MBTA Commuter Rail (Operations, Keolis, & Short Term)

My hot take is that if the MBTA wants to restore a previously removed double/triple track anywhere within existing right of way there should be some kind of blanket exemption from permitting and outreach. The railroads predate most of what surrounds them and there are proven tangible environmental and societal benefits from added rail capacity.
There sort of is. Railroads being federally regulated means a lot of the state and local permitting overhead for things done on the ROW are inapplicable. They don't really have to do outreach for things like restoring double-track to a double-track railbed, but of course it's bad politics not to do so and the T doesn't want some town's local reps getting sicced on them in some sort of Operation Chaos. I think they know that it's a futile gesture and that they're only going to get a bunch of screaming at clouds in return, but it'd be poor form to not go through the song-and-dance number.
 
Jeremy Fontaine, Environmental Compliance Officer with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) / MASS DOT has notified the Town of Reading the following:
The MBTA is requesting to withdraw our Notice of Intent for the proposed MBTA Reading Turnback Track Project (0 Vine Street), MassDEP file #270-0792, without prejudice. We will be re-filing at a later time.
 
Does it bother anyone else that these headlines are always Train crashes into car rather than Car is hit by train after disobeying signal or even just a value-neutral Car and train collide ? Or am I reading into this too much?
 
Does it bother anyone else that these headlines are always Train crashes into car rather than Car is hit by train after disobeying signal or even just a value-neutral Car and train collide ? Or am I reading into this too much?
The car (and its occupants) is always the victim -- American car-centric culture.
 
Does it bother anyone else that these headlines are always Train crashes into car rather than Car is hit by train after disobeying signal or even just a value-neutral Car and train collide ? Or am I reading into this too much?
The car is always at fault, but technically speaking, the train does hit the car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
Does it bother anyone else that these headlines are always Train crashes into car rather than Car is hit by train after disobeying signal or even just a value-neutral Car and train collide ? Or am I reading into this too much?
No. The car drove around the gates flagrantly illegally just as the train was about to pass. Clear-cut, open-shut driver at fault...no guesswork and no lawsuit that will ever be heard in court. The media reports would be outright misleading if they did not lead with the car driver's illegal and deliberate actions, and in these cases they frequently are.
 
I haven't been following this saga closely. Is there a good reason not to build the turnback track next to I-93 here?
It's operationally easiest to have it nearest to Reading Station so the turnbacks can be staged quickly around adjoining thru-Haverhill slots and occasional Downeasters that get as-needed re-routed to the Reading Line. They're basically shooting for an identical setup to what exists with the crossovers 1/2 mile north of Haverhill station, where there's a designated engine holdpoint for reversing between the outbound-side platform at the end of a run to the inbound-side platform at the start of a run and such switches are frequently done around Downeaster and freight slots that scoot around very close to the T turnarounds. 93 is 2 miles from Reading Station and there'd be a fair amount of single-track to traverse for reaching the engine holdpoint, so the meets under Regional Rail would be a little more brittle.

I mean, if the community opposition is fierce enough they could do it just to get what they need while quieting down the rabble. But it would be less flexible than having one adjacent to Reading Station.
 
It's operationally easiest to have it nearest to Reading Station so the turnbacks can be staged quickly around adjoining thru-Haverhill slots and occasional Downeasters that get as-needed re-routed to the Reading Line. They're basically shooting for an identical setup to what exists with the crossovers 1/2 mile north of Haverhill station, where there's a designated engine holdpoint for reversing between the outbound-side platform at the end of a run to the inbound-side platform at the start of a run and such switches are frequently done around Downeaster and freight slots that scoot around very close to the T turnarounds. 93 is 2 miles from Reading Station and there'd be a fair amount of single-track to traverse for reaching the engine holdpoint, so the meets under Regional Rail would be a little more brittle.

I mean, if the community opposition is fierce enough they could do it just to get what they need while quieting down the rabble. But it would be less flexible than having one adjacent to Reading Station.
Do you have a way to quantify how much less flexible a turnback at the pinned point (1.8 miles past Reading Station) would be than the proposed location (0.5 miles past Reading Station)? Does it lower the ceiling of frequencies, for example?

From 1.7 track miles to 2.0 track miles would be the ideal location with respect to local resident concerns, as that’s undeveloped land next to the highway and highway ramps.

0.7 track miles to 0.9 miles is conservation land. I’m not sure how much a rail turnback negatively affects non-humans.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top