Boston Landing | New Balance Complex | Brighton
- Thread starter palindrome
- Start date
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,962
- Reaction score
- 1,580
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
Is this real? Don't fuck with me!
^ You mean like these? :
The replacement locomotive stock.
Is this real? Don't fuck with me!
underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
I just hope this doesn't drive the Sound Museum out. Between the N Beacon and Hitchborn buildings, like a third of Boston's musicians practice in that area.
I just hope this doesn't drive the Sound Museum out. Between the N Beacon and Hitchborn buildings, like a third of Boston's musicians practice in that area.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 13,796
- Reaction score
- 20,638
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
Van this is real. I believe 2 or 3 are in service currently.
http://transportation.blog.state.ma.us/blog/2011/02/mbta-new-commuter-rail-locomotives.html
Van this is real. I believe 2 or 3 are in service currently.
http://transportation.blog.state.ma.us/blog/2011/02/mbta-new-commuter-rail-locomotives.html
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,680
- Reaction score
- 3,213
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
Yes, very real. There are two in service right now, and I see one every morning on an outbound train that passes my inbound. Most evenings, the train I take home is pulled by one of these.
Yes, very real. There are two in service right now, and I see one every morning on an outbound train that passes my inbound. Most evenings, the train I take home is pulled by one of these.
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2012
- Messages
- 13,796
- Reaction score
- 20,638
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
The MBTA are expecting delivery of 20 units in 2013. These will replace the oldest loco's currently in service. We can only hope that the MBTA continues on this course.
The MBTA are expecting delivery of 20 units in 2013. These will replace the oldest loco's currently in service. We can only hope that the MBTA continues on this course.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
Note -- not to throw cold water (though it does feel good today) But -- outside of some "the proponent will support ....' language the streamlined CR is for "render window dressing" purposes only -- I'm still searching for the sex-offending dogs in the renders
There is no Commuter Rail component to the proposal -- the only concrete references to transit:
1) R Bus routes
2) NB operates some shuttles to Harvard Red Line and Kenmore Green Line stations
Note -- not to throw cold water (though it does feel good today) But -- outside of some "the proponent will support ....' language the streamlined CR is for "render window dressing" purposes only -- I'm still searching for the sex-offending dogs in the renders
There is no Commuter Rail component to the proposal -- the only concrete references to transit:
1) R Bus routes
2) NB operates some shuttles to Harvard Red Line and Kenmore Green Line stations
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,962
- Reaction score
- 1,580
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
Yeah, lets no get ahead of ourselves. Added CR stops from Riverside to Back Bay are a great idea but not one with any actual studies or money behind. And it's not like New Balance is going to or should spend the bucks to build one.
Yeah, lets no get ahead of ourselves. Added CR stops from Riverside to Back Bay are a great idea but not one with any actual studies or money behind. And it's not like New Balance is going to or should spend the bucks to build one.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
Note that the NB plan document does mention that the BRA has some sort of planning underway for 100+ acres in Brighton and presumably that might get involved with the hypothesized stop at Everett St.
There is also mention in the section of the NB plan related to transit mitigation that refers to a possible building of a pedestrian bridge over the Pike to connect Lincoln St. with Guest St.
With the Turnpike passing through and hosting a huge collection of optical fiber bandwidth that corridor will eventually be very very develop-able for office and R&D
Note that the NB plan document does mention that the BRA has some sort of planning underway for 100+ acres in Brighton and presumably that might get involved with the hypothesized stop at Everett St.
There is also mention in the section of the NB plan related to transit mitigation that refers to a possible building of a pedestrian bridge over the Pike to connect Lincoln St. with Guest St.
With the Turnpike passing through and hosting a huge collection of optical fiber bandwidth that corridor will eventually be very very develop-able for office and R&D
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,962
- Reaction score
- 1,580
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
From that point of view Allston/Brighton is very under developed. With Harvard and BU right there, along with the low (relatively) rents, this area is prime!
From that point of view Allston/Brighton is very under developed. With Harvard and BU right there, along with the low (relatively) rents, this area is prime!
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
^ I worked on marketing a building there to tech and biotech firms in the early 2000s and it was a total bust. It's been through several owners/marketing campaigns since. I think it will take more critical mass to make this area a centerpiece of anything. A transit stop would help; retail and denser housing would help more.
^ I worked on marketing a building there to tech and biotech firms in the early 2000s and it was a total bust. It's been through several owners/marketing campaigns since. I think it will take more critical mass to make this area a centerpiece of anything. A transit stop would help; retail and denser housing would help more.
- Joined
- May 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,962
- Reaction score
- 1,580
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
It would certainly take a major initiative by the city to get things going. They are probably too occupied with the Innovation Dist.
It would certainly take a major initiative by the city to get things going. They are probably too occupied with the Innovation Dist.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
CZ -- Would that have been the old military warehouse (WWII) that was supposed to be the site for a GigaPop in the DotCom/Telecom Bubble?
CZ -- Would that have been the old military warehouse (WWII) that was supposed to be the site for a GigaPop in the DotCom/Telecom Bubble?
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,860
- Reaction score
- 7,513
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
The spanking-new HSP-46's start testing in '13. I wouldn't expect them pulling into a platform near you until '14 (but usually when the post-testing specs are finalized the rest of the units get delivered fast). They replace the awful, awful 1979-vintage northside F40 "Screamers". They're the first heavy-service commuter engines in the country that'll meet Tier 3 emissions standards. I think the MP36's, which are cleaner than anything else the T has, are only Tier 0 (the Screamers: Tier -4 or something if there was such a thing). Pretty sure the HSP's can also do 90 MPH on the NEC, which could finally get us out of third-world commuter rail speeds if the new bi-level coaches are equally rated that fast.
The escalator order for 20 more units that gets exercised as a formality when the units test well are to replace the 1976-era GP40's they bought and refurbished in '96 when the Old Colony lines and Worcester + Newburyport extensions opened.
Those two MP36's they bought were never-used secondhand surplus from Utah's commuter rail agency. We were supposed to get 5 more lease units in addition to the 2 purchase ones, but that fell through so it's only the 2. The new ones are going to be different. They may even +2 the final order and trade in the 36's because it doesn't make sense to only have 2 oddballs of a different make to maintain in a fleet full of other models.
SS-Riverside as "Fairmount II" has never been studied, so definitely...all this enthusiasm for an Allston CR stop has to go in proper sequence. NB's interest is great, but Harvard is the one swinging the stick here. When they're ready to push for it, then a study is a mere formality. And study itself is not expensive to do, so there'll be no hesitation to crunch numbers. There'd have to be a Newton Corner stop along for the ride on a build because of the dense bus connections and Watertown Sq. tie-in, with things like extending the 71 TT to loop there and upside of wholesale-replacing most of the Pike express bus routes also tagging along for analysis in any study. Riverside wouldn't be hard at all to do...there's room to do a stub platform with walkway connected to the Green Line platform. Nothing fancy when it's a bolt-on platform like that.
Definitely would be cheaper than Fairmount because of fewer new station builds, more ancillary benefits like getting those express buses off the Pike and on more reliable timetables, and having mutually-supporting benefits to the whole Worcester Line which needs a shit-ton of ADA work, signal replacement, and speed increases. But the sequence of events for "Fairmount II" is going to have to be: Harvard applies the pressure --> study --> debate and rummage for a public-private experiment on Allston --> whither build? These new coach + locomotive purchases are merely replacements for their old P.O.S. failing equipment, so there's no net increases in the next 5-7 years to run denser service on Fairmount itself, let alone elsewhere. Or a known ETA on building the extra platform space at South Station because of the BRA's FAIL-a-thon sealing the deal with USPS. Or a known ETA on when the embarrassingly decrepit single-track Newton stops are going to get full ADA/2-track rebuilds. So it's going to be 2020 at minimum before SS is sorted out, and FY2018-19 before the next equipment procurement window is open for spec and bid (and that will also be a replacement order, for the 1988-era F40's and another class of coaches, so increases to feed these expanded services would have to be tied to one of those customary escalator clauses in the purchase contract).
The cost/benefit is pretty damn reasonable to doing this with how much combined investment the Worcester Line needs and is likely to get. But you can see there's a long laundry list of required busywork to settle up before anyone can even wrap brain around the "Is this worth doing?" question. In due time, in due time...but can't be skipping steps here. I definitely think it's ripe for study in the next 2+ years after CSX moves out of town and the Harvard borg does its next round of revisions to the Allston plan. That's a no-brainer if the stakeholders are ready for it.
The spanking-new HSP-46's start testing in '13. I wouldn't expect them pulling into a platform near you until '14 (but usually when the post-testing specs are finalized the rest of the units get delivered fast). They replace the awful, awful 1979-vintage northside F40 "Screamers". They're the first heavy-service commuter engines in the country that'll meet Tier 3 emissions standards. I think the MP36's, which are cleaner than anything else the T has, are only Tier 0 (the Screamers: Tier -4 or something if there was such a thing). Pretty sure the HSP's can also do 90 MPH on the NEC, which could finally get us out of third-world commuter rail speeds if the new bi-level coaches are equally rated that fast.
The escalator order for 20 more units that gets exercised as a formality when the units test well are to replace the 1976-era GP40's they bought and refurbished in '96 when the Old Colony lines and Worcester + Newburyport extensions opened.
Those two MP36's they bought were never-used secondhand surplus from Utah's commuter rail agency. We were supposed to get 5 more lease units in addition to the 2 purchase ones, but that fell through so it's only the 2. The new ones are going to be different. They may even +2 the final order and trade in the 36's because it doesn't make sense to only have 2 oddballs of a different make to maintain in a fleet full of other models.
SS-Riverside as "Fairmount II" has never been studied, so definitely...all this enthusiasm for an Allston CR stop has to go in proper sequence. NB's interest is great, but Harvard is the one swinging the stick here. When they're ready to push for it, then a study is a mere formality. And study itself is not expensive to do, so there'll be no hesitation to crunch numbers. There'd have to be a Newton Corner stop along for the ride on a build because of the dense bus connections and Watertown Sq. tie-in, with things like extending the 71 TT to loop there and upside of wholesale-replacing most of the Pike express bus routes also tagging along for analysis in any study. Riverside wouldn't be hard at all to do...there's room to do a stub platform with walkway connected to the Green Line platform. Nothing fancy when it's a bolt-on platform like that.
Definitely would be cheaper than Fairmount because of fewer new station builds, more ancillary benefits like getting those express buses off the Pike and on more reliable timetables, and having mutually-supporting benefits to the whole Worcester Line which needs a shit-ton of ADA work, signal replacement, and speed increases. But the sequence of events for "Fairmount II" is going to have to be: Harvard applies the pressure --> study --> debate and rummage for a public-private experiment on Allston --> whither build? These new coach + locomotive purchases are merely replacements for their old P.O.S. failing equipment, so there's no net increases in the next 5-7 years to run denser service on Fairmount itself, let alone elsewhere. Or a known ETA on building the extra platform space at South Station because of the BRA's FAIL-a-thon sealing the deal with USPS. Or a known ETA on when the embarrassingly decrepit single-track Newton stops are going to get full ADA/2-track rebuilds. So it's going to be 2020 at minimum before SS is sorted out, and FY2018-19 before the next equipment procurement window is open for spec and bid (and that will also be a replacement order, for the 1988-era F40's and another class of coaches, so increases to feed these expanded services would have to be tied to one of those customary escalator clauses in the purchase contract).
The cost/benefit is pretty damn reasonable to doing this with how much combined investment the Worcester Line needs and is likely to get. But you can see there's a long laundry list of required busywork to settle up before anyone can even wrap brain around the "Is this worth doing?" question. In due time, in due time...but can't be skipping steps here. I definitely think it's ripe for study in the next 2+ years after CSX moves out of town and the Harvard borg does its next round of revisions to the Allston plan. That's a no-brainer if the stakeholders are ready for it.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
Van -- Like the SPID - the Brighton Landing has one really big advantage over other less developed parts of Boston
When you land at Logan as you taxi to the terminals the SPID is directly across the harbor
As you drive toward Boston on I-90 even if you plan to exit at Alston-Brighton Exit -- Brighton Landing is in-your-face
From their website:
http://www.brightonlanding.com
About the existing complex but relevant to the expanded complex
Van -- Like the SPID - the Brighton Landing has one really big advantage over other less developed parts of Boston
When you land at Logan as you taxi to the terminals the SPID is directly across the harbor
As you drive toward Boston on I-90 even if you plan to exit at Alston-Brighton Exit -- Brighton Landing is in-your-face
From their website:
http://www.brightonlanding.com
About the existing complex but relevant to the expanded complex
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
F-Line can you comment on the folowing from the NB document [my edit for formatting]
F-Line can you comment on the folowing from the NB document [my edit for formatting]
czsz
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2007
- Messages
- 6,043
- Reaction score
- 5
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
Don't think so. This was a newer building and I was working on it around '02, so the bubble would have burst by then - which may have been part of why no one was leasing.
True, but it has a serious disadvantage in that you can't exit there. Good for marketing, not so much for access.
Don't think so. This was a newer building and I was working on it around '02, so the bubble would have burst by then - which may have been part of why no one was leasing.
True, but it has a serious disadvantage in that you can't exit there. Good for marketing, not so much for access.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 8,860
- Reaction score
- 7,513
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
They'd have to re-study. 3 years was an eternity ego in the evolution of the CSX deal so a lot was unknowable in 2009 what kind of traffic flexibility the T would gain after the dispatching handover.
#1 - Worcester Yard doesn't have a locomotive maintenance facility like the one next to Storrow Dr., so the thinking at the time was that that part of the yard sandwiched between the tolls/Storrow/Doubletree would have to remain open indefinitely with them doing a limited amount of local freight unloading in the available space. Now it looks like they're going to pay P&W RR in Worcester rent to use their facility so they can completely vacate by mid-'13, and the daily afternoon round-trip down the Grand Junction will indeed be the only freight going east of Framingham.
#2 - Westborough transload yard was also being fought tooth and nail by NIMBY's, so if that was no-go there'd have to be a Plan B. That has finally been worked out.
#3 - They had a tightrope to walk on the land-taking and street grid impacts at Worcester Yard that could've gone either way. That's now worked in their favor, and the tracks themselves are almost complete because of the warm winter.
The T's still glossing over the fact that it really isn't knowable how much flex they'll gain until:
#1 - They actually have the dispatching in-hand and the freight's gone (fast approaching...international freight at Beacon Park gets diverted permanently to Worcester on April 1, so the great draw-down starts in earnest in less than 10 days).
#2 - They have reliable equipment. If their wheezing hulks of steel scrap metal keep breaking down at this rate, of course things aren't going to improve at all.
#3 - The signal system replacement Boston-Framingham. They are in such big trouble with compliance on the PTC mandate that sanctions are possible if they continue doing zilch planning--or even applying for signal grants--over the next 3 years renewing infrastructure that can't support the ACSES system (Framingham-Worcester is cab signaled and ready...that's maybe $3-5M tops for the PTC overlay). Worcester is an Amtrak route in the same cap improvements division as the NEC so that's...bad if Amtrak takes a hit on compliance. Ye Olde National Passenger RR Corp. is actually in pretty damn good shape for PTC relative to how daunting this mandate is and how remote some of those long-distance routes stretch. If T territory is the biggest compliance stinkbomb on their whole coast-to-coast system...there will be consequences for the local track owner.
-- #4 (related to signals). 60 MPH speed limits. Other than tight-spaced Fairmount and curvy/NIMBY-compromised Greenbush this is the slowest southside line of all, and it makes the Lake Shore Limited have one of the consistently worst on-time performances on all of Amtrak. The crickets are chirping on what anyone plans to do about this.
-- #5 the Newton stops and plans lackthereof to fix + 20 miles of ADA non-compliance and plans lackthereof to fix.
-- #6 South Station expansion, and their incredible shrinking interest in pursuing it. Fucking over Amtrak is not a good way to ensure future funding sources.
Of course money's an issue. But there are federal interests at stake with Amtrak, the PTC mandate, and ADA compliance which is going to get scrutinized if they plan to "double" service levels to those 7 consecutive non-compliant stations. This line is grouped on the fed HSR system map (even as a regular-speed route) because of NEC branchline status and the Amtrak plan to scale up to 10-per-day Inland Regionals via Hartford-Springfield-Worcester by 2025. Overlapping fed interests = significant fed funding attention. Possibly more total $$$ than the Downeaster when projected out as itty-bitty incremental appropriations spread over 10-15 years. If the T can't show on a napkin sketch what they propose doing about the Worcester Line's limitations and deferred maintenance, they have nothing to apply for on a grant application other than "dog ate homework". The pattern has been that passed-over grant apps for high priority routes get revisited on later rounds or in smaller-size appropriations with IOU's, like the Downeaster has incrementally earned. But you have to have something--anything--to say about the project's merits. Amtrak doesn't maintain this track like they do on the Providence Line. It can't be the initiating party.
Re: congestion with full service levels. . .overblown.
-- So many Worcester trains express through the Newton stops that I wouldn't expect very many existing runs to re-add them if they go 2-track. It's going to be the expansion schedule that does. The expansion schedule isn't knowable until all that maintenance crap has some conceptual path to completion.
-- The headways break out differently if a lot of the expansion runs are allotted to Framingham short-turns instead of inflexible end-to-end runs, so defaulting every calculation to Worcester isn't a useful metric. They have to study what's an appropriate % of the schedule to short-turn.
-- CSX isn't done revamping Eastern MA freight ops. Open question what the future of the Framingham yards are. They only use 2 of the 3 yards now. Do they even need 2 with Worcester the new base of ops, more of their branchline locals likely being deferred to the Grafton & Upton and MassCoastal shortlines, and Readville being another TBD on load balancing? If they slim back to 1 or 1-1/2 staffed yards, then there's very little daily freight that'll go east of Westborough let alone Framingham. More schedule slots available. But not knowable until ALL of the double-stack bridge raising work is complete, Beacon Park is totally abandoned, Worcester + Westborough are 100% cranking, G&U RR completes its track restoration to Milford and the outside world, and they have time to breathe and assess Framingham's and Readville's place in the pecking order.
-- They have to actually do the post-CSX construction work at Beacon Park to reconfigure the mainline switches and split off the Grand Junction direct off the main instead of snaking through the back of the yard. Everett St. to the Pike viaduct is 4 tracks on the mainline railbed, 2 of them to-be-depreciated yard leads that'll likely stay as misc. storage. Allston station platform probably cannibalizes 1 track but not both, so there'll be a pre-existing passing track for Worcester trains if they napkin-sketch the station with one. Not studied = not knowable.
So, yeah...they really need to crunch some numbers anew here. The whole Worcester Line's near-term future is fuzzy if they don't. And they really don't want to make Amtrak angry by flipping off the PTC mandate and pigeonholing themselves as the banana republic of east coast commuter rails. The overruns from their pyramid-building fetish at Yawkey, South Acton, Salem, and the GLX stations would pay for that whole LAW-MANDATED requirement n times over.
They'd have to re-study. 3 years was an eternity ego in the evolution of the CSX deal so a lot was unknowable in 2009 what kind of traffic flexibility the T would gain after the dispatching handover.
#1 - Worcester Yard doesn't have a locomotive maintenance facility like the one next to Storrow Dr., so the thinking at the time was that that part of the yard sandwiched between the tolls/Storrow/Doubletree would have to remain open indefinitely with them doing a limited amount of local freight unloading in the available space. Now it looks like they're going to pay P&W RR in Worcester rent to use their facility so they can completely vacate by mid-'13, and the daily afternoon round-trip down the Grand Junction will indeed be the only freight going east of Framingham.
#2 - Westborough transload yard was also being fought tooth and nail by NIMBY's, so if that was no-go there'd have to be a Plan B. That has finally been worked out.
#3 - They had a tightrope to walk on the land-taking and street grid impacts at Worcester Yard that could've gone either way. That's now worked in their favor, and the tracks themselves are almost complete because of the warm winter.
The T's still glossing over the fact that it really isn't knowable how much flex they'll gain until:
#1 - They actually have the dispatching in-hand and the freight's gone (fast approaching...international freight at Beacon Park gets diverted permanently to Worcester on April 1, so the great draw-down starts in earnest in less than 10 days).
#2 - They have reliable equipment. If their wheezing hulks of steel scrap metal keep breaking down at this rate, of course things aren't going to improve at all.
#3 - The signal system replacement Boston-Framingham. They are in such big trouble with compliance on the PTC mandate that sanctions are possible if they continue doing zilch planning--or even applying for signal grants--over the next 3 years renewing infrastructure that can't support the ACSES system (Framingham-Worcester is cab signaled and ready...that's maybe $3-5M tops for the PTC overlay). Worcester is an Amtrak route in the same cap improvements division as the NEC so that's...bad if Amtrak takes a hit on compliance. Ye Olde National Passenger RR Corp. is actually in pretty damn good shape for PTC relative to how daunting this mandate is and how remote some of those long-distance routes stretch. If T territory is the biggest compliance stinkbomb on their whole coast-to-coast system...there will be consequences for the local track owner.
-- #4 (related to signals). 60 MPH speed limits. Other than tight-spaced Fairmount and curvy/NIMBY-compromised Greenbush this is the slowest southside line of all, and it makes the Lake Shore Limited have one of the consistently worst on-time performances on all of Amtrak. The crickets are chirping on what anyone plans to do about this.
-- #5 the Newton stops and plans lackthereof to fix + 20 miles of ADA non-compliance and plans lackthereof to fix.
-- #6 South Station expansion, and their incredible shrinking interest in pursuing it. Fucking over Amtrak is not a good way to ensure future funding sources.
Of course money's an issue. But there are federal interests at stake with Amtrak, the PTC mandate, and ADA compliance which is going to get scrutinized if they plan to "double" service levels to those 7 consecutive non-compliant stations. This line is grouped on the fed HSR system map (even as a regular-speed route) because of NEC branchline status and the Amtrak plan to scale up to 10-per-day Inland Regionals via Hartford-Springfield-Worcester by 2025. Overlapping fed interests = significant fed funding attention. Possibly more total $$$ than the Downeaster when projected out as itty-bitty incremental appropriations spread over 10-15 years. If the T can't show on a napkin sketch what they propose doing about the Worcester Line's limitations and deferred maintenance, they have nothing to apply for on a grant application other than "dog ate homework". The pattern has been that passed-over grant apps for high priority routes get revisited on later rounds or in smaller-size appropriations with IOU's, like the Downeaster has incrementally earned. But you have to have something--anything--to say about the project's merits. Amtrak doesn't maintain this track like they do on the Providence Line. It can't be the initiating party.
Re: congestion with full service levels. . .overblown.
-- So many Worcester trains express through the Newton stops that I wouldn't expect very many existing runs to re-add them if they go 2-track. It's going to be the expansion schedule that does. The expansion schedule isn't knowable until all that maintenance crap has some conceptual path to completion.
-- The headways break out differently if a lot of the expansion runs are allotted to Framingham short-turns instead of inflexible end-to-end runs, so defaulting every calculation to Worcester isn't a useful metric. They have to study what's an appropriate % of the schedule to short-turn.
-- CSX isn't done revamping Eastern MA freight ops. Open question what the future of the Framingham yards are. They only use 2 of the 3 yards now. Do they even need 2 with Worcester the new base of ops, more of their branchline locals likely being deferred to the Grafton & Upton and MassCoastal shortlines, and Readville being another TBD on load balancing? If they slim back to 1 or 1-1/2 staffed yards, then there's very little daily freight that'll go east of Westborough let alone Framingham. More schedule slots available. But not knowable until ALL of the double-stack bridge raising work is complete, Beacon Park is totally abandoned, Worcester + Westborough are 100% cranking, G&U RR completes its track restoration to Milford and the outside world, and they have time to breathe and assess Framingham's and Readville's place in the pecking order.
-- They have to actually do the post-CSX construction work at Beacon Park to reconfigure the mainline switches and split off the Grand Junction direct off the main instead of snaking through the back of the yard. Everett St. to the Pike viaduct is 4 tracks on the mainline railbed, 2 of them to-be-depreciated yard leads that'll likely stay as misc. storage. Allston station platform probably cannibalizes 1 track but not both, so there'll be a pre-existing passing track for Worcester trains if they napkin-sketch the station with one. Not studied = not knowable.
So, yeah...they really need to crunch some numbers anew here. The whole Worcester Line's near-term future is fuzzy if they don't. And they really don't want to make Amtrak angry by flipping off the PTC mandate and pigeonholing themselves as the banana republic of east coast commuter rails. The overruns from their pyramid-building fetish at Yawkey, South Acton, Salem, and the GLX stations would pay for that whole LAW-MANDATED requirement n times over.
whighlander
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2006
- Messages
- 7,812
- Reaction score
- 647
Re: New Brighton Landing | New Balance Complex
CZ -- I think that by the time the Bubble Popped that the building was a completely rebuilt structure with a 2nd floor added and a bunch more tricking-out -- but underneath it was a real heavy floor sitting on heavy foundations -- I think the Army stored tanks waiting for shipment to Europe
I'm guessing that back in WWII the rail infrastructure in that area must have been extensive -- of course all that changed when the Pike came through in the late 50's and early 60's.
The heritage of the access corridor was that a company called 360 Networks planned to girdle the earth with a very broad-band fiber looping from Lynn to London via Halifax and Northern Ireland -- on this side the fiber then propagated down rail ROW to Cambridge (3rd & Bent) and then to Lincoln St (the former warehouse -- then GigaPop) and out following the Turnpike -- eventually to Vancouver BC -- it folded and I think the fiber is now owned by Level-3
and last I heard the building was still being offered to Bio/Pharma fims
CZ -- I think that by the time the Bubble Popped that the building was a completely rebuilt structure with a 2nd floor added and a bunch more tricking-out -- but underneath it was a real heavy floor sitting on heavy foundations -- I think the Army stored tanks waiting for shipment to Europe
I'm guessing that back in WWII the rail infrastructure in that area must have been extensive -- of course all that changed when the Pike came through in the late 50's and early 60's.
The heritage of the access corridor was that a company called 360 Networks planned to girdle the earth with a very broad-band fiber looping from Lynn to London via Halifax and Northern Ireland -- on this side the fiber then propagated down rail ROW to Cambridge (3rd & Bent) and then to Lincoln St (the former warehouse -- then GigaPop) and out following the Turnpike -- eventually to Vancouver BC -- it folded and I think the fiber is now owned by Level-3
and last I heard the building was still being offered to Bio/Pharma fims