Search results

Somehow I don't think CCP-style accountability's a good import.

Who do you even punish? This order was placed in 2014, under the Patrick administration. How many of the decisionmakers are even still in government or still working for the T?

I'll freely concede that future developments could well end the need for freight service to Everett/Chelsea. (Though, out of curiosity, is the produce market being redeveloped?) Time separation is a non-starter unless the trackage rights granted to B&M and subsequently inherited by CSX allow the...

Absolutely. I don't think it's clickbait so much as annoyed snark, but either way, the T's own failure to communicate properly is directly responsible for articles like this. The best-case scenario is that they are staggeringly (if not surprisingly) incompetent to the point of either not being...

Yeah, but that's two tunnels on the same alignment. The idea of running an Eastern Route tunnel up and out across the harbor would at minimum mean more portals, more non-shared tunneling. (I'm assuming that even two bores would share some of the prep and construction work, especially around the...

Well, that was more of a hunch. That said, the broader point (admittedly not made all that clear in my post) is that regardless of whether it's more expensive to tunnel underwater than on land, it's unquestionably going to cost a hell of a lot more to make two tunnels than one. Compared to...

Going under the harbor, possibly? Somewhere earlier in this thread (and/or in Crazy Transit Pitches) there was a discussion of a similar proposal. It hamstrings the entire works because now three Northside lines (well, four if you count Reading and Haverhill separately, but Reading has its own...

Kind of feel like that one won't survive a cost-benefit analysis (though I would be happy to be wrong on that), hence why the discussion of the alternative being the State/Haymarket transfer (I wasn't clear enough that that part is what's chained to the Congress alignment, not any Blue connection).

If every line has trains serving both NS-surface and NSRL, it's less of a problem. Pair-matching through the tunnel (which I imagine would be harder with two tracks rather than four, and two is all you get on Congress) means some services are going to have priority for the tunnel and...

CRRC's probably going to join Breda on the MBTA's "no way" list unless they can iron out the problems with the Springfield factory. I'd be more than a little surprised to see a governor willing to sign another deal with them without some ironclad assurances that the procurement won't turn into a...

That would make sense. Congress can only handle two tracks, right? Or am I confused on that one again?

Is that even possible on a CA/T alignment? The transfers would be absurd (not that they'd be short in any event with how deep the NSRL would be). Also, unless the surface terminals get completely abandoned, not being able to connect from North Station on the surface to the NSRL without a...

Maybe we're talking about different things, because "Bluebirds" as I understand them are the #5 Cambridge-Dorchester cars (01400 series), which absolutely have a (fairly subtle) inward curve of the sides near the floor as is visible in this picture you posted. It's a similar profile to the...

The #5 cars absolutely had an inward curve at the base of the side walls near the floor, similar to the #1-2 Red Line cars. It's less pronounced than the 'bowed' effect visible on the #3 (01800) cars. To my eye the new #4 cars shape looks more like the Bombardier #3s than the old Bluebirds...

The titles of the two threads can help a bit. The other thread is basically anything touching the Northeast Corridor (Acela, the Regionals, the Keystones, things like the Downeaster), and this thread is for everything outside the NEC and New England (including Amtrak's long distance services)...

This was the Baker & Company patented Tankapalooza (TM), right?

Amtrak's own statement is similarly a little vague (not mentioning the Cardinal, for one, but mentioning the Crescent). It's an RFI, so it doesn't sound like they're completely set on what, specifically, they're buying. Obviously a single-level design could replace the existing single-level...

Probably something to do with all the rear-endings they've had over the years. They've allowed multiple trains in a station at a time, so in that circumstance you probably don't want operators having a "muscle memory" of being able to go 25+ in station areas when there might be another train in...

I did not know that. I overlooked the docket...again. (My experiences with the prior version of the interface might have had something to do with that.) Makes sense that they meant the B-line, given that's the portion of the system they were focusing on. Not the first time they've been sloppy...

Is it, though? I thought so, though page 5 of this NTSB report on the 2021 B-line rear-ending says that 25 is the Green Line's maximum speed. (Though the NTSB could have got that wrong, the document they cite that figure to is not available online.)