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

bakgwailo said:
I'll also point out that it was the one place we also made friends with actual neighbors/locals, and the various business owners which was neat. Our building in Manhattan was much more transient/did meet too many people and most of our friends came from work/else where in the city.
Click to expand...
yeah even just being there for a couple hours on a saturday it really stuck out how every public grill seemed to have 3 families happily sharing it. I love NYC and will always talk about the unique community it brings together, but Roosevelt Island felt like something completely different and in a cool way. Sucks the parking lot is so big tho lol
 
thepixelnation said:
yeah even just being there for a couple hours on a saturday it really stuck out how every public grill seemed to have 3 families happily sharing it. I love NYC and will always talk about the unique community it brings together, but Roosevelt Island felt like something completely different and in a cool way. Sucks the parking lot is so big tho lol
Click to expand...
Going total off topic here, but, RI was originally planned to be car free, with everyone having to park at the garage at the bridge on/off the city and switch to the red bus to get around. Kind of didn't work out like that, though, and cars are still allowed. Whenever I do need to drive down to NYC, though, one my my secrets is to park there as it's pretty cheap (or was), then switch over to the bus to the subway to the hotel.

Roosevelt Island itself is extremely interesting historically. It was essentially all planned and operates on ground leases from the State, and everything is run by the RIOC, a state public-benefit corporation, including the red bus, commercial leasing, development, and private security. Even has an AVAC - automated vacuum trash collection system - which is cool. Also was my first introduction to the Mitchell–Lama program for affordable housing development which seemed to work really, really well. All in all pretty cool if you like just full on civic planning done reasonable well and just the overall quirkiness of it all in NYC and the US in general.
 
Longfellow said:
But more seriously, it reads like a person who doesn't really understand the situation, and doesn't want to research it in depth. Just sort of skimming over talking points people already familiar with the debate know.
Click to expand...
This is largely due to the failure of advocates to clearly articulate the value proposition. I agree, Representative Straus doesn't understand, but the question is how to make it easier for him to get there.
 
The problem with the comparisons to Roosevelt Island, WMATA, and Porter Square (with regards to the station depth) is that all of those were scenarios where there weren't somewhat-comparable competing services. Grand Central Madison will probably be the closest comparison once it shakes out, not just in terms of depth, but in terms of redistribution of passengers. (Far from a perfect comparison, but the best I can think of on this side of the Atlantic.)
 
HenryAlan said:
This is largely due to the failure of advocates to clearly articulate the value proposition. I agree, Representative Straus doesn't understand, but the question is how to make it easier for him to get there.
Click to expand...
Straus will never get there. Replacing him as chair, on the other hand....
 
I'm more intrigued by the fact they barely discuss a Milford extension, instead offering up a timed bus connection. I realize Milford / Bellingham aren't exactly ridership gets, or speedy given the curves, but Milford center seems to have more walk-up potential than basically anywhere else on the Franklin Line.

Additionally, they neglect the fact that the T is absolutely going to need to rebuild the Franklin Layover somewhere else; it's just way too undersized already, and will likely shrink as I believe they're taking a berth for the double track project. Especially given the MBTA just (as of Apr 2023) bought the Milford secondary, and is responsible for maintaining it for G&U / CSX service, at this point I think it's worth at least some updated paper.
 
Last edited:
Stlin said:
I'm more intrigued by the fact they barely discuss a Milford extension, instead offering up a timed bus connection. I realize Milford / Bellingham aren't exactly ridership gets, or speedy given the curves, but Milford center seems to have more walk-up potential than basically anywhere else on the Franklin Line.
Click to expand...
I suspect the fact that the 2011 MPO study was never released despite (allegedly) being completed is the reason why. The only data we have for Milford is the 1997 study, which is simply too old to project any Regional Rail ridership from. And the '97 study wasn't exactly bullish on the potential.
Stlin said:
Additionally, they neglect the fact that the T is absolutely going to need to rebuild the Franklin Layover somewhere else; it's just way too undersized already, and will likely shrink as I believe they're taking a berth for the double track project. Especially given the MBTA just (as of Apr 2023) bought the Milford secondary, and is responsible for maintaining it for G&U / CSX service, at this point I think it's worth at least some updated paper.
Click to expand...
It would've been worth a mention, yes. The '97 Milford study bitched about how constrained Franklin Layover was and how many deadhead runs were needed from Boston to make service work, so this has been a festering sore for over a quarter century. But the T has absolutely no fricking idea where an expanded layover could be sited. The '97 study eyed a gravel pit in Bellingham 1.5 miles west of Forge Park station, which would almost require the Bellingham Jct. station to be built to rationalize the running miles. I suppose there's also land available on the Franklin Industrial Track, but the Superfund site halfway down the track (a potential layover property) would have to be remediated before there's any T use of any of the branch because the chemical contamination has spread to the trackbed. Nooks and crannies by Franklin Jct. also wouldn't be available, as Union St. was the pre-1988 layover for the line and the T agreed to trade laterally from that cramped layover to the current cramped layover to get the parked trains away from center Downtown.

TM also don't explain where the Foxboro extension to Mansfield is supposed to layover. The nearest site for that is mothballed East Junction Layover south of Attleboro Station, since reversing back off the NEC to the Gilette-area layover sites on the Framingham Secondary from the Gilette-terminating 2010 Foxboro Feasibility Study would've made a mess of NEC ops. So they may be forced to model continuation of service on the Providence Line to make the ops work at all.


Still interesting that TM doesn't endorse a routing choice between the NEC and Fairmount Lines for feeding Franklin service. Much like their Fairmount report, they leave it a completely open choice and wash their hands of any traffic modeling associated with the NEC. I would've thought now would be the time to pick a lane, but I guess they've still got doubts about whether it can be done.
 
themissinglink said:
TransitMatters released a report today about modernizing the Franklin Line.
Click to expand...
On page 15, it mentions the possibility of extending the line to Woonsocket, and that has something to do with the T's recent purchase of the Milford Secondary. Anyone know what that's about? That line doesn't go to Woonsocket, right? Revitalizing some abandoned line?

(To be clear, TM isn't really advocating for it. This get's mentioned in passing, and TM dismisses it as wildly expensive. Just curious if there were some other past plans around this.)
 
ritchiew said:
On page 15, it mentions the possibility of extending the line to Woonsocket, and that has something to do with the T's recent purchase of the Milford Secondary. Anyone know what that's about? That line doesn't go to Woonsocket, right? Revitalizing some abandoned line?

(To be clear, TM isn't really advocating for it. This get's mentioned in passing, and TM dismisses it as wildly expensive. Just curious if there were some other past plans around this.)
Click to expand...
They have nothing to do with each other. The Woonsocket trajectory is via the current Franklin Industrial Track to Grove St. and the Southern New England Trunkline Trail to Blackstone and the junction with the Providence & Worcester mainline. Milford Secondary is strictly for a Milford or Hopedale extension. Rhode Island put in its 2014 State Rail Plan that it wants to collaborate with MassDOT on a formal study for Franklin-Woonsocket, but Massachusetts has not obliged them.

It wouldn't be particularly pricey as de-abandonments go, but of course damn near any expansion project proposed seems to round up to a billion dollars because we've forgotten how to build.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
They have nothing to do with each other. The Woonsocket trajectory is via the current Franklin Industrial Track to Grove St. and the Southern New England Trunkline Trail to Blackstone and the junction with the Providence & Worcester mainline. Milford Secondary is strictly for a Milford or Hopedale extension. Rhode Island put in its 2014 State Rail Plan that it wants to collaborate with MassDOT on a formal study for Franklin-Woonsocket, but Massachusetts has not obliged them.

It wouldn't be particularly pricey as de-abandonments go, but of course damn near any expansion project proposed seems to round up to a billion dollars because we've forgotten how to build.
Click to expand...
The city of Woonsocket did do a study though in 2007, benchmarking a few service patterns, including Franklin Line restoration, service to Worcester, and Providence. Ultimately concluded that the best way to serve Woonsocket was with a PVD bound dinky, which ended up getting folded up into RI Intrastate.

www.gcpvd.org/images/reports/2007-07-woonsocket-commuter-rail-feasibility-study.pdf
 
Last edited:
While we're still on this sidebar...

Not sure if anyone knows, but could you run a Providence to Woonsocket service with EMUs? I know that corridor has protected clearances, but there only seem to be 8 bridge overpasses between Woonsocket Station and Boston Switch, and 3 of them look like they could comfortably provide the necessary minimum clearance (in this case, I think 23 feet). Could discontinuous electrification work here? From what I can see, it amounts to five brief instances of coasting under bridges over a span of 11 miles.
 
riptide said:
While we're still on this sidebar...

Not sure if anyone knows, but could you run a Providence to Woonsocket service with EMUs? I know that corridor has protected clearances, but there only seem to be 8 bridge overpasses between Woonsocket Station and Boston Switch, and 3 of them look like they could comfortably provide the necessary minimum clearance (in this case, I think 23 feet). Could discontinuous electrification work here? From what I can see, it amounts to five brief instances of coasting under bridges over a span of 11 miles.
Click to expand...
From my 5 minute search, except until it went to a 2d map, I think continuous electrification should be possible on at least half of the line, and I’m sure a proper BEMU should be able to handle the remainder of the route.
 
CheapLeak said:
From my 5 minute search, except until it went to a 2d map, I think continuous electrification should be possible on at least half of the line, and I’m sure a proper BEMU should be able to handle the remainder of the route.
Click to expand...
Or just use a 3rd rail on a few short sections.
 
TheRatmeister said:
Or just use a 3rd rail on a few short sections.
Click to expand...
Can't. Third rail maxes out at 750 volts vs. the 25,000 volts of overhead because of ground proximity. You'd need wildly different electrification schemes, separate substations, and expensive dual-electrification vehicles. It's honestly cheaper to just brute-force the clearances.
 
Just to be clear, though, are the only practical options for this corridor to either 1) solve the clearance issues or 2) run BEMUs? These would certainly be the more conventional solutions, but I’m specifically wondering if it would be viable to have EMUs coast under the problem bridges. Why isn’t unpowered coasting over bridge-width distances a more widely-accepted solution, especially since it’s already done in certain spots on the NEC?
 
riptide said:
Just to be clear, though, are the only practical options for this corridor to either 1) solve the clearance issues or 2) run BEMUs? These would certainly be the more conventional solutions, but I’m specifically wondering if it would be viable to have EMUs coast under the problem bridges. Why isn’t unpowered coasting over bridge-width distances a more widely-accepted solution, especially since it’s already done in certain spots on the NEC?
Click to expand...
Straight EMU's these days all have small batteries for preventing 'gapping' under short dead sections, so there'd be no need for BEMU's and true discontinuous electrification.

The bigger issue here is the service levels. Does Providence-Woonsocket really merit better than hourly service? The densest areas are on the NEC where overlapping Providence Line and Providence-Westerly service keeps the headways stiff. The P&W is much sparser, and only hosts 2 small and widely spaced intermediate stations. If you can't justify better than hourly, it's going to be tough to pay back the electrification investment and you're probably better off just leaving it diesel.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Straight EMU's these days all have small batteries for preventing 'gapping' under short dead sections, so there'd be no need for BEMU's and true discontinuous electrification.

The bigger issue here is the service levels. Does Providence-Woonsocket really merit better than hourly service? The densest areas are on the NEC where overlapping Providence Line and Providence-Westerly service keeps the headways stiff. The P&W is much sparser, and only hosts 2 small and widely spaced intermediate stations. If you can't justify better than hourly, it's going to be tough to pay back the electrification investment and you're probably better off just leaving it diesel.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you raised that point, because that's kind of where I was headed. I think the overlap could impact the calculus on whether to electrify north of Boston Switch. Hopefully this will make more sense if I frame it in terms of why you'd be looking to run service to Woonsocket in the first place.

If your goal is simply to offer rail service to people in the Blackstone Valley, then yes, a conventional Woonsocket-Providence service could get by with hourly headways and diesel power, especially if stop spacing is kept as wide as the Providence Foundation study proposed (just three intermediates at Manville, Cumberland, and Pawtucket). But what if you view running service to Woonsocket as incidental to the goal of doubling frequencies in the Providence metro?
Say you’re already running a Westerly-Pawtucket service with EMUs, and your main priority is to add another service layer that has both layers overlapping between Warwick and Pawtucket. This cuts headways in half, so you now have trains going through every 30 mins, or maybe even 15 mins. You want to take advantage of the frequencies by adding dense infill stops in that overlap area, and for performance as well as uniformity of fleet/maintenance considerations, EMUs are the rolling stock for the job.
Although most of the ridership and demand is going to come from the segment between Warwick and Pawtucket, you recognize this second service layer could also serve the Blackstone Valley if you extend northwards beyond Pawtucket up to Woonsocket — but electrification currently ends at Boston Switch.
If you don’t want to take on BEMUs for maintenance or performance reasons, could there be a world in which the lower-frequency, wider-stop-spacing, Pawtucket-Woonsocket segment of the overall Woonsocket-Warwick corridor gets catenary not because it warrants it on its own, but because the higher-frequency, denser-stop-spacing, Pawtucket-Warwick segment needs it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top