F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:...Getting anything close to a complete solution will end up going faster and paying for itself faster by focusing on the dirty work on the platforms.
I agree that would be a bigger help vs power doors for stations that you can go full high. As we both know though, big chunks of Worcester, Fitchburg etc are clearance routes, so we can't do that. Maybe next coach procurement(the one to replace at least some of the flats) it'll come on the T's radar and serve as an anchor point for future fleet common features.
The T has very few clearance-route platforms affected by that. These are the only ones that currently sit on mainline clearance-route track:
, incl. Wildcat Branch (4)
*Winchester Ctr. already planned for full-high + gauntlet track. Foxboro already planned for full-high + passer upgrade if full-time service happens.
That's it. 24 out of 133 stations that technically exist as lows on a clearance route, 18% of the system. Way, way less than NJ Transit and MNRR West-of-Hudson have to deal with. Then start plucking off the ones that have likely full-high solves for their location:
Ashland - designed from Day 1 to move platforms back next to
instead of in front of
the access ramps, insert center passer, re-stripe parking lot around platform-facing row
Westborough - ditto (more space given up on parking lot side)
Grafton - ditto (all space given up on parking lot side)
Southborough - widen River St. overpass to 3 tracks (shoulda been built that way all along!) + relocate stairs, then ditto
Walpole - can't put full-length or full-high platform within confines of old depot or wye so widen Elm St. overpass, island platform up top with north freight wye passer, revised interlockings
Endicott - Move outbound platform back into tree buffer, insert center passer
Dedham Corporate - Continue center passer from Endicott to under Route 128 bridge, spread platforms
Plimptonville - close
4 (Islington, the Norwoods, WG)
Bradford - if layover yard relocated as desired, use vacated yard space to reconfig for new platforms + Downeaster/freight passers
3 (Ballardvale, Andover, Haverhill)
West Medford - spread platforms, hook center Downeaster + freight passer between Canal St. grade crossing and area by MOW siding.
Wilmington - move platforms south of overpass, center Downeaster + freight passer, interlocking mods (probably will need to do this if future Haverhill schedules are going to use the NH Main more often and make local stops)
N. Billerica - re-add missing bridge deck to Mt. Pleasant overpass, spread outbound platform, center freight passer + modified interlocking at Bedford Branch
2 (Wedgemere, Mishawum)...and arguably both of those are redundant enough to whack.
Ayer - center island, 2 flanking freight passers, interlocking mods
Shirley - center freight passer
1 (N. Leominster). I suppose if completism were the goal, widening the Nashua St. overpass, moving outbound platform closer to power lines, and adding center freight passer does the job...if the town doesn't mind losing the Jiffy Lube or liquor store.
REMAINING TOUGH NUTS TO CRACK:
9. Or 7 if you don't much care for Lowell Line redundancies.
Not that there aren't some high price tags in ^these^, but you get the picture. Stack up the costs for one-time capital charges vs. every-time fleet fragmentation and over-complication, and there isn't a compelling reason for the T to tie itself up in new inefficiencies for such a tiny minority of stops. If they just charge ahead at the totally non-ADA stations we'll be at >50% level boarding. Then enough of the existing ADA mini-high stops are already falling apart from deferred maintenance that simple catch-up on SGR pushes that to supermajority. Unless they're content to let the pavement forever crumble to dust beneath each old platform, the next car purchase will live to see a Purple Line that's 90% or more level boarding during their service lifetimes.