How would any of these possible other location options for PanAm to store and sort rail cars work (compared to Yard 21 lead tracks): https://flic.kr/s/aHsmN49zU8? THX.There is absolutely NO co-existence of different modes on same track...never ever. It's not only FRA-illegal, but the wheel profile of a rapid transit car is ground differently from a RR car so the trolley wouldn't hold to the rails for very long on RR track without derailing.
Access to the carhouse is reducing the number of thru RR tracks around the backside of Boston Engine Terminal to the BET driveway grade crossing off 3rd Ave. to create ROW for the carhouse. Access will come off of the Brickbottom junction flyovers and overpass a couple RR tracks to get there. Freights and non-revenue passenger moves will have 2 fewer tracks to work with behind BET, but will have the same access points from multiple sides as before. The Yard 10 leads by Sullivan have switches tied into the area of the freight wye; it's some distance away from where everything GLX-related stops.
There will be no track connection whatsoever between any GLX trackage and any RR trackage. They are completely 100% separated by fence and never interact. The only Green Line track connection to the national rail network remains at Riverside spur off Worcester Line's Riverside Jct. It's so extremely seldom used even for work equipment transfers that there's zero need for a second connection at BET.
The Yard 10 leads measure out to whatever Google's measuring tool says it is. It's configured so the single-track switch before Assembly end-of-track can runaround (change ends) for a 3-locomotive lashup. Crossover switches TBD scattered on the mid- or third- points on the whole length of double-track allow Pan Am to switch in/out strings of cars. Car storage is more or less equivalent to the Yard 8 it replaces, but switching space is more constrained so it's less flexible than what it replaces.
The freight wye abuts the Innerbelt Rd. grade crossing...inappropriate spot for shoving and blocking. That track has been completely rehabilitated and will see new usage once the east half of the new Washington St. overpass is complete and it's reconnected to the Lowell Line, but because of the grade crossing it's a straight thru-and-thru move. Crossing's been completely rehabilitated (good!...it was a notorious muffler-wrecker), but hasn't had warning signage or crossing gates installed yet. I think that's the plan as there appears to be a new manhole cover to the side capping an electrical conduit for new crossing protection.How would any of these possible other location options for PanAm to store and sort rail cars work (compared to Yard 21 lead tracks): https://flic.kr/s/aHsmN49zU8? THX.
PAR would have to shove out towards 3rd Ave Crossing towards Swift (Fitchburg Route) or shove out towards Tower A on either ML 2,3, or 4 via the 645 crossover. Before I retired, there was talk of attempting to somehow construct a direct connection from Yard 10 (Innerbelt) to the mainline east out the Eastern Route mainline. This would be difficult give that OL flyover and all the supports for I-93.How will PanAm access the tracks on the NewburyPort/Rockport line from the Yard 10 lead and Yard 21 storage tracks?
THX,
Alan
The freight wye abuts the Innerbelt Rd. grade crossing...inappropriate spot for shoving and blocking. That track has been completely rehabilitated and will see new usage once the east half of the new Washington St. overpass is complete and it's reconnected to the Lowell Line, but because of the grade crossing it's a straight thru-and-thru move. Crossing's been completely rehabilitated (good!...it was a notorious muffler-wrecker), but hasn't had warning signage or crossing gates installed yet. I think that's the plan as there appears to be a new manhole cover to the side capping an electrical conduit for new crossing protection.
The other area you highlight is an MOW siding on the old Eastern Route Draw 7 alignment. It's not nearly long enough to block anything, and you obstruct all Haverhill/Reading and Rockburyport traffic when backing over the switch so that's the worst place of all to try it. Right now that siding is used by the T to empty dump cars of discarded ties onto a recycling pile. The properties back there are all T-owned multipurpose material piles under the umbrella of Charlestown Garage site security.
PAR can do all of its Yard 21 movements from the backside of BET...that's pretty cut-and-dried. I'm just not sure--without there being lots more hand-throw crossovers on the new track than there appears to be so far--how they're going to net equivalent sorting capability to Yard 8. Yard 21 is equal-or-better size than Yard 8 in terms of total carload storage so that isn't a problem. But to have equivalently flexible switching capacity they need to chunk out the 2 tracks with 3...maybe 4...sets of crossovers to max out the density.
There is already a crossover underneath the I-93 decks from the freight wye to the Eastern mainline. Remember the Orange Line is passing overhead on a viaduct here so there's open passage at the ground RR level between tracks spanning from the north tip of BET to about Roland St. a block south of Cambridge St. where the OL viaduct starts descending down to ground for the approach into Sullivan.
It's PAR...anything they forgot to plan can be easily explained as "Oops! I'm PAR, remember. I never remember to plan!"...and then dinging their own pocketbook later for a spot fix. They'll eventually get it to do all of what they need it for (and not one iota more). They always do. It'll just be a typical three-blind-mice clownshow that gets them stumbling back to equilibrium after the total lack of foresight. Nobody expects any more or any less from them after 37 years of their FAIL-roading on the ex- B&M system.
Thanks much. The reason I'm asking is that a feasibility study is underway to look at extending the multi-use path along the Orange line tracks south in the Yard 21 corridor into Inner Belt to connect with the Community Path and Grand Junction Path. When this study was first proposed, the dual Yard 21 tracks were overgrown, seldom used and dead-ended near Partners Health Care. I can send you links to 2 previous "studies" on using this corridor. When we saw the track reconstruction for PAR a few months ago, I started reaching out to you all about the technical requirements, etc. for PAR here. What other options can be proposed to 2) find PAR another area or 2) to live with only 1 track so that a rail w/trail option might be possible? As you know, while much of the corridor is wider, the section past Sullivan station is only ~25' wide. Thanks again. Alan
Re: T construction news
Above is the land-clearing for the Haverhill Line's new layover yard on Hilldale Ave. near the NH state line. Last month it was quietly reported that the T was finally going along with 2 decades of abutter lobbying to relocate out of the substandard Bradford layover space, which is far too small to support any increased service levels and has inadequate noise and emission buffer from the adjacent residential neighborhood. A budget was approved for acquiring new property, but at the time we didn't know where.
Now we do. It's "Alternative 6" from the Plaistow extension study--the only layover option that was in MA instead of NH--except flipped to the other side of the tracks so the access driveway can go on Hilldale Ave. instead of across the state line to NH 126 where Town of Atkinson, NH would surely block. The area is pure 1970's industrial park with very widely separated buildings; absolutely no abutters to bother. Atkinson will probably assemble a citizen's militia to storm the border in opposition, but they can't touch this from across the state line (not even on a fumes/noise claim, because they're just not close enough proximity to it to make a plausible EPA claim).
The surprising thing is how stealthy they were not only in acquiring the vacant property but also doing the prelim land-clearing. As far as I can tell the FCMB has never said a peep about this, and we don't even know if there's construction funding secured beyond the ongoing land-clearing. No track schematics available either (if they've even been drafted yet) telling how much capacity the new layover will have. If it's as big as Newburyport and Westminster--pretty much the standard size for new construction--it should allow for substantial Haverhill service increases (albeit probably by supplemental Lowell Line+Wildcat trains as Reading Line capacity is pretty tapped out). Additionally, with Bradford being vacated that station gains the ability to be rebuilt as full-highs with passing tracks by repurposing the old yard tracks for space. Passing tracks there would do enormous good at staging meets and overtakes of Downeasters and freights right before the bridge.
Oh yes, and the T still owns the station property for Rosemont St., a stop that was slated to be built for 1981 until a severe budget crisis canceled it. Rosemont's 2-1/3 miles north of Haverhill Station, and 2/3 mile south of this new layover. It would limit the non-revenue mileage to/from Haverhill Station while offering up a good catchment of its own in a part of town that's inaccessible to Haverhill Station. Residential to the west, MA 125 and MVRTA bus Route 13 a couple thousand feet East. And the 495 interchange is about 1500 ft. south of the intersection with MA 125. The available station real estate would only hold a small parking lot, but the enormous 350,000 sq. feet auto junkyard next door would serve up superb TOD and more parking capacity.
Let's see if they end up feeling as stealth about the station property they already own as the layover property they've only owned for a few weeks.
Well...whoever did that Feasibility Study never checked their sources, because Yard 21 was always Pan Am's perpetual rights and it was going to take a lot more compensation than a path project could provide to get them to fork it over. So I don't know what the Study would be trying to accomplish, because there will never ever be a deal made for just a path. That could've been settled for them all in one phone call.
Don't forget, PAR got the current Lechmere Station pancel in the land swap where they deeded over Yard 8, and have already auctioned off the property at a king's ransom to the developer who's going to put a high-rise there and re-streetscape Lechmere Sq.. They're ops-shortsighted, but Timothy Mellon drives a hard bargain when there's cold hard cash to be had. And he made a mint bartering for Lechmere Sq. Now, if it's the Urban Ring taking up Yard 21 the full force of the MBTA and MassDOT can make it worth their while with real estate barters anywhere in the state or major freight upgrade grants muscled out to 495-land where it matters the most to their bottom line. DCR doesn't have that reach, and a local trail lobby really really doesn't have that power when the totality of inside-128 freight revenue is a rounding error on PAR's company ledgers.
Assembly is already being direct-connected to Sullivan via Mystic path extension next to Charlestown Garage. There's barges set up pouring a new seawall to frame it, and it'll be open to Alford St. by next year. Yard 21 has extremely limited street grid access being so deep in the pit under Mystic Ave./Maffa Way/Cambridge St., and the BET property fence by the freight wye means that it must trailhead at Roland St. barely a block south of Sullivan because passage to Innerbelt Rd. is impossible. Eventual Sullivan streetscape reboot + cycle track alongside Hood Park Dr. brings you to the grassy backlot of Bunker Hill CC from the Alford path, which is way more useful connectivity than a dead-ending Yard 21 path way down in the pit would ever provide. Like, seriously...are they even aware how big the Sullivan reboot City of Boston's pursuing is? To pursue something in parallel that can't make meaningful connections from a dead-end is just...wow, missing one very big boat.
So I have to wonder who's bothering to waste money studying a ROW that's far and away the crappier path option to the one that's already under active construction, and proceed into it never checking that said ROW is flat-out never ever gonna be available to them. If the decision to dedicate actual resources to the inquiry was based on something as skin-deep as "Well, uh, it's grade separated innit?" then some fools and their money are about to be parted is all.
Any comments on my "conversation" with F-Line to Dudley?PAR would have to shove out towards 3rd Ave Crossing towards Swift (Fitchburg Route) or shove out towards Tower A on either ML 2,3, or 4 via the 645 crossover. Before I retired, there was talk of attempting to somehow construct a direct connection from Yard 10 (Innerbelt) to the mainline east out the Eastern Route mainline. This would be difficult give that OL flyover and all the supports for I-93.
Thank you very much for your insight about the power of PAR and DOT rail compared to shared-use path advocates. I don't disagree.
But ignoring that reality, would it be possible (understanding they won't to) for PAR to 1) make do with one track past Sullivan at the narrow section, 2) use one of the other 3 locations I identified, or 3) store and sort rail cars far to the north somewhere instead of any of the locations in Somerville/Charlestown.
Also - I'm unclear where you are referring to this idea as only a "dead-end" path? It would connect the existing path at Partners Health care with Inner Belt Rd. and then New Washington St. as shown in the images here.
THX.
PAR storage options to allow for path
Explore this photo album by Somerville Alan on Flickr!flic.kr
That "Yard 14" layover yard was originally designed for 9 tracks. I remember seeing the original design on the wall at Cobblehill. For whatever reason, it did not happen. It's kind of sad how commuter rail has been so hemmed in by GLX. It was a miracle they didn't lose more tracks behind BET as was put forth in the early GLX designs. They didn't have a clue why we needed more than one track between Swift (Fitchburg Route) and
FX (3rd Ave). As for MW storage, I hear rumors that a lot of it is going to Iron Horse Park in North Billerica.
Also thought I heard somewhere that if BET gets ridiculously crowded or needs to be moved, Iron Horse is also a possibility for expansion. Then again, I think I might have read that on RR.net, so it could've been just a foamer theory.
I think the right path option will be at Street Level on the west side of the OL Station, along Clinton Place and Perkins & Brighton side of the station. It is an MBTA parcel (I think) at street level, not just at trench level). And is that a squatter having paved off-street parking on Perkins st?
Parcel 0201930003 - City of Boston
www.cityofboston.gov
iirc, the goal is to increase the speed limitThat Alewife crossover... is that moving it closer to the station?