North Station, Charles River Draw, & Tower A

[TheRatmeister]

I think it should have been made a tunnel. That way it would be the right elevation to form part of a future North-South Rail Link.

To make a drawbridge conflicts again with so called future MBTA promises. Like- Didn't the MBTA say in future they wanted to electrify?
In a tunnel they could have put in the provisions for that to be done cheaper down the line. But now as a drawbridge in future they'l have to add provision for overhead wires on a bridge that opens? Adding more complexity than necessary to the morning commute. They could have under-grounded all the switches and everything and gotten them out of the weather at the same time.

Oh well.

The only way to do it as a tunnel would be to essentially build 1/3 of NSRL, so that means turning this from a $1.2 billion project into a $5 billion one, plus committing to electrify all the north-side CR lines.

 

[Digital_Islandboy]

The only way to do it as a tunnel would be to essentially build 1/3 of NSRL, so that means turning this from a $1.2 billion project into a $5 billion one, plus committing to electrify all the north-side CR lines.

Vs. kick the can down the road.

Building this brand new drawbridge which is probably able to last the next 100 years, and due to elevation likely won't work with N/S Rail Link and thus would probably have to be taken apart again.

The trains elevation would have to shift from under the I-93 to the elevation of the shore of the Charles River. The N/S would be way too steep an elevation.
There's no way this will work. This drawbridge is literally adding to the cost of the NSRL.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I think it should have been made a tunnel. That way it would be the right elevation to form part of a future North-South Rail Link.

To make a drawbridge conflicts again with so called future MBTA promises. Like- Didn't the MBTA say in future they wanted to electrify?
In a tunnel they could have put in the provisions for that to be done cheaper down the line. But now as a drawbridge in future they'l have to add provision for overhead wires on a bridge that opens? Adding more complexity than necessary to the morning commute. They could have under-grounded all the switches and everything and gotten them out of the weather at the same time.

Oh well.

Electrifying a movable bridge is trivial. Amtrak did it with a 2 draws, 2 swings, and a lift when it electrified New Haven-Boston, and it didn't bloat the budget any.

 

[ceo]

Vs. kick the can down the road.

Building this brand new drawbridge which is probably able to last the next 100 years, and due to elevation likely won't work with N/S Rail Link and thus would probably have to be taken apart again.

The trains elevation would have to shift from under the I-93 to the elevation of the shore of the Charles River. The N/S would be way too steep an elevation.
There's no way this will work. This drawbridge is literally adding to the cost of the NSRL.

Huh? This drawbridge doesn't interfere with NSRL in the slightest; the portals are going to be way back near the maintenance facility. Keeping the surface North Station is a necessary part of NSRL, because not all northside trains are going to run through.

 

[JeffDowntown]

Huh? This drawbridge doesn't interfere with NSRL in the slightest; the portals are going to be way back near the maintenance facility. Keeping the surface North Station is a necessary part of NSRL, because not all northside trains are going to run through.

Exactly, portals and needed alignments are all roughly worked out and land-banked to prevent decisions that would disrupt the potential for the NSRL.

True on both the north and south sides. And both will still need surface stations for the many trains (at regional rail frequency) that do not through run.

 

[ceo]

Exactly, portals and needed alignments are all roughly worked out and land-banked to prevent decisions that would disrupt the potential for the NSRL.

This is part of why the GLX maintenance facility and yard are located where they are; several of the other options were rejected specifically because they conflicted with the NSRL portal locations. So it's definitely a thing that is being actively planned around.

 

[stick n move]

Good video about the bridge.

0:44 never knew there was that many draw bridges previously. Also didnt know the first movable drawbridge in America was at this spot.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Good video about the bridge.

0:44 never knew there was that many draw bridges previously. Also didnt know the first movable drawbridge in America was at this spot.

North Station originally needed 4 drawbridges because steam locomotives are uni-directional. There was no such thing as push-pull ops back in the steam era. So every inbound train after discharging had to make a deadheading backup move into Boston Engine Terminal to get turned around, then reverse again in another deadheading move back into North Station to load for an outbound. It took twice as many movements over the drawbridges to run the same schedules as today because half of the movements were turnaround deadheads, and of course on top of that back in the day they ran much denser schedules than today. Hence, the need for 4 draws. Once the B&M converted all service to double-ended Budd RDC DMU's push-pull was in effect and trains could start laying over on the platform. And the schedules started getting slashed back, so rather than continue to maintain 4 draws for sparse use they demolished 2 of them.