Missing HSR Corridor Designations

[kmp1284]

what would it take to do that Boston to Springfield. I think one of the best transit (non-subway) investments the MA could make would be 110MPH (preferably 125MPH) Boston-Framingham-Worcester-Springfield. I think it would do wonders for MA economy. That's Boston to Springfield in ONE HOUR! Opens up whole new levels of instate opportunity. Even more than a bunch of stop CR to NB/FR.

What the hell is that going to accomplish besides giving Springfield's panhandler's access to the deeper pockets of Boston? This whole rail-as-economic-stimulus malarkey is nothing more than a temporary jobs program and a bone for Democratic constituencies. Notice the only time they talk about it is election years. Springfield(and New Bedford, Fall River, Worcester, etc.) are shitholes. People with any semblance of concern for the sort of area they live in, let alone access to quality education and social activities will not move to those places just because rail exists.

 

[davem]

People ... will not move to those places just because rail exists.

Speaking personally, no, rail alone will not suddenly make me move to a place.

However, the lack of rail will ensure I will never even consider living there.

And Springfield getting that access makes a million times more sense then southcoast. Off the top of my head you've got (current and near-future planned)

-Lake Shore Limited
-Vermonter/Montrealler
-Inland Regional
-Springfield Shuttle
-Conn river valley commuter rail
-Massive terminal for transfers(larger then BOS and BON combined)
-Six Flags New England (short shuttle ride away)

Adding MBTA service, especially 110mph service to get there in a reasonable amount of time, is logical. Not doing it would be the dumb decision.

Also, I'm sure all the people packed onto the double decker Worcester line trains are there because its a "shithole". I'm sure thats also the reason the T prefers to throw its flagship MP36s on that line too...

 

[Nexis4jersey]

Speaking personally, no, rail alone will not suddenly make me move to a place.

However, the lack of rail will ensure I will never even consider living there.

And Springfield getting that access makes a million times more sense then southcoast. Off the top of my head you've got (current and near-future planned)

-Lake Shore Limited < Increase Speeds to 110mph
-Vermonter/Montrealler < becomes the Montrealler
-Inland Regional < Electric up to Brattleboro
-Springfield Shuttle < Replaced with Regional
-Conn river valley commuter rail < Runs 25 roundtrips a day between New Haven & Springfield , and 15 round trips a day including regional up to Brattleboro
-Massive terminal for transfers(larger then BOS and BON combined) < in New Haven , Hartford , Springfield , smaller terminal in Brattleboro , Worcester and New London
-Six Flags New England (short shuttle ride away)

Adding MBTA service, especially 110mph service to get there in a reasonable amount of time, is logical. Not doing it would be the dumb decision.

Also, I'm sure all the people packed onto the double decker Worcester line trains are there because its a "shithole". I'm sure thats also the reason the T prefers to throw its flagship MP36s on that line too...

Notes in Red...Plans and Proposals

 

[choo]

I think it would be great. It would have to be a near express tho to be successful. Springfield people could easily get to boston for meetings or day trips. Boston, get to the BBHOF, casino?, pick up a car and go rest of the way to the berkshires. I don't think its a waste.

 

[HenryAlan]

The fact that they omitted Houston-Austin/San Antonio and Houston-Dallas while putting in Dallas-Oklahoma City-Tulsa and Dallas-Texarkana-Little Rock shows how ridiculous that map is. Then there are routes like Raleigh-Columbia-Savannah-Jacksonville but no Chicago-Quad Cities-Iowa City/Cedar Rapids-Des Moines-Omaha? Boston-Montreal and Seattle-Vancouver but no Detroit-Toronto or Buffalo-Toronto? Come on!

This is the one that I really don't get, especially because it would have the added benefit of attaching the Chicago based system to the NEC. It doesn't even seem that odd that somebody might actually take a high speed train from Boston to Chicago in favor of flying, but there would definitely be people riding sections of it all the way through. Why not connect it when doing so brings in a major city that is otherwise skipped altogether?

 

[Nexis4jersey]

All the New England mini High Speed Rail & Truck Proposals...Corridors with speeds between 125-190mph...fully electric.

New Northeast Corridor - City Local Service - Top Speed : 190mph
Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay
Providence Central
Hartford Union
*Waterbury HSR
*Danbury HSR
New Rochelle
*A Branch to Grand Central Terminal , not through service
New York Penn Station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty Airport
Trenton Transit Center
*Market East Station
*Philadelphia Airport
*Wilmington South
*Charles Center
BWI Airport
Washington Union

New Northeast Corridor - Cities Limited - Top Speed : 190mph
Boston South Station
Providence Central
Hartford Union
New Rochelle
New York Penn
Newark Penn
*Market East Station
*Wilmington South
*Charles Center
Washington Union

Old Northeast Corridor - Shore Express - Top Speed : 150mph
Boston South Station
Providence Central
New Haven Union
Stamford
New Rochelle
New York Penn
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty Airport
Trenton Transit Center
30th Street Station
Wilmington Central
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
DC Union

Northeast Regional - Top speed : 135mph
*Bangor
*Waterville
*Augusta
Brunswick
Portland
Old Orchard Beach
Saco
Wells
Dover
Durham - University of New Hampshire
Exeter
Haverhill
Anderson Regional Transportation Center
*Boston Central Station
Boston Back Bay
Providence Central
Kingston
Westerly
Mystic
New London
Old Saybrook
New Haven
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle , * A Branch to Grand Central Terminal
*Sunnyside Transfer Hub
New York Penn Station
Newark Penn Station
Newark Liberty Airport
New Brunswick (Overnight)
Princeton JCT (Overnight)
Trenton Transit Center
Cornwell Heights (Limited)
North Philadelphia
30th Street - Philadelphia
Wilmington Central
Newark Transit Center - Moved and upgraded
Aberdeen
Baltimore Penn Station
BWI Airport
New Carrollton
DC Union Station
*Crystal City - National Airport
Alexandria
Woodbridge
Quantico
Fredericksburg
Ashland
Richmond - Staples Mill
Richmond - Main Street
Williamsburg
Newport News

Knowledge Corridor Express - Top Speed : 125mph
White River JCT
Brattleboro
*Greenfield
*Holyoke
Springfield
Hartford Union
New Haven Union
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
Grand Central Terminal

Knowledge Corridor Local - Top Speed : 125mph
White River JCT
Windsor
Claremont
Bellows Falls
Brattleboro
*Greenfield
*Deerfield
*Northampton
*Holyoke
*Willimansett
*Chicopee
Springfield
Windsor Locks
Windsor
Hartford Union
Berlin
New Haven Union
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
Grand Central Terminal

Cross England Express - Top Speed : 125mph
Boston South Station
Boston Back Bay
Framingham
Worcester
*Indian Orchard
Springfield Union
*West Springfield
*Westfield
Pittsfield
Albany

Concord Express - Top Speed : 125mph
*Concord
*Manchester
*Nashua
Lowell
*Boston Central
Boston Back Bay
Providence Central
New Haven
Stamford
Grand Central Terminal

Concord Local - Top Speed : 125mph
*Concord
*South Hooksett - Southern New Hampshire Univ
*Manchester
*Manchester Airport
*Merrimack
*Nashua
Lowell
*Boston Central Station
Boston Back Bay
Providence Central
Kingston
Westerly
New London
Old Saybrook
New Haven
Bridgeport
Stamford
New Rochelle
*Grand Central Terminal

 

[Arlington]

This is the one that I really don't get, especially because it would have the added benefit of attaching the Chicago based system to the NEC. It doesn't even seem that odd that somebody might actually take a high speed train from Boston to Chicago in favor of flying, but there would definitely be people riding sections of it all the way through. Why not connect it when doing so brings in a major city that is otherwise skipped altogether?

Not even the NEC really functions as an End-to-end thing, but rather as End-to-middle thing roughly BOS-PHL and WAS-HVN, which happen to overlap PHL-HVN and be centered on Penn Sta (NYP). EDIT: and Virginia-PHL/NYP is a new success as an end-to-middle market.

Not even BOS-WAS today is really competitive with Air. BOS-WAS at 7hours-ish today, and maybe 5 hours in the (far) future can't be done out-and-back in a day. BOS and WAS are two, big, 5m+ people metro areas and they don't even (really) work at the kind of speeds being planned (in the 110 to 165 range).

So there's no economic justification for planning NEC-CHI kinds of networks until you've built:

1) the CHI-centric star with DET, MKE, and STL (and lets wait for DET-STL traffic to materialize on that network before dreaming of CLE-NYC.

2) the branched NEC, with branches to ALB, SPG/HFD, BOS on the top and LYH, RIC, NPN, and NFK on the bottom (and Keystone in the middle).

Lo and behold, that's what the FRA is planning and building! ('cept for LYH). Let's see how that goes first. I suspect that the biggest bang for the buck will be further extending the NEC to places like Raleigh (on SEHSR) and upgrading NFK to 110mph, rather than trying to slog through the mountains between PIT and CLE or get anything done between BUF and TOL.

 

[HenryAlan]

You don't build it for Boston to Chicago, you build it for Boston to Detroit and Chicago to Toronto -- essentially the same thing you've described about NEC. It's not the end to end it's the missing segment overlap that is the issue.

 

[Arlington]

You don't build it for Boston to Chicago, you build it for Boston to Detroit and Chicago to Toronto -- essentially the same thing you've described about NEC. It's not the end to end it's the missing segment overlap that is the issue.

Who are these "you" that (can afford to) build networks that way or have an established track record at this?
Japan is a freakish outlier, having 127m people in an area the size of California (pop. 37m) or our NEC (pop. 55m).

Please, I beg, you, understand the USA map and the FRA map both as having essentially 3 cities that are worthy of Euro-style service NYC (pop 8m to 17m), CHI (pop. 3m to 10m) and LA--(pop 4m to 13m)

The reality in places in Europe that are analogous to the USA you get spiders centered on mega-cities and national capitals, and those spiders don't touch at the ends, and won't for 40 years after the initiation of service.

Spain's is centered on Madrid (pop 5m) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AVE.png)
Italy's is centered on Rome (pop. 3m) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Italy_TAV.png)
France is centered on Paris (pop 11m) (see below)
And the UK basically has only (recently) done their HSR line from the Chunnel to London (before that it was conventional rail, just like BUF-CLE on the FRA map)

And in Paris many of the trains don't even run through. TGV service started in 1981, and is still basically a spider diagram, and it will be 40 years from start of service before it gets connected to Spain (2020) or Italy (in 2023) or goes beyond London (2026 on HS2).

Here is a great map showing the shape and chronological roll out of the TGV in France. Note the number of "missing" connections:
Perpignan to Montpelier (which would connect the Spanish AVE to the French TGV)
Bayonee to Bordeau (which would be the other way to connect Spain to France)
Lyon to Turin (which won't happen to 2023)
Strasbourg (which won't happen to 2016...35 years after TGV's first)

Also note that even though Paris-Limoges-Toulouse is a long-established overnight train route, they are not upgrading it *ever*. Paris-Toulouse is analogous to CHI-Toledo. Better to serve each of Limoge and Toulouse as branches than build a whole parallel line straight north-south. Similarly, serving Toledo makes more sense as a branch from Detroit.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

You don't build it for Boston to Chicago, you build it for Boston to Detroit and Chicago to Toronto -- essentially the same thing you've described about NEC. It's not the end to end it's the missing segment overlap that is the issue.

Yeah, and considering it's a short gap bookended by the only appreciable stretch of off-NEC 90+ MPH track in the country that link is a much easier fill job than building pretty much any one starter line in a non-NY, non-Chicago hub. Don't get me wrong...nothing else matters unless the Empire Corridor to Buffalo is doing 110 all the way, but the Lake Shore Limited is a very well-established LD route. It's not like the thru connection is any sort of speculative fantasy market. At triple digit speed most of the way that would be a well-patronized route.


They may have left Toronto off because because of the crew switch at the Niagra Falls, CAN stop between Amtrak and VIA Rail crews. The Adirondacker to Montreal and Cascades to Vancouver have no such joint operating/funding agreements, so Amtrak crews operate into Canada all the way. Chintzy excuse I know, but VIA Rail has long had a Toronto-Niagra short run so they "own" that route. While in MTL's and VAN's case it's just Amtrak on privately-owned freight track.

At such a short distance I can't fathom VIA not upgrading its Niagra-Toronto track to identical infrastructure to the Empire when the time comes. Only 40 miles of track off the Corridor and 80 miles total. The Corridor (Windsor-Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City) has its own HSR and medium-term electrification proposals.

 

[Arlington]

Yeah, and considering it's a short gap bookended by the only appreciable stretch of off-NEC 90+ MPH track in the country that link is a much easier fill job than building pretty much any one starter line in a non-NY, non-Chicago hub. Don't get me wrong...nothing else matters unless the Empire Corridor to Buffalo is doing 110 all the way, but the Lake Shore Limited is a very well-established LD route. It's not like the thru connection is any sort of speculative fantasy market. At triple digit speed most of the way that would be a well-patronized route.

And folks here should also appreciate that just because something isn't on the HSR map, doesn't mean it isn't going to have HSR trains running on it, it just means that the best place to plan for HSR is at the center of networks, not at the fringes or the end-to-end connectors.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

New Northeast Corridor - City Local Service - Top Speed : 190mph
*A Branch to Grand Central Terminal , not through service
New York Penn Station

New Northeast Corridor - Cities Limited - Top Speed : 190mph
*Market East Station

Northeast Regional - Top speed : 135mph
*Boston Central Station
Boston Back Bay
* A Branch to Grand Central Terminal

Concord Express - Top Speed : 125mph
*Boston Central
Boston Back Bay

Concord Local - Top Speed : 125mph
*Boston Central Station
Boston Back Bay

No way, no way, no way.

There should be no branching service to Grand Central - trains should run through GCT - and Boston Central Station is a terrible, horrible, no good very bad idea that needs to just go away already.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

and Boston Central Station is a terrible, horrible, no good very bad idea that needs to just go away already.

Depends where it is. Aquarium? Bad.

Stretching between Park St and Gov Center? Well, expensive. But the best idea as far as a Central Station goes.

 

[omaja]

Boston Central would be a massive waste of money either way. North and South are only a mile apart; build the darn tunnel between the two with plenty of provisioning for rapid transit, commuter rail and HSR and just be done with it.

 

[jass]

Turning city hall into grand mumbles station would be fun.

Direct access to green, blue, red and orange lines (with pedestrian corridor to park).

 

[Nexis4jersey]

No way, no way, no way.

There should be no branching service to Grand Central - trains should run through GCT - and Boston Central Station is a terrible, horrible, no good very bad idea that needs to just go away already.

Through running in Midtown is 4x what Central Station would be , I don't see the Problem with Central Station.....but you do agree a North - South Tunnel is needed? I also think a new station is needed in Springfield so trains don't have to back up , I-91 should be turned into a Boulevard through Downtown....which would cement the New station with the Downtown. The Old Station would be kept for East-West routes , along with a spur to allow Brattleboro - Springfield commuter rail trains to head to Boston via Expressing.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

Through running in Midtown is 4x what Central Station would be , I don't see the Problem with Central Station.....but you do agree a North - South Tunnel is needed? I also think a new station is needed in Springfield so trains don't have to back up , I-91 should be turned into a Boulevard through Downtown....which would cement the New station with the Downtown. The Old Station would be kept for East-West routes , along with a spur to allow Brattleboro - Springfield commuter rail trains to head to Boston via Expressing.

Okay, here's the problem with Central Station: the NS Rail Link Tunnel is going to be a mile and change long. That tunnel is also going to need a relatively shallow incline - passenger trains can't really do 15 degrees uphill. And, of course, don't forget that the existing Big Dig tunnels need to be considered in your tunnel design - you can't go through them and you can't go over them, your choices are 'alongside' or 'under.' Now, your average train car is about... let's say 100 feet, including the attached vestibules. Nice even number. So, your platforms need to have 100 feet of length, give or take some wiggle room. That means an 8-car train, which accurately describes pretty much every train in service up in Boston, needs an 800' platform. You want longer trains? Your platform gets longer too - there's been talk about bumping train lengths up to 10 or 12. That doesn't really matter, because going back to the 'short tunnel + shallow incline restriction' equation I mentioned earlier...

It doesn't matter where you put Central Station, because there's not going to be enough room to stop full-length trains there. At all. Ever.

At most, you might be able to squeeze out 400' feet of level tunnel and drop a mini-sized platform down there for RER-style, through-running short-turning service inside of 128 - but it'll be a tight squeeze, both inside the tunnel and inside the train you just capped at 4, MAYBE 5, cars.

Oh, and for the record - Springfield doesn't need a new station. Trains don't back up in Springfield, they back up in Palmer. The problem is not Springfield, the problem is Palmer Junction.

 

[Nexis4jersey]

Okay, here's the problem with Central Station: the NS Rail Link Tunnel is going to be a mile and change long. That tunnel is also going to need a relatively shallow incline - passenger trains can't really do 15 degrees uphill. And, of course, don't forget that the existing Big Dig tunnels need to be considered in your tunnel design - you can't go through them and you can't go over them, your choices are 'alongside' or 'under.' Now, your average train car is about... let's say 100 feet, including the attached vestibules. Nice even number. So, your platforms need to have 100 feet of length, give or take some wiggle room. That means an 8-car train, which accurately describes pretty much every train in service up in Boston, needs an 800' platform. You want longer trains? Your platform gets longer too - there's been talk about bumping train lengths up to 10 or 12. That doesn't really matter, because going back to the 'short tunnel + shallow incline restriction' equation I mentioned earlier...

It doesn't matter where you put Central Station, because there's not going to be enough room to stop full-length trains there. At all. Ever.

At most, you might be able to squeeze out 400' feet of level tunnel and drop a mini-sized platform down there for RER-style, through-running short-turning service inside of 128 - but it'll be a tight squeeze, both inside the tunnel and inside the train you just capped at 4, MAYBE 5, cars.

Oh, and for the record - Springfield doesn't need a new station. Trains don't back up in Springfield, they back up in Palmer. The problem is not Springfield, the problem is Palmer Junction.

The line won't go through Palmer anymore , its being rerouted along the Connecticut River...so a backup is needed. I think Springfield should really have 2 stations or move the current one to the river and make a JCT station.

 

[Commuting Boston Student]

The line won't go through Palmer anymore , its being rerouted along the Connecticut River...so a backup is needed. I think Springfield should really have 2 stations or move the current one to the river and make a JCT station.

The line is being rerouted specifically to ELIMINATE the Palmer backup, so that there will be no more backups.

If the reroute was going to result in a new backup, it would not happen.

Trains are already going to be able to arrive in Springfield from the south and proceed directly north, no backup required.

Springfield does NOT need a second station.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The line is being rerouted specifically to ELIMINATE the Palmer backup, so that there will be no more backups.

If the reroute was going to result in a new backup, it would not happen.

Trains are already going to be able to arrive in Springfield from the south and proceed directly north, no backup required.

Springfield does NOT need a second station.

Springfield does require a backup move on the platform to get on the Conn River Line. The station is about 1400 feet from the junction. But they were doing that reverse move very efficiently a century ago when it was a bustling terminal stop. It is pretty trivial for the engineer to change ends on the platform at a major terminal stop. They do it multiple times a day at D.C. Union Station for the Virginia NE Regionals. Springfield would be even quicker because of the shorter dwell times.

The Palmer reverse sucks not only because there's no platform to do the reverse, but because it happens inside a major CSX yard where there's switching activity going on all day long, at a freight-dispatched junction with another major yard across the street where NECR is switching all day on the other line, where CSX and NECR are switching between the two yards with each other a few times a day, and where the little shortline MassCentral is coming off its mainline and mini-yard about 3/4 miles north at the next junction to interchange with CSX and NECR in the main yards. CSX dispatch has to call on all area freights within about a mile radius to pause all movements before Amtrak gets its all-clear to move. That's not easy to do when 4 RR's are puttering around the same junction all at the same time. And of course CSX dispatch is notorious for sending passenger trains to the back of the line in the dispatching queue. So the engineer hops out and changes ends quick...and then sits in the cab for 20 minutes waiting for the all-clear to finally move.

It's a nightmare. After the Montrealer got yanked off the Conn River in 1987 due to the deplorable track conditions (followed by a famous Supreme Court eminent domain case where Amtrak tried to seize the line from Guilford/Pan Am), they actually re-routed the line up the NEC to New London and rode the Central VT/NECR mainline all the way up to Palmer via Willimantic. Just to get through that junction straight without having to pull the reverse. Springfield had to make do with a lousy connecting bus until '95 when the line was finally re-routed off the Shoreline onto its current configuration.