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

[The EGE]

The Hoosac, rather infamously, took 25 years and >100 lives to be completed. A significant part of that was the geological conditions, including water-logged rocks that don't hold shape well. Even with modern equipment, as F-Line indicated, it would still be a very difficult tunneling job.

The Gotthard Base Tunnel, which is about 20% shorter than a Chatham-Woronoco tunnel (bypassing all the major curves between Springfield and Albany) would be, cost $12 billion a decade ago. With US costs and inflation, it would be double that. That's a tunnel with ~200 freight trains and ~60 passenger trains per day to justify the expense. Even a bypass following the Pike with shorter tunnels and viaducts would probably be in the $5B range.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's so far down on the priority list that I can't forsee it ever being seriously discussed. The value proposition is just so much higher on the eastern half of the corridor. The Boston-Worcester segment is relatively straight and flat; you could make it exceptionally good with conventional changes (grade separations, minor curve straightenings, triple track, electrification, full-length high-level platforms, etc). You can probably carve out enough third-track passing sidings east of Riverside that you don't need to megaproject take a Pike lane. Even the Worcester-Springfield could be pretty decent with the same sort of changes.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The Hoosac, rather infamously, took 25 years and >100 lives to be completed. A significant part of that was the geological conditions, including water-logged rocks that don't hold shape well. Even with modern equipment, as F-Line indicated, it would still be a very difficult tunneling job.

Also, infamously, B&M and Pan Am were never ever able to get railroad insurance coverage for the Hoosac after it was acquired from the Fitchburg RR in 1900. So it's always been an unusually expensive route to operate and maintain because they don't have any standard coverage for outages caused by cave-ins and have to carry all the risk on their own backs. That bit them in the butt as recently as 2020, when a large series of cave-ins forced all Pan Am Southern traffic to detour through Vermont and the Connecticut River valley for weeks at big loss of revenue due to Canadian Pacific, Vermont Rail System, and NECR all getting their cut as detour hosts. The Hoosac is not unsafe to daily-operate because the tunnel gets thoroughly inspected with great regularity and they've got extensive electronic monitoring of the rock conditions to notice a looming problem before it risks a cave-in. But if it weren't for there being 2 Class I freight powerhouses competing for New England, it probably wouldn't still be in operation today because it's such a pain-in-the-ass to maintain while the stet B&A is relatively unrestricted (there's a car count limit over the Berkshires if you don't have mid-set or rear helper locomotives in the consist, but the line's grades are entirely within FRA-spec sub-2% even when the grades themselves are miles and miles long). When the U.S. government extended an invite to the then-bankrupt B&M to join newly-formed Conrail in the mid-70's, thru freight routings were to be consolidated exclusively over the B&A with the Greenfield-North Adams section of the Fitchburg main--including the tunnel--abandoned entirely. B&M refused the invite, opting to reorganize itself (ultimately successfully) out of bankruptcy, but if history had been different the tunnel would have been gone for 50 years as of this year. And it probably would not be a rail trail today because of the same expense to maintain.

Berkshires geology sucks that much. Again...the peaks tend to cluster up by North Adams where the Hoosac has an uninterrupted 5-mile path straight on through. Near Pittsfield and the B&A it's smaller, narrower peaks with a lot of glacial fill in-between. Total geological meat grinder in terms of sucking up cost blowouts from unforeseen circumstances and needing to constantly engineer around a shitty water table.

The Gotthard Base Tunnel, which is about 20% shorter than a Chatham-Woronoco tunnel (bypassing all the major curves between Springfield and Albany) would be, cost $12 billion a decade ago. With US costs and inflation, it would be double that. That's a tunnel with ~200 freight trains and ~60 passenger trains per day to justify the expense. Even a bypass following the Pike with shorter tunnels and viaducts would probably be in the $5B range.

I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's so far down on the priority list that I can't forsee it ever being seriously discussed. The value proposition is just so much higher on the eastern half of the corridor. The Boston-Worcester segment is relatively straight and flat; you could make it exceptionally good with conventional changes (grade separations, minor curve straightenings, triple track, electrification, full-length high-level platforms, etc). You can probably carve out enough third-track passing sidings east of Riverside that you don't need to megaproject take a Pike lane. Even the Worcester-Springfield could be pretty decent with the same sort of changes.

That wouldn't come close to amortizing itself for what extreme-modest passenger demand exists through the Berkshires or to Albany. And, honestly, the freight revenues in this region still aren't dense enough (even with the B&A being New England's #1 lane) for that tag-team to work on the revenue side either in the unlikely event such a tunnel works project built the Berkshires bypass to double-stack-under-wires clearances. Switzerland definitely had existential reasons and very big and very clear revenue paths for pursuing the Gotthard Base Tunnel. We don't. Not even in a completists' universe, because there'll always be something more you can do for the same money to optimize east-of-Springfield where the bulk of the passenger traffic is...and eventually if you optimize east-of-Springfield enough the overall Albany travel times get better enough on their own. NEC FUTURE already looked at things like using the Sudbury Aqueduct ROW to alt-spine an HSR line east of Worcester. Their assumptions proved to be a little naive on closer analysis, which is why that alt-spine alignment got defeated in the first round of scoping on cost-benefit grounds. But at least they were looking in the somewhat-right place to wad up the most performance improvement to the most number of trains.

 

[themissinglink]

State Sen. Jacob Oliveira announces $5M for Palmer passenger rail stop, west-east rail​

State Sen. Jacob Oliveira announced Wednesday he’s secured an additional $5 million toward the Palmer passenger rail stop hoped for as part of the West-East Rail initiative.
The funding was secured after the Massachusetts Senate adopted Oliveira’s amendment to the Senate’s $325 million Economic Development Bill.
Oliveira said the funding in his amendment builds upon more than $270 million in previous state and federal investments for West-East Rail.

 

[themissinglink]

More Albany-to-Boston trains? Study of how that would work kicks off Oct. 6​

Massachusetts is kicking off a two-year process to study and plan dedicated passenger rail service between Albany and Boston next month.
[...]
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation, or MassDOT, is hosting a virtual meeting on Oct. 6 in which the process and goals for the plan will be outlined. People who wish to attend the event, scheduled for 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. over Zoom, are being asked to register in advance.
The plan “will study how passenger rail service on the Boston and Albany Corridor would operate and identify the steps needed to get there,” MassDOT says on its website. “This is a critical step towards advancing West-East Rail.”
[...]
MassDOT says it has plans to improve the track so that trains can operate faster on the route and also add tracks so that more trains can operate along the route, cutting down on delays and trip times.

 

[Koopzilla24]

More Albany-to-Boston trains? Study of how that would work kicks off Oct. 6​

I remember seeing somewhere deep in some documents they're floating the idea of having a morning and evening trip to Springfield as an extended MBTA Worcester Line super-express trip. I hope they actually go through with it because just the visibility of the MBTA in the western part of the state goes a long way towards psychologically both feeling more connected to Boston and that whatever happens with the MBTA actually means something and effects them out there. Moreso than just seeing Amtrak equipment. That would lead to more future statewide support of MBTA funding.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I remember seeing somewhere deep in some documents they're floating the idea of having a morning and evening trip to Springfield as an extended MBTA Worcester Line super-express trip. I hope they actually go through with it because just the visibility of the MBTA in the western part of the state goes a long way towards psychologically both feeling more connected to Boston and that whatever happens with the MBTA actually means something and effects them out there. Moreso than just seeing Amtrak equipment. That would lead to more future statewide support of MBTA funding.

They physically can't do that for signalling reasons. The Positive Train Control system on the west-of-Worcester B&A is I-ETMS, while MBTA equipment is only equipped with ACSES PTC. The T doesn't run in any I-ETMS territory whatsoever so has no compatible equipment or staff trained on it. Amtrak, on the other hand, has all of its diesels and cab cars equipped with I-ETMS and has all non-Acela crews trained on it, so they have no issues intermixing systems. If there's going to be any runs in those time slots, they're going to be Amtrak 100%.

 

[BeansTheCat]

They physically can't do that for signalling reasons. The Positive Train Control system on the west-of-Worcester B&A is I-ETMS, while MBTA equipment is only equipped with ACSES PTC. The T doesn't run in any I-ETMS territory whatsoever so has no compatible equipment or staff trained on it. Amtrak, on the other hand, has all of its diesels and cab cars equipped with I-ETMS and has all non-Acela crews trained on it, so they have no issues intermixing systems. If there's going to be any runs in those time slots, they're going to be Amtrak 100%.

Would it be that hard for the MBTA to purchase/lease a few Amtrak diesels and also pay Amtrak to service them? This probably makes more sense as an Amtrak route, but it doesn't seem ridiculous for the T to run it. They would probably get better OTP than Amtrak and integration with existing fare products would be a plus

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Would it be that hard for the MBTA to purchase/lease a few Amtrak diesels and also pay Amtrak to service them? This probably makes more sense as an Amtrak route, but it doesn't seem ridiculous for the T to run it. They would probably get better OTP than Amtrak and integration with existing fare products would be a plus

They'd have to get an Amtrak crew as an escort to boot, because the T does not have trackage rights west of Worcester Union Station, does not have any crew qualifications on that territory because of the lack of trackage rights, and does not have any crew qualifications on both the loco types (at least until both agencies are running Siemens Chargers) and the I-ETMS signalling. Amtrak isn't flush with extra staff because of the competitive northeastern RR hiring market, so that's something they are very unlikely to agree to.

It's not hard to subsidize commuter fares under the Amtrak brand. ConnDOT integrates the Springfield Shuttles and Valley Flyer with its CTrail Hartford Line fare structure quite transparently. If the state wants to encourage super-commuter oriented use of the Inlands and East-West, that's the far easier way to do it than overcoming the bureaucratic and technical hurdles of making it an official T-run service. And it's probably going to net higher ridership to-boot, because Amfleet or Airo seats are going to be much more comfortable to sit in for a 2-hour trip than a T bi-level.

 

[themissinglink]

MassDOT, CSX Agree on Improvements to Support Berkshire Flyer, Passenger Rail

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The state Department of Transportation and CSX have reached an agreement for local infrastructure improvements that will be a "major step" to making the...

www.iberkshires.com

The state Department of Transportation and CSX have reached an agreement for local infrastructure improvements that will be a "major step" to making the Berkshire Flyer a permanent seasonal service.
Gov. Maura Healey's administration said the improvements will also help toward the years-long project of expanding passenger rail in Western Massachusetts.
[...]
Under the new agreement with CSX, MassDOT will fund construction of a siding and other track improvements in the Pittsfield area to increase rail capacity and reduce conflicts between passenger and freight operations. MassDOT will also explore the feasibility of a new platform at the Joseph Scelsi Intermodal Transportation Center.

 

[themissinglink]

MassDOT, CSX Agree on Improvements to Support Berkshire Flyer, Passenger Rail

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The state Department of Transportation and CSX have reached an agreement for local infrastructure improvements that will be a "major step" to making the...

www.iberkshires.com

There's some new info about this in the Streetsblog article:

Pittsfield Area Railroad Improvements Will Help Set the Stage For More Amtrak Service to Albany - Streetsblog Massachusetts

On Thursday, Governor Healey's administration announced that two track improvement projects in the Pittsfield area will go under construction in the coming months to improve operations for the seasonal Berkshire Flyer service, and set the stage for a planned Boston-Albany route.

mass.streetsblog.org

The Pittsfield track capacity project will go under construction this fall, and is expected to be complete in 2028, MassDOT officials told StreetsblogMASS.
The project will build a new 2.6-mile passing track in Richmond, the small town just southwest of Pittsfield.
The project will also build a new track junction and expand the length of an existing siding track in the Pittsfield Yard, located on the east side of Pittsfield.

And there's a small update about the Boston-Albany train study in the article:

MassDOT is also planning to run more Amtrak trains through Pittsfield via a new Boston-Albany route.
The agency hosted a public meeting earlier this week to kick off its “service development plan” for the proposed route, which could introduce two new daily round-trip Amtrak trains between Boston, Worcester, Springfield, Pittsfield, and Albany sometime in the 2030s.
The service development plan, which is scheduled to be finished by 2028, will analyze alternatives, assess additional infrastructure needs, and establish agreements for financing the new route.

 

[OldColony]

MassDOT, CSX Agree on Improvements to Support Berkshire Flyer, Passenger Rail

PITTSFIELD, Mass. — The state Department of Transportation and CSX have reached an agreement for local infrastructure improvements that will be a "major step" to making the...

www.iberkshires.com

Has there been any recent ridership figures published for the Berkshire Flyer?

 

[alewife]

Per the Rail Passengers Association, Pittsfield saw 13,515 riders in 2024, of which 12,689 were on the Lake Shore Limited and a whopping 826 on the Berkshire Flyer. (2024 is the most recent year for which they have stats, but the train also didn't run in 2025 because of a sinkhole closing the Post Road Branch.)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Per the Rail Passengers Association, Pittsfield saw 13,515 riders in 2024, of which 12,689 were on the Lake Shore Limited and a whopping 826 on the Berkshire Flyer. (2024 is the most recent year for which they have stats, but the train also didn't run in 2025 because of a sinkhole closing the Post Road Branch.)

Berkshire Flyer runs are frequently sold out NYP-Albany due to the Amtrak service reductions on the Empire Corridor, so a lot of people who want to get tickets for Pittsfield are frequently S.O.L. because the trains are so overbooked for regular Albany patronage. It should get better now that Amtrak and NYSDOT have restored the canceled trains, easing the demand crunch on these slots. Pittsfield doesn't need to live on more than a few dozen passengers per trip to square the extra crew hours and fuel, as it's just a +1 stop extension of an already-scheduled ALB short-turn. If the ridership is so healthy they frequently sell out, the slots themselves are already profitable even with the Pittsfield +1 bringing in crumbs.

 

[themissinglink]

I hope a station in Westfield gets built for the Boston-Albany service. Westfield is almost as populous as Pittsfield and has a state university. The ideal site is within walking distance of downtown Westfield, and there's local support for a new station.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I hope a station in Westfield gets built for the Boston-Albany service. Westfield is almost as populous as Pittsfield and has a state university. The ideal site is within walking distance of downtown Westfield, and there's local support for a new station.

Westfield has no official proposal for an infill stop. The only one they considered west of Springfield--and it's a long ways a way until BOS-ALB gets a bunch of frequencies--is Chester. Unfortunately, Westfield is well within the PVTA bus district so it's not transit-starved in the absolute...there is a two-seat trip that runs on decent frequencies via Springfield Union with Route R10. Yeah, a train would make that faster but it's not quite the same urgency with car-free trips being pre-existing and starter frequencies for west-of-SPG being pretty low. Palmer makes more sense to jump-start because it gets to dip from all train schedules, as opposed to the thinning-of-the-herd that happens west-of-SPG.

The officials are definitely going to have to pick a new station site, though, if they want their advocacy to go anywhere. The historic depot building is not going to be able to get a full-high platform put in front of it because it's too close to the junction with the Pioneer Valley RR and CSX will be using the platform track to interchange high-and-wide loads with PVRR. And blocking the station completely when it makes those very slow interchange moves. The station site abuts a fairly long viaduct over Route 202, so there's no way to add passing tracks. It's probably going to be a Palmer analogue where the state is not going to start paying much attention until the city self-evaluates alternate sites.

 

[bigeman312]

I hope a station in Westfield gets built for the Boston-Albany service. Westfield is almost as populous as Pittsfield and has a state university. The ideal site is within walking distance of downtown Westfield, and there's local support for a new station.

I totally agree.

For an intercity rail model, longer stop spacing (Worcester - Springfield - Pittsfield - Albany) without intermediate stops makes sense to facilitate travel between larger cities (Boston, Albany, Rochester, Buffalo, Toronto (hopefully someday), Cleveland, Chicago).

For a regional rail model, Westfield should be the top priority of several infill stops between Worcester and the NY state line.

 

[Stlin]

MassDOT won an additional $130M in FRA CRISI grant funding for the Springfield Area Track Reconfiguration project. Presumably for at least some amount of construction since the 2024 grant paid for final design.

Massachusetts secures $130M for Springfield rail project, West-East Rail plans

Massachusetts has been awarded $130 million in federal funding to modernize rail infrastructure in Springfield.

www.wwlp.com