by johnpbarlow
Positive article in the Worcester Telegram re: growing patronage of new Wachusett station: http://www.telegram.com/news/20170225/r ... -t-station
Railroad Forums
Moderators: sery2831, CRail
johnpbarlow wrote:Positive article in the Worcester Telegram re: growing patronage of new Wachusett station: http://www.telegram.com/news/20170225/r ... -t-stationLet's apply simple arithmetic (which Telegram reporter George Barnes failed to do) to the parking lot use and ridership figures provided by Glenn Eaton of the Montachusett Regional Planning Commission and Joe Pesturo, Communicvations Director for MBTA.
Abe Froman wrote: Not too shabby for $93.5 million bucks. Gee, maybe they should have dumped an additional $20-50 million into this project.Didn't that $93.5 million also include the Westminster layover though? That by itself was a necessary project even without the Wachusett station to get commuter trains out of the East Fitchburg layover.
BandA wrote:If the line had not been extended, would a new layover yard have been required anyway?Definitely. The old layover was cramped and had no space for larger sets OR expansion of service. There's now also dedicated room for MOW, Mechnical, and other departments' to store equipment and supplies. In addition, crews no longer have to either change ends or perform a shove move to get to/from the layover.
BandA wrote: Is there a lot of rush hour traffic between Wachusett & Leominster station, which is also right off of RT 2?As someone who has commuted Athol - Littleton*, 2 from roughly Devens to 31 can be pretty bad at rush hour. Access to North Leominster from 2 is also rather difficult (it's a little better from 190) with a couple of intersections between the highway and the station that easily jam up (I've spent 10+ minutes between the parking garage and the highway), while Wachusett is easy-on, easy-off to/from 2.
BostonUrbEx wrote:And also, Gardner Yard is overstuffed by the P&W interchange, so it would've netted zero capacity improvement to East Fitchburg. Not a lot of other sites available around Gardner, so they needed Westminster to secure the layover capacity that covered future needs.BandA wrote:If the line had not been extended, would a new layover yard have been required anyway?Definitely. The old layover was cramped and had no space for larger sets OR expansion of service. There's now also dedicated room for MOW, Mechnical, and other departments' to store equipment and supplies. In addition, crews no longer have to either change ends or perform a shove move to get to/from the layover.
Half-hearted desire to build new layover + half-hearted desire to build a direct Rt 2 park & ride = whole-hearted desire for extension.
deathtopumpkins wrote:The original Cost Estimate Breakdown for the Wachusett Extension pegged the cost of the Westminster layover yard/facility at $9,314,460 with a 25% contingency of $2,328,615. Capacity and old, near obsolete facilities and equipment at the former East Fitchburg layover had little to do with the decision to construct a new facility. The location and construction of the unneeded, unnecessary Wachusett Station forced the decision to construct the Westminster facility for freight operation reasons more than anything else since there was-and continues to be-more than sufficient space to have extended the tracks (in an easterly direction) used for layover at East Fitchburg to allow for 2 1/2 times the capacity at considerably less cost than what was spent merely to excavate the Westminster facility, let alone construct and equip the facility.Abe Froman wrote: Not too shabby for $93.5 million bucks. Gee, maybe they should have dumped an additional $20-50 million into this project.Didn't that $93.5 million also include the Westminster layover though? That by itself was a necessary project even without the Wachusett station to get commuter trains out of the East Fitchburg layover.