North-South Rail Link Discussion

Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Postby CRail » Sun Jun 03, 2007 10:08 pm

Uh, to the T's standards, yeah. But no, they would probably use the highway which gets jammed during rush hour defeating the purpose of using a motor vehicle, you might as well just walk at that point.
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
User avatar
CRail
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 8:27 am
Location: Eastie

Postby octr202 » Mon Jun 04, 2007 7:26 am

I'm in agreement with the above comments, and I'd add too that I hope the T doesn't propose using buses for any more crucial intercity transportation hub services. My experiences using the Silver Line to and from Logan have been lousy -- the buses almost always are loaded way beyond capacity. Any time the airport is even moderately busy, it can be a struggle to get on with even one piece of luggage. We don't need the Silver Squid throwing any more tentacles around the city.

Let's see -- over $700 million for the Silver Line waterfront. For that money we could have had the Red/Blue connector, plus some left over to start work on a Blue Line branch into the airport proper...

But I digress...
Wondering if I'll see the Haverhill double-tracking finished before I retire...
Photo: Melbourne W7 No. 1019 on Route 78, Bridge & Church Streets, Richmond, Victoria. 10/21/2010
User avatar
octr202
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:13 am
Location: In the land of the once and future 73 trackless trolley.

Postby ags » Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:29 am

It was my understanding that there are dedicated emergency service lanes in the new CA/T tunnels. I think this because MBTA buses were using them during the DNC in 2004. Couldn't a silver line N-S link use them (if they do exist)?
ags
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:46 pm

Postby danib62 » Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:20 am

ags wrote:It was my understanding that there are dedicated emergency service lanes in the new CA/T tunnels. I think this because MBTA buses were using them during the DNC in 2004. Couldn't a silver line N-S link use them (if they do exist)?
Probably not because I bet there is some code that says they need to be kept clear except in extenuating circumstances. It's one thing to put emergency service through them but to put regularly scheduled service through them would be different.
"We are running with normal train service on the Red Line. We apologize for the inconvenience."
User avatar
danib62
 
Posts: 1515
Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:01 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA

Postby CRail » Tue Jun 05, 2007 12:37 am

Why would you need a tunnel then, just Bus along the greenway there, or I93 but that isn't a RAIL link now is it?
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
User avatar
CRail
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 8:27 am
Location: Eastie

Postby ceo » Tue Jun 12, 2007 12:50 pm

Running a bus or light rail along the surface does not solve the problem that the N-S Rail Link is intended to solve, which is through-routing commuter rail lines and permitting unbroken Amtrak service to north of Boston. There is already a transit link connecting the two halves of the rail system, it's called the Orange Line.

There are no dedicated emergency tunnels in the Big Dig, at least not in the I-93 mainline section. There isn't room for them: as it is, the structural slurry walls double as the outer walls of the tunnels (as opposed to having separate tunnel walls inside the slurry walls), so as to provide room for 4 lanes each direction. That's why the tunnels have such a leakage problem.
ceo
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:28 am

Postby ags » Tue Jun 12, 2007 4:36 pm

I'm sure it probably sacrilegious to mention something like this on a trainspotting forum, but at what points are trains expected to become obsolete? 50 years? 100 years? How long would it actually take to build/modify the tremendous infrastructure to permit thru-rail service? Would there really be any seen benefit to this investment?
ags
 
Posts: 346
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 10:46 pm

Postby CRail » Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:28 pm

ceo wrote:There is already a transit link connecting the two halves of the rail system, it's called the Orange Line.


How about if you're a passenger who wants to go from oh say Weymouth to Maine, I'm pretty sure the orange line isn't going to help you there! (just to support the issue Seashore has multiple members from Weymouth now that I think of it, one of which won't take the train because it involves too many transfers!)

The orange line is not a sufficient North/South link as it does not serve the entire SOUTH

AND:
Wikipedia's Definition of LINK,
link n (plural links)

1. A connection between places, persons, events, or things.

A line between North and South station is a connection between 2 stations (places) therefore, by definition, would be a sufficient LINK between them. Any questions?

I already stated that that is what I meant, but apparently not clearly enough!

And even if there was through service they wouldn't send Amtrak to Maine from the corridor because there's a lack of locomotive fuel for AEM7's and Acela trains. They could have the Downeaster go to South Station I suppose.

ags wrote:I'm sure it probably sacrilegious to mention something like this on a trainspotting forum, but at what points are trains expected to become obsolete? 50 years? 100 years? How long would it actually take to build/modify the tremendous infrastructure to permit thru-rail service? Would there really be any seen benefit to this investment?


I'd say Europe is probably a good example of our future, as is China or Japan, all of which have extensive rail service and automobile traffic far less then ours. What does that say? To me it says that trains are not only a way of the past, but also a way of the future. I seriously doubt trains are going anywhere. I'm sure they will be very different in 50 or 100 years, but in some form or another they will exist.
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
User avatar
CRail
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 8:27 am
Location: Eastie

Postby MBTA3247 » Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:32 pm

ags wrote:I'm sure it probably sacrilegious to mention something like this on a trainspotting forum, but at what points are trains expected to become obsolete?

In favor of what?
"The destination of this train is [BEEP BEEP]" -announcement on an Ashmont train.
User avatar
MBTA3247
 
Posts: 2602
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:01 pm
Location: Milton

Postby CRail » Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:36 pm

Teleports
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
User avatar
CRail
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 8:27 am
Location: Eastie

Postby orange1234 » Tue Jun 12, 2007 8:39 pm

CRail wrote:And even if there was through service they wouldn't send Amtrak to Maine from the corridor because there's a lack of locomotive fuel for AEM7's and Acela trains. They could have the Downeaster go to South Station I suppose.


Why would the AEM7s and the Acela Express trainsets need fuel? Don't they get their power from overhead catenary?
orange1234
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 4:01 pm

Postby MBTA3247 » Wed Jun 13, 2007 12:34 pm

orange1234 wrote:
CRail wrote:And even if there was through service they wouldn't send Amtrak to Maine from the corridor because there's a lack of locomotive fuel for AEM7's and Acela trains. They could have the Downeaster go to South Station I suppose.


Why would the AEM7s and the Acela Express trainsets need fuel? Don't they get their power from overhead catenary?

Building catenary up to Portland would be a trivial expense after building the N-S Rail Link.
"The destination of this train is [BEEP BEEP]" -announcement on an Ashmont train.
User avatar
MBTA3247
 
Posts: 2602
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:01 pm
Location: Milton

Postby scoopernicus_in_Maine » Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:15 am

Building catenary up to Portland would be a trivial expense after building the N-S Rail Link.


This Portland resident would give anything for that. :-D
scoopernicus_in_Maine
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:00 am

Postby ceo » Fri Jun 29, 2007 2:38 pm

CRail wrote:
ceo wrote:There is already a transit link connecting the two halves of the rail system, it's called the Orange Line.


How about if you're a passenger who wants to go from oh say Weymouth to Maine, I'm pretty sure the orange line isn't going to help you there!


That is exactly my point. People were proposing various ideas for bus or trolley links between the stations, and we already have that.
ceo
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 9:28 am

Postby CRail » Sat Jun 30, 2007 2:49 am

If you read my post correctly, you would see that... NO WE DON'T. Again, if someone from Weymouth wanted to go to Maine, they wouldn't because the single link, the orange line, does not go to South Station, and DOES NOT serve as an acceptable link between both stations. The above is an actual situation by a Seashore operator who will not take the train due to too many connections. A single shuttle, making only those two stops, would be much faster then going to the red line, spending more time waiting than it takes to get to Downtown Crossing, walking a full train length (half way to Park St.) waiting another good 10 minutes or so for the Orange Line, and sitting through a stuffed, uncomfortable ride to North Station, to shuffle with the crowd again to wait for your next train Northbound. A single link would make a HUGE difference to connecting passengers.
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
User avatar
CRail
 
Posts: 2131
Joined: Tue May 18, 2004 8:27 am
Location: Eastie

PreviousNext

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], snitkofj and 8 guests