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

Re: North-South Rail Link

I think more people are starting to realize that it isn't just reducing commute times, but enabling population and job growth without sacrificing quality of life. Boston is hitting the wall and the next 20 to 30% growth is going to reduce quality of life in and around the city if transportation isn't improved.

In my opinion, we’re long since past that point. I remember that in summer of ‘17, I could hop in the north-bound HOV lane on 93 and just cruise at 7am. Now, its barely faster than normal traffic. And that’s just one year’s difference. Not to mention that the evening commute is worse - I actually have found the HOV lane is slower than regular traffic by 4pm.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

In my opinion, we’re long since past that point. I remember that in summer of ‘17, I could hop in the north-bound HOV lane on 93 and just cruise at 7am. Now, its barely faster than normal traffic. And that’s just one year’s difference. Not to mention that the evening commute is worse - I actually have found the HOV lane is slower than regular traffic by 4pm.

Even with students gone, I'm gonna call shenanigans on that blurry memory.
7am has been crap for much longer than a year.

That's up there with the rocketman misremembering.

I've only been commuting into the city since 2004, and since 2005 it has been 95% on trains. But, I've done that drive plenty of times, and when I had free parking for my bike, would take that hov lane often. And early. Leaving by 5-5:30 in the summer was necessary even 10 years ago. You could leave a little later in winter cuz the no sun seems to keep people in their houses longer.

But, I've watched a gradual growth in traffic, not a recent deluge as referenced above.

What's worse to me is the gradual shrinking of commuter rail ridership as the city becomes a destination for more and more people.

Regional rail needs to happen 20 years ago, but instead we got 25 year old locos with crap cars added to a few new lines 20 years ago.

The slow moving, unreliable, diesel mosters are as much the problem as lack of pass thru. Emu's that can immediately reverse direction vs. the 10 minute dwells of the diesel unuts would make an immediate impact. Having the ability to pass thru would take an ok by US standard commuter rail, to an pretty good by world standards regional rail system in no time (minus the time to build it of course.). Multiple trains per hour in all lines, plus late running trains on all lines would be huge and make the rail a no brainier for so many people.

Most people I talk to cite the schedule more than anything as to why they don't ride. If you're a nine to fiver nickel and dimer, thrn the train schedule as is, is fine. But if your meeting clients before (or more often) after work, catching a game after work, grabbing a couple drinks after work... The commuter rail becomes much more of a liability that a convenience.

To f-line's previous rantings, 'its the frequency stupid' is 110% correct, and the real reason our commuter rail sucks. That and keolis isn't half the operator mbcr was, and that is not a compliment to mbcr.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Yeah, I've gone by the Braintree split at 5:30 AM and it was full then.

I still vote for electrifying to 128+Indigo.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

https://usa.streetsblog.org/2018/11/23/u-s-finally-legalizes-modern-european-style-train-cars/

I don't think I've seen any discussion of this new FRA decision? I wonder if anyone thinks this would impact the costs for regional rail/NSRL and by how much.

None for NSRL because the dimensions of the tunnel are set by the very limited allowances where you can dig without fouling any surrounding infrastructure. That means depth underground is what it is, and so are the grades because there's extremely limited placements for the portals (example: the NEC portal can *only* get plunked in a roughly 500 ft. span east of the Shawmut Ave. overpass, west of the Harrison Ave. overpass, and more or less centered on the Washington St. overpass...lest it foul the Orange Line tunnel to the west or surface Cove Interlocking to the east). Speeds also wouldn't change underground with lighter rolling stock because of the tight confines of the interlockings.

The tunnel will be built with allowances to take anything as light as a space-age EMU, or as heavy as a six-pack of Kawasaki bi-levels hauled by a porky dual-mode loco. Performance specs of rolling stock inform the systemwide ops practices you can run...which is why an EMU universe is so much better than the push-pull universe the state's flawed study was based on. But that rolling stock decision doesn't inform any steel-and-concrete tunnel construction which ^^as above^^ is locked in by geometry and surrounding infrastructure. Rather, it's all about enhancing total system throughput, which has a lot more to do with normal timekeeping across the whole length of the trip rather than any focus on that 1 mile under downtown. It's absolutely a good thing that the tunnel will (by divine accident) be designed to take loco-haul trains, because a heavy 10-car Northeast Regional to Portland with a baggage car for peak fall foliage season will rake in revenue for Amtrak by being able to use the tunnel. And there's nothing wrong with taking *select* pairings of last-to-electrify lines through there with a *small* fleet of dual-modes (10-15 units, not the 60-90 the state was calling for) for fairness' sake to the further-flung parts of the system that'll take more time and budget installments to get wired up. We just want the vast majority of schedules to be EMU-based from the get-go, because RER practices writ-large require it and the tunnel is only as good as the schedules you plug into it.

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

For RER the new regs are potentially a game-changer, though caution that change can take time. Also, some humongous systems like Long Island Rail Road, Metro North, and NJ Transit have unique customization constraints on their systems that, by virtue of how massive those systems are, tend to wag the dog on available rolling stock. So "off-shelf" is still going to be a misnomer in terms of who's buying the most of what.

For example:

  • LIRR M7/M9's are built to the tightest vertical clearances in North America, so they can be used in the East Side Access level of the 63rd Street Tunnel, built in 1969. When Kawasaki redesigned the M[odd-number] series from scratch with all-modern AC traction guts, beefed up HVAC systems, and stainless steel construction in the M7's...the ensuing vehicle came out far overweight. The M9 update was delayed further by weight issues. The new regs aren't going to suddenly fix that glitch for the next-gen M11's, because it was the switch from aluminum (which few builders use anymore) to stainless steel carbody and the artful cramming of components into the tight profile that really blew out the weight. LIRR maintains a fleet of over 1000 EMU's (and growing)...two active generations at a time...so a ground-up "Jetsons shit" weight-saving redesign isn't going to revolutionize them tomorrow. If anything, they need another 20 years of parts stability maintaining somewhat-alike cars like the very overweight M7/9's before they'll be in a position on the maint costs side to flip to a new generation.

  • MNRR M8's are the only triple-voltage cars on the continent, needing to take 750V DC from the third rail and 12.5 kV or 25 kV from the AC overhead. They're also height-constrained by the Park Ave. tunnel into Grand Central, which is only slightly less tight than LIRR has to deal with. M8's were likewise a total redesign from the aluminum M2/M4/M6's, which were early-70's technology. Weight shot up big from the switch to stainless steel, and all the electrical resistors they had to shove in every (crowded) nook-and-cranny on the roof and underside to upgrade the electronics added still more weight and required a very precise weight distribution to keep from wrecking the cars' ride performance. No "off-shelf" design on the planet is going to fix what ails the M8 because "off-shelf" wouldn't be triple-input AND have to fit into clearances so tight. Nor is ConnDOT going to be in a position to have the M10's break trainlining compatibility with the M8's when the current fleet is increasing to 500+ after the ongoing supplemental order.

  • NJ Transit has an open RFP, expected to be awarded to Bombardier, for MultiLevel EMU's. These take the MLV coach carbody--bi-levels which can fit all Northeastern tunnel dimensions except for ESA--and gives it standard EMU propulsion. The upshot is that the powered MLV cars can sandwich with stock unpowered MLV coaches, so long as the stock coaches are given a simple wiring upgrade for Multiple Unit trainlining. Slight performance penalty the more dead mass you're hauling around, but still beats the snot out of any loco-hauled train (including electric loco-haul, which NJT has lots of). NJT has 425+ MLV coaches rostered already, with another batch of up to 200 expected when they retire their 2 oldest classes of single-level coaches. So it greatly maximizes their investment to be able to buy 100 EMU cars, plug those trains with 100 coaches immediately, then backfill with supplemental EMU orders in more manageable chunks.
Unfortunately, the MLV is a very heavy carbody at 133-139K lbs. One with a smooth ride and good service reputation, but extremely heavy. The new regs aren't going to save the MLV EMU's because they're designed to trainline with their heavy-ass coach counterparts, placing severe limits to how much of the new regs they can implement.
  • GO Transit is proceeding with electrification and RER-ification of the busiest chunks of its humongous Greater Toronto commuter rail network. They haven't made a rolling stock decision yet, but they are expected to follow in NJT's steps by ordering EMU's that can trainline with re-wired stock coaches. In this case, it's the Bombardier BLV coach frame (a not-so-svelte 110K lbs.) for 8-inch boarding territory instead of the 48-inch platform MLV. With over 650 actively rostered BLV coaches they have even more to gain than NJT by having their whole existing roster made compatible with likeminded-frame EMU's. In fact, if Bombardier gets both the MLV EMU and BLV EMU they will have the closest thing to true "off-shelf" EMU designs for North America, because the BLV is the #1 best selling coach on the continent and the MLV the #2 best-seller.

Now say you're the T, are about to release the findings of a Regional Rail study in 2019, and and looking at a potential "Go For It" decision on Providence + RIDOT + Fairmount + maybe Riverside electrification. In terms of lineside infrastructure that's about as fast and simple as you can keep it since it only involves upgrading the empty half of Sharon substation to power the two inside-128 lines (as opposed to full subs if you do anything more), and you can implement these on the (razor-thin) margins of existing South Station before the stupid infighting over SSX has to stop and *something* must be done with track layout. Call it a 5-year bucket list of modest design-build to-do's, coinciding with a 5-year procurement window. Say they're gunning for a 2024 or 2025 start.

What are you going to be able to get "off-shelf" in that span, given that the stuff the FRA finally relented on only significantly diminishes...doesn't end...the amount of American railcar customization? LIRR, MNRR/ConnDOT, and NJT are the only agencies that'll have EMU's actively being pumped out by a factory in that span. SEPTA may, if it gets its act together, be ordering Silverliner VI's...but it's shown no inclination to getting its funds in gear. Caltrain, at the rate its electrification schedule is slipping, may only have wishful thinking holding it to similar timeframe.

The NY tunnel stuff Kawasaki is making for New York is wildly inappropriate for here. We shouldn't have to put up with the design compromises of an M8 or M9-derived vehicle. Out-of-question. The Caltrain stuff with the kooky multi- platform height door configurations is also out. SEPTA, if it holds true to form, is going to be starting from all-custom scratch again and junk everything that Rotem fucked up with the Silverliner V but keep the same layout and (heavy) frame. The T isn't Denver RTD where they had years in advance of their system start to prep for accommodating the SL5's problems, so there's lots of risk in going in with SEPTA on a micromanage job.


What does that leave? Either the MLV EMU, or Euro imports. I can't speak to the Euro imports, and the transpo blogosphere funhouse mirror has already got Alon Levy doubling down on skipping right over lighter Euro stock for ultralight Japanese stock designed for dedicated tracks. Because, I dunno, our mixed system should've burned every piece of stock in existence in one giant inferno...yesterday...and banned fucking freights while we're at it or something :)rolleyes:). To cleanly make sense of what the actual import options are and what degrees of part customizations are necessary minimums almost requires that the T hire a RR procurement expert with buying experience both stateside and Eurozone. Which you can find in the private sector easily enough, but is the FCMB going to pay the going rate for that expertise? Otherwise our first-dip electrification is waiting for someone else to do that first-time work shopping for EMU's under these new regs and serving up a template for the rest of the pack. Ultimately we want some EMU's sooner than later, and it's not clear how quickly mastery of the new buying options is going to permeate North American procurements. We can hope, because ultimately more buying options drives a better price...but these updated regs are so new they aren't yet quantifiable for real-life decision-making.


Heavy and unsexy and all...the MLV EMU will have a large advantage of having NJT be the testing guinea pig of a large order, and large degree of standardization since the interior holds to the specs of the coach version. The unit price would probably be pretty attractive because of the large numbers being produced and the ability for other users of Bombardier coaches to jump right in. And if Bombardier can somehow make them work with our Kawasaki bi-levels (slightly larger dimensions than an MLV but very similar), then fleet scalability gets a lot better. But they'd be bi-level, which would be cumbersome for Fairmount and Riverside and isn't going to please TransitMatters much. On the other hand, if Bombardier's going to be producing MLV- and BLV-frame versions of this self-propelled car, they'll almost certainly follow with a single-level version. The only reason they aren't doing that right out the gate is because they haven't produced domestic flats in 22 years and would have to repurpose one of their (lighter!) Euro carbodies for that version. It would feature the same propulsion and electronics as the bi-levels, so a follow-on order that comes with more line electrifications could end up differentiating single-levels for the "Indigo"-branded routes and push the bi-levels to the crowd-swallowers like Providence and Worcester. All while keeping the propulsion cars parts-common and equally maintainable. Again...might make some perfect-is-the-enemy-of-good transpo blogger's head explode to have a mixed-size fleet. But as a means to end that fits the initial electrification timetable and scales for the long term I don't think flats vs. bi's is necessarily the hill to die on when the purchase options will eventually put all configurations on the table.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Even with students gone, I'm gonna call shenanigans on that blurry memory.
7am has been crap for much longer than a year.

I'm sure it has, but I really think it has gotten worse. As for a blurry memory, nope. I was dictated by other people's schedules and managed to get up that HOV lane in probably half the time I do now. Maybe I just got lucky several times in a row over that summer, but it was real.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

In my opinion, we’re long since past that point. I remember that in summer of ‘17, I could hop in the north-bound HOV lane on 93 and just cruise at 7am. Now, its barely faster than normal traffic. And that’s just one year’s difference. Not to mention that the evening commute is worse - I actually have found the HOV lane is slower than regular traffic by 4pm.

Wait, are you comparing summer '17 traffic to current fall traffic? It's lighter every summer from every direction.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

The Caltrain stuff with the kooky multi- platform height door configurations is also out.
Curious why you say this. The dual height boarding is about the best solution I have seen for the transition from low to high platforms (Beats trap doors by a country mile IMO.) If nothing else it shows how creative and flexible the Euro manufacturers can be as long as you don't make them completely redesign the structural systems. Perhaps you're underestimating how far they might be able to go for an enormous order like M11s, etc? When Clem Tillier suggested that configuration on his blog, and it made from there into Caltrain's specs, I thought "This is insane, nobody is going to build this." But lo, in comes Stadler, with not just a bid to build what they are asking for, but a *very reasonable* bid at that. Who knows what they might be capable of on the East Coast. One can only assume that they plan on marketing that design to all the eastern commuter railroads that have a mix of low and high platforms.
 
Last edited:
Re: North-South Rail Link

Curious why you say this. The dual height boarding is about the best solution I have seen for the transition from low to high platforms (Beats trap doors by a country mile IMO.) If nothing else it shows how creative and flexible the Euro manufacturers can be as long as you don't make them completely redesign the structural systems. Perhaps you're underestimating how far they might be able to go for an enormous order like M11s, etc? When Clem Tillier suggested that configuration on his blog, and it made from there into Caltrain's specs, I thought "This is insane, nobody is going to build this." But lo, in comes Stadler, with not just a bid to build what they are asking for, but a *very reasonable* bid at that. Who knows what they might be capable of on the East Coast.

That's a very optimistic take on a product that today is vaporware.

Stadler has come up with nothing except a stack of paper. Nothing physical exists so far. Nothing has been modified so far. And the specs are still being reopened for scrutiny by Caltrain's consultants so there isn't even a finalized paper design to work from yet. We'll see how much Caltrain's extreme customization buys them once it's time to actually kick off the contract. So far the paper itself isn't doing a good enough job staying out of its own way, and the dual-platform boarding is stubbing its toes on ADA issues. Stadler can only take it as far as Caltrain & its merry band of consultants remove their hands from their own necks, and they've got a long way to go before that's reality.

I read Clem's blog too. He's extremely adamant that level boarding is the only answer, and that this half-and-half bridge era needs to be as short as humanly possible. The fact that Caltrain is backpedalling from raising its platforms has rightly got him in a frothing rage.

Never ever would the MBTA ever entertain a boarding configuration that convoluted. We've got a significant share of high-level platforms already including at the terminals, and all of the mini-high equipped platforms achieve full (yes, full by-law) ADA compliance on one car of the train if staff seats handicapped riders accordingly. They do not need to change any practices, only step up the pace of accessibility upgrades to zap as many remaining non-ADA's as possible and start raising the mini-high platforms to full-high. As is, their aggregate accessibility beats the pants off LIRR and Metro North...who are 100% level-boarding systems that nonetheless have frightfully high number of non-ADA stations because the MTA has malingered on so many deficient egresses. How you get on the platform in the first place matters, too!

The T does have a comprehensive accessibility study due in to the FCMB in 2019, with a dashed-line reporting relationship to the CR Future study also due for '19 which should spell out how to jump-start the level-boarding process and ADA settle-ups for the remaining non-compliant stations. So wheels are turning behind the scenes on closing the gap and should produce actionable recs that Baker, Pollack, et al. will have to decide how to fund.


In comparison, Caltrain's unwillingness to change anything about their lineside station infrastructure means their system is going to be perpetually accessibility-broken with boarding efficiency that will significantly deteriorate from today. And it could possibly find itself in direct violation of the law if the vehicle-side design kludges can't accommodate an accessible interface for either platform type. Don't pat them on the back until their consultants actually hammer out a spec that Stadler proves it can build. The whole works still has sky-high potential to come crashing down in the biggest procurement embarrassment in recent memory if they choke on their own unicorn design mods.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

That's a very optimistic take on a product that today is vaporware.

Stadler has come up with nothing except a stack of paper. Nothing physical exists so far. Nothing has been modified so far. And the specs are still being reopened for scrutiny by Caltrain's consultants so there isn't even a finalized paper design to work from yet.

I think you must be exaggerating or using hyperbole here (it's hard to tell these things over the internet) but to me this looks like something squarely between stacks of paper/vaporware/nothing physical and a fully operational completed vehicle. At any rate it looks like Stadler, which is a highly respected supplier in the industry, has probably invested a significant bit of capital to bring it this far, so they at least must have a lot of faith that they can make it work. And once it has been built once for Caltrain it basically becomes an off the shelf design.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

That's a very optimistic take on a product that today is vaporware.

Stadler has come up with nothing except a stack of paper. Nothing physical exists so far. Nothing has been modified so far. And the specs are still being reopened for scrutiny by Caltrain's consultants so there isn't even a finalized paper design to work from yet.

I think you must be exaggerating or using hyperbole here (it's hard to tell these things over the internet) but to me this looks like something squarely between stacks of paper/vaporware/nothing physical and a fully operational completed vehicle. At any rate it looks like Stadler, which is a highly respected supplier in the industry, has probably invested a significant bit of capital to bring it this far, so they at least must have a lot of faith that they can make it work. And once it has been built once for Caltrain it basically becomes an off the shelf design.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

I think you must be exaggerating or using hyperbole here (it's hard to tell these things over the internet) but to me this looks like something squarely between stacks of paper/vaporware/nothing physical and a fully operational completed vehicle. At any rate it looks like Stadler, which is a highly respected supplier in the industry, has probably invested a significant bit of capital to bring it this far, so they at least must have a lot of faith that they can make it work. And once it has been built once for Caltrain it basically becomes an off the shelf design.

Those are cab-end structural test mockups for crashworthiness, since their FRA waiver allows them alternate Crash Energy Management technology that has to have first-ever testing in North America. They can do that without the door design being final because the FRA waiver concerns itself with collisions at the ends. Delivery of pilot units is not scheduled until at least 2021 because that's the first time wires will be turned on for any native testing, and electric revenue service at this point is slipping into 2022. It's 2 years before these pilot shells even get fully-equipped.

The threat that the whole order lives under is that it has to be able to provide ADA-compliant boarding at both low and high platforms. And right now the consultants are still fiddling with the specs because they can't come up with bridge plate mechanisms for each platform height that achieve legal compliance for platform gaps. To get their cut-rate price they took Stadler's KISS floor height as it was, so there's a certain fudge factor on coming up with a level interface at both the car's lower-level and vestibules. It's all on Caltrain's consultants to figure out the mechanism for squaring it up that'll work in the Stadler frame, and right now that's where they're failing. If they cannot mod their specs to meet/exceed ADA letter-of-law on bridge plates, the order is federally illegal and cannot proceed...full-stop.

In event of that doomsday they can either impound the pilots and pursue further modification, pushing back their start date. Or, cancel the order outright and lease some ALP-46 electric locomotives from EMU-enriched NJ Transit to keep using their coach fleet while they wipe egg off their face. The possibility that it could come to this is very real, because you can't "close enough" ADA access even by inches. The fact (per the linked blog post) that Caltrain itself doesn't seem to understand that there's absolute-zero give on these accessibility considerations should scare the shit out of everyone about as much as it scares the shit out of Clem.


It's not much skin off Stadler's back if that happens because they didn't assume liability for a boarding interface that still isn't final today...much less nearly 3 years ago when the contract was signed. And it's a small base order with most of the units backended into the option part of the contract...so in terms of projected profits most of the total order is still off-board. It's a nice-to-have for them if it works out, but this is not a vehicle they'll be pitching to anyone else because in sane transpo management level boarding is a one-time lineside capital investment, not an every-time vehicle design investment. Nobody except the anti-geniuses at Caltrain makes a commitment to level boarding...without any plans to raise the platforms. That's why there's no market-in-wait for this so-called vehicle solution, because Caltrain is the only place on earth that perceives level boarding in such back-asswards terms. You can fault some Eastern CR agencies for taming their platform backlog much too slowly, but when they flip a station reno they get the level boarding done set-it-and-forget-it. The main upshot Stadler sees from this is Caltrain keeping it together to drain the options to the max on this unicorn configuration...then the ability to have a demonstration product they can show other buyers for the separate high- or low-boarding standard configurations. But, they'll be offering high-or-low KISS imports to other U.S. buyers anyway under the new FRA rules so they don't necessarily need the Caltrain demo to sell those if Caltrain impales itself on its own accessibility hubris.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

^F-Line: you talk often about the issue facing the SWC and how it will ultimately force the demise of the Needham Line. But is there actually anyone at all within the state govt or the MBTA who has talked about this? I've never heard anyone else ever discuss this point. It makes sense to me but I am wondering if it's your thinking or do you know for a fact there is awareness of this future issue within the government?
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

^F-Line: you talk often about the issue facing the SWC and how it will ultimately force the demise of the Needham Line. But is there actually anyone at all within the state govt or the MBTA who has talked about this? I've never heard anyone else ever discuss this point. It makes sense to me but I am wondering if it's your thinking or do you know for a fact there is awareness of this future issue within the government?

There is, because the CR Future study now includes build Alternatives where the Needham Line is converted. That doesn't mean it's going to be a preferred alt. for the recs that are due for release in 1 year, but the FCMB slides highlight that the best they can do for frequencies is considerably sub- RER level and may need to be kludged together with things like Forest Hills-outbound shuttles (limited usefulness because Orange @ FH is so overloaded already) to backfill any more schedules. It's very significant that they are acknowledging publicly today that there's a problem they can't fix.

The actual gruesome schedule maths were crunched as part of the NEC FUTURE federal study, and showed that to accommodate Amtrak >2030 growth Needham and Franklin thru slots had to be traffic-segregated in the SWC tunnel on 1 bidirectional track apart from Amtrak and Providence/Stoughton in order to stay out of the way. That maims existing schedules on both lines, but even with the obvious choice of reclaiming Forge Park slots over the Fairmount Line instead Needham is still consigned to a peak-direction only schedule because of the single track and transit loss to the outer neighborhoods. The problem was hinted to in earlier Amtrak reports like the NEC Infrastructure Improvements Master Plan, but NEC FUTURE was the first to actually plot out the damage.

Dilemma is that we have 20 years to act before there's risk of outright frequency loss to Needham in the worst-case. The cap on frequency growth is basically already in-place today so Needham won't be a meaningful participant in RER practices going to the other 128-turning lines across the system...so action much sooner than 'doomsday' is preferable (and why it's being included in the ongoing RER study). It's all a matter of whether the state wants to be proactive and give the corridor frequencies while it's in a frequency-giving mood, or wait until stop-loss is driving the desperation for a conversion. Obviously sooner looks loads better, esp. with the explosive growth on the GLX Newton-128 portion of the corridor apart from commuter rail also playing a factor in this decision.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Got it.

So - given that full transit replacement probably means GLX to need junction or Hersey, and also OLX through roslindale out to vfw parkway....is there a scenario where for some (significant) period of time we'd see the GLX happen, and then have a commuter rail set pinging back and forth through roslindale and dumping pax at Forest hills?
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Got it.

So - given that full transit replacement probably means GLX to need junction or Hersey, and also OLX through roslindale out to vfw parkway....is there a scenario where for some (significant) period of time we'd see the GLX happen, and then have a commuter rail set pinging back and forth through roslindale and dumping pax at Forest hills?


I don't know, because that's a corridor used to its transit being under constant threat and they won't take kindly to a forced transfer. This is legit complicated and thorny on the community outreach. Sounding the alarm this far out from the reckoning and forcing the conversation to be along "corridor equity" lines in the RER study is a good thing, because procrastination would be devastating. This is a conversation that needs to start in earnest right now, so having a kickstarter mechanism for that discussion is fortunate.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

I don't know, because that's a corridor used to its transit being under constant threat and they won't take kindly to a forced transfer. This is legit complicated and thorny on the community outreach. Sounding the alarm this far out from the reckoning and forcing the conversation to be along "corridor equity" lines in the RER study is a good thing, because procrastination would be devastating. This is a conversation that needs to start in earnest right now, so having a kickstarter mechanism for that discussion is fortunate.

Also... Without all the GL connections and new in-town tunnels, can the GL actually accommodate one more line, which the Needham branch would effectively be?
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Also... Without all the GL connections and new in-town tunnels, can the GL actually accommodate one more line, which the Needham branch would effectively be?


Yes, with the modernizations on-tap. Kenmore's garbage-in/garbage-out situation with B/C bunching is the big destabilizer. The same station, after all, used to serve that 1 extra branch--a street-running one to boot--in the A Line. All-doors boarding + signal priority + all low-floor speedier boarding Type 10's collectively fix that glitch @ Kenmore. The D itself is well under-capacity and has been anticipating a Needham Branch ever since its 1959 opening.


EGE wrote a maths-heavy whitepaper about exactly how these ops reforms would fix the glitch. It was posted here on some thread in early-'17. He can better give the Cliffs Notes answer as to how these reforms clear the headroom for return to normalcy at Kenmore, with math modeling to back it up.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

How exactly do you get the Needham line to Green? It looks like there were tracks at one time which lead to kind of near the Eliot stop but that's largely been converted to somewhat of a trail. Doesn't seem like it is realistic to actually get carried out.

To me it seems like either they will have to start pushing back on Amtrak to keep the capacity or it will just be eliminated.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

[For the last ~30 years] When the T has allowed trails on its ROWs, it is always with the proviso that rail service could one day be restored. I'd be pretty sure any trail is (1) recent and (2) reclaimable

The concept of "down from the D" and "out on the Orange" to get to Needham dates to at least 1945 (before the lines had their current colors) (you see a Blue "D" and a Purple "Forest Hills" in the MTA's grand 1945 plan:

1945_mbta_expansion_map-small.jpg




Original D/Green plan was, indeed a branch outward from Newton Highlands:
3857192_orig.png


In 2017 MAPC studied it (as BRT) and found they'd have to clear ~1700 feet of encroachments on the line right at Newton Highlands. (I suspect these date back to the private railroads selling off bits)
http://www.mapc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Needham-Newton-FINAL-Report.pdf

That alignment is still what people are studying, as in
http://www.ctps.org/data/pdf/plans/lrtp/journey/2030Tranplan_appB.pdf

Many amateur planners re-draw the 1945 map with today's colors: GLX coming down from Newton Highlands, and Orange Line coming out from Forest Hills/Roslindale, all along these existing rail ROWs

MBTA_future6-t.jpg
 
Last edited:

Back
Top