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

Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

I mean...obviously something is off there. Nobody would suggest BRT over such a distance. Some kind of frequent bus service, yes, but not what we know as bus rapid transit.

I assume they mean stops in the median of I-90 with park-and-ride. Probably not anything like urban BRT.
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

True high speed rail would be a gamechanger here. It’s costly but frequent, semi-express service (and electrification) I think it should be looked at for all gateway cities (worcester, Springfield, Lowell, Brockton, Haverhill). But the investment should be directly tied to development upcoming for the 2 miles around the stations. No parking minimums no height restrictions for the half mile radius and getting tighter after.

If you want to address infrastructure modernization, regional housing prices and climate goals things need to be holistic. If the state wants a return on a 2 billion investment in on a 45 min Boston Springfield train, that larger will be made in building up the Springfield end. Springfield needs to have a lot of people that can walk to the train every day and companies that can have day trip satellite offices. One doesn’t happen without the other.
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

True high speed rail would be a gamechanger here. It’s costly but frequent, semi-express service (and electrification) I think it should be looked at for all gateway cities (worcester, Springfield, Lowell, Brockton, Haverhill). But the investment should be directly tied to development upcoming for the 2 miles around the stations. No parking minimums no height restrictions for the half mile radius and getting tighter after.

If you want to address infrastructure modernization, regional housing prices and climate goals things need to be holistic. If the state wants a return on a 2 billion investment in on a 45 min Boston Springfield train, that larger will be made in building up the Springfield end. Springfield needs to have a lot of people that can walk to the train every day and companies that can have day trip satellite offices. One doesn’t happen without the other.


That says very little for the new high-speed Acela Trains that are due to go into production soon. Since they are going to be using existing rail along the NEC, their speeds will be limited just like the existing Acela trains are now.

With the newer tracks, the trains could take advantage of being able to run at about 165mph all the way. :rolleyes:
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

I just took a look at the current ROW out to Pittsfield and man is that ugly for any high speed options. Lots of relatively tight turns.
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

If the state wants a return on a 2 billion investment in on a 45 min Boston Springfield train, that larger will be made in building up the Springfield end.

If we can't get even SCR for $2billion, a 45 min train to Springfield would cost WAY more than $2billion.
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

I just took a look at the current ROW out to Pittsfield and man is that ugly for any high speed options. Lots of relatively tight turns.

CSX has to attach a pair of extra helper locomotives from Chester to Hinsdale to get its massive intermodal trains over the summit of Middlefield Hill. It's curvy AND steep where it follows the topography here. Don't forget...this is the same general area where the Pike has all those runaway truck ramps on every hill, so the Berkshire terrain isn't all that kind to any mode of travel. The Pan Am Patriot Corridor does have the Hoosac Tunnel blasted straight through the mountainside to North Adams, but even if it were up to acceptable state-of-repair (it's not) it's an even curvier mess everywhere else being shaped by the Millers, Deerfield, and Hoosic Rivers on pretty much the entirety from Wachusett to the state line. The B&A has always beaten the Fitchburg Main on trip times to the Berkshires.

I don't know why there's such a rush to get Boston-Pittsfield...hardly a top-tier pairing...a train now. They already studied Worcester-Springfield in the NNEIRI study and found rock-solid ground for the Inland Route and the L-shaped Boston-VT/Montreal route out of a Springfield hub. The B&A from Springfield to Palmer is straight and flat, capable of 90 MPH speeds if they chose to signal it for that. The Worcester Hills are a grin-and-bear-it proposition, but since the ROW isn't all that closely abutted they ID'd some places where curve straightening would take the edge off speed restrictions. And if they did any similar work to increase geometric speeds in MBTA territory (especially Millbury-Ashland and Framingham-Downtown Wellesley) the Worcester County slog would be effectively counterbalanced.

How are we supposed to focus on those things when we gotta give Pittsfield a study cookie because Deval Patrick was an idiot who promised them the moon with his billion(s)-dollar Berkshire Line-to-New York folly? Nothing's going to make the trip over the mountains exponentially faster...but we can make the Lake Shore Limited and some future Boston-Albany train TBD a lot more tolerable on the schedule by focusing on the Inland Route portion instead of diluting attention.

Diluting attention seems to be the whole point of this.
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

CSX has to attach a pair of extra helper locomotives from Chester to Hinsdale to get its massive intermodal trains over the summit of Middlefield Hill. It's curvy AND steep where it follows the topography here. Don't forget...this is the same general area where the Pike has all those runaway truck ramps on every hill, so the Berkshire terrain isn't all that kind to any mode of travel. The Pan Am Patriot Corridor does have the Hoosac Tunnel blasted straight through the mountainside to North Adams, but even if it were up to acceptable state-of-repair (it's not) it's an even curvier mess everywhere else being shaped by the Millers, Deerfield, and Hoosic Rivers on pretty much the entirety from Wachusett to the state line. The B&A has always beaten the Fitchburg Main on trip times to the Berkshires.

I don't know why there's such a rush to get Boston-Pittsfield...hardly a top-tier pairing...a train now. They already studied Worcester-Springfield in the NNEIRI study and found rock-solid ground for the Inland Route and the L-shaped Boston-VT/Montreal route out of a Springfield hub. The B&A from Springfield to Palmer is straight and flat, capable of 90 MPH speeds if they chose to signal it for that. The Worcester Hills are a grin-and-bear-it proposition, but since the ROW isn't all that closely abutted they ID'd some places where curve straightening would take the edge off speed restrictions. And if they did any similar work to increase geometric speeds in MBTA territory (especially Millbury-Ashland and Framingham-Downtown Wellesley) the Worcester County slog would be effectively counterbalanced.

How are we supposed to focus on those things when we gotta give Pittsfield a study cookie because Deval Patrick was an idiot who promised them the moon with his billion(s)-dollar Berkshire Line-to-New York folly? Nothing's going to make the trip over the mountains exponentially faster...but we can make the Lake Shore Limited and some future Boston-Albany train TBD a lot more tolerable on the schedule by focusing on the Inland Route portion instead of diluting attention.

Diluting attention seems to be the whole point of this.

Agreed, with one caveat: there’s only one runaway truck ramp on that part of the Pike.
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

I have always longed for a Boston-Montreal rail connection.

Same... As for Boston - Pittsfield I suspect a train to Springfield and a bus the rest of the way will be the only sensible option to come out of this study.
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

I have always longed for a Boston-Montreal rail connection.

And the tragic thing--from diluted attention to Pittsfield perspective--is that BOS-MTL is silly-easy to implement as part of the bread-and-butter Inland Route build. Do the New Haven-Springfield-Boston schedules as NNEIRI envisions, and set up timed transfers at Springfield Union Station. Like so:

  • The regular Vermonter/(future Montrealer) hits Springfield on its regular D.C. to St. Albans round trip same as always. Time a BOS-NHV (and vice versa) Inland to meet at Springfield, set up cross-platform transfer and cross-ticketing. Boston gains a fresh VT/Montreal round-trip off the existing train.
  • Add one daily BOS-SPR-MTL round-trip on the L-shaped routing. Time a Springfield-terminating NE Regional out of D.C. or New York to offer cross-platform/cross-tix transfer at Springfield. CT/NY and points south gain a second bog-standard Vermonter slot via transfer, just as Boston gains its second bog-standard daily VT/Montreal slot through finagling the transfer with the existing Vermonter.
  • Rotate these two trains at opposite high-demand ends of the day, so everyone has 2 well-spaced Montreal round-trips: 1 direct, and 1 via transfer.
The only deviations from existing ops and planned Inland ops are the addition of 1 Springfield-St.Albans/Montreal round-trip. Everything else is just schedule mix-and-match on the highest-leverage ridership portion of the route, but the careful mix-and-match is what gives every audience two-cracks-and-back per day to Montreal. The scalability is excellent, and a much better use of money than Pittsfield...which can always have buses waiting at Springfield for any regular Inland schedule.
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

Any opinions on "Boston Surface Railroad Company"'s plan to get Worcester to Providence rail privately funded? Seems like a long shot for some random guy to do solo... https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail...e-northeasts-underserved-metropolitan-regions

Check the RR.net thread, New England Railfan subforum, on it. It's 3 years of humor at BSRC's expense as they drift from one grift to another.

They have good PR people with all the coverage they've gotten from third-rate local rags in MetroWest and Southern NH that can't be bothered to do basic fact-checking. So...they've got that going for them, even with the trains not going for them.
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread



I'll believe it when I see it. While operationally effortless, equipment is at such a premium until NY gets its crack at state-sponsored fleet renewal that they're not going to want to pry away a slot that could otherwise be assigned to an Empire Service short-turn. Plus the Ethan Allen Express extends to Burlington in a couple years putting further imminent strain on resources.


Enhancing Albany-Springfield buses with more Pittsfield stopovers could do the trick effectively much more immediately, while helping route-prime for this train when new equipment allows. More useful as a service start, but not a shiny thing so the local Legislators have no interest in playing the long game.
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

I'll believe it when I see it. While operationally effortless, equipment is at such a premium until NY gets its crack at state-sponsored fleet renewal that they're not going to want to pry away a slot that could otherwise be assigned to an Empire Service short-turn. Plus the Ethan Allen Express extends to Burlington in a couple years putting further imminent strain on resources.


Enhancing Albany-Springfield buses with more Pittsfield stopovers could do the trick effectively much more immediately, while helping route-prime for this train when new equipment allows. More useful as a service start, but not a shiny thing so the local Legislators have no interest in playing the long game.

Dumb question, would the equipment for this proposed route be Amtrak's? That's the assumption I had clicking the link, and there is some evidence that that would be the case in the article but nothing concrete. And it also goes on to highlight MassDOT's role in all of this and talks about how this is based on the Cape Flyer. It's even called the Berkshire Flyer. Does this mean there's the potential for seeing MBTA branded equipment at Penn Station or am I misreading this?
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

Dumb question, would the equipment for this proposed route be Amtrak's? That's the assumption I had clicking the link, and there is some evidence that that would be the case in the article but nothing concrete. And it also goes on to highlight MassDOT's role in all of this and talks about how this is based on the Cape Flyer. It's even called the Berkshire Flyer. Does this mean there's the potential for seeing MBTA branded equipment at Penn Station or am I misreading this?


It would be Amtrak equipment. T bi-levels can't fit in Penn and you need a third-rail dual-mode locomotive to get out of Penn (though on most Empire schedules it's swapped out at Albany for a straight diesel, also mandatorily from the AMTK pool because that's all Albany Shops is qualified on). Because of the PRIAA statute where state-sponsored routes have to paper-own their equipment, the dual-modes are NYSDOT property and the coaches NYSDOT and (smidge) VTrans property. Right now they're standard AMTK-maintained Amfleet I's, but the replacement fleet--while AMTK-standardized--may carry special Empire livery as that's an allowable customization option.

MassDOT could pay in to PRIAA as a formal bit player in the Empire fleet like VT does for the Ethan Allen, or just cut a reimbursement check to NY. Either way they're subservient to NY's needs (PRIAA pay-in giving them some limited-but-better chance of controlling their destiny than reimbursing for seasonal use). And that's a hard blocker until the coach AND dual-mode loco shortages get solved...which will not happen in 1 year like Berkshire pols are saying. Not even close. Interim bus solutions should be on the table for next year because this is more like 5 years to new equipment deliveries where NY's going to have to be very stingy with Empire assignments in the meantime.
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

Keep in mind that the new Berkshire Flyer would be used primarily by downstate residents to reach their country homes. So it's not like NYS wouldn't be pissing away money for another state.
 
Re: Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread

Keep in mind that the new Berkshire Flyer would be used primarily by downstate residents to reach their country homes. So it's not like NYS wouldn't be pissing away money for another state.

Very true. And that's why they enthusiastically support the Ethan Allen Express; that's a New Yorker getaway train more than it is Vermont's. But the equipment crunch is very real.

  • Doing a Pittsfield turn requires running in push-pull mode with a cab car, because there's no wye anywhere near Pittsfield for changing directions. The reverse at Albany-Rensselaer Station from the Hudson Line onto the B&A-connecting Post Road Branch is easily doable because they can use that occasion to detach the dual-mode loco from the front and attach the straight diesel to the back (and vice versa). But the nearest turnback to Pittsfield is...Springfield.
The only cab cars on Amtrak that will fit into Penn Station are the Metroliners, of which only 17 are available with most gobbled up by the Keystone route. Worse, the Ethan Allen has already claimed one of these scarce bodies for its Burlington extension...so the chances of being able to bum another for the Empire pool are especially poor until new cab cars are produced. The next-gen equipment order will substantially expand the cab roster, but since nationally-owned Northeast Regional stock is first up for replacement it won't be until the backside with the statie orders where the first cabs will appear...and PennDOT will probably get all the first ones for those lucrative Keystone assignments because the Metroliners are the single oldest cars left on Amtrak. We may see a situation where there's a very large surplus of Amfleet I coaches displaced from the Regionals...and it wouldn't matter one bit for this train because there's still years to wait for more cab cars.

  • The only other alternative to cabs is to run double-ended, which means the dual-mode will have to stay attached for the full run from Penn while wasting a straight diesel in Albany for the other end. The Genesis P32AC-DM duals are aging and having steadily increasing reliability problems, while their numbers are threadbare for covering the Empire essentials. They get swapped at Albany for straight diesels so they can get sent right back down to NYC to inflate their thin numbers up to a level that'll support the schedule. It is very unlikely that NYSDOT would risk letting a new route vulture one of their duals past Albany because it stretches their reserves to untenable levels. Unfortunately, without a solve for the cab car shortage you need them to agree to exactly that in order to turn around in Pittsfield at all.
The procurement for next-gen duals is a monster order: same third rail dual for the Empire, LIRR, and Metro North branch service @ 75-90 units total. Most likely based on the Siemens Charger diesel and Siemens Sprinter electric. Triple-agency bureaucracy and triple-agency pilot testing before they can start cranking out production units. This is easily a 7-year saga, since the state has spent more time fighting amongst itself than appropriating funds for this.

This isn't an everlasting condition. All of the necessary new equipment will be cued up and in production soon, and the Empire will be flush enough that new route options will be considered. NY & VT already have bullish dreams for an Albany-North Bennington-Rutland train serving VT's Lower Western Corridor, meeting the Ethan Allen Express in Rutland (and perhaps taking over the Burlington leg from the EAE). Easterly pokes into MA would definitely be fair game.

But it's not state-on-state turf warrage to say that equipment is going to be dreadfully difficult to find for this in the next 5 years. Cab cars are so devastatingly few NYSDOT might not even be able to get another one if it arm-twisted, since it already went to that well once to secure one for the EAE-Burlington extension. There's no solution for the duals, since procurement for a new and very complex product will be a full 5+ year wait while the current fleet's reliability rapidly fades. Short-term component renewal of the Genesis duals is expected, but that means that virtually all their cushion will be rotated into the shop for 5-year band-aid life extensions instead of being made available for other services. So if they manage to get a cab car, they might be able to live within the power reserves of an Empire Albany short-turn by engine-swapping to a straight diesel for the Pittsfield leg. But it they have to run double-ended...forget it as long as the Genesis units have to hold up. They can't afford to let any units escape the Penn/Sunnyside-Albany orbit lest one crap-out pushes them to the end of their reserves.

A five-year plan would've been much more reasonable. Or some step-ups from bus to train so there's certainty the season service starts are to commence. This whole "by 2020" over-promising by Berkshire pols is just going to end up killing it faster because those logistical barriers to finding equipment (and reliance on other states really really desperate for equipment) is just going to turn this into a kick-the-can game each year they can't make good on their own prognosticating. There's no need for them to set themselves up for taking wind out of this thing's sails. 2025--6 years from now--all the necessary equipment will be in-progress on delivery guaranteeing at least a minimum-enough number of loose bodies floating around to stock the train. And then by Year 2 and Year 3 it'll be on completely solid footing going forward with all new equipment in-service.

In the meantime, you target years 2020-24 for step-ups...starting with Pittsfield Intermodal Ctr. which has a nice intercity bus terminal but not a whole slew of scheduled intercity trips because it's a ways off the Pike. Can that terminal get some enticement for more service? Maybe even some subsidy for the big-city carriers to 1) add Pittsfield to their Springfield-Albany schedules, and 2) time it with Empire trains so easy transfer, cross-ticketing, and professional baggage handling are available on the two-seat. Then establish some patronage here through these rubber-tire means that you can graduate into a one-seat train when the equipment is available. That would be way better use of time, resources, and seed-planting than not lifting a finger on any mode because they promised "2020" for the papers but the equipment won't be there till '25 at the earliest.
 

Back
Top