Reasonable Transit Pitches

Matthew said:
I'm sure they can find a safer alternative than "tincan on diesel" which is not the "tank on diesel" FRA solution (which is unsafe in its own way, btw).
Click to expand...

Well, yes...the FRA is being stupid about not allowing some of the completely safe Euro tech to be adapted in the U.S. But Euro RR trains are still RR trains, not rapid transit tincans. They will never ever be nimble enough to compete with the tincans on start/stop performance, handle rapid transit station spacing, or run on anything halfway approaching rapid transit headways. It's a different mode, period. Different mode, different purpose.
 
Before I formulate my next pitch, does anyone here know how 'active' the P&W main line is for freight purposes, and whether or not their freight operations stretch over the entirety of the line?
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Before I formulate my next pitch, does anyone here know how 'active' the P&W main line is for freight purposes, and whether or not their freight operations stretch over the entirety of the line?
Click to expand...

For where?

Worcester to Providence?

If WOR-PRO, then it's pretty active the whole length. You'd probably have to double track most/all of it. That is, if the P&W would even let it happen. It may not be so easy.
 
BostonUrbEx said:
For where?

Worcester to Providence?

If WOR-PRO, then it's pretty active the whole length. You'd probably have to double track most/all of it. That is, if the P&W would even let it happen. It may not be so easy.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

Providence to Woonsocket is definitely getting some kind of passenger service, but I was wondering about the logistics of running some of those trains the rest of the way to Worcester. Double-tracking to Woonsocket should be doable... going the rest of the way to Worcester may be more difficult.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Yeah.

Providence to Woonsocket is definitely getting some kind of passenger service, but I was wondering about the logistics of running some of those trains the rest of the way to Worcester. Double-tracking to Woonsocket should be doable... going the rest of the way to Worcester may be more difficult.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, PVD-WOR service is on RIDOT's radar, but sorta in a "would be nice, let's see how it goes" sort of way.
 
Feasibility study for all of Rhode Island commuter rail: http://www.dot.ri.gov/documents/intermodal/Final_Report_Intrastate_Commuter_Rail_Report.pdf

Includes both South County service to Westerly and the Woonsocket service. With station locations and track charts for the P&W main. They wouldn't have to double-track it for the Woonsocket service, only put in some passing sidings. Short distance, 3 stations. P&W tends to lash up very long freights and run only a few times a day, so the traffic isn't bad for the high tonnage that gets hauled. They're a little constricted for full double-tracking because the Blackstone River bike path veers close to the ROW and putting the second track back would leave little separation. But that's only in the areas where the ROW hugs the river, from Route 116/Lincoln to Route 126/Woonsocket, and only in the stretches where the path directly abuts the ROW. It kind of wobbles in and out. If you're talking future Worcester service that's not very much constraint because it pulls away from the river in Millville soon after the state line. And it's quite unlikely you're going to need full double-track with an eventual Providence-Worcester service. The headways for a full-blast service are not going to be much different than Middleboro or Plymouth, which get by just fine as single with frequent passing sidings. Just make them long enough that the average freight consist is maneuverable.

They obviously aren't thinking Worcester yet because that would have to be a mostly MA operation and P&W has more mileage outside of RI. The Providence-Woonsocket run + overlap to Wickford Jct. is really low-hanging fruit. P&W is already 60 MPH track. A short run like that wouldn't need a speed bump to 80. Woonsocket already has a very nice historic downtown station, meaning it only needs a new set of onsite platforms. There's a pre-existing layover yard just past the station to repurpose. And the only fresh land acquisition is for the 2 other intermediate stops. It joins the NEC shortly before the planned 3-track new Pawtucket stop on the Providence line, and all overlap south of there is...overlap.


I don't think they've even studied potential stop locations north of Woonsocket. But it's definitely a desireable route since it parallels Route 146 the whole way, crosses the Pike directly at the 146 exit, and has a grade-separated junction in Worcester that allows it to reach the station without touching a single track on the B&A.
 
Well, since we're talking RIDOT anyway...

Pawtucket/Central Falls Track Map
Pawtucket/Central Falls Station Development

Neither of the proposed 300 Barton Street station alignments have platform access to track 1, despite there being room to build an island between tracks 1&7. Since a Pedestrian Overpass would be needed anyway, I moved the bus turnout down as far as I could for the straight link. Since a parking lot is going to be in the proposal no matter what, I moved it to the Servpro Building - this way, when they want to add a garage (and they will want to add a garage eventually), it can be pretty easily shuffled in on top of the parking lot, and an actual station house - with retail fronts to support its existence - can be built on Barton Street.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
If you're talking future Worcester service that's not very much constraint because it pulls away from the river in Millville soon after the state line. And it's quite unlikely you're going to need full double-track with an eventual Providence-Worcester service. The headways for a full-blast service are not going to be much different than Middleboro or Plymouth, which get by just fine as single with frequent passing sidings. Just make them long enough that the average freight consist is maneuverable.
Click to expand...

Interesting to have the comparison with the Middleboro and Plymouth lines. That makes me more optimistic that it will eventually happen.

They obviously aren't thinking Worcester yet because that would have to be a mostly MA operation and P&W has more mileage outside of RI.
Click to expand...

I stand corrected. Still, though it's more in MA geographically, I think PVD-WOR service is more in RI's interests than in MA's.

I don't think they've even studied potential stop locations north of Woonsocket. But it's definitely a desireable route since it parallels Route 146 the whole way, crosses the Pike directly at the 146 exit, and has a grade-separated junction in Worcester that allows it to reach the station without touching a single track on the B&A.
Click to expand...

They've seriously never studied stop locations north of Woonsocket? It just looks so obvious if you're gonna run trains up to Woonsocket to run a few more up to Worcester. smh.

Though, having said that, I'm not sure I would necessarily bother constructing new stations between the border and Worcester, not at first anyway. It looks like the densest you get along the way to Worcester is... Millbury? And that's not even much. I'd bet you'd have better luck running a few "expresses" up to Worcester as a start-up service.

On the other hand, maybe those are communities where people would be likely to walk to the train station. :confused:
 
Riverside said:
They've seriously never studied stop locations north of Woonsocket? It just looks so obvious if you're gonna run trains up to Woonsocket to run a few more up to Worcester. smh.

Though, having said that, I'm not sure I would necessarily bother constructing new stations between the border and Worcester, not at first anyway. It looks like the densest you get along the way to Worcester is... Millbury? And that's not even much. I'd bet you'd have better luck running a few "expresses" up to Worcester as a start-up service.

On the other hand, maybe those are communities where people would be likely to walk to the train station. :confused:
Click to expand...

Keep in mind, if you're unable to double track, then there must be regular passing sidings to allow for trains coming in the opposite direction, or freight. I don't believe there's any real way to 'express' down a line that's more or less solidly single track. The train's going to have to stop to allow for passing, why not give it stations to stop at?

Millville/Blackstone, Uxbridge, Northbridge, Millbury. Bonus points if you can connect Millbury Station to the Shoppes at Blackstone Valley. Not far past there are the yards and once you hit those it's pretty much solid double track through to Worcester Union Station. The only other stations I could really see are Saundersville and South Worcester / College Hill. One of those is extremely likely, and one... isn't. You can probably guess which is which.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
Keep in mind, if you're unable to double track, then there must be regular passing sidings to allow for trains coming in the opposite direction, or freight. I don't believe there's any real way to 'express' down a line that's more or less solidly single track. The train's going to have to stop to allow for passing, why not give it stations to stop at?

Millville/Blackstone, Uxbridge, Northbridge, Millbury. Bonus points if you can connect Millbury Station to the Shoppes at Blackstone Valley. Not far past there are the yards and once you hit those it's pretty much solid double track through to Worcester Union Station. The only other stations I could really see are Saundersville and South Worcester / College Hill. One of those is extremely likely, and one... isn't. You can probably guess which is which.
Click to expand...

Touché. I didn't really mean "express" in the sense that it's particularly fast, more in the sense that it doesn't make any stops. I was figuring that one, maybe two round trips could be fit in between freight runs, negating a practical need, in the short term, for passing tracks. Or are there legal reasons why you'd need the passing tracks? (Apologies if that is a really stupid question with an obvious answer.)

And again, I only meant to suggest non-stop service to Worcester as a preliminary service pattern, just to get things going, kinda like the way the T used to run trains out to Worcester without any of the current stops between WOR and FRA. On the other hand, that isn't all single tracked, so the comparison might not be valid. I absolutely agree that there should eventually be stations in most, if not all, of the places you mentioned.
 
Riverside said:
Touché. I didn't really mean "express" in the sense that it's particularly fast, more in the sense that it doesn't make any stops. I was figuring that one, maybe two round trips could be fit in between freight runs, negating a practical need, in the short term, for passing tracks. Or are there legal reasons why you'd need the passing tracks? (Apologies if that is a really stupid question with an obvious answer.)
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure if there's a 'legal' obligation to build passing tracks...

...but on a common sense level, if you don't have them, then the maximum number of trains you can possibly have making that round trip on the single track is one, and you're operating with exactly zero margin for error, which equates to an unacceptably high risk factor.
 
^^ Heh, that's a good point. But how is it done now? Does the P&W only operate in direction?
 
Riverside said:
^^ Heh, that's a good point. But how is it done now? Does the P&W only operate in direction?
Click to expand...

I assume P&W only operates one (absurdly long) train at a time. They're moving stuff, not people, and are therefore not under any obligation to maintain a frequent service, nor do they have to worry about things like station platform length.
 
Commuting Boston Student said:
I assume P&W only operates one (absurdly long) train at a time. They're moving stuff, not people, and are therefore not under any obligation to maintain a frequent service, nor do they have to worry about things like station platform length.
Click to expand...

It's an unsignaled line, so there's usually only one train occupying it in any given direction at a time. It's not that long a route, and freights can do 40 on 60 MPH passenger track...exactly as fast as CSX does on the B&A. P&W's business model is about cramming lots of efficiency onto single runs. They do it with a much smaller locomotive fleet than, say, Pan Am, but they still qualify as a (barely) Class II freight operator in terms of tonnage and coverage. Largest freight carrier by volume in CT, only freight carrier in RI. And very passenger-friendly. They want this, and they've been easy for Amtrak, RIDOT, and Shore Line East to work with on the NEC where they hold all freight rights from the MA/RI border to New Haven, and partial rights to NYC.


Woonsocket-Worcester hasn't been studied because both states would have to partner up, and there's no real reason to do that until the Providence-Woonsocket service is an actionable build. You'll probably see them sniffing around the idea before 2020. Don't forget, this is P&W-owned track all the way and Rhode Island's pending commuter rail doesn't have an operator yet. It's not totally clear where MA fits on the pecking order. If the T bids on and wins South County CR, then they're going to get the Woonsocket route and it's all pretty academic who'd run Providence-Worcester. It would be them in the study driver's seat (probably reimbursed by the EOT, RIDOT, and regional MPO for the out-of-district towns). If Amtrak wins it (and they probably will submit a competitive bid since they own the NEC lock-stock-barrel in RI and don't hate working with RIDOT like they do the T), then the EOT is probably going to do the scoping like they are with the Vermonter relocation. If P&W bids and wins (longshot, but you never know), then it's probably going to be a bit of public-private studying since it's definitely in their self-interest to milk upgraded freight track all the way to Worcester. Throw in the Worcester County regional MPO which has been putting most of its study effort into the Worcester Line and 495-area transit and they haven't worked their way down that far.

This route will be running someday. There's a market for it, 146 is a growth corridor, and it's lower-hanging fruit with a lot of stakeholders to spread out the cost. And it's also not totally beholden to the T's budget as an out-of-district service on privately-owned track, even if they do end up being the mercenary operator that runs it. So the bureaucracy is potentially a lot lower. But there's lots of stuff on RIDOT's plate beforehand. Going in a straight P&W + NEC line from Woonsocket to Westerly with overlapping services puts four-fifths of the state's population within a 10 minute drive of a station. Damn straight they are going to be eyes on ALL that prize before they even think about going interstate to Worcester. This is mega for them.
 
It seems to me that all of the platforms south of Washington DC are low-level boarding. Only the section from NYP-WAS on any of Amtrak's southbound long-distance services are full-highs - unfortunately, that's enough to exclude the usage of Superliners or any other low-boarding stock on the southbound services.

Furthermore, all Amtrak distance trains (except for the Vermonter and the Carolinian) are discharge-only inbound from WAS to NYP and receive-only outbound from NYP to WAS. These are all valuable train slots in their own right and could be taken for use as Northeast Regionals - Amtrak has stated an intent to up Regional service to an hourly affair if they can get it.

I propose kicking the LD trains (with the exception of the Vermonter) out of the NEC entirely, moving NYP-WAS Regionals into those slots to replace them. The Cardinal is a terrible train that can be disposed of entirely, the Crescent, Palmetto, and Silver Service trains are all firmly part of a 'Southeast' network rather than a northeast one and the Silver Services further likely benefit from being bumped up to Superliner trains. The Carolinian is a long distance train in name only - it doesn't appear to run Viewliners or any other sleeper car as it stands. Furthermore, nearly 3 hours of trip time for the Carolinian are tied up in the NEC stretch and the total mileage of the trip comes down to 479 miles without it - comparable to the NEC main line's length between Boston and Washington. Having it run the stretch between NYP and WAS instead of a regional is a major disservice both to it and to the NEC.
 
The 427 bus, to be funded entirely by Cliffside Commons, Granada Highlands, Overlook Ridge, me ( once I develop Linden Square mid-rises ;) ), and fares...

Map:
https://t.co/NfSVz3ab
 
Open question for the thread - it seems that the B&M line north of Lawrence is pretty much gone. Is there any other 'easy' (i.e., limited property takings, geographically friendly) way to get Commuter Rail up into Salem?

I was set to pitch a limited-basis Commuter Rail extension of the Haverhill Line, branching off past Andover to serve new stations at Methuen, Salem, and Canobie Lake Park. All trains heading for Canobie would utilize the Wildcat Branch for the Woburn/Anderson RTC connection, hopefully pulling drivers off of I-93. Such a line would be created under a cooperative agreement with the Mall at Rockingham Park and Canobie Lake Park - in exchange for them building the stations, we'd bring the trains right to their respective doorstops.

Of course, since the B&M ROW I thought was there... isn't, then this is not exactly a reasonable pitch. Is there any other way we could get this done without delving into the realm of insanity?
 
The B&M ROW is there, with essentially nothing blocking it. May be some tricky grade crossings in Salem, not sure. Just watch out of the NIMBY earth-salting rail-trail lobby.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top