Reasonable Transit Pitches

[Brattle Loop]

There is a local bus system on the Cape but I always got the impression that it is only being used by essential workers and maybe the occasional very very old person unable to drive anymore going to the grocery store. Beefing up the bus system to where it could be used by tourists doesn't seem very realistic especially when the tourist season is like 2-3 months tops.

My experience is mostly with the outer Cape, but public transit accessibility out there is atrocious. Provincetown is reasonably accessible without a car via the ferries (though the Boston fast ferry is, um, not cheap) but that's it. The CapeFlyer isn't exactly frequent and only gets you as far as Hyannis, though there are the Peter Pan buses (I think they took over from P&B on the Outer Cape routes). If you're going and/or staying anywhere that's past Hyannis (unless it's Provincetown) getting there is going to be something of a slog by transit if it's possible at all, which is why so many people drive. The whole market seems like it's just not set up to make transit a viable mass option anywhere from Hyannis to Provincetown, because of that chicken-and-egg problem; getting there's too much of a slog so you drive, meaning you have a car so you don't need (and don't use) the local buses. Improving CCRTA's bus options only goes so far to help if you're still stuck with the paltry CapeFlyer options or the coach buses from the mainland to get onto the Cape in the first place. Don't get me wrong, it'd help, but I don't know if it's financially justifiable for CCRTA given how low the winter density is compared to tourist season.

 

[BostonBoy]

The crossovers at PLAINS Interlocking already connect 4 with 2. How is this doing anything whatsoever different? You're crossing over multiple tracks on a very congested railroad. Crossing over is what creates the objectionable conflicts.

There's no one-neat-trick tweak that's going to bail out all the congestion problems here.

Mr. F. There is no number 4 track on the SW Corridor. They are , south to north , 3, 1, 2 The current timetable designated track number 2 from Readville to Forest Hills runs on what used to be track number 4. Tk 1 runs on what was originally Tk 2, and Tk 3 runs on what was originally tk 1. and the original tk no 3 is is part of the right of way but there is no track there. I would re build the 4th track and re- number them 4,2,1,3. 4 and 2 trks would merge at Forest. It would just afford another place for eastbound Amtrak trains to overtake the slower commuter trains while also enabling another station stop at a location that enjoyed one years ago. I think the location at Clarendon Hills ( where Metropolitan Avenue meets the RR. would be a perfect place to put a commuter station. This would do it .

 

[bigeman312]

@BostonBoy, please do not respond to yourself with short posts multiple times in a day on a thread without anyone else posting in between. There is an edit button on the bottom left corner of your post. If you use it to add anything you forgot to include the first time, it will help with this board's readability immensely. Thank you!

A question rather than a pitch: what could be done to improve transit on Cape Cod - with an emphasis on making tourists less of a traffic nightmare?

The CCRTA Comprehensive Regional Transit Plan has some real reasonable transit pitch gold in it.

Some highlights:

Modifications to Sealine and Sandwich Line: Reassign service in Osterville from Sealine to Sandwich Line. Sealine will continue straight along Route 28.

New Dennis-Yarmouth Connector and Modifications to Lower Cape Services: Add a new Dennis-Yarmouth Connector fixed route, running in same corridor as H2O along Route 28 to Route 134, then going to Dennis Village via Patriot Square with possible extension to Yarmouthport.

Three Provincetown Shuttles: Clearly establish Provincetown/North Truro Shuttle as three separate routes, all meeting at hub at MacMillan Pier:

• Race Point Shuttle via Visitors Center and Provincetown Airport
• Herring Cove via First Pilgrims Beach
• North Truro via Shore Road

Expand SmartDART Services: Expand SmartDART availability to address last mile connections in lieu of fixed route detours and route deviations.

Extend Summer Season: Reduce number of seasonal schedules per year from three (day after Labor Day to end of January, end of January to end of June, end of June to Labor Day) to two and extend summer season from Memorial Day to Indigenous People’s Day. If warranted after recovery of seasonal ridership, summer season could be extended to begin on Patriot’s Day in late April.

Boston Commuter Rail Services:

• Provide CapeFLYER service longer or year-round with potential added stops at legacy stations in Sandwich and West Barnstable.
• Collaborate with MBTA to help facilitate a year-round commuter rail service from South Station to Buzzard’s Bay via Middleborough. Explore and implement bus service connections that provide commuter connections to and from the Buzzard’s Bay Train Station.

Intra-Cape Express Service: Add intra-Cape express service (enhanced Patriot Limited).

Seasonal Ferry Service: Explore seasonal ferry service options that provide intraCape connections (such as Provincetown to Barnstable Harbor or Hyannis to Falmouth Harbor).

EDITED: to add images

 

[Brattle Loop]

Mr. F. There is no number 4 track on the SW Corridor. They are , south to north , 3, 1, 2 The current timetable designated track number 2 from Readville to Forest Hills runs on what used to be track number 4. Tk 1 runs on what was originally Tk 2, and Tk 3 runs on what was originally tk 1. and the original tk no 3 is is part of the right of way but there is no track there. I would re build the 4th track and re- number them 4,2,1,3. 4 and 2 trks would merge at Forest. It would just afford another place for eastbound Amtrak trains to overtake the slower commuter trains while also enabling another station stop at a location that enjoyed one years ago. I think the location at Clarendon Hills ( where Metropolitan Avenue meets the RR. would be a perfect place to put a commuter station. This would do it .

The esoteric numbering of the tracks is doing nothing to help ease the confusion in this back-and-forth.

Right now there are three NEC tracks through Forest Hills: Track 3, the northernmost track, which serves the south (NEC) side of the island platform; Track 1; the middle NEC track; and Track 2, the southernmost track and other NEC express track, running along the south (east) wall of the corridor trench. There is also Track 5, which splits from Track 3 at PLAINS, and serves the north side of the FH island platform and the Needham Line without any connection to the NEC mainline at FOREST. The Needham Line's Track 4 merges with Track 3 at FOREST, allowing the Needham Line to serve the south side of the island platform (though this is kept to a minimum to avoid interference).

It remains unclear to me (possibly as the result of unintentional conflicting information across your posts) which track is supposed to be which in your plan. The diagram I posted on the previous page has (in green) the numbering as I understood it, please correct me if I got it wrong.

The only place where it the fourth NEC track can go (west of FOREST) is north of the current Track 3, which would make it the new northernmost NEC track. It physically cannot go anywhere else. F-Line's diagram shows that fourth track, in the location it must go, in red. If you're suggesting that the fourth NEC track go anywhere but there, that's physically impossible.

There is absolutely no sense in having the fourth track merge with current Track 3 at FOREST while simultaneously force-separating Needham to sole-service Track 5, which would also not connect to any of the NEC tracks west of PLAINS. F-Line's diagram shows that the new NEC Track 4 would merge with Needham Track 5 at FOREST while allowing Needham Track 4 to cross over to NEC Track 3, with additional new crossovers at FOREST allowing NEC Track 3 (and by extension 4) to be served from the currently-Needham-only north side of the island platform, and presumably allowing NEC Track 4 to switch onto NEC Track 3 and serve the south side of the island platform. What you get is a mix-and-match of options for serving FH from both Needham and the NEC, more room to deal with trains crossing over to keep NEC Tracks 1 and 2 clear for Amtrak to blow past, and a very convenient spot to stage meets and train sorting to maximize the capacity and benefit of that extra track being added to the NEC. Force-merging two NEC tracks at FOREST and severing Track 5 to Needham-only makes the entire place worse, not better.

 

[BostonBoy]

The esoteric numbering of the tracks is doing nothing to help ease the confusion in this back-and-forth.

Right now there are three NEC tracks through Forest Hills: Track 3, the northernmost track, which serves the south (NEC) side of the island platform; Track 1; the middle NEC track; and Track 2, the southernmost track and other NEC express track, running along the south (east) wall of the corridor trench. There is also Track 5, which splits from Track 3 at PLAINS, and serves the north side of the FH island platform and the Needham Line without any connection to the NEC mainline at FOREST. The Needham Line's Track 4 merges with Track 3 at FOREST, allowing the Needham Line to serve the south side of the island platform (though this is kept to a minimum to avoid interference).

It remains unclear to me (possibly as the result of unintentional conflicting information across your posts) which track is supposed to be which in your plan. The diagram I posted on the previous page has (in green) the numbering as I understood it, please correct me if I got it wrong.

The only place where it the fourth NEC track can go (west of FOREST) is north of the current Track 3, which would make it the new northernmost NEC track. It physically cannot go anywhere else. F-Line's diagram shows that fourth track, in the location it must go, in red. If you're suggesting that the fourth NEC track go anywhere but there, that's physically impossible.

There is absolutely no sense in having the fourth track merge with current Track 3 at FOREST while simultaneously force-separating Needham to sole-service Track 5, which would also not connect to any of the NEC tracks west of PLAINS. F-Line's diagram shows that the new NEC Track 4 would merge with Needham Track 5 at FOREST while allowing Needham Track 4 to cross over to NEC Track 3, with additional new crossovers at FOREST allowing NEC Track 3 (and by extension 4) to be served from the currently-Needham-only north side of the island platform, and presumably allowing NEC Track 4 to switch onto NEC Track 3 and serve the south side of the island platform. What you get is a mix-and-match of options for serving FH from both Needham and the NEC, more room to deal with trains crossing over to keep NEC Tracks 1 and 2 clear for Amtrak to blow past, and a very convenient spot to stage meets and train sorting to maximize the capacity and benefit of that extra track being added to the NEC. Force-merging two NEC tracks at FOREST and severing Track 5 to Needham-only makes the entire place worse, not better.

Im sorry if its confusing so I will not use track numbers. There would be 2 eastbound tracks approaching Forest from Readville. They would merge at Forest. The way to make room for this would run the northernmost Corridor track on the northern side of the existing platform at Forest Hills, It would continue west to Readville. The Needham branch would enter the Corridor on this track and would use Plains Interlocking to merge into the Corridor. That's it. The Franklin Branch enters the Corridor the same way at Readville . That's it

 

[BostonBoy]

@BostonBoy, please do not respond to yourself with short posts multiple times in a day on a thread without anyone else posting in between. There is an edit button on the bottom left corner of your post. If you use it to add anything you forgot to include the first time, it will help with this board's readability immensely. Thank you!



The CCRTA Comprehensive Regional Transit Plan has some real reasonable transit pitch gold in it.

Some highlights:



EDITED: to add images

Thank you. So new to this I'm learning as I go. I have read the posts for years and enjoyed them, but I'm not that savvy on the computer. Big apologies! But I'm having fun at the same time! So,I got that going for me!

 

[Brattle Loop]

Im sorry if its confusing so I will not use track numbers. There would be 2 eastbound tracks approaching Forest from Readville. They would merge at Forest. The way to make room for this would run the northernmost Corridor track on the northern side of the existing platform at Forest Hills, It would continue west to Readville. The Needham branch would enter the Corridor on this track and would use Plains Interlocking to merge into the Corridor. That's it. The Franklin Branch enters the Corridor the same way at Readville . That's it

I'm going to jettison the "2 eastbound" part because I'll only confuse myself because NEC tracks are bidirectional.

There are 3, will be 4 NEC tracks approaching FOREST from Readville. F-Line's diagram has that fourth, new, northernmost NEC track merging with the north platform track at Forest Hills, which currently only serves the Needham Line.

I can't quite tell if you're suggesting that one of the 4 NEC tracks has to merge into another of the NEC tracks at FOREST or not. If so, that does not make sense to me unless there is physically something preventing the new northernmost NEC track from linking up with Needham Track 4 (the north platform track at Forest Hills) at or around FOREST. Someone else is going to have to answer that because I don't have direct knowledge myself and I don't know where F-Line's map and information came from. (From Google Maps it looks like there's clearly enough space for the fourth NEC track up to about the Forest Hills busway if you move some signal bungalows in the trench, but I don't know if pushing it through to FOREST is possible; at the very least I think the busway would need some work to move a column in the way.)

Unless there is a physically-fatal blocker to merging the new NEC track with the north platform track at Forest Hills/FOREST, it makes literally no sense to suggest merging the NEC tracks at FOREST, because all you'd get is crossovers, capacity cuts, and loss of the ability to use the island platform to sort your traffic if you so desire. Operationally Needham would continue to be run primarily on the northern track because that's what keeps it out of the way. To the extent that you're suggesting a configuration different from F-Line's diagram - unless you're suggesting that implementing that configuration is physically impossible - I don't think there's any benefit to go along with a bunch of potential drawbacks.

 

[BostonBoy]

I'm going to jettison the "2 eastbound" part because I'll only confuse myself because NEC tracks are bidirectional.

There are 3, will be 4 NEC tracks approaching FOREST from Readville. F-Line's diagram has that fourth, new, northernmost NEC track merging with the north platform track at Forest Hills, which currently only serves the Needham Line.

I can't quite tell if you're suggesting that one of the 4 NEC tracks has to merge into another of the NEC tracks at FOREST or not. If so, that does not make sense to me unless there is physically something preventing the new northernmost NEC track from linking up with Needham Track 4 (the north platform track at Forest Hills) at or around FOREST. Someone else is going to have to answer that because I don't have direct knowledge myself and I don't know where F-Line's map and information came from. (From Google Maps it looks like there's clearly enough space for the fourth NEC track up to about the Forest Hills busway if you move some signal bungalows in the trench, but I don't know if pushing it through to FOREST is possible; at the very least I think the busway would need some work to move a column in the way.)

Unless there is a physically-fatal blocker to merging the new NEC track with the north platform track at Forest Hills/FOREST, it makes literally no sense to suggest merging the NEC tracks at FOREST, because all you'd get is crossovers, capacity cuts, and loss of the ability to use the island platform to sort your traffic if you so desire. Operationally Needham would continue to be run primarily on the northern track because that's what keeps it out of the way. To the extent that you're suggesting a configuration different from F-Line's diagram - unless you're suggesting that implementing that configuration is physically impossible - I don't think there's any benefit to go along with a bunch of potential drawbacks.

All tracks are and would remain bi-directional but the two southernmost tracks would merge at Forest. They usually carry inbound traffic Those are the tracks that would merge so that 4 tracks west of Forest Hills would become three into the "trench" that is the Southwest Corridor. The middle track emerging from the "trench" would be south of the existing platform at Forest Hills. The northernmost track emerging from the trench would continue north of the existing platform , diverge to the Needham line, but also continue west to Readville. There is room to build it. You can see it on google maps . The southern retaining wall west of forest hills is currently supports an employee parking lot. The right of way could be widened there without disturbing any structures, It could be possible to actually construct a platform on the southernmost track, before it merges to the adjacent inbound track. I don't see how my proposal would increase any conflicting moves. Adding a track between Forest Hills and Readville adds capacity creates a place where faster trains can overtake slower trains, while adding commuter stops, and it does not create or increase conflicting moves. I do not believe having the Needham line entering the Corridor via one track harms the level of service it currently enjoys.

 

[Brattle Loop]

All tracks are and would remain bi-directional but the two southernmost tracks would merge at Forest. They usually carry inbound traffic Those are the tracks that would merge so that 4 tracks west of Forest Hills would become three into the "trench" that is the Southwest Corridor. The middle track emerging from the "trench" would be south of the existing platform at Forest Hills. The northernmost track emerging from the trench would continue north of the existing platform , diverge to the Needham line, but also continue west to Readville. There is room to build it. You can see it on google maps . The southern retaining wall west of forest hills is currently supports an employee parking lot. The right of way could be widened there without disturbing any structures, It could be possible to actually construct a platform on the southernmost track, before it merges to the adjacent inbound track. I don't see how my proposal would increase any conflicting moves. Adding a track between Forest Hills and Readville adds capacity creates a place where faster trains can overtake slower trains, while adding commuter stops, and it does not create or increase conflicting moves. I do not believe having the Needham line entering the Corridor via one track harms the level of service it currently enjoys.

There are three tracks south of Forest Hills station right now, the northernmost serving the south side of the platform, and the other two not stopping at FH.

F-Line's diagram has the fourth NEC track being added to the north (at Forest Hills on a map it's more west, but we'll call it north) of the three NEC tracks, where it would merge with the currently-Needham-only track serving the north side of the platform. (And with a crossover to access the south-platform track. It's unclear to me if that crossover would also allow the Needham trains to access the south side of the platform as they do now.)

You're suggesting that the two NEC running tracks on the south side of the corridor merge into one track to...huh?

There is no reason whatsoever to touch either of the two southernmost NEC tracks through Forest Hills. All of the space for the new fourth track is on the opposite (north) side of the ROW. The only question I have is whether and to what extent it is physically possible (and it's literally only the busway that's in the way) to extend the fourth NEC track to meet Needham Track 4 at FOREST, as F-Line's diagram shows. If the ROW isn't technically wide enough right now, all you have to do is reconstruct the busway, potentially without even touching the walls of the actual trench. There's room in the trench for four tracks west of Forest Hills right now without touching anything but some signal bungalows all the way to the edge of the busway. We're talking about a few hundred feet of busway that might need its support columns reconfigured or some such thing around FOREST to accommodate the new NEC track merging with Needham Track 4.

Doing anything else, such as the apparent reconfiguration of the NEC running tracks with merges I'm still having trouble visualizing makes no sense, let alone suggesting that instead of dealing with at most a few hundred feet of busway they for some reason start reconstructing the whole southern wall in the vicinity of the station when you don't have to touch the two southern tracks at all (though you can carve a platform for the southernmost track like they did at Ruggles if you want).

Adding the fourth track to the NEC on the north (west) side of the NEC south of Forest Hills/FOREST is both an eminently reasonable transit pitch and, in my understanding, the official plan. The natural thing to do with that track is tie it into Needham Track 4 and NEC Track 3 (the south platform track) at FOREST, a-la F-Line's diagram. Reconfiguring tracks that don't need to be reconfigured and/or suggesting major changes to the trench at Forest Hills station when the only actual project requirement is at most some work on the busway kicks this straight to Crazy Transit Pitches territory, and that is not this thread.

 

[bakgwailo]

The new Acelas are rated for 165 MPH maximum in service, a gain of 15 MPH over the top service speed of the A1s. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the A1s have ever run at 150 inside of Route 128 (at least in service). I'd imagine that has more to do with the level of congestion and having to deal with the slowpoke Commuter Rails (there's nothing quite like finishing a ride on a high speed train by losing fifteen minutes to a CR train making all stops) than anything to do with the track conditions or geometry, so I don't know that there's going to be a ton of vehicle-induced speed gains to be had there. (NEC work helping to move the CR trains out of the way, on the other hand...)

Bit off topic - but, yes, 165mph max (for now, the trainsets can technically go faster if the track/etc supported it). Adding on to that, I believe with the last round of testing/upgrades that the new Avelia's will be clear for full 165mph running from Rt. 128/Westwood to Providence, which is pretty cool. I thought the tracks at least from 128 to Back Bay(ish) were rated at 100mph+, so must be traffic limiting things. Going back more on topic for the 4th track from FH - what else would need to be done to get the South Station <=> 128 route more up to speed?

 

[Brattle Loop]

Bit off topic - but, yes, 165mph max (for now, the trainsets can technically go faster if the track/etc supported it). Adding on to that, I believe with the last round of testing/upgrades that the new Avelia's will be clear for full 165mph running from Rt. 128/Westwood to Providence, which is pretty cool. I thought the tracks at least from 128 to Back Bay(ish) were rated at 100mph+, so must be traffic limiting things. Going back more on topic for the 4th track from FH - what else would need to be done to get the South Station <=> 128 route more up to speed?

Someone with better operational understanding might be able to give you a better answer, but I'll take a whack at what I can.

South Station <-> Back Bay is always going to be pretty slow, given the traffic and the speed restrictions inherent to all of those switches approaching the terminal at South Station, and the fact that the distance between the two stations is so short that you wouldn't be able to get much out of faster speeds there anyway.

Back Bay <-> Forest Hills is restricted by the Orange Line and the width of the Southwest Corridor trench to its existing three tracks as far as PLAINS interlocking near Forest Hills Station. Ruggles has a new platform on the southernmost track (conceivably you could do the same thing at Forest Hills) which helps CR trains stopping there not having to cross over as many tracks.

The plan as I understand it is essentially to modify the currently-Needham Line-only northernmost track (Track 5) at Forest Hills (which splits from the NEC at PLAINS) to also serve as the start of the new fourth NEC track by modifying FOREST interlocking just past Forest Hills. That gives more options to move stopping CR trains out of the way, and more crossovers to allow Amtrak (as dispatcher) to sort the slower CR trains and the faster Acelas and NE Regionals.

Forest Hills <-> Route 128 will have the fourth track along part of the route. I'm actually not sure how far the fourth track is supposed to extend. But between the extra track space and the better configuration for staging overtakes the traffic problem will be better able to be handled, meaning that Amtrak should have fewer instances of getting stuck behind CR trains, which is what the real problem on that stretch is as opposed to anything about the infrastructure or the speed limits.

 

[Stlin]

Forest Hills <-> Route 128 will have the fourth track along part of the route. I'm actually not sure how far the fourth track is supposed to extend. But between the extra track space and the better configuration for staging overtakes the traffic problem will be better able to be handled, meaning that Amtrak should have fewer instances of getting stuck behind CR trains, which is what the real problem on that stretch is as opposed to anything about the infrastructure or the speed limits.

Almost certainly not much further given the Canton Viaduct at 2 tracks, but I do think if SCR phase 2 ever happens you'll need at least the quad track to at least extend to Canton Junction. That said, I'm pretty sure there's good sections of preprovisioned "add-a-track" between Sharon and the state line where the catenary support is spaced such that there's room underneath for an additional track bed.

Also... At 128 Station, where exactly would the additional track(s) physically go for a 4 track station? The station design is clearly provisioned for additional track what with it having 2 island platforms, but the exact plan for expansion here confuse me. ie, was Amtrak expecting to build future tracks around the outside of both islands, widening the eastern one and turning both into double sided islands? Or would both tracks come down between the existing western island and the station building, with a side platform there? There appears to be enough width, and it would be nice to be able to step out from the waiting room onto a side platform southbound to NYC, and there exist doors that could easily serve that function. That said, I know that the biggest blocker is simply that the floor level of the station itself isn't platform level - it's solidly ground level so you'd need to accommodate for that rise.

 

[BostonBoy]

I'm trying to visualize this and modified the diagram F-Line posted. I tried to make sense of what you're suggesting but I'm confused because either I'm not getting something or it's internally contradictory. I've attached what I think what you're proposing looks like, if there are corrections please let me know.

View attachment 15495
I feel like I have to be missing or misunderstanding something, because this configuration would be practically devoid of benefit if not counterproductive. Perennially squeezing all of the Needham trains onto this Track 3 (northernmost platform track at FH) is just a more brittle version of how the line runs now. It gains the corridor very little because all the NEC would get is the Track 1 (southern platform track) berth/passer that Needham already preferentially avoids (so not much to be gained there) and Track 3 whenever Needham isn't using it, which would be less often than now because Needham would no longer have anywhere to go. Not to mention that any Needham trains running on anything but Track 1 prior to reaching PLAINS would have to foul Track 1 to cross over to the north platform on Track 3. So, yeah, still confused.

Let me try. First, Plains is East and Forest is West. What you have drawn on the west end of the diagram is what I had in mind. But Track 4 would have an outside platform and then merge with tk 2., east of that new platform. Track no. 3 at the west end of the diagram would be a through main track and would run where The Needham Branch track is. So trains on Tracks no 1 and the re-configured tk 3 would service the existing station platform. Track no. 2 would be a through track through Forest Hills Station.The Needham branch would enter the Corridor to main track 3., west of the station. The three remaining mainline tracks east of the station then would dog leg ,to the right, back to the original layout and the track numbers at the left of the page would read, top to bottom, 2,1, and 3. Mr. F rightly points out that this may hinder the flexibility for the commuter trains coming from Needham , But it would actually be very close to how Ruggles station is currently configured. The reason I think it is worth it is because both Ruggles and Forest Hills are so close to The Initial Terminal of all the westbound trains, South Station. Amtrak would just be scheduled to leave the initial terminal of all the trains first. Amtrak may indeed catch up to a slower commuter train but that would be scheduled to be at Attleboro, where there are 4 tracks. Eastbound ,however is another story. You have Amtrak trains coming from New York,Washington and Virginia ( with the higher possibility they will be out of slot). The higher speeds and increased frequencies planned for the new Acela will make it even more challenging to keep the slower commuter trains out of their way. And if an eastbound Amtrak is late, a dispatcher is hard pressed to run his railroad efficiently. That's where added capacity helps. The added bonus to the four tracks running west from Forest Hills to 128,or Canton Junction would be the opportunity to add additional stops for commuter trains without them slowing down through traffic. Hyde Park would make its stops on local tracks leaving the through tracks for Amtrak and Express commuter trains and other stations could be added between Readville and Forest Hills.. Plains Interlocking would still be configured to allow Needham trains eastbound to crossover to tracks 1 or 2. I believe there is room to do this . And, I believe somebody stated that my proposal would somehow eliminate an "express" track through Forest Hills. The speeds are not affected by being next to the platform and the priority would be that trains stopping at Forest Hills would be on tracks 3 or 4. The one compromise is the Needham Branch. When there is a conflict, inbound Needham trains might have to wait outside of the station, in the tunnel where there is a passing siding, until they have a slot on the Corridor. I haven't looked at the Needham schedule so I'm not sure if there are planned meets at Forest Hills for that service. This would also be a way to promote SouthCoast Commuter rail through Canton Junction. Otherwise Southcoast, Cape Cod (hopefully) ,Plymouth, and Greenbush commuter service will all be running on a SINGLE track through Quincy.

 

[Brattle Loop]

Let me try. First, Plains is East and Forest is West. What you have drawn on the west end of the diagram is what I had in mind. But Track 4 would have an outside platform and then merge with tk 2., east of that new platform. Track no. 3 at the west end of the diagram would be a through main track and would run where The Needham Branch track is. So trains on Tracks no 1 and the re-configured tk 3 would service the existing station platform. Track no. 2 would be a through track through Forest Hills Station.The Needham branch would enter the Corridor to main track 3., west of the station. The three remaining mainline tracks east of the station then would dog leg ,to the right, back to the original layout and the track numbers at the left of the page would read, top to bottom, 2,1, and 3.

So, more or less, this:

Where today the southernmost track (Track 4 in this version) and adjacent track (Track 2 in this diagram) do not merge at PLAINS, where the northernmost track (Needham/Track 3 in this diagram) splits from the south platform track at PLAINS, the Needham Line "No. 4" track merges with this diagram's Track 1 at FOREST, and this diagram's Track 3 does not exist east of FOREST on the NEC.

Track 3, the additional north-side NEC track from FOREST to however far it goes (I'm having some trouble seeing how it gets through Readville without blowing up part of the station, but I could well be missing something) is unambiguously a good thing.

What I continue not to understand is why this really quite radical reconfiguration of the Forest Hills station and interlockings is in any way ideal, appropriate, or beneficial.

There does not appear to me to be any significant impediment to carving a side platform out on the southernmost track (the diagram's Track 4) at Forest Hills to serve that track, like what they did at Ruggles. If there is some reason that doing so would require Track 4 to be a branch off Track 2 at PLAINS rather than a full run-through track it is not at all apparent to me.

Your reconfiguration of PLAINS seems problematic to me. Going from two clear run-through tracks (the southern two NEC tracks, 4 and 2 in the diagram) to one (Track 2, with the caveat of the forced merge with Track 4 at PLAINS) does not seem beneficial. It's completely unnecessary to force that merge in order to have a platform there. The fact that you've also forced Needham to serve only Track 3 from FOREST to PLAINS makes the problem worse. Any time a Needham train came off the branch through Plains, any train on Track 3 (except, God help us, another Needham) would be forced to switch to Track 1 (or 2 or 4, I suppose) at or before PLAINS, because the Needhams can only serve Track 3 at FH. Now, perhaps in theory their meets could be staged with southbound traffic so they simply wait clear of Track 3 at FOREST, but that runs the risk of making Needham's schedules awfully brittle.

I really don't get what the problem is with the diagram F-Line originally posted where the only major change is that the north platform (Needham) track becomes BOTH a Needham track and the start of the fourth NEC track (this diagram's Track 3). In essence this fourth NEC "Track 3" would start at PLAINS where the Needham track currently branches from the south platform track.

I have still not heard a single actual reason why cutting Needham to a single track, why merging Track 4 and Track 2 at PLAINS instead of splitting Track 1 and Track 3 or whatever their numbers are as is the case now, is preferable to the actual plan of only touching FOREST and points west. I am completely lost as to the point of such radical reconfiguration.

The basic problem, completely unchangeable without a megaproject, is that the width of the trench means that there is not room for four tracks east of PLAINS. So all that we're really talking about is how three tracks turn into four at PLAINS (and how they subsequently interface with FOREST). The actual plan, from where F-Line located the original diagram, is to make no changes at PLAINS; the north platform track will split from the northern Southwest Corridor track as it does today, and it will split again into a Needham track and the fourth NEC track. If you ask me, to qualify your proposal as a Reasonable Transit Pitch, you need to explain why your idea is superior to the actual plan. What does forcing Needham to use only one track, and forcing the two southern tracks to merge instead of the two northern tracks splitting gain you that simply adding a post-platform split from the Needham track at FOREST doesn't?

 

[BostonBoy]

Almost certainly not much further given the Canton Viaduct at 2 tracks, but I do think if SCR phase 2 ever happens you'll need at least the quad track to at least extend to Canton Junction. That said, I'm pretty sure there's good sections of preprovisioned "add-a-track" between Sharon and the state line where the catenary support is spaced such that there's room underneath for an additional track bed.

Also... At 128 Station, where exactly would the additional track(s) physically go for a 4 track station? The station design is clearly provisioned for additional track what with it having 2 island platforms, but the exact plan for expansion here confuse me. ie, was Amtrak expecting to build future tracks around the outside of both islands, widening the eastern one and turning both into double sided islands? Or would both tracks come down between the existing western island and the station building, with a side platform there? There appears to be enough width, and it would be nice to be able to step out from the waiting room onto a side platform southbound to NYC, and there exist doors that could easily serve that function. That said, I know that the biggest blocker is simply that the floor level of the station itself isn't platform level - it's solidly ground level so you'd need to accommodate for that rise.

So, more or less, this:
View attachment 15526

Where today the southernmost track (Track 4 in this version) and adjacent track (Track 2 in this diagram) do not merge at PLAINS, where the northernmost track (Needham/Track 3 in this diagram) splits from the south platform track at PLAINS, the Needham Line "No. 4" track merges with this diagram's Track 1 at FOREST, and this diagram's Track 3 does not exist east of FOREST on the NEC.

Track 3, the additional north-side NEC track from FOREST to however far it goes (I'm having some trouble seeing how it gets through Readville without blowing up part of the station, but I could well be missing something) is unambiguously a good thing.

What I continue not to understand is why this really quite radical reconfiguration of the Forest Hills station and interlockings is in any way ideal, appropriate, or beneficial.

There does not appear to me to be any significant impediment to carving a side platform out on the southernmost track (the diagram's Track 4) at Forest Hills to serve that track, like what they did at Ruggles. If there is some reason that doing so would require Track 4 to be a branch off Track 2 at PLAINS rather than a full run-through track it is not at all apparent to me.

Your reconfiguration of PLAINS seems problematic to me. Going from two clear run-through tracks (the southern two NEC tracks, 4 and 2 in the diagram) to one (Track 2, with the caveat of the forced merge with Track 4 at PLAINS) does not seem beneficial. It's completely unnecessary to force that merge in order to have a platform there. The fact that you've also forced Needham to serve only Track 3 from FOREST to PLAINS makes the problem worse. Any time a Needham train came off the branch through Plains, any train on Track 3 (except, God help us, another Needham) would be forced to switch to Track 1 (or 2 or 4, I suppose) at or before PLAINS, because the Needhams can only serve Track 3 at FH. Now, perhaps in theory their meets could be staged with southbound traffic so they simply wait clear of Track 3 at FOREST, but that runs the risk of making Needham's schedules awfully brittle.

I really don't get what the problem is with the diagram F-Line originally posted where the only major change is that the north platform (Needham) track becomes BOTH a Needham track and the start of the fourth NEC track (this diagram's Track 3). In essence this fourth NEC "Track 3" would start at PLAINS where the Needham track currently branches from the south platform track.

I have still not heard a single actual reason why cutting Needham to a single track, why merging Track 4 and Track 2 at PLAINS instead of splitting Track 1 and Track 3 or whatever their numbers are as is the case now, is preferable to the actual plan of only touching FOREST and points west. I am completely lost as to the point of such radical reconfiguration.

The basic problem, completely unchangeable without a megaproject, is that the width of the trench means that there is not room for four tracks east of PLAINS. So all that we're really talking about is how three tracks turn into four at PLAINS (and how they subsequently interface with FOREST). The actual plan, from where F-Line located the original diagram, is to make no changes at PLAINS; the north platform track will split from the northern Southwest Corridor track as it does today, and it will split again into a Needham track and the fourth NEC track. If you ask me, to qualify your proposal as a Reasonable Transit Pitch, you need to explain why your idea is superior to the actual plan. What does forcing Needham to use only one track, and forcing the two southern tracks to merge instead of the two northern tracks splitting gain you that simply adding a post-platform split from the Needham track at FOREST doesn't?

 

[BostonBoy]

So, more or less, this:
View attachment 15526

Where today the southernmost track (Track 4 in this version) and adjacent track (Track 2 in this diagram) do not merge at PLAINS, where the northernmost track (Needham/Track 3 in this diagram) splits from the south platform track at PLAINS, the Needham Line "No. 4" track merges with this diagram's Track 1 at FOREST, and this diagram's Track 3 does not exist east of FOREST on the NEC.

Track 3, the additional north-side NEC track from FOREST to however far it goes (I'm having some trouble seeing how it gets through Readville without blowing up part of the station, but I could well be missing something) is unambiguously a good thing.

What I continue not to understand is why this really quite radical reconfiguration of the Forest Hills station and interlockings is in any way ideal, appropriate, or beneficial.

There does not appear to me to be any significant impediment to carving a side platform out on the southernmost track (the diagram's Track 4) at Forest Hills to serve that track, like what they did at Ruggles. If there is some reason that doing so would require Track 4 to be a branch off Track 2 at PLAINS rather than a full run-through track it is not at all apparent to me.

Your reconfiguration of PLAINS seems problematic to me. Going from two clear run-through tracks (the southern two NEC tracks, 4 and 2 in the diagram) to one (Track 2, with the caveat of the forced merge with Track 4 at PLAINS) does not seem beneficial. It's completely unnecessary to force that merge in order to have a platform there. The fact that you've also forced Needham to serve only Track 3 from FOREST to PLAINS makes the problem worse. Any time a Needham train came off the branch through Plains, any train on Track 3 (except, God help us, another Needham) would be forced to switch to Track 1 (or 2 or 4, I suppose) at or before PLAINS, because the Needhams can only serve Track 3 at FH. Now, perhaps in theory their meets could be staged with southbound traffic so they simply wait clear of Track 3 at FOREST, but that runs the risk of making Needham's schedules awfully brittle.

I really don't get what the problem is with the diagram F-Line originally posted where the only major change is that the north platform (Needham) track becomes BOTH a Needham track and the start of the fourth NEC track (this diagram's Track 3). In essence this fourth NEC "Track 3" would start at PLAINS where the Needham track currently branches from the south platform track.

I have still not heard a single actual reason why cutting Needham to a single track, why merging Track 4 and Track 2 at PLAINS instead of splitting Track 1 and Track 3 or whatever their numbers are as is the case now, is preferable to the actual plan of only touching FOREST and points west. I am completely lost as to the point of such radical reconfiguration.

The basic problem, completely unchangeable without a megaproject, is that the width of the trench means that there is not room for four tracks east of PLAINS. So all that we're really talking about is how three tracks turn into four at PLAINS (and how they subsequently interface with FOREST). The actual plan, from where F-Line located the original diagram, is to make no changes at PLAINS; the north platform track will split from the northern Southwest Corridor track as it does today, and it will split again into a Needham track and the fourth NEC track. If you ask me, to qualify your proposal as a Reasonable Transit Pitch, you need to explain why your idea is superior to the actual plan. What does forcing Needham to use only one track, and forcing the two southern tracks to merge instead of the two northern tracks splitting gain you that simply adding a post-platform split from the Needham track at FOREST doesn't?

1. Your diagram is what I would propose. What it would address is the challenge of running faster Amtrak trains and slower express commuter trains with slower local-stop commuter trains. That is really not a problem westbound out of So Station. The Acela just goes first and the Regional and Commuter trains follow. The 2 Amtrak trains would not delay the outbound Commuters westbound at all. Coming east is a different animal. And , looking at the current Needham schedule There are no meets for Needham trains. I don't think there's a major delay to Needham except for the time where an inbound Needham train would have to wait for a westbound on the realigned tk 3 to clear the Forest Hills platform. Back before the SW Corridor was built, the Needham train would usually run east on track three all the way to Boston. I am just using my personal experience working trains on this corridor. We would never have to follow slower trains heading west to NY. Coming home, however was a different story. Putting the platform on track 2 at Ruggles is beneficial in that an inbound doesn't have to slow down at Forest to crossover to trks 1 or 3 to stop at Ruggles. But it does not get it out of the way of the Acela chasing its signals, all the way to South Station. I think I've beaten this dead horse enough. Cheers!

[/QUOTE]

 

[Brattle Loop]

There are no meets for Needham trains. I don't think there's a major delay to Needham except for the time where an inbound Needham train would have to wait for a westbound on the realigned tk 3 to clear the Forest Hills platform.

There are no meets for Needham trains at Forest Hills right now. A quick glance at the pre-COVID Needham Line schedule shows multiple instances where inbound and outbound Needham trains were scheduled to serve Forest Hills within minutes of each other. Your configuration's forced severing of the Needham from anything but the north platform track at Forest Hills would not only force one of the Needham trains to wait for the other one to clear the platform (presumably the inbound would have to wait because it could at least do so off the Corridor), it would also effectively double the length of time that the fourth NEC track is unusable to the NEC between (at least) FOREST and PLAINS, because the Needham trains would have to have sequential rather than simultaneous or near-simultaneous stops. I'll grant that it's a problem that might not crop up that often (depending on Needham's scheduling) but it's also completely avoidable because there's no actual reason Needham needs to be severed from the option of using the south platform track when that's operationally appropriate.

Putting the platform on track 2 at Ruggles is beneficial in that an inbound doesn't have to slow down at Forest to crossover to trks 1 or 3 to stop at Ruggles. But it does not get it out of the way of the Acela chasing its signals, all the way to South Station. I think I've beaten this dead horse enough. Cheers!

All three tracks at Ruggles serve platforms, by design, since the new platform opened. There's no pure passing tracks anywhere east of PLAINS. If the point of this exercise is to best separate the Commuter Rails from the Amtraks (which is part of the point of the new Ruggles platform that removes the forced crossover at FOREST/PLAINS) then the best solution for that would appear to be simply doing the exact same thing they did at Ruggles at Forest Hills and carving out a side platform for the southernmost track so that anything CR stopping at Forest Hills (which if it's stopping there will almost certainly stop at Ruggles) heading inbound doesn't have to cross over, and leaving the non-platform NEC track as a pure passer to PLAINS. Your forced merge of the two southern tracks at PLAINS means that anything on "Track 4" would have to wait (backing things up further because it would also stop at Ruggles) and anything on "Track 2" would be forced to switch to Track 1, rendering it useless to westbound trains stuck behind the Ruggles-stopping Needhams on "Track 3" if anything was in the way on "Track 2" at Ruggles.

The dogleg seems bizarrely overcomplicated and unnecessary, and I just don't get what purpose is served by splitting/merging the two southernmost tracks at PLAINS rather than the two northernmost.

The changes to FOREST are completely incomprehensible. It punishes Needham for no reason and, if it doesn't include a crossover from "Track 3" to "Track 1" going west actively causes problems because it means that nothing staying on the Corridor can get (temporarily) out of the way at Forest Hills, meaning that you couldn't ever increase the number of Providence trains stopping at Forest Hills even if you wanted to.

If I sound frustrated, it's because I am. This is Reasonable Transit Pitches, and at least in my reading I'm not seeing anything that's either Reasonable or a Transit Pitch. Punishing Needham by fiat for no reason is not reasonable. If there's an actual operational reason why the branch should only have access to one track from PLAINS west, you haven't identified it. You also haven't explained in a way that's understandable how your convoluted track plan is superior to the actual plan where the only change from right now is that the north platform (Needham) track gets extended south/west to also serve as the 4th NEC track, with crossovers added at FOREST for maximum flexibility. If it's just for the sake of preference that's not wrong, but it's not a Reasonable Transit Pitch, it's just changes for the sake of changes, which is what the God Mode thread is for. Respectfully, I'd suggest you either answer the question of how this plan is better than the actual plan (which is completely encapsulated in F-Line's original diagram) or let the discussion end there.

 

[HenryAlan]

There are no meets for Needham trains at Forest Hills right now... I'll grant that it's a problem that might not crop up that often (depending on Needham's scheduling) but it's also completely avoidable because there's no actual reason Needham needs to be severed from the option of using the south platform track when that's operationally appropriate.

And it very likely will crop up if any additional trains are added. if a part of the day were to move to 30 minute headways rather than 60, inbound and outbound trains at Forest Hills would be within a few minutes of each other.

 

[Brattle Loop]

And it very likely will crop up if any additional trains are added. if a part of the day were to move to 30 minute headways rather than 60, inbound and outbound trains at Forest Hills would be within a few minutes of each other.

I agree. Right now there are no meets because of how spread out the service is under the Covid schedules. Compared to 2019 Needham sees right about the same number of trains per day, just spread out hourly without the peak/off peak disparity that characterized the CR pre-pandemic. It's good to point out that the problem that makes it unreasonable to base assumptions on pandemic schedules actually gets worse in a Regional Rail future scenario.

 

[roy_mustang76]

If I sound frustrated, it's because I am. This is Reasonable Transit Pitches, and at least in my reading I'm not seeing anything that's either Reasonable or a Transit Pitch.

Pretty much this. I have no idea how we wandered so far afield from a simple discussion of dropping an additional side platform at Forest Hills, but all this talk of track realignment makes no sense and doesn't further the original idea of having Prov/Stoughton trains stop at Forest Hills both in and outbound.