Seems strange that they would install these maps. And ominously missing from them, any indication that the Needham Line still exists in this envisioned SC rail future. 
Railroad Forums
Why did they decide to go via Middleborough instead of Stoughton? Doesn't the single-track bottleneck between Quincy and South Station severely limit the number os thrains they can add?
charlesriverbranch wrote: ↑Wed Aug 18, 2021 10:44 am Why did they decide to go via Middleborough instead of Stoughton? Doesn't the single-track bottleneck between Quincy and South Station severely limit the number os thrains they can add?Yes it does but it's the path of least resistance right now. The Stoughton route is the better of the two but NIMBY opposition and of course the environmentalists have used their powers to block the tracks especially through the Hockomock Swamp even though the ROW has been there for over 100 (?) years. I guess it's good that it wasn't turned into a bike/hike trail because then fuhgeddaboudit.
Here's some decent info:
https://www.trainaficionado.com/scr_update_april_2017/
NIMBY opposition and environmental activists have nothing to do with the Old Colony route. It's a stopgap to get service running now, though I share the concern of others that, once implemented, there will be insufficient drive to actually complete the project.
As it stands, South Coast Rail WILL be via Stoughton. You could have a diamond laced bike trail on the route and it wouldn't make any bit of difference. The line is MBTA/MassDOT property and the ROW is slated for rail use, which the Commonwealth is legally obligated to restore at this point. Cancelling the project would be more difficult, and potentially more expensive than building the route.
As it stands, South Coast Rail WILL be via Stoughton. You could have a diamond laced bike trail on the route and it wouldn't make any bit of difference. The line is MBTA/MassDOT property and the ROW is slated for rail use, which the Commonwealth is legally obligated to restore at this point. Cancelling the project would be more difficult, and potentially more expensive than building the route.
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Brightline Trains
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
I saw earlier in this thread mention that the single track bottleneck in Dorchester was supposed to be relieved when I-93 was rebuilt. I wonder how that happens since most of the time interstates get rebuilt they get wider if anything due to new safety standards etc.
This is probably far fetched but I wonder if the T could move the Red Line junction between the branches to Harrison Sq. (where the Ashmont Branch diverges from the former Old Colony ROW) thus freeing up the former South Shore ROW for use by the commuter rail. Would require building a new "malfunction junction" and removing the old one.
This is probably far fetched but I wonder if the T could move the Red Line junction between the branches to Harrison Sq. (where the Ashmont Branch diverges from the former Old Colony ROW) thus freeing up the former South Shore ROW for use by the commuter rail. Would require building a new "malfunction junction" and removing the old one.
Courage is not the absence of fear; it is the determination that some things are more important than fear.
jonnhrr wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 10:49 amThis is probably far fetched but I wonder if the T could move the Red Line junction between the branches to Harrison Sq. (where the Ashmont Branch diverges from the former Old Colony ROW) thus freeing up the former South Shore ROW for use by the commuter rail. Would require building a new "malfunction junction" and removing the old one.That is one of the proposals, I don't remember what other ideas were planned other there was no plans on adding lanes to the highway.
CRail wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 8:58 am NIMBY opposition and environmental activists have nothing to do with the Old Colony route.If you say so.
https://patch.com/massachusetts/stought ... il-project
https://easton.wickedlocal.com/news/201 ... rough-town
https://www.rrstar.com/x1312009426/Envi ... nd-Raynham
https://www.southcoasttoday.com/article ... /311219999
Clearing up some misconceptions.
No, there is not a legal requirement for the Commonwealth to build SCR. While the Commonwealth committed to number of projects (GLX, Red-Blue, Fairmount Line, park-and-ride expansions) as part of the 1990 settlement with the Conservation Law Foundation over the Big Dig, SCR was not among them. The only agreements to build SCR have been political - not legally enforceable, and prone to the shifting political winds. The only legal requirement related to SCR is an Army Corps requirement (see below) that any use of the Stoughton route is electrified.
There were a lot of possible ways to get from Boston to Myricks (where the FR and NB branches split). From west to east:
All three routes have plusses and minuses. The Attleboro route would be longer, requires either a reverse move or new bypass ROW, and has a lot of grade crossings in Taunton. But it allows for a downtown Taunton station, uses largely existing ROW, and the NEC allows for speedy running. The Stoughton route requires reactivating about 15 miles of track (much of it through wetlands, which have environmental legal considerations that weren't there when it was previously used), is opposed by several towns, and either has grade crossings for a downtown Taunton station or has Dean Street a bit away from downtown. But it's the shortest route, adds service to Easton and Raynham, and has the fewest track capacity issues because it uses existing Stoughton Branch slots. The Middleborough route has severe capacity issues on the Old Colony mainline, makes Buzzards Bay/Cape Cod service more difficult to implement, takes away service at Middleborough/Lakeville station, and does not directly serve Taunton. Because of the capacity issues, it is not viable as a permanent service unless several billion dollars are spent to double-track from Boston to Braintree. But it requires the least construction cost and time to implement (without requiring a reverse move), making it the easiest way to quickly establish at least limited service.
Planning from 1990 to 2003 was disorganized; all three routes were the top contender at various. Romney halted planning due to increasing costs in 2003; it restarted in 2005. Alternatives analysis in 2009 selected Stoughton as the most viable route. The Draft EIS, prepared in 2011 by the Army Corps of Engineers, mandated electric service through Stoughton. There were a lot of questionable decisions in that EIS - such the decision to build single rather than double track, which results in clunky schedules with long meets, which led to electric service being mandated to tighten running times. Electrification added $400 million to the projected cost, when the projected service frequency did not merit electrification - certainly not compared to lines with much higher frequency. Because of these questionable decisions, and that the Army Corps had used questionable design decisions to sink other popular projects (I-384 extension in CT among them), there are rumors that the Army Corps was intentionally sinking the project. Whether that is true or not, the Stoughton route itself is not inherently flawed - merely some of the specific design decisions.
Because of continually increasing costs, the state began seeking alternate plans in 2016. In 2017, they announced the current plans: interim diesel service via Middleborough, later electric service via Stoughton. The prime consideration was "how can we get some service running as cheaply and quickly as possible, because the locals are getting ansty but we don't have a lot of cash". While there is still opposition in Stoughton, Easton, and Raynham to building the Stoughton route, it will become necessary because of capacity constraints on the Old Colony mainline. Likely, the state will make deals with the towns to add grade crossing eliminations, quiet zones, etc in exchange for them dropping their objections.
I've written a pretty complete and well-cited history of the history of the SCR project on Wikipedia for those who desire more details.
No, there is not a legal requirement for the Commonwealth to build SCR. While the Commonwealth committed to number of projects (GLX, Red-Blue, Fairmount Line, park-and-ride expansions) as part of the 1990 settlement with the Conservation Law Foundation over the Big Dig, SCR was not among them. The only agreements to build SCR have been political - not legally enforceable, and prone to the shifting political winds. The only legal requirement related to SCR is an Army Corps requirement (see below) that any use of the Stoughton route is electrified.
There were a lot of possible ways to get from Boston to Myricks (where the FR and NB branches split). From west to east:
- NEC to Attleboro, reverse move onto the Attleboro Branch (now part of the Middleboro Secondary), then NB mainline (Middleboro and New Bedford secondaries) to Myricks. All of this is active rails. A bypass over power line ROW (to avoid the reverse move) was proposed in the early 1990s.
- NEC to Mansfield, NB mainline to Myricks. The 1955 grade separation at Mansfield has rendered this route permanently unavailable.
- NEC to Stoughton, Stoughton Branch, ex-Dighton and Somerset to Taunton, NB mainline to Myricks. Would require rails relaid between Stoughton and Taunton. This is the "Stoughton route" proposed as the permanent SCR routing. Between Raynham and Taunton, there is an option to go over the Whittendon Branch, which would add more grade crossings but allow a downtown Taunton station.
- Old Colony mainline and Middleboro mainline to Braintree Highlands, then ex-D&S to Taunton. This is permanently unavailable due to development over the ROW in Randolph and Avon.
- Old Colony mainline and Middleboro mainline to Matfield, Bridgewater Branch to South Easton, ex-D&S to Taunton. Bridgewater Branch is built over and this is an inconvenient routing, so also not an option.
- Old Colony mainline and Middleboro mainline to Middleborough, Middleborough and Taunton Branch (now Middleborough Secondary) to Cotley Junction, NB mainline to Myricks. All active rail except for needing a wye at Cotley Junction. This is the "Middleboro route" currently under construction as the interim SCR routing.
- Old Colony mainline and Middleboro mainline to Middleborough, ex-Fall River Railroad to Myricks. ROW is built over and permanently unavailable.
All three routes have plusses and minuses. The Attleboro route would be longer, requires either a reverse move or new bypass ROW, and has a lot of grade crossings in Taunton. But it allows for a downtown Taunton station, uses largely existing ROW, and the NEC allows for speedy running. The Stoughton route requires reactivating about 15 miles of track (much of it through wetlands, which have environmental legal considerations that weren't there when it was previously used), is opposed by several towns, and either has grade crossings for a downtown Taunton station or has Dean Street a bit away from downtown. But it's the shortest route, adds service to Easton and Raynham, and has the fewest track capacity issues because it uses existing Stoughton Branch slots. The Middleborough route has severe capacity issues on the Old Colony mainline, makes Buzzards Bay/Cape Cod service more difficult to implement, takes away service at Middleborough/Lakeville station, and does not directly serve Taunton. Because of the capacity issues, it is not viable as a permanent service unless several billion dollars are spent to double-track from Boston to Braintree. But it requires the least construction cost and time to implement (without requiring a reverse move), making it the easiest way to quickly establish at least limited service.
Planning from 1990 to 2003 was disorganized; all three routes were the top contender at various. Romney halted planning due to increasing costs in 2003; it restarted in 2005. Alternatives analysis in 2009 selected Stoughton as the most viable route. The Draft EIS, prepared in 2011 by the Army Corps of Engineers, mandated electric service through Stoughton. There were a lot of questionable decisions in that EIS - such the decision to build single rather than double track, which results in clunky schedules with long meets, which led to electric service being mandated to tighten running times. Electrification added $400 million to the projected cost, when the projected service frequency did not merit electrification - certainly not compared to lines with much higher frequency. Because of these questionable decisions, and that the Army Corps had used questionable design decisions to sink other popular projects (I-384 extension in CT among them), there are rumors that the Army Corps was intentionally sinking the project. Whether that is true or not, the Stoughton route itself is not inherently flawed - merely some of the specific design decisions.
Because of continually increasing costs, the state began seeking alternate plans in 2016. In 2017, they announced the current plans: interim diesel service via Middleborough, later electric service via Stoughton. The prime consideration was "how can we get some service running as cheaply and quickly as possible, because the locals are getting ansty but we don't have a lot of cash". While there is still opposition in Stoughton, Easton, and Raynham to building the Stoughton route, it will become necessary because of capacity constraints on the Old Colony mainline. Likely, the state will make deals with the towns to add grade crossing eliminations, quiet zones, etc in exchange for them dropping their objections.
I've written a pretty complete and well-cited history of the history of the SCR project on Wikipedia for those who desire more details.
That was an excellent summery.
I have been collecting new and older documents on SCR. You can find most of them here.
https://archive.org/details/@brianfrenc ... +coast+%22
I have been collecting new and older documents on SCR. You can find most of them here.
https://archive.org/details/@brianfrenc ... +coast+%22
Which is cheaper ...er... less overpriced... to build through Stoughton: single-track electrified or double-track non-electrified?
bostontrainguy wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 11:11 amThat it is opposed by people does not indicate that Phase 1 is a result of such opposition. Perhaps I misspoke about a legal requirement, but it's evident that a compelling requirement is there (legal or otherwise) for SCR to be the next expansion (it's noteworthy that not every legal obligation is the result of the Big Dig settlement). Other extensions the state wants to do have been kicked down the road unless privately funded (like Wachusett and Foxboro). Buzzards Bay is an example of an expansion MassDOT wants and has yet to do, yet now that there's a half-assed SCR plan in the works, there are more immanent talks of that. There's no source to cite for reading between the lines.CRail wrote: ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 8:58 am NIMBY opposition and environmental activists have nothing to do with the Old Colony route.If you say so.
Having said all that, I've been against Phase 1 since inception because I've always felt, once implemented, it'll be all that ever happens and calling it subpar is an understatement and a half. I don't think the T ever wanted to do it in the first place, and they've been good at weaseling their way out of things the public wants them to do ("equal or better" service on Washington St., Arborway streetcar restoration, night owl service...)
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Brightline Trains
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
If Phase I is the only thing that does happen, it would honestly be no surprise because of all the things that they have to do with Phase II, working around the tough wetlands, pointless and expensive electrification, Easton and Raynham opposition that is likely to raise the price tag even higher (like what Hingham did to Greenbush) etc.
The Phase I route is objectively inferior to the Phase II route, sure, but there are major factors that are seriously holding Phase II back, and I think that CRail's suspision that it is all that SCR will ever amount to is a good one that has a good chance of coming to be true.
The Phase I route is objectively inferior to the Phase II route, sure, but there are major factors that are seriously holding Phase II back, and I think that CRail's suspision that it is all that SCR will ever amount to is a good one that has a good chance of coming to be true.
Photo by Alan Thomas: NYNH&H I-4 Pacific #1372 proudly thunders through Forest Hills as it makes its way to Providence R.I.
Except that its imminent iteration will doom it to failure, which will make it a complete waste of taxpayer money. No one's commuting from New Bedford to Boston especially with some slow roundabout route. The wetlands in question already have a ROW through them, and the NIMBY opposition is only an issue if they allow it to be. The only way to make this worth the investment is to spend the money on the correct route, run a strong offense against those who watched the Greenbush debacle and are starting their own me too movement, and build it right (electric). I'd have been fine with forgetting about it before any money was spent down there but now, as far as I'm concerned, it needs to be completed.
Moderator: Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Brightline Trains
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
Avatar:3679A (since wrecked)/3623B (now in service as 3636B).
Since the planned Easton Village (formerly North Easton) and Taunton stations have historic station buildings, would they be used as the headhouses of their respective stations once they open, or are they going to be kept separate?
Photo by Alan Thomas: NYNH&H I-4 Pacific #1372 proudly thunders through Forest Hills as it makes its way to Providence R.I.