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

What a con job. No stop in the second-most-populous city on the line outside current CR territory. Claiming less than one daily rider over 5 daily trains from 20k residents in Adams + North Adams. The lowest-cost option being over a billion dollars for a service that should require 2 small platforms, less than $25M of rolling stock, a few passing sidings, and targeted work on a few slow zones.

I don't think this is a high-priority rail investment - in agreement with everyone else, intercity bus with timed transfers at Greenfield and Wachusett would be a more effective service in the short turn. But this was clearly designed to kill any useful discussion.
 
The EGE said:
What a con job. No stop in the second-most-populous city on the line outside current CR territory. Claiming less than one daily rider over 5 daily trains from 20k residents in Adams + North Adams. The lowest-cost option being over a billion dollars for a service that should require 2 small platforms, less than $25M of rolling stock, a few passing sidings, and targeted work on a few slow zones.

I don't think this is a high-priority rail investment - in agreement with everyone else, intercity bus with timed transfers at Greenfield and Wachusett would be a more effective service in the short turn. But this was clearly designed to kill any useful discussion.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if this is one of those studies where the funding math changes a few more months into the Healey administration . . . similar to how Baker came around to East-West Rail after Neal dug his hooks in.
 
www.bostonglobe.com

Thereâs momentum at last for East-West Rail, but Postal Service still stands in the way - The Boston Globe

A key lawmaker is renewing pressure on the Postal Service to move its huge sorting facility alongside South Station, to enable the expansion of rail service.
www.bostonglobe.com www.bostonglobe.com
I didn’t realize that one of the major hurdles for E/W Rail is in fact SSX. I may have missed that in the documents… Either way, I think this should put to bed the whole SSX vs. NSRL debate. If the need is now for more track capacity for Amtrak and CR to expand modestly, we can’t put it off in favor of building the tunnels. We’re going to need both pieces of infrastructure eventually, but SSX should be priority given all the constraints and up front cost.
 
BosMaineiac said:
I didn’t realize that one of the major hurdles for E/W Rail is in fact SSX. I may have missed that in the documents…
Click to expand...

Didn't read the article... but at 2019 service levels SS was close to full once you include SCR in the mix. But unless they go back to those levels, there should be room. You would also have to consider the Worcester Line itself as shown by the terrible H2H time slots in 2019.
 
jklo said:
Didn't read the article... but at 2019 service levels SS was close to full once you include SCR in the mix. But unless they go back to those levels, there should be room. You would also have to consider the Worcester Line itself as shown by the terrible H2H time slots in 2019.
Click to expand...
Wouldn’t full regional rail warrant at least 2019 service levels? Even if it’s all day service as opposed to peak hour, I would think it wouldn’t take long to reach that level of demand
 
Tallguy said:
Organization before electronics before concrete.
Click to expand...
This! Part of the issue with South Station capacity is that they do not turn trains as quickly as best practices can make possible. At the moment, they don't have to do so, and arguably they shouldn't, since the turned train has nowhere it needs to be. But under regional rail, the turned train is back in service. That means less time parked by the platform, which is to say more capacity for the next train.
 
Arlington said:
I think the other change to regional rail would allow some de-peaking -- Can't clockface schedules reduce platform conflicts?
Click to expand...
Clockface schedules can reduce platform conflicts, so long as you don't put every line on the same clockface schedule! Why is it I don't trust the T to understand this. :unsure:
 
JeffDowntown said:
Clockface schedules can reduce platform conflicts, so long as you don't put every line on the same clockface schedule! Why is it I don't trust the T to understand this. :unsure:
Click to expand...
This got me imagining, in a post-NSRL world, the T trying to squeeze every train on every mainline into the tunnel at :00, :15, :30 and :45 🤣
 
HenryAlan said:
This! Part of the issue with South Station capacity is that they do not turn trains as quickly as best practices can make possible. At the moment, they don't have to do so, and arguably they shouldn't, since the turned train has nowhere it needs to be. But under regional rail, the turned train is back in service. That means less time parked by the platform, which is to say more capacity for the next train.
Click to expand...
Or we can spend $3.5B instead, between SSX, Readville diesel maintenance facility, and Widett. Nearly enough for Regional Rail
 
Tallguy said:
Or we can spend $3.5B instead, between SSX, Readville diesel maintenance facility, and Widett. Nearly enough for Regional Rail
Click to expand...
It has been my understanding that Readville is necessary for the Grand Junction to move off of the CR network. More than that, it's not like a full-fledged push for Regional rail is going to diminish the need to use diesels in the interim while catenary goes up from end to end. This is especially true given that the political football seems to require us electifying Newburyport/Rockport at the same time as the south side which really strains our ability to NOT choose short term changes that are unintuitive for the long term goal.
 
jbray said:
It has been my understanding that Readville is necessary for the Grand Junction to move off of the CR network. More than that, it's not like a full-fledged push for Regional rail is going to diminish the need to use diesels in the interim while catenary goes up from end to end. This is especially true given that the political football seems to require us electifying Newburyport/Rockport at the same time as the south side which really strains our ability to NOT choose short term changes that are unintuitive for the long term goal.
Click to expand...
Plus, my understanding of readville is that it's intended to be "Electric Ready." Even in an electric world, having a place to maintain and fix those electric trains just off the NEC would be required, plus the diesels on the South Side with the growth of SCR, - Rochester isn't going to cut it.

Also, since I don't think it's been posted here: a render of the proposed South Side Maintenance facility.
SouthSideMaintenanceRendering_creditMBTAMassEPAOffice-e1671203207947.png
 
Stlin said:
Plus, my understanding of readville is that it's intended to be "Electric Ready." Even in an electric world, having a place to maintain and fix those electric trains just off the NEC would be required, plus the diesels on the South Side with the growth of SCR, - Rochester isn't going to cut it.

Also, since I don't think it's been posted here: a render of the proposed South Side Maintenance facility.View attachment 35961
Click to expand...
If you're going to run EMU's, every single powered unit is considered a "locomotive" in FRA-speak and becomes subject to automatic 92-day inspections. Whereas with push-pull only the locos and cab cars need that level of scrutiny; the trailers have much longer cycles. If you're going to have Regional Rail-sized fleet numbers and thrash them through those kinds of inspection cycles, you better damn well have a big honking maintenance facility to do it. The whole world can't run out of Boston Engine Terminal and southside nooks-and-crannies in a Regional Rail universe...no way, no how.
 
Stlin said:
Plus, my understanding of readville is that it's intended to be "Electric Ready." Even in an electric world, having a place to maintain and fix those electric trains just off the NEC would be required, plus the diesels on the South Side with the growth of SCR, - Rochester isn't going to cut it.

Also, since I don't think it's been posted here: a render of the proposed South Side Maintenance facility.View attachment 35961
Click to expand...
It is by no means EMU ready.
1680399134223.png

This is a conventional, diesel push-pull repair facility that will be obsolete within 10-12 years of being built.
The T wants to spend $4B on status quo projects to continue diesel ops and nothing on EMUs. If they had started planning when the FMCB told them to, Providence could have been electrified by next year.
 
Tallguy said:
This is a conventional, diesel push-pull repair facility that will be obsolete within 10-12 years of being built.
Click to expand...

T definitely gives the impression that they expect diesel to be around for way longer than that.
 
jklo said:
T definitely gives the impression that they expect diesel to be around for way longer than that.
Click to expand...

I don't think the T will ditch diesel voluntarily, it's going to require the legislature forcing the matter to happen.
 
Is there a reason the T is so married to the idea of diesel?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top