and WOR-BOS are now being upgraded, so it gives me hope that the route will knit back together from both ends (with the closing the SPG-WOR gap being the hard part).
BOS-ALB doesn't have nearly the demand yet. Maybe after NHHS commuter rail, Inlands, Vermonter/Montrealer, and some limited commuter service on the Conn River get established enough to make Springfield a hub the N-S transfer traffic would make the combo of Boston direct and Springfield transfers worthy of an Albany train. And ditto Albany getting built up as more of a hub. But the Berkshires are going to be a slow ride any way you slice it and would kill the time competitiveness. The B&A between Springfield-Palmer and in MBTA territory at least have the geometry to support 80 MPH even if Palmer-Worcester doesn't. There's very few places west of Springfield where a track class bump would actually raise the speeds over what they are now.

It's a viable future market, but it needs a bit more time to percolate. Off the radar screen for now.


As for the Maine Regional, I really don't think the Boston bypass is in the cards unless they want to wait 20 more years. The Worcester Branch is Class 1 unsignaled jointed rail, has rough ride quality, and I think still has a few un-gated crossings. The Stony Brook Branch from Ayer to North Chelmsford is at least signaled, but that's about the best thing you could say about the line's crud condition. Even if Amtrak were able to get a PTC waiver for the dark territory that stretch is busy enough with Pan Am and P&W freight puttering around that daytime time slots for track occupancy are going to be hard to come by. It's a long-term goal to shoot for, but it's bottom-priority. The Grand Junction is at least short enough that a rehab + signaling isn't going to break the bank, and there is a market for prying off a few Inlands to North Station. Just reverse direction at the platform and turn it into a Downeaster. As part of the CSX asset purchase deal the MBTA is going to gate the remaining un-gated crossings on the Grand Junction and catch up on state of repair with tie and worn rail replacement. Bringing it up from to-be acceptable-condition Class 1 to Class 3 (not that anything's ever exceeding 40 MPH there) isn't a big deal if the near-term stuff closes the maintenance hole. That's one they can get running in 5 years if a round of stimulus is available to pay for it. And I would say the T cab signaling Framingham-Boston on the B&A and Boston-Wilmington-Haverhill on by far the slowest and most delay-prone part of the Downeaster cuts enough time off the trip to make NYP-POR a viable run for a round trip a day (maybe 2 at peak tourist season). GJ + North Station reverse is probably going to beat the Worcester Branch + Stony Brook Branch + Lowell Jct. on travel time at least until those Pan Am lines all get up to Class 3. And they are a loooong way from Class 3.
 #1119160  by lirr42
 
What about New York to Boston by way of Albany?

Have a train depart NYP up the Empire Corridor to Albany, at Albany, cut off the P32 and add a P42 on the other end, then a quick brake test and off on the Post Road branch to Springfield and Boston (people would have to ride backwards from NYP-ALB most likely, but it is done all the time on the Pennsylvanian and the Keystone Service trains).
 #1119164  by Greg Moore
 
lirr42 wrote:What about New York to Boston by way of Albany?

Have a train depart NYP up the Empire Corridor to Albany, at Albany, cut off the P32 and add a P42 on the other end, then a quick brake test and off on the Post Road branch to Springfield and Boston (people would have to ride backwards from NYP-ALB most likely, but it is done all the time on the Pennsylvanian and the Keystone Service trains).
Well, you do like the Vermonter, you have 1/2 the train setup to ride backwards.

Only issue I see is I think for a 2nd ALB-BOS train to be competitive, is you'd want it to leave ALB early at like 6 or 7 AM. (This gets you into Boston by Noon or so, time for a convention, some meetings, etc.) I suspect there's more traffic ALB->BOS than the other way around. Tie it into easy transfers for Maine, and I think you'd actually get a bit more business than some think.
 #1119184  by lirr42
 
So something like this? ...

This would allow for same-day connections from Boston to the Adirondack, Maple Leaf, and Vermonter. Just get a baggage car on that and we'd be all set! (also the westbound transfer to the Maple Leaf lets you get Boston-Rochester/Buffalo fairly easily.
Attachments:
(66.36 KiB) Downloaded 198 times
 #1119186  by novitiate
 
David Benton wrote:hmmm , possible retirement home for the Acelas ??? . assuming electrification goes ahead , and tilt can be activated , and will save time ?
Electrification and full-highs on the B&A west of Worcester seem unlikely, though- that's a major freight route and doesn't seem likely to be going anywhere.
  • 1
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 155