Fall River/New Bedford Commuter Rail (South Coast Rail)

Koopzilla24 said:
If I had to guess, I'd think the T strategy, since Phase II is intended to be electrified, is to wait for the Fairmount BEMU project to be in practice, then test the trains on the Stoughton, and use that knowledge to come up with some plan to reduce the electrification of Phase II to bring the cost down and make it more presentable to the state. It'd make sense in this case why the T had no mention of Phase II in their 2026-2030 capital investment plan, since if the BEMUs arrive in 2028, they'd want to wait out some of its service before committing project funding.
Click to expand...
The Fairmount trial is a very unusually worded contract that outsources the management of the BEMU's to Keolis and is restrictive to Fairmount. Those trains aren't 'free to roam', which is why as of now there is still no concrete plan for electrics on Providence/Stoughton. The trial wouldn't have any bearing on Phase II...or any bearing on anything else. The T must bid out further RFP's to touch any other line, by traditional or additional non-traditional procurement.

Phase II needs a lot more conceptual work anyway before you can be plotting it with wires and EMU's. The crippled 2013 FEIR specced electrification only because they needed to fish for a 5% reduction from the best schedules a diesel could do to make their mandated track layout work, not because of any environmental nods. So the mostly single-track layout was modeled on meets for a 5% reduction only...which is a pretty wimpy figure even for an electric push-pull set, with lots of question-marks about lengthy holds on passing sidings for the peak schedules. Stock EMU's would do about a 15-18% schedule reduction from diesel based on internal modeling for the Providence Line, but that ends up being incompatible with the Phase II FEIR because the meets would change on all that single-track and create a slew of new scheduling conflicts that can't be solved because they gave no double-tracking option for Hock or Pine Swamps and mandated a whole lot more single-track in Easton, Raynham, and Taunton for reasons that were never explained at all. You'd basically have to artificially cap EMU speeds by 10% on the line so the meets line up to the mandated track layout and the crippled 5%-better-than-diesel target, which is of course a face-palmingly stupid way to operate. Phase II isn't getting on any CIP as a funded or unfunded mandate until that FEIR document gets a complete do-over with a whole lot more transparency on its traffic modeling decisions.
 
Thank you for the explanations. Seeing the limitations of SCR/Old Colony operations, I hope the T shies away from building single-track ROWs from now on. I won't hold my breath.
 
wicked said:
Thank you for the explanations. Seeing the limitations of SCR/Old Colony operations, I hope the T shies away from building single-track ROWs from now on. I won't hold my breath.
Click to expand...
Phil Eng recently mentioned that they're looking into the single-track sections on the Commuter Rail network, but he didn't have too much to say about it. I'm glad they're thinking about the single-track sections and how much they limit service. Double-tracking the Old Colony mainline and the Fall River/New Bedford line needs to be a top priority.

How is MBTA handling arrival of World Cup in '26? General manager explains in Natick​

What's the deal with the T?
Phillip Eng, general manager of the MBTA, spoke Thursday, Sept. 4, about that very topic — and what it means for the suburbs — during an event sponsored by the MetroWest Chamber of Commerce.
[...]
"Our plan going forward is, as we've stabilized our subway systems, to really now deep dive into regional rail," Eng said.
[...]
In concluding the discussion, Eng said priorities for the MBTA include improving infrastructure, including looking at grade crossings and single tracking on lines. Nee said the MWRTA is looking at redesigning its bus network, with public comment on a redesign beginning recently.
Click to expand...
 
themissinglink said:
Phil Eng recently mentioned that they're looking into the single-track sections on the Commuter Rail network, but he didn't have too much to say about it. I'm glad they're thinking about the single-track sections and how much they limit service. Double-tracking the Old Colony mainline and the Fall River/New Bedford line needs to be a top priority.

How is MBTA handling arrival of World Cup in '26? General manager explains in Natick​

Click to expand...
The Old Colony main is the big one. That'll easily cost a billion dollars, but it has to be done if :30 Regional Rail is ever to come to the 3 branches. Elsewhere, there's really not a lot of places that need much double-track infill to hit the target. It's a lot of bits and remainders, very little raw mileage of single track. And complete DT is only necessary for multi-branched mainlines. The outskirts of the system can still reliably function on a mix of single + passing sidings and *some* single-track platforms under :30 Regional Rail service.

Northside
  • Newburyport Branch -- Needs 1 more passing siding in the Ipswich vicinity or lengthenings of a couple existing DT segments, but otherwise should be fine with a mix of single + passing sidings.
  • Rockport Branch -- Should be fine as-is.
  • Fitchburg -- Infill of 1/2 mile of Waltham double-track for :15 service, and reconfiguration of Waltham station. Fitchburg and Wachusett stations are fine as-is on single-track turnouts.
  • NH Main/Lowell -- Fine as-is for :15 service to Wilmington and :30 to Lowell. Extension to Nashua wouldn't need any more DT, extension to Manchester would require DT from North Chelmsford Jct. to the state line.
  • Haverhill -- Relocation to NH Main + Wildcat Branch. *Possible* double-tracking of Wildcat Branch (it's fully provisioned), but that's not necessarily a given. Finish double-tracking Ballardvale and Andover stations. Lawrence station is fine as-is on single-track turnout.
  • Reading -- Reinstatement of Wellington passing siding, minor reconfiguration of Reading Jct. in Somerville (change from 1 x 2 track split to 2 x 2), 1/4 mile double-track extension into Reading station for :15 service, and relocation of thru-Haverhill trains to NH Main + Wildcat Branch. Rest will work as-is so long as the thru-Haverhill trains aren't there.
Southside
  • Northeast Corridor -- Tri-tracking from Readville to Canton Jct. Possible offloading of most Forge Park trains to the Fairmount Line. Rest will work as-is.
  • Stoughton -- As-is until South Coast Rail Phase II happens.
  • Worcester -- Newton double-track stations. Funded/scheduled Wellesley-Framingham tri-track for mixing super-expresses with locals. Otherwise as-is.
  • Fairmount -- Relocate Readville station off single-track Franklin-Fairmount connector a few hundred feet north, do up as double-track island with freight passing track. Rest fine as-is.
  • Forge Park -- Funded/scheduled Phase III double-tracking Norwood-Walpole. Otherwise, as-is.
  • Foxboro -- As-is. Obviously will need a replacement double-track Walpole station placed before the junction if that stop is to ever feature on Foxboro schedules.
  • Needham -- Not applicable, as unexpandable NEC Southwest Corridor tri-track capacity won't support better-than-hourly service here. All of it excepting the 128 overpass is graded for eventual double-track should rapid transit replacement happen.
  • Old Colony Mainline Boston-Braintree -- Complete double-track at mega $$$.
  • Middleboro Branch -- Lengthen existing Randolph and Middleboro sidings, possible doubling of Holbrook/Randolph platforms (spatially pre-provisioned). Rest should be OK for :30 service as mix of single + passing sidings. ROW is already graded for complete double-track, excepting some minor river-crossing bridge decks.
  • Kingston/Plymouth Branch -- Lengthen some existing sidings, otherwise mix of single + passing sidings. Double-tracking of any existing platforms depends on if any infill stations get added for :30 service; it's not necessarily a given that any will need to be touched. Like Middleboro, line is already graded for near-complete DT.
  • Greenbush Branch -- Lengthen some existing sidings. Probably no station touches required. Like other OC branches, graded for near-complete DT including nearly all bridge decks excepting the Hingham tunnel (which wouldn't be a constraint).
  • South Coast Rail -- Branches as-is for :30 ÷ 2 = hourly service via Phase I or Phase II. Fixing the pinch under MA 24 by East Taunton is already funded/scheduled. Middleboro-Taunton may need an extra passing siding. Phase II obviously needs a whole new track layout to work with :30 service (or work in general).
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The Old Colony main is the big one. That'll easily cost a billion dollars, but it has to be done if :30 Regional Rail is ever to come to the 3 branches. Elsewhere, there's really not a lot of places that need much double-track infill to hit the target. It's a lot of bits and remainders, very little raw mileage of single track. And complete DT is only necessary for multi-branched mainlines. The outskirts of the system can still reliably function on a mix of single + passing sidings and *some* single-track platforms under :30 Regional Rail service.

Northside
  • Newburyport Branch -- Needs 1 more passing siding in the Ipswich vicinity or lengthenings of a couple existing DT segments, but otherwise should be fine with a mix of single + passing sidings.
  • Rockport Branch -- Should be fine as-is.
  • Fitchburg -- Infill of 1/2 mile of Waltham double-track for :15 service, and reconfiguration of Waltham station. Fitchburg and Wachusett stations are fine as-is on single-track turnouts.
  • NH Main/Lowell -- Fine as-is for :15 service to Wilmington and :30 to Lowell. Extension to Nashua wouldn't need any more DT, extension to Manchester would require DT from North Chelmsford Jct. to the state line.
  • Haverhill -- Relocation to NH Main + Wildcat Branch. *Possible* double-tracking of Wildcat Branch (it's fully provisioned), but that's not necessarily a given. Finish double-tracking Ballardvale and Andover stations. Lawrence station is fine as-is on single-track turnout.
  • Reading -- Reinstatement of Wellington passing siding, minor reconfiguration of Reading Jct. in Somerville (change from 1 x 2 track split to 2 x 2), 1/4 mile double-track extension into Reading station for :15 service, and relocation of thru-Haverhill trains to NH Main + Wildcat Branch. Rest will work as-is so long as the thru-Haverhill trains aren't there.
Southside
  • Northeast Corridor -- Tri-tracking from Readville to Canton Jct. Possible offloading of most Forge Park trains to the Fairmount Line. Rest will work as-is.
  • Stoughton -- As-is until South Coast Rail Phase II happens.
  • Worcester -- Newton double-track stations. Funded/scheduled Wellesley-Framingham tri-track for mixing super-expresses with locals. Otherwise as-is.
  • Fairmount -- Relocate Readville station off single-track Franklin-Fairmount connector a few hundred feet north, do up as double-track island with freight passing track. Rest fine as-is.
  • Forge Park -- Funded/scheduled Phase III double-tracking Norwood-Walpole. Otherwise, as-is.
  • Foxboro -- As-is. Obviously will need a replacement double-track Walpole station placed before the junction if that stop is to ever feature on Foxboro schedules.
  • Needham -- Not applicable, as unexpandable NEC Southwest Corridor tri-track capacity won't support better-than-hourly service here. All of it excepting the 128 overpass is graded for eventual double-track should rapid transit replacement happen.
  • Old Colony Mainline Boston-Braintree -- Complete double-track at mega $$$.
  • Middleboro Branch -- Lengthen existing Randolph and Middleboro sidings, possible doubling of Holbrook/Randolph platforms (spatially pre-provisioned). Rest should be OK for :30 service as mix of single + passing sidings. ROW is already graded for complete double-track, excepting some minor river-crossing bridge decks.
  • Kingston/Plymouth Branch -- Lengthen some existing sidings, otherwise mix of single + passing sidings. Double-tracking of any existing platforms depends on if any infill stations get added for :30 service; it's not necessarily a given that any will need to be touched. Like Middleboro, line is already graded for near-complete DT.
  • Greenbush Branch -- Lengthen some existing sidings. Probably no station touches required. Like other OC branches, graded for near-complete DT including nearly all bridge decks excepting the Hingham tunnel (which wouldn't be a constraint).
  • South Coast Rail -- Branches as-is for :30 ÷ 2 = hourly service via Phase I or Phase II. Fixing the pinch under MA 24 by East Taunton is already funded/scheduled. Middleboro-Taunton may need an extra passing siding. Phase II obviously needs a whole new track layout to work with :30 service (or work in general).
Click to expand...
Would Salem Station getting a 2nd platform track past the tunnel help much with regional rail? Figured it’s better to have meets on the platform side too instead of just south of the tunnel, but not sure what the cost/benefit there is
 
clam said:
Would Salem Station getting a 2nd platform track past the tunnel help much with regional rail? Figured it’s better to have meets on the platform side too instead of just south of the tunnel, but not sure what the cost/benefit there is
Click to expand...
It's possible the second platform may be required, though that hasn't been traffic-modeled yet.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Middleboro Branch -- Lengthen existing Randolph and Middleboro sidings, possible doubling of Holbrook/Randolph platforms (spatially pre-provisioned). Rest should be OK for :30 service as mix of single + passing sidings. ROW is already graded for complete double-track, excepting some minor river-crossing bridge decks.
Click to expand...
Is single-track + lengthened passing sidings enough to run FR/NB and hourly service to the Cape via Middleboro? Or would complete double-tracking between Braintree and Middleboro be necessary?
 
themissinglink said:
Is single-track + lengthened passing sidings enough to run FR/NB and hourly service to the Cape via Middleboro? Or would complete double-tracking between Braintree and Middleboro be necessary?
Click to expand...
At 6 TPH with quite long-distance running, you probably need full double-tracking to Middleboro Jct. Although it's not that difficult. The ROW is completely graded for a second track, and Holbrook/Randolph, Campello, and Bridgewater stations are very straightforward adds for second side platforms (though the latter two may need some up-and-over access). The bridges for Monatiquot River in Braintree (maybe...at a scant half-mile of single from Braintree Jct. to south of the river it might be fully OK as-is), Town River in Bridgewater, and Taunton and Nemasket Rivers in Bridgewater would have to be modified for widened or second decks...but those are the only structural touches.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
  • Northeast Corridor -- Tri-tracking from Readville to Canton Jct. Possible offloading of most Forge Park trains to the Fairmount Line. Rest will work as-is.
Click to expand...
Really hope this part doesnt ever happen. Taking away Ruggles + Back Bay and increasing travel time to South Station is a devastating blow to Franklin line riders who already endure a ~70 minute ride from Franklin when Mansfield riders get to travel the same distance in as little as 40. Franklin line towns are generally much better on housing, particularly near stations, than towns on other lines. And requiring a transfer to Providence line at Readville is a disaster. I get that riders on other south side lines would benefit, but to screw over Franklin riders yet again is unconscionable. Sending Franklin line riders down Fairmount will absolutely kill ridership on the Franklin line.
 
dennismulder said:
Really hope this part doesnt ever happen. Taking away Ruggles + Back Bay and increasing travel time to South Station is a devastating blow to Franklin line riders who already endure a ~70 minute ride from Franklin when Mansfield riders get to travel the same distance in as little as 40. Franklin line towns are generally much better on housing, particularly near stations, than towns on other lines. And requiring a transfer to Providence line at Readville is a disaster. I get that riders on other south side lines would benefit, but to screw over Franklin riders yet again is unconscionable. Sending Franklin line riders down Fairmount will absolutely kill ridership on the Franklin line.
Click to expand...
The Franklin Line really needs an express service pattern that skips Windsor Gardens, Norwood Depot, Islington, and Endicott to save time. Express trains would also make an extension to Milford significantly more tolerable, since any extension past Forge Park is going to be a long ride. I agree that the loss of Back Bay and Ruggles on Franklin schedules is a big downgrade, but it seems inevitable without a fourth track between Forest Hills and Back Bay (not happening). The express trains would at least help make up for the increased travel time via Fairmount.
 
dennismulder said:
Really hope this part doesnt ever happen. Taking away Ruggles + Back Bay and increasing travel time to South Station is a devastating blow to Franklin line riders who already endure a ~70 minute ride from Franklin when Mansfield riders get to travel the same distance in as little as 40. Franklin line towns are generally much better on housing, particularly near stations, than towns on other lines. And requiring a transfer to Providence line at Readville is a disaster. I get that riders on other south side lines would benefit, but to screw over Franklin riders yet again is unconscionable. Sending Franklin line riders down Fairmount will absolutely kill ridership on the Franklin line.
Click to expand...
Uhhh...Franklin/Forge Park already runs via Fairmount express a few times a day. Usually off-peak slots, but it's a thing that's been happening every weekday for >30 years now. It's not new or catastrophic in the slightest.

I agree with @themissinglink that they'll have to finesse their semi-expressing strategy a little to make it work without unuly long travel times, but if the choice is "can't run :30 frequencies all the time via the NEC" vs. "can run :30 frequencies all the time via Fairmount"...guess what, Norfolk County's going to choose more frequencies over select one-seat pairings in a rout.
 
Can they run a South Station-Back Bay shuttle on the B&A to complement more service over Fairmount without fouling the Worcester mainline?
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Uhhh...Franklin/Forge Park already runs via Fairmount express a few times a day. Usually off-peak slots, but it's a thing that's been happening every weekday for >30 years now. It's not new or catastrophic in the slightest.

I agree with @themissinglink that they'll have to finesse their semi-expressing strategy a little to make it work without unuly long travel times, but if the choice is "can't run :30 frequencies all the time via the NEC" vs. "can run :30 frequencies all the time via Fairmount"...guess what, Norfolk County's going to choose more frequencies over select one-seat pairings in a rout.
Click to expand...
One problem, coming from personal experience, is that the required transfer at Readville has been an unmitigated disaster for Franklin line riders going to or from Back Bay/Ruggles. The T’s operations coordination is nonexistent, so if a Franklin train scheduled to arrive just before a Providence train arrives just after, the Franklin line riders are SOL.

I agree that some express service is the best possible mitigation, but the reality of a 70 minute, 25 mile ride that doesnt even go to Ruggles/Back Bay, is not that potential riders would prefer 30min service, it’s that at that point they give up on the T and take their car.
 
wicked said:
Can they run a South Station-Back Bay shuttle on the B&A to complement more service over Fairmount without fouling the Worcester mainline?
Click to expand...
Future :15 service clock-facing service to Framingham + 8-10 future Amtrak B&A round-trips leaves no room for turning trains for 10-15 minutes at a time on the 2 B&A tracks at Back Bay. And the NEC side was already rejected as too busy today, nevermind in a Regional Rail universe, when they modeled the BCEC/Track 61-Back Bay dinky back during the Patrick Administration.

dennismulder said:
One problem, coming from personal experience, is that the required transfer at Readville has been an unmitigated disaster for Franklin line riders going to or from Back Bay/Ruggles. The T’s operations coordination is nonexistent, so if a Franklin train scheduled to arrive just before a Providence train arrives just after, the Franklin line riders are SOL.

I agree that some express service is the best possible mitigation, but the reality of a 70 minute, 25 mile ride that doesnt even go to Ruggles/Back Bay, is not that potential riders would prefer 30min service, it’s that at that point they give up on the T and take their car.
Click to expand...
Not all Forge Park trains need to vacate the NEC. It's just that the T's own official Rail Vision modeling doesn't see :30 clock-facing Forge Park slots working all the time via that alignment. It does work at :30 clock-facing all the time via Fairmount because there's no Amtrak in the mix chewing up select clock-facing slots. TransitMatters, they of oft ludicrously hyper-aggressive Regional Rail traffic modeling, also had enough doubt in its Franklin Line modernization report that it could be done reliably all the time via the NEC to leave it an either/or choice whether Forge Park took an NEC or Fairmount alignment, coaching it in a lot of squishy "it depends". So you can probably slice the daily Forge Park schedule with some fairly significant--possibly even majority--number of all-local NEC slots paired with some fairly significant--possibly minority--number of semi-expressed Fairmount slots to provide an adequate spread and keep everyone happy. It'll take some degree of coordination, but it's doable especially with Providence and Stoughton/SCR Phase II moving to likeminded clock-facing :30 slots to make the Readville transfers a lot more predictable. Show Up And Wait service every :30 minutes on the same clock position is Regional Rail's big game changer and big ridership generator. Data exists the whole world over that you go to a predictably frequent clockface and the ridership stampedes to the mode. They are not going to distort the focus on that big game changer for one edge case and bob-and-weave a Forge Park slot at :22 on the clock here, and :54 on the clock there, and :13 on the clock there when Amtrak openings permit. That meandering wobble of clock times is what ends up suppressing the ridership. Far more riders prefer :30 service on-the-button every single time than they prefer a one-seat to a particular stop every single time. The task ahead for maximizing ridership is thus finding the right mix of :30 frequencies on-the-clockface every time mixed with a Ruggles or Back Bay one-seat enough of the time. Back Bay or Ruggles every time is not in the cards, though. As I said before, it's not even in the cards every time today or has been for the past 3+ decades. Norfolk County riders will adjust; they already have.
 
If there is going to be :15 service to Framingham, no need for that shuttle. In the current era where it’s :60 service, maybe.
 
wicked said:
Can they run a South Station-Back Bay shuttle on the B&A to complement more service over Fairmount without fouling the Worcester mainline?
Click to expand...
As @F-Line to Dudley noted, future schedules won't allow for shuttles. But in our high frequency regional rail future, it won't matter, because there will be something like 8-10 trains an hour between South Station and Back Bay anyway. That's literally a show-up and go frequency between those two points.
 

Did MBTA underpay for Weaver's Cove in Fall River? Jury to decide eminent domain lawsuit​

A jury next year will hear a lawsuit over the 2020 land-taking of Weaver’s Cove where the MBTA has built its commuter rail layover station, another lawsuit for the MBTA in its series of land-takings to build South Coast Rail.
Weaver’s Cove Industrial Park LLC alleges it was not paid fair market value for 68 acres of land along North Main Street that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority took by eminent domain in February 2020.
In a 2022 civil lawsuit filed in Bristol County Superior Court, Weaver’s Cove Industrial Park LLC said it was “offered a sum of money as compensation for the taking of its land, which is grossly inadequate and does not reflect the fair market value.”
After years of court delays, on Monday, Oct. 6, attorneys for Weaver’s Cove and MBTA scheduled a jury trial to begin April 13, 2026.
[...]
The layover site has been subject to complaints from neighbors, who have said idling trains at the site create excessive noise and vibrations overnight and in the early morning hours, disturbing sleep. MBTA officials have said they are exploring noise abatement options.
Click to expand...
 
themissinglink said:

Did MBTA underpay for Weaver's Cove in Fall River? Jury to decide eminent domain lawsuit​

Click to expand...
Given that the value of the land crashed from $16.8M to $1.3M between the sales of 2007 (when the big LNG terminal was still proposed for it) and 2016 (when all plans had collapsed and it was just a brownfield moonscape with no viable prospects), they have a pretty weak case that they got underpaid to any significant degree.
 
For SCR Phase 2, why did the most recent plans include a park and ride station at North Easton (behind Roche Bros.) instead of a station in South Easton on Route 123? Was there a lot of NIMBY opposition to a station in South Easton or something like that? A park and ride behind Roche Bros is kind of an odd place for a station, unless there's going to be a lot of TOD to boost ridership (or is it intended to pull ridership from the western part of Brockton?).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top