Common Rail Concept for New England

Pertaining to all railroading subjects, past and present, in New England

Moderators: MEC407, NHN503

Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby b&m 1566 » Thu Apr 20, 2017 12:18 pm

I came upon a website today, that I found to be interesting. It's nothing serious but certainly shows a vision of what could be I suppose. I don't have time to read through everything but non the less, I figured I would share it. Not sure how long this web page stay up for, so take a look. What do you think?
http://www.iqubeddesign.com/graphic/#/commonrail/
b&m 1566
 
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 2:09 am
Location: Hudson, NH

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby kilroy » Thu Apr 20, 2017 1:37 pm

Yeah, but real vision would have included the one thing missing....how to realistically pay for all of this.
Why do we drive on parkways and park in driveways?
User avatar
kilroy
 
Posts: 829
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:51 am
Location: Central Jersey

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby Rockingham Racer » Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:34 pm

I chuckled at Hanover, NH as a connection point. There are no tracks there, but there IS Dartmouth College! There is one railroad opposite Hanover on the Vermont side, the NECR, I presume. And the Shore Line is gone! If the beautiful people of Southeastern Connecticut are unhappy about what's being proposed now for the NEC, they'll be hopping mad about this proposal, I suppose.
User avatar
Rockingham Racer
 
Posts: 2863
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:25 pm

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby whatelyrailfan » Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:00 am

Here's another one: The light blue line between Northampton and Pittsfield is interesting, because it never existed! The line was originally a branch of the Canal Line which only extended as far as Williamsburg.
Peace,
Jonathan
whatelyrailfan
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:34 am

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby B&M 1227 » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:20 pm

The Williamsburg Branch was intended to bust over the Berkshire Range to North Adams, though that project never went through. I think the more laughable route is the Brattleboro-North Adams line...
Did we ever hear a music sweeter than the one that thrills, as it floats along the Deerfield, as it echoes o'er the hills.
How we watch that little engine as it stalks across the plain; was there ever music sweeter, was there ever sight completer, than the coming of the train?
-E. A. Fitch
User avatar
B&M 1227
 
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:43 pm
Location: on the ground

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby ExCon90 » Sat Apr 22, 2017 12:51 pm

--and in under 20 minutes at that (assuming they can maintain a steady 120 mph the whole way...)
ExCon90
 
Posts: 3437
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 1:22 pm

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby whatelyrailfan » Sun Apr 23, 2017 9:47 am

B&M 1227 wrote:The Williamsburg Branch was intended to bust over the Berkshire Range to North Adams, though that project never went through. I think the more laughable route is the Brattleboro-North Adams line...

Correct! That was the primary routing, although I've studied old maps that show other proposed extensions of the branch some of which are even more ridiculous. And I agree with you about Brattleboro-North Adams!
Peace,
Jonathan
whatelyrailfan
 
Posts: 200
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 9:34 am

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby Ridgefielder » Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:38 am

Four different ways to get from Northampton MA to Boston, but Waterbury, Bridgeport and New London CT don't merit any service at all. This is a Boston railfan's version of Saul Steinberg's "View of the World from 9th Avenue." :-D

I'm puzzling over that Portsmouth - Manchester - Brattleboro - North Adams route. That doesn't exactly seem like a high-demand corridor...
Ridgefielder
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:22 pm
Location: Harlem Division MP 15

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby Otto Vondrak » Tue Apr 25, 2017 11:42 am

Fun fantasy map. Never mind the millions (billions?) required to bring some of the track up to 60-70 mph to make travel time reasonable.

I have a question: Is there a large demand for travel in a Montreal-Boston market? Do people in Montreal and Vermont worry about getting to Boston as much as someone from New Hampshire would? Seems like most travel is taking place in a Vermont-New York City flow.

-otto-
----------------------------------------------
Moderator: New York State Railfan :: New York Central :: Toy Trains
NYW&B Fan Site :: A Magazine I Read Often :: A Museum I Volunteer At
User avatar
Otto Vondrak
 
Posts: 20141
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 6:47 pm
Location: New York

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby Tom M » Tue Apr 25, 2017 5:22 pm

Ridgefielder wrote:Four different ways to get from Northampton MA to Boston, but Waterbury, Bridgeport and New London CT don't merit any service at all. This is a Boston railfan's version of Saul Steinberg's "View of the World from 9th Avenue." :-D

I'm puzzling over that Portsmouth - Manchester - Brattleboro - North Adams route. That doesn't exactly seem like a high-demand corridor...

Apparently it isn't a high-demand corridor, since public transportation in this corridor is non-existent. That isn't to say there's no demand. My son went to college at Keene (NH) State, near Brattleboro. I searched and searched for some way for him to get home (to Dover, NH) without me driving two hours each way. He could take a bus from Keene north to White River Junction, then another bus south to Concord and on to Boston, and another bus north from Boston to Dover. Or, he could take a bus south to Springfield, another bus to Boston, and change to another bus north to Dover. Elapsed time for these routes? 7 to 9 hours, one route including an overnight. East-west travel has always been difficult in central and northern New England. The interstate highways in Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont are all north-couth. It is interesting to look at this map and see that east-west options would be abundant. Is there demand? Yes. Sufficient demand? Maybe. Is there enough money (or even commitment) to turn any of this into reality? Nope.
Tom M
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 2:16 pm
Location: NH

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby b&m 1566 » Wed Apr 26, 2017 11:57 am

Otto Vondrak wrote:Fun fantasy map. Never mind the millions (billions?) required to bring some of the track up to 60-70 mph to make travel time reasonable.

I have a question: Is there a large demand for travel in a Montreal-Boston market? Do people in Montreal and Vermont worry about getting to Boston as much as someone from New Hampshire would? Seems like most travel is taking place in a Vermont-New York City flow.

-otto-


I believe MA and VT are currently looking to fund a study for BOS/MTL passenger service that would bypass NH altogether. I'll try and find the article I read about it (recently too).

Edit: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/ ... ssible.pdf
b&m 1566
 
Posts: 2841
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 2:09 am
Location: Hudson, NH

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Wed Apr 26, 2017 3:48 pm

b&m 1566 wrote:I believe MA and VT are currently looking to fund a study for BOS/MTL passenger service that would bypass NH altogether. I'll try and find the article I read about it (recently too).

Edit: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/Portals/ ... ssible.pdf


Yes. Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative. Lots more docs available on MassDOT's portal site for that project: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/northern ... /Home.aspx. That's the combined Inland Route restoration study with appendage of a new Boston-Montreal frequency on the L-shaped route out of Springfield hub. Much more comprehensive than just BOS-MTL in isolation.

The whole reason that BOS-MTL exists at all as a feasibility is because of the way it gloms onto regular Inland Route demand. The Vermonter/Montrealer has lasted uninterrupted since 1972 despite the sparse demand north-of-SPG and seesawing Amtrak fortunes over the years because (for all except the years of the New London-Willimantic-Palmer re-route) it has served as a de facto Springfield Northeast Regional frequency. The conventional Corridor demand floats the more meager farebox recovery north-of-SPG. The NNEIRI study takes the same approach. Inland Route is the bread-and-butter demand served and the driver for the infrastructure upgrades. Current NHV-SPG Shuttles would all be extended to Boston and increased in frequency, while TBD mix/matching with WSH- & NYP- originating Regionals fills out the options. In much the same way as the Vermonter floats its boat by doubling as a conventional Regional, BOS-MTL is going to see primary demand from conventional Inland patronage. The twist is how transfers at SPG hub will be used to exponentially increase the travel options.

-- Instead of continuing to New Haven as a regular Inland, the BOS-MTL train will turn north. But its arrival in SPG will be timed with a SPG-terminating Regional that it changing ends, allowing Inland patrons to hop across the platform and keep going south on a cross-honored ticket.

-- Exiting passengers on that same SPG-terminating Regional get a reciprocal cross-tix transfer to the BOS-MTL train, making that Regional a de facto second daily Vermonter frequency for the WSH and/or NYP crowd. Presumably time-of-day of the BOS-MTL schedules would run opposite the existing Vermonter to give the existing route a schedule option spaced out to the opposite end of the day.

-- The existing Vermonter would be timed with a conventional Boston-departing Inland, such that Boston patrons gain the same second VT/MTL daily frequency via cross-platform transfer as regular Vermonter patrons would gain ^^above^^. Each market gets a run-thru north-of-SPG once a day, and a cross-platform transfer the opposite end of the day. 4 total slots for 2 different routings, but at ops cost of only +1 round-trips running north-of-SPG.

-- If BOS-MTL didn't exist, the same train would depart Boston the same time for Springfield. And continue south as a regular Inland Shuttle to NHV instead of turning north, while that SPG-terminating Regional would be free on the clock to schedule itself whenever instead of being slotted to hit the transfer. Same number of trains either way, because the study ID's X number of Inland trains as its service target and Inlands are the primary demand. The only ops change with BOS-MTL existing vs. not existing is the extra running miles of going to St. Albans and Gare Central from Springfield instead of New Haven or NYP. The transfer scheduling is all paper.


Thus, the relatively pedestrian end-to-end demand from Boston to Montreal and diffuse demand to VT only has to concern itself with farebox recovery between Springfield and Gare Central. All else is underwritten by the Inlands and Regionals and the boosting of de facto frequencies by timed cross-platform transfers at Springfield hub. The loss leader mileage of the Vermonter can thus live within the margins of steady but very small-scale incremental growth in VT and largely speculative BOS-MTL end-to-end growth without taking a bath or being too big a risk financially to initiate at all. If the Inland Route gets built fully out, it becomes one of the lowest-risk new service patterns to try out on the whole Amtrak system map. The only capital costs VTrans would have to rationalize are signaling improvements in NECR dark territory for the additional round-trip frequency. Ops costs are well contained within established demand for a second frequency at opposite end of the day from the current Vermonter. Thumbs-up/thumbs-down on doing it becomes a very straight answer with no hand-wringing, and is questioned only by whether Massachusetts tries to do the Inlands on an ultra-squeezed budget with much lower service targets. Unlikely to go down that way because the NNEIRI study already has a Recommended Alternative for the service sweet spot that justifies the project's existence; they'll either build all of the Rec Alt. or not build anything, and won't try to split hairs. If the Inlands are a go, BOS-MTL is a near-certainty to be in the same package.



FWIW...the previous study for a North Station-White River Jct.-Gare Central direct via the ex-B&M Northern Route barely had any time difference from the L-shaped South Station-Springfield-WRJ-Gare Central route at conventional speeds. You had to reach into that study's unlimited-billions HSR stratosphere to see any improvement, and that wasn't realistic because triple-digit speeds in NH but slamming into the same old 60 MPH Central Vermont west of WRJ and through the Green Mts. made no sense. There's nothing you could've practically done to the Northern for unlimited money that you couldn't do just as well to the B&A and Conn River for the same unlimited-money sum to match-or-better effect on the schedule. But any such investment in the B&A + Conn River would return itself with way higher ridership because of the markets served, additional routes served, and extra ridership pipelines from the transfers...a head-to-head investment contest that de-abandonment of the Northern would never ever win. The NH route basically exists only a "me to" Congressional pork hypothetical to give every New England state equal slices of the intercity funding pot. It's not a viable one for ridership or schedule, and in the real world NH doesn't even want the "me too" pork all that much.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7100
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby Ridgefielder » Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:11 pm

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:FWIW...the previous study for a North Station-White River Jct.-Gare Central direct via the ex-B&M Northern Route barely had any time difference from the L-shaped South Station-Springfield-WRJ-Gare Central route at conventional speeds. You had to reach into that study's unlimited-billions HSR stratosphere to see any improvement, and that wasn't realistic because triple-digit speeds in NH but slamming into the same old 60 MPH Central Vermont west of WRJ and through the Green Mts. made no sense. There's nothing you could've practically done to the Northern for unlimited money that you couldn't do just as well to the B&A and Conn River for the same unlimited-money sum to match-or-better effect on the schedule. But any such investment in the B&A + Conn River would return itself with way higher ridership because of the markets served, additional routes served, and extra ridership pipelines from the transfers...a head-to-head investment contest that de-abandonment of the Northern would never ever win. The NH route basically exists only a "me to" Congressional pork hypothetical to give every New England state equal slices of the intercity funding pot. It's not a viable one for ridership or schedule, and in the real world NH doesn't even want the "me too" pork all that much.

I think it's worth noting that the difference between the B&A/Conn River and the B&M/Northern routes from Boston to WRJ is not the difference between two legs of a triangle and the hypotenuse. The Northern ran a little bit west of north from Concord to Franklin. After Franklin the line heads off due west, loops around to run almost due north through Danbury, northwest through Grafton, then due west for the last 15 miles into WRJ. If you compare the two on a map, the one through MA & VT looks like an upper case L and the route via New Hampshire looks like a backward lower-case r.
Ridgefielder
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:22 pm
Location: Harlem Division MP 15

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby jaymac » Thu Apr 27, 2017 3:22 pm

North Station to WRJ per ETTs ℮ 142 miles. Boston to Springfield and Springfield to WRJ per ETTs again ~99 + ~123 ℮ 131 miles. Part of what works against reanimating the Northern are the garden and curvatures, particularly between Franklin and Canaan.
"A white SUV with a roof antenna just might not be a company van."
jaymac
 
Posts: 3387
Joined: Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:08 pm

Re: Common Rail Concept for New England

Postby neman2 » Thu Apr 27, 2017 6:46 pm

jaymac wrote:North Station to WRJ per ETTs ℮ 142 miles. Boston to Springfield and Springfield to WRJ per ETTs again ~99 + ~123 ℮ 131 miles. Part of what works against reanimating the Northern are the garden and curvatures, particularly between Franklin and Canaan.


I assume auto correct changed "grade" to "garden" ?
neman2
 
Posts: 133
Joined: Sun Apr 01, 2012 4:16 pm

Next

Return to New England Railfan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests