I imagine that's the Amtrak interlocking work; I don't think there's anything out there that shows the proposed layout, but I believe that this is separate from the proposed "Springfield Area Track Reconfiguration Project" - the state got 1.8m in CRISI money for preliminary design in 2022 but as of present that hasn't shown up in public yet.
Read the comments from the study in the link below. People in the Western part of the state want it to happen no matter the frequency, just as long as it happens soon and that it is maintained and reliable. People will take the low hanging fruit!
The time savings would be very minor. Class 5 from Wilbraham to Springfield, a much longer straight segment, only netted a 2-minute schedule savings...not nearly enough to be worth the cost. You'd be talking a handful of seconds at best for an uprate between a couple of intra-Newton stops.
Yeah, eyeballing it, it looks as straight or straighter than the Providence Line from Forest Hills to Back Bay. And that's rated for 120mph. But I too would love it if anyone here has some resources for measuring curves more accurately, or otherwise figuring out max possible speeds in existing ROWs.
It's also not going to net any actual 90 MPH running to do one small stretch of Newton as the train will be spending most of its time in that speed zone in acceleration from sub-80 before the next curve (very sub-80 for inbounds coming off the big Wellesley Farms curve). On loco-hauled, not EMU, because that's what Amtrak will be running. It'll make almost no difference unless you're at a starting point of near-80 MPH.
Yes, it would save some time, but on the order of tens of seconds. Looking at it again, there might be a cost effective improvement to made here, though.
Not at that location. Nearest interlocking is CP 6 in Allston right by the Brooks and Parsons St.'s overpasses. This spot is where there was a wayside signal head in the pre- cab signals days, so it probably still marks an (electronic) signal block. But that shouldn't affect the speed limit any.
For measuring curves when I don't have access to the official track charts, I use Alon Levy's Google Earth method described in this blog post.
Coming back to this, I thought to check the TransitMatters report for the Worcester Line. They talk (partially) about the section of track you're asking about (page 16):
I wouldn't read much of anything into those TransitMatters conclusions, because (per the Achilles heel of all their reports) it's contingent on buying breakneck intercity-caliber EMU propulsion fitted in commuter livery...something virtually no one on the planet does because it's incompatible with standees, and which no manufactuer has ever bid on this continent. It's pure fantasy. The superelevation tricks also end at Framingham; the freight tonnage moving from Worcester-Westborough-Framingham does not play nice with elevated curves and would force CSX to move at restricted speed (something they're not going to agree to in the first place). So that wouldn't work for anything on the whole B&A excepting freight-less Framingham-Boston. Bobbing and weaving around frequent non-sharp curves is still going to put standard commuter EMU's in acceleration recovery mode enough of the time to keep you well below the max authorized track speed. The time savings are going to be meager for the (lot of) money it would take for a full track class uprate. I firmly believe (because it's true as well on the NEC in true high-speed territory too) that you net more for your money attacking whatever sub-60 MPH curves remain on the route before considering any raising of the max authorized speed and track class. And there are a lot of those to tackle.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. If the TransitMatters conclusions only really work for intercity-style trains east of Framingham.... perfect. That's what the original question was. Amtrak running through Newton. So I don't know why we shouldn't accept TM's conclusions here.
Yes, I agree. I don't know why you're telling me, though. I've said this really explicitly a couple of times in this thread. Either way, I'm glad you agree. Last week your suggestion was to raise max speeds to 110mph in sections, which was interesting, but seemed like the wrong place to start.
Because there's not going to be EMU's of any kind running on an Amtrak Inland. The B&A can't be electrified west of Worcester without punitive-cost bridge mods because it's a lucrative double-stack freight corridor that had all bridge undercutting tricks maxed out when CSX last uprated the clearances 15 years ago. It's 35 bridges Worcester-Springfield that would have to be cleared from 20'2" to 22'9" to run all-electrics, almost double that if you're doing the Albany corridor. And no BEMU potential because the distance too far exceeds the charging range of those vehicles. It's going to cost you a half-billion dollars just for the clearance mods. That's not going to amortize in cost at a projected 8-10 RT's per day. But since Amtrak's Airo sets can run dual-mode push-pull right from the get-go, you also wouldn't need to electrify to eliminate engine swaps. Just electrify New Haven-Springfield and Worcester-Boston straightforwardly. And with only 1 projected intermediate stop in Palmer...not a lot of starts/stops where the EMU's would make up a big acceleration difference to begin with. So the biggest bang-for-buck for Amtrak is eliminating particularly slow curves, of which there are many on the Inland.
110 on the Springfield Line, not the B&A. The 2011 Service Development Plan for the Springfield Line upgrades specced Class 6/110 MPH as feasible and recommended in spots because it's a corridor with lots of straight sections and relatively few punitive curves that would need to be treated first. Simply implement what ConnDOT and Amtrak already recommended 13 years ago. Is that not straightforward enough?
