Reasonable Transit Pitches

Riverside said:
Is there any utility to be had in upgrading the East Walpole Industrial Track to provide an additional turnback location to increase frequencies on inner-Franklin/extended-Fairmount? (Providing a location for trains to turn and do their brakechecks etc without blocking the main line.)
Click to expand...
Why short-turn anything at Norwood Central when Walpole does almost as much ridership?
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Why short-turn anything at Norwood Central when Walpole does almost as much ridership?
Click to expand...
If Walpole's short-turn capacity is otherwise maxed out by its own short-turns and/or through-traffic to Foxboro and Franklin. Or -- absent a good short-turn location at Dedham/128, provide a closer short-turn option and save "Dedham" trains from having to run the extra four miles to Walpole.

And if Dedham does start seeing 2 tph to Foxboro and 2 tph to Franklin, I'm not sure how practical it'd be to short-turn additional trains in the midst of all that. 4 tph is fine for Walpole and Norwood, but it really would be good to get Fairmount to true turn-up-and-go rapid transit frequencies, which I think realistically is a 12-min (5 tph) headway at the minimum. Even with a second track built over the Readville Bridge (which presumably would be more expensive than upgrading the East Walpole track anyway), you need to keep getting progressively cleverer with the timetabling if you want to find someplace to turn 1-3 trains per hour without blocking a train rumbling through every 15 minutes.

More pithily to your question about Walpole vs Norwood Central short-turns: WhyNotBoth.gif
 
Riverside said:
If Walpole's short-turn capacity is otherwise maxed out by its own short-turns and/or through-traffic to Foxboro and Franklin. Or -- absent a good short-turn location at Dedham/128, provide a closer short-turn option and save "Dedham" trains from having to run the extra four miles to Walpole.

And if Dedham does start seeing 2 tph to Foxboro and 2 tph to Franklin, I'm not sure how practical it'd be to short-turn additional trains in the midst of all that. 4 tph is fine for Walpole and Norwood, but it really would be good to get Fairmount to true turn-up-and-go rapid transit frequencies, which I think realistically is a 12-min (5 tph) headway at the minimum. Even with a second track built over the Readville Bridge (which presumably would be more expensive than upgrading the East Walpole track anyway), you need to keep getting progressively cleverer with the timetabling if you want to find someplace to turn 1-3 trains per hour without blocking a train rumbling through every 15 minutes.

More pithily to your question about Walpole vs Norwood Central short-turns: WhyNotBoth.gif
Click to expand...
Who's saying Walpole's capacity is maxed out? The only prerequisites to having :15 minute bi-directional Regional Rail out to Walpole are:
  1. Double-track Phase III project (funded and scheduled)
  2. A replacement double-track Walpole platform accessible to both Forge Park and Foxboro alignments
The first one is already in the can. The second one is the Purple Line's single-most urgent unfunded ADA item. And as for maxing-out Fairmount, that one's already been figured out: move the Readville platform up a couple hundred feet north to a double-track island and install 1 crossover so Franklin/Foxboro trains can pass reversing shuttles on either side of the same island. No bridge mods required. That was supposed to be done years ago for the start of Indigo service; now it's been punted to a Rail Vision item for full Regional Rail-ization of the corridor.


What more service are you possibly thinking would be needed out there? As is, Regional Rail is probably not going to need 15-minute frequencies to all of those past-128 stops, even though that's exactly what could be available. I could easily see Forge Park runs start expressing past some of the lesser-ridership intermediates to de-emphasize their frequencies while shortening Forge Park (and/or beyond) travel times...leaving Dedham Corporate, Norwood Central, and Walpole as the :15 guarantees outside of Route 128. There's definitely no need to short-turn on top of all that, much less turn via some janky Norwood Central layup track on an industrial branch the T doesn't even own. Basic eat-your-peas stuff gets the full job done.
 
Last edited:
After having a discussion on HSR in the general Amtrak thread, I had a thought:
Could an alternate Northeast Regional along the Inland Route be revived? It could go Boston-Springfield-New Haven (with whatever intervening stops are justified), and then as far south as makes sense. This could work as a supplement several lines in the area.
 
DominusNovus said:
After having a discussion on HSR in the general Amtrak thread, I had a thought:
Could an alternate Northeast Regional along the Inland Route be revived? It could go Boston-Springfield-New Haven (with whatever intervening stops are justified), and then as far south as makes sense. This could work as a supplement several lines in the area.
Click to expand...

It's been discussed here before, at least tangentially, mostly in regards to NNEIRI and MA East-West Rail in this thread, basically because Inland Route upgrades are necessary components of those proposed services. Northeast Regionals skipping the Shore Line and running Boston-Springfield-Hartford-New Haven-New York would presumably be part of the mix.
 
Brattle Loop said:
It's been discussed here before, at least tangentially, mostly in regards to NNEIRI and MA East-West Rail in this thread, basically because Inland Route upgrades are necessary components of those proposed services. Northeast Regionals skipping the Shore Line and running Boston-Springfield-Hartford-New Haven-New York would presumably be part of the mix.
Click to expand...

MassDOT, Amtrak, CSX Seeking More Than $108 Million for Corridor Improvements Between Springfield and Worcester

Application filed for funds from the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program (CRISI)
www.mass.gov www.mass.gov

The state's seeking $108M in federal grants to kick-start 2 Inland trips in the near-term. It's well shy of the full SPG-WOR double-tracking needed, but does include raising the track class + speed limit from Class 3/59 MPH to Class 4/79 MPH.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:

MassDOT, Amtrak, CSX Seeking More Than $108 Million for Corridor Improvements Between Springfield and Worcester

Application filed for funds from the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements Program (CRISI)
www.mass.gov www.mass.gov

The state's seeking $108M in federal grants to kick-start 2 Inland trips in the near-term. It's well shy of the full SPG-WOR double-tracking needed, but does include raising the track class + speed limit from Class 3/59 MPH to Class 4/79 MPH.
Click to expand...

I guess my inquiry was just a few days prescient. I’ll be interested to see how “near term” the reintroduction of inland service is.
 
archive.org

I-290/ Northborough Commuter Rail Extension Feasibility Study A report produced by the Central Transportation Planning Staff for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority : Central Transportation Planning Staff : Free Download, Borrow, and Strea

I-290/Northborough Commuter Rail Extension Feasibility StudyA report produced by theCentral TransportationPlanning Staff for theMassachusetts BayTransportation...
archive.org

Ah! Somebody finally uploaded a full copy of the Fitchburg Secondary Commuter Rail study to Northborough/I-290 done by Boston MPO in 2002. This has long been one of the 'missing' (at least online) documents for transit expansions we discuss on here.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
archive.org

I-290/ Northborough Commuter Rail Extension Feasibility Study A report produced by the Central Transportation Planning Staff for the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority : Central Transportation Planning Staff : Free Download, Borrow, and Strea

I-290/Northborough Commuter Rail Extension Feasibility StudyA report produced by theCentral TransportationPlanning Staff for theMassachusetts BayTransportation...
archive.org

Ah! Somebody finally uploaded a full copy of the Fitchburg Secondary Commuter Rail study to Northborough/I-290 done by Boston MPO in 2002. This has long been one of the 'missing' (at least online) documents for transit expansions we discuss on here.
Click to expand...

Finally! I've been wanting to read this one for a long time.
 
Taking a breather from current events for a second, i.e. waiting for the Healey stance to be announced.
Without getting into minutiae of what is immediately possible -- because there are a lot of things that would need to change for the ideal to happen (like fed-match, full electrification, double tracking, ceding from the union) what lines would you connect on this map for one-seat through service. Think of something that would be appetizing for selfish suburban voters to have added to their towns. All lines have through access.
One basic rule - you have to go through the purple blob before choosing another letter. Like no A-E, or F-M

Think
F-E for Worcester folks to get to the ocean west to east,
H-C Amtrak marriage
B-G to get new labor to LMC
A-P sea and ski
etc...
1672242431715.png
 
Would it also make sense to thru-run to an intermediate terminus?

I can see a number of advantages in thru-run from the north terminating at Forest Hills for a short turn (having hit South Station, Back Bay and Ruggles (LMA) employment centers), for example (If that is operationally possible).
 
JeffDowntown said:
Would it also make sense to thru-run to an intermediate terminus?

I can see a number of advantages in thru-run from the north terminating at Forest Hills for a short turn (having hit South Station, Back Bay and Ruggles (LMA) employment centers), for example (If that is operationally possible).
Click to expand...
J to B - electrify it to Lowell and eventually along the Wildcat to Haverhill then Portland for Downeaster service. Let's get this done first with electrification to Lowell to sweeten the pitch to extend to Nashua/MHT/Manchester as a 45 min ride to MHT from BON.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Would it also make sense to thru-run to an intermediate terminus?

I can see a number of advantages in thru-run from the north terminating at Forest Hills for a short turn (having hit South Station, Back Bay and Ruggles (LMA) employment centers), for example (If that is operationally possible).
Click to expand...
Wouldn't be Forest Hills, but could be Westwood/128 which has the capability of being expanded to 2 islands/4 tracks and could accept short-turns.
 
JeffDowntown said:
Would it also make sense to thru-run to an intermediate terminus?

I can see a number of advantages in thru-run from the north terminating at Forest Hills for a short turn (having hit South Station, Back Bay and Ruggles (LMA) employment centers), for example (If that is operationally possible).
Click to expand...
Assume there will likely be intermediary terminii based on line demand.

Yes. So GHIJK all stop at Forest Hills.
Oh and I meant C-J for the Amtrak marriage.
Lowell (B-J) should get a couple daily runs to NYC and beyond as well.
The B-J and the C-J already go through that run every 30 minutes.
Where would one or more of the remaining GHIK set connect to the North? E-H?

The object of the game is to bolster TOD system wide and connect people to jobs near those nodes. I personally think the one-seat ride would be a game changer and that the rider estimates are low.
 
New rides.
ABCDE going to...
F on Sox gamedays
MOP for UMass Boston Classes
GHIJK for work at LMA and Northeastern
FGHIJK for work at Back Bay and beyond
Kids in Chelsea and Lynn can easily get to tons more city jobs without owning a car.
 
Note that Haverhill/Reading isn't going to be a conjoined line in an NSRL universe. Or plain old Regional Rail for that matter. To go to Haverhill you'll be going by the Wildcat, and anything traversing to Reading is going to be terminating at Reading due to the schedule-brittleness of all that single-track and all those grade crossing clusters. You'd probably be best pair-matching that with something short and/or schedule-resilient. CHI would probably work OK.

NSRL.png


Safe assumption as well that the Needham gimp has long been converted to rapid transit by the time NSRL is built.
 
At the end of the day, matching capacity (train length and frequency) is going to be the most important factor for which lines run through:
  • The most important new connections are within the downtown core - northside lines to South Station/Back Bay/Ruggles/Lansdowne, southside lines to North Station, and the ability to transfer at South Station between Fairmount/OC and Back Bay/Ruggles/Lansdowne.
  • The intention is that frequencies are high enough that the more common transfers aren't long waits. Almost everything inside 128 should be getting 15-minute or better frequency, and the bigger nodes like Lynn and Salem are likely to be higher.
  • The number of people going from outside-128 to outside-128 (i.e, 30-minute headways on both ends) is going to be very low, to the point where we don't need to be prioritizing one-seat rides for those rides.
J-B (Lowell-Providence) and D/E-F (Nport/Rockport-Worcester) are always the pairs that get mentioned - they're the highest ridership lines, so most likely to match on capacity needs, especially since they're likely to have local-express pairs. They would also be the priorities to have one-seat rides to Back Bay/Ruggles/Lansdowne due to that higher ridership.
 
The EGE said:
At the end of the day, matching capacity (train length and frequency) is going to be the most important factor for which lines run through:
  • The most important new connections are within the downtown core - northside lines to South Station/Back Bay/Ruggles/Lansdowne, southside lines to North Station, and the ability to transfer at South Station between Fairmount/OC and Back Bay/Ruggles/Lansdowne.
  • The intention is that frequencies are high enough that the more common transfers aren't long waits. Almost everything inside 128 should be getting 15-minute or better frequency, and the bigger nodes like Lynn and Salem are likely to be higher.
  • The number of people going from outside-128 to outside-128 (i.e, 30-minute headways on both ends) is going to be very low, to the point where we don't need to be prioritizing one-seat rides for those rides.
J-B (Lowell-Providence) and D/E-F (Nport/Rockport-Worcester) are always the pairs that get mentioned - they're the highest ridership lines, so most likely to match on capacity needs, especially since they're likely to have local-express pairs. They would also be the priorities to have one-seat rides to Back Bay/Ruggles/Lansdowne due to that higher ridership.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Unless we decide to use a "round robin" approach where lines alternate pairings so that all routes have at least one OSR to Back Bay/Ruggles/Lansdowne/Porter per hour, then yeah, we're looking at matching like-for-like.

It's actually rather pleasant how nicely some of the match-ups are:
  • Lowell <> Providence
    • High ridership, and short travel times due to few stops and shorter distance (Lowell)/high-speed potential (Providence)
    • Can include layered-in interstate extensions (e.g. to Wickford Junction and to Nashua/Manchester) at lower frequencies
  • South Coast Rail <> Haverhill
    • Assuming Haverhill is served via Wildcat, matching it with SCR mirrors how the NEC provides a "double trunk" to Canton Junction, the same way the NH Main Line would provide a "double trunk" to Wilmington
    • And if in some wild future the Methuen Branch is resurrected, then there you go -- you have your "branch at 495 with short branches serving separate cities with only a couple of stops per branch" mirror to the FR/NB split at East Taunton
  • Fram/Wor <> Rockburyport
    • Spurs to Riverside and Peabody provide mirroring short-turn within-128 service
    • If a branch to Marlboro is built, then Framingham and Beverly become mirroring diverging points roughly the same distance from Boston, splitting off into lower-density 495 suburbs before interlining to provide higher-frequency service within the denser areas
    • Pairing these two isn't perfect; Worcester is farther than either Newburyport or Rockport, and potentially would introduce express service that wouldn't really have a northside equivalent. And while Newburyport doesn't have low ridership, it's much lower than either Framingham or Worcester; the Worcester Line's ridership is weighted toward the outer half, while the Rockburyport Line's ridership is weighted toward the middle (though it is indeed very high ridership in that middle)
    • That said, Providence <> Lowell is, in my opinion, the strongest pairing of all, which gives you the choice of pairing Fram/Wor with Rockburyport or with Fitchburg, and 100% Rockburyport is the stronger of those two
  • "Leftovers" <> Fitchburg
    • This one is a bit messier, but has some benefits going for it. The Fitchburg Line doesn't have any "midpoint cities" like Framingham or Salem, and has no diverging branches, so frequencies from the outer section of the line will be lower than on other northside lines, which means there will be capacity for short-turns at Waltham or Weston
    • That extra capacity makes Waltham ideal for receiving the high-frequency Fairmount services (which will probably contain most Franklin line trains at that point), as well as gathering up the various Old Colony trains which themselves can become a relief for the Red Line: Quincy <> South Station <> Porter
Now, to be clear, all of the above represents such an "ideal" scenario that it really is just a thought exercise on comparing similar northside and southside corridors. Unless a viable dual-mode solution is found, actual pairings in a post-NSRL world will be governed first by which lines are electrified when (and @BeyondRevenue, to your point, I think this question will be the politicizing one).

Ironically, given that excess capacity I described, I would wager that Waltham/Weston will probably get electrified first on the northside, to receive through-run trains from Providence and Fairmount (which will definitely be the first electrified southside lines). After that, I think the waters get murkier.

Lowell has a strong anchor terminus and shortest distance, but has some freight responsibilities I still don't quite understand which add complexity. Rockburyport is a strong contender within-128, but lacks strong anchors at the termini: electrifying all the way out to Newburyport while Lowell and Haverhill (with higher ridership and higher populations) get stuck with diesel will seem like an odd prioritization, but on the other hand electrifying only to Salem/Peabody will give you less bang-for-buck because you'll still be intermingling those through-running diesels.

In the past, I've figured that you could start with northside electrification on both the Eastern Route and the Lowell Line that ends at Woburn and Salem/Peabody, as a reasonable compromise to provide electric service through the NSRL while longer distance diesel commuter rail trains would continue to intermix. As mentioned above, this does reduce the efficiency of electrification because you're still running diesel trains, but it has seemed like a reasonable compromise in the past.

I'm more skeptical of the idea now though: if we're serious about 30-min headways to the outer termini (which maybe is debatable for Rockport and Newburyport, but I think easily justified for Lowell and Haverhill), that means the within-128 stretches are already at 15-min diesel service with 4 tph. How many NSRL trains per hour can we realistically layer on top of that? And would we end up over-serving the corridors? I could see the North Shore making good use of 7.5-min headways, and maybe the same for Waltham, but seems like overkill for Woburn.

Anyway, this is diverging off-topic and rehashing points I raised in the NSRL thread a few months ago, so I'll leave it there. tl;dr: In an ideal world, there are actually some very nice pair-matches! In practice, it will be more complicated. It's like they say: "Campaign in poetry, govern in prose."

(@F-Line to Dudley could the T use the same solution that Amtrak has come up with, where the passenger coaches carry the pantographs?)
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Note that Haverhill/Reading isn't going to be a conjoined line in an NSRL universe. Or plain old Regional Rail for that matter. To go to Haverhill you'll be going by the Wildcat, and anything traversing to Reading is going to be terminating at Reading due to the schedule-brittleness of all that single-track and all those grade crossing clusters. You'd probably be best pair-matching that with something short and/or schedule-resilient. CHI would probably work OK.

View attachment 32306

Safe assumption as well that the Needham gimp has long been converted to rapid transit by the time NSRL is built.
Click to expand...
In an ideal world we would just have OL to Reading... Oh well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top