JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,320
- Reaction score
- 61
Re: North-South Rail Link
What's an SSX
What's an SSX
Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)
- Thread starter quadratdackel
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,702
Re: North-South Rail Link
SS South Station
SSX South Station Expansion
NS North Station
NSX North Station Expansion (wider drawbridges & restore tracks 11 & 12)
Red X = Doubling frequencies on Red A & B branches by feeding the new trains into a subway side of the NSRL from JFK- SS -Aquarium - NS - and out to Porter/Alewife (or Waverly/Waltham) via Fitchburg Line.
There's also
GLX = Green Line Extension (to Medford)
OLX = Orange Line Exension (usually beyond Forest Hills southwards)
BLX = Blue Line Extension (usually from Wonderland to Lynn)
IN addition to NSRL, You'll see the following transit-related abbreviations here a lot:
SS South Station
SSX South Station Expansion
NS North Station
NSX North Station Expansion (wider drawbridges & restore tracks 11 & 12)
Red X = Doubling frequencies on Red A & B branches by feeding the new trains into a subway side of the NSRL from JFK- SS -Aquarium - NS - and out to Porter/Alewife (or Waverly/Waltham) via Fitchburg Line.
There's also
GLX = Green Line Extension (to Medford)
OLX = Orange Line Exension (usually beyond Forest Hills southwards)
BLX = Blue Line Extension (usually from Wonderland to Lynn)
bigpicture7
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 5, 2016
- Messages
- 3,519
- Reaction score
- 7,473
Re: North-South Rail Link
Can someone better explain (or provide a link) regarding how NSRL relates to the red line subway? I keep hearing it discussed but I don't have a clear image in my head. Red line already has its own ROW across downtown, so is this a re-routing of it? I've seen NSRL notional schematics, but they all only showed commuter/amtrak rail lines. Thx.
Can someone better explain (or provide a link) regarding how NSRL relates to the red line subway? I keep hearing it discussed but I don't have a clear image in my head. Red line already has its own ROW across downtown, so is this a re-routing of it? I've seen NSRL notional schematics, but they all only showed commuter/amtrak rail lines. Thx.
Re: North-South Rail Link
Search upthread for posts from F-Line for in depth detail.
My short version: Among many other benefits, NSRL shifts burdens away from Green, Orange, and Red lines in the inner core area where the station crowding is negatively impacting dwell times, especially at transfer stations. Commuter rail riders from the north who otherwise transfer to Green or Orange to reach points farther into the financial district (or Back Bay) would no longer have to make that transfer. That wouldn't be everyone, but every shift away from Green and Orange helps. Something similar for commuter rail riders from the south who transfer to Red and then either Orange or Green to get to points over near North Station. I suspect that's a smaller % shift from current ridership than what we'd see at North Station, but again, filling in the network helps not just for the obvious people on commuter rail, but also to get people off Red, Green, and Orange who won't any longer need to be there. I think Green and Orange get a bigger boost than Red.
If the challenge of inserting Central Station is met, then that also gets connection to Blue and opens up some options for those riders, might shift some of them away from Red or Green or Orange. That's less clear to me but I imagine it's a benefit.
The bigger gains from NSRL come from removing the bottlenecks at North and South stations, the latter of which long ago reached critical mass. Combined with widening platform access via SSX and NSX, and also combined with electrification of some portion of the commuter rail lines, this would radically boost frequencies, reliability, and carrying capacity of the entire commuter rail system. That's the main benefit. However, as F-Line and others have posted upthread, the tangential benefits from shifting ridership away from the color-coded lines is also quite real.
Search upthread for posts from F-Line for in depth detail.
My short version: Among many other benefits, NSRL shifts burdens away from Green, Orange, and Red lines in the inner core area where the station crowding is negatively impacting dwell times, especially at transfer stations. Commuter rail riders from the north who otherwise transfer to Green or Orange to reach points farther into the financial district (or Back Bay) would no longer have to make that transfer. That wouldn't be everyone, but every shift away from Green and Orange helps. Something similar for commuter rail riders from the south who transfer to Red and then either Orange or Green to get to points over near North Station. I suspect that's a smaller % shift from current ridership than what we'd see at North Station, but again, filling in the network helps not just for the obvious people on commuter rail, but also to get people off Red, Green, and Orange who won't any longer need to be there. I think Green and Orange get a bigger boost than Red.
If the challenge of inserting Central Station is met, then that also gets connection to Blue and opens up some options for those riders, might shift some of them away from Red or Green or Orange. That's less clear to me but I imagine it's a benefit.
The bigger gains from NSRL come from removing the bottlenecks at North and South stations, the latter of which long ago reached critical mass. Combined with widening platform access via SSX and NSX, and also combined with electrification of some portion of the commuter rail lines, this would radically boost frequencies, reliability, and carrying capacity of the entire commuter rail system. That's the main benefit. However, as F-Line and others have posted upthread, the tangential benefits from shifting ridership away from the color-coded lines is also quite real.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,702
Re: North-South Rail Link
I was looking for such a link, couldn't find, so will lay it out here:
From the south, the Red Line is 2, 2-track branches (A & B), and therefore a 4 track railroad from south of Savin Hill to north of JFK. Today, both the A & the B branches carry only half of their potential frequencies because they must be crammed together by alternate turns, into just 2 tracks by the time they get to Andrew, but at this point there's also the yard leads that can be used as 2 more northbound tracks.
The idea would be to double service on both A & B south of JFK, and from JFK north to send every other A and every other B onto a new alignment that would put 2 tracks into the NSRL (which has room for as many as 4 tracks)
Two tracks in the NSRL would be for CR/Amtrak and 2 would be for Subway. NYC's 63rd St Tunnel is precedent for combined CR & Subway tunnel. All 4 tracks would run from South Station Under (SSU) past Aquarium (where you might fit an Aquarium Red station) and to North Station Under (NSU). Red X uses exactly the same alignment and tunnel as a 4-track NSRL would.
To get from JFK to the new Red SSU would require a mix of new surface tracks, where you could squeeze them in, and likely a few duck-under tunnels, as far as Andrew.
From Andrew to Broadway, you'd run along or under the Red's yard leads (maybe with a new stop at the South Boston Bypass road), and might be running too far west (and be unable to actually serve Andrew or Broadway)
From Broadway &/or the Red Line's yards you'd tunnel down into the Dot Ave / Fort Point channel alignment, and build a deep station under Summer St. (see upthread) THe red line might take the east/ocean side 2 tracks and the CR/Amtrak would run from Back Bay and the NEC into the west/land side 2 tracks. (they will cross at some point, so the exact crossing and sides are TBD)
Northbound from SSU you cut inland across the Hook Lobster Site into the cavity in the Central Artery that's clean fill dirt and tunnel your way to Aquarium and North Station Under
From North Station Under, Red X has basically the same bellmouth/portal options that the CR has:
- via Fitchburg Line Portal to Porter (displace the Union Sq GLX)
- via Lowell Line Portal to Medford/Woburn (displace the Medford GLX)
- Newbury Rockport Portal to Chelsea (unlikely)
Plus one other option that CR doesn't have:
Orange to Oak Grove (which is the same as saying "along the Haverhill Line")
Given how crushed the Red is from Harvard to Park, the Red X generally favors putting the NSRL Red onto the Fitchburg Line:, so it can tap of some of the demand at Porter and Alewife by running:
- North Station Under
- Union Square (displacing the GLX)
- Mid Cambridge(Optional at Kirkland St / California St)
- Porter Square (surface or shallow)
- Sherman St (Optional)
- Alewife (on CambridgePark Dr side)
(and out the Fitchburg as far and the money, density& political will run)
Why Red X is a better use of NSRL tracks 3 & 4:
- Its southern leads are already an electrified (third rail) high-capacity, high frequency transit line. Regular 4-track NSRL requires too much electrification of minor CR lines, and the places the minor CR lines serve may never be dense enough to provide all-day demand. The A & B branches are proven traffic generators, and its easy to picture them generating more (esp Quincy)
- The Central Business District along the Red from SS to Harvard has proven demand (and soon, too much demand). Skeptics gripe that SEPTA and others underuse their central rail through-tunnels. Such an objection is impossible if the NSRL carries the Red from JFK to Porter. It will be a huge success in itself and a huge relief to the rest of the network.
- Red has frequencies that would actually make South Station - North Station connections a practical for CR Surface to the other side of the FiDi. The NSRL Red would be as frequent and convenient on its route as today's Red is at Park.
In summary: each segment of the Red X is superior to all other minor CR lines put together.
- Its south branches are dense, electric, frequent, & ready now
- Its center is frequent, proven employment demand
- Its north would be new, but in a transit-hungry stretch Union-Porter-Alewife and provide a huge relief/bypass of the Harvard-Kenall-MGH-Park crush.
Can someone draw me a map of a new Red Line from North to South:
- Alewife @ Fitchburg CR
- Sherman St (Optional) (along Fitchburg CR)
- Porter Square (surface or shallow along Fitchburg CR)
- Mid Cambridge(Optional at Kirkland St / California St along Fitchburg CR)
- Union Square (displacing the GLX station, tunneled to NSU)
- North Station Under
- Aquarium Under
- South Station Under
- Widett Circle / South Boston Bypass
- JFK UMass
I was looking for such a link, couldn't find, so will lay it out here:
From the south, the Red Line is 2, 2-track branches (A & B), and therefore a 4 track railroad from south of Savin Hill to north of JFK. Today, both the A & the B branches carry only half of their potential frequencies because they must be crammed together by alternate turns, into just 2 tracks by the time they get to Andrew, but at this point there's also the yard leads that can be used as 2 more northbound tracks.
The idea would be to double service on both A & B south of JFK, and from JFK north to send every other A and every other B onto a new alignment that would put 2 tracks into the NSRL (which has room for as many as 4 tracks)
Two tracks in the NSRL would be for CR/Amtrak and 2 would be for Subway. NYC's 63rd St Tunnel is precedent for combined CR & Subway tunnel. All 4 tracks would run from South Station Under (SSU) past Aquarium (where you might fit an Aquarium Red station) and to North Station Under (NSU). Red X uses exactly the same alignment and tunnel as a 4-track NSRL would.
To get from JFK to the new Red SSU would require a mix of new surface tracks, where you could squeeze them in, and likely a few duck-under tunnels, as far as Andrew.
From Andrew to Broadway, you'd run along or under the Red's yard leads (maybe with a new stop at the South Boston Bypass road), and might be running too far west (and be unable to actually serve Andrew or Broadway)
From Broadway &/or the Red Line's yards you'd tunnel down into the Dot Ave / Fort Point channel alignment, and build a deep station under Summer St. (see upthread) THe red line might take the east/ocean side 2 tracks and the CR/Amtrak would run from Back Bay and the NEC into the west/land side 2 tracks. (they will cross at some point, so the exact crossing and sides are TBD)
Northbound from SSU you cut inland across the Hook Lobster Site into the cavity in the Central Artery that's clean fill dirt and tunnel your way to Aquarium and North Station Under
From North Station Under, Red X has basically the same bellmouth/portal options that the CR has:
- via Fitchburg Line Portal to Porter (displace the Union Sq GLX)
- via Lowell Line Portal to Medford/Woburn (displace the Medford GLX)
- Newbury Rockport Portal to Chelsea (unlikely)
Plus one other option that CR doesn't have:
Orange to Oak Grove (which is the same as saying "along the Haverhill Line")
Given how crushed the Red is from Harvard to Park, the Red X generally favors putting the NSRL Red onto the Fitchburg Line:, so it can tap of some of the demand at Porter and Alewife by running:
- North Station Under
- Union Square (displacing the GLX)
- Mid Cambridge(Optional at Kirkland St / California St)
- Porter Square (surface or shallow)
- Sherman St (Optional)
- Alewife (on CambridgePark Dr side)
(and out the Fitchburg as far and the money, density& political will run)
Why Red X is a better use of NSRL tracks 3 & 4:
- Its southern leads are already an electrified (third rail) high-capacity, high frequency transit line. Regular 4-track NSRL requires too much electrification of minor CR lines, and the places the minor CR lines serve may never be dense enough to provide all-day demand. The A & B branches are proven traffic generators, and its easy to picture them generating more (esp Quincy)
- The Central Business District along the Red from SS to Harvard has proven demand (and soon, too much demand). Skeptics gripe that SEPTA and others underuse their central rail through-tunnels. Such an objection is impossible if the NSRL carries the Red from JFK to Porter. It will be a huge success in itself and a huge relief to the rest of the network.
- Red has frequencies that would actually make South Station - North Station connections a practical for CR Surface to the other side of the FiDi. The NSRL Red would be as frequent and convenient on its route as today's Red is at Park.
In summary: each segment of the Red X is superior to all other minor CR lines put together.
- Its south branches are dense, electric, frequent, & ready now
- Its center is frequent, proven employment demand
- Its north would be new, but in a transit-hungry stretch Union-Porter-Alewife and provide a huge relief/bypass of the Harvard-Kenall-MGH-Park crush.
Can someone draw me a map of a new Red Line from North to South:
- Alewife @ Fitchburg CR
- Sherman St (Optional) (along Fitchburg CR)
- Porter Square (surface or shallow along Fitchburg CR)
- Mid Cambridge(Optional at Kirkland St / California St along Fitchburg CR)
- Union Square (displacing the GLX station, tunneled to NSU)
- North Station Under
- Aquarium Under
- South Station Under
- Widett Circle / South Boston Bypass
- JFK UMass
Last edited:
Re: North-South Rail Link
Thanks for the great description Arlington - really helped me wrap my head around some of the details/how the segments connect up. The only thing I still wonder: is the Fitchburg Row really wide enough for a set of CR and Red Line tracks? Or does the Fitchberg line in this case go away (or terminate at Alewife)? Just looking at satellite images it doesn't really look wide enough to me in places to have both, but, I am terrible at judging things like that
Thanks for the great description Arlington - really helped me wrap my head around some of the details/how the segments connect up. The only thing I still wonder: is the Fitchburg Row really wide enough for a set of CR and Red Line tracks? Or does the Fitchberg line in this case go away (or terminate at Alewife)? Just looking at satellite images it doesn't really look wide enough to me in places to have both, but, I am terrible at judging things like that
Joel N. Weber II
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 13
Re: North-South Rail Link
One subtle issue to watch out for here is that at least one of the stations in Quincy might need shorter dwell times than it has now if you want to run three minute headways in each direction on the Red Line through Quincy. And the signal block layout might need to be carefully looked at. That's not necessarily insurmountable, and chances are pretty good that whatever techniques are used to address Red Line headways at Park St can be used to address Quincy as well, but it's something that should be carefully checked before declaring absolute certainly that it will work.
But it might be worthwhile to compare your proposed Red Line extension to the proposal to extend the Green Line Union Sq branch westward to Porter. I suspect the Green Line version will cost at least an order of magnitude less and get done decades sooner. The Green Line version probably also has the option to run some trains from Chelsea to Casino to Sullivan to Union to Porter which won't work with Red conversion of the Fitchburg Line subway tracks. And if you're limiting your bypass goal to Park, note that Green Line from Porter to North Station and then Orange from North Station to Downtown Crossing would be possible.
I think the subway system's Charles River crossings are already concentrated too far east; the next subway system crossing of the Charles ought to be Green Line Grand Junction. There's probably a significant number of trips from Brookline to Cambridge, for example, that currently go via Park and ought to instead cross the river further west. (We could also be looking at improving the bus network to try to get more transit trips to take the Harvard Bridge.)
One subtle issue to watch out for here is that at least one of the stations in Quincy might need shorter dwell times than it has now if you want to run three minute headways in each direction on the Red Line through Quincy. And the signal block layout might need to be carefully looked at. That's not necessarily insurmountable, and chances are pretty good that whatever techniques are used to address Red Line headways at Park St can be used to address Quincy as well, but it's something that should be carefully checked before declaring absolute certainly that it will work.
But it might be worthwhile to compare your proposed Red Line extension to the proposal to extend the Green Line Union Sq branch westward to Porter. I suspect the Green Line version will cost at least an order of magnitude less and get done decades sooner. The Green Line version probably also has the option to run some trains from Chelsea to Casino to Sullivan to Union to Porter which won't work with Red conversion of the Fitchburg Line subway tracks. And if you're limiting your bypass goal to Park, note that Green Line from Porter to North Station and then Orange from North Station to Downtown Crossing would be possible.
I think the subway system's Charles River crossings are already concentrated too far east; the next subway system crossing of the Charles ought to be Green Line Grand Junction. There's probably a significant number of trips from Brookline to Cambridge, for example, that currently go via Park and ought to instead cross the river further west. (We could also be looking at improving the bus network to try to get more transit trips to take the Harvard Bridge.)
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,702
Re: North-South Rail Link
Thanks for the feedback, guys, the questions of how much feed the A&B can really put in, and whether the Fitchburg makes as much sense as I think are great questions. (Fitchburg ROW i'd be sure is technically 4-track but would cost too much in retaining walls to actually squeeze all 4 in there side-by-side (as we've learned to our great regret on Lowell/GLX). There's a lot wrong with thinking that we can easily push 4 tracks out past Union Sq, I readily admit it.)
The Red X from Day 1 would still be the best use of NSRL tracks 3 & 4, even if it stub ends at North Station and is limited whatever A & B trains max out the existing branches. Red X is still best way to load the most people with the highest-frequency, electrified service onto tracks 3 & 4 of the NSRL. (Recall that electric trains, ideally with 2 locomotives or with motors on every wheelset, are the *ONLY* way to climb the NSRL's steep grades. No Diesels and no single-locomotive dual modes)
Back on Track 1 & 2, it'll take a really long time to get to 5 minute headways and EMU service. To get 5 minute headways on the CR side assumes you've got NEC and Worcester both running at 10 minute all-electric headways--which is really hard/ambitious.
You *might* get the Worcester line electrified as far as Auburndale or Framingham, and you might get it to 10 minute headways at Back Bay, but the electrics would run every 20 minutes so that diesels from Worcester can mix in there on the odd 20s, and they'll be terminating on the surface, not the tunnel.
Same for NEC...on Day 1 of NSRL, the NEC might still be handling diesels from Needham and Stoughton that have to terminate on the surface.
So because of constraints on the Worcester and NEC, you'll only have half as many electrics as you thought you were going to have, even if you've strung lots of expensive catenary at least on Day 1 and until Day Whenever when the wires have been pushed all the way to the ends of every service that shares the NEC and Worcester tracks. Yes, that's still 10 minute CR headways (and through running to Woburn and Lynn, let's say) on CR Day 1 in the NSRL, but the Red X will be doing headways in the 5 to 8 minutes that same day.
Thanks for the feedback, guys, the questions of how much feed the A&B can really put in, and whether the Fitchburg makes as much sense as I think are great questions. (Fitchburg ROW i'd be sure is technically 4-track but would cost too much in retaining walls to actually squeeze all 4 in there side-by-side (as we've learned to our great regret on Lowell/GLX). There's a lot wrong with thinking that we can easily push 4 tracks out past Union Sq, I readily admit it.)
The Red X from Day 1 would still be the best use of NSRL tracks 3 & 4, even if it stub ends at North Station and is limited whatever A & B trains max out the existing branches. Red X is still best way to load the most people with the highest-frequency, electrified service onto tracks 3 & 4 of the NSRL. (Recall that electric trains, ideally with 2 locomotives or with motors on every wheelset, are the *ONLY* way to climb the NSRL's steep grades. No Diesels and no single-locomotive dual modes)
Back on Track 1 & 2, it'll take a really long time to get to 5 minute headways and EMU service. To get 5 minute headways on the CR side assumes you've got NEC and Worcester both running at 10 minute all-electric headways--which is really hard/ambitious.
You *might* get the Worcester line electrified as far as Auburndale or Framingham, and you might get it to 10 minute headways at Back Bay, but the electrics would run every 20 minutes so that diesels from Worcester can mix in there on the odd 20s, and they'll be terminating on the surface, not the tunnel.
Same for NEC...on Day 1 of NSRL, the NEC might still be handling diesels from Needham and Stoughton that have to terminate on the surface.
So because of constraints on the Worcester and NEC, you'll only have half as many electrics as you thought you were going to have, even if you've strung lots of expensive catenary at least on Day 1 and until Day Whenever when the wires have been pushed all the way to the ends of every service that shares the NEC and Worcester tracks. Yes, that's still 10 minute CR headways (and through running to Woburn and Lynn, let's say) on CR Day 1 in the NSRL, but the Red X will be doing headways in the 5 to 8 minutes that same day.
Last edited:
Re: North-South Rail Link
I think I understand your logic on all this, but do you really think there is any chance of the GLX getting displaced for Red at this point? Seems like < 1% probability to me.
And if GLX either can’t be displaced and/or won’t be, then you’re either heading to Chelsea or Oak Grove, neither of which relieves the pressure on the Harvard/Central/Kendall stretch, which is a significant attribute of your pitch if it went the GLX path.
I mean, your entire post is highly intriguing, but I think you’re into “Not Going to Happen Transit Pitches” territory. Whether it’s a crazy pitch or not isn’t my point (I do not consider it crazy, fwiw); I’m just saying GLX is smelling pretty baked in despite being officially in limbo, and I think Amtrak and partially electrified CR (more the latter than the former) will use up those four NSRL tracks. And I had the impression the long range planning on NSRL was not at all about inserting Red Line in there. Did I miss something? Is this still an option in the mix over at MassDOT and MBTA?
I think I understand your logic on all this, but do you really think there is any chance of the GLX getting displaced for Red at this point? Seems like < 1% probability to me.
And if GLX either can’t be displaced and/or won’t be, then you’re either heading to Chelsea or Oak Grove, neither of which relieves the pressure on the Harvard/Central/Kendall stretch, which is a significant attribute of your pitch if it went the GLX path.
I mean, your entire post is highly intriguing, but I think you’re into “Not Going to Happen Transit Pitches” territory. Whether it’s a crazy pitch or not isn’t my point (I do not consider it crazy, fwiw); I’m just saying GLX is smelling pretty baked in despite being officially in limbo, and I think Amtrak and partially electrified CR (more the latter than the former) will use up those four NSRL tracks. And I had the impression the long range planning on NSRL was not at all about inserting Red Line in there. Did I miss something? Is this still an option in the mix over at MassDOT and MBTA?
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,702
Re: North-South Rail Link
We were writing at the same time, so you likely didn't see my other post, but specifically Red X works as a core-Red reliever by virtue of
(1) Doubles South Station capacity for Red
(2) Relieves DTX by moving half of Red-Orange connections to NSU*
(3) Relieves Park by moving half of Red-Green connections to NSU*
(4) Relieves GC by shifting some Blue-North Station trips via Aquarium
Relieving the Red between MGH and Harvard needs *something* running along the Fitchburg from North Station to Porter that's going to cost a boatload of money. The cheaper option may well be the Green Line, in which case the Red X could either stub end at North Station (and still be powerful) but it will still be tempting/valuable (too valuable to resist) pushing the Red out 5 miles in almost *any* direction. That Direction could be Medford or Oak Grove (or both), since all the heavy rail track is laid and ripe for conversion), or I'd Crazy Pitch for sending Red to Navy Yard, Chelsea@Silver and onward to Revere and Lynn if nobody else will have the Red.
*North Station Under may be positioned that its south entrance would actually be at Haymarket and its north entrance ties to North Station.
GLX was originally designed to accommodate conversion to heavy rail (mostly picturing Blue or Orange, but everything since the 1920s has been built with sufficient clearance to be converted to Red) The big stations were dropped in the redesign in favor of D-branch style, but AFAIK, the clearances for Red remain (but now you'd have to build a headhouse and faregates wherever the Red goes, unless we go to POP as we should.)
We were writing at the same time, so you likely didn't see my other post, but specifically Red X works as a core-Red reliever by virtue of
(1) Doubles South Station capacity for Red
(2) Relieves DTX by moving half of Red-Orange connections to NSU*
(3) Relieves Park by moving half of Red-Green connections to NSU*
(4) Relieves GC by shifting some Blue-North Station trips via Aquarium
Relieving the Red between MGH and Harvard needs *something* running along the Fitchburg from North Station to Porter that's going to cost a boatload of money. The cheaper option may well be the Green Line, in which case the Red X could either stub end at North Station (and still be powerful) but it will still be tempting/valuable (too valuable to resist) pushing the Red out 5 miles in almost *any* direction. That Direction could be Medford or Oak Grove (or both), since all the heavy rail track is laid and ripe for conversion), or I'd Crazy Pitch for sending Red to Navy Yard, Chelsea@Silver and onward to Revere and Lynn if nobody else will have the Red.
*North Station Under may be positioned that its south entrance would actually be at Haymarket and its north entrance ties to North Station.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,702
Re: North-South Rail Link
My understanding was that 2 or 3 CR tracks were an option because it was so hard to justify 4 tracks because 4 required so much $ to electrify minor lines. 2 Track options were in the 1995 study, for example.
What does it take to ensure that Red X gets considered?
My understanding was that 2 or 3 CR tracks were an option because it was so hard to justify 4 tracks because 4 required so much $ to electrify minor lines. 2 Track options were in the 1995 study, for example.
What does it take to ensure that Red X gets considered?
Joel N. Weber II
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2015
- Messages
- 603
- Reaction score
- 13
Re: North-South Rail Link
Do we really think that battery commuter trains won't have progressed substantially beyond the Japanese EV-E301 by the time the NSRL gets built?
The EV-E301 has a 190 kWh battery pack per two car set, which is 95 kWh for an entire commuter rail car that has 48 seats and can carry 133 passengers. Meanwhile, you can buy a Tesla Model X with a slightly larger 100 kWh battery pack that only carries 7 people. If one argues that the train car seats roughly 7 times as many people as the personal automobile, wouldn't a 700 kWh battery pack be more appropriate for the train?
The EV-E301 also predates the 2170 cells being produced at the Tesla factory in Nevada, which improve energy per unit mass and cost over older designs.
Also, even if we don't manage to run trains on batteries, New Jersey Transit has had for several years the ALP-45DP locomotives which can be powered by either catenary or diesel, because they ran into this exact same problem of wanting to run trains in tunnels not adequately ventilated for diesel exhaust, but then also covering routes that don't have overhead wires.
An additional option we could also be looking at for reducing congestion on the Harvard to Park Red Line segment that I was forgetting about when I wrote that previous post is the proposed A branch from Harvard to Park via (hopefully West Station and) Kenmore and Copley.
And extending the Blue Line to Charles / MGH isn't expected to reduce trips across the Longfellow Bridge (it actually might increase them if it makes the Red to Blue transfer more convenient) but it should reduce congestion at Park and Downtown Crossing.
I'm also now wondering about whether we could build Green Line track along Ruggles St from the E branch to Ruggles Station on the Orange Line / Commuter Rail, then continue that Green Line track along Melnea Cass Blvd and the Mass Ave Connector, and then somehow build the right set of viaducts and possibly a new tunnel portal to bring revenue Green Line trains back to the Broadway station upper level tunnel. If south side Red Line residents could get to southwest Green Line jobs by transfering at Broadway to a train that would connect to Ruggles Station, a stop near the Museum of Fine Arts stop, stop at Longwood, Brigham Circle, and Mission Park, then continue along the D-E connector to serve several D branch stops before reaching Cleveland Circle and continuing to Boston College, that would provide a more geographically direct route than going through Park St for a lot of trips, even if it did end up requiring a double transfer (the first being from Red to this new route at Broadway, and the second being a transfer from this new Green route to one of the existing Green routes or to the Orange Line at Ruggles).
Do we really think that battery commuter trains won't have progressed substantially beyond the Japanese EV-E301 by the time the NSRL gets built?
The EV-E301 has a 190 kWh battery pack per two car set, which is 95 kWh for an entire commuter rail car that has 48 seats and can carry 133 passengers. Meanwhile, you can buy a Tesla Model X with a slightly larger 100 kWh battery pack that only carries 7 people. If one argues that the train car seats roughly 7 times as many people as the personal automobile, wouldn't a 700 kWh battery pack be more appropriate for the train?
The EV-E301 also predates the 2170 cells being produced at the Tesla factory in Nevada, which improve energy per unit mass and cost over older designs.
Also, even if we don't manage to run trains on batteries, New Jersey Transit has had for several years the ALP-45DP locomotives which can be powered by either catenary or diesel, because they ran into this exact same problem of wanting to run trains in tunnels not adequately ventilated for diesel exhaust, but then also covering routes that don't have overhead wires.
An additional option we could also be looking at for reducing congestion on the Harvard to Park Red Line segment that I was forgetting about when I wrote that previous post is the proposed A branch from Harvard to Park via (hopefully West Station and) Kenmore and Copley.
And extending the Blue Line to Charles / MGH isn't expected to reduce trips across the Longfellow Bridge (it actually might increase them if it makes the Red to Blue transfer more convenient) but it should reduce congestion at Park and Downtown Crossing.
I'm also now wondering about whether we could build Green Line track along Ruggles St from the E branch to Ruggles Station on the Orange Line / Commuter Rail, then continue that Green Line track along Melnea Cass Blvd and the Mass Ave Connector, and then somehow build the right set of viaducts and possibly a new tunnel portal to bring revenue Green Line trains back to the Broadway station upper level tunnel. If south side Red Line residents could get to southwest Green Line jobs by transfering at Broadway to a train that would connect to Ruggles Station, a stop near the Museum of Fine Arts stop, stop at Longwood, Brigham Circle, and Mission Park, then continue along the D-E connector to serve several D branch stops before reaching Cleveland Circle and continuing to Boston College, that would provide a more geographically direct route than going through Park St for a lot of trips, even if it did end up requiring a double transfer (the first being from Red to this new route at Broadway, and the second being a transfer from this new Green route to one of the existing Green routes or to the Orange Line at Ruggles).
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,702
Re: North-South Rail Link
The issue is the very steep grades. Dual modes elsewhere do not have to climb the kinds of grades that the NSRL will have plunging and climbing. F-Line gave full details (you're not the first to have asked) I think even Amtrak Regionals with just a single e-locomotive were even in doubt.
I have a mental image of how even Washinton's (lightweight) Metro struggles on the climb from Rosslyn to Courthouse on its Orange Line.
Assume EMU or two e-locomotives (Acela style)
The issue is power to weigh ratio (any train carrying its own fuel will have a problem and diesel has higher energy density than even 2040s batteries are likely to) and power-per-axle (any traditional, heavy FRA compliant train with only a locomotive will have a problem).
The issue is the very steep grades. Dual modes elsewhere do not have to climb the kinds of grades that the NSRL will have plunging and climbing. F-Line gave full details (you're not the first to have asked) I think even Amtrak Regionals with just a single e-locomotive were even in doubt.
I have a mental image of how even Washinton's (lightweight) Metro struggles on the climb from Rosslyn to Courthouse on its Orange Line.
Assume EMU or two e-locomotives (Acela style)
Last edited:
Re: North-South Rail Link
Is there a cost comparison between NSRL and expanding south station? While I agree conceptually with the project as Arlington summed up redoing major portions of both the subway and commuter rail + additional stations downtown is going to make the cost of the Big Dig look like a trip to Wal-Mart. If building the GLX on an existing right of way and active tracks for 1 mile above ground costs $2Bn....yikes.
If the project is merely $8bn to let Amtrak and commuter rail go through, again that's a lot of money for several thousand people to not have to catch the orange line at North Station to reach downtown if coming in from the north.
Is there a cost comparison between NSRL and expanding south station? While I agree conceptually with the project as Arlington summed up redoing major portions of both the subway and commuter rail + additional stations downtown is going to make the cost of the Big Dig look like a trip to Wal-Mart. If building the GLX on an existing right of way and active tracks for 1 mile above ground costs $2Bn....yikes.
If the project is merely $8bn to let Amtrak and commuter rail go through, again that's a lot of money for several thousand people to not have to catch the orange line at North Station to reach downtown if coming in from the north.
Re: North-South Rail Link
No, No, No.
Please go upthread and delve into the fuller explanations of NSRL. It is NOT about allowing people to go through or to avoid transfer, though these are nice tangential benefits.
Our CR system has severe bottlenecks at NS and SS. They can only be briefly ameliorated by widening the platforms and access to the platforms, via SSX and NSX. That buys us maybe a decade or so. If we are going to handle the next century of growth, we need to grow some fucking balls and do NSRL. It is not about through trips, it is about capacity of the entire CR system, which, in its current form, constitutes a state of severe failure.
And yes, we need to massively improve our contract procedures and oversight procedures so as not to repeat the stupidities of the Big Dig and the first iteration of GLX. But we needed to do that anyways, for capital projects in general (and have done so on some smaller projects, and over at Logan).
No, No, No.
Please go upthread and delve into the fuller explanations of NSRL. It is NOT about allowing people to go through or to avoid transfer, though these are nice tangential benefits.
Our CR system has severe bottlenecks at NS and SS. They can only be briefly ameliorated by widening the platforms and access to the platforms, via SSX and NSX. That buys us maybe a decade or so. If we are going to handle the next century of growth, we need to grow some fucking balls and do NSRL. It is not about through trips, it is about capacity of the entire CR system, which, in its current form, constitutes a state of severe failure.
And yes, we need to massively improve our contract procedures and oversight procedures so as not to repeat the stupidities of the Big Dig and the first iteration of GLX. But we needed to do that anyways, for capital projects in general (and have done so on some smaller projects, and over at Logan).
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,702
Re: North-South Rail Link
Re: Rover:
Our subways are reaching their limits--we are seeing all kinds of skyscrapers and job growth in the core but haven't added much transit capacity since the 30s. (We did lengthen platforms to go with longer trains)
Once we are done renewing the Orange and Red fleets we are pretty much done with the organization-before-signals-before-concrete cycle and it'll be time for concrete.
Red-Blue@MGH helps. GLX to balance the central Green helps. Adding a node at West Station will help if we connect to to North Station on the Grand Junction. The Urban Ring might divert traffic around the core. NSX and SSX will bring more people to the threshold of the core but not to new towers at Winthrop Square or Aquarium or DTX or Volpe.
So we need a new main line serving the core itself--Almost from anywhere to anywhere as long as it passes through the core--since in an interconnected network any link between nodes makes the whole system more load-balanced more resilient and better working.
As it happens we knew this day was coming when we built the central artery and we knew that the artery and road trips alone were not the long-term solution. Planners knew that building the Artery would be a disaster if it wasn't balanced by transit (hence the CLF deal to reactivate the Old Colony, build GLX and Red-Blue at MGH, etc). But the real long term balance was in high frequency transit to & through the core--the NSRL.
So our 1990 selves left our 2020 selves a fully dug, fully cleared alignment through the central artery for rail. Because we lacked the money to build it we filled it with perfectly clean fill dirt-- no archaeology, no environmental problems no unmapped utilities, (no surprise expenses for underpinning retaining walls or buying off NIMBYs has happened on the GLX and Old Colony)
Romney tried to make himself a budget hero by inflating the costs to $8b and then killing it. It will cost billions, but should be in the $2b to $4b range.
Just keep telling yourself: we have a tunnel. It just happens to be filled with dirt and not connected to our existing lines.
Re: Rover:
Our subways are reaching their limits--we are seeing all kinds of skyscrapers and job growth in the core but haven't added much transit capacity since the 30s. (We did lengthen platforms to go with longer trains)
Once we are done renewing the Orange and Red fleets we are pretty much done with the organization-before-signals-before-concrete cycle and it'll be time for concrete.
Red-Blue@MGH helps. GLX to balance the central Green helps. Adding a node at West Station will help if we connect to to North Station on the Grand Junction. The Urban Ring might divert traffic around the core. NSX and SSX will bring more people to the threshold of the core but not to new towers at Winthrop Square or Aquarium or DTX or Volpe.
So we need a new main line serving the core itself--Almost from anywhere to anywhere as long as it passes through the core--since in an interconnected network any link between nodes makes the whole system more load-balanced more resilient and better working.
As it happens we knew this day was coming when we built the central artery and we knew that the artery and road trips alone were not the long-term solution. Planners knew that building the Artery would be a disaster if it wasn't balanced by transit (hence the CLF deal to reactivate the Old Colony, build GLX and Red-Blue at MGH, etc). But the real long term balance was in high frequency transit to & through the core--the NSRL.
So our 1990 selves left our 2020 selves a fully dug, fully cleared alignment through the central artery for rail. Because we lacked the money to build it we filled it with perfectly clean fill dirt-- no archaeology, no environmental problems no unmapped utilities, (no surprise expenses for underpinning retaining walls or buying off NIMBYs has happened on the GLX and Old Colony)
Romney tried to make himself a budget hero by inflating the costs to $8b and then killing it. It will cost billions, but should be in the $2b to $4b range.
Just keep telling yourself: we have a tunnel. It just happens to be filled with dirt and not connected to our existing lines.
Last edited: