Commuter Rail to New Hampshire?

[The EGE]

They are the three largest cities in the state within 50 miles without rail. (Not even commuter rail: Revere and Brookline [technically a town] have no CR stops, and Somerville only has a sliver of the Porter CR platform.)

For the record, here are municipalities (or obvious pairs) within plausible CR range of Boston with their distance, population, last time they had commuter rail service, and route. Bolded cities have a station under construction, underlined have an existing Amtrak station, and italicized are those more likely to be served by rapid transit. Distances are between city halls as the crow flies; rail distances are typically 10-15% higher. Populations are above 30k, plus some perennial proposals. Last service is when the municipality last had local stop commuter service (short-lived services noted); most RI locations except Pawtucket never had many commuters to Boston. Crossed-out routes are abandoned; italicized are infill stops on active CR lines. A few cities (East Providence, North Providence, Dracut, etc) where the closest possible stop is in an already-served nearby city are mostly omitted. The I-91 corridor cities, at ~80 miles from Boston, are also omitted.

Location	Distance	Population	Last service	Line
New Bedford + Fairhaven	50	117k	1958	South Coast Rail
Manchester NH	48	115k	1967 (1981)	NH Main Line
Nashua NH + Hudson NH	35	115k	1967 (1981)	NH Main Line
Fall River + Somerset	46	112k	1958	South Coast Rail
Pawtucket RI + Central Falls RI	37	98k	1981*	NEC
Cranston RI	44	83k	1930s	NEC
Revere	4	62k	1958**	Eastern Route
Derry NH + Londonderry NH	39	60k	1953	Manchester and Lawrence
Taunton	32	59k	1958	South Coast Rail
Peabody	13	55k	1958	Essex
Methuen	26	53k	1953	Manchester and Lawrence
Barnstable	63	49k	1959 (1988)	Cape Main Line
Everett	3	49k	1958	Eastern Route
Arlington	6	46k	1977	Lexington Branch
Concord NH	63	44k	1967 (1981)	NH Main Line
Woonsocket RI	34	43k	1956*	P&W
Marlborough	25	42k	1939**	Agricultural Branch
NH Seacoast towns*	42	37k	1967	Eastern Route
Chelmsford	22	36k	1967	NH Main Line
Coventry RI	53	36k	1930	Washington Secondary
Cumberland RI	36	36k	1957*	P&W
Watertown	6	35k	1938	Watertown Branch
Dartmouth	51	34k	1919	Watuppa Branch
Lexington	11	34k	1977	Lexington Branch
Dover NH	59	33k	1967	Western Route
Falmouth	60	32k	1959 (1988)	Falmouth Branch
Portsmouth NH + Kittery ME	52	32k	1967	Eastern Route
Rochester NH	65	32k	1930s*	Ossipee Branch
North Andover	24	31k	1974	Western Route
South Kingston RI	67	31k	1977	NEC
Tewksbury	20	31k	1965**	NH Main Line
West Warwick RI	51	31k	1933	Washington Secondary
Milford	28	30k	1959**	Franklin
Salem NH	30	30k	1953	Manchester and Lawrence
Saugus	7	29k	1958	Saugus Branch
Danvers	16	28k	1958	Essex
Merrimack NH	41	27k	1959 (1981)	NH Main Line
Yarmouth	62	25k	1959	Cape Main Line
Wareham	43	23k	1959 (1988)	Cape Main Line
Gardner	50	21k	1960 (1987)	Fitchburg Route
Bourne	48	20k	1959 (1988)	Cape Main Line
Sandwich	50	20k	1959 (1988)	Cape Main Line
Foxboro	23	19k	1977** (2020)	Framingham Secondary
Bellingham	29	17k	1938 (1940)**	Franklin
Exeter NH	43	16k	1967	Western Route
Northborough	30	16k	1931	Agricultural Branch
Clinton	32	15k	1958 (1960)**	Agricultural Branch
Durham NH	54	15k	1967	Western Route
Atkinson NH + Plaistow NH	33	14k	1967	Western Route
Tyngsborough	29	12k	1959	NH Main Line
Salisbury	35	9k	1959	Eastern Route

* Notes:

• South Attleboro station, just over the state line, opened in 1990. A downtown Pawtucket/Central Falls station will open later this year.
• Direct Boston-Woonsocket service over the Millis Branch ended in 1930. Boston–Blackstone service ran until 1966.
• NH Seacoast towns = Seabrook, Hampton Falls, Hampton, North Hampton, Rye. Anywhere from 1 to 4 stations could be added if Portsmouth service resumed. Hampton Falls and Breakfast Hill (in Rye) closed in the 1930s, Atlantic and Seabrook closed in the 1950s, and Hampton and North Hampton lasted until the 1967 end of Portsmouth service.
• Boston–Cumberland service (at Valley Falls) ended in 1930.
• Rochester had rail service until 1961, with multiple daily trains until the 1950s, but commuter-suitable schedules ended in the 1930s.

** Notes (last service was on a different line)

• Linden station on the Saugus Branch was closed in 1958. The Eastern Route station at Revere was closed around 1956.
• Marlborough service via the Agricultural Branch ended in 1937. B&M Marlboro Branch service ran via South Acton until 1932, then as a Central Mass branch until 1939.
• East Billerica station, just over the Billerica border on the Western Route, closed in 1965. It would be the mostly likely spot for resumed Tewksbury service. Local Lowell–Lawrence service through Tewksbury ended around 1930.
• East Foxboro on the NEC, with one daily round trip a day, was closed in 1977. Prior to the 2019-2020 pilot, the last service to Foxboro on the Framingham Secondary was in 1933.
• Ashland–Bellingham–Milford–Franklin service ended in 1920. Milford–Boston service via Framingham lasted until 1959. Franklin–Bellingham Junction–Millis–Boston ran from 1926 to 1938, and briefly in 1940.
• Agricultural Branch service to Clinton ended in 1931. Worcester–Clinton–Ayer local service ran until 1953, plus a few months in 1960. Boston–Clinton service via the Central Mass (using a short section of the Worcester–Ayer line) ran until 1958.

 

[Brattle Loop]

They are the three largest cities in the state within 50 miles without rail. (Not even commuter rail: Revere and Brookline [technically a town] have no CR stops, and Somerville only has a sliver of the Porter CR platform.)

And if the T's own presentation had just said that we wouldn't be having this conversation, but they couldn't even get that right.

(Though I'll happily take it as a catalyst for fascinating and detailed posts like yours, so thank you for that.)

 

[themissinglink]

Manchester will likely be a more valuable extension for several reasons

Let's hope that the recent effort to bring Commuter Rail service to New Hampshire is actually successful this time. During one of the virtual public meetings a few months ago, it was suggested that service could possibly begin in the latter half of this decade if major planning milestones were met and funding was provided for the project within the next two years. Construction was anticipated to last three years.

 

[Rover]

Service to Nashua and Manchester is New Hampshire's problem so let them pony up. As a Mass taxpayer I'm much happier to see the MBTA prioritize extensions to my fellow Bay State citizens.

 

[themissinglink]

Service to Nashua and Manchester is New Hampshire's problem so let them pony up. As a Mass taxpayer I'm much happier to see the MBTA prioritize extensions to my fellow Bay State citizens.

Of course it would be New Hampshire's responsibility to fund and construct the extension within NH, I don't think there was ever any expectation that Massachusetts taxpayers would be funding track rehabilitation or station construction within NH itself; IIRC even some rolling stock (don't remember if it was coaches, locomotives, or both) was to be purchased by NH for the extension. The most that MA would have to do would be track upgrades and probably some double tracking between Lowell and the state line, which isn't too much of an ask at all considering how there would likely be some intermediate stops within MA itself between Lowell and Nashua (such as UMass Lowell, North Chelmsford, and maybe Tyngsborough, although that one is definitely better suited as a post-extension infill stop).

Besides, state borders shouldn't be that important when it comes to transportation projects, aside from funding and political agreements (like the Pilgrim Agreement between MA and RI). People who live in NH and commute or travel to MA are still going to be contributing to traffic in MA regardless of what state they pay taxes in. New Hampshire Commuter Rail service would be beneficial to both NH and MA.

 

[Wash]

Honestly? I'd be happy with MA footing the entire bill for the construction. We've got the money, the experience and the relationships with proven contractors to build a hypothetical CR service faster than NH could.

 

[Rover]

Honestly? I'd be happy with MA footing the entire bill for the construction. We've got the money, the experience and the relationships with proven contractors to build a hypothetical CR service faster than NH could.

Gotta respectfully disagree here which is why I brought it up in the first place. Mass taxpayers should not pay for NH transit. That's their problem. We should be funding Mass based projects of which we have plenty to choose from. Putting aside the political realities for a second, why shouldn't NH or RI accept the responsibility of funding a project that primarily benefits themselves??? Let some other state play Santa Claus.

 

[Tallguy]

Gott
Gotta respectfully disagree here which is why I brought it up in the first place. Mass taxpayers should not pay for NH transit. That's their problem. We should be funding Mass based projects of which we have plenty to choose from.

And I would bet for half the price

 

[Brattle Loop]

Gotta respectfully disagree here which is why I brought it up in the first place. Mass taxpayers should not pay for NH transit. That's their problem. We should be funding Mass based projects of which we have plenty to choose from.

I don't disagree with the principle, though I would note that there are or could be instances where the benefit to Massachusetts is greater than the cost, for instance if CR encouraged more people to commute to work in MA and resulted in increased economic activity (and therefore tax revenue). Obviously it would be ideal if NH paid for its fair share, but they haven't and can't be reliably counted on to do so anytime soon, so we effectively could be faced with a choice of no extension (and no benefit) or paying for it ourselves. (I want to be clear, I don't know that a NH extension would be a profitable value proposition for MA, and I kind of doubt it, just pointing out that there are times when paying for things fully or partially outside the state could be net-positive value to the state.)

 

[themissinglink]

It's also worth noting that the MBTA would majorly benefit from NH commuter rail because a much-needed layover yard is planned to be constructed as part of the extension. I personally wouldn't have a problem with MA funding an extension from Lowell to Nashua, but any extension past Nashua should be New Hampshire's responsibility.

 

[Rover]

I think the discussion of paying for other state's transit extensions because it would be a net positive for Mass belongs more in the Crazy Transit Pitches thread and not this one. . However if anyone would like to do so perhaps a GoFundMe can be set up for with NH as the beneficiary?

 

[Tallguy]

I think it will mostly be Fed funds, not state

 

[Stlin]

NH is getting $125 million in formula transit funding under the BIL bill. What else are they going to spend it on? NH doesn’t have a particularly robust transit system to begin with. Per the 2014 study, the Manchester CR option complete from Lowell to Manchester will cost $143 million (2014 dollars), including $33m in rolling stock and $18 MBTA in trackage rights, excluding contingencies and allowances. (with them, it’s $245.6m.)

Given that the 2021 public meeting says no additional rolling stock or locomotives, and trackage rights are “free” since the MBTA already owns them, $92m escalated to 2022 is ~$110m, while not accounting for MassDOT contributions from Lowell to the Stateline. NHDOT will almost certainly have the capital money to build the thing - it’s whether or not they have the appetite to fund the ongoing O&M.

All that said… it’s notable that Capitol Corridor is completely absent from the draft 2023-2033 10 year TIP.

 

[themissinglink]

I just found the notes on my computer which I took during last November's virtual public meeting about the extension. Per the notes I took, New Hampshire plans to purchase 12 coaches for the extension (if it happens), but they do not plan on acquiring any locomotives.

I'll try to find the official presentation from the meeting later today so that I can provide an official source.

 

[Stlin]

I'll try to find the official presentation from the meeting later today so that I can provide an official source.

The Meeting presentation doesn’t say anything about it, but the meeting minutes had the following: (page 5, question 5)

Also, mods, can we move this entire digression to either the Regional New England Rail thread or the CR to NH thread?

 

[themissinglink]

The Meeting presentation doesn’t say anything about it, but the meeting minutes had the following: (page 5, question 5)
View attachment 21895
Also, mods, can we move this entire digression to either the Regional New England Rail thread or the CR to NH thread?

That's interesting, I remember one of the presenters mentioning it during the presentation. If there's another virtual meeting about it I will certainly inquire about it, or maybe I could just send them an email.

 

[themissinglink]

Although not from the recent public meeting, the November 2014 Alternatives Analysis suggests that there had been consideration into procuring new rolling stock for the extension.

Up to 12 coaches and one locomotive would be added to the MBTA’s weekday line-up of equipment for one new seven-car train and five additional coaches on existing consists assigned to the service.

(Pages 57, 58 & 59)

I'd be curious as to why there is no longer a need to procure additional rolling stock for the extension.

 

[themissinglink]

The November 2014 Alternatives Analysis included this interesting graph of the proposed speed limits on the Capitol Corridor. It's worth noting that this was from when the extension was planned as far as Concord.

(Page 93)

(I posted this here instead of the SCR thread because this discussion is obviously better suited for this thread)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I'd be curious as to why there is no longer a need to procure additional rolling stock for the extension.

Chances are the projections have been refactored for the planned purge of single-level coaches, and higher seating capacity per coach. With locos and cab cars squared by the increased number of rebuilds (including bringing the few mothballed GP40MC's back into service), and the cab ratios being increased to almost 50/50 in the ongoing 83-car Rotem order. The ratios of "future" flats to bi's looked a lot different 10 years ago for new service/extension starts than it does now.


Nothing's set in stone, however. If the next big coach order does 2x2 instead of 3x2 seating (fair odds given what vendors would be bidding what makes), they might need to pad out the unit numbers again.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The November 2014 Alternatives Analysis included this interesting graph of the proposed speed limits on the Capitol Corridor. It's worth noting that this was from when the extension was planned as far as Concord.
View attachment 21897
(Page 93)

(I posted this here instead of the SCR thread because this discussion is obviously better suited for this thread)

Those definitely aren't current or even recent freight speeds. Class 3 (60 MPH passenger/40 MPH freight) maintenance ends at Nashua Yard, so Pan Am only runs according to the chart out to Crown St. Nashua-Manchester was Class 2 (25 MPH freight/30 MPH passenger) on Pan Am's timetable, not maintained any better than that in a generation (plus, since 2019, the Nashua-Manchester signal system has been retired). Manchester-Concord has been Class 1/10 MPH timetable. CSX probably desires to run its locals better than that (at least an even 25), but PAR couldn't give a crap if it takes them all day to do a Concord turn on job NA-1.

On proposed speeds, that's roughly in line with historical bests from when the physical plant was last maintained top-flight. The meander of the Merrimack River's banks all points north of Lowell keeps you sufficiently below the 79 MPH max speed for Class 4 track, except for a couple decent-length straightaways Nashua-Merrimack and Merrimack-Bedford shown here.