North-South Rail Link Discussion

-- Fairmount definitely if the 15-20 min. Indigo headways are real (and it's not just a cruel bait-and-switch).

-- Worcester definitely with all the layers of service that are going to be using it: Worcester expresses and semi-expresses, Framingham locals, Riverside "Indigos". The Beacon St. overpass would have to be raised since that hangs too low for wire clearance over a bi-level. All places Beacon Park to the Mass Pike overpass in Westborough are fine as-is, especially with the Beacon Park freight long gone and autoracks being relocated out of Framingham never to return. Double-stack territory from Worcester to Westborough Yard needs 23'1" of undergrade clearance for wires to pass over the unshielded roofs of the double-stack freights that currently roam there...but it's only a half-dozen or so bridges total, some are already super-tall, and nearly all can be track-undercut instead of bridge-raised. Worcester does not have the same DS+electrification problems that Fitchburg and Haverhill will...although you're not going to string wires west of Worcester (it's ~35 overhead bridges just Worcester-Springfield).

-- ...and Needham's future in the pecking order is really going to be decided long before the Link happens, simply from escalating NEC service levels squeezing it past the point where those schedules can co-mingle (as-is the Needham schedules can pretty much never increase at all because of said congestion). That conversion to rapid transit really isn't going to be optional at some point. The only question is pinning exactly which decade it becomes a non-optional priority. Probably not by the 2020's, but definitely before the 2040's.


Worcester + Fairmount + Providence are >half the southside equipment pool. And if anything will be stretching their lead that much more over Franklin, Needham, Stoughton/South Coast, and Old Colony+Cape with time as service densities increase. Throw in RIDOT Providence-Westerly and you've got more than ample scale for a robust EMU fleet in the near-term.

Fairmount's particularly easy to electrify because it would only need one paralleling station installed at the midpoint. The existing electrification infrastructure at Southampton and Readville tie it in at both ends. You just need the substation capacity out of Southampton and Sharon increased to handle the loads.

Worcester more expensive but not particularly difficult. There's not going to be many NIMBY fights about substation sitings because of how well-buffered it is.


Those are two you could conceivably fund and build before 2025, and very much justify the expense. We'll have to see if NJT's upcoming design for bi-level EMU's stuffed in the Bombardier coach shell makes for a cheap universal EMU make that can be templated places like here. As for the Fairmount DMU's...just open up another "Indigo" line on the northside and send them there. EMU's and DMU's are not mutually exclusive.


Northside...I agree. No electrification before the Link. There's no pre-existing infrastructure and scale to build off of like the NEC and South Station electrification, and traffic density north is nowhere near what it is south. It doesn't have nearly the same bang-for-buck as those 3 southside lines do. They do better simply getting the freed-up equipment from Providence/RIDOT, Worcester, and Fairmount.

This is back in the news with Dukakis and Weld tilting at windmills.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015 ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Having read this thread last night I was wondering a couple of things.

1) Presumably this would greatly expand the flow of consists between the north and south, eliminating Grand Junction transfers. The article talks about eliminating extra layover facilities (e.g the proposed layover at Beacon yard). Wonder how well this would work in practice.
2) If they were to bore a tunnel, would the route go straight through from South to north? What about making a big curve? (maybe tunnel boring machines can't turn, lol)
3) Is the requirement to move people quickly between north/south or *trains* between north/south. Because a 1 mile transfer is similar to using a transfer train at an airport. We could build an underground autonomous train that simple shuttled between north and south. Previous posts have talked about 1 seat rides, but I don't think people mind transfers if they are fast and work with baggage.

Tunnel route is fixed--bore out the dug-and-cleanly-filled 4-track gap threaded through the Central Artery, under, and over silver, blue, orange, green. Since it is all dirt put as a placeholder it is about as risk free as tunneling gets. TBMs can turn, BTW. Risk and plenty share of the costs is in stations and approaches

Arlington wrote: Risk and plenty share of the costs is in stations and approaches

... not to mention the cost of either electrifying the entire Boston suburban network and buying a fleet of locomotives and/or MUs, or at a minimum buying a fleet of dual-power locomotives like New Jersey Transit's ALP-46-DPs to run through the tunnel.

I have a great deal of admiration for Mike Dukakis, but really, let's focus attention on fixing up and replacing equipment on the deteriorating rapid transit system first. Maybe even fantasize about turning the Silver Line into real light rail for the Seaport District.

Presumably you can run a diesel engine in a tunnel. It should be a question of ventilation.

Arlington wrote:Tunnel route is fixed--bore out the dug-and-cleanly-filled 4-track gap threaded through the Central Artery, under, and over silver, blue, orange, green. Since it is all dirt put as a placeholder it is about as risk free as tunneling gets. TBMs can turn, BTW. Risk and plenty share of the costs is in stations and approaches

Even if the space is under the NB Artery at South Station trains need a much shallower grade. That tunnel is over 9%, and downgrade only. Putting trains beneath it we are talking 110-120 feet down at the South Station Lobby! ...and Big Dig type tunneling well out into Roxbury and Dorchester.

Also remember that the construction of some parts of the Big Dig tunnels is deficient. It is buried, let it REST IN PEACE!

harshaw wrote:Presumably you can run a diesel engine in a tunnel. It should be a question of ventilation.

Please don't second guess 25 years of planning and 100 years of electric traction tech with one-liner presumptions like this. Back Bay @ NEC should just be a "question of ventilation" and it totally sucks (or blows) just 20' below the street.

Ventilation isn't a low-cost option when you're 100 to 200 feet down in the Central Business District. Reusing today's diesels is a delusional savings: they'll be buying new engines & rolling stock (probably EMUs (no locomotive) like either CDOT's single-level M8 or NJT's bilevel EMUs, if they prove out) to handle the growth (and replace the older diesels) by the time NSRL opens.

between the high cost of venting, the dubious performance of diesels on hills, and the need to grow the fleet, and knowing electrification's other advantages, they long ago concluded that they didn't need to reserve space for surface vent buildings sized for diesel or vertical shafts to connect them

In more detail, electrification gives the ability to put an motor on more (or every) axle, while diesel electric puts a whole lot of weight and traction on just a few square inches of wheel contact. Electric gets you a lighter train (no diesel fuel on board, no diesel engine, no generator weight) and more power distributed more evenly. In sum: an electric train that can really climb hills and accelerate faster and (For Amtrak) sustain high speed ops. The tunnel *will* have a catenary wire. There is no savings or improvement of any sort to be had by also handing diesel anything.

harshaw wrote:This is back in the news with Dukakis and Weld tilting at windmills.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015 ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Having read this thread last night I was wondering a couple of things.

1) Presumably this would greatly expand the flow of consists between the north and south, eliminating Grand Junction transfers. The article talks about eliminating extra layover facilities (e.g the proposed layover at Beacon yard). Wonder how well this would work in practice.
2) If they were to bore a tunnel, would the route go straight through from South to north? What about making a big curve? (maybe tunnel boring machines can't turn, lol)
3) Is the requirement to move people quickly between north/south or *trains* between north/south. Because a 1 mile transfer is similar to using a transfer train at an airport. We could build an underground autonomous train that simple shuttled between north and south. Previous posts have talked about 1 seat rides, but I don't think people mind transfers if they are fast and work with baggage.

The big operational advantage is the elimination of downtown layovers, and all that space (which equates to $) for stub-end tracks. A train from Stoughton to Boston would become a Stoughton - Lowell Train, etc. As far as the lack of an existing rail link, we already have the Orange Line from Back Bay. Who knows, a lot of politics and $ to play out before this ever gets serious...

TomNelligan wrote:

Arlington wrote: Risk and plenty share of the costs is in stations and approaches

... not to mention the cost of either electrifying the entire Boston suburban network and buying a fleet of locomotives and/or MUs, or at a minimum buying a fleet of dual-power locomotives like New Jersey Transit's ALP-46-DPs to run through the tunnel.

I have a great deal of admiration for Mike Dukakis, but really, let's focus attention on fixing up and replacing equipment on the deteriorating rapid transit system first. Maybe even fantasize about turning the Silver Line into real light rail for the Seaport District.

I don't quite see it as a care of either/or. Even with new equipment (and in a perfect world, new signaling as well), you're still stuck with numerous choke points in our major RT and subway lines.

On the Red Line, the lack of express tracks and short station spacing from Kendall<->SS coupled with all of the development in that area will mean the current crush loads are only going to get worse on that stretch, and that's ignoring physical choke-points like the Harvard curve.

The Orange Line is OK for now, and there aren't any major capacity issues with it that won't be fixed by better headways once the new trains get here.

The Blue Line is way below capacity, but that Charles/MGH connecter will be crucial, if only to siphon airport traffic off of the crush-loaded Silver Line. Lynn/Salem could change things, but that would be a good problem to have at this point.

And that leaves us with the Green Line, which is woefully over-capacity already with tens of thousands of daily riders from Somerville/Medford yet to come, and nothing but a multi-billion dollar upgrade to all-new trains, floor-level boarding, quad-tracking with express service between North Station and Kenmore, and a completely new signaling system will fix those issues. Furthermore, it would be impossible to do so without taking much of the central subway out of commission.

This is where the N-S rail link comes in, and if properly executed, it could essentially buy the T an entirely new set of RT lines for not a whole lot more than what those GL improvements alone would cost them. Build the tunnels, grade them for EMU's, and keep the terminal-bound service at current levels to make the best use of the current motive power/rolling stock. Now, choose 2-3 CR lines apiece on the North and South sides, and build approach tracks to them and them only, for now, while electrifying those lines out to 128 (say, terminals at Dedham, 128, and Riverside to the South, and Waltham, Anderson, and Reading/Salem depending on whether the Blue Line extension gets built). Buy a modest EMU fleet for these lines and run a clock-facing through service built around the ample gaps in the current terminal service that would all but eliminate inside-128 riders from the push/pull trains. Furthermore, buy a batch of dual-modes to expand service frequencies where warranted on the outer CR lines via the link.

It's not a perfect solution, and it doesn't get the T everything that it could possibly get from the link, but it solves 95+% of the problems that the Link could solve while saving the T hundreds of millions in new equipment purchases and hundreds of miles worth of potential electrification. Furthermore, you essentially buy an all-new inside-128 regional rapid transit system similar to the BART or the RER for not much more than the cost of digging the tunnels, taking potentially hundreds of thousands of cars off of the road. It just makes sense.

On the Oigawa Railway in Japan, a portion of the old line was replaced with a new line to get around a dam construction project. Conventional electric trains are assisted over the steep new section (9%) by an added electric locomotive equipped with the ABT rack system. The extra locomotive is removed at the end of the steep section and helps brake the next down-bound train. The Glacier Express in Switzerland uses locomotives that can switch between conventional adhesion and rack on the fly. Plainly, the Japanese system system has the advantage of using a limited number of special locomotives at the expense of a few minutes switching the special locos in and out, while the Swiss system requires special locos but without any pauses in operation.

There is another way to electrify a major tunnel. Use third rail and dual mode locomotives. Existing locomotives might be converted at relatively low cost. That preserves diesel operation outside the city, and Amtrak could still run its 25000VAC stuff into the present terminal.

If we weren't able to build the Blue Line to Lynn in 75 years, and have abandoned over 40 streetcar lines in the meantime, there is no way in a warm place, that we are going to build the north-south connector as anything more expensive than a bus shuttle!

Stop pushing pipe dreams, unless you have 15-20 billion dollars around to donate.

It was my understanding that when the Big Dig was constructed the vertical supports were sunk much further down than required for the vehicle tunnel. It was said this was done to accommodate a possible North-South rail tunnel directly beneath the vehicle tunnels. It would seem, then, that except for the inclines at either end, the route of the NSRL has essentially been determined all ready and this portion of the basic engineering and construction has already been funded through the Big Dig. So why waste that effort if it gives us a head start to providing superior rail service through Boston by connecting the northern suburbs and cities as far as Portland and beyond (and eventually New Hampshire, Vermont and Montreal) with EVERYTHING south of Boston.

highgreen215 wrote:It was my understanding that when the Big Dig was constructed the vertical supports were sunk much further down than required for the vehicle tunnel. It was said this was done to accommodate a possible North-South rail tunnel directly beneath the vehicle tunnels. It would seem, then, that except for the inclines at either end, the route of the NSRL has essentially been determined all ready and this portion of the basic engineering and construction has already been funded through the Big Dig. So why waste that effort if it gives us a head start to providing superior rail service through Boston by connecting the northern suburbs and cities as far as Portland and beyond (and eventually New Hampshire, Vermont and Montreal) with EVERYTHING south of Boston.

Here is another way to utilize that earlier effort: Put a subway down there with a yard and shop at the Charlestown end. Use the existing fare controls at South and North Stations, with a passageway between the highway and the rail tunnels to access an island platform via stairs and escalators. At the North Station end a 5% ramp to the surface and an extension to the Monsanto memorial casino by way of the old RT line between Sullivan and Everett. That issue will need to be addressed in any event, assuming that the casino ever gets built itself.

It would be a Boston version of London's Waterloo And City Line.

I think that the N-S rail link will probably never happen and shouldn't, given that there are so many other pressing projects.
If there is a need to increase capacity, then address the bottlenecks will will be cheaper in the long run.
For example adding additional tracks between Park St. and Government Center. Expensive but a lot less than NSRL.

People often compare this to the situation in Philly where they built the Center City tunnel, but their situation was much more favorable:
1) They already had almost all electric traction on both sides, with compatible systems and equipment.
2) One terminal (suburban station) was already underground
3) The other terminal was outdated as a rail facility but had a lot of promise in re-use as a convention center which helped justify the project,
4) Grades not an issue you had a decent area to build a ramp north of Market East to connect with the RDG side trunk.

None of these advantages exist in Boston.

Jon

jonnhrr wrote:People often compare this to the situation in Philly where they built the Center City tunnel, but their situation was much more favorable:
1) They already had almost all electric traction on both sides, with compatible systems and equipment.
2) One terminal (suburban station) was already underground
3) The other terminal was outdated as a rail facility but had a lot of promise in re-use as a convention center which helped justify the project,
4) Grades not an issue you had a decent area to build a ramp north of Market East to connect with the RDG side trunk.

None of these advantages exist in Boston.

Jon

So let's list Boston's Advantages:
1) Tunnel has already been excavated (at Big Dig time) and re-filled with clean (archaeology-free and obstruction-free) dirt
2) Amtrak (intercity HSR) service would be extended and serve 2 CBD stations (and probably 1 suburb station, in Woburn MA before its engine-change for diesel onward to Maine).
3) System would have fewer lines with through-running and more frequent service on them (concentration of through service, rather than Philly's dispersion)