Search results

Because colloquially, "third-world" just means terrible to most people. The fact that the actual third world tends to have better passenger rail coverage than most of the USA is a damning indictment on the state of passenger rail in this country.

The great irony here, is that Tallguy is precisely that crazy guy who wants that cross-harbor RR tunnel.

Because what's really important is giving the North Shore and Newton a Logan Express-on-rails and damn the costs, even if it means we have to break Malden Center's bus terminal to make up for the lost frequencies through Chelsea. Obvi :rolleyes: Seriously, I can't believe we're having this...

Oh God, are we doing the whole EWNSRL thing again? We did this back in 2020 over in Crazy Transit Pitches, start here and read for several pages. Re-engage on this topic at your own risk (though this discussion did surface one of the more delightfully weird transit Draft studies I've seen)

I'm on mobile right now, so I may have overlooked something (in fact I'm hoping I am!), but I was operating from the Regional Rail Proof of Concept Report. Shots are taken at SSX from other reports, but this has some meat to work with. It also occurs to me that assigned platforms becomes a huge...

Honestly? It's been a while since I've read them, and I figured your confident tone meant you'd be able to point me in the right direction to support your assertion. Seems I was mistaken, so I'll just have to assume this is just part of your long-running beef with F-Line until I get a chance to...

Mind referencing that particular disproving? Bearing in mind that while F-Line is not infallible, neither is Transitmatters. They've got their blind spots too, this could well be one of them

Considering the bottleneck that is the considerably simpler Copley Junction, having that kind of at-grade junction here troubles me. I mean sure, it's not all funneling into one pipe, but I suspect that makes it more brittle. If there's room for a flying junction, that's probably the way to go...

Quincy never lost service because of a branch (Ashmont came much earlier than the Braintree extension), but now that you mention it, yes actually the bus hub at Quincy Center could use better peak frequencies (and Red X would help with that). And Ashmont, with its 11 routes + BAT + MHSL could...

Branching before or after State? Branching before State means losing both Orange and Green transfers for half of the mainline frequencies so I'm assuming not that. Branching after State is better, but I don't see how you fit a junction (especially a flying junction), in there without blowing up...

Because interfacing between Blue and NSRL would be a nightmare. NSRL, out of necessity, is going to be well below all of the rapid transit levels. Take a look at this profile drawing: NSRL ends up 50 feet below Blue at the point that Blue crosses it, and on top of that, on the CA/T alignment...

Fairmount is still the southside freight access for CSX, alternate route to SS for Amtrak in case of any issues with the NEC, and sole route for Amtrak to bring in large equipment (since that's damn sure not getting through Back Bay). And I'm pretty sure there's an F-Line post around detailing...

This is beyond reasonable. Which is probably why it won't happen :cautious: Considering that the nearest crossover on the downtown side is probably GC? Does it make sense to either a) run the shuttle GC - Airport or b) run it single-track Aquarium - Airport? I'm thinking single-track is...

And give an alternate route back downtown to where there are at least cabs for anyone who gets stuck at Logan wicked late. Seems like a good idea to me.

This is a problem the "Red X" idea that this Yellow Line parallels solves pretty well. Both southern branches would feed both northern branches in an alternating pattern, meaning the Congress Street Tunnel would still have good amounts of service (and the fact that service branches at JFK would...

Do I have one of the lead-foot operators on the D branch?

Yeah no, still confused here. If you want to try to avoid Amtrak getting stuck behind MBTA locals, and you agree that inbound traffic typically (though all tracks are bidirectional) uses Tks 4 and 2, then why on earth would you force merge those tracks at PLAINS? What are you getting out of that...

Pretty much this. I have no idea how we wandered so far afield from a simple discussion of dropping an additional side platform at Forest Hills, but all this talk of track realignment makes no sense and doesn't further the original idea of having Prov/Stoughton trains stop at Forest Hills both...

Exactly this. Staggering the platforms isn't necessarily what kills the idea of dropping a side platform (in fact, it's probably the most feasible way to squeeze one in if you drop it by the lower busway/parking lot where the trench is open). I'm just not sure 1) how you tie it into the main...

As F-Line says, the platform situation is squished off to the side, he actually did a mock-up of the interlockings needed to get a Track 4 going south from FH a few months back, but I think it nicely illustrates the current issue with having Prov trains stop at FH as well...