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

[ulrichomega]

Because there's not going to be EMU's of any kind running on an Amtrak Inland.

Wait, are you saying the Transit Matters report is saying Amtrak needs to switch over to EMUs? Nothing in the report seems to indicate that to me. The only references to EMUs in the report are all about MBTA operations, and Amtrak is only referenced a few times, never in that context. Amtrak trains would be running through here at top speeds where the acceleration profile wouldn't depend on EMU performance for timing, right?

 

[Stlin]

Actually, if we are assuming that Amtrak Inlands or East Wests will be running at maximum track speed, how critical to performance will Worcester Triple Track be? I assume dodging 30min regionals won't be too bad past Framingham, but inbound of Framingham the Worcester Line is very stop dense - in a regional rail universe that might be a every 15 minutes all stops local in front of the express. I know the T is provisioning for triple track from Framingham -CP11, but is there space / would it be a good idea for the Newtons to also be triple tracked?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Wait, are you saying the Transit Matters report is saying Amtrak needs to switch over to EMUs? Nothing in the report seems to indicate that to me. The only references to EMUs in the report are all about MBTA operations, and Amtrak is only referenced a few times, never in that context. Amtrak trains would be running through here at top speeds where the acceleration profile wouldn't depend on EMU performance for timing, right?

No, I wasn't saying that at all. @ritchiew is the one saying TM's conclusions apply to Amtrak. They don't, because TM's conclusions presume intercity-class EMU propulsion and Amtrak physically and financially can't run that on any of its B&A schedules.

Actually, if we are assuming that Amtrak Inlands or East Wests will be running at maximum track speed, how critical to performance will Worcester Triple Track be? I assume dodging 30min regionals won't be too bad past Framingham, but inbound of Framingham the Worcester Line is very stop dense - in a regional rail universe that might be a every 15 minutes all stops local in front of the express. I know the T is provisioning for triple track from Framingham -CP11, but is there space / would it be a good idea for the Newtons to also be triple tracked?

There isn't space inbound of 128 for triple, excepting West Station-Boston Landing where the express passers are proposed. You can make the delicate dance work by throwing down a couple more crossovers; 1 set per every 2 stops should work for mixing expresses with locals on a stretch that relatively short. It's not perfect...it may be a source for delays when things don't time right...but the Rail Vision projects it to work for East-West co-mingled with >8 TPH of MBTA traffic.

 

[HenryAlan]

Wait, are you saying the Transit Matters report is saying Amtrak needs to switch over to EMUs? Nothing in the report seems to indicate that to me. The only references to EMUs in the report are all about MBTA operations, and Amtrak is only referenced a few times, never in that context. Amtrak trains would be running through here at top speeds where the acceleration profile wouldn't depend on EMU performance for timing, right?

The suggestion was that Amtrak should be able to achieve the speeds mentioned in the Transit Matters report, but those are only possible with EMUs. Therefore, Amtrak will not achieve those speeds.

 

[Tallguy]

Because there's not going to be EMU's of any kind running on an Amtrak Inland. The B&A can't be electrified west of Worcester without punitive-cost bridge mods because it's a lucrative double-stack freight corridor that had all bridge undercutting tricks maxed out when CSX last uprated the clearances 15 years ago. It's 35 bridges Worcester-Springfield that would have to be cleared from 20'2" to 22'9" to run all-electrics, almost double that if you're doing the Albany corridor. And no BEMU potential because the distance too far exceeds the charging range of those vehicles. It's going to cost you a half-billion dollars just for the clearance mods. That's not going to amortize in cost at a projected 8-10 RT's per day. But since Amtrak's Airo sets can run dual-mode push-pull right from the get-go, you also wouldn't need to electrify to eliminate engine swaps. Just electrify New Haven-Springfield and Worcester-Boston straightforwardly. And with only 1 projected intermediate stop in Palmer...not a lot of starts/stops where the EMU's would make up a big acceleration difference to begin with. So the biggest bang-for-buck for Amtrak is eliminating particularly slow curves, of which there are many on the Inland.

110 on the Springfield Line, not the B&A. The 2011 Service Development Plan for the Springfield Line upgrades specced Class 6/110 MPH as feasible and recommended in spots because it's a corridor with lots of straight sections and relatively few punitive curves that would need to be treated first. Simply implement what ConnDOT and Amtrak already recommended 13 years ago. Is that not straightforward enough?

And yet every day, numerous electric trains "coast" across several drawbridges without electrification.

 

[Tallguy]

The suggestion was that Amtrak should be able to achieve the speeds mentioned in the Transit Matters report, but those are only possible with EMUs. Therefore, Amtrak will not achieve those speeds.

I would expect 3-4 stops between Springfield and Worcester at the most, so EMU acceleration wouldn't make as much difference, really just " curve recovery".

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

And yet every day, numerous electric trains "coast" across several drawbridges without electrification.

You think there's no failure modes attempting that 35 times in one trip???

 

[themissinglink]

I would expect 3-4 stops between Springfield and Worcester at the most, so EMU acceleration wouldn't make as much difference, really just " curve recovery".

Aside from Palmer and Brookfield, what other stations are you thinking of between Worcester and Springfield?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Aside from Palmer and Brookfield, what other stations are you thinking of between Worcester and Springfield?

None in any of the official proposals. The B&A as laid out does a fine job avoiding most of the small-town downtowns en route excepting Palmer, so there really aren't any ridership-pooling targets to shoot for on an Amtrak run. I'm not sure you could justify Brookfield given proximity to Palmer, or Wilbraham given proximity to Springfield...and those would be the only two others big enough to draw flies.

 

[TheRatmeister]

I'm not sure you could justify Brookfield given proximity to Palmer

It's 26 minutes driving between them, I don't think Palmer would be getting a ton of riders from the Brookfield area. Put together, the Brookfields have a larger population than Palmer so it could make sense.

or Wilbraham given proximity to Springfield

Wilbraham alone seems hard to justify, but if you could include a new bridge to Ludlow then you might have something.

 

[Koopzilla24]

The suggestion was that Amtrak should be able to achieve the speeds mentioned in the Transit Matters report, but those are only possible with EMUs. Therefore, Amtrak will not achieve those speeds.

Not to say that I think upgrading the track to facilitate 87mph speeds on the curve is worth pursuing but I don't see what is necessitated from an EMU to hit 87mph at Riverside? Amtrak doesn't make any stops between Framingham and Back Bay so there isn't any sort of acceleration restriction as long as the proceeding track is upgraded as well, and Amtrak's diesel P42s regularly operate up to 110mph and do so here in New England over slightly curved trackage also used by freight. I sort of skimmed the thread conversation and TM report so I might be missing something but there's no reason I can see that Amtrak needs EMUs to reach 87mph on track that can support it.

 

[ceo]

I'd think it should be fairly easy to build an EMU with a (relatively) small battery in it to bridge electrification gaps at too-low bridges. Probably need some automatic mechanism to drop the pans at the right time.

 

[JeffDowntown]

I'd think it should be fairly easy to build an EMU with a (relatively) small battery in it to bridge electrification gaps at too-low bridges. Probably need some automatic mechanism to drop the pans at the right time.

Don't trains just glide through short electrification gaps -- they have huge inertia.

 

[Tallguy]

Aside from Palmer and Brookfield, what other stations are you thinking of between Worcester and Springfield?

Spencer where the track drops to just above the pike and somewhere in the western part of Worcester

 

[The EGE]

The Pike doesn't go anywhere near Spencer. The only place the B&A crosses the Pike is just east of Palmer, and the only other place it's even near the Pike is some particularly empty areas of Rochdale and Charlton.

On an intercity-oriented schedule, the only intermediates would be Palmer and maybe one of the Brookfields. For trips serving as supercommuter trips, I could plausibly see Ludlow, Warren, and maaaybe something near Rochdale to grab traffic off 20. No way you're putting something in western Worcester - it would be no more than 2-3 miles from Union Station.

 

[themissinglink]

somewhere in the western part of Worcester

A Commuter Rail station in the western part of Worcester (around here?) makes sense, but not an Amtrak stop.

 

[Koopzilla24]

On an intercity-oriented schedule, the only intermediates would be Palmer and maybe one of the Brookfields. For trips serving as supercommuter trips, I could plausibly see Ludlow, Warren, and maaaybe something near Rochdale to grab traffic off 20. No way you're putting something in western Worcester - it would be no more than 2-3 miles from Union Station.

I think it'd make a lot of sense to put a stop in Indian Orchard around Rt20/Pasco Rd. There's a lot of employment as a destination and over 25k residents of Springfield living east of Bradley Rd. It'd make a lot more sense for them and Ludlow residents to have a station there rather than backtrack the 5-6miles to Union Station or have to drive the 8-9miles to Palmer. Also without any rerouting or diversions the B6, B7, and B17 a would all stop within .75miles of said station

 

[ceo]

Don't trains just glide through short electrification gaps -- they have huge inertia.

Not if they have to stop there for some reason.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Not if they have to stop there for some reason.

OK, but electrification gaps happen all the time. On the Metro North you feel it almost every trip when the lights and AC power outlets cut out. Usually in construction zones.

 

[Koopzilla24]

OK, but electrification gaps happen all the time. On the Metro North you feel it almost every trip when the lights and AC power outlets cut out. Usually in construction zones.

There are lots of various electrification gaps, most common around interlocking or switches for 3rd rail in particular and phase changes in overhead systems, but they're typically very short so that the train still has at least a single contact with electrification for emergency purposes so that it's not stranded. (For push-pull locos modern ones have small batteries or flywheels just in case). When aux power for lights, HVAC, outlets, etc. cuts out there's still partial power to the traction system at minimum.