Commuter Rail to New Hampshire?

So, Holyoke built a 400ft platform station in 2015 for $3.2M, which included parking and a building with restrooms. So, cut out those costs and substitute another 100ft of platform and account for inflation. $5 million? So, do that twice. Add 1000 ft of passer at S. Nashua, upgrade Class 3 to Class 4(CSX wants $500K per mile to upgrade a multi-mile siding for West-East). Let's call that $10M. There's one 40ft bridge on the route, barely worthy of the name. Signaling/ACSES? Let's say $2M per mile, which seems to be the Ts number.
I'm looking at $50M to get to Nashua and build a layover, which the T needs anyway. Rolling stock? Well, if the T gets off it's duff and buys some EMUs for Prov, Stoughton and Fairmount, there will be sufficient existing stock. And don't forget, at least 10 of the 32 runs per day could be done by the existing Lowell trainsets, with the addition of 1-2 cars each.
 
Tallguy said:
So, Holyoke built a 400ft platform station in 2015 for $3.2M, which included parking and a building with restrooms. So, cut out those costs and substitute another 100ft of platform and account for inflation. $5 million? So, do that twice. Add 1000 ft of passer at S. Nashua, upgrade Class 3 to Class 4(CSX wants $500K per mile to upgrade a multi-mile siding for West-East). Let's call that $10M. There's one 40ft bridge on the route, barely worthy of the name. Signaling/ACSES? Let's say $2M per mile, which seems to be the Ts number.
I'm looking at $50M to get to Nashua and build a layover, which the T needs anyway. Rolling stock? Well, if the T gets off it's duff and buys some EMUs for Prov, Stoughton and Fairmount, there will be sufficient existing stock. And don't forget, at least 10 of the 32 runs per day could be done by the existing Lowell trainsets, with the addition of 1-2 cars each.
Click to expand...
The 2004 PMT estimated $35.5M with the 2 NH stations, North Chelmsford, and no UMass.
na-png.23591

That comes out to about $55M in 2023 dollars after factoring inflation...then add UMass. UMass may need up-and-over access considerations (or at least a graft-on to the existing ped overpass) and possibly an elevator for the up-and-over...let's say that one takes $10M. So figure $65M. If all platforms follow the MBTA design guide they'll be full 800-footers; the T doesn't do shorties unless physically constrained. But the NRPC estimate from '04 would've factored that, so we're good.

Probably no rolling stock needed for the following reasons:
  • The T is sitting on a surplus of coaches with the bi-level fleet at full strength and a number of single-levels sitting mothballed. That's accelerating as more each new bi provides 1.5x the seating of a displaced flat. To the degree they need any more bodies, they can simply slow the rate at which the displaced flats are retired.
  • The cab car count is generously increasing with this ongoing Rotem order, meaning the total number of trains run can increase and more than swallow the increases needed for both this and South Coast Rail.
  • A few decade out-of-service GP40MC locos are being returned to service, padding out an existing surplus of locomotives.
  • The layover-less Lowell Line has the highest number of 'waste' miles on the system from positioning deadheads. Having a proper layover is enough to convert a couple dead runs into properly-spaced revenue runs, negating the need to come up with whole-cloth new equipment for lengthening the schedules.

Throw in $10M for "contingencies" and other hidden sources of bloat and we're at about $75M, which feels kinda right for a project like this.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The 2004 PMT estimated $35.5M with the 2 NH stations, North Chelmsford, and no UMass.
na-png.23591

That comes out to about $55M in 2023 dollars after factoring inflation...then add UMass. UMass may need up-and-over access considerations (or at least a graft-on to the existing ped overpass) and possibly an elevator for the up-and-over...let's say that one takes $10M. So figure $65M. If all platforms follow the MBTA design guide they'll be full 800-footers; the T doesn't do shorties unless physically constrained. But the NRPC estimate from '04 would've factored that, so we're good.

Probably no rolling stock needed for the following reasons:
  • The T is sitting on a surplus of coaches with the bi-level fleet at full strength and a number of single-levels sitting mothballed. That's accelerating as more each new bi provides 1.5x the seating of a displaced flat. To the degree they need any more bodies, they can simply slow the rate at which the displaced flats are retired.
  • The cab car count is generously increasing with this ongoing Rotem order, meaning the total number of trains run can increase and more than swallow the increases needed for both this and South Coast Rail.
  • A few decade out-of-service GP40MC locos are being returned to service, padding out an existing surplus of locomotives.
  • The layover-less Lowell Line has the highest number of 'waste' miles on the system from positioning deadheads. Having a proper layover is enough to convert a couple dead runs into properly-spaced revenue runs, negating the need to come up with whole-cloth new equipment for lengthening the schedules.

Throw in $10M for "contingencies" and other hidden sources of bloat and we're at about $75M, which feels kinda right for a project like this.
Click to expand...
Listen, you need to give me a heads-up when you're going to agree with me. I need to reach out to my cardiologist 😉
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The 2004 PMT estimated $35.5M with the 2 NH stations, North Chelmsford, and no UMass.
na-png.23591

That comes out to about $55M in 2023 dollars after factoring inflation...then add UMass. UMass may need up-and-over access considerations (or at least a graft-on to the existing ped overpass) and possibly an elevator for the up-and-over...let's say that one takes $10M. So figure $65M. If all platforms follow the MBTA design guide they'll be full 800-footers; the T doesn't do shorties unless physically constrained. But the NRPC estimate from '04 would've factored that, so we're good.

Probably no rolling stock needed for the following reasons:
  • The T is sitting on a surplus of coaches with the bi-level fleet at full strength and a number of single-levels sitting mothballed. That's accelerating as more each new bi provides 1.5x the seating of a displaced flat. To the degree they need any more bodies, they can simply slow the rate at which the displaced flats are retired.
  • The cab car count is generously increasing with this ongoing Rotem order, meaning the total number of trains run can increase and more than swallow the increases needed for both this and South Coast Rail.
  • A few decade out-of-service GP40MC locos are being returned to service, padding out an existing surplus of locomotives.
  • The layover-less Lowell Line has the highest number of 'waste' miles on the system from positioning deadheads. Having a proper layover is enough to convert a couple dead runs into properly-spaced revenue runs, negating the need to come up with whole-cloth new equipment for lengthening the schedules.

Throw in $10M for "contingencies" and other hidden sources of bloat and we're at about $75M, which feels kinda right for a project like this.
Click to expand...
But of course, the T doesn't own the line in NH so Nashua might want to save some cash.
 
Tallguy said:
Does anyone know how far up PTC is installed?
Click to expand...
Just to Lowell Station. Ditto the cab signals layer. They wouldn't be able to run past unless cab signals and ACSES positive train control were installed.

Tallguy said:
But of course, the T doesn't own the line in NH so Nashua might want to save some cash.
Click to expand...
Ownership isn't required. Thanks to the GLX Somerville land swaps with Pan Am in 2008 the T has lifetime and irrevocable trackage rights all the way to Concord. No usage rights need to be negotiated with CSX, except for possible use of unused space in the Nashua freight yard as a layover.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Just to Lowell Station. Ditto the cab signals layer. They wouldn't be able to run past unless cab signals and ACSES positive train control were installed.


Ownership isn't required. Thanks to the GLX Somerville land swaps with Pan Am in 2008 the T has lifetime and irrevocable trackage rights all the way to Concord. No usage rights need to be negotiated with CSX, except for possible use of unused space in the Nashua freight yard as a layover.
Click to expand...
Not sure that impacts nashua's ability to say we're only building a 4 or 500 ft long platform
 
So there's no form of PTC between Lowell and Stony Brook
 
Tallguy said:
So there's no form of PTC between Lowell and Stony Brook
Click to expand...
Correct...none. CSX has a 2-year grace period to install something after the merger, but their positive train control system is I-ETMS which is incompatible with the ACSES system the T uses. I-ETMS and ACSES can be made to co-exist on the same stretch of track if CSX beats the T to the punch on the installation, but the T will have to install ACSES and cab signals in order to run its own equipment past Lowell.
 
Last edited:
Tallguy said:
Not sure that impacts nashua's ability to say we're only building a 4 or 500 ft long platform
Click to expand...
OK...I misunderstood. Yes, New Hampshire can do whatever they want for a platform as long as it's ADA-compliant. While Rhode Island adopts the T's Design Guide in-full with all of its accessibility above-and-beyonds for its station designs, NH isn't obligated to. They could do a shortie low + 1-car mini-high if they wanted.
 
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley said:
Correct...none. CSX has a 2-year grace period to install something after the merger, but their positive train control system is I-ETMS which is incompatible with the ACSES system the T uses. I-ETMS and ACSES can be made to co-exist on the same stretch of track if CSX beats the T to the punch on the installation, but the T will have to install ACSES and cab signals in order to run its own equipment past Lowell.
Click to expand...
Or put I-ETMS into 6-7 locos
 
Tallguy said:
Or put I-ETMS into 6-7 locos
Click to expand...
There's a whole back-office component to PTC, plus engineer training and qualifications. It would honestly be less expensive to just do the damn field installation of what they already have. MA isn't screaming from sticker shock, and the NH trackage to Nashua is only 4.3 miles.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
There's a whole back-office component to PTC, plus engineer training and qualifications. It would honestly be less expensive to just do the damn field installation of what they already have. MA isn't screaming from sticker shock, and the NH trackage to Nashua is only 4.3 miles.
Click to expand...
That's true enough. If Nashua is the terminal, you're looking at 30M for ASCES
 
Tallguy said:
That's true enough. If Nashua is the terminal, you're looking at 30M for ASCES
Click to expand...
Less than that. It cost them $516M to install PTC (including cab signals where those didn't exist) systemwide on 392 route miles, so about $1.3M per route mile. But that grand total is inclusive of all the back-office installs, radio spectrum acquisition, and--crucially--rolling stock installs that were required...so the per-mile field install for additional trackage is significantly less. Signals on the whole 13 miles from Lowell to Nashua probably wouldn't run them more than $5-7M at worst, with only $1-2M of that being in New Hampshire.


EDIT: The 2014 study did a full itemization: https://www.nh.gov/dot/org/aerorailtransit/railandtransit/documents/fr-app-7-detailed-eval.pdf.
NH.png


$2.9M for PTC + $5.1M for interlockings + $0.4M in general signals = $8.4M + inflation from 2014 to 2023.

Strip the rolling stock out of the picture and it's under $100M. Strip the contingency out and it's under $75M. From the most recent 2023 fact sheet it's station cost bloat that's the biggest variable as Pheasant Lane was tipping the scales at $21.2M (holy moly for a single side platform!) and Crown St. (double-track island) at $21.9M. Which are absolutely insane figures when the parking lots are pre-existing at both sites. So almost all of the targeted cost savings for a Nashua poke are going to be trying to wrestle those two back into line. The 2014 estimate's $6.3M in stations was just for South Nashua...no Crown St., no North Chelmsford (MA's bag), no UMass (MA's bag). So $6.3M + inflation sets the cost-control target for South Nashua, and probably serves as a multiplier template for Crown St. I kind of think it's hopeless that project management around here would be able to build stations for less than $9M, but that's a good slight better than $21M a pop.
 
Last edited:
I would set Holyoke as the goal. About $5M in today's dollars
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Here's the document dump on the draft study. . .

Fact sheet: https://www.nh.gov/dot/projects/nashuamanchester40818/documents/40818-info-sheets-winter-2023.pdf

Financial analysis report: https://www.nh.gov/dot/projects/nas...ents/40818-financial-analysis-report-2023.pdf


Damn...that's a lot of feddy bux they're running screaming from.
Click to expand...

I know it's a month old but just in case anyone like myself had never bothered to click through on those links there's some nice station renders in there.

Screenshot_20230417_190209_Drive.png
Screenshot_20230417_190220_Drive.png
Screenshot_20230417_190236_Drive.png
Screenshot_20230417_190252_Drive.png


I am particularly amused by this last one, Downtown Manchester. If you look closely you'll see they didn't bother with a ramp from the pedestrian bridge to the platform. So if you're coming from the plan north direction you're walking route is amusingly roundabout then ends with a grade crossing of the tracks. Looks like the criteria for design was no elevators.
 
Last edited:
This has no chance of being built right? NH has basically said Fuck Off to the Federal money?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top