Fitchburg Line Improvement Project

Work at South Acton seems to be progressing, and the local poo-slinging contest over the historical pictures at the station seems to be coming to a close. Is the station on schedule? If needed, I can provide pictures of the work.
 
FitchburgLine said:
Work at South Acton seems to be progressing, and the local poo-slinging contest over the historical pictures at the station seems to be coming to a close. Is the station on schedule? If needed, I can provide pictures of the work.
Click to expand...

No, it's well behind schedule because town poo-flinging about other frivolous things got it off to a late start. But they're really blasting through it now that it's underway. Littleton got off to a way late start too, but the actual construction itself went hella fast when they did get going.

Last piece of the new double track goes into service when this station is finished. Then slightly less than another year's worth of signal replacement trudging inbound to 128, then inside 128. Then the whole thing will be uprated by end of 2014 to 80 MPH and the end-to-end schedule should bleed a good amount of time off.

Wachusett construction is well underway too: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...PG/800px-Wachusett_aerial,_September_2013.JPG. If that thing can finish without too much more NIMBY histrionics about the layover yard Spring 2015 should be the start of service at that stop and start of the substantial schedule increases afforded by the much larger layover. This line might actually become semi-useful for reverse commutes and for de-isolating Waltham (big-ass new station @ 128/20/117, plz, in time for the Polaroid redevelopment's grand opening!).
 
I just started riding out to Waltham more or less weekly, and man, when they get the schedule beefed up, that area is going to explode. As is, it's like a Davis Square or JP bones-wise - cheap housing, good restaurant/bar choices, cool stores. Might actually have more stuff than Davis or JP already. And the best thing: it's only about a 15-20 min ride to North Station. Only issue is that it's sort of isolated out in the "hinter lands". Can't imagine what it will be like in 20 years.
 
underground said:
I just started riding out to Waltham more or less weekly, and man, when they get the schedule beefed up, that area is going to explode. As is, it's like a Davis Square or JP bones-wise - cheap housing, good restaurant/bar choices, cool stores. Might actually have more stuff than Davis or JP already. And the best thing: it's only about a 15-20 min ride to North Station. Only issue is that it's sort of isolated out in the "hinter lands". Can't imagine what it will be like in 20 years.
Click to expand...

Biggest thing holding it back is the fare. A $3 fare into town and it will explode. A $6 fare and it will never be what it could be.
 
I wonder if a shuttle between Waltham and Alewife would be feasible.

Reopen Beaver Brook and Clematis stations and build a park and ride with extra tracks for turning trains at Cedarwood / 128 in that office park. That small maintenance yard south of Alewife could be used at the other end for a platform and turning trains as to not foul the main line, or for more money do a rail+trail along the fitchburg cutoff bike path to get it right next to the station.

DMUs would be preferable, but even without a small consist of flats (4 peak 2 off peak?) could do it as well, and keep the train light for faster acceleration. They could even gut some cars for it, reconfiguring them like a subway car. For an added bonus charlie equip them since it's only a small amount of cars, so it would be like the high speed line north.


They could also express the regular trains through Belmont and Waverly, speeding up trip times. It also primes Belmont and Waverly for rapid transit like service without actually doing it, paving the way for a red line extension.
 
davem said:
I wonder if a shuttle between Waltham and Alewife would be feasible.

Reopen Beaver Brook and Clematis stations and build a park and ride with extra tracks for turning trains at Cedarwood / 128 in that office park. That small maintenance yard south of Alewife could be used at the other end for a platform and turning trains as to not foul the main line, or for more money do a rail+trail along the fitchburg cutoff bike path to get it right next to the station.

DMUs would be preferable, but even without a small consist of flats (4 peak 2 off peak?) could do it as well, and keep the train light for faster acceleration. They could even gut some cars for it, reconfiguring them like a subway car. For an added bonus charlie equip them since it's only a small amount of cars, so it would be like the high speed line north.


They could also express the regular trains through Belmont and Waverly, speeding up trip times. It also primes Belmont and Waverly for rapid transit like service without actually doing it, paving the way for a red line extension.
Click to expand...

You don't need to do a dinky terminating at Alewife. Fitchburg has tons of unused capacity to tap now that the double-track project is complete and it's being resignaled with better crossover placement to raise speeds to 80 MPH and pack trains closer. The end-to-end schedule is never going to hit saturation levels because of the all-day freight congestion between Ayer and Wachusett places a firm ceiling on frequencies (much higher ceiling than today, but still a ceiling). The inner half of the line out to Littleton has zero freight and LOTS of slack space to pack the short-turn schedule as chock full as they want. Plus North Station is under-capacity with Tracks 11 & 12 still unused, and the Fitchburg tracks peel out first almost immediately after the drawbridge so there's almost no co-mingling with Lowell, Haverhill, or Newburyport/Rockport save for the 700 ft. pinch across the drawbridges. You could go hog wild running a clock-facing schedule to Waltham without any of the load-balancing considerations of attempting the same on the Eastern Route, any of the track work Reading requires to fix the lack of passing opportunities at Reading station or in the Wellington area, or any of the thorny and expensive issues of South Station expansion and yard storage that have to be settled up to get Fairmount or Riverside-via-Worcester Line firing on all cylinders.

All it needs are level-boarding platforms at all the inner stops + that big Route 128 station right at Exit 26 to anchor Route 20, Route 117, the Microsoft campus, the Polaroid development, the 70 bus terminus, Weston, and the paths on the Central Mass ROW (incl. over the disused 128 bridge straight to Polaroid). Not expensive at all if the vehicles exist and they can fund that 128 anchor station. Initially, I'm not even sure Alewife is a requirement since Porter serves the transfer needs for Red, future Green, and the 77. And can have a path connection to the Alewife/Minuteman/Somerville Community Path/Watertown system. That may be something to add a bare infill later after concentrating first on the existing stations...then reopening Clematis or Beaver to better integrate other parts of Waltham...then considering Alewife as a cherry on top.


I sort of doubt Alewife would be all that well-patronized except for the small slice of ridership who absolutely, positively have to transfer to their bus there. It's a 900 ft. walk from the platform to Cambridgepark Dr., and requires a ped grade crossing of the maint yard rear storage track that pokes outside the yard security fence. Nobody going Red would opt for that over Porter where the platform's integrated right into the fare lobby. So you're likely looking at just a very short--possibly only single-car boarding--barebones platform on the outbound side that inbound trains would have to crossover to reach and all thru Wachusett or Littleton trains would skip. There's not a lot of room to do more because that yard takes up all available space on the west side of the parkway overpass and the path to Cambridgepark is the only available place for an easy egress. Doing a full island platform for both tracks and ramping up to the parkway for an egress makes for an even longer walk to the main station. So there just aren't many good options except for the take-it-or-leave-it side mini-high.
 
F-Line, are you saying that more than any other CR route, the inner Fitchburg is primed as-is for DMU-type service and/or rapid transit headways?
 
Shepard said:
F-Line, are you saying that more than any other CR route, the inner Fitchburg is primed as-is for DMU-type service and/or rapid transit headways?
Click to expand...

In terms of track improvements, yes. Because those track improvements are already paid-for and under active construction for the ongoing improvements project. The only last bit to settle up is the 1/3 mile single-track at Waltham...which is a zero schedule constraint for the Fitchburg schedule so they didn't include it to save money. The 128 anchor station would be the biggest expense. Level boarding at all other stops the next-biggest. Waltham and Brandeis being really easy, Belmont Ctr. not being difficult (historic station building has to be worked around, but it's an easier mod here than it would be in Lincoln or Concord). Waverley is a semi-invasive one with substantial retaining wall work needed to replace the steep stairs with far longer ramps. And Porter requiring some reshaping because of the curve (current mini-high on the curve being roped off into an extended egress, full-width high platform being extended further down Somerville Ave. at the tip so trains stop on the straightest portion).

Compared to what it would take to do all the Newton stops on the Worcester Line and upgrade all those signals and interlockings for denser/faster service, it's very low-cost to do Waltham. But I would not take low-cost as reason to prioritize it over Riverside. When introducing first-time DMU service patterns demand trumps low-hanging fruit by a wide margin when you're trying to grow the ridership from scratch. Riverside is a much-higher demand second route to add to Fairmount. It's also less costly on ops to keep your initial couple lines worth of DMU rollout consolidated on the southside instead of splitting them north/south.

Northside DMU's are something they can consider doing as a Reading + Waltham package deal with an expansion vehicle order, since neither line needs all that much work beyond high platforms. And they're better off spending the meantime putting a dent in their ADA deficit on these two lines, because 6 out of 13 stations are non-accessible and only 2 (Malden and unused Oak Grove) have existing high platforms. Beyond that...infilling the Waltham double-track is only $2-4M if that, and Reading doesn't have much track construction required either. It needs a scant 1/4 mile extra of double-track poking through Reading station so 2 trains can occupy the station at once (same thing they have to fix at Readville when they relocate that stop), and the mile-long surface freight track between Route 16/Wellington tunnel and the Medford St. bridge in Malden needs to get upgraded and reworked into a full passenger passing siding in order to solve for the two pinch points holding back a substantial schedule increase. Beyond that...shove Haverhill permanently back onto the Lowell Line like it was pre-1979 and replace the closed North Wilmington stop by reopening the Salem St. stop on the Wildcat Branch (property is still T-owned, and a superior location to current N. Will.). So long as they make a good effort in the meantime at overturning those non-ADA stations and getting high platforms done up on as many as they can, it's probably less than $20M to settle up the track remainders. Then just make that fleet expansion DMU purchase to add Indigo Lines #3 and #4 to the system and get the northside into the game.
 
If there is slack to run to North Station on 20 minute headways, then yes that would be far better.

What do you think of the idea of retrofitting a consist or two of single levels with longitudinal seating and Charlie readers? My thought is that since one conductor is required per set, you could have fare enforcement similar to the green line. Have the conductor stand in the middle of two cars, and observe everyone getting on paying. It sucks that you could only use 2/4 doors on the set, but it is an easy way to get Charlie onto the CR.

It wouldn't work on the regular CR because dwell times would be ludicrous, but since the acceleration would suck with such dense stop spacing anyway it doesnt seem as big a deal here.

Question: if an engine were strapped to each end I'm assuming acceleration would be superior. Would the fuel costs be insane, or would the distributed load help with this a bit?
 
So far, Lynn-Boston is the North Side corridor MassDOT has shown the most interest in for DMU's:
http://www.mass.gov/governor/pressoffice/pressreleases/2013/0118-meetings-and-tours.html

quote from above:
"The Way Forward: A 21st Century Transportation Plan. DMUs are self-propelled units able to run on existing passenger rail tracks, allowing more frequent, expanded service. DMU service to Lynn would provide faster and more efficient public transportation to North Shore residents."

Looks like MassDOT has an MPO study underway to confirm where it makes the most sense to run DMU's:
http://www.ctps.org/Drupal/data/calendar/htmls/2013/MPO_1017_DMU_Study.html

So we will know in 21 weeks what are the five corridors they want to consider besides Fairmount.
 
davem said:
If there is slack to run to North Station on 20 minute headways, then yes that would be far better.

What do you think of the idea of retrofitting a consist or two of single levels with longitudinal seating and Charlie readers? My thought is that since one conductor is required per set, you could have fare enforcement similar to the green line. Have the conductor stand in the middle of two cars, and observe everyone getting on paying. It sucks that you could only use 2/4 doors on the set, but it is an easy way to get Charlie onto the CR.

It wouldn't work on the regular CR because dwell times would be ludicrous, but since the acceleration would suck with such dense stop spacing anyway it doesnt seem as big a deal here.

Question: if an engine were strapped to each end I'm assuming acceleration would be superior. Would the fuel costs be insane, or would the distributed load help with this a bit?
Click to expand...

Proof-of-payment is a no-brainer. Tap-on/tap-off. For something like the Fairmount Line, regular staffed conductors and regular CR tix collection only takes you so far. At max build they're going to need something better and more automatic than that to lift the ceiling on ridership and make the fare collection as transparent to the rider as the subway.

If the Rotem option order gets exercises they will have extra single-level coaches to play with. They can't do that now because the MBB coaches the base order is replacing are too corroded to rebuild or keep limping along. Those things get a date with the scrapper's blowtorch. The Bombardier coaches are in considerably better condition, and won't be 100% displaced until the 2020 order. Since half or more of them are going to remain active the rest of the decade it is no issue whatsoever to set aside some of the spares for experimentation. Reasonable assumption is that they'd make a few more seasonal bike/ski cars or an extra Cape Flyer cafe car or two.

But they can also do exactly what you're proposing here...put together a longitudinal test trainset akin to seatless "Big Red" on the Red Line. Throw it on the Fairmount Line...see how it works. If it doesn't...meh...it's a superfluous spare car in a fleet that'll have only about 8 years left. Even if they go shopping soon for DMU's it takes 3-4 years between the go decision to shop around, ink the order, and get the far test car on the property. So they will have a few more years of push-pull to make the best of, and it will coincide (if the Rotem options are picked up) with these spare single-level coaches coming available. The timing works for getting some skunkworks experimentation in on the margins.


As for conductors...the rule is 1 conductor per 2 cars (one of many reasons why going all bi-level is more efficient, because a car is a car no in the eyes of that rule no matter how many levels it has). That's probably can't be negotiated out of the union contract it's so longstanding. They've got much bigger fish to fry reining in those contracts than to go after the 1-per-2 rule. And even with tap-on/tap-off PoP at the doors there still have to be some train attendants (maybe not 1 per 2 cars, but some) doing required safety checks. No way to do one-man ops like the Blue Line when the FRA dictates those rules.
 
In Acton's town planning document, a long term low priority goal is the establishment of a stop at Alewife. I'm not sure why, but at least one "outer" town seems to want trains to stop there.
 
I don't know about being "ready to go" right off the bat, here. While North Station might not be at capacity, Tower A interlocking is near -- if not at -- capacity. Any DMU would certainly have to wait until the Charles Draws are replaced (not all that far off, actually). Not only that, but what they really need is to be replaced with two triple-track spans to open up Tower A. I don't see how jamming North Side DMUss will work until then. Not only that, but the North Point Bridge may have been a complete shot to the foot with the location of one of the supports. I'm not sure they can add another track to the Charles' crossing in the near-term. So would that not leave peak-rush North Side DMUs dead in the water for some time? That's where people will especially want the headways, but that might not be where they get them.
 
BostonUrbEx said:
I don't know about being "ready to go" right off the bat, here. While North Station might not be at capacity, Tower A interlocking is near -- if not at -- capacity. Any DMU would certainly have to wait until the Charles Draws are replaced (not all that far off, actually). Not only that, but what they really need is to be replaced with two triple-track spans to open up Tower A. I don't see how jamming North Side DMUss will work until then. Not only that, but the North Point Bridge may have been a complete shot to the foot with the location of one of the supports. I'm not sure they can add another track to the Charles' crossing in the near-term. So would that not leave peak-rush North Side DMUs dead in the water for some time? That's where people will especially want the headways, but that might not be where they get them.
Click to expand...

At least for Lynn-Boston, the greater potential for the DMUs might be to improve the off-peak headways. The peak headways on the Eastern Route are already decent for commuter rail. DMUs may be a more efficient way to improve the off-peak headway. DMU's could replace existing consists on the present Boston-Beverly short-turns in the peak, and then be broken-up in the off-peak to run new Boston-Lynn or Boston-Beverly shuttle trips (in addition to the already existing Rockport and Newburyport trips).
 
FitchburgLine said:
In Acton's town planning document, a long term low priority goal is the establishment of a stop at Alewife. I'm not sure why, but at least one "outer" town seems to want trains to stop there.
Click to expand...

When I lived in Acton for a couple years, I knew a few of my neighbors that commuted Rt. 2 to Alewife, then took the Red Line from there or worked in that general area of Cambridge. That might be where that direction comes from. Those providing that direction probably didn't consider that Porter Square is pretty much a stone’s throw from Alewife and that a faster F-Line commute to Porter would be just as easy as driving the gauntlet that is Rt. 2 from Acton to Alewife.

I’m curious to see pictures of the new South Acton station when that is done, since I’m no longer in the area.

This may have been discussed in this thread, but there’s an old line/ROW running through Waltham near where I used to live in Waltham. The line runs from at least Wayland, but more importantly there’s a junction with the F-line near Kendall Green and then it reconnects with the F-line near Linden Street.

You can see the outline of the ROW as a tree-lined path in this Google Maps shot:

https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=42.3789,-71.246853&spn=0.024759,0.038409&t=h&z=15

Is there any feasibility to re-opening this line to better connect to the new Polaroid development/Prospect Hill/etc? I know that might cut off Brandies/Roberts, but maybe alternate between the two lines?
 
Dr. StrangeHat said:
This may have been discussed in this thread, but there’s an old line/ROW running through Waltham near where I used to live in Waltham. The line runs from at least Wayland, but more importantly there’s a junction with the F-line near Kendall Green and then it reconnects with the F-line near Linden Street.
Click to expand...

You can actually trace that ROW on Google Maps all the way to at least Hudson. What line was this?
 
The Belmont to Weston part of that branch is still usable. If Fitchburg ever gets rapid transited to Waltham, the commuter rail could get bumped to the Central Mass after Waverley and rejoin the Fitchburg at 128. Of course, I don't think Waltham will ever get real rapid transit due to Belmont standing in the way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top