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

I wonder when that policy previously changed to disallow the short trip. I recall taking the westbound LSL to Worcester in 2013 - at a fare comparable to commuter rail, rather than the 27-42 the article says it'll now cost.
 
The EGE said:
I wonder when that policy previously changed to disallow the short trip. I recall taking the westbound LSL to Worcester in 2013 - at a fare comparable to commuter rail, rather than the 27-42 the article says it'll now cost.
Click to expand...

I think the article is mistaken. Until they stopped printing them, the Lake Shore Limited schedules invariably listed Worcester as a discharge-only stop on the eastbound Boston section (train 448) but not a receiving-only stop on westbound train 449. Meaning that from the schedule it at least appears that the Boston-Worcester run was at least implicitly allowed, while Worcester-Boston wasn't. Which is weirdly asymmetrical.
 
Brattle Loop said:
I think the article is mistaken. Until they stopped printing them, the Lake Shore Limited schedules invariably listed Worcester as a discharge-only stop on the eastbound Boston section (train 448) but not a receiving-only stop on westbound train 449. Meaning that from the schedule it at least appears that the Boston-Worcester run was at least implicitly allowed, while Worcester-Boston wasn't. Which is weirdly asymmetrical.
Click to expand...
Probably because they know perfectly well the Late for Sure Limited is going to get to Worcester hours behind schedule after trundling 1000 miles from Chicago and they don't want people assuming otherwise.
 
The last time I checked, Amtrak sells tickets from South Station to Route 128, but not the reverse, I'm guessing for similar reasons as @ceo lays out: the journey from RTE to BOS is very short and it's that much more likely that riders will have planned their journey on a tight schedule; the Northeast Regional has a much longer journey and therefore that much more opportunity to get off-schedule when coming northbound.
 
A few updates on the Norwalk WALK bridge replacement project — the scale of this is not captured by these pictures. The construction extends from the East Norwalk train station across Norwalk River and through South Norwalk.

IMG_1417.jpeg
IMG_1413.jpeg
IMG_1405.jpeg
IMG_1424.jpeg


Project website: https://www.walkbridgect.com/design/

Render:
IMG_1429.png
 
Last edited:
Forgive me if this has been asked here already, but would it be feasible to raise the bridge and replace it with a non-draw bridge? I imagine that raising and lowering this bridge would impact the frequency and reliability of trains that you can run on the NEC.
 
olhendrix said:
Forgive me if this has been asked here already, but would it be feasible to raise the bridge and replace it with a non-draw bridge? I imagine that raising and lowering this bridge would impact the frequency and reliability of trains that you can run on the NEC.
Click to expand...
It would have been a huge undertaking because a branch line enters the main line just west of that bridge, with a station just west of that junction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
olhendrix said:
Forgive me if this has been asked here already, but would it be feasible to raise the bridge and replace it with a non-draw bridge? I imagine that raising and lowering this bridge would impact the frequency and reliability of trains that you can run on the NEC.
Click to expand...
No. The height change would mess with the junction with the Danbury Branch just west of the river, which is only about 800 ft. away. And you'd have to replace at least 3-4 over-road bridges with higher ones, too, exploding the budget and making permitting a lot harder because of the much-distended project area.

Changing it to a lift bridge means the openings will happen a lot faster, so it's a practical capacity increase over today. WALK accounts for 25% of the bridge openings on the entire New Haven Line, so that's worth a lot (COS COB in Greenwich accounts for 50% of the openings by itself, and the other three bridges combined account for 25%).
 
And you'd have to replace at least 3-4 over-road bridges with higher ones, too, exploding the budget and making permitting a lot harder because of the much-distended project area.
Click to expand...

FWIW, they are replacing the 4 over-road bridges to the east of the lift bridge as part of a related project, but an in-place replacement is obviously very different than raising the ROW and bridges.
 
www.amtrak.com

Amtrak Advisory | Lake Shore Limited Trains 448 and 449 Track Work Affects Service

www.amtrak.com www.amtrak.com
Effective March 31 – May 1, 2025
Track work being performed by CSX will affect Trains 448 and 449 between Albany and Boston on Monday through Thursday, March 31 - May 1, 2025 as outlined below. The schedules listed on Amtrak.com have been updated to reflect this change.

Train 448: March 29 - 30; April 5 - 9, 12 - 16, 19 - 23, 26 - 30​

  • Train 448, which normally operates between Chicago and Boston, will terminate at Albany. Alternate transportation will be provided to the missed stops of Pittsfield, Springfield, Worcester and Boston South Station. No alternate transportation will be provided to the missed stops of Framingham and Back Bay.
  • Train 448 will run normally on Fridays and Saturdays.

Train 449: March 31; April 7 - 10, 14 - 17, 21 - 24, 28; May 1​

  • Train 449, which normally operates between Boston and Chicago, will originate at Albany. Alternate transportation will be provided to the missed stops of Boston, Worcester, Springfield and Pittsfield. No alternate transportation will be provided for the missed stops of Back Bay and Framingham.
  • Train 449 will run normally on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays.
Click to expand...
 
olhendrix said:
Forgive me if this has been asked here already, but would it be feasible to raise the bridge and replace it with a non-draw bridge? I imagine that raising and lowering this bridge would impact the frequency and reliability of trains that you can run on the NEC.
Click to expand...
It is being raised somewhat, by going from a deck truss to a through truss design, so that should cut down on required openings. Clearance is being increased by 11 feet from 16 to 27 feet when closed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
Scalziand said:
It is being raised somewhat, by going from a deck truss to a through truss design, so that should cut down on required openings. Clearance is being increased by 11 feet from 16 to 27 feet when closed.
Click to expand...
Most of WALK's openings are barge traffic for the cement plant just north of downtown. The big marinas are mostly south of the bridge, with the few docks to the north mostly taking small boats. If the cement barges can slip under the closed bridge, it would hardly ever need to open anymore.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Most of WALK's openings are barge traffic for the cement plant just north of downtown. The big marinas are mostly south of the bridge, with the few docks to the north mostly taking small boats. If the cement barges can slip under the closed bridge, it would hardly ever need to open anymore.
Click to expand...
I hope (and wonder if) anyone actually studied how high the practical needs of this bridge would need to be? I assume having a much higher bridge would be expensive due to the reasons discussed upthread, but if the height needs are only slightly higher, maybe they could accommodate barges?
 
FK4 said:
I hope (and wonder if) anyone actually studied how high the practical needs of this bridge would need to be? I assume having a much higher bridge would be expensive due to the reasons discussed upthread, but if the height needs are only slightly higher, maybe they could accommodate barges?
Click to expand...
They did back in 2016; by the reporting, "Devine said his tugboats need 25 feet to 27 feet of clearance to move barges, ... co-owner of the United Marine, said approximately half of the 70-plus sailboats kept at the marina require up to 65 feet of clearance."

Given this new bridge is set to have 27ft of clearance closed, it would appear the only need for this new bridge to open is to accommodate a small handful of recreational sailboats, and the tugboats and barges can largely fit under the closed new bridge. Given that, I'd actually say job well done on the scoping vs reconstructing miles of approaches.

 
FK4 said:
I hope (and wonder if) anyone actually studied how high the practical needs of this bridge would need to be? I assume having a much higher bridge would be expensive due to the reasons discussed upthread, but if the height needs are only slightly higher, maybe they could accommodate barges?
Click to expand...
It definitely influenced the selection of a lift instead of a bascule or another swing. Lifts can have much thinner decks than the other types of movable bridges. The render a few posts up shows the lift span having significantly thinner deck than even the approach spans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top