Amtrak Downeaster Discussion Thread

You're talking about PAR's Worcester Main. Hardly that, now, with its 10 MPH speed limit. There was a lengthy discussion about Maine medium distance Amtrak service a couple of years ago. I think it's in the New England Railroads forum. It centered around the State of Maineroute, and the Worcester Main was used by it. Some were of the opinion that skipping Boston in favor of Ayer and Lowell was a non-stater. I disagree. Bostonians have 5 choices per day to get to Maine.
As far as joining up with a section from Boston: why bother, for the reason I just gave. BUT: if it were to happen, Lawrence would probably be the place. Going to Worcester to do it is going west, in order to go east.

Lentinula wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:19 pmBack on topic- how involved would getting WOR-Ayer up to snuff be? Im sure its not trivial but as compared to the alternatives it shouldn't be that bad?

As Mr. Racer notes above, it's roughly 28 miles of 10 mph track. I don't know the going rate for trackwork these days but I'm sure you're looking at tens of millions of dollars.

And with some creative switching couldnt they say have a train from boston intercept the main train at Worcester union and join up, similar to how the lake shore limited does?

Not unless you want to allow an hour or so for switching. The days of quick hitches -- like the way the New Haven RR used to add or drop cars from through trains at New Haven during a ten-minute stop -- are long gone in this era of HEP and FRA rules.

My own opinion is that people are reading this mention of a Richmond-Brunswick through train too literally. The original statement referred to "a new tier of service that makes all local stops on routes between Richmond, Virginia, and Maine". Note the use of the word "routes", plural. Nowhere does it say that this would be a through train spanning that entire distance. I suspect the originator was thinking of something like Richmond-New York, New York-Boston, and Boston-Brunswick segments. That is especially true in view of the fact that there is currently no practical way to get a train from the Northeast Corridor to the old Boston & Maine Portland Division in a timely manner, and no funded improvements that would make it possible.

Rockingham Racer wrote
Worcester is the second largest city in New England. It should have more intercity train connectivity that it does currently, IMO. MassDOT is draggin its butt on the plan to increase service west of Worcester. That will require a conversation with CSX, and the doubling of the track where it's currently single.

I fully agree that Worcester should have better passenger rail connectivity. My concern is that all of the options being discussed in this thread are services that ran a few times daily in the 1940s. They were put out of business by the Interstate highways and would be totally uncompetitive today. Worldwide experience has shown that to be successful today rail service must be frequent and truly high speed service. The MassDOT study is actually moving along a a good pace (see www.mass.gov/east-west-passenger-rail-study). One of the alternatives being considered is one that would operate 16 daily trips at up to 150 mph (requiring electrification), largely alongside the Mass Pike (which has much less curvature than CSX, which was built in the 1830s), but diverging to go through the Worcester and Springfield Union Stations. This could be the foundation for what Worcester (and New England) really need: a 40 mile high speed cutoff parallel to I-84 between Sturbridge and Hartford, creating a modern Inland NEC route.

Jeff Smith wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 8:16 am I was thinking a cross-platform transfer to a diesel at New London, while the NEC train continues to BOS.

New Haven would probably work better operationally for that option, however either choice affects the Connecticut draw bridge slots.

It's worth noting the benefits to the west Boston suburbs of a train running west out of Boston and then south from Worcester towards New London (and not Providence).

Framingham gets some significant improvements in connectivity that at present are unavailable to them as a direct service.

NES28 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 10:23 pmMy concern is that all of the options being discussed in this thread are services that ran a few times daily in the 1940s. They were put out of business by the Interstate highways and would be totally uncompetitive today.

This is in my opinion a false thesis in 2019. Likely very true in 1999, 1989 or even 2009 but not anymore. The reason for my optimism comes from an extensive statistical analysis I was able to conduct of ridership on the Downeaster when compared to records of the Maine Central and the Boston and Maine at the time of filing for discontinuance petitions.

Your thesis as postulated does not support at all the current performance of the Downeaster which is a conventional speed train that still does not run faster than the previous service era and has a schedule that is probably short one or two round-trips a day to be considered "high frequency".

Congestion on the highways today is so bad that routes that became uncompetitive in the early interstate era have suddenly become sustainable again. The utilization rate on the Downeaster segment north of Portland far exceeds performance in Brunswick and Freeport in 1958/1959 when there was barely any interstate highway to speak of in those communities.

This is an absolutely astonishing result when considering the relatively high quality highways in the Mid-Coast area now.

NES28: by Sturbridge do you mean this point near Auburn?

gokeefe wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 9:56 pm

Ridgefielder wrote: ↑Thu Dec 05, 2019 1:04 pmThe B&M between Worcester and Ayer is in pretty rough shape from what I understand, though. Would take a fair amount of $$ to get it up to Amtrak shape.

On the other hand if you go to Boston the track is passenger ready.

Mr. O'Keefe, I'm not sure we can call the Grand Junction and the connection at Beacon Park "passenger ready." Isn't it still a reverse move to access the Grand Junction coming from the east? The Junction is still stick rail, which IIRC Amtrak won't run on. It might be a smaller project that some of the other options, but passenger friendly feels like a slight exaggeration.

Very fair. I was speaking more generally of segment choices between going towards Ayer and going towards Framingham.

Grand Junction clearly would require some work but nothing at all like what Worcester-Ayer-Lowell Junction.

Have the Royal Junction siding and Rockingham siding upgrades been completed?
Thanks!
Andy

Where does MBTA's project to upgrade the Wildcat Branch and upgrade the connection at Lowell Jct. stand?
Thanks!
Andy

The upgrades at CPW-WJ and CPF-LJ were finished 2 years ago this fall. There was no project beyond that. From the Haverhill Line Thread in the MBTA Forums

Now, if they could just finish up the Ballarvale Bottleneck.

TomNelligan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 5:16 pm

Lentinula wrote: ↑Fri Dec 06, 2019 2:19 pmAnd with some creative switching couldnt they say have a train from boston intercept the main train at Worcester union and join up, similar to how the lake shore limited does?

Not unless you want to allow an hour or so for switching. The days of quick hitches -- like the way the New Haven RR used to add or drop cars from through trains at New Haven during a ten-minute stop -- are long gone in this era of HEP and FRA rules.

It also wouldn't work very well given the track setup at Worcester Union. Your "Boston Section" would have to run all the way through the station on CSX's ex-B&A and onto the P&W's ex-NH trackage, then reverse to couple onto the rear of the Maine-bound train standing on the B&M-side of the station. There is no possible way for a train heading westbound on CSX to move to running directly northbound on PAR's Worcester main. So far as I know there never has been, either-- at least since the building of the current station ca. 1910.

The Yarmouth siding still has workers on it, and in fact delayed 684 SB quite a while last Thurs for some reason. So not only are they taking decades to finish it, they are interfering with normal traffic (which I have to say they were pretty good about earlier in the project, but since they are absent for months on end, I could be snarky and say you have to be present to interfere!).

Also a DE conductor said he heard they are going to up the speed on the Wildcat. To that end they are apparently widening the clearance of the ROW to the surrounding suburbia. But sometimes these guys have as much misinformation as the rest of us.

gokeefe wrote: ↑Sun Dec 08, 2019 12:09 pm Very fair. I was speaking more generally of segment choices between going towards Ayer and going towards Framingham.

Grand Junction clearly would require some work but nothing at all like what Worcester-Ayer-Lowell Junction.

One would assume that it's a much more doable project than the Worcester Main, for sure. When the idea of WOR-BON peak hour trains was floated, was there any study or analysis of what exactly would be required to bring the Grand Junction into passenger service?