Transit history/trivia quiz

In Fall 2024, what was the busiest MBTA bus stop by combined boardings and alightings in the inbound direction that is NOT at a rapid transit station or in the Silver Line transitway?

Edit: And excluding Nubian as well because yes it wins by a mile.
 
Last edited:
The EGE said:
Knowing that the next-highest is only 20% as high actually makes me more intrigued!
Click to expand...
This metric will naturally rate any station with bus-bus transfers very, very high. I'm just adding all ons+offs in the outbound direction, so someone transferring from the 8 to the 23 at Nubian gets counted twice for example. That's why Forest Hills and Nubian are so high.
 
TheRatmeister said:
In Fall 2024, what was the busiest MBTA bus stop by combined boardings and alightings in the inbound direction that is NOT at a rapid transit station or in the Silver Line transitway?

Edit: And excluding Nubian as well because yes it wins by a mile.
Click to expand...
I would guess either Central Square in Lynn, or Bellingham Square in Chelsea.
 
The EGE said:
Within BERY territory, there are:
There's a few dozen powerhouse, substations, carhouses, and waiting rooms scattered throughout the state. Lots of bridge abutments, and at least two intact bridges: the Bridge of Flowers in Shelburne Falls, and a Springfield Street Railway bridge in Brimfield.
Click to expand...
Incredible post. I had no idea that building on Webster in Coolidge was a power station — and I am from Brookline and have parked there millions of times.

More broadly, what a great architectural collection these buildings are.
 
In re old trolley infrastructure, there's also the Railroad Trail in the Middlesex Fells Reservation, a former BERy ROW that includes a few bridges.
 
ceo said:
In re old trolley infrastructure, there's also the Railroad Trail in the Middlesex Fells Reservation, a former BERy ROW that includes a few bridges.
Click to expand...
To be extremely pedantic, most of what remains was the Eastern Mass section of that line. BERy only owned as far north as the Medford/Stoneham line (just north of Brooks Road); the Eastern Mass owned the Stoneham portion including all three extant bridges. As far north as Sheepfold (just north of Chandler Road) was leased to and operated by BERy; the companies exchanged crews at Sheepfold.
 
I'm putting this here for want of a better thread, but does anyone have any references or materials for how American passenger rail stations were engineered in the late 19th & early 20th centuries? In particular, I'm looking for why American railways, by and large, built very low level platforms at almost every station, including major terminals when European railways, British and otherwise, largely built high level platforms, freight and otherwise during the same time period for even the minorest village "halts", cargo or otherwise. For my purposes, I'm using high level loosely - I'm ignoring that UK platform heights don't match floor heights and therefore aren't level boarding - and the various continental midi-high platform heights (550, 760mm etc) - for the moment, this is an exercise in relativity.

The bulk of the US outside of the NEC is still 8in land, which is solidly what most would consider tram height, and lower than any mainline european standard I'm aware of, even historically. The Pennsy Road seems to have been the major exception when they built NYP and others, leading to the modern 48in level boarding NEC, but much of their stations and even major terminals like South Station was low platform until the 1980s, and DC Union, which still has both high and low platforms where the transition is particularly obvious with a ramp up.
 
Last edited:
Stlin said:
I'm putting this here for want of a better thread, but does anyone have any references or materials for how American passenger rail stations were engineered in the late 19th & early 20th centuries? In particular, I'm looking for why American railways, by and large, built very low level platforms at almost every station, including major terminals when European railways, British and otherwise, largely built high level platforms, freight and otherwise during the same time period for even the minorest village "halts", cargo or otherwise. For my purposes, I'm using high level loosely - I'm ignoring that UK platform heights don't match floor heights and therefore aren't level boarding - and the various continental midi-high platform heights (550, 760mm etc) - for the moment, this is an exercise in relativity.

The bulk of the US outside of the NEC is still 8in land, which is solidly what most would consider tram height, and lower than any mainline european standard I'm aware of, even historically. The Pennsy Road seems to have been the major exception when they built NYP and others, leading to the modern 48in level boarding NEC, but much of their stations and even major terminals like South Station was low platform until the 1980s, and DC Union, which still has both high and low platforms where the transition is particularly obvious with a ramp up.
Click to expand...
Just guessing, but the US is so vast, and historically had so many RR depots in small towns all over the country in sparsely populated areas, that I'm thinking the resources just weren't there to build high level platforms for those many 1000's of small town depots. Britain and Europe are much more compact.
 
Stlin said:
The bulk of the US outside of the NEC is still 8in land, which is solidly what most would consider tram height, and lower than any mainline european standard I'm aware
Click to expand...
Depends on where you are. Once you get beyond UK/France/Germany into Eastern and Southern Europe, boarding from low platforms is still common, even at very large stations. Italy (Even Northern Italy) is absolutely terrible for this in my experience.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Depends on where you are. Once you get beyond UK/France/Germany into Eastern and Southern Europe, boarding from low platforms is still common, even at very large stations. Italy (Even Northern Italy) is absolutely terrible for this in my experience.
Click to expand...
Even some of the Amtrak platforms at Union Station DC are still low boarding -- I had the displeasure of encountering one on a Regional trip back to NYC a couple years ago.
 
Stlin said:
I'm putting this here for want of a better thread, but does anyone have any references or materials for how American passenger rail stations were engineered in the late 19th & early 20th centuries? In particular, I'm looking for why American railways, by and large, built very low level platforms at almost every station, including major terminals when European railways, British and otherwise, largely built high level platforms, freight and otherwise during the same time period for even the minorest village "halts", cargo or otherwise. For my purposes, I'm using high level loosely - I'm ignoring that UK platform heights don't match floor heights and therefore aren't level boarding - and the various continental midi-high platform heights (550, 760mm etc) - for the moment, this is an exercise in relativity.

The bulk of the US outside of the NEC is still 8in land, which is solidly what most would consider tram height, and lower than any mainline european standard I'm aware of, even historically. The Pennsy Road seems to have been the major exception when they built NYP and others, leading to the modern 48in level boarding NEC, but much of their stations and even major terminals like South Station was low platform until the 1980s, and DC Union, which still has both high and low platforms where the transition is particularly obvious with a ramp up.
Click to expand...
I don't really have the answer for you, but are you sure the premise of your question is correct? My guess is that Europe didn't build a lot of high level platforms in the late 19th-early 20th century, just like the US. That probably wasn't the de facto thing to do in major stations until a bit later (except for in subways). But since then, European stations were far more likely to be maintained, renovated and upgraded, so at some point they got high level platforms. That obviously didn't happen for US train stations, mostly.

As one example, this is apparently Gare du Nord in the last 1960s. The busiest train station in Europe didn't seem to have high level platforms until nearly the high-speed-rail era.

1764599703515.png
 
ritchiew said:
I don't really have the answer for you, but are you sure the premise of your question is correct? My guess is that Europe didn't build a lot of high level platforms in the late 19th-early 20th century, just like the US. That probably wasn't the de facto thing to do in major stations until a bit later (except for in subways). But since then, European stations were far more likely to be maintained, renovated and upgraded, so at some point they got high level platforms. That obviously didn't happen for US train stations, mostly.

As one example, this is apparently Gare du Nord in the last 1960s. The busiest train station in Europe didn't seem to have high level platforms until nearly the high-speed-rail era.

View attachment 69046
Click to expand...
I'll certainly note I'm not particularly familiar with any of the continental European railways systems, which are also certainly less internally consistent than I'd premised - historic photos from the continent are harder to come by, since the language barrier doesn't help. - it certainly appears that Gare Du Nord was very much a low platform station - I was largely basing my assertion on photos like these of Gare Saint Lazare and Gare D'Orsay, amongst others in France, which appears to be at largely at least be in their Midi range.
1000042445.jpg
1000042442.jpg
1000042449.jpg
1000042446.jpg
1000042447.jpg
 
ritchiew said:
I don't really have the answer for you, but are you sure the premise of your question is correct? My guess is that Europe didn't build a lot of high level platforms in the late 19th-early 20th century, just like the US. That probably wasn't the de facto thing to do in major stations until a bit later (except for in subways). But since then, European stations were far more likely to be maintained, renovated and upgraded, so at some point they got high level platforms. That obviously didn't happen for US train stations, mostly.

As one example, this is apparently Gare du Nord in the last 1960s. The busiest train station in Europe didn't seem to have high level platforms until nearly the high-speed-rail era.

View attachment 69046
Click to expand...
I checked, because my recollection from the first time I used Gare du Nord, was that it had low platforms even in the early 90s. Sure enough, Google AI confirms that the high level platforms were installed in 1994.
 
HenryAlan said:
I checked, because my recollection from the first time I used Gare du Nord, was that it had low platforms even in the early 90s. Sure enough, Google AI confirms that the high level platforms were installed in 1994.
Click to expand...
The EU standards for high platforms only came into being in 2002 [TSI (Technical Specifications for Interoperability) on 30 May 2002 (2002/735/EC)]. Even those standards only apply to high speed rail operation (to try to enable interoperability among the member states).
 
The key routes designated in 2004-05 (routes 1, 15, 22, 23, 28, 32, 39, 57, 66, 71, 73, 77, 111, 116, 117) are largely replaced in MBTA publications with the frequent routes. Some questions about them (and BNRD):
  1. Which two routes were created during the MBTA era? Which of them was on a routing that had not been previously used as a route between its endpoints (though all portions had long transit histories)?
  2. Two segments of the key route network had combined streetcar headways under 1 minute in the 1940s. What segments?
  3. Of the 15 routes, only one does not cross paths (ie the exact same section of asphalt) as any other. Which one?
  4. Which significant route segment (not including terminal loops) was served by horsecars but never electric streetcars? Which route segment was served by streetcars, but on a different level?
  5. Which three routes are shown noticeably incorrectly on the existing subway map? Which one used to be?
  6. Which route currently has a grade crossing of mainline rail? Which route(s) formerly did during the MTA or MBTA eras?
  7. Where does a key route cross over or under an MBTA subway line, but not have a connection?
  8. The Bus Network Redesign is not resulting in major routing changes to most of the key routes. However, it is affecting some:
    1. Which route was discontinued?
    2. Which route has been substantially lengthened* (and why is that asterisked)?
    3. Which routes will be substantially lengthened over the next few years?
    4. What bus terminal will actually have fewer high-frequency routes than it currently has key routes?
    5. What major bus route change is planned that doesn't appear in the current official map?
  9. The new frequent network mostly includes existing route segments. However, two substantial route segments are not currently served by MBTA buses. Which ones?
  10. Changes to rapid transit connections with BNRD:
    1. Which rapid transit station that currently has no direct bus connections (ie stops directly at a station entrance) will gain one from those new route segments?
    2. Which stations will gain a direct connection from a non-frequent route?
    3. Which station was designed as a bus terminal, has never served as such, but will be?
    4. Which station will lose all MBTA bus service?
    5. Which stations will no longer be terminals for any routes, but will still be served by buses?
    6. Which pairs of major bus terminals will no longer have a direct bus connection between them?
 
The EGE said:
The key routes designated in 2004-05 (routes 1, 15, 22, 23, 28, 32, 39, 57, 66, 71, 73, 77, 111, 116, 117) are largely replaced in MBTA publications with the frequent routes. Some questions about them (and BNRD):
  1. Which two routes were created during the MBTA era? Which of them was on a routing that had not been previously used as a route between its endpoints (though all portions had long transit histories)?
  2. Two segments of the key route network had combined streetcar headways under 1 minute in the 1940s. What segments?
  3. Of the 15 routes, only one does not cross paths (ie the exact same section of asphalt) as any other. Which one?
  4. Which significant route segment (not including terminal loops) was served by horsecars but never electric streetcars? Which route segment was served by streetcars, but on a different level?
  5. Which three routes are shown noticeably incorrectly on the existing subway map? Which one used to be?
  6. Which route currently has a grade crossing of mainline rail? Which route(s) formerly did during the MTA or MBTA eras?
  7. Where does a key route cross over or under an MBTA subway line, but not have a connection?
  8. The Bus Network Redesign is not resulting in major routing changes to most of the key routes. However, it is affecting some:
    1. Which route was discontinued?
    2. Which route has been substantially lengthened* (and why is that asterisked)?
    3. Which routes will be substantially lengthened over the next few years?
    4. What bus terminal will actually have fewer high-frequency routes than it currently has key routes?
    5. What major bus route change is planned that doesn't appear in the current official map?
  9. The new frequent network mostly includes existing route segments. However, two substantial route segments are not currently served by MBTA buses. Which ones?
  10. Changes to rapid transit connections with BNRD:
    1. Which rapid transit station that currently has no direct bus connections (ie stops directly at a station entrance) will gain one from those new route segments?
    2. Which stations will gain a direct connection from a non-frequent route?
    3. Which station was designed as a bus terminal, has never served as such, but will be?
    4. Which station will lose all MBTA bus service?
    5. Which stations will no longer be terminals for any routes, but will still be served by buses?
    6. Which pairs of major bus terminals will no longer have a direct bus connection between them?
Click to expand...
  1. I think the answer is 28/39, with 28 being the route alluded to in the latter part since I think before 1987 the main route along BHA was the 29. I know the 1 is actually pretty recent but I think it's MTA not MBTA.
  2. I'll go with Dudley Street and Chelsea Square.
  3. 32, I believe it uses the one Forest Hills busway while 39 uses the other.
  4. For the first part I'm guessing the 111 between Chelsea and Woodlawn, I think the 111 was an original bus route and not a bustitution but I could be wrong. The second part is the 39 between Boylston St and Mass Ave.
  5. 39 used to be super wrong with a weird split to Copley/BB but has since been fixed, I believe 66 is still wrong (it parallels the 39 for a bit), and 77 used to be left south of the Red Line but I think has also been fixed. I'm not sure what other ones you're referring to, I don't remember any others being noticeably wrong but admittedly I look more at my own map than the official one.
  6. I think 111 in Chelsea? I think in the past 32, 77, and 116/117 had them as well.
  7. 77 crosses over the Red Line between Davis and Alewife without a connection
    1. RIP 117
    2. 15 now runs to Fields Corner all the time, not just some of the time
    3. 22 and 28 will go to LMA/Kenmore
    4. I believe Ruggles
    5. SL3X?
  9. North Station to Sullivan, Sullivan-Lechmere-Kendall
    1. Community College
    2. idk
    3. Brookline Village I think
    4. Shawmut?
    5. Central
    6. Sullivan and Ruggles, Reservoir and Sullivan, City Point and JFK?
 
1. I know the 28 was created during the MBTA era (previously the 29 was the primary service on the BHA corridor). My other guess would be the 66 in its current form, which would also be the one that was a novel route between its two endpoints.
3. I'm guessing the 32, since it uses the lower busway at Forest Hills while the 39 uses the upper busway
4. Not sure what had horsecars but not electric streetcars, but the Tobin's predecessor drawbridge had streetcars on a "different level."
5. The 32 is on the wrong side of the NEC and the 66 is shown crossing the E at a 90º angle instead of running alongside it for a few stops. The 1 also looks nothing like it actually does. The 77 used to be incorrect with respect to the Red Line.
6. The 1 currently has a grade crossing with the Grand Junction Branch. Former grade crossings include the 77 (Lexington Branch).
8-1. The 117 has been discontinued
8-2. The 15 was extended to Fields Corner full-time. It formerly ran to Fields Corner off-peak.
8-3. The 22 will be extended to the LMA and the 28 will be extended to Kenmore
8-4. I believe the above reroutings make Ruggles the terminal getting fewer high-frequency routes.
9. The new 101's Charlestown–Lechmere–Kendall segment and the new 12's segment on D St.
10-1. Community College (101)
10-3. Quincy Adams
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top