Regional New England Rail (Amtrak & State DOT & NEC)

[Jahvon09]

Yes, it is known. It has always been known. If it's in electric territory, it's being pulled by a Sprinter. If it's in diesel territory, it's being pulled by a Charger. If it's on the Empire Corridor it's a dual-mode. None of those things was ever in any question.

Why is "unsure" smiley spamming the thread with non-sequitur questions?

Train sets already feature a loco though, front & back, like on the Acela trains. Even though the question was pondered about their continued use, the thought was do they sell them or keep them? It WOULD save them some $$$$, since they are not old at all. The 'unsure' smiley is not spamming the thread. I've only used it twice.

 

[themissinglink]

Would Capitol Corridor commuter rail service require full double tracking between the current end of double track in North Chelmsford to Nashua? (or wherever else the terminus ends up being)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Train sets already feature a loco though, front & back, like on the Acela trains. Even though the question was pondered about their continued use, the thought was do they sell them or keep them? It WOULD save them some $$$$, since they are not old at all. The 'unsure' smiley is not spamming the thread. I've only used it twice.

No...no they don't. We covered this on Page 31 the last time you spammed this thread with loads of easily-debunked innuendo. These are regular assed coaches replacing other older regular assed coaches...the only thing making them "sets" is that short multiples of cars are semi-permanently coupled to share electronics/HVAC and fortified gangways. They are just replacing Amfleets, not locomotives. The "sets" get chunked together just like Amfleets do, only in slightly larger multiples of like 3 + 3 cars instead of 1 + 1 + 1 +1 +1 +1.

All of this is old news already discussed at length, for which you have asked these specific questions before.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Would Capitol Corridor commuter rail service require full double tracking between the current end of double track in North Chelmsford to Nashua? (or wherever else the terminus ends up being)

Depends on what they opt for. If it's a minimalist Nashua poke, you could easily subside on single-track + passing sidings. If Manchester's in the cards, it's assumed that the T would be DT'ing everything to the state line. I think the only render I saw a long time ago of the North Chelmsford intermediate station had it poured as a 12 ft. wide full-high (i.e. double-track island platform width) exactly like Rowley's which is pre-provisioned for DT'ing by changing the side egress to an up-and-over then plopping down the second track. And the only difference between DT vs. ST configurations was whether they built the up-and-over egress now or later. And it would have a freight passing track (Nashua Yard definitely gets fed with high-and-wides on a daily basis), so would be on a brief tri-track segment if the main were DT'd to the state line.

The T hasn't spoken up much about this because they're simply waiting with baited breath for NHDOT to make some decision...any decision...on this build first. Single-vs.-double in MA wouldn't dramatically affect costs at only 5.8 miles, with the trackbed and all bridges/culverts already having a blank berth on it from the old second track lifted in the 1970's.

 

[themissinglink]

Thanks for the clarification.

Is a stop in Tyngsborough planned as part of the project? Or are the only new MA stops North Chelmsford and UMass Lowell?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Thanks for the clarification.

Is a stop in Tyngsborough planned as part of the project? Or are the only new MA stops North Chelmsford and UMass Lowell?

North Chelmsford was the only one officially studied. UMass wasn't a part of the last study, either; so far that's only been informally audibled by the university as a want (though it's a particularly glaring/obvious one). Tyngsboro (old B&M stop under the bridge) wasn't considered, because there aren't any LRTA buses dumping there and there's very limited parking to be had at that site. Everything west of the river in town is very close to the South Nashua stop to begin with, so it would mainly be bridge-crossers from the east side of the river for its native catchment and that's just not going to draw flies unless you've got some pretty decent pre-existing buses or a lot of places to park.

Vinal Square, on the other hand, is a pretty significant LRTA diverging point for Route #17 and has enough brownfield land to change to parking to attract cars from pretty far afield in Chelmsford. The ridership projected strong, and is potentially "sneaky underrated" as pulsing up LRTA service just a little bit would pipe a lot more. Tyngsboro *might* be an infill candidate sometime much later on when the LRTA district is substantially densified with new routes, but it's pretty much dependent on that kind of multimodal buildout because of its constrained location. Definitely not one they'd consider for the initial buildout...that's without question a "show me first" infill many years later.

 

[Stlin]

Depends on what they opt for. If it's a minimalist Nashua poke, you could easily subside on single-track + passing sidings. If Manchester's in the cards, it's assumed that the T would be DT'ing everything to the state line. I think the only render I saw a long time ago of the North Chelmsford intermediate station had it poured as a 12 ft. wide full-high (i.e. double-track island platform width) exactly like Rowley's which is pre-provisioned for DT'ing by changing the side egress to an up-and-over then plopping down the second track. And the only difference between DT vs. ST configurations was whether they built the up-and-over egress now or later. And it would have a freight passing track (Nashua Yard definitely gets fed with high-and-wides on a daily basis), so would be on a brief tri-track segment if the main were DT'd to the state line.

The T hasn't spoken up much about this because they're simply waiting with baited breath for NHDOT to make some decision...any decision...on this build first. Single-vs.-double in MA wouldn't dramatically affect costs at only 5.8 miles, with the trackbed and all bridges/culverts already having a blank berth on it from the old second track lifted in the 1970's.

Oddly enough, the contract for the NHDOT consultant actually specifies that their southerly limit as the "North Face of Lowell Station," and specs that they're "engineering and constructing facilities on property that they do not own. Consultant and NHDOT will need memoranda of understanding, permissions from MassDOT and PanAm Railway which own the railway assets..."

Either way, this list of proposed interlockings from that document probably gives us a sneak peek at the double track segments they expect, which neatly includes the N. Chelmsford station site, and *maybe* that Middlesex mention is UMass.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Either way, this list of proposed interlockings from that document probably gives us a sneak peek at the double track segments they expect, which neatly includes the N. Chelmsford station site, and *maybe* that Middlesex mention is UMass.View attachment 14252

By milepost "Middlesex" is +/- 500 ft. of the Riverview footbridge @ UMass, everybody's betting-odds station site. This being the freight main, it would have to be a tri- or quad-track segment, but you could quite easily drop an egress from the footbridge onto an island platform below. Station spacing from Lowell is almost perfect, there's already a parking garage onsite, and there's that giant-ass abutting parking lot that can be oh-so-beautifully TOD'ed in tandem.

Yeah, I think we can pencil in UMass as "probable" for an infill.


And that does look very much like DT-to-state line is the T's default offer. The negotiating room is probably all on the freight main overlap...where a little bit of fed fun bux to wad up some freight clearance improvements (like provisioning all of the Downtown overpasses for Ayer-Portland double stacks) with passenger tri-tracking would probably make a whole wide swath of stakeholders very happy.

 

[Arlington]

So the agreed Senate Infrastructure Bill has $66B for Amtrak, less than the $80B they wanted but way more than Obama’s $11B

That’s a meaningful increase

 

[themissinglink]

Would an extension to Manchester include a station in Merrimack?

 

[Stlin]

Would an extension to Manchester include a station in Merrimack?

The project as it stands now is to Manchester. Within the project scope, not really? - the only intermediate between Nashua Crown and Manchester is currently expected to be Bedford/Manchester Airport, on the Bedford/Merrimack town line near the bridge. I suppose an infill later isn't out of the question, but it's already going to be a long ride from Manchester and maybe future concord with out extra station stops. Don't know if the ridership here could justify it.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The project as it stands now is to Manchester. Within the project scope, not really? - the only intermediate between Nashua Crown and Manchester is currently expected to be Bedford/Manchester Airport, on the Bedford/Merrimack town line near the bridge. I suppose an infill later isn't out of the question, but it's already going to be a long ride from Manchester and maybe future concord with out extra station stops. Don't know if the ridership here could justify it.

Merrimack was tossed around in earlier rounds of study for the old B&M and 1980-81 MBTA stop. The town has a rep for being longtime vociferous self-advocates, so I would say they're definitely in the mix even if the project development right now doesn't focus on them (mainly because the would-be siting isn't in much question, whereas there are fights to be had with some of the others). Their stop traces out the effective midpoint between Nashua Crown St. and Manchester Airport to a point where it would look kind of weird to have nothing in-between, and it did well enough on ridership after being a latecoming addition to the 1980-81 schedule so don't let the relatively sparse surroundings fool.

 

[Jahvon09]

Here's one of the cars being tested on the Northeast Corridor.

 

[Jahvon09]

The end door on this car is closed or sealed off! Wonder why.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

The end door on this car is closed! Wonder why.

The Ventures have mostly open-gangway ends that in normal operation can only interface with other Venture cars. The NEC test train is only using one single Venture car: one end with a conventional vestibule that can interface with the Amfleet, and the regular open-gangway end that has to be temp-plugged with a pane of sheet metal because there isn't another Venture car on the train to hook it to. That's strictly for the test train; they won't operate with the metal plugs like that in regular service.

The Caltrans/San Joaquins order of Ventures are configured as 7-car sets. Cars #1 and #7 have conventional vestibules on the outermost-facing ends to interface with an Amfleet, Viewliner, or other generic car...but all ends of Cars #2-6 and the inner ends of #1 & #7 have the open-gangway plugs that can only interface with another Venture. They use conventional AAR couplers, but the gangway mechanism is hard-bolted and needs yard staffers with tools to separate.

VIA Rail's order of Ventures are configured as 5-car sets. Cars #1 and #5 have conventional vestibules on the outermost-facing ends, with everything in-between being the hard-coupled open gangway.

The Brightline order of Ventures are configured as smaller 4-car sets. Cars #1 and #4 have conventional vestibules on the outermost-facing ends, with everything in-between being the hard-coupled open gangway.

The Midwest Ventures are configured even smaller as married-pair sets: hard-coupled open gangways between the members of each pair of cars but then conventional vestibules between pairs.

Amtrak hasn't specified what the default config is going to be for the Northeast Regional order; that's not due to be formally specced until August. It's predicted to be more than the Midwest's 2 cars per set but less than Caltrans' 7 cars per set (4 or 6 cars are likely since the longest Northeast Regional platforms run 12 cars and thus it's extremely likely they'll chunk 'em in intermediate-size divisors of 12). The option orders for NYSDOT/Empire Corridor, PennDOT/Keystone Corridor, and NNEPRA/Downeaster can be further customized by desired # of cars per set, and haven't had any quantities specced yet.

 

[jklo]

Your guess is as good as mine why there has to be a garage there instead of repurposement of the existing Mall overflow lots (which are really only regularly used during Xmas shopping season). I guess it could be because somebody wants to redev the lots into more restaurant/retail...but shouldn't we be getting some sneak preview as to what the redev is first???

The overflow lot is not really near the tracks or the Mall. Redev is kind of tricky since the South parking lots are all in MA.. and well no sales tax is kind of the whole point of the Mall.

 

[Jahvon09]

Also, there will probably be a cafe car and a quiet car. People will probably be pretty pissed if they can't buy food or drink!!

 

[jass]

The California cars will not have a cafe actually, very stupid plan

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Note that these are modular-interior, made up of a series of snap-in sections. So while Caltrans may have goofed on not ordering cafes/dinettes, they can convert any of these cars later into one by: ordering a bunch of prefab cafe snap-in sections, popping off the end cap on the cars, and forklifting in/out snap-in sections. They aren't stuck with the factory configuration for 20 years. Same modularity goes for the vestibule ends, which is why all buyers have been able to order as many or as few open-gangway lashups as they please without that inducing any maintenance problems. The Midwest, for instance, if they find they want more open gangways per train in the future...can just order the appropriate vestibule-end snap-in sections and modify as they please.

 

[Jahvon09]

It IS stupid!