Design a Better Boston Back Bay Station

[BostonUrbEx]

With all said and done, what is both cheaper and faster?:

Boston to Montreal via Concord + NYC to Montreal via Albany
or
Boston to Montreal via Albany + NYC to Montreal via Albany

You would have to upgrade the B&A significantly. Perhaps straightening it out significantly as well. It could open up the inland route options, as well as Boston to Springfield express commuter rail. IMO, more bang to go via Albany when you take in the whole picture.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

With all said and done, what is both cheaper and faster?:

Boston to Montreal via Concord + NYC to Montreal via Albany
or
Boston to Montreal via Albany + NYC to Montreal via Albany

You would have to upgrade the B&A significantly. Perhaps straightening it out significantly as well. It could open up the inland route options, as well as Boston to Springfield express commuter rail. IMO, more bang to go via Albany when you take in the whole picture.

I think the short-term/regular-speed is B&A to Palmer + soon-to-be-vacated Vermonter route to Northfield + regular Vermonter route. The only upgrades required are double-tracking west of Worcester (which they're doing anyway for Inland Regionals), upping the B&A speed limit from 60 to 80 (doable with minor tweaks to the cab signal system west of Framingham, requiring total signal replacement east of Framingham), and getting the NECR mainline to Northfield resignaled so it can support PTC (which'll up the current 60 MPH speed limit to 80 like it's already done from Northfield to White River Junction). Amherst station is already ADA-accessible. It'll have to miss Greenfield and skip straight to Brattleboro because the only way to reach it is a reverse move at Deerfield, but that's not a big loss. This could literally happen by 2020 if they get the Vermonter pushed through to MTL. Palmer-Northfield is a cheapie, and the B&A work (outside of the T getting its Worcester Line speeds/signals in order) gets done for the Inland Regionals anyway. I really don't think we're waiting longer than 8-10 years for this.


Long-term and higher-speed I think it's the Lowell Line + Stony Brook branch + Fitchburg Line to Greenfield. There are a lot of places on the Patriot Corridor where curve improvements can be made...they can probably bypass entirely speed kinks like the Ashburnham hairpin and lop 4 miles off the trip, and straighten out this WTF? in Royalston. Let's face it, they weren't doing any better than that through NH. Even between Nashua and Concord the mainline follows the contours of the Merrimack River and would probably waver in the 90-110 MPH range, so North Chelmsford is the furthest from Boston you're going to hit a continuous 125-150 MPH until crossing into Vermont. If the Patriot Corridor can stay in that 90-110 range, it'll pretty much match the best achievable schedule through NH. Like the old days. Except the all-MA option costs SEVERAL BILLION less to pull off.

Sorry, NH, get used to the cross-platform transfer in Lowell.

 

[Arlington]

Because this is a thread about Back Bay Station (BBY), I'm going to note that it was just plain silly to designate BOS-MTL as HSR but not (NYC)-ALB-MTL.

Urbie and F-Line and I agree: Go to MTL [EDIT] not through Concord [/EDIT]

Maybe it is that Montreal sounds big and exotic and foreign compared to Worcester and Springfield and Albany but frankly it is those 3 western cities on the BBY line that Boston needs to be connected to, not Montreal.

The point being that "hypotenuse" routings get beaten economically by "right angle" routings every time if the right angle goes through other large traffic centers.

Just as nobody ever felt the need to cut off the hypotenuse from NYC to BUF (nobody in his right mind would tout "picking up" Binghamton if it meant bypassing ALB and ROC and SYR ;-), it is absurd to talk about cutting off the BOS-MTL hypotenuse (and "picking up" NH and VT) if it means losing BBY, Worcester, Springfield, & Albany.

In 170 miles west of Boston, you can "pick up" 2.1M people
0.5M Springfield
0.8M Worcester
0.8M Albany

Anchored by Framingham-Boston (at 3.2M people) the BOS-ALB total is 5.3M people in 170 miles or 31k persons per track-mile. *Thats* the route we need.

ALB-MTL adds 220 miles anchored by 1.7M in Montreal (Adirondack NY and VT are empty enough to be rounding errors in all these examples)

That's 7.0M people across 390 miles = 18k people per track-mile with a routing via BBY, but then realize that NYC-ALB adds 10M people in 150 track miles (66k per track-mile) and the whole "Albany Cross" system ends up having 17M people on 540 track-miles = 31k per track mile (and that's without realizing that ROC and SYR are on the final arm of the cross).

Meanwhile From North Station, you get:
0.4M Manchester
0.1M Concord
(VT = Rounding error of about 0.1, just like Upstate NY)

So BOS-MTL has 4.9M (the endpoints) + .6M in NH so
That's 5.5M people per 320 miles = 17k people per track-mile.

So about *double* the number of people per track-mile are out west (via BBY) compared to anything via NH/VT.

Compound that with the fact that NH is adamantly not a "train state" and it is crazy for New York and Massachusetts people to talk about anything but an Albany Cross...via BBY.

[EDIT]Sorry, in a last-ditch effort to pander to CT and VT's Four US Senators, I'd consider a "Springfield Cross", but concede I'd only net two senators 'cause I'd lose NY.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Maybe it is that Montreal sounds big and exotic and foreign compared to Worcester and Springfield and Albany but frankly it is those 3 western cities on the BBY line that Boston needs to be connected to, not Montreal.

The point being that "hypotenuse" routings get beaten economically by "right angle" routings every time if the right angle goes through other large traffic centers.

Just as nobody ever felt the need to cut off the hypotenuse from NYC to BUF (nobody in his right mind would tout "picking up" Binghamton if it meant bypassing ALB and ROC and SYR ;-), it is absurd to talk about cutting off the BOS-MTL hypotenuse (and "picking up" NH and VT) if it means losing BBY, Worcester, Springfield, & Albany.

I figure BOS-MTL is an entirely separate project from NYC-MTL, which has to happen through Albany anyway.

At the same time, there's no possible routing for BOS-TOR (every bit as valuable as BOS-MTL) which doesn't pass through WOR-SPG-ALB anyway. You mentioned the argument of right-angle versus hypotenuse routings - I'm approaching this from the argument that it's better to put together a complete triangle.

It's not a choice between 'picking up' cities on the northern half of the map and 'losing' WOR-SPG-ALB to do it, because there's no possible way to put together a network that doesn't connect those cities to Boston anyway, even if the BOS-MTL route doesn't go near that corridor.

And, depending on scheduling/congestion concerns, it might be more actively harmful to all three routes (BOS-MTL, BOS-TOR, BOS-NYP inland routing) if it does. (Someone who knows scheduling better than I do can tell me if this is a valid concern or not.)

 

[Arlington]

It's not a choice between 'picking up' cities on the northern half of the map and 'losing' WOR-SPG-ALB to do it, because there's no possible way to put together a network that doesn't connect those cities to Boston anyway, even if the BOS-MTL route doesn't go near that corridor.

There's every possible way to put together a network that neglects the right places and serves the wrong places. In fact we have a proven record of serving worthless hypotenuses: Look at the Greenbush Line, which soaked up a half billion dollars for 3,000 riders a day.* The fact of it (and its debt) being there means we have put together a commuter network that doesn't have the money (or free platforms at South Station) to serve Worcester as it should.

This is exactly that choice. In my world, money is finite, and resources for HSR are a subset of that. Are you with me? The network is going to get trimmed, one way or the other. Let's do it for good engineering reasons, not for sexy Canadian reasons.

If we waste money on BOS-MTL, we're going to get *only* the wasted hypotenuse because we're not going to have cash for BOS-ALB (and nobody is going to trust us with more. See also Big Dig, and Greenbush).

* How crappy is 3,000 per day? The 2 other Old Colony lines also cost a half billion but carry 10,000 per day, more than 3x the bang for the buck. [Edited the stats for 2010 Blue book]

 

[Nexis4jersey]

Maybe if the MBTA pushed for TOD around its stations ridership would be alot higher , probably 2x per line what it is today.

 

[Arlington]

Maybe if the MBTA pushed for TOD around its stations ridership would be alot higher , probably 2x per line what it is today.

True. But let's start by putting service where people are.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

There's every possible way to put together a network that neglects the right places and serves the wrong places. In fact we have a proven record of serving worthless hypotenuses: Look at the Greenbush Line, which soaked up a half billion dollars for 3,000 riders a day. The fact of it (and its debt) being there means we have put together a commuter network that doesn't have the money (or free platforms at South Station) to serve Worcester as it should.

This is exactly that choice. In my world, money is finite, and resources for HSR are a subset of that. Are you with me? The network is going to get trimmed, one way or the other. Let's do it for good engineering reasons, not for sexy Canadian reasons.

If we waste money on BOS-MTL, we're going to get *only* the wasted hypotenuse because we're not going to have cash for BOS-ALB (and nobody is going to trust us with more. See also Big Dig, and Greenbush).

I disagree. There's already too much demand tied up in that corridor by the aforementioned inland routing and BOS-TOR - BOS-MTL is going to have zero financial impact on it either way.

Money is not the only finite resource here. Track and station space are also finite resources - there's only so many different routes we can send down the same corridor before congestion starts becoming a concern again.

Does the network need to be trimmed? Sure. That's why I'm not yet totally convinced that F-Line's Lowell-Stony Brook-Fitchburg-Greenfield alignment isn't going to result in Nashua-Manchester-Concord getting dropped. That's also why I'm suggesting the inland routing for HSR if there is one should be/is going to be NY-ALB-SPG-WOR-BOS as opposed to either of Amtrak's ridiculous 'visions' for connecting Waterbury and Danbury and Hartford to NY and BOS.

I'm not saying 'do this because I think Canada is awesome,' I'm saying 'do this because I think this is a good engineering decision.'

BOS-MTL on a separate routing from BOS-ALB is not wasted money, and it's not going to kill BOS-ALB.

 

[Arlington]

BOS-MTL on a separate routing from BOS-ALB is not wasted money, and it's not going to kill BOS-ALB.

Great, then let's build BOS-ALB first and see how much $ we have left over.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

True. But let's start by putting service where people are.

Like the South Coast and Cape Cod Networks , a line up to Portsmouth , Manchester / Concord will get the most bang for your buck.

 

[Arlington]

Like the South Coast and Cape Cod Networks , a line up to Portsmouth , Manchester / Concord will get the most bang for your buck.

What kind of bang are you thinking? I'm thinking the people live out Worcester way.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

What kind of bang are you thinking? I'm thinking the people live out Worcester way.

I'm thinking at least 360,000 for 2.5 Billion $ or electrify the whole network MBTA network which should cost about 2 Billion....

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Great, then let's build BOS-ALB first and see how much $ we have left over.

We're going to have enough $ to build them both, and I see no reason why we couldn't build them both at the same time - but yes, if we have to build one 'first,' we should build BOS-ALB first.

I'm thinking at least 360,000 for 2.5 Billion $ or electrify the whole network MBTA network which should cost about 2 Billion....

Electrifying the whole network is more or less the exact opposite of a priority, especially since doing that instantly renders the MBTA's new rolling stock purchases worthless and requires them to come up with a plan to phase out the sum total of what rolling stock they have right now.

Triple-tracking to Springfield, high-leveling Worcester and Springfield Union Stations, and electrifying that line only is a much more worthwhile investment in the short term, followed by EMUs for the Springfield and Providence Lines (give us your M8s, Metro-North!), and by that point the old stock we have is going to be at the end of its life - that's the time we want to talk about phasing in system-wide electrification, not right after the MBTA acquires a bunch of new diesel stock.

 

[Arlington]

We're going to have enough $ to build them both

Is that you, Tagg Romney ? ;-)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I figure BOS-MTL is an entirely separate project from NYC-MTL, which has to happen through Albany anyway.

At the same time, there's no possible routing for BOS-TOR (every bit as valuable as BOS-MTL) which doesn't pass through WOR-SPG-ALB anyway. You mentioned the argument of right-angle versus hypotenuse routings - I'm approaching this from the argument that it's better to put together a complete triangle.

It's not a choice between 'picking up' cities on the northern half of the map and 'losing' WOR-SPG-ALB to do it, because there's no possible way to put together a network that doesn't connect those cities to Boston anyway, even if the BOS-MTL route doesn't go near that corridor.

And, depending on scheduling/congestion concerns, it might be more actively harmful to all three routes (BOS-MTL, BOS-TOR, BOS-NYP inland routing) if it does. (Someone who knows scheduling better than I do can tell me if this is a valid concern or not.)

Well, Amtrak's not focusing its attention on west-of-Springfield for one very good reason: where are they going to plug in the wires? The B&A doesn't matter for those routings until the Hudson Line from NYC and the Springfield Line from New Haven both touch it under wires. The Cuomo Admin. in NY just removed the project priority from pursuing electrification to Albany, so if there isn't some political will generated by whoever moves into the Governor's mansion after he runs for Prez. then that doesn't have any wind in its sails to happen within 20 years (he's been a strangely transit-passive Gov.). And in CT they do a lot of pretty PowerPoints about running electrics on the Springfield Line, but ignore the fact that it makes no difference until they spend the money to eliminate the grade crossing clusters from hell south of Hartford. If everything has to slow to 45 MPH through downtown Wallingford and Meriden, then they have to empty that $250M crossing elimination moneybomb where it's needed before they can start talking about how to make an 80 MPH train go 125. Look at the 11 NEC crossings that linger, linger, linger into yet another decade with no plans to address and see how much cognitive dissonance there is inside CTDOT.

I honestly think the Worcester Line stands a better chance getting full electric commuter rail before either of those two neighboring states see the forest for the trees. Nobody's getting to Buffalo, Toronto, or Montreal on high(er) speed until the political leadership starts taking the goal more seriously. And it makes no sense for Amtrak or anyone else in MA to be thinking west of Springfield until there are jumping-off points for electrics. The Berkshires are not the fastest trip in the world. The B&A gets curvy and deviates pretty far north away from the Pike to Pittsfield to get around that terrain. Amtrak can do 110 on its diesels in the midwest and portions of the line between Albany and Buffalo where the land is flat, but there's no way the B&A is going to do better than 80 through the Berkshires because it's beyond diesel's capability to accelerate through that terrain without lashing up 3 or 4 simultaneously firing locomotives like CSX does. You need electrics. And connecting trunklines to plug the wires into. Can't feed that line entirely out of Boston (esp. when the Hudson Line is way WAY more important for Albany traffic). Until NY State at minimum can get its ass in gear on that they can't make a Pike-competitive SPR-ALB diesel run and therefore aren't planning to. The 2025 service plan has 2 Lake Shore Limited round-trips. That's it...that's all they can do. The increases are all SPR-BOS and ALB-north/west where service density is driving the growth more than raw speed.


Now, as for L-shaped routes...Springfield is a bit far west for a BOS-MTL run. The B&A does do a lot of curving between Worcester and Palmer, and the mostly straight Conn River Line does some twisting in the Chicopee area. So the accumulated travel time penalties start to take their toll. The fairly straight diagonal cut through Amherst on NECR recovers a lot of that schedule time, which is why it's attractive despite missing Springfield and Greenfield. But the main reason is...it's cheap and easy. It's 60 MPH track used every day of the week on the current Vermonter; it's a very economical upgrade to 80 MPH w/PTC signals, and the NECR freights reap the benefits as shared stakeholders too. They might be able to later figure out how to graft connecting track across the 1500 ft. separation between NECR and the Patriot Corridor in Montague so Greenfield can get added to the schedule, but that's surplus to a requirement for easy/cheap starter service that can initiate on a limited schedule in 8 years. Start it, grow it slow, figure out the add-ons later.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

We're going to have enough $ to build them both, and I see no reason why we couldn't build them both at the same time - but yes, if we have to build one 'first,' we should build BOS-ALB first.



Electrifying the whole network is more or less the exact opposite of a priority, especially since doing that instantly renders the MBTA's new rolling stock purchases worthless and requires them to come up with a plan to phase out the sum total of what rolling stock they have right now.

Triple-tracking to Springfield, high-leveling Worcester and Springfield Union Stations, and electrifying that line only is a much more worthwhile investment in the short term, followed by EMUs for the Springfield and Providence Lines (give us your M8s, Metro-North!), and by that point the old stock we have is going to be at the end of its life - that's the time we want to talk about phasing in system-wide electrification, not right after the MBTA acquires a bunch of new diesel stock.

What??? On what kind of construction schedule do you think anyone would be able to electrify the entire MBTA route network such that these new purchases are rendered "worthless" in their realistic 25-30 year lifespans. It's 40 replacement locomotives in a fleet of 90. Replacements only. Not a single new unit. Every existing line on the southside will need more units when expanded South Station opens. There's no way to achieve the full Worcester and Fairmount service plans without it. Or enough to spread all around and still achieve the Fitchburg and Haverhill improvements service plans, much less implementing some of the major recs of the North Shore Improvements study for improving Eastern Route service levels or rehabbing the half-cocked Lowell Line. Note we aren't even drawing fantasy expansion maps here...existing lines, in-progress improvements, not enough equipment to feed it all.

That next procurement of 20 they have to schedule in FY2018...that's the one they're considering electrics. And so is RIDOT for South County commuter rail startup. The Providence + South County equipment pool (assuming the T is subcontracted to run it) probably merits almost that many electrics by itself. And guess what, if SS expansion happens and Providence-Woonsocket commuter rail happens by then they'll STILL be scrambling for more diesels and will have to keep duct-taping the 1987-vintage F40's together for a few more years to patch along. They may have to authorize a whole extra procurement to keep up with their replacements and absorb the service level increases. Without any major line expansions happening inside of MA. We could have Providence, Worcester, Fairmount, and Lowell all electrified in 20 years and still need just as many diesels as today to feed South Coast, Cape, Foxboro, Peabody extensions + the natural service growth curve. The T's in an equipment bind because it rode old junk too long AND it's chasing a moving demand target on demand. Those new diesels and coaches are going to live out their full lifespans and then some.

Commuter rail service levels and equipment needs in 30 years are going to look just as different from today as today does from 30 years ago...when only a few lines even reached as far as 495 and the system ran at half the schedules it does now. It's a living beast. And it'll be a multi-modal living beast for decades after electrics join the fray. We've got billions in wiring to go before we catch up to the diesel growth curve for it to even go flat, much less start to decline. On an aggressive building schedule that timeframe still handily exceeds the avg. lifespan of an equipment order.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Well, Amtrak's not focusing its attention on west-of-Springfield for one very good reason: where are they going to plug in the wires? The B&A doesn't matter for those routings until the Hudson Line from NYC and the Springfield Line from New Haven both touch it under wires. The Cuomo Admin. in NY just removed the project priority from pursuing electrification to Albany, so if there isn't some political will generated by whoever moves into the Governor's mansion after he runs for Prez. then that doesn't have any wind in its sails to happen within 20 years (he's been a strangely transit-passive Gov.). And in CT they do a lot of pretty PowerPoints about running electrics on the Springfield Line, but ignore the fact that it makes no difference until they spend the money to eliminate the grade crossing clusters from hell south of Hartford. If everything has to slow to 45 MPH through downtown Wallingford and Meriden, then they have to empty that $250M crossing elimination moneybomb where it's needed before they can start talking about how to make an 80 MPH train go 125. Look at the 11 NEC crossings that linger, linger, linger into yet another decade with no plans to address and see how much cognitive dissonance there is inside CTDOT.

I honestly think the Worcester Line stands a better chance getting full electric commuter rail before either of those two neighboring states see the forest for the trees. Nobody's getting to Buffalo, Toronto, or Montreal on high(er) speed until the political leadership starts taking the goal more seriously. And it makes no sense for Amtrak or anyone else in MA to be thinking west of Springfield until there are jumping-off points for electrics. The Berkshires are not the fastest trip in the world. The B&A gets curvy and deviates pretty far north away from the Pike to Pittsfield to get around that terrain. Amtrak can do 110 on its diesels in the midwest and portions of the line between Albany and Buffalo where the land is flat, but there's no way the B&A is going to do better than 80 through the Berkshires because it's beyond diesel's capability to accelerate through that terrain without lashing up 3 or 4 simultaneously firing locomotives like CSX does. You need electrics. And connecting trunklines to plug the wires into. Can't feed that line entirely out of Boston (esp. when the Hudson Line is way WAY more important for Albany traffic). Until NY State at minimum can get its ass in gear on that they can't make a Pike-competitive SPR-ALB diesel run and therefore aren't planning to. The 2025 service plan has 2 Lake Shore Limited round-trips. That's it...that's all they can do. The increases are all SPR-BOS and ALB-north/west where service density is driving the growth more than raw speed.


Now, as for L-shaped routes...Springfield is a bit far west for a BOS-MTL run. The B&A does do a lot of curving between Worcester and Palmer, and the mostly straight Conn River Line does some twisting in the Chicopee area. So the accumulated travel time penalties start to take their toll. The fairly straight diagonal cut through Amherst on NECR recovers a lot of that schedule time, which is why it's attractive despite missing Springfield and Greenfield. But the main reason is...it's cheap and easy. It's 60 MPH track used every day of the week on the current Vermonter; it's a very economical upgrade to 80 MPH w/PTC signals, and the NECR freights reap the benefits as shared stakeholders too. They might be able to later figure out how to graft connecting track across the 1500 ft. separation between NECR and the Patriot Corridor in Montague so Greenfield can get added to the schedule, but that's surplus to a requirement for easy/cheap starter service that can initiate on a limited schedule in 8 years. Start it, grow it slow, figure out the add-ons later.

Absolutely - fixing the Worcester-Springfield disaster should be priority #1. Just because I've been talking about things like BOS-MTL doesn't mean I consider anything else to be a higher priority than commuter rail to Springfield, and I don't think commuter rail to Springfield is possible until some of those curves are straightened and all of the line is double-tracked or better. Suspending service BOS-ALB on the Lake Shore Limited is an acceptable sacrifice if it causes that work to get done faster.

I'd argue that the priority list for MA should look something like this:

1. Commuter Rail to Springfield
2. Electrify the Fairmount Line
3. Necessary clean-up and prep work for electrification on Springfield-Worcester, Haverhill via Wildcat, and Lowell Lines
4. Terminate Reading Line Commuter Rail, OLX to Reading
5. Electrify Haverhill, Lowell, and Worcester-Springfield Lines
6. 40 EMU trainset purchases - 8 to Fairmount, 8 to Providence, 8 to Worcester-Springfield, 16 to be distributed between Lowell and Haverhill and loaned or sold to RI as necessary
7. Necessary clean-up and prep work on B&A from Springfield to Albany
8. Electrify to Albany, restore BOS-ALB service
9. Terminate Needham Line service, OLX to Needham Junction, GLX through Needham
10. Red Line/Old Colony Line track reorganization at JFK/UMass and Braintree branch
11. Cape Cod Central Railroad Rehabilitation, Middleboro Line Extension to Hyannis
12. Electrify Newburyport/Rockport and Middleboro/Lakeville Lines
13. Newburyport Line Extension to Portsmouth, NH and Lowell Line Extension to Concord, NH

Slot interstate rail projects like BOS-TOR, BOS-MTL, and SPG-NHV in there as opportunities arise.

What??? On what kind of construction schedule do you think anyone would be able to electrify the entire MBTA route network such that these new purchases are rendered "worthless" in their realistic 25-30 year lifespans. It's 40 replacement locomotives in a fleet of 90. Replacements only. Not a single new unit. Every existing line on the southside will need more units when expanded South Station opens. There's no way to achieve the full Worcester and Fairmount service plans without it. Or enough to spread all around and still achieve the Fitchburg and Haverhill improvements service plans, much less implementing some of the major recs of the North Shore Improvements study for improving Eastern Route service levels or rehabbing the half-cocked Lowell Line. Note we aren't even drawing fantasy expansion maps here...existing lines, in-progress improvements, not enough equipment to feed it all.

That next procurement of 20 they have to schedule in FY2018...that's the one they're considering electrics. And so is RIDOT for South County commuter rail startup. The Providence + South County equipment pool (assuming the T is subcontracted to run it) probably merits almost that many electrics by itself. And guess what, if SS expansion happens and Providence-Woonsocket commuter rail happens by then they'll STILL be scrambling for more diesels and will have to keep duct-taping the 1987-vintage F40's together for a few more years to patch along. They may have to authorize a whole extra procurement to keep up with their replacements and absorb the service level increases. Without any major line expansions happening inside of MA. We could have Providence, Worcester, Fairmount, and Lowell all electrified in 20 years and still need just as many diesels as today to feed South Coast, Cape, Foxboro, Peabody extensions + the natural service growth curve. The T's in an equipment bind because it rode old junk too long AND it's chasing a moving demand target on demand. Those new diesels and coaches are going to live out their full lifespans and then some.

Commuter rail service levels and equipment needs in 30 years are going to look just as different from today as today does from 30 years ago...when only a few lines even reached as far as 495 and the system ran at half the schedules it does now. It's a living beast. And it'll be a multi-modal living beast for decades after electrics join the fray. We've got billions in wiring to go before we catch up to the diesel growth curve for it to even go flat, much less start to decline. On an aggressive building schedule that timeframe still handily exceeds the avg. lifespan of an equipment order.

Oh, I was under the mistaken impression that there was a whole batch of new unit purchases, rather than replacements.

The kind of construction schedule I figure would render all of those acquisitions worthless is one which takes less than 10 years and results in a completely electrified network. While I doubt the second is ever going to happen, I don't see any reason that a plan to electrify even four lines should ever take more than five years, let alone 10.

Then again, I'm young and hopelessly optimistic and am probably not properly accounting for just how much feet-dragging would happen on an electrification plan.

How many locomotives do we need to assign per-line for optimal coverage?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Absolutely - fixing the Worcester-Springfield disaster should be priority #1. Just because I've been talking about things like BOS-MTL doesn't mean I consider anything else to be a higher priority than commuter rail to Springfield, and I don't think commuter rail to Springfield is possible until some of those curves are straightened and all of the line is double-tracked or better. Suspending service BOS-ALB on the Lake Shore Limited is an acceptable sacrifice if it causes that work to get done faster.

I'd argue that the priority list for MA should look something like this:

1. Commuter Rail to Springfield
2. Electrify the Fairmount Line
3. Necessary clean-up and prep work for electrification on Springfield-Worcester, Haverhill via Wildcat, and Lowell Lines
4. Terminate Reading Line Commuter Rail, OLX to Reading
5. Electrify Haverhill, Lowell, and Worcester-Springfield Lines
6. 40 EMU trainset purchases - 8 to Fairmount, 8 to Providence, 8 to Worcester-Springfield, 16 to be distributed between Lowell and Haverhill and loaned or sold to RI as necessary
7. Necessary clean-up and prep work on B&A from Springfield to Albany
8. Electrify to Albany, restore BOS-ALB service
9. Terminate Needham Line service, OLX to Needham Junction, GLX through Needham
10. Red Line/Old Colony Line track reorganization at JFK/UMass and Braintree branch
11. Cape Cod Central Railroad Rehabilitation, Middleboro Line Extension to Hyannis
12. Electrify Newburyport/Rockport and Middleboro/Lakeville Lines
13. Newburyport Line Extension to Portsmouth, NH and Lowell Line Extension to Concord, NH

Slot interstate rail projects like BOS-TOR, BOS-MTL, and SPG-NHV in there as opportunities arise.



Oh, I was under the mistaken impression that there was a whole batch of new unit purchases, rather than replacements.

The kind of construction schedule I figure would render all of those acquisitions worthless is one which takes less than 10 years and results in a completely electrified network. While I doubt the second is ever going to happen, I don't see any reason that a plan to electrify even four lines should ever take more than five years, let alone 10.

Then again, I'm young and hopelessly optimistic and am probably not properly accounting for just how much feet-dragging would happen on an electrification plan.

How many locomotives do we need to assign per-line for optimal coverage?

I don't know about line assignments. NETtransit's MBTA vehicle inventory page does a nice breakdown of that for the rapid transit lines and bus garages, but it doesn't say beyond "Northside"/"Southside" where the locos and coaches go other than a slightly >60/40% south advantage spares-included. Providence is a monster, though. Somewhere north of 1/4 of the southside fleet must go to feed that line (not counting the South County CR equipment tack-on RIDOT would want for pool service). If you were to plan an electrification rollout on Fairmount (on the full-blast service plan), then Worcester (on the post-SS expansion full-blast service plan, not today's slim pickins' schedule)...that's 65-70% of the total southside contingent under wires. And the only way it's under 70 is if some other diesel line(s) get extended like a Cape, Foxboro, SCR, or Milford. South Coast doesn't even require all that many because of the limited planned track capacity and very sparse headways south of Taunton.

It took 10 years from the gigantic NEC HSR implementation study to get it wired. Engineering, EIS's, years of listening to NIMBY's shout at them about microwave radiation and unsightly wires obstructing their view of Venus...all that usual expensive garbage that it takes before shovel first goes in ground. Actual construction doesn't take very long at all; that probably took <2 years the whole length from Boston to New Haven. But it was 10 years of serious "We're goin' for it" paperwork and study, and 20 years (early 80's) after they first started poking at it with a stick in studies.

I think Fairmount could be done in 5 years or less...no grade crossings, mostly on cut-or-embankment so safety concerns about wires are minimal, NEC is mere blocks away for residents to see firsthand the noise/fumes difference and kick around any other concerns (visual blight, death rays, whatever). Suburban areas...tougher slog. Because every old man must yell at that cloud in every suburban town. Worcester maybe faster than the others because of the Pike co-mingling, grade separation, generally fat wooded buffer space between abutters, and years and years of dealing with much worse freight fumes. But I bet downtown Framingham would clutch its pearls and scream itself blue about the overhead menace and 1.21 gigawatt wires falling on top of your sunroof on Route 126 if you so much as look at it crosseyed. And you would be surprised how much wholly invented bitching goes on by the likes of Medford and Winchester along the Lowell Line...they have hysterical meetings just because Pan Am runs at night. Which it has done almost every night for 150 years.

If they started studying it about the same time the intercity money starts pouring in for general B&A/Worcester Line improvements, then figure close to a decade to get it done. I think those towns on the inner half probably need to see firsthand that the heavy ADA construction required on their stations isn't going to be the end of the world before they acclimate themselves to the idea of electrification. That's how it worked on the NEC...there was a shitload of constant general-purpose station construction throughout the 80's and 90's to catch up on decades of deferred maintenance, and that imposed he condition of "normalcy" for hoisting the overhead towers and breaking ground on all the substations between '98-00).

But that's one reason why I'd take a pass altogether on the Fitchburg Line, Old Colony, and anything South Coast. Those assholes in South Acton, Hingham, and Raynham don't need another bite at the mitigation apple after what they've been allowed to get away with fleecing the T blind. Intercity and heavy freight routes first where the utilization is highest, grade crossing frequency lowest, abutter buffering thickest, and baked-in opposition (somewhat) lowest.

 

[Matthew]

At the risk of derailing this thread further, it seems to me that the only difficult grade crossings on the NEC to separate would be New London. That's a nightmare. Probably best to just avoid it entirely by going around New London on new tracks. I don't blame CT for not wanting to look at that.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

At the risk of derailing this thread further, it seems to me that the only difficult grade crossings on the NEC to separate would be New London. That's a nightmare. Probably best to just avoid it entirely by going around New London on new tracks. I don't blame CT for not wanting to look at that.

It's a station stop for all trains including Acela (and should be...NL is big enough to be the intermediate stop between New Haven and Providence), so trains crawl through the crossings to reach the platform. And the crossings are only used for ped and parking access to the docks, not thru traffic...so they're considerably less dangerous than most. Those can stay. The pair in Waterford and Groton are baffling to have lasted this long, especially Waterford where the town's been begging the state to whack it and has put forth a variety of equal-cost proposals. The 6 in Stonington are simply NIMBY wedge issues. They refused to have any eliminated back in the 80's & 90's when the huge final push was happening to eliminate all of them D.C. to Boston (yes, Attleboro still had some 20 years ago, and Sharon as of the mid-80's), because by keeping them they had leverage to limit the number of trains through town. They don't care about lost transit...New London is closeby and Westerly a few feet across the border is their de facto stop. So the town with the least to lose of any party has kept up a 20-year Operation Chaos. Getting rid of Waterford and Groton would at least put the vice grip on Stonington to start cooperating, but CTDOT can't seem to be arsed to advocate for it. It's not even on the Amtrak NEC 2025 Infrastructure plan because Amtrak can't make a move to fund the eliminations without DOT cooperation on the roads.

The Springfield Line's are so heavily clustered in downtown Wallingford and Meriden that literally one moneybomb per town to take care of them all at once with a ROW embankment + overpasses will whack everything south of Hartford except 2 isolated, non- speed-restricted ones in North Haven. The ones in Hartford/West Hartford are funded for elimination, and the 1 closest to Hartford Union Station would get eliminated in the plan for sinking the I-84 viaduct. But they have no business even THINKING about wires until they take care of Wallingford and Meriden. You couldn't get an Acela >50 MPH through there with what a minefield it is.

As for the B&A, I doubt the Framingham pair could ever go sooner than 50 years. The local yokels have their study committee and all, but they won't accept anything other than burying the line at half a $B (because any change in grade to the main requires change in grade to the busy Framingham Secondary that junctions right in the middle of it all), so they never have to see/hear/perceive it ever again as long as they live. It quite likely can't be done at all because of the underground aqueduct, meaning bridges on embankment and/or viaduct messing up their views of Venus (a.k.a. scenic downtown Framingham). They'll never come around on this, so that will always have to be a station stop for everything. Whatever...it's their stubbornness and their traffic jams. It doesn't put a crimp in train ops at all. Ashland...I think that pair will get bridged in the next dozen years. Because their town study committee has recommended "anything that gets rid of the crossings...we don't care about aesthetics, we care about traffic and safety." That would leave clear out the only non-Framingham ones left east of Springfield (western MA has a few, but they're all tiny traffic-free Berkshire town roads).

And Lowell only has the West Medford pair between Boston and North Chelmsford. Which they ought to be able to get rid of by depressing the railbed and underpassing (probably with some plaza air rights right in the square to go along with the new station built in the cut). Expensive, but worth it for all the traffic that would go through there (provision it at 4-track width and you've got the expansion space to bring rapid transit further north). That's one of the reasons why I would use the Stony Brook branch to get to Fitchburg and bypass the main under any electrification or intercity scheme; it's 12 grade crossings to Ayer via Lowell vs. 30 on the mainline, and you can blast to Lowell at 125 MPH uninterrupted.