Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)

F-Line to Dudley said:
I don't see why any of Worcester should go un-wired. CSX sunset its Beacon Park-Framingham Plate F clearance exemption, and sunset its Plate F+ (autorack) Framingham-Westborough exemption down to Plate F. The height is completely there. It's only the handful of overpasses between Back Bay and Beacon Park in Plate C territory that pose any problems (with Beacon St. next to Landsdowne Station perhaps the one trickiest). Undercut where you can; coast under dead sections of wire where you can't. It's not hard at all.
Click to expand...

Feels like that coasting under the bridges is too easy of a solution to not have problems of it's own. Digging to make room doesn't seem like it should be hard either although maybe it's more expensive than I think.
 
jklo said:
Feels like that coasting under the bridges is too easy of a solution to not have problems of it's own. Digging to make room doesn't seem like it should be hard either although maybe it's more expensive than I think.
Click to expand...
Modern straight-EMU's have small batteries to crawl along if they "gap" themselves at a stop on an un-wired coasting section. That's a long-solved problem.

Undercutting is cheap. It was done by the T on the Lowell Line in Somerville in 1979 during a time of financial famine for the agency as part of the trade-in for taking the Fitchburg Cutoff out-of-service for the Red Line extension, and was paid out-of-pocket by CSX in 2008 for a portion of the outermost Worcester Line.
 
Is there any reason why the T isn't looking at 3rd rail for the north side instead of canterany wires?
 
tysmith95 said:
Is there any reason why the T isn't looking at 3rd rail for the north side instead of canterany wires?
Click to expand...
Lots. Third rail is much lower voltage because of proximity to the ground, which means many more substations (and much more $$$$) than 25 kV overhead. It's dangerous around grade crossings. And it has a lower top speed limit because of the friction.

It's good for rapid transit heavy rail subways, and LIRR can add more of it because they're just building off an existing base...but it's a nonstarter for mainline RR anywhere else.
 
Is there a location identified in Roxbury where they can build a new power substation that doesn't get substantial pushback from the community? It seems like all of the Southside Phase 1 plan hinges on this thing, since the Readville charging station will be fed from the Providence Line.
 
Tysons2 said:
Is there a location identified in Roxbury where they can build a new power substation that doesn't get substantial pushback from the community?
Click to expand...

Probably not, but that's as likely as not intentional given that the ridiculous and unnecessary complexity of this harebrained scheme screams the state not wanting to actually have to do it. Fairly common tactic from Baker & Co.: introduce unnecessary esoteric requirements knowing they'll be hard if not impossible-to-solve blockers, then point to the blockers when you kill (sorry, that is, temporarily suspend) the project and hope no one (with any kind of actual power) notices what they did there. (Or, if you're the less-jaded type, it's also entirely possible that they simply haven't gotten that far in their analysis.)
 
Tysons2 said:
Is there a location identified in Roxbury where they can build a new power substation that doesn't get substantial pushback from the community? It seems like all of the Southside Phase 1 plan hinges on this thing, since the Readville charging station will be fed from the Providence Line.
Click to expand...
There's plenty of air rights available over the SW Corridor in Roxbury where they could do it on their own property. Might be a little more expensive because of decking, but definitely not land-intensive or neighborhood-obtrusive.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
There's plenty of air rights available over the SW Corridor in Roxbury where they could do it on their own property. Might be a little more expensive because of decking, but definitely not land-intensive or neighborhood-obtrusive.
Click to expand...

Any idea if that's something they'd still be looking at if they were properly electrifying the whole system, or would the better solution be upgrades at Sharon and additional substations further out from the city?
 
Brattle Loop said:
Any idea if that's something they'd still be looking at if they were properly electrifying the whole system, or would the better solution be upgrades at Sharon and additional substations further out from the city?
Click to expand...
If the entire southside is eventually to be wired, there might be a real need for a central sub to power just the terminal district. Those 15-minute core frequencies are going to be sucking a lot of juice. But it depends on what their hazy phasing plan coalesces into. If this goes glacially, they probably don't need it up-front (stupid BEMU charging schemes aside).

It's clearly not very fleshed-out yet. But if they need/want to do one in Roxbury, air rights'ing it will sidestep the whole community support quagmire since they control the land and it's currently just a gash in the ground with loud trains on 2 modes running through it.
 
If it's mostly to power the terminal district, hopefully they can find a way to stick it in Widett. Someone will inevitably get elected to city council pledging to keep a dangerous power station that benefits commuters from Pawtucket away from our children playing in Southwest Corridor Park. Having said that, the gap between Heath and Cedar looks as good as any.
 
Does anyone know EXACTLY where the NSRL proposal puts the NEC/Worc portal? How deep does the tunnel have to be (top of rail) going under the Ted?
 
Tallguy said:
Does anyone know EXACTLY where the NSRL proposal puts the NEC/Worc portal? How deep does the tunnel have to be (top of rail) going under the Ted?
Click to expand...
Washington St. overpass, give or take a hundred feet. The 3 NEC tracks have some room to shift over to the Herald St. retaining wall to create room in the middle for 2 tracks to the portal. Grades could be up to 2%. All NSRL tunnel bores are to be Plate C (15'6", for T bi-levels) + electrification clearance.
 
Engineering dudes… if the Main Post Office on Dorchester Ave was removed would it be possible start a NB tunnel approach to the NSRL at the curve by Ft Pt Channel (behind the TWTX vents) that would run above or below the RL/SL tunnels? This is assuming full electrification which would allow steeper ascent angles.
Dropped pin
goo.gl

42°20'49.1"N 71°03'25.2"W

goo.gl goo.gl
 
BeyondRevenue said:
Engineering dudes… if the Main Post Office on Dorchester Ave was removed would it be possible start a NB tunnel approach to the NSRL at the curve by Ft Pt Channel (behind the TWTX vents) that would run above or below the RL/SL tunnels? This is assuming full electrification which would allow steeper ascent angles.
Dropped pin
goo.gl

42°20'49.1"N 71°03'25.2"W

goo.gl goo.gl
Click to expand...
The CA/T alignment was going to swing out a little further under Dot Ave. straddling Ft. Point Channel to avoid any/all building foundations, and there is an open slot under the RL/SL tunnels that they can take to get through.
 
$1 million for NSRL design study in latest transportation bond bill. Anyone know what this study would uncover that previous studies haven’t? Or is it just a chance to un-sandbag the previous study?

I’m pretty sure the last study proposed the Northside portal to be where Cambridge Crossing is now, so I’m curious where the new proposed portal placement would be.
 
Badusername said:
$1 million for NSRL design study in latest transportation bond bill. Anyone know what this study would uncover that previous studies haven’t? Or is it just a chance to un-sandbag the previous study?

I’m pretty sure the last study proposed the Northside portal to be where Cambridge Crossing is now, so I’m curious where the new proposed portal placement would be.
Click to expand...

Thought the portals were supposed to be in the vicinity of the Engine Terminal near the Fitchburg split, though there've been eight million proposals with different levels of sandbaggery so I don't know specifically where that came from.
 
Brattle Loop said:
Thought the portals were supposed to be in the vicinity of the Engine Terminal near the Fitchburg split, though there've been eight million proposals with different levels of sandbaggery so I don't know specifically where that came from.
Click to expand...
AF44F375-4FAA-4887-AD70-BC221E19B0DF.png
You’re right, on second thought I might be recalling the idea of using CX as a staging area. Maybe they could use a lot in Brickbottom. Since the name of the last study was ”NSRL reassessment“ maybe they’ll call this one the “rereassessment”.
 
Badusername said:
View attachment 26569You’re right, on second thought I might be recalling the idea of using CX as a staging area. Maybe they could use a lot in Brickbottom. Since the name of the last study was ”NSRL reassessment“ maybe they’ll call this one the “rereassessment”.
Click to expand...
Was there ever a possibility of a single portal where the three would meet... perhaps if the whole system was electrified?
 
BeyondRevenue said:
Was there ever a possibility of a single portal where the three would meet... perhaps if the whole system was electrified?
Click to expand...
No. The tunnel grades would have to be too steep to pop up before the lines split. Same deal on the southside with the Old Colony + Fairmount portals popping up on opposite sites of Amtrak's Southampton facility in mirror image to BET; it would've been too steep to combine them at an earlier portal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top