MassDOT Rail: Springfield Hub (East-West, NNERI, Berkshires, CT-Valley-VT-Quebec)

Riverside said:
Yes but it was just that one train in each direction, and it had only been around for a couple of years. I don't think we can attribute too much growth and development in Worcester to the Heart-to-Hub train.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. And even at peak times it may have been 100 people or so boarding the express train. There are ~25k new residents in Worcester since 2010 census.
 
Fortunately, we have train-by-train counts from 2018. H2H accounted for 262 of the 838 AM inbound boardings from Worcester (31%); it was the highest count, with #508 (6:57 am departure) second with 203. However, it was the third-lowest-ridership AM inbound train after the 4:45 and 5:15 am departures; other AM peak trains carried 476 to 1,404 passengers.

The outbound H2H, with a worse time slot, carried just 56 passengers to Worcester - 28% of the 202 evening riders to Worcester, as it was considered later than the PM peak with its 857 Worcester riders. It was the lowest-ridership outbound train other than some early AM trains. PM peak trains carried 522 to 1,342 passengers.

While they do show a decent demand for direct Worcester-Boston service, H2H trains had rather lower total ridership than other trains near their time slots. Other than perhaps a single peak-of-the-peak trip in each direction, I don't think it's really justified on a ridership level from Worcester alone. But add in Springfield, Palmer, the Brookfields, and Framingham, and you can justify an every hour-or-two intercity service.
 
From Trains In The Valley, MassDOT released a "Massachusetts Intercity Passenger Rail Governance White Paper": news article, or full paper (PDF).

The white paper recommends the creation of a "Western Massachusetts Intercity Rail Authority" to oversee East-West (and potentially other state-sponsored Amtrak lines in Western Mass). It also prefers Amtrak as the operator of the service.

The Trains In The Valley article does point out that the white paper doesn't contain any specifics on funding, though.
 
Rode the Amtrak Acela to Washington last week, rode it back yesterday, but after leaving Baltimore, there was a signal problem at the controls in the lead power car. The crew had to wait until it got the Philladelphia to go into the rail yard to switch driving ends. The other power car had to be used. Before that, the train could only reach 80 mph! After the switchover, it worked fine. The train got up to 140mph in some areas!! Proof that the train can still fly!!!! :)
 
Last edited:
Teban54 said:
Is this new?
www.wwlp.com

Agreement reached to advance East-West rail to western Mass.

Federal and state officials on Tuesday agreed on a path forward to extend passenger rail service west of Worcester to the cities of Springfield and Pittsfield, an effort designed to finally connect…
www.wwlp.com www.wwlp.com
Click to expand...
They portrayed it as new, and an agreement to create a rail authority is new, and does seem to be good for applying for Federal infrastructure $.

But it is super sparse on specifics like timing and which of the many studies alternatives they think they’re pursuing.
 
Two agencies operating on the same track just seems ripe for inefficiency and good old-fashioned Massachusetts interagency turf wars.
What is really needed is a singular vision for the B&A with regional rail + longer distance. Both are needed services, and by necessity would share the same trackage, but having different agencies trying to implement them at the same time seems silly.
 
737900er said:
Two agencies operating on the same track just seems ripe for inefficiency and good old-fashioned Massachusetts interagency turf wars.
What is really needed is a singular vision for the B&A with regional rail + longer distance. Both are needed services, and by necessity would share the same trackage, but having different agencies trying to implement them at the same time seems silly.
Click to expand...

I doubt it will be two separate agencies operating on the same track. I am guessing that any passenger rail west of Worcester on the B&A will be operated by Amtrak, and probably managed by a Massachusetts equivalent of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, which, as far as I can tell, is basically a small version of the MBTA specific to the Downeaster. In this scenario, Amtrak (whether under its own branding or not) would operate both the commuter rail/super commuter rail/"Downeaster for Western Mass" service as well as the longer-distance services to Albany (and beyond), Connecticut, and NYC.

In California, Amtrak operates with "Amtrak California" public branding. In fact, the major corridors all have their own websites and independent branding that makes barely any mention of the national Amtrak network:

https://www.pacificsurfliner.com/
https://www.capitolcorridor.org/
https://amtraksanjoaquins.com/

One option would be to create an "Amtrak New England" or "Amtrak Northeast" brand, and then create named services underneath. ("Hub-to-Heart-to-Hampden", anyone?)
 
Riverside said:
I doubt it will be two separate agencies operating on the same track. I am guessing that any passenger rail west of Worcester on the B&A will be operated by Amtrak, and probably managed by a Massachusetts equivalent of the Northern New England Passenger Rail Authority, which, as far as I can tell, is basically a small version of the MBTA specific to the Downeaster. In this scenario, Amtrak (whether under its own branding or not) would operate both the commuter rail/super commuter rail/"Downeaster for Western Mass" service as well as the longer-distance services to Albany (and beyond), Connecticut, and NYC.

In California, Amtrak operates with "Amtrak California" public branding. In fact, the major corridors all have their own websites and independent branding that makes barely any mention of the national Amtrak network:

https://www.pacificsurfliner.com/
https://www.capitolcorridor.org/
https://amtraksanjoaquins.com/

One option would be to create an "Amtrak New England" or "Amtrak Northeast" brand, and then create named services underneath. ("Hub-to-Heart-to-Hampden", anyone?)
Click to expand...
Or operated by keolis, so that it can integrate with the commuter rail system?
 
Amtrak has intercity equipment, trackage rights and trained crews for WOR-SPG, and existing agreements for usage of Springfield Union Station. Keolis doesn't, because they have no need to - they're a commuter/regional operator, not an intercity operator.
 
There wouldn't really be a strong need for integrating to Keolis/the MBTA Commuter Rail anyway, on an operational level. BOS-WOR stopping services (e.g. anything the T currently runs except for Heart-to-Hub) are extremely unlikely to run west of Worcester, at least not on the B&A itself. Density drops off sharply on the B&A after Worcester and doesn't pick up again until Palmer, at which point you are in Springfield commuter territory. There is no "Wachusett", "Plaistow" or "TF Green" one-stop extension that would see enough demand to Boston to make the one-seat ride worth it (in my opinion).

There might be "super commuter" demand from Palmer, but you'd need those services to run mostly express east of Worcester to make a reasonable travel time. That points back to Amtrak, who has intercity equipment and would be running an intercity schedule that skips the Southboros of the world. The stretch between Palmer and Worcester is very unlikely to ever warrant commuter rail as we know it today.

There are potential commuter rail corridors that center on Worcester:
  • Auburn-Webster-Danielson-Norwich-New London
  • Milbury-Woonsocket-Providence
  • Clinton-Ayer-Lowell
  • Leominster-Fitchburg via commuter bus on 190
But all those routes currently don't exist, so there's no particular impetus to integrate into Keolis/MBTA Commuter Rail. And indeed, the Woonsocket line would probably get operated by RIDOT's contractor, and the New London one would potentially be operated by CTRail (both via duplicates of the Attleboro Agreement). And anyway, they are all more or less independent of what gets done on the B&A -- the only major impact being a small potential ridership increase if more express (i.e. intercity) services start running WOR-BOS, enabling a two-seat ride to Boston (e.g. Webster-WOR>WOR-BOS).

It'll be extremely important to have schedule coordination between all these different services. But that can be done between agencies without full-on integration.

The first step is to get Downeaster-style supercommuter service going between Springfield and Boston. Once that is in place, you can look at occasional commuter+supercommuter service patterns, e.g. train leaves Greenfield at 7:15, runs local and arrives in Springfield at 8:15, before running express to Boston to arrive by 10:30 (supplementing a few additional Greenfield-Springfield commuter runs). But even in that universe, the commuter rail in the Knowledge Corridor is going to be much more aligned operationally (and potentially structurally) with Hartford than with Boston. The Greenfield-Springfield-Boston service will almost certainly be run by Amtrak and not a commuter rail provider.

~~~~~

That all being said: to the riding public, what they'll notice the most is what's painted on the side of train. For the next 10 years, I'm guessing it'll likely still be Amtrak livery. But, like I said earlier, it's possible that at some point the Powers That Be will decide to rebrand. Assuming this operation gets large enough to have a dedicated fleet, then sure -- they might paint over the Amtrak logo with something else. Maybe it'll be something à la "Amtrak California" and maybe they'll slap a T logo on there and roll with it. (Unlikely, but.) In that case, the riding public might think of it as "extending the T to Springfield," but it'll still be Amtrak for all practical purposes.
 
www.gazettenet.com

‘Jury’s not in’ on east-west rail, Mariano says

Legislative action to create a new public authority that would oversee a western Massachusetts passenger rail expansion would be “very premature,” House Speaker Ronald Mariano said Wednesday.Casting some doubt on a priority of both Gov. Charlie Baker...
www.gazettenet.com www.gazettenet.com

Mr. Speakah slow-walking creation of the East-West rail authority. Boy, it sure would be unrealistically great to have a dynastic dictator of the General Court who wasn't a shithead on transit funding for a change. Meet the new boss, same as the last 3 or 4 bosses.
 
Here's something I didn't realize anyone was seriously proposing: "Northern Tier Passenger Rail," from Boston to North Adams by way of Fitchburg, Gardner, and Greenfield.

Somehow, they managed to get funding for a proper planning study administered by MassDOT. I have to assume as a payoff to get state senators and reps from these communities to sign onto a metro Boston focused spending plan? Don't know if this is actually the right thread for this, as just because its gotten a actual state funded study, doesn't mean its not still a Crazy Transit Pitch... its just soon to be one with the theoretical underpinnings of why exactly its crazy.

Considering the demographic trends of those communities, I can't imagine this thing would actually get riders. The idea of regular passenger traffic through the Hoosac Tunnel itself seems fraught, let alone the paucity of passenger demand that far west. Back in 2005 when they were proposing service improvements for the Fitchburg line that led to the construction of Wachusett Station, estimated daily ridership from Gardner was all of 50 - and that city had historic Commuter Rail service. Nothing out that way screams transit catchment. Plus, given the elevation changes and the fact this thing would be curvier than Kim K, (as the ROW follows river valleys through all the mountains and hills) I have to imagine that buses over Rt 2 is always going to be faster. Theres a reason they recommended a park and Ride in Wachusett, after all. Still way early in the study process - they haven't even gotten to service concepts yet - but I can't imagine what the ridership figures are going to be if their trip data already shows that demand from N. Adams and Greenfield is oriented to the south - not East and West. Interesting highway trip time data they're using as a point of comparison though.

This is the link to the public meeting slides, (Worth noting that arcGIS storymaps are kinda odd - note that there are discrete next buttons for each set of slides.) and this is the link to the link to the study website.

(Also, as an aside - if the state feels like funding more "crazy pitch" passenger rail studies, I'd actually be really interested in a Lowell-Worcester-Providence one.)
1657837808120.png

1657839907937.png
 
Last edited:
Man, those population stats are dire for that region. This thing doesn't have a chance in hell.

Honestly, BRTA bus access from Pittsfield to North Adams ain't bad. Improve that with an express bus flavor timed to the trains and East-West might have a stronger leg to stand on. They're already sort-of coordinating local transit with Berkshire Flyer, so it wouldn't be starting from scratch.


Or...hell...if it simply must be a train, do a "Z"-shaped train route Boston-Worcester-Springfield-Greenfield-North Adams to make it load-bearing for some real demand instead of treating highway-uncongested zits on the map like Athol and Orange as must-haves. Make it support East-West/NNEIRI instead of further fragmenting the state's meager attention span. Do the 90 MPH segment upgrades proposed in the NNEIRI study and it's probably just as fast via SPR as the fractally curvy Fitchburg routing (which sucked on travel times even in the best-maintenance B&M era).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top