Reasonable Transit Pitches

[F-Line to Dudley]

The solid 1% grade for 10+ miles is already too taxing on the freights. I had many a stalled train that I had to deal with. 2% would be brutal, Pan Am is not equipped to handle it. They'd have to have extra locomotives and crews set aside just to make assists.

Pan Am's incompetence doesn't make it a particularly brutal grade. There are many sustained grades miles longer than that in the U.S. which carry >20x the daily freight volumes than that adorable little lump of rock in the Worcester Hills. You just don't see the big Class I freight carriers bringing a wet noodle to a knife fight like little paste-eating Pan Am, whose rolling ruins can barely get over the Mystic River bridge from Somerville without stalling. Once Norfolk Southern pulls the trigger on buying out Pan Am's 50% ownership of the Patriot Corridor and starts running it all with its own brawnier and maintained-to-task equipment, they'll never pull a FAIL again on the horseshoe. Simply because they don't fuck around running gimp power on their big profit-center mainlines. They climb the Appalacians every day on the routes that make Ashburnham look like an anthill.


CSX has a worse monster climb on the grade just east of Pittsfield. They've now instituted a helper engine job out of Pittsfield freight yard to assist every train > (80?) cars because it lets them keep their daily schedule flat as a board by just making the Albany-Springfield trains longer. Crews quickly lash-up, assist with the grade, un-couple, then head back to base to wait for the next train. Like clockwork because they know what the hell they're doing, and end result is they foul fewer passenger slots east of Springfield by making their existing schedules carry exponentially more carloads.

Mountains are there...they just are. In every state that has them. And people live with the mountains, deal with the mountains. There's no real need to force-fit "MOAR TUNNEL!" at every hill above sea level like those NEC FUTURE morons are doing when just having some semblance of an ops plan does the job. Any ops plan is going to rule out the Fitchburg Main as anything remotely appropriate for a long-haul passenger route because the hills + Millers River ensure that it is never ever straight and that one straightening project will have little overall impact as drop-in-bucket for the whole routing. An ops plan for the B&A and Conn River is going to conclude the same thing that competent first-world HSR planners would for the NEC bypasses:

• run up the score as fast as you can where it's straightest to build a head of steam for the unsolvable curves/grades
• empty the curve-straightening and superelevation bag of tricks where it meaningfully extends a full track-speed stretch
• don't sweat the geographic/geological pinch points if they can be made relatively few and far between
• mountains and rivers are what they are, and taking the attitude that every single one has to be nuked from orbit is perfectionism as enemy of the good that will ensure you accomplish nothing real-world meaningful.

The B&A and Conn River have a bag of tricks to gradually ratchet up speeds from the "Alt. 2" baseline Inland build non-destructively and one obstruction at a time. The Fitchburg doesn't. The more improbable Northern Route through Concord doesn't with even worse futility than the Fitchburg doesn't. Therefore, the Big L is always going to be Eastern MA's gateway to the west and Quebec.

 

[Charlie_mta]

June 1956 B&M timetable. Yes, there was North Station-Greenfield commuter rail service in addition to Springfield-Greenfield commuter rail service on the Conn River Line.

Wow, that is awesome, F-Line. Thanks for posting that. My Dad was from the Greenfield area and we used to go up there a lot back in the 50's and 60's. Never went by train, but that schedule is awesome nonetheless. Wish we had passenger train service like that now.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Wow, that is awesome, F-Line. Thanks for posting that. My Dad was from the Greenfield area and we used to go up there a lot back in the 50's and 60's. Never went by train, but that schedule is awesome nonetheless. Wish we had passenger train service like that now.

Got it from this collection of scanned timetables from the 1950's: http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/archiveThumbs.aspx?id=1606. Takes some page clicking to find all the New England-specific ones, but there's some fascinating finds there.

It's got the near-complete Boston & Maine Summer '56 schedules, which were the last major iteration of northside service before B&M's bankruptcy and catastrophic 1958 service cuts...and the last time most of the physical plant was still at state-of-repair before the multi-decade deferred maint free-fall. Also has the Boston & Albany and NYNH&H southside schedules, although those tend to be a lot less detailed and omit lots of intermediate stops that are covered en route but have to be cross-reffed with some other master schedule.

These are the schedules that prompted the MBTA's formation 8 years later to halt and roll back the big collapse that happened northside in '58 and southside in '59 with the sudden termination of the Old Colony division. Stoneham Branch, Medford Square Branch, Saugus Branch, Marblehead Branch, Danvers Branch (TWO routes!...via Salem and via Wakefield), Dedham Branch, West Medway Branch. The super-extended runs like Greenfield via Fitchburg, Clinton via Waltham. Worcester Union hub (!), New Hampshire locals (!!), Maine intercity. And all the familiar mainline schedules we're still trying like hell to re-optimize and buff back out.

 

[tysmith95]

^these routes all ended around the same time as highways were built. Many of these connections would never have enough traffic to sustain their use if they were reinstated today.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

^these routes all ended around the same time as highways were built. Many of these connections would never have enough traffic to sustain their use if they were reinstated today.

Yeah, some. But the actual service cuts those years had nothing to do with highways. 2 of the 3 Boston commuter RR's were very very bankrupt and the feds gave permission for those brutal cuts to keep them from folding and taking all higher-ridership service with them on the way down. '58-59 were the trigger events for the MBTA's very formation 5 years later. Legislature started debating institutional solutions immediately in the aftermath of these cuts.

 

[asap_mozart]

Any reason there's no bus service in the town of Dedham? All the MBTA routes seem to come to a halt at the town line (excepting the 34E) or at the mall. You could for example, extend the 33 route down milton, high, and east street through the town to terminate near the Dedham sq. rotary.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Any reason there's no bus service in the town of Dedham? All the MBTA routes seem to come to a halt at the town line (excepting the 34E) or at the mall. You could for example, extend the 33 route down milton, high, and east street through the town to terminate near the Dedham sq. rotary.

Short answer: Dedham has hella weird passive-aggressiveness towards transit dating back half a century. By far the weirdest of any inside-128 town.

No...there's not a particularly good explanation for why they're so weird.

 

[winstonoboogie]

Any reason there's no bus service in the town of Dedham? All the MBTA routes seem to come to a halt at the town line (excepting the 34E) or at the mall. You could for example, extend the 33 route down milton, high, and east street through the town to terminate near the Dedham sq. rotary.

Yes, its a complicated history that goes back to the days of the street railways. Dedham was never directly served by the Boston Elevated Railway, and consequently was not one of the original 14 cities and towns in the MTA district. Until the MBTA, its local service was provided by private carriers. The vast Bay State Street Railway (which became the Eastern Mass Street Railway) served Dedham with a line from Walpole to Forest Hills (what's now the 34e) as well as a line from Mattapan to Dedham Sq. via River St., a line from Oakdale to Grove & Washington St. that intersected the line from Mattapan, and a line from Charles River to Needham. There was also a streetcar line from Dedham Sq. to Medway operated by the independent Medway & Dedham St. Railway. When Hyde Park was annexed by the city of Boston, the Boston El eventually took over service from Mattapan to Cleary Sq. Except for the Walpole-Forest Hills line, the remaining Eastern Mass lines in Dedham were low ridership routes. The Eastern Mass asked the town of Dedham for a subsidy to continue streetcar service on these lines. The town said no, because several small jitney bus companies were willing to continue local service without a subsidy. Thus, by the 1930s, everything was bus, and the local transit network consisted of a trunk Eastern Mass line from East Walpole to Forest Hills and small independent companies running routes to Dedham Sq., Oakdale, and Needham.

By the 1950s, it had become difficult for the independent companies to provide local service in Dedham without a subsidy. The town began to provide a small subsidy, by linking the town's school bus contract with a provision to provide the local service ("if you want our lucrative school bus contract, you must run the local service".) By the 1960s, the ridership had dropped and the costs had risen that even the promise of a school bus contract was not enough to convince a local operator to retain service.

In 1964, the MBTA replaced the MTA, and the member communities grew from 14 to 78, including Dedham. On its creation, the MBTA began subsidizing the moderate sized Middlesex&Boston bus operation with routes based primarily in Newton and Waltham. Dedham approached the MBTA about subsidizing the local routes in Dedham, and the MBTA had the M&B take over the routes in 1967. Since the MBTA already had a subsidy agreement with the M&B, it was easier to have them take over the Dedham routes than to solicit a bid from another provider.

In 1968, the MBTA took over the large Eastern Mass St Ry system (by then, long a bus only operation). This included the 34E from East Walpole to Forest Hills. For the first time, the MBTA directly operated bus service in Dedham, as the old MTA routes 33 and 34 both stopped at the Dedham/Boston town lines, since Dedham was not in the MTA district. As a consequence though, Dedham's annual payments to the MBTA went up, as assessments were based on the amount of service provided to a town.

In 1972, after a dispute with the MBTA Advisory Board about subsidy levels, the M&B shut down. The MBTA directly took over most of the M&B system. The MBTA directly took over the local routes in Dedham, and even through- routed them with existing ex-MTA routes, with some trips on the 36 through-routed from Charles River to Readville Manor, and the 33 through-routed with the route from Dedham Line to Dedham Sq., and further through-routed with the line to Grove&Washington. With this change, Dedham's payments went up even more than after the MBTA take-over of the 34E. While the 34E was a heavy trunk route with good ridership, the local routes in Dedham had always had low ridership. This resulted in very high deficits to maintain the service. Dedham decided that it would be more cost effective to get a private carrier to take over the local routes. Dedham was not the first community to request the MBTA to reduce or eliminate service to reduce its deficits. Peabody and Stoneham had requested service be dropped in 1970 and 1971. Dedham found a regional carrier, Hudson Bus Lines, to take over the local routes from the MBTA in 1974, as the "Dedham Local Bus". The MBTA continued to run the 34E, and around the same time, the MBTA extended the 35 to the Dedham Mall. The MBTA agreed not to assess Dedham the costs of the Dedham Mall extension, as the mall in its heyday generated a lot of trips

For a few years, the Dedham/Hudson Bus Lines agreement worked reasonably well. But by the late 70s, ridership continued to drop. To reduce costs, all of the local routes were combined into one slightly convoluted combined route, trying to cover as many points as was reasonable with one bus. Dedham began getting a subsidy from the MBTA to continue running the Dedham Local Bus in 1987. Hudson Bus Lines went out of business in 1994, after its longtime owner died and the kids weren't interested in staying in the bus business. Dedham went with smaller carriers using mini-buses after that. The small MBTA subsidy always came with some strings attached for data that had to be submitted each year to get the money. In 2014, the town withdrew from the MBTA subsidy program because the money received was only covering the costs of submitting data to receive the money. The town has continued operating the Dedham Local Bus just with 100% their own subsidy money. The did make an attempt last year to modify the route to be more practical, including service to Legacy Place
http://www.dedhamlocal.com/

When the MBTA went to forward funding and an expanded district in 1999, the assessment formula was changed so towns are billed based on population and distance from Boston, instead of the level of service the MBTA provides. So if the MBTA were to restore bus service back to what it briefly ran in 1972-74, there would be no added cost to Dedham now. Unfortunately for Dedham, the MBTA's budget constraints mean they have absolutely no interest in establishing new bus routes in suburban areas under speculation that there might be some new ridership gained.

And that is the short story of why there is minimal MBTA bus service in Dedham.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

By far the weirdest of any inside-128 town.

Weirder than Stoneham?

 

[winstonoboogie]

Weirder than Stoneham?

When Stoneham asked the MBTA to stop service it had three MBTA routes, the 100A running from Reading to Sullivan via the Fellsway, the 132 running from Wakefield to Arlington Center, and the 133 from Woburn to Everett Station. The 132 had weak ridership except for students going to Arlington Catholic High, and the MBTA might have killed it on its own at some point anyway. The 100A and the 133 had reasonable ridership and probably would have continued on in that form as MBTA routes. The 100A was discontinued as soon as Stoneham asked bus stops be removed. The 133 kept operating for a few years, but didn't make any stops in Stoneham. I remember the printed schedules had a warning note "bus will not stop to discharge or pick-up in Stoneham". The 133 was eventually discontinued by extending the 131 to its present terminal at the Melrose/Stoneham town line and the then new express bus from Woburn to Boston (now the 354) served the stops west of the Woburn/Stoneham town line.

Hudson Bus Lines (same company that ran the Dedham Local bus) did run their own route from Stoneham to Medford Sq. with some service continuing to Sullivan. It competed with the Eastern Mass and the MBTA, so at the time Stoneham made their decision to drop service, there was an already established carrier providing service in the town that didn't cost the town anything. Hudson extended the route all the way to Downtown Boston after the I-93 extension opened. But the economics of a private carrier being able to continue local service like that without a subsidy became difficult. The MBTA did begin subsidizing the Hudson Bus Lines route, but Hudson discontinued service at the end of 1993, not long before they went out of business. Stoneham had no public transit service for several months until what was the Route 130A was extended to Main St. Stoneham in September 1994 and renumbered to Route 132. The MBTA's budget constraints by that time meant that only the bare minimum of service was added, although the service levels have gradually increased over the last 20 years (they just got evening service on the 132 this year). If Stoneham had not asked the MBTA to leave in 1971, the 100A and 133 would probably still be operating today with a higher level of service than what the 132 provides. The MBTA also extended one trip each way on the 325 express bus this year to Stoneham, although if Stoneham had never asked for service to be discontinued, the MBTA probably would have operated a full express bus schedule to Stoneham starting in the 1970s when the I-93 routes were established.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

the 132 running from Wakefield to Arlington Center

Wow. And yet we don't have a route from Malden to Arlington or Malden to Davis Sq.


Great history here, thank you.

 

[Scipio]

Dust off your spreadsheets dear keyboard warriors, the MBTA is preparing a formal process for accepting pitches and proposals from outside groups: http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/news_events/?id=6442456831&month=&year=

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Fitchburg Line

1. Union Sq infill station with a center-island, high-level platform between Webster Ave & Newton St overhead bridge and Washington St overhead bridge. Egress to west side of Prospect St overhead bridge and east side of Webster Ave & Newton St overhead bridge, and east side of Washington St overhead bridge.

2. Replace Porter Sq station with a center-island, high-level platform between Beacon St overhead bridge and Porter Curve. Egress to east side of Beacon St overhead bridge, Porter Sq plaza, and Red Line mezzanine.

3. Replace Belmont station with a center-island, high-level platform between a point 800' east of Concord Ave undergrade bridge and Concord Ave. Egress to both sides of Concord Ave undergrade bridge.

4. Replace Waverly station with a center-island, high-level platform evenly centered on a new plaza built overhead between Trapelo Rd overhead bridge and Lexington St overhead bridge. Egress to new plaza.

5. Warrendale infill station with a center-island, high-level platform west of Beaver St. Details not determined.

6. Eliminate Jackson St overhead bridge and turn the Elm St and Moody St grade crossings into undergrade bridges.

7. Replace Waltham station with a center-island, high-level platform evenly spaced on the new Elm St undergrade bridge and Moody St undergrade bridge. Egress to east side of Elm St undergrade bridge and west side of Moody St undergrade bridge.

8. Replace Brandeis/Roberts station with a center-island, high-level platform at existing location. Egress to east side of South St grade crossing on both north and south sides of the rails.

9. Use existing signals between Brandeis/Roberts and South St to create a DTMF Control Point for westbound movements. This will prevent crossing activation until the signal is called for by the train crew, at which point the gates will activate, and shortly after a permissive signal displayed.

10. Weston/128 infill station with a center-island, high-level platform west of MA-128/MA-20 interchange. Details not determined.

11. A new interlocking immediately west of the new Weston/128 station to facilitate movement over a new "wye" connection to the old Mass Central Branch.

12. Reestablish Mass Central service to Wayland, South Sudbury, and Hudson.

13. Eliminate Kendall Green station at a minimum. Eliminate either Hastings or Silver Hill, possibly.

14. Replace Lincoln station with high-level, side platforms west of Lincoln Rd grade crossing. Egress to west side of Lincoln Rd on platforms' respective sides of rails.

15. Consider protecting Lincoln Rd grade crossing from eastbound movements with DTMF signals.

16. Replace West Concord station with high-level, side platforms at existing location.

17. Consider protecting Commonwealth Ave grade crossing from westbound movements with DTMF signals.

18. West Acton infill station. Details undetermined.

Not sure what to do at Concord-proper at all.

Split service into thirds. 1/3 of service is all-stops locals to Hudson. 1/3 of service is locals to Littleton/495. 1/6 of service is locals to Wachusett and 1/6 of service is express services to Wachusett. If Concord is resolved, all Hudson and Littleton/495 trains could use powered doors.

Divvy everything up into one very-long-range plan of multiple projects to make palatable.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Fitchburg Line

1. Union Sq infill station with a center-island, high-level platform between Webster Ave & Newton St overhead bridge and Washington St overhead bridge. Egress to west side of Prospect St overhead bridge and east side of Webster Ave & Newton St overhead bridge, and east side of Washington St overhead bridge.

Studied with real numbers...in isolation as a GLX cop-out and with a GLX superstation. The ridership projections were terrible either way. Union thoroughly slots into a rapid transit profile, not CR or both. This is one of those recurring zombie proposals like Alewife CR and Wonderland CR that sounds good in concept but every times does a complete belly-flop when ridership projections are formally ascribed.

3. Replace Belmont station with a center-island, high-level platform between a point 800' east of Concord Ave undergrade bridge and Concord Ave. Egress to both sides of Concord Ave undergrade bridge.

Would be side platforms, not center. Mass Architectural Board prohibits new-construction track crossings, so centers would require completely superfluous and expensive new construction of up-and-over access or shafting down-and-under access. Concord Ave. overpass is 80 ft. wide because it used to have 4 tracks + 2 platforms on it, and ROW east to the high school is 60 ft. atop the embankment. You have plenty of room for side platforms.

Just start start the side 800-footers at the east ends of the current platforms right adjacent to the bridge, ramp down onto the old lows and recycle those platforms for the egresses. Still have plenty of room to drop the Fitchburg Cutoff bike path behind the outbound platform railing with how wide the ex-quad ROW is, and to drop another ramp off the east end of that platform onto the path. Old outbound platform then becomes continuation of bike path. Simplest/cheapest way because of available width and recyclable egresses.

4. Replace Waverly station with a center-island, high-level platform evenly centered on a new plaza built overhead between Trapelo Rd overhead bridge and Lexington St overhead bridge. Egress to new plaza.

Only if it's saner than the pants-on-head eleventy switchbacks plan the T floated. But this is probably going to be easier to do as side platforms because of the retaining walls providing a pre-existing structural anchor to redo the stairs or graft on elevators. Retaining walls will have to be extended to make platforms full 800-footers, so also an opportunity to graft much gentler ramp egresses to the hillsides to the east, especially on the outbound side where the bike path is going to be climbing the hill behind the car wash, then descending the hill at the west end of the platform by Agassiz Ave. to continue en route to Waltham.

5. Warrendale infill station with a center-island, high-level platform west of Beaver St. Details not determined.

Reanimating the pre-1978 Clematis Brook platforms under the Main St. bridge probably slots slightly above this one on ridership, and only if it's an Indigo-level 128 service. But yes...a known-known transit draw and a cheapie.

Again, no with the center islands because of the Mass Architectural Board regs. You would have to do this as a completely unnecessary up-and-over tower because they frown upon leading passengers squeezed between two tracks to a grade crossing where any direction requires a track crossing. Side platforms at a crossing don't draw their ire.

6. Eliminate Jackson St overhead bridge and turn the Elm St and Moody St grade crossings into undergrade bridges.

NO. The extended embankment you'd have to create around the Riverside Park curve at for dropping back down would come with punitive runoff/erosion mitigation costs next to the dam flood zone that push price tag into boondoggle territory. Fitchburg Line simply doesn't have the traffic ceiling to ever make that wash. Elm/Moody are environmental uneliminables just like Bishop/Concord in Framingham, and Fitchburg << Worcester. Deal with it as it is, not as the Crazy Transit Pitch we want it to be. It's not worth blowing 40% the cost of bringing GLX from Union to Porter over a "perfect is the enemy of good" OCD viaducting of Waltham Ctr.

7. Replace Waltham station with a center-island, high-level platform evenly spaced on the new Elm St undergrade bridge and Moody St undergrade bridge. Egress to east side of Elm St undergrade bridge and west side of Moody St undergrade bridge.

Again...no with the center islands because the MAB mandates up-and-over with these. The simple fix for the grade crossing problem is to group both platforms opposite each other west of Moody where the current long platform is. Egress on the new inbound platform to the Charles path, and Moody via permission from Biagio's Ristorante to sidewalk adjacent to their building. Parking row in the oubound-side back alley converted entirely to parallel parking instead of angled for track realignment. Elm-Moody block platform abandoned. Maybe you can get the city to consider opening up the Elm-Moody spanning alley on the river side as some sort of load-balancing cross street/quasi-extension of River St. for a little more traffic distribution around the crossings.

Big advantage is that Elm no longer gets fouled at all during station stops and all platforms are full length. And that's about the best you can hope for. Un-foul Elm and Waltham Ctr. retreats behind Reading Line stops like Greenwood and Wakefield on the traffic mgt. concern list. Not great, but better.

8. Replace Brandeis/Roberts station with a center-island, high-level platform at existing location. Egress to east side of South St grade crossing on both north and south sides of the rails.

No again on center islands per the onerous MAB regs. Side platforms raised in-place are fine. The curve is well within tolerances for full-highs.

9. Use existing signals between Brandeis/Roberts and South St to create a DTMF Control Point for westbound movements. This will prevent crossing activation until the signal is called for by the train crew, at which point the gates will activate, and shortly after a permissive signal displayed.

OK...but Brandeis doesn't rate all that high systemwide re: crossings that most merit a DTMF install. It's lesser-concern unless you've first checked off all the Reading Line crossings that need that tech much more urgently.

10. Weston/128 infill station with a center-island, high-level platform west of MA-128/MA-20 interchange. Details not determined.

Dear God, yes.

11. A new interlocking immediately west of the new Weston/128 station to facilitate movement over a new "wye" connection to the old Mass Central Branch.

12. Reestablish Mass Central service to Wayland, South Sudbury, and Hudson.

Read the 1993 study archived on the Central Mass Rail Trail site. The ridership projections stunk and station siting vs. demand was very problematic.

• All stops except downtown Hudson are well off-center from the village centers of these towns. The towns don't build residential sidewalks as regular practice, and lack of sidewalks makes for very limited walkup catchments from what suffices as "density" in Weston, Wayland, and Sudbury. This is a particular problem with the Weston stop on Church St., which is basically a Silver Hill clone by any other name where what limited patronage does exist would be almost entirely car dropoffs. Per the '93 study that means lack of parking and driveway land becomes a limiter even when the intent is to stimulate walkup and not parking sink.
• Weston's Central Mass catchment is virtually nullified by the 128 Fitchburg Line superstation. A bus route 1 mile west on Route 20 to "downtown" would serve the entirety of their need with 2x or better train frequencies. Presence of 128 stop is a sea change from '93 that nullifies most need for another Weston local stop on same grounds that KG/Hastings/SH are useless.
• Post-'93, Wayland and Sudbury have erected big-box shopping centers adjacent to their stops. Changes the ridership projections *somewhat* from '93 and distances them from Weston's structural problems, but they are still off-center from the residential areas in town and do not constitute the sort of TOD that's going to anchor stops out there. Since neither town has had any interest whatsoever in exploring bus routes to Natick or Framingham on the Worcester Line there is no starting benchmark for what these stops can bear. Until they're willing to drop their icky-poo faces at a simple suburban bus shuttle, there's nothing further to study or read between tea leaves.
• Hudson is admittedly a prototypical nice downtown stop, in a transit cavity. However, the '93 study predicated going further to West Berlin/495 for a highway parking sink at the Route 62 exit to tame some of the 495 traffic in the vicinity of the 495/290 interchange. Ridership wasn't good because it's a desolate area save for another big box sprawl-mall a wee too far to walk from. So at the end of the day Hudson was the only stop on the route that didn't have problematic demerits. Hudson alone is nowhere near enough to salvage all the other demerits.
• Commuter rail to Northborough/I-290 out of Framingham on the Fitchburg Secondary (studied 2002) ends up superior to the West Berlin parking sink in every way. The 290 stop is at an ideal TOD spot in a dense-ish high-tech office park and more convenient to the 290/495 interchange than the Central Mass 495 stop. Building N'boro and running a downtown Hudson shuttle bus down the Route 85 expressway connector would probably provide equal transit access to a Central Mass branch on a line whose studies showed legitimately robust peak-hour ridership at its all its stops, while offering higher potential frequency ceiling as branch off an appropriately upgraded Worcester Line. Building this CR line cuts any remaining legs out from under the Central Mass, and does it entirely on an active line with long-term stable freight traffic.

13. Eliminate Kendall Green station at a minimum. Eliminate either Hastings or Silver Hill, possibly.

Easy as pie to extend the driveway along KG serving the Weston DPW yard to a ped path to the new 128 station, so Church St. residents can be accommodated in the relocation.

Hastings needs to go NOW since it's the single most dangerous station on the system: just a platformless gravel grade crossing where commuters have to loiter by the side of the road. Silver Hill I guess you can barter as a keep if Weston digs in, since it has an actual platform and an embankment that if regraded, paved, and lit can offer fully accessible ramp access. A 1-car wood mini-high and a little dirt-spreading + blacktopping is not far-fetched for keeping this on the limited flag-stop schedule in full ADA compliance if the town is willing to take over the maint costs.

14. Replace Lincoln station with high-level, side platforms west of Lincoln Rd grade crossing. Egress to west side of Lincoln Rd on platforms' respective sides of rails.

YES. I can't believe this wasn't done 30 years ago and that they're still clinging to that bonkers boarding procedure. This is so easy they should just contract out Lincoln in one ADA package blitz with a bunch of the prefab Reading Line stops since they're all rote side-platform grade crossing jobs.

Not sure what to do at Concord-proper at all.

Aye...no kidding. Single most difficult full-high mod on the system, bar none. The historic building + the short platform sandwiched on the grade crossings + the curve + the abutting density pinning all into place. More delicate jobs have been done elsewhere, but there are no good answers here. And the town will be a nightmare to deal with.

Split service into thirds. 1/3 of service is all-stops locals to Hudson. 1/3 of service is locals to Littleton/495. 1/6 of service is locals to Wachusett and 1/6 of service is express services to Wachusett. If Concord is resolved, all Hudson and Littleton/495 trains could use powered doors.

As earlier, Central Mass isn't going to happen. Service patterns are going to be mainline-only: Indigo to 128, local service to Wachusett, local short-turns to Littleton when freight slots create schedule gaps further outbound.

I'd add that full-high platforms are doable at most/all of the outer stops without breaking the bank.

• Ayer is a big safety concern because of the track crossing, very narrow platform, and exploding freight volumes. That one can be done up as an 800 ft. full-high island with up-and-over access, flanked on both sides by outer thru freight tracks if Track 4 west of the freight wye were continued through the wye. Then tweak interlockings accordingly. This is probably exactly how it's gonna go, and it'll be sooner rather than later because it's only a matter of time before some passenger gets killed by a passing freight.
• Shirley is doable by dropping a center freight passer and doing two side full-highs. Space fully available if the town re-grades the haphazard parking layout framing the station to all-angled spaces.
• N. Leominster would require widening the Main St. overpass and approach embankment to tri-track and moving the existing platforms back a couple feet to create space for a center passer. Not hard if Pan Am Southern is willing to contribute to the bridge widening cost and town doesn't over-complain.
• Fitchburg is on a passenger turnout, and the curve is within tolerances for full-highs. Station was fully rebuilt in '02 before the Mass Architectural Board tightened up the regs, so it was one of the last ones where mini-high was a valid cost opt-out.

Can probably nip each/every outer station in the bud sooner than the time it takes to find a least-worst Concord Depot retrofit that Town of Concord doesn't vomit all over.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Apropos of nothing...Miles on the MBTA this week did a blog post review of the batshittery that is Hastings: https://milesonthembta.blogspot.com/2016/10/hastings.html?m=0.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Would be side platforms, not center. Mass Architectural Board prohibits new-construction track crossings, so centers would require completely superfluous and expensive new construction of up-and-over access or shafting down-and-under access. Concord Ave. overpass is 80 ft. wide because it used to have 4 tracks + 2 platforms on it, and ROW east to the high school is 60 ft. atop the embankment. You have plenty of room for side platforms.

Not sure what you mean. There'd be no crossing the tracks. The platform would extend over Concord Ave. East of Concord Ave, a stairway in the middle of the platform will descend down between the tracks/in the middle of the platform to the sidewalk. On the west side, the platform ends at an Elevator and a stairway that wraps around the elevator down to the sidewalk below the bridge on that side. Zero need for pedestrian bridges.

Reanimating the pre-1978 Clematis Brook platforms under the Main St. bridge probably slots slightly above this one on ridership, and only if it's an Indigo-level 128 service. But yes...a known-known transit draw and a cheapie.

I think for station spacing purposes, Warrendale would be more appropriate. It is a bit more situated for a Bentley shuttle if they wish to pursue it. Admittedly, this is probably the most park-and-ride-esque of all the inside-128 stations.

NO. The extended embankment you'd have to create around the Riverside Park curve at for dropping back down would come with punitive runoff/erosion mitigation costs next to the dam flood zone that push price tag into boondoggle territory. Fitchburg Line simply doesn't have the traffic ceiling to ever make that wash. Elm/Moody are environmental uneliminables just like Bishop/Concord in Framingham, and Fitchburg << Worcester. Deal with it as it is, not as the Crazy Transit Pitch we want it to be. It's not worth blowing 40% the cost of bringing GLX from Union to Porter over a "perfect is the enemy of good" OCD viaducting of Waltham Ctr.

Again...no with the center islands because the MAB mandates up-and-over with these. The simple fix for the grade crossing problem is to group both platforms opposite each other west of Moody where the current long platform is. Egress on the new inbound platform to the Charles path, and Moody via permission from Biagio's Ristorante to sidewalk adjacent to their building. Parking row in the oubound-side back alley converted entirely to parallel parking instead of angled for track realignment. Elm-Moody block platform abandoned. Maybe you can get the city to consider opening up the Elm-Moody spanning alley on the river side as some sort of load-balancing cross street/quasi-extension of River St. for a little more traffic distribution around the crossings.

Big advantage is that Elm no longer gets fouled at all during station stops and all platforms are full length. And that's about the best you can hope for. Un-foul Elm and Waltham Ctr. retreats behind Reading Line stops like Greenwood and Wakefield on the traffic mgt. concern list. Not great, but better.

I was considering doing that, but I feel it really shifts away towards one side of Waltham's core. But in light of the above, then I suggest a DTMF signal to protect Moody and Elm from approaching eastbounds. This is 100% feasible given current signal spacing. I forgot to note the proposed elimination of single track from Beaver Brook interlocking to Riverside interlocking. Just slap in automatics between the new station and Moody St, and crews will dial in for a permissive signal and gates will come down.

OK...but Brandeis doesn't rate all that high systemwide re: crossings that most merit a DTMF install. It's lesser-concern unless you've first checked off all the Reading Line crossings that need that tech much more urgently.

Okay, there's no reason those can't be tackled first, and I think they should be (this whole post was just a long-term goal, remember, with other things obviously happening elsewhere simultaneously). This one should just be super simple to pull off as the signal spacing and the basic hardware are already there.

Read the 1993 study archived on the Central Mass Rail Trail site. The ridership projections stunk and station siting vs. demand was very problematic.

Care to make any guesses on whether going all the way to Clinton would outweigh the Wayland and Sudbury flops on ridership? The row seems less in-tact once you get beyond Hudson, but it is difficult to really tell without getting out on the ground.

I'd add that full-high platforms are doable at most/all of the outer stops without breaking the bank.

• Ayer is a big safety concern because of the track crossing, very narrow platform, and exploding freight volumes. That one can be done up as an 800 ft. full-high island with up-and-over access, flanked on both sides by outer thru freight tracks if Track 4 west of the freight wye were continued through the wye. Then tweak interlockings accordingly. This is probably exactly how it's gonna go, and it'll be sooner rather than later because it's only a matter of time before some passenger gets killed by a passing freight.
• Shirley is doable by dropping a center freight passer and doing two side full-highs. Space fully available if the town re-grades the haphazard parking layout framing the station to all-angled spaces.
• N. Leominster would require widening the Main St. overpass and approach embankment to tri-track and moving the existing platforms back a couple feet to create space for a center passer. Not hard if Pan Am Southern is willing to contribute to the bridge widening cost and town doesn't over-complain.
• Fitchburg is on a passenger turnout, and the curve is within tolerances for full-highs. Station was fully rebuilt in '02 before the Mass Architectural Board tightened up the regs, so it was one of the last ones where mini-high was a valid cost opt-out.

Can probably nip each/every outer station in the bud sooner than the time it takes to find a least-worst Concord Depot retrofit that Town of Concord doesn't vomit all over.

It can be done. But as you note, trains would be on the middle 2 of 4 tracks at Ayer, then on the outer 2 tracks of 3 at Shirley and North Leominster, on the northerly 1 track of 3 at Fitchburg, and finally back down to the southerly 1 track of 3 at Wachusett. The main concern is what in God's name does that interlocking between Ayer and Shirley look like? It would be an awfully mean-looking beast to ensure the free flow of all traffic to the appropriate tracks.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Not sure what you mean. There'd be no crossing the tracks. The platform would extend over Concord Ave. East of Concord Ave, a stairway in the middle of the platform will descend down between the tracks/in the middle of the platform to the sidewalk. On the west side, the platform ends at an Elevator and a stairway that wraps around the elevator down to the sidewalk below the bridge on that side. Zero need for pedestrian bridges.

Why on earth would you spend the unnecessary extra cash shafting down a stairway from a center platform when that's completely unnecessary with side platforms? All you need to do is ADA the existing egresses, and keep the portion of the low platforms by the existing egresses. Then lay the new east-stretching full-highs each with a ramp down on their west tips to the old lows and old egresses.

No need to invent a more convoluted build at thrice the price. This is a gimme, and the bike path has all the room in the world to slip behind the new outbound full-high.

I think for station spacing purposes, Warrendale would be more appropriate. It is a bit more situated for a Bentley shuttle if they wish to pursue it. Admittedly, this is probably the most park-and-ride-esque of all the inside-128 stations.

Not really...Beaver St.'s got the 554 bus, lots of residential density, Mass. Agricultural College, and the office park a block over with the Soc. Security Administration building. Prototypical neighborhood walk-up stop, which is pretty much what it was in its pre-1978 incarnation. Indigo-ish frequencies a prereq., but no great mystery. Only reason the Clematis Brook stop @ Main St. projects a little higher on ridership is because of the 70 bus upstairs, the District Court, a little bit more residential density, and a little bit higher ridership history in its pre-'78 incarnation. But either is an eminently justifiable infill for Indigo frequencies.

I was considering doing that, but I feel it really shifts away towards one side of Waltham's core. But in light of the above, then I suggest a DTMF signal to protect Moody and Elm from approaching eastbounds. This is 100% feasible given current signal spacing. I forgot to note the proposed elimination of single track from Beaver Brook interlocking to Riverside interlocking. Just slap in automatics between the new station and Moody St, and crews will dial in for a permissive signal and gates will come down.

I know the placement isn't ideal, but it's the only place you have room for an 800-footer. And you need that because rush-hour Fitchburg trains already overspill the mid-block when there's a 6th car, and that's going to become the default minimum peak period consist as ridership swells. Centering the station makes the station dwells and subsequently traffic a whole lot worse. Freeing up Elm crossing from any long-duration interruptions at the crossing gates is a substantial net-positive amongst limited overall traffic mgt. options, as is having the full-length platforms for the Wachusett trains. You gotta do it for the overall health of downtown, off-center or no.

Okay, there's no reason those can't be tackled first, and I think they should be (this whole post was just a long-term goal, remember, with other things obviously happening elsewhere simultaneously). This one should just be super simple to pull off as the signal spacing and the basic hardware are already there.

Agreed. I was just cautioning against overestimation of the problem at Brandeis, as that DTMF installation pecking order goes ten deep at stops elsewhere before Brandeis makes first appearance on the list.

Care to make any guesses on whether going all the way to Clinton would outweigh the Wayland and Sudbury flops on ridership? The row seems less in-tact once you get beyond Hudson, but it is difficult to really tell without getting out on the ground.

Doesn't change the calculus, because Fitchburg Sec. extended past Northborough to Clinton is still going to roll all over the Central Mass on ridership at fraction of the cost because of that murderer's row of interstate P&R's/office park TOD's it hits on daily-used active track. Central Mass just doesn't have a compelling hook that's ever going to push it onto front-burner. It's lower on the pecking order than Franklin-Milford, lower than Northborough/Clinton, was lower than now-defunct Millis ...probably even lower than a very unlikely Manchester & Lawrence reactivation or miraculous de-abandonment of the Falmouth Branch on the Cape.

Note also that some sort of CM-Clinton-Worcester routing also has zero practical demand. The Worcester-Grand Junction study only ID'd 5 morning rush and 5 evening rush slots where Worcester-North Station directs out-performed the Orange Line transfer at BBY to NS or the Red Line transfer at SS to Kendall. Strictly a function of Red's and Orange's five-alarm decay under peak load. All other hours of the day including early- and late-peak periods where Red and Orange performed normally travel times via the subway transfers equaled travel times on the NS direct, leading the study to conclude that forking frequencies in Allston was an overall detriment to keeping them uniformly stiff at BBY and SS. And the Captain Obvious conclusion: FIX RED AND ORANGE NOW! These conclusions cut the legs out of the notion that there's demand for a full northside main that can access Worcester, particularly when it has to go through as much problematic nothingness between 128 and 495 as the CM. And when Worcester becomes a bigger reverse-commute city in its own right the Fitchburg Sec. again slays the CM on overall ridership by scooping up the Worcester County P&R murder's row then having the same option to wrap down the Worcester Branch from Clinton to complete the wrap-around circuit.


Important to note that the CM was always a ridership gimp as a local route, and is somewhat baffling for having commuter service that lasted as long as it did with such anemic ridership at such awkwardly-placed stations. It was built 50 years after all other northside mainlines, and was intended all along to be a home-run swing for Boston & Lowell to challenge Boston & Albany on intercity, not local, travel. The final route plan was:

1. straight shot from North Station to Palmer
2. connecting track--the Hampden RR--to the Springfield Union Station approach
3. then straight shot down the Central New England Railway from Springfield across the Northern CT hinterlands (w/ branch to Hartford Union that still exists today as the Griffins Secondary)
4. junction with Harlem Line
5. over the Poughkeepsie Bridge route to the west-of-Hudson NY/NJ terminals.

It struck out when the Hampden RR's primary financier died on the Titanic and it went into receivership, forcing the inferior "temporary" terminus in Northampton to become permanent and relegating them to revenue-siphoning ops sharing of NYNH&H's Canal Line to New Haven and New Haven Line to Grand Central. Boston & Maine acquired Boston & Lowell, where the CM became a backwater secondary route. The CNE connection to Springfield was abandoned within 10 years of the big whiff, the CM was severed west of Clinton and east of Bondsville within 20 years--earlier even than the rash of Depression-era abandonments--, and the severed east section was just Clinton-east commuter rail until B&M cut back to Hudson. It simply had no compelling purpose after the big whiff.

It can be done. But as you note, trains would be on the middle 2 of 4 tracks at Ayer, then on the outer 2 tracks of 3 at Shirley and North Leominster, on the northerly 1 track of 3 at Fitchburg, and finally back down to the southerly 1 track of 3 at Wachusett. The main concern is what in God's name does that interlocking between Ayer and Shirley look like? It would be an awfully mean-looking beast to ensure the free flow of all traffic to the appropriate tracks.

They're not going to have a choice at Ayer because of the life-and-limb danger of the track crossings vs. freights. Too, too much liability for the T, Town of Ayer who own the station, Norfolk Southern, and Pan Am. They have to do something to ADA it with traffic separation from track level, complex interlocking or no. Unfortunately they're probably confined to the center because wide-clearance freights use the wye side all day, and have to use the northerly track for reaching Greenville Branch customers.

Shirley's easy...just a 1+ mile center passer that picks up between the 2-track river crossing bridges on either end of town. This was quad-track until ~1970, so it's just a half-reversion to the old setup.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Why on earth would you spend the unnecessary extra cash shafting down a stairway from a center platform when that's completely unnecessary with side platforms? All you need to do is ADA the existing egresses, and keep the portion of the low platforms by the existing egresses. Then lay the new east-stretching full-highs each with a ramp down on their west tips to the old lows and old egresses.

No need to invent a more convoluted build at thrice the price. This is a gimme, and the bike path has all the room in the world to slip behind the new outbound full-high.

Why? OCD/perfectionism mostly. But also because of potential single-track/wrong-iron operations which may crop up. The last thing the system needs is another Swampscott. If you run wrong-iron at Swampscott, even with signs and alerts telling people to board on the other side, you're looking at an automatic 10-minute delay during rush-hour. Minimum. But, also, mostly OCD.

They're not going to have a choice at Ayer

Well, that depends. What if passenger service is restricted to the northerly two tracks of the right-of-way, with one or two freight tracks on the southerly side of the right-of-way. There's no need for width clearance for the Greenville Branch. If there was suddenly some super-pressing need, place the platform such that a diamond could across the mainline from the West Wye to the Greenville Branch. It will honestly never be necessary, though.

By keeping passenger service to the northerly side, there's less conflict points. Outbound trains could go all the way to at least Fitchburg on the No. 1 track. I'd even suggest shifting the mainline into the northerly side of Fitchburg Yard and combining both halves into the southerly side, which will be adjacent to the freight tracks. Most customers are off the southerly tracks at present, including the former Ford Yard which will be back in PAS hands, Pepsi (x2), Cains, Lafarge, Keatings, Northwin, RVJ, and all of the Fitchburg Yard plastic pellet transloading. F&M tool is off the northerly side but on its own lead track and could continue to be. Your freight/passenger conflicts would primarily be limited to the section between Willows and Ayer (for freight moves to the Stoney Brook only) and Fitchburg to Wachusett.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Well, that depends. What if passenger service is restricted to the northerly two tracks of the right-of-way, with one or two freight tracks on the southerly side of the right-of-way. There's no need for width clearance for the Greenville Branch. If there was suddenly some super-pressing need, place the platform such that a diamond could across the mainline from the West Wye to the Greenville Branch. It will honestly never be necessary, though.

By keeping passenger service to the northerly side, there's less conflict points. Outbound trains could go all the way to at least Fitchburg on the No. 1 track. I'd even suggest shifting the mainline into the northerly side of Fitchburg Yard and combining both halves into the southerly side, which will be adjacent to the freight tracks. Most customers are off the southerly tracks at present, including the former Ford Yard which will be back in PAS hands, Pepsi (x2), Cains, Lafarge, Keatings, Northwin, RVJ, and all of the Fitchburg Yard plastic pellet transloading. F&M tool is off the northerly side but on its own lead track and could continue to be. Your freight/passenger conflicts would primarily be limited to the section between Willows and Ayer (for freight moves to the Stoney Brook only) and Fitchburg to Wachusett.

Actually, yes, Greenville Branch does have an anchor customer that gets wide cars...so that is a buzzkill for using the northerly track as a platform track. It's also not possible to do a diamond because of the Mill St. overpass and incline down from it locks that junction to its current trajectory.

It's fugly, but they have to work with what they have to work with. Safety is paramount for that station. Also...like it or not, freights and passenger traffic can't be segregated on most of the 20 miles between Willows Jct. and Wachusett. There's thickets of customer sidings on both sides of the ROW, including inside East Fitchburg Yard. And then that killer south-to-north transition where freights have to migrate from south track at Ayer wye to north track at the Willows Jct. line split. There may be need to quad-track the whole works between Ayer and Willows and do it up with gently staggered crossovers to sort everything. Nothing is easy here, except that it's a single-flavor passenger schedule unencumbered by any schedule stress Willows-inbound, an incremental grower that's not going to add dramatic traffic spikes or new service patterns, and there's no grade crossings on the last 13.5 miles west of Shirley.

 

[odurandina]

Q for Mr FLtD;

if the Feds came to your office and said we'll bore deep and give you a single continuous run of 3 tracks for 25 mi anywhere
you desire including doing 6-8 new underground stations..... where would you have them build it; start-route-finish?