Crazy Transit Pitches

[themissinglink]

the extra 10 minutes it might take to catch the Acela out of South Station than at Back Bay.

The Acela already takes a minimum of 3 hours and 30 minutes to travel between Boston and New York; the entire trip between Boston and Washington takes around 6 hours and 45 minutes. The last thing the Acela needs is a speed reduction, especially on the Boston - New York segment.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Well, We ran ALL Amtrak service over that route for the 8 years it took to build the Southwest Corridor. I would presume my proposal would entail the same improvements for the Fairmount Line that the SW Corridor experienced when it was re- built. I ran freight and passenger service over the Fairmount Line so my evidence is my recollection of the route. And my proposal includes electrifying the T service too. That would help to increase the average speed over the route. And I am all for increasing capacity on the SW Corridor too! Further. I think getting thousands of people to work faster each day ( Franklin service at Ruggles and Back Bay) Is a higher priority than the extra 10 minutes it might take to catch the Acela out of South Station than at Back Bay.

It doesn't matter. Amtrak controls the dispatching on the NEC. They maintain all the track, maintain all the electrification. They like the ticket revenue that Back Bay provides. No force--not even MassDOT--has the power to compel them to make a move to inferior environs when they don't want to. Either show a reason Amtrak would want to do this, or admit it's a God Mode personal preference. Amtrak isn't going to choose the Dorchester Branch of its own volition...and Amtrak's own volition sets the table here.

Especially when the ride to South Station from Readville is already 15 minutes longer via Dorchester than Readville to Back Bay via NEC. Even with a immediate departure, cross platform transfer, Readville to BOS to BBY is a 20 minute longer trip in the best circumstances. That is a tough sell to Franklin Line riders. Far better to convert Needham to OLX/GLX2 and leave Franklin alone.

Franklin can't be "left alone" and get Regional Rail frequencies. :30 minutes bi-directional clock-facing won't mix with :30 bi-di Providence, :30 bi-di Stoughton, and all of Amtrak + future Amtrak growth. Not even with Needham expunged (though it's that much worse if Needham isn't expunged). That's how serious the SW Corridor capacity crunch is.

So some enhanced usage of the Fairmount Line is mandatory if you want to give all of these lines (at least Providence + Stoughton + Franklin) equitable turns in a Regional Rail universe. The T can guarantee :30 bi-directional clock-facing frequencies by running all Franklin + Foxboro service over the Dorchester Branch. There's no Amtrak traffic complicating the mixture, and the T is the dispatcher for Fairmount unlike the NEC which is Amtrak-dispatched. So that's why they put moving Franklin over to Fairmount in the Rail Vision documents as a bucket list item.

The reality is a little more granular. Yes...you have to use Fairmount more often to prop up the backside of a Franklin Regional Rail schedule and do so without gapping out the clock-facingness of the frequencies. You don't, however, have to use it exclusively. Backfill slots will be available via the NEC. They just may not conform to the same clock-facing intervals, so you have to pick your spots. It probably won't be as full a slate as currently runs NEC-Franklin, but it can be a plenty useful number of BBY/Ruggles slots. So long as they don't infringe on clock-facing Providence or Stoughton/South Coast slots that have first priority for the NEC there's a lot of leeway for portioning the schedule, and nobody gets deprived of access.

 

[themissinglink]

If Providence/Stoughton line trains could stop at Readville (probably would need to be quad-tracked), Franklin Line commuters could likely get to Ruggles and Back Bay faster if they got off at Readville and transferred to an inbound Providence/Stoughton train.

I feel like Readville should/needs to become a somewhat major transfer point for the Commuter Rail in the future.

 

[Riverside]

You don't, however, have to use it exclusively.

Right, maybe I should have said this explicitly -- rerouting some (but not all) Franklin Line trains off of the NEC is reasonable alternative. For example, if an extension to Woonsocket (or to Milford, for that matter) ever comes, that would be a service I'd recommend routing via the NEC. At that distance, it'll be low frequency -- probably hourly -- which means it'll never be turn-up-and-go, and therefore a bit less disruptive to the rider experience if the schedule isn't quite clock-facing in order to slide into the open slots on the NEC. Plus, at that distance, it's not unreasonable to prioritize the time-savings of the NEC vs Fairmount.

Another thing to keep in mind... if some of your Stoughton trains are net-new and terminate at Stoughton, then you could also reroute the occasional Stoughton train over the Fairmount instead, and free up a slot for the long-haul Franklin train.

And yes, to @themissinglink's point -- done properly, Readville could become a major transfer point.

 

[BostonBoy]

The

The Acela already takes a minimum of 3 hours and 30 minutes to travel between Boston and New York; the entire trip between Boston and Washington takes around 6 hours and 45 minutes. The last thing the Acela needs is a speed reduction, especially on the Boston - New York segment.
[/QUOTE
My proposal could potentially reduce the travel time, but I am fully aware that a comprehensive evaluation would be needed to assess that assertion. The only area I remember which would have to be addressed to increase the speed on the Fairmount route is a cut of rocks under the Washington Street Bridge. And the Bird Street grade crossing was eliminated years ago. I do not believe the curves on the Fairmount Line are any sharper than those on the Southwest Corridor. And, I acknowledge I'm referencing a time on the Fairmount Line before most of the station were added . But the Corridor has B. Bay, Ruggles, Forest Hills, Hyde Park, and Readville. So it's not like the Corridor is a straight shot for Amtrak either. I cannot tell you how many times my Acela followed Locals into South Station. Too many for this old timer. BTW , I am amazed at the breadth and depth of knowledge you guys possess on so many different transportation modes! I stick to what I'm familiar with, Amtrak between Boston and NY City.

 

[themissinglink]

My proposal could potentially reduce the travel time, but I am fully aware that a comprehensive evaluation would be needed to assess that assertion. The only area I remember which would have to be addressed to increase the speed on the Fairmount route is a cut of rocks under the Washington Street Bridge. And the Bird Street grade crossing was eliminated years ago. I do not believe the curves on the Fairmount Line are any sharper than those on the Southwest Corridor. And, I acknowledge I'm referencing a time on the Fairmount Line before most of the station were added . But the Corridor has B. Bay, Ruggles, Forest Hills, Hyde Park, and Readville. So it's not like the Corridor is a straight shot for Amtrak either. I cannot tell you how many times my Acela followed Locals into South Station. Too many for this old timer. BTW , I am amazed at the breadth and depth of knowledge you guys possess on so many different transportation modes! I stick to what I'm familiar with, Amtrak between Boston and NY City.

I'd imagine the speed of Amtrak trains on the Dorchester Branch would be limited mostly by the slow commuter rail traffic, as opposed to being limited by the track geometry.

 

[BostonBoy]

Mr. F Line

It doesn't matter. Amtrak controls the dispatching on the NEC. They maintain all the track, maintain all the electrification. They like the ticket revenue that Back Bay provides. No force--not even MassDOT--has the power to compel them to make a move to inferior environs when they don't want to. Either show a reason Amtrak would want to do this, or admit it's a God Mode personal preference. Amtrak isn't going to choose the Dorchester Branch of its own volition...and Amtrak's own volition sets the table here.


Franklin can't be "left alone" and get Regional Rail frequencies. :30 minutes bi-directional clock-facing won't mix with :30 bi-di Providence, :30 bi-di Stoughton, and all of Amtrak + future Amtrak growth. Not even with Needham expunged (though it's that much worse if Needham isn't expunged). That's how serious the SW Corridor capacity crunch is.

So some enhanced usage of the Fairmount Line is mandatory if you want to give all of these lines (at least Providence + Stoughton + Franklin) equitable turns in a Regional Rail universe. The T can guarantee :30 bi-directional clock-facing frequencies by running all Franklin + Foxboro service over the Dorchester Branch. There's no Amtrak traffic complicating the mixture, and the T is the dispatcher for Fairmount unlike the NEC which is Amtrak-dispatched. So that's why they put moving Franklin over to Fairmount in the Rail Vision documents as a bucket list item.

The reality is a little more granular. Yes...you have to use Fairmount more often to prop up the backside of a Franklin Regional Rail schedule and do so without gapping out the clock-facingness of the frequencies. You don't, however, have to use it exclusively. Backfill slots will be available via the NEC. They just may not conform to the same clock-facing intervals, so you have to pick your spots. It probably won't be as full a slate as currently runs NEC-Franklin, but it can be a plenty useful number of BBY/Ruggles slots. So long as they don't infringe on clock-facing Providence or Stoughton/South Coast slots that have first priority for the NEC there's a lot of leeway for portioning the schedule, and nobody gets deprived of access.

Amtrak controls the dispatching. But it does NOT control the railroad real estate. That is controlled by the Commonwealth and if it decided it wanted to change things, it would go to Amtrak to re- negotiate the ( I believe it's called ) the Attleboro Agreement. If the Commonwealth wanted to re-arrange things Between South Station and State Line, it could.

 

[BostonBoy]

I'd imagine the speed of Amtrak trains on the Dorchester Branch would be limited mostly by the slow commuter rail traffic, as opposed to being limited by the track geometry.

My proposal would include electric trains for the commuter service on the line, as a pilot for the greater regional rail proposal for the T

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Mr. F Line

Amtrak controls the dispatching. But it does NOT control the railroad real estate. That is controlled by the Commonwealth and if it decided it wanted to change things, it would go to Amtrak to re- negotiate the ( I believe it's called ) the Attleboro Agreement. If the Commonwealth wanted to re-arrange things Between South Station and State Line, it could.

It can't force Amtrak to do it. It takes two parties to agree to change the dispatching structure, and Amtrak has to be a voluntary party to it.

So show how they become a voluntary party to a change that cuts directly against their revenue. Don't just cloak this in pollyannaish "what-if's"...show how it can be done.

 

[themissinglink]

My proposal would include electric trains for the commuter service on the line, as a pilot for the greater regional rail proposal for the T

The commuter rail trains would still have to make a number of stops, at stations which lack passing tracks. It would certainly slow down any Amtrak service.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

If Providence/Stoughton line trains could stop at Readville (probably would need to be quad-tracked), Franklin Line commuters could likely get to Ruggles and Back Bay faster if they got off at Readville and transferred to an inbound Providence/Stoughton train.

I feel like Readville should/needs to become a somewhat major transfer point for the Commuter Rail in the future.

This is probably a major component of how it'll work. Readville used to be a quad-track, 2-sides NEC station...as you can see from how over-wide the current outbound platform is. So it can definitely be reverted to that setup again. You have clock-facing Providence+Stoughton trains every 7.5 minutes meeting clock-facing Franklin+Foxboro trains every 7.5 minutes at the station. All destinations would have a ton more frequencies at a ton more predictability, as well as predictability on making any linked trips via transfer. Therefore there's going to be a lot more linked trips. So it's not necessarily a hardship if Franklin only gets to take an NEC turn once an hour or more...you have options spread throughout the clock for reaching BBY one way or another. Options you don't have with today's paper schedules.

Another thing to keep in mind... if some of your Stoughton trains are net-new and terminate at Stoughton, then you could also reroute the occasional Stoughton train over the Fairmount instead, and free up a slot for the long-haul Franklin train.

This probably won't happen, because then Stoughton would go from being an all-Amtrak dispatched mainline service (as far as Canton Jct.) to an awkward combination of T-then-Amtrak dispatching. It would take a very brittle threading of the needle to transition off T dispatching at Readville Jct. on to Amtrak dispatching for Readville-Canton...where any blown schedule on the Dorchester Branch forces the Stoughton train to hold for Amtrak dispatch to wave through something that does have NEC priority. It'll be somewhat difficult to sustain true clock-facing frequencies through the chaos effects, and the net result....while probably still functional...is going to be a line that perennially pulls up the rear on OTP because of rather frequently occurring random mis-times @ Readville.

It's far better to keep this simple: Providence and Stoughton stick entirely to the NEC dispatcher at least as far as Canton, Franklin and Foxboro stick to the Dorchester Branch dispatcher...and any remaining backfill slots on the NEC become Franklin extras or diversions. Trying to divide that pie too finely for the sake of equanimity is going to have operational demerits.

 

[BostonBoy]

D

It can't force Amtrak to do it. It takes two parties to agree to change the dispatching structure, and Amtrak has to be a voluntary party to it.

So show how they become a voluntary party to a change that cuts directly against their revenue. Don't just cloak this in pollyannaish "what-if's"...show how it can be done.

You presume their revenue would be cut by eliminating Back Bay? What are the alternatives to somebody who normally boards Amtrak at Back Bay? Do you think an Acela Rider would just head off to Logan?or just take the T, or an Uber, or a taxi ,to South Station. I do not believe there would be any significant drop off in ridership because somebody had to travel an extra mile to board a train. And I was thinking of an improvement of the railroad on the Fairmount line (even with an extra track at Rugby yard!) to increase the speeds. I'm a little surprised at how many people brush off an idea, from somebody who actually did it and can envision an improvement of that corridor to mitigate some of the congestion on the SW Corridor. I honestly believe four tracks signaled for both directions at lower speeds would have been better than the three they dropped in the trench when they built in in the 80's. And "Pollyannaish"? From the guy who proposed a tunnel under a river in Providence? C'mon man, this IS Crazy transit pitches isn't it? I wrote this as a "what if" .Personally I do not believe abutters would abide it. They would be scared away by the high speed. But If I were King, I would have transportation professionals looking at its feasability.

 

[themissinglink]

They would be scared away by the high speed.

The Dorchester Branch isn't going to be running trains at high speeds, it's only double tracked with slow commuter rail service. Plus, the ROW is pretty constrained space-wise and it doesn't have many opportunities for any additional tracks.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

You presume their revenue would be cut by eliminating Back Bay? What are the alternatives to somebody who normally boards Amtrak at Back Bay? Do you think an Acela Rider would just head off to Logan?or just take the T, or an Uber, or a taxi ,to South Station. I do not believe there would be any significant drop off in ridership because somebody had to travel an extra mile to board a train.

You've been provided with the Amtrak ridership figures at Back Bay. It takes a 25% cut. It is absolutely on you to show where that ridership goes if you cut Back Bay from all Amtrak NEC schedules. You can't just [hand waves] "I don't believe..." that away.

And I was thinking of an improvement of the railroad on the Fairmount line (even with an extra track at Rugby yard!) to increase the speeds. I'm a little surprised at how many people brush off an idea, from somebody who actually did it and can envision an improvement of that corridor to mitigate some of the congestion on the SW Corridor. I honestly believe four tracks signaled for both directions at lower speeds would have been better than the three they dropped in the trench when they built in in the 80's. And "Pollyannaish"? From the guy who proposed a tunnel under a river in Providence? C'mon man, this IS Crazy transit pitches isn't it? I wrote this as a "what if" .Personally I do not believe abutters would abide it. They would be scared away by the high speed. But If I were King, I would have transportation professionals looking at its feasability.

Now you want to blow stuff up to QUAD track the Fairmount? It can't be done north of River St...the ROW is abutted wall-to-wall on nearly the entire route. Damn right they wouldn't abide.


We have an "If I were King" thread. This isn't it. Crazy Pitches can be financially unconstrained, but they still have to show a Purpose & Need. They still have to show where rational actors are going to act in their own best interests. They still have to deal with real-world hurdles like how much hardship (property takings, etc.) gets counterbalanced by the supposed benefits. You're not doing any of that here.

 

[BostonBoy]

You've been provided with the Amtrak ridership figures at Back Bay. It takes a 25% cut. It is absolutely on you to show where that ridership goes if you cut Back Bay from all Amtrak NEC schedules. You can't just [hand waves] "I don't believe..." that away.



Now you want to blow stuff up to QUAD track the Fairmount? It can't be done north of River St...the ROW is abutted wall-to-wall on nearly the entire route. Damn right they wouldn't abide.


We have an "If I were King" thread. This isn't it. Crazy Pitches can be financially unconstrained, but they still have to show a Purpose & Need. They still have to show where rational actors are going to act in their own best interests. They still have to deal with real-world hurdles like how much hardship (property takings, etc.) gets counterbalanced by the supposed benefits. You're not doing any of that here.

The purpose would be to increase capacity in the Corridor, for expanded commuter rail, while improving service on the Fairmount Line, without impairing Amtrak's service. The route over the second district is feasable. The speeds could be increased, it's shorter, and there would be time saved by eliminating a station stop. It may actually be a FASTER alternative to the SW Corridor. It was used for Amtrak service before. There was no Back Bay for 8 years and our ridership numbers did not suffer because of it. This is my personal experience. It would also provide opportunities in the Fairmount corridor for reverse commuting to new job centers at rte 128 and even Rhode Island. And, as far as having data to support my argument, I argued that most riders would suffer the extra mile (literally) to South Station than choose Logan, or a bus, because they did it already, for 8 years.

 

[themissinglink]

without impairing Amtrak's service.

The speeds could be increased, it's shorter, and there would be time saved by eliminating a station stop. It may actually be a FASTER alternative to the SW Corridor.

It would be basically impossible to run Amtrak services on the Dorchester Branch without significant speed/time demerits. It certainly would not be a faster alternative to the triple tracked, 120 MPH Northeast Corridor.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The purpose would be to increase capacity in the Corridor, for expanded commuter rail, while improving service on the Fairmount Line, without impairing Amtrak's service. The route over the second district is feasable. The speeds could be increased, it's shorter, and there would be time saved by eliminating a station stop. It may actually be a FASTER alternative to the SW Corridor. It was used for Amtrak service before. There was no Back Bay for 8 years and our ridership numbers did not suffer because of it. This is my personal experience. It would also provide opportunities in the Fairmount corridor for reverse commuting to new job centers at rte 128 and even Rhode Island. And, as far as having data to support my argument, I argued that most riders would suffer the extra mile (literally) to South Station than choose Logan, or a bus, because they did it already, for 8 years.

Those 8 years riding the Dorchester Branch happened in excess of 35 years ago. Before the U.S. had invested anything in high-speed improvements on the NEC. When New Haven-Boston was still a sub-100 MPH diesel railroad and the NEC all the way to D.C. still had a half-dozen states' worth of grade crossings. When there was no first-class service whatsoever extending to Boston at all. When intercity ridership in America was near its historical nadir. The market for Amtrak from 1979-87 could not be any more different than it is today. Again...you are doing a whole lot of personal-feels hand-waving at hard numbers you've been handed that show 1 out of every 4 Amtrak riders...current Amtrak riders, and the entire history of Acela and/or first-class service to Boston...using Back Bay instead of South Station. Substantiate that with something real if you insist on continuing to take up space in this not-a-God-Mode thread with it.

You have also not substantiated how speeds could be BETTER on the Dorchester branch. More severe curves?...[hand waves]. Have to blow up swaths of residences to get passing tracks?...[hand waves]. You haven't offered a shred of evidence to show how parity...much less the type of superiority that would entice Amtrak to willingly give up their preferentially-dispatched home route...is possible. You can say "But I believe..." until you turn blue in the face. It's not a substitute for evidence.


Again: we have a different thread for purely anything-goes/personal fee-fees proposals. It was created specifically because this one didn't encompass that. Crazy pitches still need to justify their existence on something real that rational actors will buy into. This is not something rational-actor Amtrak would ever in a million years buy into.

 

[BostonBoy]

It would be basically impossible to run Amtrak services on the Dorchester Branch without significant speed/time demerits. It certainly would not be a faster alternative to the triple tracked, 120 MPH Northeast Corridor.

Well you may be right, but I actually worked on both railroads, both before and after the Southwest Corridor was re- built, and I find it somewhat amusing that I am asked to provide evidence and data for my "what ifs" beyond my personal experience, while being expected to accept an argument that "it would be basically impossible to run Amtrak service without speed /time demerits" or that 25% of the ridership depends on Back Bay, on its face value. I am just saying, on personal operational experience, that an improvement in the Fairmount line so that speeds could be increased (which I believe is feasible from my operational experience) could make it feasible to run Amtrak on that line, arriving at Rte 128 Station at or near the same time , without losing a significant part of the customer base that currently uses Back Bay; also from personal experience of 8 years of Amtrak using that line during the construction of the new SW Corridor. Only a comprehensive study of the costs of increasing speeds on The
"F "Line would confirm my proposal. All I know for facts are: It's shorter; it would eliminate the dwell time at Back Bay, and our ridership didn't suffer when Back Bay was closed.
And somebody mentioned the running time to NY. Well, when we first started the service it was 3'18" to NY. But we could only make that time on weekends. All because of Metro North. But that should be on another thread. And How the heck do you guys know about all the T , The Northside, the old abandoned lines and how Dedham deep- sixed commuter rail, and bridge clearances on the B&A?! (where I started) You guys are amazing to read.

 

[themissinglink]

while being expected to accept an argument that "it would be basically impossible to run Amtrak service without speed /time demerits" or that 25% of the ridership depends on Back Bay, on its face value. I am just saying, on personal operational experience, that an improvement in the Fairmount line so that speeds could be increased (which I believe is feasible from my operational experience) could make it feasible to run Amtrak on that line, arriving at Rte 128 Station at or near the same time , without losing a significant part of the customer base that currently uses Back Bay; also from personal experience of 8 years of Amtrak using that line during the construction of the new SW Corridor. Only a comprehensive study of the costs of increasing speeds on The
"F "Line would confirm my proposal. All I know for facts are: It's shorter; it would eliminate the dwell time at Back Bay, and our ridership didn't suffer when Back Bay was closed.
And somebody mentioned the running time to NY. Well, when we first started the service it was 3'18" to NY. But we could only make that time on weekends. All because of Metro North. But that should be on another thread. And How the heck do you guys know about all the T , The Northside, the old abandoned lines and how Dedham deep- sixed commuter rail, and bridge clearances on the B&A?! (where I started) You guys are amazing to read.

How am I expected to accept your argument that the Dorchester Branch can be on par with or superior than the Northeast Corridor in terms of speed and travel time if you aren't providing any proof or explanation of how that is possible? You're the one making that claim, the burden of proof is on you.

As previously stated, the Dorchester Branch is double tracked without opportunities for additional tracks north of River Street. Meaning any Amtrak trains would be limited speed-wise by commuter rail traffic, which has to make a number of closely-spaced stops. Even if there was not commuter rail interference, there are several curves which could potentially limit speeds even further, specifically the curves between Morton Street and Four Corners/Geneva.

 

[BostonBoy]

Those 8 years riding the Dorchester Branch happened in excess of 35 years ago. Before the U.S. had invested anything in high-speed improvements on the NEC. When New Haven-Boston was still a sub-100 MPH diesel railroad and the NEC all the way to D.C. still had a half-dozen states' worth of grade crossings. When there was no first-class service whatsoever extending to Boston at all. When intercity ridership in America was near its historical nadir. The market for Amtrak from 1979-87 could not be any more different than it is today. Again...you are doing a whole lot of personal-feels hand-waving at hard numbers you've been handed that show 1 out of every 4 Amtrak riders...current Amtrak riders, and the entire history of Acela and/or first-class service to Boston...using Back Bay instead of South Station. Substantiate that with something real if you insist on continuing to take up space in this not-a-God-Mode thread with it.

You have also not substantiated how speeds could be BETTER on the Dorchester branch. More severe curves?...[hand waves]. Have to blow up swaths of residences to get passing tracks?...[hand waves]. You haven't offered a shred of evidence to show how parity...much less the type of superiority that would entice Amtrak to willingly give up their preferentially-dispatched home route...is possible. You can say "But I believe..." until you turn blue in the face. It's not a substitute for evidence.


Again: we have a different thread for purely anything-goes/personal fee-fees proposals. It was created specifically because this one didn't encompass that. Crazy pitches still need to justify their existence on something real that rational actors will buy into. This is not something rational-actor Amtrak would ever in a million years buy into.

F Line. Take a breath. I worked on the territories OK? And do you really think that Back Bay riders would abandon Amtrak because they had to travel an extra mile to board the train? I don't. But, enough of the histrionics F line. It's off putting. I don't know what you do for a living but I ran trains for over 40 years and just relaying my thoughts through my experiences, that's all. If I can dig up a track chart of the Fairmount llLine I will, and we can check the degree of the various curves and spirals to see how fast the track could be. Because actually running on those tracks and telling you my experience is not enough. Faulted-human,signing out.