Crazy Transit Pitches
- Thread starter BostonUrbEx
- Start date
ulrichomega
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2017
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 301
Exactly. Lechmere is a chokepoint, but with the Grand Junction switched to Light Rail we have a convenient outlet for a lot of traffic from the Sullivan direction. Also given how much of a job center Kendall is I think direct service there from points north would do a lot to alleviate congestion on the Orange Line and the downtown transfers.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,513
- Reaction score
- 10,257
Doesn't exist. Urban Ring Phase II was never studied in enough depth to itemize any costs by component, and hasn't been revisited in a dozen years now.
You would first have to re-study to even figure out WHAT kind of bridge you were building. UR has to go on the west side of the Eastern Route tracks to steer clear of the Everett Terminal freight turnout. That means that the most logical bridge option would be repurposing the 1988 RR bridge for the UR and instead building a new RR bridge on the alignment of the old Eastern Route drawbridge...at half the length of the '88 span...to shift the Eastern Route onto. But if that's not doable you're probably building a new one to the north that's a few hundred feet longer than the '88 span.
How can you possibly peg an itemization without doing a new study to affirm even a tentative preference? It's unknowable, because we don't know by factor of half how long a new bridge will need to be.
How unrealistic would it be to double track every commuter rail line? And then triple or quadruple tack the 5 or 6 busiest lines to allow express trains? Would doing this make any tangible difference in terms of speed and reliability of the commuter rail?
I think it ranges from easy (add retaining walls and lay track) for Needham to damn near impossible (Old Colony pinch). NYC has shown that you can run an absurd amount of service well dispatched across two tracks. I think two tracks should suffice for almost all express/local service in the network, maybe save the NEC.
Thank you, F Line, for telling me that YOU are not aware of anyone, say Wynn Resorts, who has looked into it. They have thrown money around like a drunken sailor. Perhaps someone else has. Hence my query.
Again, another polite, useful comment. Is this forum here to take potshots at each other or to discuss transit? I asked a polite question. So far, I've gotten two snide comments.
I don't proport to know everything about everything, and neither should either of you.
And btw, Santa did the secret report, not the Bunny
ulrichomega
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2017
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 301
Surely the bigger cost for Light Rail in that direction is going to be the complete retooling of Sullivan station? You need to make room for an Orange Line platform, at least one Commuter Rail platform (maybe more depending on how we're redoing the Haverhill line's connection here) and a Green Line platform. All of this under a major roadway. It looks like there's physically room to spread out in there, but the supports for the highway surely weren't built with this in mind and will have to be redone.
So right now, there are seven tracks and two platforms @Sullivan: (from east to west)2 CR, the unused OL express track, an island platform OL, island platform, OL, and two empty spurs up from Brickbottom. The two lines could be separated enough for a platform AFAIK, so, whith some kind of connection over the tracks, you could do it. As far as the CR, it depends on how badly you want to preserve the unused express track. If (big if)you can connect that line to the western CR without running into a highway pylon, that means you could have space for a platform for the eastern track. If not, then you could build a new platform over the OL express and either blow out the station wall ( no idea whats on the other side) and or run the platform offset to the north.
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,513
- Reaction score
- 10,257
It's not necessary, because capacity doesn't really match 1:1 with number of tracks.
Background. . .
In the old days of steam, 1840-1950, block signaling was fairly primitive and RR tracks were signaled mostly unidirectional. This was because:
- Steam locomotives were unidirectional and had to be turned around at wyes, loops, or a turntable. No such thing as passenger push-pull or freight cab-backward running, except with early electrics.
- The RR was mechanically dispatched from employees in lineside towers every umpteen miles pulling levers on a mechanical switchboard while reading a telegraph feed. The only way to keep it sane was to segregate track directions over-rigidly.
- Trains could run "wrong rail" if they absolutely had to for reaching a siding or junction, but it was kludgy at best and required extra cautions that gummed up traffic in the other direction.
- Track switching was primitive until switch motors were perfected, so throwing a crossover switch either required a human switch tender in the field (usually practical only at staffed stations or very busy spots), or complicated pneumatic machinery to auto-throw a switch.
After WWII things were significantly modernized with bi-directional diesels, and what's called Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) signaling which consolidated all those manual field towers (last one on the T: Waltham Tower controlling Fitchburg Line, retired 2011) in favor of massively centralized and heavily automated master controls. The T has the whole northside and whole southside under centralized dispatch offices...and CSX, for example, dispatches close to 100K miles of its whole east-of-Mississippi route network out of some giant operations bunker down South. With that centralization the lines were updated with full bi-directional signaling and a crapton more automatic switches so no human had to physically touch traffic.
The upshot was that the extra tracks were no longer needed. Dispatch now had the whole 'big-picture' railroad at its fingertips instead of having to play telephone with a bunch of field towers, automated crossovers were way more numerous, and the signals (including widespread deployment of stop-enforcing cab signals) were much safer and more precise for staging close train meets. A well-designed 2-track line would have MORE raw capacity than the 4-track express+local line of old that could only do brute-force overtakes. And the single-track line with very well-placed passing sidings corresponding to scheduled meets could fare just as well as a double-track line. So the RR's, which were flailing around in bankruptcy by the 50's and 60's, ripped out most of their extra trackage...some haphazardly, some judiciously. Quad-track really only remained on the NEC where passenger traffic New Haven-south remained too insanely dense (even during the ridership famine era) to mess with. That's also when all of the non-passenger branchlines that were still human/tower-controlled had their signals retired and went dark (local examples: Cape Cod mainline, Framingham Secondary, Fitchburg Secondary, Peabody Branch, Fall River & New Bedford Branches + pre-restoration Middleboro & Plymouth).
-----------------------------------
What does it mean today?
- A lot of the remaining single-track needs to be backfilled back to double due to changing traffic levels.
- They obviously re-doubled the Haverhill Line between Wilmington and Lawrence because the cuts to single were too severe 50 years ago.
- Franklin has a funded package starting construction soon for DT spanning the long stretch between Walpole and Norfolk stations so train meets are less brittle. It'll get a little bit more between Norwood Central and Windsor Gardens if Foxboro full-time service comes to pass.
- Worcester got the Beacon Park constriction filled, and is funded for Worcester Union Station to get a second platform track. That will make it the only line other than NEC & Lowell that are unbroken DT end-to-end.
- Fairmount's due to get its Readville platform located off the single-track connector so it can host intended service levels on a double-track full-high island. That would make Fairmount the 4th line to be unbroken end-to-end DT.
- RER will require a systemwide audit on where additional double-track is needed.
- Wildcat Branch will probably need to be doubled up if Haverhill trains are being moved out there.
- Reading Line Urban Rail requires Reading Jct. in Somerville to be doubled, the Wellington passing siding to be upgraded, and Reading Station-proper to be doubled. The unexpandable Medford-Malden single-track along the Orange Line is OK so long as long-haul service to Haverhill vacates.
- Newburyport Branch will need most (maybe not 100%) of its remaining single backfilled.
That said, some places can probably suffice as single-track for a very long time.
- Old Colony branches. Obviously until you spend megabucks to fix the Dorchester-Quincy pinch there's not enough traffic that can get through to merit unbroken DT. You'll just be adjusting the lengths of the passing sidings if scheduled meets change.
- Needham. Same reason; service levels can't physically increase because of SW Corridor congestion, so no point. The only contiguous DT it'll ever see is from Orange & Green.
- Gloucester-Rockport and Franklin-Forge Park. Arse ends of the line, so even at RER :30 levels trains clear the single track without problems. At most, Gloucester Station-proper and Franklin Station-proper could use a doubling-up instead of the double cutting out right before the stops...but it won't be needed on the running track between there and the terminal stops.
- Extremely short single-track exceptions. Examples:
- There's a practical reason why the Fairmount-Franklin connector is a single-track bridge that wasn't doubled-up. That short stretch spans "Readville Upper" and "Readville Lower" junctions, where the sheer complexity of the switches makes it operationally easier to stage as single rather than double. It's too short a stretch to affect ANY :30 or :15 headway on Fairmount, Foxboro, or Forge Park so is a non-issue.
- There may have to be a short stretch of single in the middle between Windsor Gardens and Walpole, because there's a narrow historic tunnel under a block of Walpole streets that would prevent side emergency exit from a stalled train if it went back to DT.
- Junctions: Wildcat Branch split from Lowell Line immediately crosses a grade crossing; no problem if it doesn't fan out to DT until after the crossing. Ditto the Middleboro/Plymouth split because both feed immediately into crossovers at Braintree Station and switches for 2 x 2 splits are maintenance-intensive.
For MORE than 2 tracks. . .
Basically nowhere except the NEC. And that's for one very specific reason: speed differential, not express vs. local. Even though you have a pretty dense layer cake of services envisioned for Worcester and even Lowell...with increased Amtrak presence bouncing around in there...all traffic is moving at more or less the same top speed. A well-designed crossover layout is what makes it happen.
So for example:
- Most Worcester service is going to be skipping through Allston-Newton like today and picking up only the occasional stop. It's the only way to keep sane travel times. On Amtrak, Framingham's the first stop for a Lake Shore Ltd. or an Inland Route train, so their needs for skipping over the Urban Rail Riverside locals are exactly the same as most Worcester schedules. One track layout between Yawkey and Riverside Jct. handles all meets.
- After the Riverside trains have dropped off, it's only Amtrak and some super-expresses that have to leapfrog anything in Wellesley and Natick. Fewer crossovers necessary for juggling that traffic, so there's more flex to add them if Amtrak's and T skip-stop's needs start to diverge.
- After Framingham, it's just Worcester and Amtrak. Other MetroWest locals have all dropped off. And Worcester is making the local stops everywhere except maybe on some future Heart-to-Hub schedule where they're making the same skips as Amtrak. It's pretty much crossovers for Amtrak.
Now, you DO have places for 3-track passers: West-Boston Landing where it actually exists, the new Natick station which leaves a provision, and possibly a sorting stretch between Riverside Jct. across 128 if it's necessary for resetting the order after the Urban Rail trains turn out. Likewise, the Framingham and Westborough freight yard leads space out *possible* passing opportunities to the west if traffic ever gets hectic enough. But I would not consider any of those available lengths of triple necessities; some are just easy-grab luxuries because they're already present. Those wouldn't be needed for base-build RER. That's more for when you've got RER, NSRL, max-expansion Amtrak schedules, Framingham-Northborough branch service, and a couple decades of mind-blowing growth on the whole lot of them.
Q: WHY IS THE NEC DIFFERENT?
A: THE NEED FOR SPEED! 8)
The EMU'd Providence Line of our dreams is not going to look a ton different from today. You might kiss 90 MPH for an insignificant number of seconds, but generally speaking the stop spacing doesn't allow for much more than that (thus, not many EMU's on the market ever get rated for speeds >90 because the added expense won't be put to good enough use).
But NE Regionals sustain a maximum-rated 125 MPH from about a mile south of Canton Viaduct all the way to the RI state line. And Acelas sustain 150 MPH (to-be 165 MPH) from the curve by Sharon Station to East Junction in Attleboro. And at those speeds it gets incredibly difficult to time an overtake with any precision, because even a variable station dwell like if the Providence train's staff had to assist a special-needs passenger at Mansfield @ 1-2 min. penalty can be enough that the nonstop Acela has moved too far vs. the next crossover opportunity. Therefore, Amtrak dispatch has to level punitive and unilateral priority on its own trains to keep commuter chaos effects from screwing them up.
^THIS^ is where you need 3-4 tracks, because the speed differential so limits the effectiveness of crossovers for meets, and HSR ops limit how many crossovers you can feasibly spray around like a confetti cannon. Sustained triple-digit speed Amtraks that are at many times running >2x the speed of commuter locals need segregation. And the T needs to trim the fat out of the Providence schedule imposed by Amtrak dispatch priority. Until recently that called for a contiguous 3 tracks everywhere except certain pinch points like Canton Viaduct or the Blackstone River Bridge into RI (both non-issues), and 4-track bulb-outs at most stations. With the recent NEC FUTURE study claiming even higher HSR service levels post-2040, now it looks a lot more prudent to just quad everything up except by the Viaduct and South Attleboro. With slower-speed territory between Forest Hills and 128 just needing it because of sheer nuttiness of traffic levels in the RER era.
But unless we start to see a widening speed differential on other lines (not very likely) or start to see Metro North-level schedule congestion on other lines (also not very likely)...there probably won't be a need likely to arise for any contiguous tri-track segments (just those Worcester tri- passers, which are operationally more akin to rich-man's crossovers).
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,159
- Reaction score
- 4,400
Thank you F-Line, that was a hugely informative post. The dispatch complexity are pretty mind boggling.
The point is that unless you have a copy of the Santa study to publish here, we all lack the data to make for a meaningful discussion beyond rough speculation.
Again, another polite, useful comment. Is this forum here to take potshots at each other or to discuss transit? I asked a polite question. So far, I've gotten two snide comments.
I don't proport to know everything about everything, and neither should either of you.
And btw, Santa did the secret report, not the Bunny
The point is that unless you have a copy of the Santa study to publish here, we all lack the data to make for a meaningful discussion beyond rough speculation.
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,513
- Reaction score
- 10,257
Complete retooling isn't necessary. The freight tracks side is where Green would go since that's a straight shot from the 3rd Ave. carhouse (with a quick duck-under of the freight wye needed). The highway supports most definitely were built for 2 tracks on that side, since Assembly was a major freight yard until the mid-1980's. That 2-track ROW is 35 ft. wide from Orange Line fence to Clinton Pl. retaining wall, exactly the same measurements as 2 tracks + 2 full-ADA platforms at BU Central station. Only in this case the the tracks would be spread out as close to the wall/fence as the trolley's clearance envelope would go and the 6+6 ft. of platforms would be lumped center into a 12 ft. island.
Since all of that is outside of the Orange station's structure, then it's just a matter of extending the main entrance headhouse serving the 2 current OL islands back over the Green island and shafting down another set of stairs and elevators. If they haven't also plunked a small entrance on Perkins St. by this point, now is the time to finish the job. But that's pretty much it for necessary station construction. It would be a lot more complicated if BRT were chosen for the Ring because space for wider-envelope buses on that side is hard to come by, but this is so easy for LRT that they might even want to do just a Sullivan +1 now and extend C's that normally terminate at North Station to there for some cheap & instant boost. Take those free-throws sooner, figure out the Mystic crossing later.
Now, the CR side is much harder than the freight tracks/UR side because that most definitely was not laid out to support a platform add-on. I honestly have no idea how one fits a pair of 6 ft. wide ADA side platforms or a 12 ft. island in here. Cannibalizing the Orange Line third track for the job isn't feasible because you can clearly see all the big honking girders in the way. And the Orange Viaduct from Community College touches down too close to the Sullivan platforms to try to track-shift the modes around to use that berth.
They say they want it for RER...which means not long from now. It would be great to have if they can do it. But I have no frigging idea how they're going to build it so I hope somebody can show a render of how this is going to work. *SOMEBODY* on the Rail Vision team has to have some inkling of how it would work, otherwise it would be irresponsible to promo Sullivan CR as a coming attraction. I just hope it's a more cunning plan than "build a platform way the hell on Sherman St. behind the Charlestown Garage scrap pile, and walk 2 blocks to the so-called 'cross-platform' transfer"...because that would be a major buzzkill.
ulrichomega
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2017
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 301
Given that's what they did with Ruggles...
Agreed. This isn't a high priority extension, but it seems like an obvious one after we've nailed a few other Green Line extensions. It won't be the cheapest one that's ever been done, but it's hardly the impossible feat of engineering that something like burying the Grand Junction under Main would be. Personally I'd much rather have an activation of that ROW come from up in Everett as that seems to serve more people assuming urban-ring-as-light-rail happens.
So basically:
- 1/Pines Pond
- Linden
- 99/Maplewood
- Cross St
- Dana St
- Malden Square
- Bell Rock
- Park L
- Santilli Circle
- Encore
- Sullivan
EDIT: Heck, if you shift the far end of this down to the Showcase and through the traffic circle you can take over the old Rt 1 ROW and send this thing all the way out to Lynn through the swamp. Obviously that's an entirely new order of magnitude of funding and effort for a lot of rail through a place not many people want to go, but if we can't get the Blue Line out there, why not?
My main reason for suggesting routing through Wellington rather than Everett is the timeframe for a Mystic River crossing bridge. Assuming Green Line UR your routing has some advantages.
The Northern Strand is basically a duplicated orange line with the same basic issue: half of its catchment is river. A much better use of resources, albeit at a much greater cost, would be to build a subway through Everett under Broadway/99 connecting to the Strand at Route 60 across for the Holy Cross Cemetery. It would be better if this was not part of the Orange line but I'm not sure that's possible. Given that this is crazy transit pitches, I would put the new line from Everett through Charleston under Main (if possible) or New Rutherford/99 (if not) and run it through the alt-N-S Rail-link on Congress St and connecting it to Dudley->Mattapan. Connections to North Station, Haymarket, State, maybe Post office Square, South Station, and Tufts Medical (not that I see the geometry there).
Because this is crazy transit pitches, another northern alternative to this new line through Boston would be to thread it north with a train deck on the Tobin and run it under Broadway/107 in Chelsea turning toward the Northgate and connecting to the Strand on the other side. Both of these northern lines could co-exist if you kept the 99 route on 99 and never turned it on the Strand, but it's having the two southern routings that becomes less beneficial. Maybe under a grand junction ring (if geometrically possible), turning at Mass Ave and creating the long missing Mass Ave Subway? That seems like a waste of that build though.
Because this is crazy transit pitches, another northern alternative to this new line through Boston would be to thread it north with a train deck on the Tobin and run it under Broadway/107 in Chelsea turning toward the Northgate and connecting to the Strand on the other side. Both of these northern lines could co-exist if you kept the 99 route on 99 and never turned it on the Strand, but it's having the two southern routings that becomes less beneficial. Maybe under a grand junction ring (if geometrically possible), turning at Mass Ave and creating the long missing Mass Ave Subway? That seems like a waste of that build though.
ulrichomega
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2017
- Messages
- 244
- Reaction score
- 301
A subway under Broadway is one of those "needs to happen on a long time scale" things. In the shorter term, sending a Green Line branch up to Malden alleviates an Orange line that's already straining, and will be straining more heavily if it's extended to Reading (yes yes yes, they're getting more cars, that's not going to help indefinitely). And worst case scenario you can build the Green Line out as far as you want/can, and then once you've built your Broadway tunnel you cannibalize whatever ROW you need and you're golden.
I've been fiddling with maps including a transit level on a rebuilt Tobin, and I've got to say I like them a lot. I think that reusing some of 1's ROW is a better use of resources, though. It's a bit tight for anything on the surface, but an elevated or tunnel should be fine (but expensive). The benefits of a transit over the Tobin are that it gives Charlestown some much needed transit, it activates a new ROW rather than needing to cannibalize anything existing, and it gives Chelsea a much better way into the city. Unfortunately, there's not really anywhere to go once you hit Charlestown. I don't think you can get deep enough for the NSRL bores by that point, and there's no way you're getting into the Orange Line tunnels. I sort of like sending it over to Kendall somehow, given how much of a job center that is/is going to be.
End result
Overall, I don't really see the utility in continuing heavy rail out into Saugus (or even along the old 1 reservation). Too few people, too long distances, and too much swamp. Chelsea and Everett could both use the transit eventually, but if it really comes down to it I'd be tempted to say just pull a Mattapan Trolley out to Saugus (and maybe continue it to Lynn to reconnect with the Blue Line there). Another benefit of ending in the interchange there (for both lines) is the relative abundance of land for things like maintenance yards.
If you're branching the Orange Line, I think you need the Green Line to Malden at the same time to compensate for the loss in service. If you're sending the Orange Line to Reading at the same time, I don't think you can even branch. You'd probably have to figure out a new place for the Broadway Subway to go to at that point.
EDIT: Updated map with a some spitballs at possible extensions from a Tobin transit deck. I can't come up with anything good. A Memorial Drive subway is ridiculously expensive for service the fish in the Charles, but does mean you could extend to Harvard/Alston eventually. You could weave around and do some impossible geometry work to head down over Memorial which serves Back Bay pretty well (and gives Chelsea/Revere riders another destination) but is, again, kind of impossible. You could also just pull a u-ey and bang back out along the Blue Line, but that kills connections the most.
Last edited:
Would it be possible to build a rapid transit line along the Fairmount line by elevating it over the tracks, somewhat like the Union Freight RR and the Atlantic Ave El? You would probably run into some difficulty when the line goes below grade at Washington Street, but a viaduct over the crossing could work, save neighborhood opposition that might arise.