Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)
- Thread starter quadratdackel
- Start date
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
Which is why the 200-coach order that comes first is in all likelihood going to decide this. If BBD wins the first order, then two-thirds of those Providence cars are already in-service and you're just buying power cars + squaring up the cab car ratio to make it happen.
Some of those perma-couple sets on the other hand are going to require a major up-front shop investment to be supportable at all at the number of units that would have to be lump-ordered. Less bulky and overweight, for sure, and maybe better savings on the far backside. But also entirely different economic model with very much "big bang" initial costs and fewer avenues for defraying in installments.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
Fairmount because it's electric (and Riverside) would have to make do with the bi-level options from the EMU purchase in order to support an initial pool fleet with Providence, etc. Especially since most of the credible bidders--Euro imports included--were pitching bi's or mixed-bi's over straight flats. But that wouldn't be a permanent thing, as once enough of the system is electrified you'll have unit scale to start diverging Urban Rail turns to 128 as single-level, RUR turns to 495-land as bi-level. So for example, Bombardier is developing the MLV EMU first because the monster NJT order was first. They'll be porting that tech to the 8-inch boarding BLV next because the monster GO Transit order (an incumbent all-BLV user) is next. They don't currently have a flat make because their last one 23 years ago was all-aluminum not stainless steel and stainless steel rules all these days...so they have to wait on that until the cash-cow MLV & BLV power packs are perfected before grabbing one of their Euro single-level carbodies for U.S. import. Then it's sure as sure can be that they'll be offering a new U.S. flat trailer/cab and flat power pack to round out the family, probably not looking much different than an all-stainless version of the their recently retired Montreal MR-90's (which conspicuously look like self-powered versions of one of our 80's-era BBD flats). If we've already adopted MLV's for the first wave, it's a cinch to order the single-level self-powered version on a later wave because the power pack's propulsion guts will be exactly the same bi- or flat for fleet management purposes. It's just going to take an extra 5-7 years before BBD has settled up first bi-level ordering priorities until they're able to import a stainless steel body for the flats version.
In the case of Fairmount/Riverside, you just have to make sure these 'temporary' bi EMU assignments are all 2 x 2 seating (no K-cars sandwiched anywhere), that they closely scrutinize the vestibule door arrangement because NJT's scheme is a bit less than ideal, and that they're miserly about sticking to the 3-car minimums. The power packs are (per NJT tech-porn slides about the Bombardiers) pretty overpowered and are supposed to have better acceleration zip than the all-powered Arrow flats they replace even with all the unpowered coaches in tow. We'll see how that plays out in testing come next 18 months when the first NJT pilots arrive, but BBD is explicitly designing so the power packs to smooth out the deadweight-in-tow and be able to haul ass out of a dead stop with market parity to all the other semi-integrated sets from Alstom, Stadler, et al. Performance-wise anything EMU slays everything P-P even if you have to make do with less-ideal bi's on Fairmount for that first order batch. Since these won't be sardine-packed by any measure and most passengers doing quick on/off trips are going to be grabbing seats closer to the vestibules anyway, the boarding/alighting flow shouldn't be compromised so long as 2 x 2 seating sets a decent aisle width and they get the vestibule door arrangement right. If you figure it's going to be 10 years of slow growth at minimum before the Urban Rail turns are really cresting in demand, they'll have electrified enough add'l territory by that point to be able to restock the intra-128 runs with self-powered flats on a later procurement batch. Just keep the new-electrification pace brisk so it keeps up with known equipment renewal windows.
In the meantime, diesel territory can run Urban Rail schedules to 128 with F40's, the 50-car Pullman trailer fleet that's best-overall condition of the flats, and a dozen least-shitty condition BBD or MBB cab cars saved from the scrapper and band-aided for another 8-10 years (either that or we go spelunking for some of MNRR's best-of-rest '90s-era Shoreliner cabs when they wholesale-replace their fleet because that's at least a trade-up in lesser-shittiness from our 80's cabs' rolling ruins). 4-car sets of those can absolutely make the :15 Urban Rail turn schedules on the intra-128 lines that slot further down the electrification priority pile. It's just at slightly lower margin-of-error for lateness and slightly higher ops cost chew that you don't want to persist with that status quo for any more than 1 decade if you can avoid it. But those sets can hold down the job, so the service rollout is rolling stock-agnostic. In practicality they're probably going to need to defer retirement of the not-quite-spent Pullmans for a little while longer to make that happen, so the next 280 incoming bi-level units aren't totally going to be applied in 1:1 replacement for all ~240 serviceable flats. The Bombers and MBB's absolutely have to go, but the '96-remanufactured Pullmans still have lots of life in them if their duty cycles are carefully managed.
I wonder, particularly if the tail effects of the pandemic on ridership are long, whether Amtrak might be willing to lease a couple of electric locomotives to the MBTA for 6-12 months during a "transition" period. (Under the notion that Amtrak may have surplus equipment due to reduced demand, and might also be a bit cash-strapped.) I know Amtrak has historically been very resistant to anything like that, but maybe the needle has been moved due to These Unprecedented Times™.
Combined with a starter order of EMUs, that might be enough to get diesels off of the Providence Line on Day 1.
Combined with a starter order of EMUs, that might be enough to get diesels off of the Providence Line on Day 1.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
Doesn't matter, though. Pawtucket layover isn't wired so there's no place to idle it. And the schedule is still set by 79 MPH-capped F40's and single-levels being able to take regular rotation because there's not enough equipment segregation with today's reserves to run Providence all-day with 90 MPH-rated HSP-46's and all bi-levels to means-test a faster schedule. They don't have enough spares to keep the slowpokes off the daily Providence rotation. The only function such a leaser would serve would be so the T can self-log telemetry data from a Siemens Sprinter, not an actual service function. T isn't buying Sprinters, so that data collection is of extreme limited use to them. And they already can phone up Amtrak to get several years worth of Sprinter telemetry for every situation (including prior SEPTA & MARC spot-leases) uploaded for them by the gigabyte if they're really curious to go poking around on performance.
The up-front infrastructure investment is too much more involved than the vehicles themselves. Just for Providence electric service starts it's: yard wire-ups, turnout wire-ups, T.F. Green + Wickford unwired platforms paid for by RIDOT, and Sharon substation expansion. Then the fleet management side where you can't test a reference RUR schedule without ordering enough new cars to play keep-away with the 79 MPH slowpokes and be able to re-pack the schedule around 90 MPH-only sets. That will require at-minimum all +80 Rotems getting delivered into service next 3 years...and then maybe they can do some *very* artful loco gerrymandering for the HSP's & away from F40's/GP40's to do the schedule refactoring. You could borrow a few M8 sets from MNRR for testing today and it wouldn't give you any real feel for electric travel times because if all meets in front or behind it have one single flat or old loco in them it's a 79 MPH commuter railroad and the all-day schedule has to space 'em accordingly. Can't spread their wings at all until the schedule can assume 90 MPH running on every adjacent-to-adjacent-to-adjacent slot. 90 will be in effect with the diesel schedule by the time the first T-order EMU pilot starts testing because enough uprated coaches are actively on-order to purge the last 79 MPH malingerers...but that's still up to 3 years' wait in itself.
As an aside ... Would there be any value in borrowing a minimal NJT bombardier MLV set for literally a couple of months just to see how it functions and works? It does seem the obvious front runner, but it would be nice before the procurement for the T to see and decide if thats the path it wants to go down. We don't like the doors, we do like x; they do/do not play nice with existing cab cars... It doesn't even have to run in revenue service, but literally as a before we buy test drive? Is that even a thing in transit procurement?
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
M8's did test all the way to South Station as an 'endurance' test of their 25 kV electronics on the very first batch of testing on the other side of the 12.5/25 kV phase break. There's a photo of the set somewhere online laying over on a Sunday at AMTK Southampton Yard. MLV's were borrowed for MNRR clearance testing into Grand Central as a specs evaluator. They knocked over a $500 signal head on the loop track that was sticking into the clearance envelope...but that was the literal only miscalculation MNRR made in its prelim efforts to certify itself for bi-levels, and it was as minor as moving a lone signal head. Silverliner V's went to Penn and D.C. Union...Sprinters went to NJT branchlines to test different operating conditions. All that stuff is not-rare in the slightest. "Foreign" crews love to volunteer for ride-alongs on somebody's hawt new toy.
What you're just probably not going to see is revenue trials of loaned interagency product while they're still in the warranty testing phase, because that simply gets too unwieldy with the contractual obligations involved. Service & Support tendrils are very complicated for those first two years before in-service milestones graduate them off testing warranty and onto 'regular' warranty, as we see with the CRRC subway cars and as we saw with the HSP-46's and Brokem coaches with the vendor techs encamped on the property far along into first revenue service. SEPTA's parasitic orders of MLV EMU's are stacked way on the option end because they still have to fundraise to execute it...so they don't have any admin need to up-front anything for their own testing purposes. By being on the option contract now it just means they have full access to NJT's telemetry up-front and don't have to twist any arms to send their own riding observers to watch how NJT riders handle the egressing on NJT schedules that most resemble their own. And it'll ditto be open-books for the T...probably even if they state a conditional preference from the RFI before proceeding to formal RFP. Bombardier and NJT will oblige immediately because it'll be seen as a good sign that they're well on their way to wooing a sealed deal. Ditto Stadler & Caltrain if it comes to that.
With what looks like a reasonable response to the RFI, and with the FMCB endorsement of electric service, it seems that even without a vehicle choice the T needs to get a substation addition under development soon. They wouldn't exactly be an off the shelf item. It seems to be a no regrets upgrade no matter what happens o other lines.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
Permitting wouldn't be an issue because the Sharon sub site is already set up for it. But NEC electrification structures are all-Amtrak ownership so the bureaucracy is all about interagency maneuvering. Which might be a good thing if AMTK just says "OK...you need to order Parts A thru Q for x much juice and so you're not precluding future-needs x + y juice on a later expansion, we supervise the vendor doing the install, and here are the vendors we had good results with back in 2000. Here's the estimate, and here's the most you'd ever want to upscale/downscale for future-proofing or short-term budget crunch if you know what's good for you. Choose wisely." And then as long as the price isn't a whopper, there's a minimum amount of haggling required.
I doubt it goes quite that smooth given these two's history, but it shouldn't be a massive or drama-tinged production to get Providence + Fairmount going when Sharon's already plug-ready for the add'l equipment. State mostly just has to make sure it lands on a 4-year CIP with due haste so that cost-scaling decision doesn't malinger unanswered.
Transit Matters has released their plan for Regional Rail Phase 1. It contains specific proposals for infrastructure improvements. I have some initial thoughts, but will re-read a few more times and digest first.
Has there been any talk for where the revere T station would be built? I don't think it makes sense to put a station near wonderland, the neighborhood is already served by the blue line and it's too far for easy transfers.
South Salem makes a lot of sense though.
South Salem makes a lot of sense though.
HelloBostonHi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2018
- Messages
- 1,420
- Reaction score
- 3,672
I appreciate what TransitMatters does but damn do they gloss over big challenges as if they're nothing and blatantly low-ball costs. $20 million for design and construction of an all new commuter rail station including real estate acquisition? Chelsea is costing about $40 million for a rebuild and that's on MBTA property. $5 million to increase speeds on the Worcester Line? Unlikely. Adding a Seaport station instead of expanding South Station? How many times have we debated that and decided it's definitely not the best option. Half hourly service on all lines they estimate to cost an additional $5 million. That's insanely optimistic.
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,050
- Reaction score
- 14,705
Look what I found:
Page 11
": Framingham Station may need to be grade separated to facilitate Regional Rail headways and intercity service. Accordingly, platform conversion at Framingham is not included in this phase."
They keep mentioning all stations will be high level except framingham, and it seems this is why.
Says this too on pg13
"Challenges: The Old Colony double tracking projects are likely to be complex. Merging Ashmont and Braintree Red Line trains onto a single platform pair may reduce the cost of widening JFK/UMass."
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
I'm getting a sinking feeling from skimming this that they're clinging to abstract-world blanket solutioneering and glossing waaaaaaaaaaaay over specific situational constraints that...real-world...would at-minimum exert some gravitational pull on the prority sequencing. Very 'transpo blogosphere' world view. OK...that view is useful for the vision-thing advocacy that got us this far, but now we're talking nuts and bolts and making max bangs per each discrete funding dump in a long sequence of 'em. That's not necessarily going to contour 1:1 with what one most thinks of as 'just' first-prioritizing. There's going to be some bending towards practical prioritizing, because this is a batched/phased initiative and some decisions are going to break on practicality and/or get deferred to a later phase because they need more time/resources.
I'm not seeing much evolution of thought here matching the nittier-grittier focus of an implementation plan and what factors contour the 'chunking' of installments. That's...disappointing. Because you know that's what Pollack is going to troll them hard on, and there was little attempt to guard that flank.
More later, but this reads as less-than authoritative on how to parse/structure implementation choices around those contours and decision cruxes. And...well...it really needed to be more than that to be a catalyst for action.
I'm not seeing much evolution of thought here matching the nittier-grittier focus of an implementation plan and what factors contour the 'chunking' of installments. That's...disappointing. Because you know that's what Pollack is going to troll them hard on, and there was little attempt to guard that flank.
More later, but this reads as less-than authoritative on how to parse/structure implementation choices around those contours and decision cruxes. And...well...it really needed to be more than that to be a catalyst for action.
Regarding the Salem tunnel extension, are they planning a cut and cover? There would be huge negative effects on downtown Salem during construction unless they're able to keep Washington St and Bridge St open.
And a public private partnership with north shore medical center is fantasy. It's a mile from the commuter rail tracks, I don't see them forking over money.
Also the electrification costs are on the low side, using European costs discounts the fact that transit projects cost twice as much here.
And a public private partnership with north shore medical center is fantasy. It's a mile from the commuter rail tracks, I don't see them forking over money.
Also the electrification costs are on the low side, using European costs discounts the fact that transit projects cost twice as much here.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
The only B&M-era station in Revere was by MA 145. That site is basically useless today so long as there's screaming high-speed parkway traffic surrounding it on all sides from 16 & 1A careening into the rotary. And thus it has never ever been a modern study target because walking access (hell, even practical bus stop access) is downright futile amidst the current road config. *Maybe* in some future universe where you've converted 1A to a full grade-separated expressway, changed the 16/1A interface into a full interchange down by Railroad St., enormously consolidated all the ramp spaghetti out to the rotary by getting rid of the 16 carriageways entirely, and busted 16 between the 1A interchange and 145 intersection down to calm city street...would you have a set of surrounding conditions ripe for a a transit stop. Because then the transit stop wouldn't be 1/8th as terrifying to reach from all sides. But that's an awful lot of if's and an awful lot of other parties that would have to pre-facilitate a taking out of the garbage to make the RR location in the pit the least bit inviting for a local station.
No...this is the 'Zombie Wonderland' proposal making its nth comeback. It's a born loser. Noboby, but nobody, will ever use that to make transfers with that walk. It doesn't even ask the right set of questions, because BLX-Lynn fixing Lynn bus terminal is the key to unlocking last-mile North Shore frequencies...not a CR station. It worsens induced-demand parking at that induced-demand albatross of a garage. The City has given up the ghost on any Wonderland TOD. It's all Logan valet lots and an ill-advised big box strip mall across the street that'll be guaranteed vacant in 2 years. And the vacant NECCO factory is now a way bigger neighborhood troubleshooting problem than the stalled-out redev around the former dog track. Suffolk Downs is the only TOD that matters to Revere now; Wonderland is nothing but a write-off until they execute on SD. TransitMatters should be parsing these flagging local barometers, as the timing for a CR station would never be worse than now with the ashes-to-ashes/dust-to-dust state of area TOD. Prior studies always rated it pure shit on ridership, which should've been enough to keep this zombie proposal from resurfacing again. But frequency increases are not going to change the fact that Wonderland has never been less of a (non-parking) destination than it is right now. How did this make first-wave implementation amid that?
By TM not adjusting out of abstract-world...that's how. They're still assuming that TOD potential is statically extant here. It's not static at Wonderland...it has in 12 years' time ebbed itself into a crater for a loooong hibernation, and been massively eclipsed on the priority pile because of Suffolk Downs going on the board. Local trending matters the world here, but they're assuming it doesn't and that the TOD bona fides are static and everlasting. It might rebound, but not for 20 years at least because of the bigger fish Revere has to fry. So how does this end up landing on TM's first-priority implementation plan in spite of that? By never adjusting to local trends.
I'm not even sure why this is in the cards. If you simply double-tracked the Salem mainline platform and reanimated the Peabody Branch turnout from inside the tunnel to a separate Salem platform for short-turns (even if just as Salem and not continuing to Peabody), the tunnel isn't a problem--AT ALL--for these headways. B&M used to run asstons more service through here. If you have throttles at both portals in the form of DT platforms at Salem (mainline) and South Salem, the tunnel is reduced to a small scoot between station dwells. The Peabody Branch turnout, in turn, cuts out before the Salem platform allowing thru traffic into the northside's #1 ridership station with BOTH mainline platforms occupied.
It's this abstract-world insistence that Beverly is a "justice" target that's forcing them to have to look at doubling-up the tunnel, because in that arbitrary decision the Peabody-side turnout @ Salem-proper gets devalued in their minds for not thru-routing to Beverly. Well...Beverly doesn't do Salem's ridership for one. And the swing bridge during peak boating season is its own limiter. Expanding the tunnel seems to be a way of artificially stretching out the meets around swing bridge openings to force-feed this Beverly integrity-of-concept. And I'm not sure there's much integrity in that concept if you ID Salem as its own future semi-breakaway North Shore bus depot where the last-mile Yellow Line frequencies are significantly picking up the slack all-around and actively diverging Salem from Beverly as the ever-moreso #1 station with-a-bullet. So Beverly 'justice', the bridge, the tunnel...it's not clear in the slightest that ANY of those are real-world constraints vs. multimodally working the whole map here: frequency increases to the limit of the swing bridge AND bus increases (where all the area med offices will surely supply buff ridership).
But...TM is extremely target-fixated on that 'justice' target for Bev, so no other options are being considered. In reality there's a wide spread of options, and lots of options for the installment-plan implementation. But if you cling to the abstract that it's a failure if each and every frequency hitting Salem isn't also hitting Bev Depot 1:1...yeah, that's threading a wormhole where expanding the Salem Tunnel looks like a non-optional touch. Where in the real world tapping actual breadth of options we might not EVER need to consider that drastic or disruptive.
More importantly, I could see them forking over the money for an expanded array of bus routes run out of a Salem mini-hub which cover the spread of CR hits (Montserrat, Bev Depot, and Salem Terminal). But integrity-of-concept seems to be precluding that here, so TM's only presenting the bigger-leap RUR version.
That's depressingly self-limiting, because I don't know how you goose the top-line ridership of these enhanced frequencies in the trans- 128-to-495 region without explicit overtures to massively expanding the last-mile bus options. I mean, that's quite literally what's buttering TM's bread here. Whether connecting buses--specifically infill between the diffuse outer regions of the Yellow Line and the nearest RTA's--is out-of-scope for the main mission statement here, the fact that they are dependent on it means that an implementation plan has to spell out some actionable standards for ridership-piping connections at these stations. Especially with them having such an appetite for adding more stations. At minimum they need this document to spell out the handoff of what types of last-mile connections RUR stations need so the towns and RTA's can immediately formulate their own action plans based off some clear bucket list and follow the right marching orders for infilling their side of the network.
This isn't saying nearly enough on what the last-mile marching orders are. "TOD and public-private and blah blah. . ." with voice trailing off is, as you correctly surmise, not going to work when the very name-check of North Shore Med/Bev Hospital puts a blinding spotlight on an inhibiting last-mile problem. Can a supposedly authoritative document pretty-please acknowledge the greater transit modal universe that's going to have to work hand-in-hand to realize this vision??? WHAR local bus, WHAR?!?!
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
Baffling statement. CSX has voluntarily waved the high-and-wide accomodations thru Framingham Station by dispatching all such remaining Walpole-and-beyond loads on their freight schedule off the east wye to keep away from the platform. It's been fair game for raising since July 2019 when the Plate F clearances east-of-Framingham got retired. Plus the recent parking lot construction on the wye 'infield' explicitly leaves slack space to double-track the east wye so future Fitchburg Secondary CR service can have a its separate full-high platform on a curve while the high-and-wide freights pass effortlessly to the side away from the clearance envelope. Should North Yard also go away in a land-swap to city/state, they only insist that in addition to the 2 mainline track berths on the ROW that there's an additional runaround Track 3 retained of 90+ car length so they can stage those east wye moves in the open. After Back Bay's Worcester platform is raised, Framingham will be the only low platform left on the Inland Route to New Haven. It can be raised in-situ, and the outbound platform can be widened to 12 ft. when raised provisioning for a Track 3 island whenever they feel like snaking an extra track through the infield.
Wow...TM was not fucking paying attention here. This is total for-the-record settled business on every last conceivable detail, and they're running old info. That's a borderline excruciating fact-check gaffe, especially because they're it to explicitly segment 1st vs. 2nd priorities.
See my post on this from the other day in the MassDOT general thread. JFK is not the fucking pinch point. Even if you wanted to push an ill-advised compacting at Savin Hill over the screams of Rapid Transit Dept., there is no reason other than too-precious integrity-of-concept adherence to do the same at JFK. It quite literally costs less to reconfig the 2 open-air busways, diet the over-wide Old Colony Ave. glorified station driveway, and do one small replacement of the south/secondary RL headhouse entrance to widen the existing CR platform into an island. And it quite literally costs more to nuke one of the 2 RL islands, completely redo both headhouses, and massively redo the track layout for the bragging rights to prove you could do the absolutely unnecessary if you were simply dogmatic enough about pushing it.
This is a nonsense request. All of the pinch is SOUTH of JFK. JFK doesn't rate. And good luck realizing cost control sacking Red Line with all the demerits while the asphalt monster is lurking on the other side of the fence salivating at the chance to bend transit over into a self-own so it can spend 3x as much on an HOV lane expansion...but happily take for itself the freebie extra space transit worked so hard self-owning the Red Line to free up for itself.
I also have no idea what they're talking about with Quincy Ctr. "passing track". It's pretty obvious that scooped fill and punctured wall for making that into a 2-track island station is the most straightforward of all options and also the most enabling of service increases by being able to do meets/overtakes at the island. Are they implying QC's still going to be a constrained single-track platform but somehow going to gain a passer? Huh??? Said passer sure ain't going on the Red Line side, so you're scooping out the loose fill behind the CR platform wall all the same. And you're not even going to puncture the wall to have an other-side half of the island? I have no clue what they're getting at there. It's gobbledygook.
Last edited:
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,050
- Reaction score
- 14,705
Yea I was just pointing out that things that have been hashed out every which way to sunday as not happening or unnessecary still somehow got included in here.
Grade separated framingham isnt happening, but it looks like thats why theyre choosing to leave it as low level for the time being, unless theres something else in there, which seems short sighted and crazy.
Grade separated framingham isnt happening, but it looks like thats why theyre choosing to leave it as low level for the time being, unless theres something else in there, which seems short sighted and crazy.
So I like the goals overall described for Phase 1:
I think these are all pretty solid next steps.
But, as others have pointed out, there are a lot of details that leave you scratching your head. The trend I see is that Phase 1A projects seem sensible, and Phase 1B projects seem more debatable.
For example:
How exactly does that reduce operational conflicts? And moreover, it significantly adds to the complexity of Phase 1 -- more electrification and forces you to deal *gestures vaguely at the Salem Tunnel* with all that. Electric frequent rapid service to Chelsea and Lynn would be a huge win on its own -- why overcomplicate that?
Likewise, there are other very specific proposed infrastructure improvements that seem sensible for a Phase 1B:
This sounds to me like a proposal that was about 70% complete when the pandemic began, and suffered from a subsequent effort to "go big or go home," given the potential for unprecedented opportunities during These Unprecedented Times™. I really like the idea! (And Lord knows, if someone could convince me that a Seaport Station could work, I'd be all on-board -- I love those rare cases of effective reverse-branching.)
But I hope a revised plan can be released that focuses a bit more on the nuts and bolts. Because -- let's be clear -- if we only successfully wrangled the Phase 1A project -- e.g. electric regional rail to Fairmount, Lynn, and Providence -- it would still be a monumental improvement, and would be more than enough to radically shift the conversation on mass transit in the region.
--
Re cost estimates: I'm a bad railfan, but I just don't really care that much about cost estimates -- I just don't get my jollies off of them. But I will say that while I'm pleased that TransitMatters is looking at costs around the world, I think it wouldn't hurt to include a bit more discussion of what factors are at play here in the US which might drive costs up.
--
Re the map: see, this is where I do get my jollies. And boy, do I have questions here. In no particular order:
I think these are all pretty solid next steps.
But, as others have pointed out, there are a lot of details that leave you scratching your head. The trend I see is that Phase 1A projects seem sensible, and Phase 1B projects seem more debatable.
For example:
How exactly does that reduce operational conflicts? And moreover, it significantly adds to the complexity of Phase 1 -- more electrification and forces you to deal *gestures vaguely at the Salem Tunnel* with all that. Electric frequent rapid service to Chelsea and Lynn would be a huge win on its own -- why overcomplicate that?
Okay... seems like a stretch goal, tbh, but I agree that ultimately it's something that could be good, especially in the context of East-West Rail. I think I would prefer to electrify the existing tracks first, but I could be convinced otherwise.
I mean, yeah. It does need to happen. But. Like Worcester Triple Track, it balloons the scope of the proposal significantly.
Rail stations in walkable distance of proper town/village centers is one of my favorite things in the world. But has this been studied at all, like, ever? I feel like I read something like this in the PMT... close to 20 years ago?
Love it. Absolutely should be in scope for a Phase 1B.
Likewise, there are other very specific proposed infrastructure improvements that seem sensible for a Phase 1B:
- Ipswich, Ballardvale and Reading double track
- Level boarding expansion at listed stations
- Speed increases, grade crossings, and other trackwork improvements
This sounds to me like a proposal that was about 70% complete when the pandemic began, and suffered from a subsequent effort to "go big or go home," given the potential for unprecedented opportunities during These Unprecedented Times™. I really like the idea! (And Lord knows, if someone could convince me that a Seaport Station could work, I'd be all on-board -- I love those rare cases of effective reverse-branching.)
But I hope a revised plan can be released that focuses a bit more on the nuts and bolts. Because -- let's be clear -- if we only successfully wrangled the Phase 1A project -- e.g. electric regional rail to Fairmount, Lynn, and Providence -- it would still be a monumental improvement, and would be more than enough to radically shift the conversation on mass transit in the region.
--
Re cost estimates: I'm a bad railfan, but I just don't really care that much about cost estimates -- I just don't get my jollies off of them. But I will say that while I'm pleased that TransitMatters is looking at costs around the world, I think it wouldn't hurt to include a bit more discussion of what factors are at play here in the US which might drive costs up.
--
Re the map: see, this is where I do get my jollies. And boy, do I have questions here. In no particular order:
- Not specific to the map, but why run Haverhill service via Reading? The Lowell Line is double tracked all the way into North Station, while the Reading Line has a significant single track stretch between Oak Grove and the BET.
- Is the concern that the single-track Wildcat would be too much of a bottle neck?
- The map marks all Fairmount Line stations as requiring New High Level Platforms -- at most, that should only be Fairmount and Readville
- The map does not mark the new high level platform that is needed at Back Bay
- Does Stoughton get 15-minute headways? And therefore does Route 128 get 7.5-minute headways?
- The map shows Stoughton as electrified but doesn't include the electric train icon at Stoughton the way it does at Providence, Fairmount and Beverly
- The proposal suggests 8 trainsets for Providence -- is that 8 for Providence + n for Stoughton? Or is that 8 for Providence & Stoughton?
- Second platforms proposed at Ipswich and others... what's the story on this? Basically a Spanish Solution? But for distant suburb stations each with average-at-best ridership?