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

 #1119197  by Arlington
 
novitiate wrote:
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.
More like Wisconsin's Talgos, actually. but for for the BON-WOR-UMass
 #1119203  by ThirdRail7
 
NYP-POR? ALB-BOS? Electrification? Talgo trains?

At this point, the only things missing from this thread are unicorns and Santa Claus and they have just as much chances of appearing as the stuff you're mentioning.

Is this the new nonsense thread?

You can claim that times have changed, but Massachusetts didn't want to subsidize the train before CSX upped the stakes. What makes you think they want to do it now? For all the stuff and "plans" that are in the works, they aren't ready now and I doubt CSX will back off their previous stance of double tracking and upgrades and maintenance of same. Why expend limited resources on such a narrow market? The NYP-BOS market is the powerhouse of the region and an inland swing doesn't tap that market. SPG-BOS doesn't accomplish much when you lack frequency. So, you're basically focusing on the WOR as your regional powerhouse and that market only showed a huge life on weekends and holidays. This is why the everyday inland service was cut to weekend only status. You can almost take an Acela to BOS and catch the MBTA in the same amount of time. Additionally, it was extremely difficult (and expensive) to keep the crews right and ready on the territory. This is why they threw in the towel. I don't see MA or NY paying for these trains and I don't see equipment available any time soon.

The best bet for this route is the inland high speed train route and I doubt the college students that made the inland route count will be able to patronize that train.

I'd rather see the return of the Cape Codder, a second Pennsylvanian, another train to Atlanta......
 #1119225  by Noel Weaver
 
ThirdRail7 wrote:NYP-POR? ALB-BOS? Electrification? Talgo trains?

At this point, the only things missing from this thread are unicorns and Santa Claus and they have just as much chances of appearing as the stuff you're mentioning.

Is this the new nonsense thread?

You can claim that times have changed, but Massachusetts didn't want to subsidize the train before CSX upped the stakes. What makes you think they want to do it now? For all the stuff and "plans" that are in the works, they aren't ready now and I doubt CSX will back off their previous stance of double tracking and upgrades and maintenance of same. Why expend limited resources on such a narrow market? The NYP-BOS market is the powerhouse of the region and an inland swing doesn't tap that market. SPG-BOS doesn't accomplish much when you lack frequency. So, you're basically focusing on the WOR as your regional powerhouse and that market only showed a huge life on weekends and holidays. This is why the everyday inland service was cut to weekend only status. You can almost take an Acela to BOS and catch the MBTA in the same amount of time. Additionally, it was extremely difficult (and expensive) to keep the crews right and ready on the territory. This is why they threw in the towel. I don't see MA or NY paying for these trains and I don't see equipment available any time soon.

The best bet for this route is the inland high speed train route and I doubt the college students that made the inland route count will be able to patronize that train.

I'd rather see the return of the Cape Codder, a second Pennsylvanian, another train to Atlanta......
I agree and would add a train on the Florida East Coast, a through train between New York and Portland, Maine via Worcester and probably a host of other valid additions to the national network.
Noel Weaver
 #1119312  by TomNelligan
 
At this point, the only things missing from this thread are unicorns and Santa Claus and they have just as much chances of appearing as the stuff you're mentioning.
My feelings exactly, Mr. Rail. Aside from the typical connect-the-dots railfan speculation and fantasies, which are fun up to a point, I don't see any indication of who is going to PAY for all this in a time when Amtrak is constantly fighting for a budget just to stay alive and the MBTA is in even worse financial shape, with another budget/fare crisis coming up in 2013.
 #1119338  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
novitiate wrote:
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.
Shouldn't affect anything Amtrak runs Inland if they desire full-highs. Springfield's going all-high with the current upgrades, Worcester's all-high. Framingham is a mini-high, but that giant grassy field behind it on the wye leaves tons of space to install a freight passing track and raise the platforms. The MBTA may even want to do that anyway so CSX doesn't have to crawl through their platforms to reach the Framingham Secondary to the south. Nothing intercity is going to stop at any of the other commuter rail intermediate stops. As for Palmer, should they desire an intermediate stop, I'm thinking a 1-car loading mini-high for no more than a couple hundred grand ought to do it until the ridership proves itself. THEN they can think about doing a single full-high with passing track at the junction.

Electrification...I agree, that's not in the cards. Nor should it be until at minimum you get the Springfield Line electrified. And wiring up to Springfield takes a back seat to zapping grade crossings to Springfield in terms of real speed gains. That's a near- billion dollar project unto itself, so thinking electrification is nuts until they figure out some way to mitigate Wallingford and Meriden. Since they're in no hurry to do that on the Shoreline in CT, I wouldn't hold my breath on Springfield getting any crossing eliminations before we're all elderly.
 #1119551  by Arlington
 
TomNelligan wrote:
At this point, the only things missing from this thread are unicorns and Santa Claus and they have just as much chances of appearing as the stuff you're mentioning.
My feelings exactly, Mr. Rail. Aside from the typical connect-the-dots railfan speculation and fantasies, which are fun up to a point, I don't see any indication of who is going to PAY for all this in a time when Amtrak is constantly fighting for a budget just to stay alive and the MBTA is in even worse financial shape, with another budget/fare crisis coming up in 2013.
There's going to be a fix for the MBTA's budget. It might mean cuts, but I think its more likely that it will mean a hike in the gas tax (or VMT tax) on autos. If there's going to be a broad-based tax, it is politically impossible that the money will go only to things inside the MBTA's district, and politically necessary that some of the taxes proceeds get spent west of WOR.

It might be helpful to think by congressional districts.
Image
The eastern 2/3 of the state is the MBTA's district (Cong. Dists 3 thru 8) They want a broad-based tax to save their transit system.
The southern 1/9th of the state (the 9th district) has said they want $1b of waste in Commuter Rail to New Bedford and Fall River. Dumb idea, and really only supported by 1/18th of the state, but it keeps inching along.
The western 1/9th of the state (the 1st district) has plenty of college kids, tree-huggers, and Springfield who'd benefit from either the Conn River line, the Knowledge Corridor, or, yes, the Inland NEC.
The central 1/9th of the state (the 2nd congressional district...basically Worcester and the empty space to the northwest) *might* be happy with just WOR-BOS by MBTA, but they might want to get to NYP by travelling only west (and not through BOS first).

If the answer to what the Western 2/9 of the state wants is too far off the Inland Route, we'll have to discuss it elsewhere. But if a cool $1b is going to get raised, borrowed or spent on the GLX and more will go to shore up the MBTA (all for the sake of the eastern 2/3rds), suddenly spending $100m on the Inland Route between WOR, SPG and HFD looks pretty balanced.
Last edited by Arlington on Sat Dec 15, 2012 8:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
 #1119610  by markhb
 
Districts 4 and 7 look like a puppy kissing a seahorse. Does anyone see a salamander in there anywhere?

My concern about using the Grand Junction for revenue traffic is that the first time a drunk MIT student gets hit on the tracks, there will be huge amounts of grandstanding and "I told you so's" over it, and a political nightmare. Isn't the line basically an alley through their campus at this point?
 #1119737  by Arlington
 
markhb wrote:My concern about using the Grand Junction for revenue traffic is that the first time a drunk MIT student gets hit on the tracks, there will be huge amounts of grandstanding and "I told you so's" over it, and a political nightmare. Isn't the line basically an alley through their campus at this point?
This is on-topic if additional service from WOR terminates at BON (which ex-Worcester Mayor and current Lt. Gov. Murray advocated in until 2011 for the MBTA, and Maine might want to connect the Downeaster to NYP, and gets talked about when South Station constraints are made to seem real) It will probably come up again in 2014 when they realize they don't have the money for South Station expansion, but have the political need to serve WOR better.

MIT and Cambridge have done a pretty good job of orienting the streetscape and pedestrian flows away from the Grand Junction (it is an active line). Buildings wrap over it or turn a blank face to it, Berms and fences shield it. The residential abutters (to use a Boston word) at the western end freaked out in 2011 at the prospect of frequent passenger service, but we think that was more about "not being consulted in advance" (i.e. not getting political payoffs) than about fundamental objections.

That the state has spent $100m with CSX on things like its South Coast and Grand Junction and Framingham-Worcester trackage, is a good example of how the state continues to invest in rail on the fringes and beyond the MBTA system, in part because it is politically impossible not to so long as they are also pouring money into the MBTA itself.
 #1119802  by F-line to Dudley via Park
 
markhb wrote:Districts 4 and 7 look like a puppy kissing a seahorse. Does anyone see a salamander in there anywhere?

My concern about using the Grand Junction for revenue traffic is that the first time a drunk MIT student gets hit on the tracks, there will be huge amounts of grandstanding and "I told you so's" over it, and a political nightmare. Isn't the line basically an alley through their campus at this point?
Not really. By the bridge needs fencing because there's a lot of homeless people who camp out under the Memorial Drive overpass. It's readily accessible from that dirty little park on the corner of Memorial Dr. and the BU Bridge. There was the body of a local student found there a few weeks ago, so it's in a general blindspot with inadequate safety. There are daredevils who walk the bridge, but it's harder than it was a few years ago because the grassy knoll sandwiched between the Pike and BU Bridge has recent-install fences. Renovated BU Bridge has MUCH better sidewalks than it used to, and a bike lane. So the motivation diminishes. What they may want to do if the bridge ever goes into revenue service is install a high chain link on top of the bridge walls so it's not such a temptation for the area univ. crew teams to climb up to graffiti the outside.

The bigger problem is simply that those Charles River white geese are sitting on the tracks at all hours of the day. It's an amusing sight to watch trains having to lean on the horn, inch across, and sometimes have to have a crew member get out and chase those things away shouting "OOOOOOGA! BOOOOGA!" and flapping their arms or something (I'd be scared to do that...those geese are mean mofos!). So it also needs fencing do not have to hose off blood and feathers from the loco's grill on every run. But that's a relatively easy problem to solve. As long as they can bat away the Charles River White Geese advocacy group, who you can clearly see from the linked blog are CRAZY people. There aren't many of them, though...the ringleader is this one obsessive guy. But from his rant about the bridge repairs it's not totally far fetched to see somebody chain themselves to the bridge with a fake bomb strapped to their chest for purposes of creating a scene. Crazy people.

There's a gated ped grade crossing at the fort. Vassar and Waverley Streets have recently been upgraded with bike lanes and nicer sidewalks, so the tracks are hardly anyone's idea of a shortcut. But the sightlines on that Cambridgeport straightaway are excellent, so the engineer shouldn't have any problems seeing people on the tracks. There's a wide, wide backlot behind all those ex-factories on Albany Street with an unfunded rail-with-trail proposal. Easy to do and still keep the line double-track on that stretch. Between Mass Ave. and Main St. there are fenced back access roads on either side of the ROW (on easements if they ever want the second track back), so that's not a concern. The air rights building has a driveway sitting on the ex-2nd track berth, likewise fenced off. And I'm pretty sure there are security cams in there. Galileo Galilei Way has bike lanes and sidewalks between Main, Broadway, and Binney. So the only place where shortcuts on the tracks are more convenient than the adjacent pavement or sidewalks are between Binney and Cambridge St. Cambridge St. and Medford St. have nearby side streets a little more convenient (although the easterly side of the ROW could probably use a fence like the westerly side). Sightlines are still very good on that straightaway.

Safety shouldn't be an issue except for that obvious spot under the Mem. Drive overpass. But, really, it's the favorite dumping spot in the city for dead bodies so if DCR hasn't put 2 and 2 together that the area kind of really needs fencing...I don't know what will.
 #1119862  by csor2010
 
To add a few things to F-line's post, there have some been issues with an informal crossing at the end of Pacific Street, and IIRC MIT is trying to get a more permanent solution installed there. I know MIT has grand plans for submerging Mass. Ave. at some point, and odds are that if the GJ becomes a mainline they will demand footbridges at Washington, Pacific, and the ped. crossing between Mass Ave. and Main Street.

With regard to the B&A, in addition to Springfield-Palmer, the 5 of so miles through the Brookfields could also be speed-bumped given that it's nearly dead-straight. That gives about 25 miles of 79 (QB64-70 and QB80-98) out of 50 rail miles between Springfield and Worcester. Once the NHHS commuter rail makes the current shuttles obsolete, I could see a startup service of maybe one morning train and one evening train WB and a morning and mid-day EB, which combined with the LSL gives the SPG-BOS route a morning/midday/evening train in both directions. I know that the bus *could* do it faster, but as someone with extensive experience with the Sturbridge toll booths, I think that more than a few people in central CT would gladly pony up to avoid the Mass. Pike and its associated traffic. Plus, people who would ordinarily drive to Boston (but would not take a bus) might decide to forgo the hassle and take the train instead. Going around the horn through Springfield adds time, but it might be easier to pacify the NIMBYs if/when the HSR route gets built if there is existing HFD-BOS train ridership.

Of course, another thing we haven't talked about is that increasing the number of through trains on the Springfield Line/Inland Route either steals slots from the Shore Line or puts even more trains on the NEC south of NHV, which doesn't exactly have capacity to spare at this point.
 #1119866  by electricron
 
csor2010 wrote:Of course, another thing we haven't talked about is that increasing the number of through trains on the Springfield Line/Inland Route either steals slots from the Shore Line or puts even more trains on the NEC south of NHV, which doesn't exactly have capacity to spare at this point.
That wouldn't be true if some of the through trains presently running on the Shore Line were rerouted to the Inland Route. Adding through trains to the Inland Route doesn't mean adding trains to Shore Line west of New Haven. ;)
 #1119914  by The EGE
 
The Shore Line just plain has capacity issues (not to mention speed issues) east of New Haven, especially through eastern CT where it's 2 tracks shared with SLE, and then in Massachusetts shared with MBTA. They're slowly getting worked on, but in the near term the Inland Route will be a valuable relief of congestion.
 #1120030  by Rockingham Racer
 
[quote="markhb"]Districts 4 and 7 look like a puppy kissing a seahorse. Does anyone see a salamander in there anywhere?

My concern about using the Grand Junction for revenue traffic is that the first time a drunk MIT student gets hit on the tracks, there will be huge amounts of grandstanding and "I told you so's" over it, and a political nightmare. Isn't the line basically an alley through their campus at this point?[/quote

Well, no one should be on the tracks, drunk or not. They're trespassing, technically, and they don't have a legal leg to stand on. Pardon the pun.
 #1120039  by Noel Weaver
 
electricron wrote:
csor2010 wrote:
That wouldn't be true if some of the through trains presently running on the Shore Line were rerouted to the Inland Route. Adding through trains to the Inland Route doesn't mean adding trains to Shore Line west of New Haven. ;)
This makes absolutely NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!!!! I am glad for the most part that the folks posting this stuff are nothing more than "foamers" and hopefully have nothing to say about the future of passenger rail in New England because IF THEY DO THEN GOD HELP US!!!!!
Noel Weaver
 #1120047  by electricron
 
Noel Weaver wrote:
electricron wrote:
csor2010 wrote:
That wouldn't be true if some of the through trains presently running on the Shore Line were rerouted to the Inland Route. Adding through trains to the Inland Route doesn't mean adding trains to Shore Line west of New Haven. ;)
This makes absolutely NO SENSE WHATSOEVER!!!!! I am glad for the most part that the folks posting this stuff are nothing more than "foamers" and hopefully have nothing to say about the future of passenger rail in New England because IF THEY DO THEN GOD HELP US!!!!!
Noel Weaver
Who taught you math? Explaining using numbers so you can make sense!
Simplifying the number of trains so you can see the principle.

There's 20 Total Amtrak round trips each day between New York and Boston.
We reroute 10 of the round trips from the Shoreline to Inland Route.
While there's still 20 round trips between New York and New Haven, there's just 10 round trips on both the Shoreline and Inland Route.

Does that make sense now?
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 155