A-Line Reactivation

if you look at the track layout, you can pretty much extend that rapid transit line alongside the CR through Beacon Yards and out to at least Everett Street, and possibly even Market Street.

Good call. I missed that.

(One other point, in this case rather than being an all new rapid transit line originating at South Station it would far more easily be an Orange Line branch coming off after Back Bay.)

I believe that the track layout from Back Bay to South Station is such that there are 3 tracks serving Amtrak's NEC, Providence/Stoughton, Franklin and Needham Lines, 2 tracks serving the Orange Line and 2 tracks serving the Framingham/Worcester Line and the Lake Shore Limited. If the Framingham/Worcester Line and the Lake Shore Limited were re-routed over the Grand Junction Railroad, wouldn't it be less construction, and a better line, to give that right of way to the "New Brighton Landing Line" from South Station rather than build it as a branch of the Orange Line?
 
Electrify and "Fairmount" the thing with EMU's. Plunk new stations in Allston and Newton Corner, and a stub platform at Riverside for Green Line transfers. That accomplishes 80% of what the 1945 rapid transit expansion plan proposed for this line without crimping the other modes that need it.

Absolutely. If you really need to add HRT-level capacity later, dig.
 
Electrify and "Fairmount" the thing with EMU's. Plunk new stations in Allston and Newton Corner, and a stub platform at Riverside for Green Line transfers. That accomplishes 80% of what the 1945 rapid transit expansion plan proposed for this line without crimping the other modes that need it.

Instead of awkwardly trying to shove a stub CR platform in somewhere near Riverside, why not extend the Green Line less than 1/4 mile on tracks that are already there right now, and build another Route 128 Station on the Pike/128 interchange? There's no reason to assume that intercity rail won't want or doesn't benefit from having a Green Line connection, and the station could be used to dwell regionals for HSR overtakes or as a terminus for a Fairmount-esque line.

Good call. I missed that.



I believe that the track layout from Back Bay to South Station is such that there are 3 tracks serving Amtrak's NEC, Providence/Stoughton, Franklin and Needham Lines, 2 tracks serving the Orange Line and 2 tracks serving the Framingham/Worcester Line and the Lake Shore Limited. If the Framingham/Worcester Line and the Lake Shore Limited were re-routed over the Grand Junction Railroad, wouldn't it be less construction, and a better line, to give that right of way to the "New Brighton Landing Line" from South Station rather than build it as a branch of the Orange Line?

Hello and welcome! It's nice to meet you.

The New Brighton Landing Line from South Station would most emphatically NOT be less construction than a branch of the Orange Line - because the rapid transit rolling stock you would use is fundamentally incompatible with the existing tracks.

One of three things, then, needs to happen to the 'New Brighton Landing Line':

1) Abandon the use of rapid transit rolling stock in favor of keeping the Commuter Rail stock, but this defeats the purpose of shunting the Worcester Line.
2) Convert some of the existing South Station platforms to Rapid Transit, thus permanently reducing South Station's track capacity by 2. Cheapest option, but pretty unseemly.
3) Dig out new platforms underneath South Station to service New Brighton Landing, or reroute into South Station under. Expensive, and probably results in a third Red Line Branch.
 
Instead of awkwardly trying to shove a stub CR platform in somewhere near Riverside, why not extend the Green Line less than 1/4 mile on tracks that are already there right now, and build another Route 128 Station on the Pike/128 interchange? There's no reason to assume that intercity rail won't want or doesn't benefit from having a Green Line connection, and the station could be used to dwell regionals for HSR overtakes or as a terminus for a Fairmount-esque line.

There are many reasons why that would not work.

1) Direct access to the D inbound < direct access to any other line. To get on any other branch you have to transfer at Kenmore or Copley and pull off the same number of transfers as you would going Red-Green from SS via Park or Orange-Green from BB via DTX or Haymarket. Nonstarter. We see this with the plethora of Orange Line-to-CR transfers...if they're going to transfer, they always opt for the high-density transfer spots at NS or BB, never Ruggles, Forest Hills, or Malden Ctr.

2) If Copley is your final destination, you're not transferring to the GL at all you're getting off the Amtrak or T choo-choo at BB and not transferring anywhere. If Kenmore/Fenway is your final destination, you're getting off the T choo-choo at Yawkey and not transferring anywhere. I am going to take a wild guess that the Amtrak Inland Regionals do not have a lot of built-in demand for Yawkey as a stop. Or if they do it's the one trip of the day that coincides with a Sox game...and if so they can happily add the extra stop to the schedule if they so choose.

3) The GL is not fast. On a delay-few morning, is it going to be a faster trip to Hynes from Riverside+1 you're proposing, or Red-Green from SS? Remember, if it's Kenmore/Fenway or Copley it doesn't matter because of BB and Yawkey. Maybe Hynes is the only one where it's a dilemma. Arlington...I bet Red-Green's faster. Boylston/Park?...Red from SS. Haymarket?...Orange from BB. NS?...Orange from BB. The only places the D is truly advantageous are stops on the D. Then take one look at the Blue Book boardings for the D vs. every single heavy rail stop and Central Subway stop and the rest is self-explanatory.

4) Train frequencies on the Worcester Line are nothing like they are on the NEC at Westwood/128 with Providence, Stoughton, Acela, and frequent Regionals all stopping there. Amtrak's only planning on 10 Inland Regionals + 2 Lake Shore Limiteds by 2025. Worcester certainly is never going to top Providence + Stoughton/(South Coast) frequencies. For the humongous infrastructure cost and all the things in reasons #1-3 that blunt its effectiveness, that's not much of a ceiling for this site compared to Westwood. And if Inland HSR comes to town, the whole point of it is that it will have WAY fewer stops than the current NEC does so it can only stop in the big cities, which probably relegates travelers getting off onto the 128 circuit to existing NEC service (or thru service if the N-S Link puts Anderson/Woburn on the Regionals map).

5) Access constraints. There's barely any developable land on Recreation Rd. next to the Worcester Line to plunk down substantial parking (see also: where's the TOD potential?). Golf course, Liberty Mutual HQ, boat landing, and a small maintenance yard crammed between a ramp and the river. Anywhere else makes existing Riverside closer...and existing Riverside is EASY to access from Pike or 128. Even poorer ped access, which is a big reason why the original CR station failed. Recreation Rd. is all high-speed ramps in this vicinity, and the only other access points are tiny residential cul de sacs who are most definitely not going to approve of people using their driveways as a kiss-and-ride. This is not an easily solvable problem, which is a big reason why current Riverside got built where it is.



They also have officially studied a direct Worcester/Amtrak to GL connection...at North Station via the Grand Junction. NS a lot more central to the system than Riverside. You can reach GLX and the inbound branches more easily from there. It's a major terminal. They jumped the gun way too early on this with Tim Murray's mouth not doing him any favors with the City of Cambridge, but I think there's a pretty good chance of it happening in 10 years. And if it happens it removes most of the purported demand for the outer transfer. Except for that real robust Woodland-Longwood intercity market.

This is a solution in search of a problem. If a GL connection is needed for intercity riders, rehab the Grand Junction and do the officially-studied option. "Fairmounting" for strictly inside-128 rapid transit-like service does not require the end-of-line CR transfer there's little demand for...the existing Riverside stub will do. Force-fitting the superstation for several hundred mil more is not only a great way to ensure that they'll NEVER "Fairmount" to serve Allson, Newton, and the dense net of crisscrossing buses...but it might even perform worse--intercity modes and all--in that location vs. something simple and direct at the current Riverside serving all the new development at current Riverside.
 
Fair enough.

I'm not acutely familiar with how 'wide' a station would need to be, so I'll take your word on it that there's not enough room.

What I would have done is worked the station into the interchange itself, capturing the space we can free up by going Open Road Tolling on the Pike. Then, build up instead of out for a park and ride / kiss and ride thruway, and build the station proper with pedestrian access to the southeast.

Proper construction would even let a determined pedestrian get over the Route 128 barrier, although I don't know why you'd want to do that.

You make an excellent argument against the service with regard to inbound boardings, but I'm reasonably certain that same argument exists for Woburn-Anderson and Route 128 station as well. I conceived this station to cater more to outbound travelers than I did inbound ones.

The station would be engineered to allow regionals to dwell while HSR blows through, of course. Standard station construction, in my opinion, should be to allow for timed overtakes.
 
Fair enough.

I'm not acutely familiar with how 'wide' a station would need to be, so I'll take your word on it that there's not enough room.

What I would have done is worked the station into the interchange itself, capturing the space we can free up by going Open Road Tolling on the Pike. Then, build up instead of out for a park and ride / kiss and ride thruway, and build the station proper with pedestrian access to the southeast.

Proper construction would even let a determined pedestrian get over the Route 128 barrier, although I don't know why you'd want to do that.

You make an excellent argument against the service with regard to inbound boardings, but I'm reasonably certain that same argument exists for Woburn-Anderson and Route 128 station as well. I conceived this station to cater more to outbound travelers than I did inbound ones.

The station would be engineered to allow regionals to dwell while HSR blows through, of course. Standard station construction, in my opinion, should be to allow for timed overtakes.

There's enough room for a station structure. It's just that there's absolutely no place to plunk parking there. Liberty Mutual doesn't even have that many spots, so there's not even much land there to barter with them for their lot space in exchange for a T-built parking garage. No station in that location would survive with so few (probably < 150) potential spots available.

Believe me, mainline superstation has been studied over and over again. Ever since 1945, ever since 128 was upgraded to full expressway standards (some of those proposals had concurrent rail off to the side of the highway), and ever since they were picking station sitings for the D Line. Every time the same blockers snagged it, with exception of the peel-out into the existing station on that stub (rapid transit on the stub in the '45 plan, "Fairmounted" now). It's got a pretty firmly established study basis that this is the only realistic option. It's tough, but that little bend in the Charles is a pretty insane convergence of asphalt, steel, fairway, and sensitive environmental land. It's jam packed with pre-existing civil engineering. Just not of the vertical occupancy type.
 
I think there's greater potential to "Fairmount" the Fitchburg Line and add a huge 128 station than the Worcester/Framingham Line. I don't think "Fairmounting" it is a great idea, but I do like the idea of a huge Park N' Ride in Waltham on the Fitchburg Line. It is close enough to the Pike/128 interchange and there is a huge swath of available land on all sides of the track and highway. Newton also would not need increase CR frequency as much as Waltham.
 
Hello and welcome! It's nice to meet you.

The New Brighton Landing Line from South Station would most emphatically NOT be less construction than a branch of the Orange Line - because the rapid transit rolling stock you would use is fundamentally incompatible with the existing tracks.

One of three things, then, needs to happen to the 'New Brighton Landing Line':

1) Abandon the use of rapid transit rolling stock in favor of keeping the Commuter Rail stock, but this defeats the purpose of shunting the Worcester Line.
2) Convert some of the existing South Station platforms to Rapid Transit, thus permanently reducing South Station's track capacity by 2. Cheapest option, but pretty unseemly.
3) Dig out new platforms underneath South Station to service New Brighton Landing, or reroute into South Station under. Expensive, and probably results in a third Red Line Branch.

Thank you. Nice to meet you, too. I see your point, although I don't want to give up my fantasy of effective, not overcrowded, rapid transit (i.e. not the Green Line) between Fenway/Allston/Brighton and the Back Bay. Would the best option then be to branch the Orange Line along the Framingham/Worcester Line ROW from Back Bay westward?

Also, would abandoning the Framingham/Worcester Line ROW from Back Bay to South Station allow for increased service on the other South Station Lines? I feel like there is always some reason why South Station CAN'T handle something and never a reason why it CAN. Eh, such is life.

As a side note, much less realistic (multi-billion dollar project) and probably belongs in the 'Crazy Transit Pitches' bin;

A N/S rail link on the 'Indigo Line' which branches after South Station with one branch to Readville and the other to New Brighton Landing.
 
Thank you. Nice to meet you, too. I see your point, although I don't want to give up my fantasy of effective, not overcrowded, rapid transit (i.e. not the Green Line) between Fenway/Allston/Brighton and the Back Bay. Would the best option then be to branch the Orange Line along the Framingham/Worcester Line ROW from Back Bay westward?

Also, would abandoning the Framingham/Worcester Line ROW from Back Bay to South Station allow for increased service on the other South Station Lines? I feel like there is always some reason why South Station CAN'T handle something and never a reason why it CAN. Eh, such is life.

As a side note, much less realistic (multi-billion dollar project) and probably belongs in the 'Crazy Transit Pitches' bin;

A N/S rail link on the 'Indigo Line' which branches after South Station with one branch to Readville and the other to New Brighton Landing.

I think the best option, honestly, would be Green Line Heavy Rail. I honestly don't like a branching Orange Line because it directly harms Roxbury and points south by causing their headway times to double - in order to accomodate half the south trains now going somewhere else than Forest Hills.

Pulling Worcester out of Back Bay would, regrettably, not help. The Orange Line is sandwiched in between the NEC and the Worcester Line in such a way that trains cannot move from one to the other except on the BOS-BBY curve, which only helps inbounds on their final approach. Removing Worcester would just create two 'dead' tracks served by the Lake Shore Limited only.

Still, if any station is at or near its capacity - that station is Back Bay. It's in dire need of SOMETHING - but people smarter than me could tell you what that is.
 
MBTA_LRV_3402_1_zps10b5053a.jpg
 
Looking at that picture, and thinking about how many more cars are on that stretch today, it's easy to see why A-line restoration wouldn't work well.
 
Maybe there are more cars today on this stretch (if that's even true) exactly because the A line isn't there anymore.

Anyway - I don't see the issue - put the trolley in a median and eliminate street parking. Build a multi-level public garage where Wirt Street is now to compensate.

Also, note that Brighton Center could just as easily be served by a relatively short spur on Warren Street - a straight shot inalong a wide road with little need for street parking - if the original routing over Brighton Ave / Cambridge St proves impossible.
 
Maybe there are more cars today on this stretch (if that's even true) exactly because the A line isn't there anymore.

Anyway - I don't see the issue - put the trolley in a median and eliminate street parking. Build a multi-level public garage where Wirt Street is now to compensate.

Completely agree - love the idea of a public garage (with street-level retail!). I feel like this area is so congested all the time precisely because of all the parking shenanigans. There just isn't enough space to provide parking to meet full demand since there is no reliable public transit option (and before someone says it, I don't really consider buses outside of peak hours to be a good alternative) along the corridor.
 
Maybe there are more cars today on this stretch (if that's even true) exactly because the A line isn't there anymore.

Anyway - I don't see the issue - put the trolley in a median and eliminate street parking. Build a multi-level public garage where Wirt Street is now to compensate.

Also, note that Brighton Center could just as easily be served by a relatively short spur on Warren Street - a straight shot inalong a wide road with little need for street parking - if the original routing over Brighton Ave / Cambridge St proves impossible.

Maybe. But I think a lot of the traffic is people cutting through Brighton Center travelling between Brookline/SW Boston and Watertown/Cambridge. The A-line won't address that traffic pattern, but will add to congestion. I could see it with your no parking proposal, but I doubt very much there would be a constituency for that, even among backers of restored service.
 
** Gasp ** What a beautiful photo.

It is beautiful, and it's also strange. My understanding is that there never was an actual A-line service, that the lettering system came about after service suspension. Also, I don't think LRVs ever served the Watertown route. So what is this exactly? Some kind of demo run?
 
It is beautiful, and it's also strange. My understanding is that there never was an actual A-line service, that the lettering system came about after service suspension. Also, I don't think LRVs ever served the Watertown route. So what is this exactly? Some kind of demo run?

It was a railfan trip I believe, since these pics were all taken by one. F-line will have to elaborate, but I believe they kept the wire out to the watertown car barn for as long as the tracks lasted (but after the A was already abandoned) because they still did some maintenance there, I think there were a few wrecked trolleys stored there until quite recently as well.

It also appears that the pantograph on the LRV is lowered and a trolley pole is shoved in to give the car power, since that is obviously not constant tension catenary. I think a few of the LRVs had this modification for the express purpose of travelling on outdated wires.

DISCLAIMER: I could be completely pulling all of this out of my ass, I'm no more than 60% sure any piece of what I said above is right.

http://www.transithistory.org/roster/ said:
Scrapped 1991 (8 cars): 3402, 3409, 3459-a/3492-b, 3467, 3479, 3487-a/3452-b, 3502, 3504
 
It was a railfan trip I believe, since these pics were all taken by one. F-line will have to elaborate, but I believe they kept the wire out to the watertown car barn for as long as the tracks lasted (but after the A was already abandoned) because they still did some maintenance there, I think there were a few wrecked trolleys stored there until quite recently as well.

It also appears that the pantograph on the LRV is lowered and a trolley pole is shoved in to give the car power, since that is obviously not constant tension catenary. I think a few of the LRVs had this modification for the express purpose of travelling on outdated wires.

DISCLAIMER: I could be completely pulling all of this out of my ass, I'm no more than 60% sure any piece of what I said above is right.

That pic was from a 1980 fantrip. They ran historic Type 5 5174 (the one at Boylston), a newly rebuilt PCC fresh out of the fed-funded rehab program (one of the current Mattapan cars), that pictured Boeing, and a Toronto CLRV streetcar that was on loan for evaluation in revenue service in case the T wanted to purchase them. They paraded all in a row out of the carhouse into downtown, then back.

There were, right till the plug was pulled on the track in 1994, a rotating cast of 2-3 Boeings that ran with poles installed in case they needed to go to Watertown. All of them were built to accept dual input because San Fran MUNI's identical order of the cars ran exclusively poles. They could just grab a spare pole at the carhouse, screw it in, and run anywhere. Including Arborway, which did get a couple one-off Boeing revenue runs when they were first being tested in '76-77. For close to 15 years after the cars were introduced the T retained dual mode catenary throughout the Green Line so the pantograph LRV's could run mixed with PCC's, because if they lost the Watertown lawsuit and Arborway came back the rehabbed PCC's would've returned to full GL service on those branches as late as 1991-92 and not been retired until decade's end when the Type 8 order was filled. They mulled 12 years ago retaining a small fleet of Boeings out in Mattapan before deciding it would just be cheaper and more reliable to full-rebuild the PCC's one more time.


Watertown did carbody work, so any trolley involved in a fender bender got shipped out there for rehab. Including Type 7's, which were dead-towed on their own wheels. Right up to the end 25 years after revenue bustitution the PCC's would crawl inbound in the dead of night doing equipment swaps at the Babcock switches with work equipment or repaired cars. There's pics out there from 1992-93 of the yard full of oddball work equipment, very rusted and barely operable PCC's, smashed-up Boeings and 7's waiting for surgery with the welding torch, and revenue TT's from the 71 laying over all next to each other. And that's the yard that maintained the two historic cars. They still shipped stuff out there on flatbeds after '94...there was one stripped Type 7 wreck sitting inside the carhouse for years until it was finally scrapped around '04-05. They might even still do some component work for the light rail division in addition to buses and TT's. Can't see much because they don't store anything outside except TT's and usually have the garage doors closed, but it's still a full-time parts shop.


The A did carry a full-blown letter destination on the PCC rollsigns and system map for 2 years after the line color/letter redesign was introduced in '67. The only surviving system map with it showing were those Copley ones uncovered during the recent renovation because they were very quickly replaced on the Green Line post-bustitution and hadn't been rolled out everywhere yet on the other 3 lines. Stops were exactly the same as the 57 + regular B stops out to Packards. Only differences today are any small changes/stop relocations with the 57 post-1998 when all the streets on the corridor were reconfigured. Every Green Line car, including the Type 7 3600's had A Watertown, A Oak Square, E Arborway, and M Ashmont-Mattapan on their rollsigns. The 1997 order 3700's were the only rollsigns that didn't have the A (they did have Arborway and Mattapan).
 
As recently as 1941, the A had it's own reservation on Brighton Ave.

1941, looking towards Harvard Ave from Union. The building on the left is where TiTS is now.
BrightonAve1941_Lo.jpg


1940, Looking towards Union Sq
BrightonAveUnionSq1940_Lo.jpg



Looks like this could be done again...

Pics from the B/A Historical Society
 

Back
Top