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

And CSX prefers a separated track for passenger stations.
 
Tallguy said:
Fitchburg
Lawrence
Andover
Ballardville
Click to expand...
Auburndale
W Newton
Newtonville
All single platforms stations on double track.
You are overcomplicating provisions for what would be at best, one tph each direction.
 
Fitchburg is a limiter on frequency on the line, and the crossover moves are a frequent cause of delays. Same with the Haverhill Line stations. Second platforms are planned at Andover and Ballardvale for those exact reasons, and Lawrence actually had a (non-accessible) second platform added for a while because of the issue.

The Newton stations were reduced to single platforms around 1960, at which time the line had three commuter round trips plus five intercity round trips. Those intercity round trips stopped at Newtonville - which did have a second platform (later closed due to the track crossing). Every since the 1976–1980s service increases, the single-platform stations have been a problem that prevents reverse peak trains from serving the stops and causes awkward wrong-railing for PM peak trains. They're getting rebuilt with two platforms (rather than the single platforms that the MBTA tried to sneak by) for exactly that reason.
 
And so inadequate accessibility is condoned, letting the perfect be the excuse for either inaction or god awful minihighs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
The EGE said:
Fitchburg is a limiter on frequency on the line, and the crossover moves are a frequent cause of delays. Same with the Haverhill Line stations. Second platforms are planned at Andover and Ballardvale for those exact reasons, and Lawrence actually had a (non-accessible) second platform added for a while because of the issue.

The Newton stations were reduced to single platforms around 1960, at which time the line had three commuter round trips plus five intercity round trips. Those intercity round trips stopped at Newtonville - which did have a second platform (later closed due to the track crossing). Every since the 1976–1980s service increases, the single-platform stations have been a problem that prevents reverse peak trains from serving the stops and causes awkward wrong-railing for PM peak trains. They're getting rebuilt with two platforms (rather than the single platforms that the MBTA tried to sneak by) for exactly that reason.
Click to expand...
The 3(4?) trains per DAY on the PAS are delayed by the one hourly pax train on a double track line? What is an acceptable level of interaction?
 
Tallguy said:
And CSX prefers a separated track for passenger stations.
Click to expand...
That's another contributor to Palmer being more complicated.
Tallguy said:
Auburndale
W Newton
Newtonville
All single platforms stations on double track.
You are overcomplicating provisions for what would be at best, one tph each direction.
Click to expand...
Also, the new SCR stations are single platforms.

Their plan is a minimum 9 round trips per day with an emphasis on "peak" service since there's the intention of SPG-WOR and SPG-PIT as commuter segments. I wouldn't put it past the state to do a single platform but E-W rail is supposed to also open up BOS-ALB Amtrak service. Combine 2 LSL,
9 E-W, and X amount of BOS-ALB tpd, and there could be a capacity restriction at the junction with the freight traffic passing through at certain times of the day as well. All of these factors are considerations specific to a Palmer Station and would have to be studied to figure out the best station placement and design which is the original point here.
 
So is this the thread where we discuss Northern Tier stuff?

I was thinking about this... as best as I can tell, the Northern Tier proposal calls for only four stations:
  • Boston
  • Fitchburg
  • Greenfield
  • North Adams
Of these, only North Adams receives unique service, and of course Boston and Fitchburg are already spoken for. The current proposal outlines a lower-investment and a higher-investment alternative:

1689472025210.png


1689472049389.png


Those are some pretty hefty time savings, at what looks like a pretty hefty upgrade cost. About a half hour saved between Greenfield and North Adams, and another half hour saved between Greenfield and Fitchburg.

But why not run the service via Springfield instead?

The NNEIRI estimated BOS <> SPG travel times at about 2 hours (give or take, depending on which alternative you look at). It then estimates 45 minutes from Springfield to Greenfield -- putting it on par with the 2h35m estimated in the Northern Tier's lower investment alt.

If the higher investment upgrades between Greenfield and North Adams are incorporated, in theory you could get a North Adams <> Springfield <> Boston travel time of about 3h30m. That is admittedly slower than the even 3h afforded by upgrading all the track between Fitchburg and Greenfield, but it would be achievable with a fraction of the cost (given its ability to leverage East-West Rail and Valley Flyer infrastructure improvements).

Plus, routing through Springfield would give North Adams one-seat connectivity to Springfield and the Connecticut River Valley (including Northampton and Holyoke), as well as Worcester (which I'd argue has a heavier pull than Fitchburg), and will offer much more frequent transfers to CT and NYC service at Springfield than will be available at Greenfield.

In addition, even if we went with the lower-investment alternative (1h20m between Greenfield and North Adams), you still end up with Boston <> North Adams travel times of just about 4 hours -- but with the added connectivity benefits described above.

Routing via Springfield would allow Northern Tier service to be woven into the larger East-West Rail megaproject, instead of having to stand alone and advocate for what otherwise looks like a rather boutique service. Rail to North Adams will require upgrades to trackage between the Pioneer Valley and the edge of MBTA territory; going via Springfield gives you more bang for the buck, and makes monies available for higher-impact upgrades between Greenfield and North Adams.
 
On NNEIRI's Alternatives Analysis, Boston-Greenfield with 90 MPH segments in Wilbraham and South Deerfield (Alt. 3) clocked in at 2:31, faster in the absolute than 2:35 on the Northern Tier in the first-tier investment plan. As that would be an additional train on the robust Springfield Hub service layer cake, it makes amortizing the cost of the Class 5 track segments much easier and pretty much obviates any need to further consider the Fitchburg Line east of Greenfield for anything whatsoever (especially given the stop selection). Wad up the savings to apply the upper-tier investment plan of Class 4 track to Greenfield-North Adams only, if that makes a difference to ridership. Up to 4 trains (the Montrealer, Boston-Montreal, the third proposed New Haven-Montreal short-turn, and Boston-North Adams) would take advantage of the Class 5 track on the South Deerfield stretch vs. just 1 taking advantage of anything on the eastern Fitchburg Line. It would cost so cosmically less to invest in the 90 MPH segments on the trunk and not have to expend so much energy upgrading Wachusett-Greenfield from 30 MPH to 60 MPH, much less lighting more money on fire to push for Class 4/79 MPH when it's still more freight trains than passenger trains out there. Fitchburg can make do with a bus on uncongested Route 2, and the Z-shaped route out of Springfield should be the only alternative considered going forward.

Of course, the study was a Baker-trademark tankapalooza special designed to sow chaos with endless noise in the study metrics, so we probably have to start from scratch to even get a sense of whether the Z-shaped route even rates as worth doing (I'm doubtful, but it'd be a better leg to stand on than where we currently are with these study results).
 
Last edited:
$108 million federal grant request to remove bottlenecks between Worcester and Springfield, adding 23 miles of second passing tracks.

mass.streetsblog.org

MassDOT Seeking Funds to Add More Frequent, Faster Worcester-Springfield Passenger Rail Service - Streetsblog Massachusetts

MassDOT estimates that its proposed track improvements could enable Amtrak trains to run up to 80 mph, and reduce the time for passenger rail trips between Boston and Springfield to 2 hours and 10 minutes – roughly the same amount of time it takes to drive.
mass.streetsblog.org mass.streetsblog.org

“MassDOT estimates that the track improvements could shave about 20 minutes off Amtrak's travel times on the corridor, and reduce the time for passenger rail trips between Boston and Springfield to 2 hours and 10 minutes – roughly the same amount of time it takes to drive.”
 
Arlington said:
I want BOS-SPG to be so fast, frequent, and bus-hubbed that every place beyond MBTA territory is better served as a branch or connection off that trunk route.
Click to expand...

Some quick "back of napkin" research. BOS to Springfield is 90 miles. London to Birmingham is around 100 miles. Currently, London to Birmingham is 1.5 hours by train and they say HS2 will bring that down to 52 minutes in 2029. (Wow, that's even earlier than the Lynn Commuter Rail Station planned opening. LOL) Boston to Springfield should be 1 hour, but 1.5 hour would be amazing for the USA.
 
This proposal is a start. In terms of getting people to take the train between Springfield and Boston, tho, simply saying it “takes the same amount of time as driving” misses the point… unless you’re talking about a rarified person who lives next to one terminus station and works right next to another. This likely includes nobody, so the real travel time is train travel plus the time to get from origin to station and then station to destination. More realistically, who is actually going to take this train? I hate to be a naysayer but really, and I suppose 100 million isn’t that much these days, but seems like a ton of money to accomplish very little, other than providing ammo for anti train people to point to the fact that these trains will be empty once the project is finished. If instead of saying stupid shit like “hey this gonna revolutionize Boston to Springfield travel”, the project could be described in terms of improving long distance Amtrak travel times, that would make a lot more sense. But no matter how many times you say it, Springfield to Boston commuter rail itself is not improved access, it’s not justice, it’s not environment, it’s not any of the feel good sloganeering. People ain’t taking a 3 hour trip on a train on a regular basis. The long distance line improvement is the only proximal benefit here and pols should focus on that rather than false marketing for something that won’t happen.
 
FK4 said:
If instead of saying stupid shit like “hey this gonna revolutionize Boston to Springfield travel”, the project could be described in terms of improving long distance Amtrak travel times, that would make a lot more sense. But no matter how many times you say it, Springfield to Boston commuter rail itself is not improved access, it’s not justice, it’s not environment, it’s not any of the feel good sloganeering.
Click to expand...
I can't find anyone saying that this will "revolutionize Boston to Springfield travel." I can't find anyone talking about justice or environmental issues on this project. They're just saying this will speed up Amtrak travel and add capacity, so they can run two more trains a day. This is being described as an incremental improvement, which is also necessary to make further incremental improvements. I think that's the framing you were hoping for.
 
ritchiew said:
I can't find anyone saying that this will "revolutionize Boston to Springfield travel." I can't find anyone talking about justice or environmental issues on this project. They're just saying this will speed up Amtrak travel and add capacity, so they can run two more trains a day. This is being described as an incremental improvement, which is also necessary to make further incremental improvements. I think that's the framing you were hoping for.
Click to expand...
These are all things that have been stated over the last fifteen years in regards to a proposed commuter rail to Springfield… which, for reasons above, I think is a horrendous idea, at least until we get to true HSR speeds. I am glad to hear nobody is saying this regarding this specific upgrade, although I am also doubtful that if prowled all the political statements on this project, I wouldn’t find a few state reps and senators spouting that stuff.

Even talking about “passenger rail from Boston to Springfield” really misses with the benefits of this, as well as any Amtrak upgrade to one portion of longer range routes. I know this country seems to have completely given up on any semblance of having a big picture about anything, but slowly upgrading rail segment by segment in the interest of boosting overall intercity travel (especially with regards to longer range trips) is where I think the messaging should be about this.
 
The article states that this improvement is more in line with the NNEIRI master plan.
One could be facetious and point out that the cost would break down to $5.4 million for every minute of travel time gained for the current Amtrak service. To be considered as an MBTA extension I think the travel time to Springfield should not be more than 90-100 minutes, knowing full well the challenges of the terrain in the Worcester hills.

edit: also noticed some posts about their application in December last year, so the Mass Streetblog article may just have regurgitated old news..
 
Last edited:
cubalibre said:
The article states that this improvement is more in line with the NNEIRI master plan.
One could be facetious and point out that the cost would break down to $5.4 million for every minute of travel time gained for the current Amtrak service. To be considered as an MBTA extension I think the travel time to Springfield should not be more than 90-100 minutes, knowing full well the challenges of the terrain in the Worcester hills.

edit: also noticed some posts about their application in December last year, so the Mass Streetblog article may just have regurgitated old news..
Click to expand...
This IS old news
 
FK4 said:
More realistically, who is actually going to take this train?
Click to expand...
When I was in college, I took the lakeshore limited to/from Springfield or Pittsfield from/to Boston all the time.

So, people from Western MA who have reason to be in Boston.

Anyway, you could say that it shaves an equivalent amount of time off the overall CHI-BOS route, but the savings is proportionately smaller.
 
This upgrade could also make it much more feasible to introduce a Boston - Toronto train, and other long-distance services using this trunk, something I think would greatly benefit the region.

At 80 mph average speed, Chicago would be 13 hours from South Station, and Toronto would be 7.5.

At 100 mph, Chicago would be 10 hours and Toronto would be 6 hours by train.

At 120 mph, Chicago would be 8 hours and Toronto would be 5 hours by train.

At 150 mph, Chicago would be 7 hours and Toronto would be 4 hours by train.

Making incremental progress towards such a network is a good thing to keep in mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top