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

shadyjay wrote:There were some shots around the holidays of the line of passengers stretching through the parking lot. God only knows how long it took to board that crowd through a single door, but with multiple door possibilities when the platform is complete, that'll reduce the station dwell time.

For whatever reason I hadn't heard about this. That's amazing. Thanks for sharing.

That image was from Friday October 5, 2018 (the Friday before Columbus Day weekend) and was on the "Trains in the Valley" web site (and its the cover photo for their FB page):
https://pvraildotorg.files.wordpress.co ... _10_05.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just to recap: It is a really impressive list of stuff that's coming together June/July 2019
- SPG Platform C ADA & renovation "Spring 2019"
- Track tie & bridge work "July 2019" (apparently postponed from 2015)
- GFD & NHT Tripling of platform & canopies "July 19 2019"
- 2 round trips per day on Amtrak

Projected ridership on the Amtrak extensions:
24,000 per year, costing MA $1m in subsidies per year ($2m for a 2-year study)
(if you call that "240 weekday equivalents" that's 100 per weekday or 25 per trip)
(if you call that "360 days per year that's 67 per weekday or 17 per trip)

Great detals and 30 great pictures at:
https://www.masslive.com/business/2019/ ... ummer.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


I also want to point out what Peter Pan lists as its Bus gate assignments at SPG

New York City ….. Gate 18
Hartford ….. Gate 18
Boston / Logan Airport ….. Gate 20
Worcester / Framingham ….. Gate 20
Noon Schedules / South Hadley / College Express… Gate 20
Albany / Pittsfield / Lee / Lenox ….. Gate 21
UMass / Amherst / Northampton ….. Gate 22
Holyoke / S. Hadley / Hampshire Col. ….. Gate 22
Providence / Cape Cod ….. Gate 23
6:00pm schedule / Worcester… Gate 23

All of the above will have far reaching impacts on future service expansion. So far the biggest surprise of them all appears to be the level of ridership on the new enhanced service between New Haven and Springfield.

The case for additional service to Boston on the Inland Route gets stronger every day. At this point it is starting to look like it's only a matter of time ... All of the remaining obvious steps have been taken and we're now speculating about intentions for North Adams.

I would guess, based on nothing else but the above conditions, that MassDOT is probably working with CSX right now on an acquisition agreement for the Springfield to Worcester segment.

shadyjay wrote:That image was from Friday October 5, 2018 (the Friday before Columbus Day weekend) and was on the "Trains in the Valley" web site (and its the cover photo for their FB page):
https://pvraildotorg.files.wordpress.co ... _10_05.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's gotta be 100 people.

gokeefe wrote:The case for additional service to Boston on the Inland Route gets stronger every day. At this point it is starting to look like it's only a matter of time ... All of the remaining obvious steps have been taken and we're now speculating about intentions for North Adams.

I would guess, based on nothing else but the above conditions, that MassDOT is probably working with CSX right now on an acquisition agreement for the Springfield to Worcester segment.

Attached are three tables that list 2018 MassDOT State Rail Plan (final plan published May 2018) says wrt its Short Term Tier 1 priority rail projects, Long Term Tier2 priorities warranting further studies, and identified Tier 3 projects for which no action will be taken.

From MassDOT's perspective, Inland Route passenger service is a Tier 2 project that warrants more studying before capital monies are committed. Capital investment is likely to be major as there is insufficient rail capacity on CSX between Worcester and Springfield to accommodate the desired level of increased passenger service. Taking the MassDOT Rail Plan at face value, I think MassDOT is not close to making any RoW investment/acquisition between Worcester and Springfield. But that's just my opinion.

Western Massachusetts to Boston Passenger Rail Service Study –
The public outreach for this Plan demonstrated that there is significant interest in passenger rail service between Boston and Western Massachusetts. Potential benefits cited of improved rail service include opening up affordable housing options that have access to Boston, greenhouse gas reduction, congestion reduction, and better connecting the economies of Boston and Western Massachusetts.

The Northern New England Intercity Rail Initiative (NNEIRI) study, published in 2016, looked at Boston to Springfield service as part of a larger study of a New Haven to Montreal service. Through
the State Rail Plan outreach, MassDOT understands that there is also interest in a rail alternative that would be higher speed and more commuter-focused than those studied as part of NNEIRI. This study, at the direction of MassDOT, will address ridership, costs, and benefits, including those that would be associated with service to stations in Pittsfield, Springfield and Palmer. It will examine issues such as the safety systems (including Positive Train Control) associated with higher speed trains, right of way requirements, and constructability. it will consider community impacts and the needs of the freight rail system, as well as MBTA commuter rail service on the Worcester line. MassDOT will work with the current railroad owner to better understand constraints and opportunities for collaboration

Further into the Rail Plan wrt increasing the level of passenger service west of Worcester, MassDOT says:

According to CSX, between Worcester and Springfield, the current freight volume, traffic characteristics and projected growth preclude the planning and implementation of an expanded inter-city operation on the CSX existing track and right-of-way. CSX did not materially participate in the NNEIRI planning process.

and

Given the strong support and significant potential benefits, MassDOT is pursuing a study of different service models for Boston to Western Massachusetts passenger rail. The study recommended here will build on NNEIRI but have a different market focus than that effort. This study will look at options that could range from a fast train that would offer commuter-like access to one that would be closer to the service that NNEIRI recommended. It will explore various ways to use passenger rail to bring Western MA closer to Boston, as well as the costs and benefits of such a service. The study will look carefully at community impacts and how such a new service could be combined with the rail uses that already own and operate on the corridor – both CSX and the MBTA. A stop in Palmer will be considered as part of this study.

To advance discussion of this concept in a meaningful way, a study, at the direction of MassDOT, will address more than ridership; it will take a hard look at issues related to constructability and operational impacts. It will examine safety needs (including Positive Train Control) associated with the expectation of higher speed trains going through settled areas (ex: Framingham), right-of-way acquisition (anticipated by the NNEIRI study, but not mapped to specific areas), constructability and community impacts (including impacts on existing stations and grade crossings), and the continuing need to protect freight rail capacity as well as MBTA commuter rail service on the Worcester line. The study might also look at a fare structure and the capacity that would be expected of an operator.

URL to the 137 page MassDOT Rail Plan: https://www.mass.gov/files/documents/20 ... prng18.pdf

The Boston to Springfield service is very important. There should be some sort of regularly scheduled passenger rail service, whether MBTA or Amtrak's Inland service.

Anything from the East Side of MA to N. Adams is a pipe dream by my books.

njt/mnrrbuff wrote:The Boston to Springfield service is very important. There should be some sort of regularly scheduled passenger rail service, whether MBTA or Amtrak's Inland service.
Anything from the East Side of MA to N. Adams is a pipe dream by my books.

Agreed, but maybe the SPG-WOR leg of "service" is a bus so long as CSX is making it hard, while the MassPike is easy enough. Even adding an HOV lane to the Pike at chokepoints (Sturbridge/I-84 and Auburn/Worcester) might end up being a better way to spend MassDOT funds (and have a ready payback in Masspike tolls) than spending $ on CSX between Palmer and Worcester.

Mass is left with the problem of the best way to get "Greater Worcester" to NYC. Choices include bus (which an HOV Pike would help), or driving to PVD or NHV. The Inlands are Tier 2 because CSX (and the Worcester hills) make it hard by train.

Traingeek3629 wrote:

shadyjay wrote:That image was from Friday October 5, 2018 (the Friday before Columbus Day weekend) and was on the "Trains in the Valley" web site (and its the cover photo for their FB page):
https://pvraildotorg.files.wordpress.co ... _10_05.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's gotta be 100 people.

Yes, but people need to keep in mind that this was Friday before a long weekend, not a normal travel day.

With the schools in/near Northampton (Smith, UMass Amherst, etc.) it probably would have been possible to put hundreds of students on this train that day, if the ticket prices had not been jacked up by Amtrak's pricing system and there was available seating capacity on the train, which surely was sold out.

Arlington wrote:Mass is left with the problem of the best way to get "Greater Worcester" to NYC. Choices include bus (which an HOV Pike would help), or driving to PVD or NHV. The Inlands are Tier 2 because CSX (and the Worcester hills) make it hard by train.

You left out the P&W via Groton.

Our opinion is buy the line or get CSX to agree to MA owned 2nd tracks and bypassing some slow sections. Building say 10 mile segments capable of 110 MPH for Passenger trains one or two sections at a say 2 year intervals would slowly reduce running times between BOS or BON to Springfield.

It's 91 miles between BOS and SPG and if CSX allowed the State to double track and upgrade the speed limit on parts that can be done between BOS to SPG, then that would help with running any new regional trains between those segments. It wouldn't just be people traveling from BOS to SPG all the way. There might be people who live in and around SPG who work in Worcester and vice versa. If Amtrak were to operate the new service, then it would probably pay to have those as shuttle extensions and lengthen the trainsets.

njt/mnrrbuff wrote:and if CSX allowed the State to double track and upgrade the speed limit on parts that can be done between BOS to SPG, then that would help with running any new regional trains between those segments.

I'm sure CSX will allow the state to double track the line. That's their cost of entry for new passenger service. The state has to find money to pay for it.

With increased service to Greenfield and a possible Montrealer in the future, Boston should have more connections with Springfield to allow transfers to these services.

So far, very poor payback in passengers per $ spent in CSX territory SPG-WOR compared to projects MassDOT can undertake in it's ownGFD-NHV and MBTA territory WOR-BOS.

There is a lot that State politicians can do to convince Worcester and the Pioneer Valley that they are getting their money's worth at the state level, without ever doing anything on the inland between Springfield and Worcester.

njt/mnrrbuff wrote:It's 91 miles between BOS and SPG and if CSX allowed the State to double track and upgrade the speed limit on parts that can be done between BOS to SPG, then that would help with running any new regional trains between those segments.

91 miles is sufficient for regular MBTA commuter service. MNCR's Port Jervis Line is 95 miles, GCT-Waterbury 88 miles, NYP-Montauk 116 miles. This is the same distance more or less on the Hiawatha between Chicago and Milwaukee or NYP-PHL.