That platform seems excessively narrow (and needs to be, due to the ROW it's on). But this seems like it can only be a good thing, right?
Huh. Fair enough. I was mostly referring to the section by the eastern staircase that seems like it would be tough to get a wheelchair through, but I'm probably off on the scale I'm imagining this at.It's not narrow...it's 12 ft. standard island width mandated by the T construction manual for MA Architectural Board state-level accessibility compliance.
The pre-1974 second platform used to be on the same spot, so that's the structural allowance for it that the viaduct offers.The new platform would serve the other side of Station Track as well as Track 1. What reason would they have to not shift Track 1 and construct the island between Tracks 1 and 2? That way they could allow boarding from all three tracks in some way, instead of two? Is it a freight concern?
Since Worcester is the end of the line, and its not like Amtrak is blowing through at 150mph, why not just let people cross the track at grade?
Worcester is the end of the Worcester line but not the end of the rail line. Especially with eventual goals of high speed east west rail Springfield to Boston which will pass through there. And even with all the studies and stalling, my view from what I've heard inside is that east west rail has some good support in the org.Since Worcester is the end of the line, and its not like Amtrak is blowing through at 150mph, why not just let people cross the track at grade?
I'm not certain they'll find a big enough space in downtown. Might have to head further down to the P&W yard or further west on the B&A.The pre-1974 second platform used to be on the same spot, so that's the structural allowance for it that the viaduct offers.
Freight is a concern on all other tracks as CSX has both ownership and dispatch control. The division post between control is almost a mile east at the freight yard junction. CSX assumes mainline control from there while T dispatch only controls the station/layover turnout. They have an agreement in-place to trade control of Track 2 when the new platform opens, but to attempt something with Track 3 would create an awkward last-mile situation where 2 tracks are under T control and 1 is under foreign control frequently preempted by freight traffic.
2 platform tracks is plenty for Worcester even in an RER + Amtrak Inland universe. Biggest concern going forward is finding bigger layover digs downtown with non-awkward shuffles on/off platform.
For Alternative 1 which approves one new full-high on the north side of the tracks.. why can't they just keep the stairs and egresses to the south-side platform for two-way service (until they can be rebuilt later)?Breaking this out from the other thread to give the bustitution discussion room to breathe .
Newton CR stations approved for design today with one platform apiece:
Note that even with one platform the new stations would be an enormous improvement on the current tin shack/strip of asphalt design.
A couple of other tidbits in there - the $43M cost for each Newton station would be basically the same as Chelsea and less than Winchester Center. No word on what Lansdowne or Boston Landing cost. Also, NTP for Winchester Center is expected in 2020.
FMCB also approved construction of Oak Grove improvements:
Yes...current side platform and it'll be extended into a full 800-footer onto the footprint of the former '74-01 low platform, though there will probably be a pinch to sub-6' width over the Grafton St. bridge (MA Architectural Board approves since that's rear-cars only and doesn't affect overall accessibility with the new island...but they'd have to keep the wall clear of all obstructions). This was the traditional historical layout of Union Station.I'm not certain they'll find a big enough space in downtown. Might have to head further down to the P&W yard or further west on the B&A.
With the island though, will they even bother keeping the partial high that currently exists?