Other People's Rail: Amtrak, commuter rail, rapid transit news & views outside New England

[Tallguy]

So

And MassDOT does want to do E/W, so if they had data damaging to the plan, they would have dropped it already.

Sorry, does not

 

[Brattle Loop]

So, the Stadler KISS is 15 ft, 7/8in tall. Unclear as to how there is insufficient height to run catenary.

The height of the EMU is of no consequence. F-Line, as he does so well, laid out what the existing standards are and the clearances that are required as a result. I don't think there's any question that there's sufficient clearance for wires over a KISS or any other EMU we might theoretically acquire wherever there's double-stack clearance. The problem and question is whether there's sufficient clearance for overhead catenary over the double-stacks. The answer is pretty clearly no. The idea that we could simply plonk down additional, electrified tracks under the bridges, without double-stack clearance, is not feasible for the reasons F-Line explained; some places it may well be physically impossible without breaking double-stack clearance (which will never fly unless you're also willing to pay to fix that by fixing the bridge...negating the reason for separating the tracks in the first place), and because CSX would not abide anything that permanently screws up their operations and operational flexibility.

And MassDOT does want to do E/W, so if they had data damaging to the plan, they would have dropped it already.

Except that they did drop it, in the sense that they've long since ruled out electrification. The bridges pose no obstacle whatsoever to diesel E-W service, only to electrification. There's no need for the state to talk about the details about why electrification is infeasible when they already ruled it out. If they said "the bridges make E-W rail impossible" they'd promptly and correctly get called out for telling a blatant lie.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

For add'l background. . .

There were two big historical clearance-raisings done on the B&A.

• The 2008-12 one raised the minimum clearance 1 foot from 19'6" (tri-level autorack size) to 20'6" (domestic double-stack), Schodack to Westborough. And cost a fair bit in both CSX investment and MassDOT fun bux to pull off, despite it only being a single foot.

• The other...bigger...clearance-raising project was in the early-80's when Conrail heavily reinvested in the line during its Fed gov't ownership days...when the clearance was upped from Plate F (17') to autorack (19'6") Schodack to Framingham in advance of debuting then-newfangled tri-level autoracks to the then- newly opened (and now long-closed) Framingham auto loading facility. That was a 2.5 ft. bump, 2½ times greater than what was done a decade ago and roughly equal to how much space you'd have to clear under AREMA standards to get stacks running under 25 kV wire. The single tracking liberally aided the re-clearing by allowing them to re-center the tracks under the tallest points of many bridges so there would be fewer bridge touches overall.

Re-doubling the track for East-West/NNEIRI is thus going to stub some toes on incidental bridge work where each side of the bridge over 2 tracks isn't as tall as it currently is over the centered single track. Single track which isn't centered exactly the same way under each bridge because Conrail did a hunt-and-peck looking for shortcuts back in the day. And that's not something--as I alluded in the prior post--that you'd be able to eyeball from Google Satellite or BridgeReports.com because you need the laser measurement of the clearance over the centerlines of the track where the double-track is going to be placed...not the centerline of the currently-placed centered single track or whatever random point on the ground the NBI lists. CSX and MassDOT have those measurements but haven't publicly made them available. I'm not sure if it's FOIA'able info or not.

It's not a *huge* cost by any means...certainly nothing to the degree that would explain away the jarring increase between the NNEIRI cost estimates and the East-West cost estimates. But it's a factor, and you have to engage it even as a diesel route because the measurements aren't uniform under all these bridges and after 2 'dips' in 40 years at this re-clearing game they're running out of effortlessly cheap undercutting options to ply.


However, it's absolutely going to be a blowout cost with electrification...because as previously stated there's no way in hell CSX is going to sign away its rights to run on 'any' mainline track during a scheduling snafu or track maint window when they absolutely have to. That is: there's no way to filet this as a build of one un-electrified stacks-cleared track kept only for CSX's usage and one no-stacks electrified track kept only for MassDOT usage...with an absolutely binding (at least on CSX's side) ops division between carriers. When they carved up Virginia ownership & dispatching last year after VADOT/Amtrak fronted big passenger bucks they helpfully agreed to stick to their assigned track during normal-flowing ops, but got all the indemnity in the world to jump tracks at-will whenever conditions warranted (passenger trains, FWIW, also got reciprocal assurances for jumping to the CSX-dispatched track whenever conditions warranted). That's the type of agreement they'd be templating for the B&A, and some of the CSX-Amtrak back-n'-forth in last week's Surface Transportation Board hearing over the Pan Am merger alluded to that very precedent as a means of smoothing over future B&A pax what-if's. There's no "Welp, just don't run" option that they'll accept in a contingency when their regular track isn't available, because disruptions and dispatch substitutions happen regularly on any line where there's enough traffic. So the only way you get *any* electrified track is by fishing for +2.5 ft. of clearance over *all* the tracks, at the going rate that's going to cost. Which is where we start piling on billions here.

 

[Badusername]

For add'l background. . .

There were two big historical clearance-raisings done on the B&A.

• The 2008-12 one raised the minimum clearance 1 foot from 19'6" (tri-level autorack size) to 20'6" (domestic double-stack), Schodack to Westborough. And cost a fair bit in both CSX investment and MassDOT fun bux to pull off, despite it only being a single foot.

• The other...bigger...clearance-raising project was in the early-80's when Conrail heavily reinvested in the line during its Fed gov't ownership days...when the clearance was upped from Plate F (17') to autorack (19'6") Schodack to Framingham in advance of debuting then-newfangled tri-level autoracks to the then- newly opened (and now long-closed) Framingham auto loading facility. That was a 2.5 ft. bump, 2½ times greater than what was done a decade ago and roughly equal to how much space you'd have to clear under AREMA standards to get stacks running under 25 kV wire. The single tracking liberally aided the re-clearing by allowing them to re-center the tracks under the tallest points of many bridges so there would be fewer bridge touches overall.

Re-doubling the track for East-West/NNEIRI is thus going to stub some toes on incidental bridge work where each side of the bridge over 2 tracks isn't as tall as it currently is over the centered single track. Single track which isn't centered exactly the same way under each bridge because Conrail did a hunt-and-peck looking for shortcuts back in the day. And that's not something--as I alluded in the prior post--that you'd be able to eyeball from Google Satellite or BridgeReports.com because you need the laser measurement of the clearance over the centerlines of the track where the double-track is going to be placed...not the centerline of the currently-placed centered single track or whatever random point on the ground the NBI lists. CSX and MassDOT have those measurements but haven't publicly made them available. I'm not sure if it's FOIA'able info or not.

It's not a *huge* cost by any means...certainly nothing to the degree that would explain away the jarring increase between the NNEIRI cost estimates and the East-West cost estimates. But it's a factor, and you have to engage it even as a diesel route because the measurements aren't uniform under all these bridges and after 2 'dips' in 40 years at this re-clearing game they're running out of effortlessly cheap undercutting options to ply.


However, it's absolutely going to be a blowout cost with electrification...because as previously stated there's no way in hell CSX is going to sign away its rights to run on 'any' mainline track during a scheduling snafu or track maint window when they absolutely have to. That is: there's no way to filet this as a build of one un-electrified stacks-cleared track kept only for CSX's usage and one no-stacks electrified track kept only for MassDOT usage...with an absolutely binding (at least on CSX's side) ops division between carriers. When they carved up Virginia ownership & dispatching last year after VADOT/Amtrak fronted big passenger bucks they helpfully agreed to stick to their assigned track during normal-flowing ops, but got all the indemnity in the world to jump tracks at-will whenever conditions warranted (passenger trains, FWIW, also got reciprocal assurances for jumping to the CSX-dispatched track whenever conditions warranted). That's the type of agreement they'd be templating for the B&A, and some of the CSX-Amtrak back-n'-forth in last week's Surface Transportation Board hearing over the Pan Am merger alluded to that very precedent as a means of smoothing over future B&A pax what-if's. There's no "Welp, just don't run" option that they'll accept in a contingency when their regular track isn't available, because disruptions and dispatch substitutions happen regularly on any line where there's enough traffic. So the only way you get *any* electrified track is by fishing for +2.5 ft. of clearance over *all* the tracks, at the going rate that's going to cost. Which is where we start piling on billions here.

Could electrified service be viable with dual mode EMUs that have just enough battery capacity to cover gaps under the bridges?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Could electrified service be viable with dual mode EMUs that have just enough battery capacity to cover gaps under the bridges?

That's not relevant here. The double-stacked freights are the ones that won't clear the wire under the bridges, not the passenger trains. As you can't unilaterally segregate ALL freights to one unelectrified track forevermore and ALL passengers to one electrified track forevermore and get CSX's buy-in, electrifying the WOR-SPG corridor can't happen without a large percentage of 41 bridges needing to be modded at very high cost.

If you're thinking do wire gaps at every single bridge...no, that's not going to work either because now you have to circuit-break infinitely small sections between each bridge. On the NEC Boston-New Haven the power sections run 30 miles long and are supplanted every 6 miles by voltage regulating stations. If you had to break after every single bridge because of a wireless gap (which also has to include the length of the "squeeze-down" from open-air wire height to the minimum)...you'd be spending billions and billions of dollars on superfluous electrical guts equipment. No way is that feasible; it would cost MORE than just raising the dang bridges to 23'.

 

[RandomWalk]

I’m beginning to wonder if this recent discussion was an aliveness test for F-Line. Good to see you back here…

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Put another way. . .

You couldn't even spot a de-energized section of wire under a tight spot--a legitimate kludge for narrowing the required AREMA electrical clearances in a jam when applied very sparingly--because there's right now only 4 total inches between the freight car roofs and the undersides of the bridges on some of these maxed-out 20'6" B&A structures. Cram a de-energized wire there, and the freight car roof will simply rip 'er all down hangers and all. We're talking that big a discrepancy at current measurements on this ROW.

You also wouldn't be able to operate any stock pantograph vehicle over random un-wired gaps without major trouble. Pantos are either fully extended and spring-load tensioned, or fully down and folded...no "mid-crouching" setting for jumping between quick gaps in wire. If you cut the wire at an under-height bridge the fully extended pantograph would simply keep sailing up to the end of its springs until it noticed the power was out...then auto-retract to the fully folded resting position. At full untensioned extension the pantographs on Amtrak stock can go 23+ ft. high, and would smack the underside of the bridge once they got near full-extension and get ripped clean off the vehicle. Oops. Nobody custom-engineers a "super smart kneeling" panto mechanism for frequent programmed wire gaps because pantos are consumable parts that get replaced often and need to be inexpensive for what they do.

So at the end of the day there isn't a magical solution living under a rock that lets you claim "NO NEED TO MOD BRIDGES." The electrification solution is either going to have to work for all traffic on the line, or it's ultimately going to work for none of it.

 

[DBM]

I’m beginning to wonder if this recent discussion was an aliveness test for F-Line. Good to see you back here…

Apparently you don't lurk in the UHub forum... Needless to say, when a UHub poster with the handle of "FLTD" delivered a hyperinformed/hypertechnical explanation involving some Readville area project a few days back, it *sent a tingle up my spine*

 

[KentXie]

Just found out the new LA MetroRail cars are also being built by the CRRC at the Springfield, MA factory. Will be interesting to see if they encounter the same issues that the MBTA did on their cars. Will report.

Chinese HR4000 metro cars for Los Angeles unveiled

CRRC Changchun has unveiled at its Springfield rail facility in Massachusetts the first HR4000 metro cars for Los Angeles.

www.railwaypro.com

Kind of sad they didn't choose the Deadpool design

 

[Tallguy]

Put another way. . .

You couldn't even spot a de-energized section of wire under a tight spot--a legitimate kludge for narrowing the required AREMA electrical clearances in a jam when applied very sparingly--because there's right now only 4 total inches between the freight car roofs and the undersides of the bridges on some of these maxed-out 20'6" B&A structures. Cram a de-energized wire there, and the freight car roof will simply rip 'er all down hangers and all. We're talking that big a discrepancy at current measurements on this ROW.

You also wouldn't be able to operate any stock pantograph vehicle over random un-wired gaps without major trouble. Pantos are either fully extended and spring-load tensioned, or fully down and folded...no "mid-crouching" setting for jumping between quick gaps in wire. If you cut the wire at an under-height bridge the fully extended pantograph would simply keep sailing up to the end of its springs until it noticed the power was out...then auto-retract to the fully folded resting position. At full untensioned extension the pantographs on Amtrak stock can go 23+ ft. high, and would smack the underside of the bridge once they got near full-extension and get ripped clean off the vehicle. Oops. Nobody custom-engineers a "super smart kneeling" panto mechanism for frequent programmed wire gaps because pantos are consumable parts that get replaced often and need to be inexpensive for what they do.

So at the end of the day there isn't a magical solution living under a rock that lets you claim "NO NEED TO MOD BRIDGES." The electrification solution is either going to have to work for all traffic on the line, or it's ultimately going to work for none of it.

Again with the strawman knockdown. So, basically, we cant electrify because CSX will insist that track, that would not be there otherwise, be double-stack capable. CSX operates pretty well with mostly single track now.

 

[Tallguy]

The height of the EMU is of no consequence. F-Line, as he does so well, laid out what the existing standards are and the clearances that are required as a result. I don't think there's any question that there's sufficient clearance for wires over a KISS or any other EMU we might theoretically acquire wherever there's double-stack clearance. The problem and question is whether there's sufficient clearance for overhead catenary over the double-stacks. The answer is pretty clearly no. The idea that we could simply plonk down additional, electrified tracks under the bridges, without double-stack clearance, is not feasible for the reasons F-Line explained; some places it may well be physically impossible without breaking double-stack clearance (which will never fly unless you're also willing to pay to fix that by fixing the bridge...negating the reason for separating the tracks in the first place), and because CSX would not abide anything that permanently screws up their operations and operational flexibility.



Except that they did drop it, in the sense that they've long since ruled out electrification. The bridges pose no obstacle whatsoever to diesel E-W service, only to electrification. There's no need for the state to talk about the details about why electrification is infeasible when they already ruled it out. If they said "the bridges make E-W rail impossible" they'd promptly and correctly get called out for telling a blatant lie.

Again, nobody is claiming that there is sufficient clearance for DS AND catenary.....there doesn't need to be.
And by "drop it" I meant "release the information" not "remove from consideration"

 

[Brattle Loop]

Again with the strawman knockdown. So, basically, we cant electrify because CSX will insist that track, that would not be there otherwise, be double-stack capable. CSX operates pretty well with mostly single track now.

CSX owns the B&A west of Worcester. The MBTA (as far as I know) has no trackage rights, no right to operate (...which is part of why the baked in assumption is that Amtrak will operate the damn thing, because they don't have to bother with that concern because federal law gives them right of access). And Amtrak, whether it be operating its own service or as a mercenary for one or more states, can't forcibly make changes to a host railroad's infrastructure (not that they care in this instance; Amtrak would be perfectly fine with diesels).

The only way the state can make extra tracks and wires appear is if they buy some or all of the B&A from CSX. Given that it's CSX's New England main line and far more valuable to their operation than the east-of-Worcester lines they sold to the state a decade-plus ago, they're not likely to be in a selling mood. And as F-Line's Virginia example makes clear, CSX has a precedent for putting conditions on even a hypothetical sale that would make this extra passenger-only electrified track a non-starter. CSX could, and almost certainly would put clauses in any sale agreement saying that the state was not allowed to break double-stack clearances on any new or acquired track. Bye-bye electric passing tracks.

That CSX operates fine right now with mostly single track is irrelevant. That they may never actually need or use any additional tracks in some or all of the places they'd be added in your vision is, likewise, irrelevant. They own the line and have every right to put conditions of sale on it, and there's nothing the state can do about that. CSX has no obligation to help the state here. As long as they own it, its theirs and the state can't touch it; if they sell it, the state is bound by any conditions that come with that, and they protect their interests. (Speaking of which, though moderately off-topic, has CSX voiced any concerns about Pan Am's apparent willingness to jettison the previously-planned gauntlet tracks on the Lowell Line? That's the kind of thing that CSX has usually been finicky on.)

Again, nobody is claiming that there is sufficient clearance for DS AND catenary.....there doesn't need to be.

Well, F-Line is claiming that there needs to be, and I'm in agreement on that, because the only way you can electrify is if CSX lets you one way or another, it being their property and all (and, as above, their historical behavior strongly indicates that they won't let that happen, or at very least the quid-pro-quo it would take to get them to allow it would probably cost more than the bridge work). You're the only one claiming that these two things can somehow exist side-by-side as though the state can just ignore the fact that it doesn't own the line.

And by "drop it" I meant "release the information" not "remove from consideration"

I understood your meaning, though I get that my response was worded somewhat ambiguously. They ruled out electrification because it was a freaking nightmare to contemplate given (among other things) all the bridges. They're not required to lay out all of the reasons why a low-feasibility alternative was jettisoned, even if transit nerds might like it if they were. Nor are they required to present a Crazy Transit Pitches-style explanation of how maybe it could be done. Like practically everybody else who's looked at that line outside of the Crazy Transit Pitches thread, they looked at it, saw all the nightmare bridge work and ornery Class I landlord that they'd have to deal with and said, screw it, diesel it is, with the happy coincidence that that reduces the startup costs exponentially and makes operation easier with existing equipment types for Amtrak or whoever would up doing it. This isn't the Crazy Transit Pitches thread; when an option is facially infeasible at a glance, they can just chuck it.

 

[Stlin]

I would like to say that I agree with F-Line and Brattle about the prima facie infeasibility of electrifying WOR to SPG, for all the reasons above. However, I would say that only applies to traditional catenary electrification, not to alternative zero emissions technologies.

Given the MBTA has stated interest in alternative technologies (through their RFI) I would say that if the MBTA/MassDOT actually purchases Battery EMUs there's nothing stopping MassDOT assigning them to Amtrak SPG-WOR. Thats a distance of about ~50 miles /80km. The respondents to that RFI have units operating in Europe over similar route lengths (for example Chemnitz to Leipzig, which admittedly is flatter) with max ranges of about ~120km. And that's leaving aside the hydrogen option that Alstom is building. In the time frame we're talking about for this service, the technology will continue to improve, and I would bet will be at a point it's a viable option by the time the BOS-WOR segment is electrified.

 

[Tallguy]

I am not expecting magical thinking with CSX. CSX wants Mass' approval on the PAR takeover. CSX will want money from the Infrastructure Bill. The Commonwealth has a unique opportunity to negotiate here.
And also, still pretty certain that double tracking difficulties would have come up in the process.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I would like to say that I agree with F-Line and Brattle about the prima facie infeasibility of electrifying WOR to SPG, for all the reasons above. However, I would say that only applies to traditional catenary electrification, not to alternative zero emissions technologies.

Given the MBTA has stated interest in alternative technologies (through their RFI) I would say that if the MBTA/MassDOT actually purchases Battery EMUs there's nothing stopping MassDOT assigning them to Amtrak SPG-WOR. Thats a distance of about ~50 miles /80km. The respondents to that RFI have units operating in Europe over similar route lengths (for example Chemnitz to Leipzig, which admittedly is flatter) with max ranges of about ~120km. And that's leaving aside the hydrogen option that Alstom is building. In the time frame we're talking about for this service, the technology will continue to improve, and I would bet will be at a point it's a viable option by the time the BOS-WOR segment is electrified.

Lost amongst all this discussion is, unfortunately, the fact that the 60-mile Springfield Line doesn't even have anything resembling an electrification plan yet. Cart-before-horse and all...and MassDOT spitting in ConnDOT's eye with the E-W switcheroo over the wholly interstate-collaborative NNEIRI doesn't help with settling that pressing bucket-list item sooner rather than later. You won't have a fully electric Inland Route corridor to tinker with at your heart's content until TWO wire-ups meet at Springfield Union. And as for BEMU's...the 50-mile gap might be something to play with, but if a majority of the total travel demand is going to be bending south thru Hartford rather than terminating at Springfield it would royally help to have the wires re-pickup at Springfield Union because the BEMU is most definitely not going to have enough juice to get all the way from Worcester to New Haven.

Let's get the way way easier line with rapidly densifying commuter traffic settled up before we get too precious here about CSX. The B&A outside of MBTA territory is by no means the higher-priority leg in this game of tinker toys. Springfield Line is the highest-priority wire-up in the whole Northeast outside of the T mainlines.

I am not expecting magical thinking with CSX. CSX wants Mass' approval on the PAR takeover. CSX will want money from the Infrastructure Bill. The Commonwealth has a unique opportunity to negotiate here.
And also, still pretty certain that double tracking difficulties would have come up in the process.

They literally addressed this last week during the STB hearing on the Pan Am merger. Amtrak/MassDOT came in looking for concessions on E-W and other passenger deals, stating they'd oppose the merger if they weren't granted concessions. CSX spent the last several months negotiating with them. They reached a framework agreement behind the scenes last week, and the Amtrak/MassDOT objection was formally dropped ahead of the hearing. During the hearing CSX sang about how the Virginia deal and negotiating process for the Virginia deal being the model template for delivering on those promises, and folks as born-obstinate as saber-rattling Rep. Neal issued statements in the hearing dripping praise on CSX for being such a good-good partner in all these passenger dreams. It's largely settled business, except for hashing out the on-the-ground backfill details of dispatching whatever the Preferred Alts. service schedules end up being. Preferred Alts. from the existing studies that de-emphasized electrification for all its complications. So, yes, CSX most definitely got its run-on-any-track service indemnities too in the deal for when their assigned track isn't available on a given day.

It's not a blank slate or open bully pulpit anymore. The pax-freight negotiations are literally about 95% done now between all parties. The merger itself is slated for an up/down approval vote before the end of this month and only has one remaining objector (arch-rival Canadian Pacific, no surprise) they haven't pre-settled with...so we might know by the end of next week whether CSX has a rubber-stamp for taking the keys to Timmy Mellon's castle and enacting everything they just agreed to.

 

[Tallguy]

I have seen no evidence of MassDOT dropping its objection, but if you have a cite, please share. AMTRAK has come to an agreement, but not MassDOT.

 

[Tallguy]

And I agree that a one seat electrified route to NH is important.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I have seen no evidence of MassDOT dropping its objection, but if you have a cite, please share. AMTRAK has come to an agreement, but not MassDOT.

The objection was MassDOT+Amtrak, as clearly stated by the article. 6 of the 7 conditions are settled, as clearly stated by the article. The 7th condition was some miscellany about the Albany-Pittsfield Berkshire Flyer trial where the proposed final settlement came in too late to comment on by the hearing, and they're taking time to evaluate it now...as clearly stated by the article.

MassDOT+MBTA had a separate objection over MBTA-only territory. The negotiation involves the current Pan Am dispatching of the outer-Haverhill and outer-Fitchburg lines and binding legalese from prior state/PAR agreements decreeing that those dispatch jobs have to stay in Billerica, MA at the new joint T-PAR dispatching center and not move out of state (CSX does all their national dispatching from a master control center somewhere down South). The solution being pitched which CSX seemed amenable to was simply having all of Fitchburg+Haverhill come under home control of the T dispatcher, with indemnities being exchanged each way to make sure everyone's traffic moved around an overall passenger priority. The only hesitancy in that basic agreement was over how things would be hashed out during the ops transitional period from PAR to T control. That one is not going to be a holdup because they're in broad agreement on the landing spot and only have to craft how they get there.


Canadian Pacific is the only objector left who wants to kill this dead, because they're worried CSX is going to collude with Norfolk Southern to route stuff away from them. It's largely baseless.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

(Speaking of which, though moderately off-topic, has CSX voiced any concerns about Pan Am's apparent willingness to jettison the previously-planned gauntlet tracks on the Lowell Line? That's the kind of thing that CSX has usually been finicky on.)

From Keolis employee posters in-the-know on RR.net, that's in a state of active negotiation.

The Lowell Line is legally indemnified as a Plate F high-and-wide clearance route, as that was a lifetime condition of Boston & Maine's 1976 line sale agreement to the T. So Federal law trumps all, and PAR having a quid pro quo agreement to relax the enforcement doesn't change the underlying legalese. The gauntlet had to be part of the design of Winchester Center's station reno, because the T's own Commuter Rail Design Guide says that the clearance preemptions from the B&M agreement have to be upheld for the Lowell Line when doing design. They simply just handshook on not actually building it in the end, because of the paucity of high-and-wide traffic that actually moves to Boston. Not all Plate F cars are true high-and-wides, and if there's a random true high-and-wide that needs to move PAR can just slow down enough that the suspension doesn't smack the platform edge (or pay the T for repairs if they do take a dinger).

Now, if CSX's legal & insurance dept. doesn't like that (and they probably don't, because they made noises about Windsor Gardens on the also-protected Franklin Line needing a gauntlet)...the gauntlet goes immediately back in. The handshake agreement isn't legally binding; it's transitory. CSX is just likely going to have to be the one that pays out-of-pocket for putting the gauntlet back in if they decide so. No big whoop...it already went through 100% design, so the only involved cost is the known-knowns of labor + materials. CSX already plans to spend a large out-of-pocket sum across New England to straighten out some of PAR's more slapdash quid pro quo's with various private & gov't entities to ensure the whole network runs above-board to their corporate standards, so stuff like this is a wholly-anticipated minor cost of doing business.

Because Lowell's got the legal protection and because the T's own Design Guide follows that letter of the law, it does mean that any other Lowell Line stations that go into design for full-highs will very likely need to engineer a passing solution as part of a legally-kosher design process. Regardless of whether there's more handshake agreements to "Ehhh...maybe not" when it comes time to do final builds. That is a thing that still binds them in front of their in-state lords at the Mass Architectural Board, regardless of the fluidity of the on-the-ground situation. FWIW...the places on the system the Design Guide states have this legal binding are:

• NH Main Line, Boston to state line @ Tyngsboro
• outer Western Route, Lowell Jct. in Andover to state line @ Haverhill
• outer Fitchburg Main Line, Willows Jct. in Ayer to end of passenger territory (excluding the Fitchburg + Wachusett passenger-only turnouts)
• Worcester Line, Framingham Jct. to the Worcester Union turnout
• inner Franklin Line, Readville Jct. (Fairmount-Franklin connector) to Walpole Jct. turnout
• all state-owned portions of the Framingham-Mansfield-Attleboro-Taunton freight route, inclusive of passenger territory on the Foxboro spur + the Mansfield Jct.-Attleboro Jct. segment of NEC

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Amtrak's new Siemens Venture cars are as of today finally taking revenue passengers in the Midwest. Note the height and window size difference from the lone Amfleet in the set. . .