COMPASS RAIL: Pittsfield / Springfield / Boston East-West Passenger Rail

Yes they'd have to approach CSX and inquire about what upgrades CSX would require to initiate a service. I suspect this would be done in phases with Springfield to Boston being the first phase (which would possibly end up being trains running from New Haven to Boston via the inland route as Connecticut has expressed an interest.)

If they propose Springfield to Boston service they would have to redouble track the single track portions of the CSX Boston line. That would be nice to have Amtrak run some inland regionals through Hartford. I would think that CT Dot would be for that. If they wanted to run east-west service all the way to Pittsfield they would have to double track the line from CP-109 to CP-123 to make that part of the railroad all double track from Springfield all the way to CP-150 just west of the Pittsfield Intermodal station. Remember if the CSX- Pan Am merger is approved there will be an additional pair of NS Intermodals over the line all the way to Worcester.

Amtrak sees the potential for three round trips Albany - Boston with a stops in Albany, Chatham, Pittsfield, Chester, Springfield, Palmer, Worcester, Framingham, Lansdowne, Back Bay, and South Station. Three round trips total including two new round trips and the existing 448/449 trains. Springfield and Palmer could receive additional service to Worcester and Boston via New Haven - Boston inland service which would get additional ridership from north central Connecticut to Boston riders and Worcester people looking for a faster trip in with less stops. I suspect services would be timed to maximize the Springfield - Worcester - Boston schedule.

A rational person knowing that Chatham and Chester alone are on the route, would have to conclude that the service would require at least 5 round trips a day to start.

Not familiar with Chatham but Chester somewhat baffles me - it seems a far more appropriate stop would be Westfield which is a much larger community and has a university.

"Chatham is a city located in Columbia County New York. With a 2020 population of 1,588, it is the 350th largest city in New York and the 8501st largest city in the United States . Chatham is currently declining at a rate of -1.06% annually and its population has decreased by -10.28% since the most recent census."

Back in the day i believe the rutland railway cork screw division used to go through that town with north south passenger service. Today, I don't think there's ten people in Chatham that would ever voluntarily choose to go to troy or albany by any means but their autos.

From the https://chesterrailwaystation.net/History.html we find that Chester is at the base of a steep hill and curve where the train would have to slow way down anyway. It is near US-20, about 1/2 an hour in either direction to I-90. The existing large wooden train station probably dates from the 1840s and the original Western Railroad. Would this become the oldest train station in the Amtrak system?

Chester, MA, pop. 1228 (2020). Next to Huntington and Worthington and Blandford and who can forget, Becket.

Westfield is right next to Springfield. Probably has decent bus service to Springfield? Maybe that's why no stop there? I agree, a university town seems like a good candidate for a train station. I wonder if many Westfield State students don't have cars.

Westfield is west of Springfield. I assume they are planning Express or Limited service only (aka Amtrak) for anything west of Springfield. So beefed-up buses serving Chester (maybe) and Springfield stations.

I would like to see some Commuter Rail and Local service between Springfield and Worcester as Worcester is difficult to get through at rush hour due to its' poor road network and low speed limits and arterial roads designed about 1930. Specifically, I'd like to see a station on RT 56 ("Huntoon Parkway") on the Oxford/Leicester line, and another accessible from RT 49 at the Spencer/East Brookfield line. You could put a station in Charlton but it would be too close to the other two and has worse highway access.

Arborwayfan wrote: ↑Tue Dec 07, 2021 4:44 pm Westfield is right next to Springfield. Probably has decent bus service to Springfield? Maybe that's why no stop there? I agree, a university town seems like a good candidate for a train station. I wonder if many Westfield State students don't have cars.

It was a squeaky wheel gets the grease situation - the Palmer and Chester advocates were very vocal during the study while officials from Westfield didn’t say much. I’d expect a Westfield stop to be considered if it comes to pass - the local officials there will start getting interested if the service starts showing signs of getting going - but I suspect it will be phased and starting out it won’t go any west of Springfield (with maybe bus connection out to Pittsfield).

BandA wrote:Westfield is west of Springfield. I assume they are planning Express or Limited service only (aka Amtrak) for anything west of Springfield. So beefed-up buses serving Chester (maybe) and Springfield stations.

I would like to see some Commuter Rail and Local service between Springfield and Worcester as Worcester is difficult to get through at rush hour due to its' poor road network and low speed limits and arterial roads designed about 1930. Specifically, I'd like to see a station on RT 56 ("Huntoon Parkway") on the Oxford/Leicester line, and another accessible from RT 49 at the Spencer/East Brookfield line. You could put a station in Charlton but it would be too close to the other two and has worse highway access.

Amtrak will be the operator if it comes to pass - MassDOT will be instructing the local agency being formed to work with Amtrak as CSX is not compelled to come to the table for any other operator. They also feel this is more appropriately an intercity route rather than a commuter service.

Likely two a day Amtrak corridor trains plus the lake shore serving all stops - and possibly additional serving Springfield - Palmer - Worcester - Framingham - Lansdowne - Back Bay - Boston South Station if they go ahead with inland route service. They suspect to pick up some intercity Worcester - Boston riders with this service as well as it will have a shorter running time than the MBTA locals.

I doubt Amtrak will want to make a stop at Lansdowne. They don't serve Ruggles on the NEC which has a much bigger draw and last mile shuttles, and is in a similar spot to Lansdowne in terms of where it is in relation to South Station. Whether MA pushes it or not is a different story. West Station might be a better alternative if it's built by then.

Pre-COVID MBTA ran a round-trip Worcester express train so the demand is certainly there. More infrastructure is needed Worcester-Boston to make the service work though with reasonable arrival and departure times. The commuter trains take up nearly all the available capacity. MBTA has a a few projects in the works already that east/west service would benefit from including the Worcester Station which is about to start construction and Worcester Third Track which is in design. They've already rebuilt a couple bridges and Natick Center station to allow for a new track. Still close to 2030 until all this will be ready for a new service though.

Trinnau wrote: ↑Fri Dec 10, 2021 8:57 am Pre-COVID MBTA ran a round-trip Worcester express train so the demand is certainly there. More infrastructure is needed Worcester-Boston to make the service work though with reasonable arrival and departure times. The commuter trains take up nearly all the available capacity. MBTA has a a few projects in the works already that east/west service would benefit from including the Worcester Station which is about to start construction and Worcester Third Track which is in design. They've already rebuilt a couple bridges and Natick Center station to allow for a new track. Still close to 2030 until all this will be ready for a new service though.

These upgrades are long overdue and will certainly help commuter ops. There's two or three (depending on how you think of it) inherent issues with the line.

1. No room for expansion inside 128 because of The Pike. This means you have to schedule any East-West trains to be able to slip past the heavy local traffic on the planned 3rd track while not disrupting the west of Framingham MBTA express trains.

2. Low speeds along the 3rd track segment. MAS varies between 50 and 70mph on the current track(slower in Weston/Wellesley, faster in Natick), so you're limited on how many trains you can squeeze past on that 3rd track segment.

3. Double track only between Worcester and Framingham. Again, you're dealing with the west of Framingham express trains that make all the stops between Worcester and Framingham.

2 and 3 are the more easily solvable problems than 1. There's enough space at all of the stations west of Framingham to add a passing track through the stations without encountering insurmountable issues(Southborough might be the exception). Speed could be addressed with some combination of track geometry improvements, and also maybe a different choice in rolling stock(Talgos anyone?)

I'm honestly not sure how 1 is solvable though, and that's the biggest bottleneck by far.

1 - This is, and will remain the bottleneck.

2 - The project is looking at increased speeds. There would be only one overtake at a time - you're not going to be able to slide 2 trains past one making station stops.

3 - There is sufficient track capacity west of Framingham with just two track to handle the volume of more trips. They were running 44 trains pre-COVID east of Framingham on 2 tracks and only 20 west of Framingham on 2 tracks. A dozen east-west trains can be added without an issue.

Komarovsky wrote: ↑Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:19 pm These upgrades are long overdue and will certainly help commuter ops. There's two or three (depending on how you think of it) inherent issues with the line.

1. No room for expansion inside 128 because of The Pike. This means you have to schedule any East-West trains to be able to slip past the heavy local traffic on the planned 3rd track while not disrupting the west of Framingham MBTA express trains.

Layover & mid-day facilities at Riverside and Beacon Park to support local service ("Indigo"). Maybe squeeze in a passing track in Brighton. I haven't seen the present drawings but I assume they plan to give away all MBTA rights and all possibility of facilities at Beacon Park as part of the I-90 Interchange / West Station project. Big mistake - this line needs it's own storage to avoid crossing over the NEC at South Station to reach the storage yard. Also need for Grand Junction service. Expansion within 128 isn't going to be addressed until the Mass Turnpike Extension is expanded, sometime about 2050-2070. Still, 128-Boston is only about 10 miles. Use one track in the prevailing direction and the other track alternating local trains in the reverse direction and express trains in the prevailing direction. Get speeds up to 90 MPH on express trains to be competitive with the Pike. Use short, variable blocks and crossovers at every station.

2. Low speeds along the 3rd track segment. MAS varies between 50 and 70mph on the current track(slower in Weston/Wellesley, faster in Natick), so you're limited on how many trains you can squeeze past on that 3rd track segment.

Why so slow?

...There's enough space at all of the stations west of Framingham to add a passing track through the stations without encountering insurmountable issues(Southborough might be the exception). Speed could be addressed with some combination of track geometry improvements

There is some crazy curvy stuff, such as near Worcester. Hard to solve without some improvement in tunneling costs!