Green Line Extension to Medford & Union Sq

And now we hop on a northbound train towards Union Square. As we start to round the curve on Red Bridge, we get a grand view of the new GLX yard, the commuter rail yard, and the rest of the Inner Belt area:
1648965637543.png


The stub ramp for a northbound flyover to the yard:
1648965817706.png


Nothing was visible in the yard:
1648965960380.png


Here, we're looking northwest from the Union Square-bound train. At right is the bridge for the Medford Branch tracks, at left the Community Path bridge, and at center the yard leads for the Medford Branch. The yard lead for the Union Square Branch is visible in the foreground.
1648966326093.png


The yard leads both pass under the Medford Branch mainline, then the right track passes back under again further to the north. Why, I'm not quite sure - perhaps it allows better access to and from the ladder track in the yard. Track diagram is here: https://www.mass.gov/doc/union-square-branch-glx-roll-plan-4/download
 
The EGE said:
Nothing was visible in the yard:
View attachment 23010
Click to expand...

Given that the 24 type 9s were handily absorbed by the existing GL yards prior to GLX completion, seemingly without too much fuss, isn't the GLX VMF and yard somewhat superfluous/ redundant for now beyond as a terminal layover? The 80 car storage capacity functionally is space for a ~28% increase in the GL fleet on top of the type 9s. Especially given that for now type 10s will be fleet replacements, not expansions, though it may facilitate swing capacity while reworking Reservoir / Riverside yards for type 10s.

Either way, seemingly a neat trick to get Fed Funding for something more useful for the type 10 project and future GL expansions but I kinda wish that the money was spent on the stations instead.
 
Stlin said:
Given that the 24 type 9s were handily absorbed by the existing GL yards prior to GLX completion, seemingly without too much fuss, isn't the GLX VMF and yard somewhat superfluous/ redundant for now beyond as a terminal layover? The 80 car storage capacity functionally is space for a ~28% increase in the GL fleet on top of the type 9s. Especially given that for now type 10s will be fleet replacements, not expansions, though it may facilitate swing capacity while reworking Reservoir / Riverside yards for type 10s.
Click to expand...

Were they actually absorbed by the yards, or were they just storing them in the tunnels again? They've had a tendency to use the Brattle Loop as storage over the years, for one thing.

Moreover, with Lechmere's yard gone the E lost its only storage yard, so even to the extent that storage capacity was sufficient, feeding E out of the other yards introduced additional unnecessary operational complexity that's no longer necessary.
 
Something about those chain link fences at Lechmere says I shouldn't be going inside or staying around there for too long, but I know that's not true. What a strange way to define the station area, especially with no fare gates. I think there could have been other ways to design it for the same cost while being much more inviting and open, no?
 
GLX VMF only has storage space for 44 LRVs - that was reduced from the original plan of 80. That's roughly what you need to feed the whole E Branch, plus the first few westbound D Branch trains (so that you don't have to deadhead from Reservoir/Riverside to Union Square).
 
Brattle Loop said:
Were they actually absorbed by the yards, or were they just storing them in the tunnels again? They've had a tendency to use the Brattle Loop as storage over the years, for one thing.

Moreover, with Lechmere's yard gone the E lost its only storage yard, so even to the extent that storage capacity was sufficient, feeding E out of the other yards introduced additional unnecessary operational complexity that's no longer necessary.
Click to expand...

Keep in mind there was also pretty significant culling of cars from 2011-2020 with 11 Boeings, 13 Type 7s, and 3879 getting scrapped. A lot of the long-term dead storage at Riverside got cleaned out in the Type 7 rebuild.
 
Last edited:
737900er said:
Keep in mind there was also pretty significant culling of cars from 2011-2020 with 11 Boeings, 13 Type 7s, and 3879 getting scrapped. A lot of the long-term dead storage at Riverside got cleaned out in the Type 7 rebuild.
Click to expand...

That's a good point. I forgot how much dead stuff there had been clogging up Riverside.
 
Arriving at Union Square, I wasn't impressed by much. The canopy does cover the platform all the way to the edge, but there's nothing to block the wind, nor much seating.
1649117665881.png


The long walkway is ridiculous. Yes, tail tracks are useful - but having the platform an extra 150 feet away from the street is a terrible design decision. Doubly so since there's already movement to extend to Porter.
1649118118546.png

1649118390625.png


Artwork on top of this gate was not yet installed.
1649118487336.png


I truly don't understand why this utility building needed to be right next to Prospect Street.
1649118561686.png


Bike cage is in an awkward location - once you park your bike, you have to walk 150 feet back to the entrance, then 150 feet to the platform.
1649118654309.png
 
The station from Prospect Street. The long walk to the platform looks so unnecessary.
1649131084625.png

1649131098889.png


I've sure the plaza will look nice when finished, but right now it's more grey and gravel.
1649131344584.png


It's a great spot to capture Commuter Rail and rapid transit together:
1649136713837.png


Trains were stopping at the far end of the platform, adding an additional 75 feet of walking for passengers. Hopefully that changes.
1649136828800.png


This is the infamous substation that might block extension to Porter:
1649137104155.png
 
Do the existence of tail tracks (pushing the platform further away from the street) allow the trains to approach at a higher speed? Or are they forced down to 10mph along the entire length of the platform anyway?

And I absolutely cannot believe the location of the bike cage. Do we really need to discourage these pedal and park commutes by adding on an additional 3 minutes of walking? Honestly, if I were a boomer that lived within 10 min walk of Union Square, I'd still drive downtown because of the poor train speeds and all this unnecessary fluff that makes the station hard to access. Small design choices like this seem so easy to get right to win a lot more ridership.
 
sneijder said:
Do the existence of tail tracks (pushing the platform further away from the street) allow the trains to approach at a higher speed? Or are they forced down to 10mph along the entire length of the platform anyway?

And I absolutely cannot believe the location of the bike cage. Do we really need to discourage these pedal and park commutes by adding on an additional 3 minutes of walking? Honestly, if I were a boomer that lived within 10 min walk of Union Square, I'd still drive downtown because of the poor train speeds and all this unnecessary fluff that makes the station hard to access. Small design choices like this seem so easy to get right to win a lot more ridership.
Click to expand...
Best I can think is that eventually there'll be a station entrance at the other end of the platform, the area around Target and McGrath will get built up, Boynton Yards will get connected and maybe the platform location and bike cage will make more sense?
 
Couldn't they have just extended the platform the full length? Then when the tail tracks aren't in use they could just board at that end?
 
The EGE said:
The north headhouse is similarly underwhelming - cinderblock walls and chain-link fence. I know it's been heavily value engineered, but this just feels cheap.
Click to expand...

I don't mind the cinderblock, but that chain-link fence needs to be ripped out and replaced with something resembling the stair railings. It looks like a prison between the two items.
 
bakgwailo said:
Couldn't they have just extended the platform the full length? Then when the tail tracks aren't in use they could just board at that end?
Click to expand...
I'm guessing the extension of the tracks beyond the platform was required because the tracks end right there, and it's a safety requirement. I don't think ending the tracks right at the end of the platform would have been allowed. F-Line could possibly answer this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top