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

Re: North-South Rail Link

I'm not sure if we really have a good thorough understanding of where inflation actually becomes a problem, but it seems that inflation may tend to be caused by resource shortages, and if that's the case, we ought to be investing in projects which will reduce the shortage of housing near high quality transit.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

Not sure I understand why you're keen for this to happen as a hybrid thing with Tesla parts when a search for "battery EMU" yields a number of examples of their testing and (limited) use as a technology already.

Also gotta agree with Bakgwailo here; electrification of the CR would be far from reinvention of the wheel. It's not like there aren't any tunnels or difficult conditions in other systems. They make it work.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

Looking at existing battery EMU trains to figure out what battery EMU trains are actually capable of might be a lot like looking up the specs of a Nissan Leaf and going to a Tesla showroom and insisting to the Tesla salespeople that Tesla's cars can't possibly go further than a Leaf on a single charge.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

cadetcarl said:
Also gotta agree with Bakgwailo here; electrification of the CR would be far from reinvention of the wheel. It's not like there aren't any tunnels or difficult conditions in other systems. They make it work.
Click to expand...

There are countries that never had significant land line telephone infrastructure. There's no reason why land line telephone technology couldn't have worked, but they ended up skipping straight to cell phones, because of some combination of not getting around to it until cell phones were a viable technology and/or not ever having the money for a more expensive approach.

I'm pretty sure that figuring out how to use Tesla batteries in trains will save at least half a billion dollars compared to overhead wire and get the job done several years faster. Why wouldn't we want to save half a billion or more and get cleaner air and better acceleration sooner?
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

While we at TM appreciate the love and platitudes, could a mod change the title of this thread to something more descriptive please like TransitMatters Regional Rail Plan: A Bold and Practical Vision for Commuter Rail?
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

bakgwailo said:
It isn't "custom engineering" to undercut a bridge to string wires up - its pretty standard.
Click to expand...

Pan Am and Norfolk Southern wish the Hoosac Tunnel had vertical clearance for double stack high cube containers, but haven't spent the money to make that happen. The Baltimore tunnels are in a similar situation. This sort of thing makes me skeptical that the hundreds of miles of commuter rail ROW aren't going to have similar difficulty with getting adequate clearance for overhead lines.

(In the case of the Hoosac Tunnel, the sensible thing to do would be to persuade CSX to share the taxpayers' investment in double stack clearance on the Boston and Albany with NS.)
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

Joel N. Weber II said:
Pan Am and Norfolk Southern wish the Hoosac Tunnel had vertical clearance for double stack high cube containers, but haven't spent the money to make that happen. The Baltimore tunnels are in a similar situation. This sort of thing makes me skeptical that the hundreds of miles of commuter rail ROW aren't going to have similar difficulty with getting adequate clearance for overhead lines.
Click to expand...

Is there a reason why you believe that electrifying the CR system via catenary would be so difficult?
And what about third rail power like Metro North?
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

CS said:
Is there a reason why you believe that electrifying the CR system via catenary would be so difficult?
And what about third rail power like Metro North?
Click to expand...


Toronto is completely electrifying its commuter rail system: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/electrification/electric.aspx


2017-08-17-Map-of-Proposed-Electrification-Corridors-768x686.jpg
 
Whatever it cost in Toronto, double that and that's what it'll cost in Boston.
 
Data, I saw that tidbit about SCR alignment that Jim Aloisi tossed out in Commonwealth over the weekend: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/time-to-reconsider-s-coast-rail-phased-plan/. Have to admit it blew my mind. I don't recall this approach ever having been considered even by our most ardent Internet draw-ers of lines on maps. (Summary for those who don't click through: use the partially abandoned Taunton Branch from a downtown Taunton station north to 495, and then use the 495 and 140 medians, elevated in parts, to connect to the Providence line.)

I assume Norton's implacability will be the main reason this plan wouldn't get off the ground, with the required grade crossing creativity being a close second. But will there be more forthcoming from your group on this? Please feel free to pick this up in an SCR thread if you think it makes more sense to do so.
 
Charlie_mta said:
Toronto is completely electrifying its commuter rail system: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/electrification/electric.aspx


2017-08-17-Map-of-Proposed-Electrification-Corridors-768x686.jpg
Click to expand...

tysmith95 said:
Whatever it cost in Toronto, double that and that's what it'll cost in Boston.
Click to expand...

We actually talk about Toronto in Appendix A: Case Studies. I just realized that the web version of the appendix is missing that section though (along with Melbourne)! The PDF version has always had it. Since this was published, Toronto continues to have ABSURD cost overruns for their project.

Toronto: Moving Beyond Rush Hour, Planning for the Future

Until 2012, Go Transit in Toronto was a rush hour operation. Only two lines provided any midday service, and the
vast majority of service was geared towards peak ridership. In the past decade, the agency has shifted towards
providing more comprehensive service. A new spur was built to the airport using DMUs, with plans to electrify
this service and the busiest main lines, within the decade. The agency has bought 80 percent of the lines over
which it operates in recent years and is planning upgrades to allow more bidirectional service on otherwise
single-track lines, with the end goal of a Paris-style system with frequent service between Toronto, its inner
suburbs, and regional cities further afield.

Trains in Toronto serve Union Station, which has run-through tracks, meaning that the city does not have the
stub-terminal capacity issues which developed in many other cities and require tunneling projects. Most service
today begins or ends at Union Station, but through-running service is possible without major infrastructure
changes. The challenges for Toronto extend beyond Union Station: taking control of track, managing freight
railroad interactions, and adding electrification to allow faster, more efficient service. The costs—$10.5 billion
over 10 years—are high, but include electrification and significant new track construction to allow bidirectional
operation, and Metrolinx, the regional government, makes the case that the service improvements, reduced
operating costs and regional benefits will pay their way.
Click to expand...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

ErnieAdams said:
Data, I saw that tidbit about SCR alignment that Jim Aloisi tossed out in Commonwealth over the weekend: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/time-to-reconsider-s-coast-rail-phased-plan/. Have to admit it blew my mind. I don't recall this approach ever having been considered even by our most ardent Internet draw-ers of lines on maps. (Summary for those who don't click through: use the partially abandoned Taunton Branch from a downtown Taunton station north to 495, and then use the 495 and 140 medians, elevated in parts, to connect to the Providence line.)

I assume Norton's implacability will be the main reason this plan wouldn't get off the ground, with the required grade crossing creativity being a close second. But will there be more forthcoming from your group on this? Please feel free to pick this up in an SCR thread if you think it makes more sense to do so.
Click to expand...
Yes, the response we received to Jim's piece was (quite surprisingly) overwhelmingly positive including from some officials. Rethinking SCR is very much in the dialogue right now and we absolutely will be keeping the pressure up on this including some technical analysis.
 
What about rethinking the requirement for a miles long trestle through the Hockomock when there's an existing embankment?
 
ErnieAdams said:
Data, I saw that tidbit about SCR alignment that Jim Aloisi tossed out in Commonwealth over the weekend: https://commonwealthmagazine.org/opinion/time-to-reconsider-s-coast-rail-phased-plan/. Have to admit it blew my mind. I don't recall this approach ever having been considered even by our most ardent Internet draw-ers of lines on maps. (Summary for those who don't click through: use the partially abandoned Taunton Branch from a downtown Taunton station north to 495, and then use the 495 and 140 medians, elevated in parts, to connect to the Providence line.)
Click to expand...

That's an interesting idea; I think the big challenge is that it increases the number of branches, thus exacerbating capacity concerns at South Station. But converting Stoughton service to a Princeton Dinky style arrangement or only running it as an extension of Fairmount service might be a way to address that.

It seemed like the article went into limited detail about the exact alignment, but it looks like the likely routing would be to build the track just to the northeast of Commercial St, possibly putting the track on a bridge over School St; keep the track to the northeast of the I-495 westbound to Commercial St ramp, and then have the track cross over into the I-495 median on a bridge somewhere between that ramp to Commercial St and the ramp from S Main. Then roughly 1000' west of Norton's N Washington St, have another bridge carry the track over I-495's eastbound lanes to turn into the traditional rail ROW.
 
Yes, based on a conversation I just had with Ari, that's exactly the idea. And honestly, I love it.
  • It avoids the massive swamp trestle that the Army Corps of Engineers used to rack up the cost
  • It doesn't screw up the Old Colony Lines
  • It gets you a downtown Taunton station - right next to the existing bus terminal
  • Minimal amount of ROW to reactivate, much of which is well-preserved ROW and town property.
 
To be clear, the Foxborough flourish is from Scalziand. I think TransitMatters would send the trains up the Providence line - which makes sense if this is a relatively cost-controlled proposal, because that gets them to a pre-electrified line that can operate at speed today. That said, this map demonstrates nicely the options that would be available in the future.
 
If the goal is to maintain Stoughton service, maintain service to the existing Middleboro Station that could be extended onto the Cape, plus have Fall River and New Bedford service, the I-495 / 140 alignment isn't any worse than the Middleboro alignment in terms of number of branches we end up with. The alignment through Easton does reduce the number of branches by one.

In addition to the number of branches concerns, I think the I-495 alignment still is going to end up with an expensive cost per rider. It seems like even the simplest bridge that carries a road over a train track or vice versa costs well over $10 million, and in the simple case the bridge typically has to be 50' to 100' long if the road is perpendicular to the track. Each bridge that carries a track over half of I-495 is going to have the track nearly parallel to the road for substantially longer than 100' in order to get a gentle curve; I expect each of those two bridges will cost at least $100 million, and the whole South Coast Rail project on this alignment will likely cost at least half a billion dollars.
 
The Old Colony Lines have a major capacity constraint because of the single track section in Dorchester so although it doesn't add more branches to the system to do the Stoughton route it is better because that feeds into a three track line that also connects to the two track Fairmount line which gives much greater capacity than the Old Colony Line routing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top