Railroad Forums 

  • AMTRAK NEC: Springfield Shuttle/Regional/Valley Flyer/Inland Routing

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1501214  by The EGE
 
That bus is only useful for one origin/destination pair: WOR and NYP. It doesn't serve Boston to/from Worcester, Palmer, Springfield, Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, and intermediate stops. It doesn't serve Framingham to/from Palmer, Springfield, Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, and intermediate stops. It doesn't serve Worcester to/from Palmer, Springfield, Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, and intermediate stops. It doesn't serve Palmer to/from Springfield, Hartford, New Haven, Bridgeport, Stamford, and intermediate stops. Etc, etc, etc.

If the bus did try to serve all those points, it would get stuck in traffic in every city center, and it would take far longer than the train. That's the value of the Inland Regional: it can efficiently serve many well-located stations on a single trip, which an intercity bus cannot. It can do so with a reasonably high degree of schedule reliability, and reasonably similar travel times at all hours, which an intercity bus cannot.

In order to have intercity buses match the usefulness of a single Inland Regional train, you'd have to run a fleet of buses with different stopping patterns - and you'd almost certainly have forced transfers with long waits for late connecting buses for many O/D pairs.
 #1501241  by lordsigma12345
 
The Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) is conducting a study to examine the costs, benefits, and investments necessary to implement passenger rail service from Boston to Springfield and Pittsfield, with the speed, frequency, and reliability necessary to be a competitive option for travel along this corridor. The study will assess up to six alternatives, which will feature a range of approaches including high speed rail and potential infill stations.
 #1501242  by Arlington
 
Thing is: while NY & CT and Pioneer valley have population pearls strung along their rail, what is there along CSX between WOR & SPG?

WOR-eastward is probably better served via rail to BOS connections.

WOR-westward seems best served by a mix of Express buses connecting at downtown rail in PVD, SPG, HFD, STM and NYC.

Same for PIT: a natural bus hub.
Last edited by Arlington on Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:52 am, edited 2 times in total.
 #1501243  by lordsigma12345
 
The stops being looked at are Pittsfield, Springfield, Palmer, and the current LSL stops. This is a study with no concrete plans for any operator or any other thing decided. It could be anything from an Amtrak state corridor to an MBTA operated route. The Amtrak rep on the committee strongly recommended considering a Boston-Albany corridor connecting to Empire Service if the intention is for the corridor to extend to Pittsfield. This could provide another pathway for service to Montreal if the Vermonter extension ever fell through.

There are also representatives from Westfield on the committee and Westfield was listed on the map so Westfield may also be a stop being looked at which would make sense as it does have a university.
 #1501246  by lordsigma12345
 
Arlington wrote:Thing is: while NY & CT and Pioneer valley have population pearls strung along their rail, what is there along CSX between WOR & SPG?
The thought seems to be that Palmer would be the Northampton of this line. There is huge enthusiasm for a stop in Palmer and I think there is some thought that some of the same folks that use the Northampton stop (namely Amherst universities) would use the Palmer stop when doing travel to Boston. The Palmer exit is generally the most direct way to UMass and other Amherst schools from the eastern part of the state. You'd probably split the Northampton stop crowd between people driving to either Springfield (or connecting through Springfield from Northampton) and Palmer. (Springfield for Northampton itself and people living generally to the west and Palmer for Amherst area.) I think a base goal of the study is 8 round trips SPG-BOS. I was going to recommend at the public comment maybe splitting these between 4 inland route round trips and 4 BOS-ALB round trips (timed to maximize SPG-BOS round trips.)
 #1501260  by Ridgefielder
 
Arlington wrote:Thing is: while NY & CT and Pioneer valley have population pearls strung along their rail, what is there along CSX between WOR & SPG?
It's only 40 miles from Worcester to Springfield. It's not like we're talking about crossing hundreds of miles of desert or something.

The gap between Wilmington, DE and Baltimore on the NEC is ~60mi.
 #1501262  by Arlington
 
Except Wilmington to Baltimore is owned by a friendly landlord and is mostly flat and high-speed running.

Worcester to Springfield is half hilly and curvy, has a private landlord who is looking to be bought off, and is how much single track?

And where I-95 between Baltimore and Wilmington is a traffic a mess, the Mass Pike is mostly open and can be expeditiously and toll-paid upgraded where it is not.

For the record, I am in favor of a Palmer in-fill stop, but not in favor of spending hundreds of millions of dollars just to get a network at parity with what the Mass Pike can do. My position on rail would be all or nothing: either get 110 mi an hour running, or spend the money on the Mass Pike where we know we can do 80 reliably.
 #1501272  by Safetee
 
The biggest infrastructure problem with increased passenger activity from Springfield to Boston is not the Springfield to Worcester section. That area is a very simple replacement of the second track that got pulled up 30? years ago.

It's Worcester to Boston that's the back breaker.

Worcester is a heavily congested freight and passenger operation already. Adding more passenger trains is not going to make things better. Moving all of CSX intermodal to Selkirk might work, but what is that going to cost?
Framingham is a 19th century village woven into a nasty railroad infrastructure. They've been looking for an economical solution for over a hundred years. A three mile tunnel is probably the best answer for the passenger side, but who wants to pay for it.
South Station Boston is at it's max capability with the south coast trains heading their way. Until they buy and tear down the post office building and build the new track structure required, there's no room left in the shoe. In the meantime, the current best thinking swag for the track work and related facility for the T post Post office take down is a billion dollars and heading upwards.
 #1501280  by Arlington
 
A bit of news on Inland (far inland...in Natick)
New Natick Center stationwill be 2 high level side platforms with a central slot for a 3rd track and a new set of crossovers east of the platform.

From F-Line in another forum:
The only part of Worcester that needs tri-tracking is inside-128 where the Pike makes that width impossible. Service really doesn't project dense enough once the Urban Rail trains drop off at Riverside Jct. But they can get by in spite of the Pike by having overtake opportunities every 2 stations: the West Station-Boston Landing passer leftover from Beacon Park, crossovers between Newtonville and West Newton, and crossovers between Auburndale and Riverside Jct.

From there it's maybe a length of passer between Riverside Jct. and Wellesley Farms for traffic-sorting after the Urban Rail trains have turned out to Riverside, this Natick Station passer, re-adapting the Nevins Freight Yard lead track as a passer just west of Framingham Station, and re-adapting the Westborough Freight Yard lead track as a passer between Southborough and Westborough Stations. That'll pretty much do it for layering a full Amtrak schedule on top of Worcester Regional Rail, Framingham short-turns or Fitchburg Secondary locals to Northborough/Clinton, and Riverside Urban Rail.
Which is to say that WOR-BOS is tough and constrained, but solvable for dense, layered service.
 #1501303  by east point
 
lordsigma12345 wrote:They are looking at 6 different alternatives including a "90 minutes or less" alternative between SPG and BOS.

Unfortunately that is still 4 hours inland BOS - New Haven as compared to 2 - 1/2 hours for the coast line. However with enough crews qualified on both routes any shut down for either route will allow service to continue NYP <> BOS ?
 #1501305  by Arlington
 
One of the most embarrassing moments in my life as a host, American, and Bostonian was when my Australian guest arrived in Boston via an Inland (c.2000). His NEC train had been cancelled or delayed, so from NYP they offered him a seat on an Inland which then took 8 hours to go NYP-BOS (freight interference).
 #1501319  by NIMBYkiller
 
If South Station is maxed out then how come North Station isn't being considered an option? It's not like the service would be alone there, you have the Downeaster (don't try that "2 terminals in a single city" argument because they've already got 2 terminals in Boston). And it's the only route where a connection between Amtrak services makes any kind of logical sense (anywhere inland to, say, PVD, via BOS is pretty ass backwards and would be better served as a coordinated bus connection). Yard/crew base wise I'm unsure how it would work, but they're making it work with the Downeaster, so why can't it work with the new inland services? With this in mind, I'd say Amtrak missed a big opportunity when CSX off loaded Beacon Yard as it could've served both stations (unless it's smaller than the existing facility). Plus you could put a stop in Cambridge predominantly geared towards the university market (students, visitors on business). Only question is does North Station have the capacity or is that maxed out as well?
  • 1
  • 109
  • 110
  • 111
  • 112
  • 113
  • 155