Missing HSR Corridor Designations

[Commuting Boston Student]

Kingston is Amtrak-owned, so it was their appropriation that's doing the renovations. As it will at Westerly. Wickford and Green are both RIDOT-built and owned. That's why. Wouldn't have been worth RIDOT's while to scoop up and renovate Kingston if it nullified the future Amtrak appropriation and their money could be better used to check an infill stop off the wishlist. The need for such a ginormous parking lot is open for criticism, but they played their cards correctly opting for Wickford.

Well, the ginormous parking lot was already there for the main draws of Wickford Junction... a Walmart, a Staples, and a dentist's office. (They don't even have any real 'concessions' as was promised - the offerings at the station amount to a couple of vending machines and one guy selling coffee from a table that was probably purchased from the nearby Walmart.) The garage itself might hopefully invite the parking lot to be developed upon, but I somehow doubt it.

The thing about Wickford Junction is, it's a park and ride and always will be, and that's not necessarily a bad thing - but I disagree that they played their cards correctly opting for Wickford as opposed to East Greenwich, Cranston, or Pawtucket/Central Falls, all of which would have been (will be) easily connected to nearby development and residencies that both exist now and are more substantial than anything Wickford has or will have to offer.

East Greenwich would have been an acceptable terminus, and either Cranston or Pawtucket/Central Falls would result in the terminus still being T.F. Green Airport.

I don't think Wickford Junction is going to have the kind of ridership it needs to have at any point in time before a further southward extension to Kingston, where it gains additional value as overflow parking for Kingston and loses the importance attached to it for being The Last Stop. (I don't see a garage being built at Kingston, ever, since it's a relatively pain-free 10-minute drive up the road Kingston-Wickford.)

You mentioned that everything Wickford-north is going 4-track eventually... what about south of Wickford? Will there ever be 4-tracking at Kingston or Westerly?

 

[massmotorist]

It is down here , and in Philly and the DC region...why would the Boston region be any different? Most Railways down here except the New Haven line run about 4-8 miles from an Interstate...so the Interstate towns are auto centric to the max while the Railway towns are the opposite... NJT and the state have had a TOD Policy in affect since 1992...and over 170 towns have joined in...and reaped the benefits. The DC Region took NJT ideas and lead and applied it to Alexandria and DC itself , then the MTA started taking interest in TOD for the MNRR and beeline system in 2006...then Septa in 2008 took Interest and now the MBTA has expressed Interest in 2010...why wouldn't it cause ridership to explode up there when it has down here?

How many people do you think are going to live/work in TOD on the South Coast within range of a train stop? And how many of those people will just happen to have destinations or origins within walking distance of the train? And now how many of those people would prefer a train to a car when the time isn't that different and the train costs, what, $11 each way?

One of the biggest TODs around would have been Westwood Station, with what, 1000 condos? You wouldn't get 100% or even 80% of residents who live there taking the train daily. You'd get maybe 50%, probably less. Assume optimistically 2 workers per household. That's like 1000 people. And that's a 15 minute train ride from Boston. And TOD on all the developable land in the area.

People don't want to live/work in TOD just cause the cool kids are doing it and developers don't want to develop it just because it's trendy. It has to be profitable for developers and make sense for residents. And 90 minutes from Boston you aren't going to have a ton of demand for mega-projects like Westwood Station - maybe some small-bore stuff, if that. And even if they built a suburban TOD mega-project it isn't going to add thousands upon thousands of riders.

45k is laughable, and even 5k probably isn't going to happen short-term - maybe you get 5-6k in 5-10 years after build.

 

[Matthew]

I'm with massmotorist on this one. Development is attracted to transit with good frequency. SCR will not have good frequency. Even MPO thinks SCR will have only 8500 riders, and they are known for overprojecting.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Well, the ginormous parking lot was already there for the main draws of Wickford Junction... a Walmart, a Staples, and a dentist's office. (They don't even have any real 'concessions' as was promised - the offerings at the station amount to a couple of vending machines and one guy selling coffee from a table that was probably purchased from the nearby Walmart.) The garage itself might hopefully invite the parking lot to be developed upon, but I somehow doubt it.

The thing about Wickford Junction is, it's a park and ride and always will be, and that's not necessarily a bad thing - but I disagree that they played their cards correctly opting for Wickford as opposed to East Greenwich, Cranston, or Pawtucket/Central Falls, all of which would have been (will be) easily connected to nearby development and residencies that both exist now and are more substantial than anything Wickford has or will have to offer.

East Greenwich would have been an acceptable terminus, and either Cranston or Pawtucket/Central Falls would result in the terminus still being T.F. Green Airport.

I don't think Wickford Junction is going to have the kind of ridership it needs to have at any point in time before a further southward extension to Kingston, where it gains additional value as overflow parking for Kingston and loses the importance attached to it for being The Last Stop. (I don't see a garage being built at Kingston, ever, since it's a relatively pain-free 10-minute drive up the road Kingston-Wickford.)

You mentioned that everything Wickford-north is going 4-track eventually... what about south of Wickford? Will there ever be 4-tracking at Kingston or Westerly?

The NEC Infrastructure Master Plan has track charts showing what's in the offing between now and 2020-25: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/870/270/Northeast-Corridor-Infrastructure-Master-Plan.pdf. p. 79.

No 4-tracking south of Wickford. Isn't enough clearance under bridges to do that many. And between RI 2 in Richmond and RI 78 in Westerly it's no longer wide enough for continuous triple; that's where the wide RI/MA straightaways give way to the curvy, constrained CT/RI Shoreline.

Continuous mainline triple only runs to T.F. Green because that's where T service is likely going to terminate and where every service including Woonsocket-Providence will overlap. All RI stations to Wickford will have localized 4-track with CR turning out to the side and Amtrak staying at-speed through the middle, then double for the at-speed length between stops. Then at Kingston it'll drop back to triple turnouts at stops, double for the at-speed length between stops. T and Woonsocket aren't going to roam down there, and the turnouts are effective enough at keeping Amtrak at full speed so it's a stretch of track that will remain below 100% capacity through 2030 with all planned services running at max schedules. If they want continuous triple track they could connect the 2-track between-station gaps together all the way down to RI 2, but that's a beyond-2030 need not anticipated for any currently envisioned service (or the 2040 Inland HSR, since that would tie in Providence-north).

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

The NEC Infrastructure Master Plan has track charts showing what's in the offing between now and 2020-25: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/870/270/Northeast-Corridor-Infrastructure-Master-Plan.pdf. p. 79.

No 4-tracking south of Wickford. Isn't enough clearance under bridges to do that many. And between RI 2 in Richmond and RI 78 in Westerly it's no longer wide enough for continuous triple; that's where the wide RI/MA straightaways give way to the curvy, constrained CT/RI Shoreline.

Continuous mainline triple only runs to T.F. Green because that's where T service is likely going to terminate and where every service including Woonsocket-Providence will overlap. All RI stations to Wickford will have localized 4-track with CR turning out to the side and Amtrak staying at-speed through the middle, then double for the at-speed length between stops. Then at Kingston it'll drop back to triple turnouts at stops, double for the at-speed length between stops. T and Woonsocket aren't going to roam down there, and the turnouts are effective enough at keeping Amtrak at full speed so it's a stretch of track that will remain below 100% capacity through 2030 with all planned services running at max schedules. If they want continuous triple track they could connect the 2-track between-station gaps together all the way down to RI 2, but that's a beyond-2030 need not anticipated for any currently envisioned service (or the 2040 Inland HSR, since that would tie in Providence-north).

Providence-T.F. Green really should be continuous mainline quad-tracking. There's enough room for it, and enough demand for it. South of T.F. Green it's not a needed thing, but I'm certain it will be needed T.F. Green-north.

It looks to me that the schematics are suggesting that Readville's NEC platforms are going to be high-leveled and (presumably) reactivated for service, and that trains are going to be able to move from the Fairmount Line to Route 128? And that Kingston is going to abandon its existing Track 1 platform to construct a brand new platform for the turnout track rather than raise the existing one to serve Tracks 1 & (I'm guessing) 3 as an island?

Is Amtrak going to be the party raising platforms at Attleboro, Mansfield, Sharon, etc.? Or is the MBTA/MBCR on the hook for that?

 

[Riverworks]

Providence-T.F. Green really should be continuous mainline quad-tracking. There's enough room for it, and enough demand for it. South of T.F. Green it's not a needed thing, but I'm certain it will be needed T.F. Green-north.

It looks to me that the schematics are suggesting that Readville's NEC platforms are going to be high-leveled and (presumably) reactivated for service, and that trains are going to be able to move from the Fairmount Line to Route 128? And that Kingston is going to abandon its existing Track 1 platform to construct a brand new platform for the turnout track rather than raise the existing one to serve Tracks 1 & (I'm guessing) 3 as an island?

Is Amtrak going to be the party raising platforms at Attleboro, Mansfield, Sharon, etc.? Or is the MBTA/MBCR on the hook for that?

So you both know, out of the three stations that Amtrak serves in Rhode Island: Providence, Kingston and Westerly, it only owns Providence Station in its entirety (building, ROW, infrastructure). Amtrak only owns the ROW and infrastructure everywhere else from New Haven to the RI State Line (near Central Falls and S. Attleboro).

The NEC Master Plan envisions a third track from Readville to Canton Jct., a third track from Sharon to Attleboro, and a freight siding from Mansfield to Attleboro (where the freight track breaks off to the original B&P alignment). So essentially it will be tripple tracked from Readville to Attleboro by 2025. The long term vision, of course, is to make it four tracks by 2040 for any HSR alignment passing through the area (as per the latest HSR vision released in September 2012).

Once these projects start to beef up the Attleboro Line, Amtrak and the MBTA will have to work together to relocate the existing stations and make the platforms ADA compliant. So the additional tracks will dictate any future station work. Since the MBTA (MassDOT) owns the ROW from the RI State Line to South Station (and most of the stations), it will primarily be up to the MBTA to take on the cost. And since MassDOT is able to apply for capital improvement funding (unlike Amtrak) through TIGER grants (etc.) it will primarily be up to MassDOT - unless legislation changes further - as it has with the HSIPR funding and designating the NEC as a HSR corridor.

As for the whole commuter rail discussion down to Wickford Junction, I assume you both have seen this: http://www.dot.state.ri.us/intermodal/index.asp

RIDOT (through MBTA Commuter Rail) plans to expand service from Wickford Junction to Westerly (including Cranston, Kingston, Davisville and East Greenwich). The whole reason RIDOT received funding for an additional track and platform at Kingston was to accommodate commuter rail service on a local track while Amtrak used the two express tracks. That will be completed by 2015. It is a win-win for both agencies. The MBTA stays on its own local track while Amtak breezes through at 150 mph (soon to be 160 mph).

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Providence-T.F. Green really should be continuous mainline quad-tracking. There's enough room for it, and enough demand for it. South of T.F. Green it's not a needed thing, but I'm certain it will be needed T.F. Green-north.

It looks to me that the schematics are suggesting that Readville's NEC platforms are going to be high-leveled and (presumably) reactivated for service, and that trains are going to be able to move from the Fairmount Line to Route 128? And that Kingston is going to abandon its existing Track 1 platform to construct a brand new platform for the turnout track rather than raise the existing one to serve Tracks 1 & (I'm guessing) 3 as an island?

Is Amtrak going to be the party raising platforms at Attleboro, Mansfield, Sharon, etc.? Or is the MBTA/MBCR on the hook for that?

The Readville project changes the Franklin and Fairmount platforms around: http://goo.gl/maps/YmdgY. Franklin split will be restored to a full double-track junction (that'll probably happen sooner than quad to Forest Hills). The current short Franklin inbound platform gets demolished for the second track, and the unused NEC outbound platform becomes a full high island serving both Franklin-in and NEC-out. That was its old configuration before they ripped the second track out in the 70's, and can clearly see on the overhead how there's room for the extra track. Franklin outbound and NEC inbound would get raised in-place. No immediate plans for any new NEC service stopping there so NEC inbound still doesn't see immediate use, but NEC outbound gets the busiest chunk of Franklin traffic when it goes island.

Fairmount gets relocated to an island a couple hundred feet north ahead of the switch where you can see the 2 tracks spreading wide apart. That allows for a full 800 ft. platform that 2 trains can stop at and go to/from any direction: Fairmount turnback, Franklin thru, NEC thru.

T owns all other stations on the line, including 128. So it's their obligation to raise the platforms. Any stations that involve track work or electrification of additional tracks will have that portion paid by Amtrak because they are the track maintainer. So likely that all will be split funding.

Sharon and Mansfield get reconfigured into 3-trackers with center passing track and highs. Can see with Sharon (http://goo.gl/maps/Dz4BS) that it used to be triple, and the inbound platform would get moved back closer to the depot building. That's in design already because it's the last totally non-ADA station on the Providence Line. Mansfield (http://goo.gl/maps/bWI5E) gets the same treatment on the outbound side. They'll have to take a row of parking for it. Center track also needed for the wide freights going nightly from Framingham to Attleboro and Middleboro before they can raise the platforms.

Attleboro gets raised in-place...no other changes needed beyond Amtrak electrifying it all. Canton Jct. gets raised in-place with the funky short inbound platform extended to full length. Can't be any more than double-track because of the Viaduct so that is the only one in RI or MA that Amtrak has no passing option.

128 has no work whatsoever except Amtrak dropping the 3rd track on the inbound side, turning the existing platform into an island. I bet Amtrak gets consolidated on the center track. Then there's room for 2 more tracks and platforms on the easterly side and under the 128 bridge should they put the full Fairmount schedule down there and future traffic levels merit separating those trains from the existing platforms. But won't be needed any time this decade.

South Attleboro gets the biggest changes as the station is partially demolished/rebuilt as a 4-tracker like Wickford where Amtrak has 2 center passing tracks and the T spreads to the sides. Kiss-and-ride access road will be moved back a few feet onto what's now a grassy median to make room, and the new 1A bridge is provisioned for it. Station stairs are falling apart and need replacement anyway.

Hyde Park either gets a new outbound side platform on future track 4, or (T's preferred alternative) a new island between the current outbound track and track 4 that fully segregates Franklin inbound/outbound trains to that side ahead of the junction, with NEC trains still using the existing (raised) inbound and Amtrak still having a platform-free center express. Ruggles they're already doing public meetings for the new platform covering the last track so the track-switching on MBCR inbounds to get across to the current one isn't such an Amtrak traffic hog.


I think RIDOT's Kingston plans have changed and the existing platform becomes an island: http://goo.gl/maps/UuiyJ. There's definitely room for it. The NEC Master Plan just states Amtrak's base requirements, but I think the actual funding award covers retaining the center track platform for the Amtrak stop. You can see Pawtucket is also under-equipped on Amtrak's schematic, but RIDOT's preferred alternative is island + side covering 3 of 4 tracks so they have a place to turn back South County service: http://www.dot.state.ri.us/documents/intermodal/300_Barton_Street_ Concept_Analysis.pdf.


At any rate, once all this work is done Amtrak has passing options at every single station east of Mystic except for Canton Jct., and no longer would have to slow up to switch tracks anywhere on the entirety of 150+ MPH territory. All of which a Big Freakin' Deal™ for end-to-end throughput.

 

[Scalziand]

I created this map because I wanted to see what the inland NEC would look like in Connecticut.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=217005306011543244255.0004cb22fee89dd536496

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

I created this map because I wanted to see what the inland NEC would look like in Connecticut.

https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=217005306011543244255.0004cb22fee89dd536496

Hello, and welcome to archboston!

I'm sorry to say that I am not super thrilled with the way you've drawn the Inland NEC here. There's more than enough room to merge the new ROW onto the existing tracks. We'd want to do this so that rather than passing through Coventry on its way to merging with the Shoreline NEC in Warwick, the new ROW can pass through Johnston, rejoining the Shoreline in Olneyville - just before Providence Station itself.

In much the same way that Hartford - Willmantic is likely going to be coupled with an extension of I-384, Johnston - Danielson could be bundled with improvements/corrections to US 6.

Hartford and Providence have gone far, far, far too long without any kind of direct connection. There isn't even a legacy ROW, abandoned or otherwise, that is a relatively straight shot between the two.

For that reason, this is one of the only cases in which I'd advocate for completely ignoring any historical options and going for a brand-spanking-new straight shot punched through the countryside and anything that happens to be in the way.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Fairmount gets relocated to an island a couple hundred feet north ahead of the switch where you can see the 2 tracks spreading wide apart. That allows for a full 800 ft. platform that 2 trains can stop at and go to/from any direction: Fairmount turnback, Franklin thru, NEC thru.

Fairmount moves further away? I think it is best to keep everything compact as possible. What about this:

Platforms are gold, stairs connecting them are brown lines. New service track is red. Current unused track which could be used for terminating and laying over trains is green.

I think three platforms for the Indigo Line is better, as it allows for those tight rapid-transit-like headways while allowing for Franklin trains as well.

 

[deh74]

Fairmount moves further away? I think it is best to keep everything compact as possible. What about this:

Platforms are gold, stairs connecting them are brown lines. New service track is red. Current unused track which could be used for terminating and laying over trains is green.

I think three platforms for the Indigo Line is better, as it allows for those tight rapid-transit-like headways while allowing for Franklin trains as well.

I like it. but why continue franklin service. do that many commuter really use that station

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Fairmount moves further away? I think it is best to keep everything compact as possible. What about this:

Platforms are gold, stairs connecting them are brown lines. New service track is red. Current unused track which could be used for terminating and laying over trains is green.

I think three platforms for the Indigo Line is better, as it allows for those tight rapid-transit-like headways while allowing for Franklin trains as well.

I would like to see a triple-tracked Fairmount Line Corridor where possible, or provisions for passing at each station. Fairmount Line looks like easy 110+ mph tracking, and in light of what appears to be Amtrak backing off of Route 128 and Back Bay as 'all trains stop' stations, an electrified Fairmount Line makes an attractive express routing - no train will ever pass through Back Bay without stopping, ever, so any express route not stopping at Back Bay needs to go somewhere else. Three tracks would let one express train per hour each way through without screwing up Fairmount EMU service.

Looks to me like that green track would make an easy junction to the NEC along Readville Yard, and new platforms at Route 128.

I like it. but why continue franklin service. do that many commuter really use that station

You'd be surprised at how many people use the Franklin Line... to Norwood.

Past Norwood, the line is a lot less thrilling, but if you like the idea of line interconnectivity, Franklin Station is a relatively short (if deteriorated) jog away from Blackstone (and Woonsocket, and therefore Woonsocket Commuter Rail), and the line can also be extended to Milford from Forge Park.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I like it. but why continue franklin service. do that many commuter really use that station

NEC congestion. If they initiate Foxboro service, all of it will be routed via Fairmount. And going towards 2030 probably all Franklin service increases are going to be Fairmount additions.

Long term if the N-S Link and Inland HSR gets built they've probably got dilemmas not only with booting Needham entirely over to the rapid transit system to get those trains off the commuter rail, but also viz-a-viz booting everything Franklin over to Fairmount to keep a much busier NEC grade separated from as much slow branchline traffic as possible.

I would like to see a triple-tracked Fairmount Line Corridor where possible, or provisions for passing at each station. Fairmount Line looks like easy 110+ mph tracking, and in light of what appears to be Amtrak backing off of Route 128 and Back Bay as 'all trains stop' stations, an electrified Fairmount Line makes an attractive express routing - no train will ever pass through Back Bay without stopping, ever, so any express route not stopping at Back Bay needs to go somewhere else. Three tracks would let one express train per hour each way through without screwing up Fairmount EMU service.

Looks to me like that green track would make an easy junction to the NEC along Readville Yard, and new platforms at Route 128.

No way is Fairmount that fast. It's speed-restricted past the MBTA yard for entering/exiting non-revenue equipment, and the entire line is a series of S-curves that start gently at River St. and then start weaving tighter and tighter at Morton St. The NEC is much, much straighter. Get the 4th track back up to Forest Hills and 125 MPH territory can extend up to the tunnel portal, 90 MPH to Ruggles. Fairmount would never have more than an 80 MPH speed limit with the curves and number of platforms an express train would have to ease up at while passing. While it has room for up to 4 tracks up to River St. from former freight sidings, there is no way it can be made wider than 2 anywhere north of there because of the density of abutting residential properties.

Let's not be overthinking this. Fairmount's an excellent relief valve for CR traffic. It's where they should be punting most diesel traffic in the future, especially Franklin + branches. Leave the NEC for fast Providence electrics and Stoughton/South Coast/Cape. Get Needham off the CR mode entirely. And eliminate sparingly-used Forest Hills (not needed if Needham's gone) and Hyde Park (only 2000 ft. from Fairmount, with Fairmount having vastly more service in a few years) so everything runs thru at full track speed past Ruggles. That's what will open up all the capacity for faster trains. Those slow branches that make all the local stops are the ones escalating the congestion.


EDIT: The other thing to consider here is that at expanded SS the track-switching dance is going to make it such that NEC-originating lines can only practically access the existing platforms from their far-west lead track origin. Fairmount and Old Colony are the ones that'll get shifted onto the new tracks. It takes such a hard right through so many crossovers to send an NEC train over there that it'll be impractical for how slow the moves are and how everything at SS has to freeze while they make that move (more switches = greater derailment risk).

So you also have to look at this in terms of which half of the final number of platforms are going to get the highest-escalating traffic. Old Colony is only going to increase modestly unless they do the $1B Savin Hill and Quincy double-tracking job. And may not have to increase much at all if Stoughton becomes the Cape relief valve. Needham, also not a grower, really starts getting crowded out by the others...forcing that which-mode dilemma. And then Franklin...if extended to Milford or Woonsocket...really can't increase much sharing platforms with Amtrak, Providence, Worcester, and Stoughton/etc.. Fairmount on the new side of the station is where the most flex is. It's why they aren't even proposing to mix up Foxboro service on either route and confining it all to Fairmount and the new side. Franklin's got real 3-branch potential in the future, so where do you think is the most logical place at expanded SS to base Franklin main trains?

N-S Link or no, it's not like terminal traffic is going to decrease by mid-century. The most efficient ops they can run out of there involve segregating the slower-growth and slower-speed branches off to the Dot Ave. side of the station and bunching trains off their respective lead tracks for as much traffic segregation as possible and faster trips across fewer switches in/out of the terminal.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

No way is Fairmount that fast. It's speed-restricted past the MBTA yard for entering/exiting non-revenue equipment, and the entire line is a series of S-curves that start gently at River St. and then start weaving tighter and tighter at Morton St. The NEC is much, much straighter. Get the 4th track back up to Forest Hills and 125 MPH territory can extend up to the tunnel portal, 90 MPH to Ruggles. Fairmount would never have more than an 80 MPH speed limit with the curves and number of platforms an express train would have to ease up at while passing. While it has room for up to 4 tracks up to River St. from former freight sidings, there is no way it can be made wider than 2 anywhere north of there because of the density of abutting residential properties.

Let's not be overthinking this. Fairmount's an excellent relief valve for CR traffic. It's where they should be punting most diesel traffic in the future, especially Franklin + branches. Leave the NEC for fast Providence electrics and Stoughton/South Coast/Cape. Get Needham off the CR mode entirely. And eliminate sparingly-used Forest Hills (not needed if Needham's gone) and Hyde Park (only 2000 ft. from Fairmount, with Fairmount having vastly more service in a few years) so everything runs thru at full track speed past Ruggles. That's what will open up all the capacity for faster trains. Those slow branches that make all the local stops are the ones escalating the congestion.

I don't think it's really overthinking it that much - S-curves are probably one of the easiest types of curves to straighten, and that work would be bundled into squeezing out a third track on the ROW. 110 is doable. Painful, certainly, but doable.

IMHO, you're going to need to triple-track it anyway if you want to have the kind of service levels the "Indigo Line" wants and needs while simultaneously throwing in slower Franklin/Foxboro trains. 1 more express train per hour sailing down a center track isn't asking that much if you've got that third track already.

Yes, you can get max track speed Ruggles-128 on the NEC mainline, but Ruggles - South Station is never going to be faster than 50, it's probably never going to be faster than 30 on the curve, and trains are never going to pass through Back Bay without stopping. By contrast, even if Fairmount in its entirely is capped at 80, that's a solid 80 and pulling 80 100% of the time beats pulling 125/135/150 for about half the route, and then 30-50 for the other half plus a 60 second stop. Get Fairmount to 90 and the numbers look even better.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying every train. One express train per hour each way. Everything else stays on the NEC.

EDIT: The other thing to consider here is that at expanded SS the track-switching dance is going to make it such that NEC-originating lines can only practically access the existing platforms from their far-west lead track origin. Fairmount and Old Colony are the ones that'll get shifted onto the new tracks. It takes such a hard right through so many crossovers to send an NEC train over there that it'll be impractical for how slow the moves are and how everything at SS has to freeze while they make that move (more switches = greater derailment risk).

So you also have to look at this in terms of which half of the final number of platforms are going to get the highest-escalating traffic. Old Colony is only going to increase modestly unless they do the $1B Savin Hill and Quincy double-tracking job. And may not have to increase much at all if Stoughton becomes the Cape relief valve. Needham, also not a grower, really starts getting crowded out by the others...forcing that which-mode dilemma. And then Franklin...if extended to Milford or Woonsocket...really can't increase much sharing platforms with Amtrak, Providence, Worcester, and Stoughton/etc.. Fairmount on the new side of the station is where the most flex is. It's why they aren't even proposing to mix up Foxboro service on either route and confining it all to Fairmount and the new side. Franklin's got real 3-branch potential in the future, so where do you think is the most logical place at expanded SS to base Franklin main trains?

N-S Link or no, it's not like terminal traffic is going to decrease by mid-century. The most efficient ops they can run out of there involve segregating the slower-growth and slower-speed branches off to the Dot Ave. side of the station and bunching trains off their respective lead tracks for as much traffic segregation as possible and faster trips across fewer switches in/out of the terminal.

I'm not a fan of the South Station Expansion already, because it's my belief that the expansion needs to be down - a bi-level station with the lower platforms all serving the NS Link. You make an excellent point for 'track switching nightmare' but I think that it's a point to be made against adding another 8/10/12 platforms to the eastern end of BOS.

Also, depending on where a Fairmount Line link portal actually would be built, assuming you want to treat NS-Link as de-emphasizing Back Bay, Morton Street-north becomes a moot point anyway with your express train diving underground and underneath the biggest problem section of the line.

 

[deh74]

I would like to see a triple-tracked Fairmount Line Corridor where possible, or provisions for passing at each station. Fairmount Line looks like easy 110+ mph tracking, and in light of what appears to be Amtrak backing off of Route 128 and Back Bay as 'all trains stop' stations, an electrified Fairmount Line makes an attractive express routing - no train will ever pass through Back Bay without stopping, ever, so any express route not stopping at Back Bay needs to go somewhere else. Three tracks would let one express train per hour each way through without screwing up Fairmount EMU service.

Looks to me like that green track would make an easy junction to the NEC along Readville Yard, and new platforms at Route 128.



You'd be surprised at how many people use the Franklin Line... to Norwood.

Past Norwood, the line is a lot less thrilling, but if you like the idea of line interconnectivity, Franklin Station is a relatively short (if deteriorated) jog away from Blackstone (and Woonsocket, and therefore Woonsocket Commuter Rail), and the line can also be extended to Milford from Forge Park.

no i wasn't saying that the mbta should cut the franklin line. i actually use it myself alot from franklin. i was wondering why doesn't the mbta just cut the franklin line stop at readville.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I don't think it's really overthinking it that much - S-curves are probably one of the easiest types of curves to straighten, and that work would be bundled into squeezing out a third track on the ROW. 110 is doable. Painful, certainly, but doable.

IMHO, you're going to need to triple-track it anyway if you want to have the kind of service levels the "Indigo Line" wants and needs while simultaneously throwing in slower Franklin/Foxboro trains. 1 more express train per hour sailing down a center track isn't asking that much if you've got that third track already.

Yes, you can get max track speed Ruggles-128 on the NEC mainline, but Ruggles - South Station is never going to be faster than 50, it's probably never going to be faster than 30 on the curve, and trains are never going to pass through Back Bay without stopping. By contrast, even if Fairmount in its entirely is capped at 80, that's a solid 80 and pulling 80 100% of the time beats pulling 125/135/150 for about half the route, and then 30-50 for the other half plus a 60 second stop. Get Fairmount to 90 and the numbers look even better.

Keep in mind, I'm not saying every train. One express train per hour each way. Everything else stays on the NEC.

Look at how dense the property lines are around the cut. You cannot straighten the S-curves to 110 speed or plunk down a third track without taking dozens of backyards in the heart of Dorchester and blowing up/rebuilding a half-dozen bridges on major crosstown thoroughfares. Absolutely positively no fricking way is that ever happening. That doesn't need to happen. Segregate the traffic and the NEC works. Amtrak says it has the capacity to work if the CR clogs were properly mitigated.


Sorry...this is another Transit SuperOCD distraction. Just like the BB curve rip-up/replacement idea. You do not need to overcomplicate the last mile through Boston by several billion dollars for the minor convenience of mixing up the routings from everywhere to everywhere. Not even Amtrak thinks that will ever be needed if slower CR traffic gets properly managed. Nothing that close to the terminal runs at full speed anyway within yard limits. Fairmount has to pass Readville yard and cut through the heart of the yard tracks at Southampton. It could do 60 through Readville, but Southampton will forever be restricted to 20 and below. There's too much activity and too many switches to pass through. The last several hundred feet are about the same on either route. One has a sharp curve...one has eleventy crossovers.

The only think lost by the NEC is the start/stop at Back Bay before the curves. But Amtrak wants Back Bay. So segregate the CR branchlines away from it. Whack FH...whack HP. Hell...whack Ruggles and let everything express. But don't be spending a couple bil we don't need when that's put to better use elsewhere. These fiddely-bits proposals totally distract from the real intercity priorities that could use that money.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

no i wasn't saying that the mbta should cut the franklin line. i actually use it myself alot from franklin. i was wondering why doesn't the mbta just cut the franklin line stop at readville.

Readville's Franklin stop is separated from the NEC, so the stop itself isn't a clog. The clog is having a single-track merge so close to the platform, which means Franklin trains are crossing over very slow and have limited schedule slots to move around. What they're proposing to do is restore Franklin-side Readville it to its 1960's double-track configuration before they short-sightedly ripped out the other track. The new track would be on the inbound side, and it would align with the back of the unused NEC outbound platform, turning it into a Franklin-in/NEC-out island platform...like it used to be. Then there'd be new crossovers installed before Hyde Park for Franklin trains to split-off/merge when they're somewhat closer to full speed.

The 4-tracking proposal to Forest Hills has an MBTA- preferred alternative setup where HP outbound gets moved into an island platform setup where Franklin trains in either direction pull over to the side after FH and always stop at the island. That way they are totally grade-separated from NEC trains after the tunnel portal. Only Stoughton and/or Providence would continue using the current Hyde Park inbound platform.

 

[deh74]

ok thanks. isn't providence/stoughton the only line that used HP nowadays though?

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Look at how dense the property lines are around the cut. You cannot straighten the S-curves to 110 speed or plunk down a third track without taking dozens of backyards in the heart of Dorchester and blowing up/rebuilding a half-dozen bridges on major crosstown thoroughfares. Absolutely positively no fricking way is that ever happening. That doesn't need to happen. Segregate the traffic and the NEC works. Amtrak says it has the capacity to work if the CR clogs were properly mitigated.


Sorry...this is another Transit SuperOCD distraction. Just like the BB curve rip-up/replacement idea. You do not need to overcomplicate the last mile through Boston by several billion dollars for the minor convenience of mixing up the routings from everywhere to everywhere. Not even Amtrak thinks that will ever be needed if slower CR traffic gets properly managed. Nothing that close to the terminal runs at full speed anyway within yard limits. Fairmount has to pass Readville yard and cut through the heart of the yard tracks at Southampton. It could do 60 through Readville, but Southampton will forever be restricted to 20 and below. There's too much activity and too many switches to pass through. The last several hundred feet are about the same on either route. One has a sharp curve...one has eleventy crossovers.

The only think lost by the NEC is the start/stop at Back Bay before the curves. But Amtrak wants Back Bay. So segregate the CR branchlines away from it. Whack FH...whack HP. Hell...whack Ruggles and let everything express. But don't be spending a couple bil we don't need when that's put to better use elsewhere. These fiddely-bits proposals totally distract from the real intercity priorities that could use that money.

Priorities like the NS Rail Link, which this is 100% attached to because service to North Station is the only real way to put 'skip BBY' on the table as a real option?

As far as I can tell, Amtrak's starting to sour on Back Bay anyway and wants the capacity to bypass the station. Whether or not that holds remains to be seen. It's still worth investigating... especially if you want to start clearing CR traffic off of the NEC. 3-branch Franklin + Fairmount is above and beyond what I'd expect Fairmount as it is now to be able to handle without slashing headways left and right.

This is a priority any way you slice it.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I'm not a fan of the South Station Expansion already, because it's my belief that the expansion needs to be down - a bi-level station with the lower platforms all serving the NS Link. You make an excellent point for 'track switching nightmare' but I think that it's a point to be made against adding another 8/10/12 platforms to the eastern end of BOS.

Also, depending on where a Fairmount Line link portal actually would be built, assuming you want to treat NS-Link as de-emphasizing Back Bay, Morton Street-north becomes a moot point anyway with your express train diving underground and underneath the biggest problem section of the line.

There is not enough room for 8+ platforms underground. The NEC lead tunnel still has to curve in more or less under the footprint of the surface curve (straightened only by cutting diagonally across to the Dot Ave. side), it would meet the other tunnel fairly close to the platforms, and there'd have to be a quick flurry of crossovers integrating it all. Then 1000 ft. of platforms, then another quick flurry of crossovers before the main tunnel merges back to 2-4 tracks (depending on build) and descends a steep grade. It's maybe 8 platforms max, but probably more like 6.

N-S Link is not a traffic cure-all, and it cannot thru-route from everywhere to everywhere. All those pretty drawings and computer simulations the T made showing the system neatly flowing through every line are a lot of PR hot air. If they want the lines with the highest thru-ridership potential to use it, it's going to have to be rationed to those lines. Because it's physically impossible to build a "South Station Under" the same size as the surface. They need the surface expansion regardless. 6-8 underground platforms isn't enough, and throwing $4B extra on doing more platforms is moot because it's either too slow to matter or physically impossible altogether to squeeze across that many sharp crossovers on both ends from quick-merging lead tunnels into a steep and constrained main tunnel.

This is why I hate the tri-portal and Fitchburg portal ideas and think they ought to be punted to 10 years later (with Fairmount relocated on the surface behind South Bay plaza into a combined F/OC portal). The priority slots from the NEC to the main north portal leave little left for heavy utilization of the others. So much stuff will still have to turn on the surface that it's better off not even baiting the public with dreams of thru service on the lighter-use stub branches. Keep it centered on CR intercity/interstate and Amtrak. Let the terminals be terminals, and put those extra $B's into subway radial circulation.