# The North South Connect



## Tlcooper93 (Oct 3, 2021)

In some other threads, there's talk about this, but in my brief foray into the archives, I didn't find a thread solely on this topic, so I figured its high time to start one. 
For those who are unaware, Boston has two major rail terminals, both of which are terminus stations. For a number of reasons, this poses many hurdles, not least of which is the lack of connectivity between the two stations. 
The proposed fix would be to connect the two stations with a large (4 track) underground rail tunnel, and build a substantial "central station" or "union station" somewhere close to the Blue Line's aquarium stop (in the Rowes Wharf neighbourhood). Moreover, both NS and SS would have below ground platforms to compliment their above ground platforms.
There are various incarnations of this plan which include or exclude different aspects, effecting the price points. Most of the information can be found here.

Firstly, I admit that if this could get built in a timely manner, and money was no object, I'd love it. Boston would become the rail city it was always meant to be, and we'd probably see a rail renaissance that may make Biden's "rail revolution" words true. 

However, I am very cynical. I grew up with the Big Dig as a reality. Much the way the CHSRA is criticized now, the Big Dig was back then. While the final product is undeniably prettier, its hard to tell whether traffic is any better for it.
This project, I dare say, will be bigger than the big dig, and the public opposition would be huge, let alone the fatigue caused by gargantuan construction time (probably in the 10-15 year range). 

So then, what should be done?
Is there a better way to the spend the likely 20-40 billion this may cost? Are there better fixes to the NS-SS problem? Is this much of a problem at all, given that Amtrak only has one train out of NS, and Back Bay's Orange Line can get their pretty easily. Would it be better to upgrade Grand Junction Railroad (which is no small task)?

I look forward to reading thoughts on this!


----------



## jis (Oct 3, 2021)

NS connection is primarily an MBTA issue, not an Amtrak issue. There is zero justification of doing it just based on Amtrak traffic.

Incidentally this is also very true for a lot of the developments on notionally Amtrak property in New York and New Jersey. Amtrak by itself does not need the additional Hudson Tunnels or the complete reconstruction of Harold Interlocking based on its traffic needs. It is mostly NJT and LIRR that needs it. That is the reason many of these projects are actually funded via FTA and not FRA.


----------



## MARC Rider (Oct 3, 2021)

As a frequent visitor to Boston and user of the Big Dig (aka I-93), I find it to be very useful and a lot of the traffic backups seem to have their origins outside the tunnel. Also, I have a few dim memories of what that part of Boston was like when I-93 was an elevated expressway, and as I recall, it wasn't pretty at all. Putting the highway underground has allowed that part downtown Boston to completely redevelop and rejuvenate, and I suspect that the resulting increase in property values (and increase in property tax revenue) may make up for the cost of building, even with the corruption and cost overruns.

As for the train connection, the connecting tunnel seems to be a "no-brainer" for me, as it would allow a lot more operational flexibility for MBTA commuter trains, in a manner similar to what the Center City Philadelphia rail tunnel did for SEPTA. It would also improve connections between many MBTA commuter routes and Amtrak Northeast Corridor trains and the Lakeshore Limited. Not to mention permit Amtrak through service north of Boston. However, I don't see the value of building a whole new station in between South Station and North Station. That in itself might cut project costs substantially, as they won't need to excavate a giant cavern for the platforms and build an expensive headhouse in an area of very high property values.


----------



## jis (Oct 3, 2021)

To keep costs constrained, they should just do a single platform two track station under South Station. Such a thing can be built without building massive caverns, just a double or triple dia tunnel segment. It may be an interesting challenge digging it using ground freezing techniques perhaps, depending on how deep it is. Such a station would be connected to South Station above via elevators and escalators. It would be a station where trains top briefly. This would be an extension to South Station like the new underground station at Tokyo Central.


----------



## Cal (Oct 3, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> However, I don't see the value of building a whole new station in between South Station and North Station. That in itself might cut project costs substantially, as they won't need to excavate a giant cavern for the platforms and build an expensive headhouse in an area of very high property values.


I agree with this. I don't know if South Station would continue to be used if a new station happened, but I hope it would continue to be in use as I thought it was a very nice station when I was there. Unfortunately I didn't get to spend too much time in there.


----------



## John Santos (Oct 3, 2021)

jis said:


> NS connection is primarily an MBTA issue, not an Amtrak issue. There is zero justification of doing it just based on Amtrak traffic.
> 
> Incidentally this is also very true for a lot of the developments on notionally Amtrak property in New York and New Jersey. Amtrak by itself does not need the additional Hudson Tunnels or the complete reconstruction of Harold Interlocking based on its traffic needs. It is mostly NJT and LIRR that needs it. That is the reason many of these projects are actually funded via FTA and not FRA.


Amtrak has to share facilities with local transit in Boston and New York (and everywhere else) and this is A GOOD THING.

Amtrak DOES very much need the Hudson River tunnels. The current tunnels may well become permanently flooded by the next 100 year storm, which now occur every ten years or so. The salt water from the flooding, even if it can be pumped out (i.e. the salt water doesn't corrode away the tunnel walls so much the leaks can't be overcome), will structurally damage the tunnels enough to make them unsafe. The only way to fix this is to shut down the tunnels for several years while repairing them. Could the NEC survive with a 5 to 10 year "service disruption" and New York no longer directly connected to Washington? The new Hudson tunnels need to be built as soon as possible so the existing tunnels can be repaired and refurbished. Only when that is complete can capacity (the busiest rail tunnel in the US) be increased.

The direct connection from the NEC to North Station is from Back Bay Station, not South Station. Back Bay is not a good place for passengers destined to continue on trains north of Boston (including the Downeaster (five times daily) and numerous MBTA commuter lines) to get off the train. It's one thing to walk up the stairs with at most a brief case or small backpack, deal with a separate fare on a separate transit system, go down the stairs to the Orange line, (fortunately, level boarding), board a T train (hopefully not a packed to the gills rush-hour train), ride to North Station (and hopefully get off at the right stop), and up the stairs to North Station. (There are escalators at both ends, but about a week ago there was a horrible accident on the one at Back Bay, where the up escalator suddenly reversed and dozens of people were injured, some seriously. It's shut down for who knows how long.) Escalators are fine if you don't have luggage but are problematic for people, especially with mobility impairments of small children or elderly people. The elevators are small, slow and often out of service.

The connection from South to North Station is worse. You do have high-level boarding at South Station and on the Red Line, but the MBTA escalators don't go all the way to the tracks; there is at least one flight of stairs. Then you have to change trains in one stop (Orange line) walking through a very long pedestrian tunnel and up a flight of stairs with confusing directions (as bad as NY Penn), or go two stops to Park Street and the Green Line. The Green line is street cars (LRV) with steps to board the trains, but the connection is much closer, just up an escalator to the Green line platform. (Make sure you don't accidentally exit to the street or go to the wrong platform!) So you either have to wrestle your bags up the stairs onto a crowded streetcar or drag them a long way in an unfamiliar subway station.

Or you can walk either over or around Beacon Hill, if the weather is nice... Or take a cab.

The North-South Link would fix these problems. Even a direct subway shuttle line (which would have cost essentially nothing if Charlie Baker hadn't cancelled the rail tunnel that was originally part of the Big Dig to save less than 5% of the planned cost, or about 2% of the final cost) would be much better than the current situation. No direct trains from the NEC to Maine (or someday not too far off, New Hampshire and Canada), but a very quick, direct connection. They could have run the shuttle trains directly between the stations with no additional stops.

In the long run, when everything is electrified (this is a WHEN, not an IF, it will have to happen), a subset of the NEC trains could run through to Maine and other destinations, and some of the T commuter trains could do so as well. There would have to be frequent shuttle service (every 15 to 20 minutes, more often during rush hours) to accommodate through passengers from other Amtrak trains and commuters.

The N-S link is only an MBTA issue for train commuters who live on the south shore but work near North Station (or in the northern suburbs) and for commuters who live in the north but work near South Station or in the southern suburbs. These are relatively small groups, though of course both would grow if the connection was easier. Trying to dump the N-S link onto the T because "Amtrak doesn't really need it" is short-sighted and a way to guarantee nothing ever happens.


----------



## jis (Oct 3, 2021)

John Santos said:


> The N-S link is only an MBTA issue for train commuters who live on the south shore but work near North Station (or in the northern suburbs) and for commuters who live in the north but work near South Station or in the southern suburbs. These are relatively small groups, though of course both would grow if the connection was easier. Trying to dump the N-S link onto the T because "Amtrak doesn't really need it" is short-sighted and a way to guarantee nothing ever happens.


I was stating purely from the level of usage it will see. Strictly speaking if only Amtrak was operating between NJ and NY there would be no need for new tunnels since one tunnel could be taken out of use for extended period for refurbishment. Amtrak does not have enough traffic to require both tunnels at present. But the major user NJT definitely requires the new tunnels since it is NJT that has traffic demand growing in leaps and bounds, way more than Amtrak, what with their attempts to discount Hoboken and try to move as much traffic as possible to NY Penn Station. I am actually very familiar with the situation having been a Director of NJ-ARP for a decade or two before moving to Florida. I still co-moderate their Facebook presence, and manage their domain registrations.

I am less familiar with the situation in Boston, but my RUN friends tell me that for the foreseeable future Amtrak would probably not need more than 4tph each way through an NS link. I have no reason to disbelieve them since Amtrak can actually live with 8tph each way across the Hudson for the time being.

It is not a question of dumping anything on anyone. Usually the agencies cooperate and decide to do the most feasible and hopefully close to rational thing - weell ... sometime with some considerable arm twisting by the politicians to overcome the fiefdom issues implicitly existing. Like in case of New York area, the Portal Bridge has been given to NJT to manage, and is federally funded through the FTA. The Harold Interlocking reconstruction assigned to LIRR and funded through the FTA as part of ESA, The new Hudson Tunnel project is managed by the Port Authority of NY and NJ since it was part of their original charter. How the feds will actually fund it through which federal agency is yet to be fully settled. It could be the FTA or the FRA, but either way the funding will go through PANYNJ.

I am sure something feasible and close to rational like that will happen in Boston. It really should be simpler in Boston since afterall it is a single state one is dealing with.


----------



## Danib62 (Oct 25, 2021)

I don't think a north-south rail link will cause such a huge difference in rail travel in the Boston area. I think the effects would be similar to the Center City Commuter Connection in Philadelphia. Definitely a useful project but not something that fundamentally altered how people get around.


----------



## Deni (Oct 26, 2021)

Imagine if all the money spent on the Big Dig had been used for transit instead. Increase access that way and still tear down the viaduct, get rid of the freeway going through the city center altogether.


----------



## Danib62 (Oct 26, 2021)

You don't need to use your imagination, you just need to travel to San Francisco.


----------



## Nick Farr (Oct 26, 2021)

MBTA would definitely stand to gain a lot by this project, while it would open up a few more options for Amtrak.


----------



## MARC Rider (Oct 26, 2021)

Danib62 said:


> You don't need to use your imagination, you just need to travel to San Francisco.


Well, they did get rid of the freeway (helped by plate tectonics), but it's not like they built a lot of new transit.


----------



## neroden (Oct 28, 2021)

Danib62 said:


> I don't think a north-south rail link will cause such a huge difference in rail travel in the Boston area. I think the effects would be similar to the Center City Commuter Connection in Philadelphia. Definitely a useful project but not something that fundamentally altered how people get around.



It would help the MBTA a lot. Improves equipment utilization, cuts costs, allows higher-frequency operations, and allows them to focus on storing equipment at out-end terminals, freeing up the extreme pressure currently being faced by the downtown railyards (which can't be expanded and are actually contracting). Also frees up the overcrowding on the Red and Green Lines from North to South station transfers. It's all sort of behind-the-scenes improvements, but they are significant, just as they were in Philly. It unlocks a bunch of capacity, basically, which can then be used to improve service without spending much money.


----------



## Nick Farr (Oct 28, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Well, they did get rid of the freeway (helped by plate tectonics), but it's not like they built a lot of new transit.



The embarcadero freeway was also pretty useless. The idea was to link the Bay Bridge and Golden Gate bridge, but it was never completed. It was essentially a spur freeway whose traffic was easily absorbed by the city streets. Most of the travel going north of San Francisco would just take the freeways around the bay on the east side. 

San Francisco actually has pretty decent public transit.


----------



## Nick Farr (Oct 28, 2021)

neroden said:


> It would help the MBTA a lot. Improves equipment utilization, cuts costs, allows higher-frequency operations, and allows them to focus on storing equipment at out-end terminals, freeing up the extreme pressure currently being faced by the downtown railyards (which can't be expanded and are actually contracting).



Actually, you're really on to something here. The MBTA could probably fund the dig just by closing Southampton Yard and ground leasing the land to the right developers.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Oct 28, 2021)

Danib62 said:


> I don't think a north-south rail link will cause such a huge difference in rail travel in the Boston area. I think the effects would be similar to the Center City Commuter Connection in Philadelphia. Definitely a useful project but not something that fundamentally altered how people get around.



I respectfully disagree.
A NS link would indeed improve the MBTA a lot, and in doing so, would improve connectivity of public transit not only between two stations, but for all those towns north of Boston in their connectivity to Amtrak.

There are, however, other solutions to the current MBTA question, some which I feel are better:
-fix the red and orange lines, and electrify all commuter rail lines. Ultimately, this is better than a NS connect, and would have a greater impact on ridership and usefulness of the grearer boston rail network.
-Upgrade Grand Junction Railroad ROW beyond a mere transfer track for rolling stock. This would be a massive project (especially regarding the grade crossing as Mass Ave), but certainly not as massive as the NS connect, and may actually achieve the same goal, especially with the eventual construction of West Station where the old CSX Beacon St. yard used to be. This could tie in quite well to the i90 Allston interchange project, which will include West Station, and the southern side of GJR anyways.


----------



## John Santos (Oct 28, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I respectfully disagree.
> A NS link would indeed improve the MBTA a lot, and in doing so, would improve connectivity of public transit not only between two stations, but for all those towns north of Boston in their connectivity to Amtrak.
> 
> There are, however, other solutions to the current MBTA question, some which I feel are better:
> ...


1) What do you mean by "fix the Red and Orange lines"? Do you mean the relatively poor transfer between them at Washington St/Downtown Crossing? Or something else? (The transfer involves a fairly long walk through an inadequate tunnel with stairs.)
2) Electrify the commuter lines would be a huge benefit. For N/S connections, they would need to electrify the Framingham/Worcester branch at least as far as West Station, the Grand Junction, and at least one line to North Station first. (If they electrified the Haverhill line, they would have the beginnings for electrifying the Downeaster.)
3) Even so, if they used GJR to interconnect South and North Stations, an NEC train continuing north would have to:

Arrive in South Station as normal
Back up through Back Bay, switching to the Framingham branch along the way, as far as the GJR tracks
Move forward on the GJR, over the Charles River Bridge (currently single track, but it looks like it was originally a double track.)
Continue on through Cambridge/MIT and cross Mass Ave.
Merge with the north bound tracks north of North Station
Back down those tracks to North Station
Finally, proceed north to its final destination. (Switching engines at some point if the northern lines have not yet been electrified.)
For south bound trains wanting to continue down the NEC, they would have to do all this in reverse.

I think it would be much faster for through passengers to take the Orange Line between Back Bay and North Station, or even the Red and Orange or Red and Green Lines between South and North Stations (switching lines at Downtown Crossing or Park Street), as they do now. And all the backups (it is essentially a giant wye) would be in the heart of a very heavily trafficked area with full passenger loads, not empty and somewhere out in the sticks.

For any sort of reasonable performance, they would have to electrify the whole thing, double-track the GJR, and build some sort of overpass at Mass Ave. I also don't know if the ROW through MIT is wide enough to double-track. It would also require multiple pedestrian crossings in Cambridge.

But they did save several hundred million dollars (out of $15 billion) by not building the originally planned rail tunnel. Thanks, Charlie!


----------



## neroden (Oct 31, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> Actually, you're really on to something here. The MBTA could probably fund the dig just by closing Southampton Yard and ground leasing the land to the right developers.


Bingo! Have to acquire larger yards at the far ends of pretty much every line first though. Some of these aren't that hard, some of them (Worcester) actually are hard.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Oct 31, 2021)

neroden said:


> Bingo! Have to acquire larger yards at the far ends of pretty much every line first though. Some of these aren't that hard, some of them (Worcester) actually are hard.



they already claim some space and time at the Framingham yard for layovers of Framingham only trains, so it may be possible to use that for Worcester trains too


----------



## neroden (Oct 31, 2021)

Worth noting that electrifying all or most of the commuter rail lines is an absolutely required component of the N-S rail tunnel. 

There have been some attempted cost-cutting variations in the tunnel plan which basically exclude one or more lines from the tunnel. The full version needs three or four portals on the south side (Worcester, Providence/NEC, Fairmount, and Old Colony -- with the possibility of combining the latter two) and two on the north side (Fitchburg / everyone else). 

Everyone agrees that the Providence / NEC line would go into the tunnel. The Fitchburg portal isn't that much extra work given that it's all cut-and-cover in the same railyard. But the Old Colony/Fairmount and Worcester portals each add a lot of trouble. However, I think it would be short-sighted to omit either of them.

Current proposals are to build the new underground South Station *in* the Fort Point Channel (with the west half blocked off and drained) which makes it fairly straightfoward to tie in the Old Colony/Fairmount tunnel, but it's still extra tunneling underneath other tunnels. The Worcester and Providence/NEC tunnels would have to start just east of Back Bay, and the main issue is that of running trains during construction, due to the MassPike taking up so much of the right of way.

The Grand Junction Line is a problem for more-than-infrequent moves due to the excessively cramped overbuilding which MIT has done around it. It's going to be a pain to double track and a pain to grade separate and it's basically MIT's fault. If MIT would cooperate and rebuild half its university buildings, something very nice could be done with it, but if they won't, there's no good option.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Oct 31, 2021)

neroden said:


> Worth noting that electrifying all or most of the commuter rail lines is an absolutely required component of the N-S rail tunnel.
> 
> There have been some attempted cost-cutting variations in the tunnel plan which basically exclude one or more lines from the tunnel. The full version needs three or four portals on the south side (Worcester, Providence/NEC, Fairmount, and Old Colony -- with the possibility of combining the latter two) and two on the north side (Fitchburg / everyone else).
> 
> ...



Personally, I don’t see the NS connect being a reasonable or wise choice for the money available (even with a possible cash infusion). 

Right now, the MBTA is the only transportation entity on the NEC which has none of its routes running electric.

However much money could be spent on a connector, or GJR or any of the options people have said, it would be best to spend any number of billions of $$$ on electrification and new rolling stock. That alone would transform the commuter rail, and maybe even help Amtrak or any future intercity train. Then, expansion of South Station to accommodate more Acelas, and NER (especially when the new fleets arrive) would also be nice. There is already a plan in place to demolish the post office building next to South Station, and rebuild the 10 or so tracks and platforms that used to occupy the site. 

This combined with electrification would really open possibilities, and encourage ridership.


----------



## west point (Nov 1, 2021)

Are the plans for the N_S connect set to use much of the Big Dig or a separate alignment ?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 1, 2021)

west point said:


> Are the plans for the N_S connect set to use much of the Big Dig or a separate alignment ?


the tunnels for the NS connect have to be quite a bit deeper than i93 and subsequently cross underneath to get to North Station, so I think it would be a separate alignment


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Nov 3, 2021)

I agree with Tlcooper93. There are lots of cities that have multiple RR terminals and require people connect by metro - NYC, London, Paris, Moscow to name a few. This is not like Philadelphia where the 2 systems were already electrified and one end was already underground so connecting via a tunnel was a lot easier.


----------



## Danib62 (Nov 8, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Personally, I don’t see the NS connect being a reasonable or wise choice for the money available (even with a possible cash infusion).
> 
> Right now, the MBTA is the only transportation entity on the NEC which has none of its routes running electric.
> 
> ...


Isn't shoreline east a diesel operation (though I know GCT direct trains are supposedly coming). MARC is using fewer and fewer electric locos it seems. I think once the HHP-8s are gone they're going to just be 100% diesel too.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 8, 2021)

Danib62 said:


> Isn't shoreline east a diesel operation (though I know GCT direct trains are supposedly coming). MARC is using fewer and fewer electric locos it seems. I think once the HHP-8s are gone they're going to just be 100% diesel too.


You’re misreading my point. 
All of the commuter railroads on the NEC have at least some of their routes electrified. The MBTA is the only one that has exclusively diesel operation, despite some of their routes having fully electrified tracks.


----------



## west point (Nov 8, 2021)

MARC will always need electric to maintain separation from Amtrak. Fastest commuter operation in the USA ( 125 MPH). Of course MARC could 4ake line from north of Baltimore 4 main tracks then would only need slower trains, Got a few Billions ?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 9, 2021)

west point said:


> MARC will always need electric to maintain separation from Amtrak. Fastest commuter operation in the USA ( 125 MPH). Of course MARC could 4ake line from north of Baltimore 4 main tracks then would only need slower trains, Got a few Billions ?



Amtrak will be retiring their ACS-64s well before their useful life ends.

I believe that this will replace any aging locomotives MARC has, and perhaps will be some of the first electric locomotives in the MBTA fleet.

In fact, MBTA officials have been touring the Stadler factory to observe the same EMU’s that Caltrain is purchasing. My personal hope is that they have a mix of both ACS-64s and EMU’s in the fleet. EMU’s have significantly faster acceleration speeds, and therefore would have an easier time on the NEC. If they can manage to electrify other routes like the Worcester Line, the ACS-64’s would be better utilized there.


----------



## Danib62 (Nov 9, 2021)

I would love to see them electrify the Fairmount line and run EMUs on that before bothering with the Worcester line. I wonder if they'd be able to get amtrak to kick in toward the Fairmount line as it would provide them some redundancy and flexibility if there were ever issues on the Southwest Corridor.


----------



## west point (Nov 9, 2021)

IMO EMUs are better for MBTA as many platforms at south station are rather short limiting number of cars. No locos cannot be on some tracks beyond platforms as some train platforms have turnouts just beyond the end of some platforms .


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 9, 2021)

west point said:


> IMO EMUs are better for MBTA as many platforms at south station are rather short limiting number of cars. No locos cannot be on some tracks beyond platforms as some train platforms have turnouts just beyond the end of some platforms .



Agreed. Indeed one of the most shortsighted moves of the South station expansion is the apparently “necessary” shortening of the platforms. New Acela trains are already longer, and it would be good to run more cars on consists in general. 

Double decker EMU’s would be great, so long as doors could be designed in such a way that allow for fast boarding and exiting.


----------



## neroden (Nov 16, 2021)

west point said:


> Are the plans for the N_S connect set to use much of the Big Dig or a separate alignment ?


It's an alignment which was largely laid out and preserved during the Big Dig, with the exception of the bits at the far south and far north ends.


----------



## neroden (Nov 16, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Personally, I don’t see the NS connect being a reasonable or wise choice for the money available (even with a possible cash infusion).
> 
> Right now, the MBTA is the only transportation entity on the NEC which has none of its routes running electric.
> 
> However much money could be spent on a connector, or GJR or any of the options people have said, it would be best to spend any number of billions of $$$ on electrification and new rolling stock.



OK, yes, like I just said -- but to make it clearer -- absolutely nobody is proposing a tunnel with diesel ventilation. N-S Rail Link *requires* that the entire system be electrifed first, because *only* electric trains will be able to travel through it. Presumably with new rolling stock. So that must happen first. At the moment, one major focus of Boston's TransitMatters advocacy group is making sure the electrification happens. (Other focuses of theirs are getting clockface 15-minute service in inner areas and clockface 30-minute service in outer areas, and high platforms everywhere.)



> That alone would transform the commuter rail, and maybe even help Amtrak or any future intercity train. Then, expansion of South Station to accommodate more Acelas, and NER (especially when the new fleets arrive) would also be nice.



Sure, once you've electrified the entire system, expand it by digging the N-S Rail Link, which will add underground through platforms and therefore massive capacity. Cheaper in the long run than adding more terminating-reversing platforms next to South Station, and more effective, and frees up more land for urban development. The N-S Rail Link becomes the *final* step in the electrification program. And to be clear, it has to be last, because only electric trains can run through it.



> There is already a plan in place to demolish the post office building next to South Station, and rebuild the 10 or so tracks and platforms that used to occupy the site.


Waste of money. Electrify, *which we agree on*, and then spend the money on N-S Rail Link. The whole picture looks different once you've electrified the system (it looks like SEPTA). N-S Rail Link should be thought of as the next step after electrification. Electrify *first*.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 17, 2021)

neroden said:


> OK, yes, like I just said -- but to make it clearer -- absolutely nobody is proposing a tunnel with diesel ventilation. N-S Rail Link *requires* that the entire system be electrifed first, because *only* electric trains will be able to travel through it. Presumably with new rolling stock. So that must happen first. At the moment, one major focus of Boston's TransitMatters advocacy group is making sure the electrification happens. (Other focuses of theirs are getting clockface 15-minute service in inner areas and clockface 30-minute service in outer areas, and high platforms everywhere.)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don’t fully agree.
Couple of points:

Of course you aren’t proposing a tunnel with diesel locomotives. No where did I say that if you read my post carefully. You wouldn’t have to electrify the entire system to have a NS link. You could simply have dual mode locomotives, much like NYP. Given that this is the future of NEC Amtrak power, it certainly could make sense.

I’m well aware of Transit matters as I started volunteering for the group not long ago, so you aren’t exactly presenting news to me. I do live in Boston you know, so these things are on my radar more than most.

Cost overruns on the NS Link will be huge. To suggest that it will be the cheaper of options is wistful thinking in my opinion

In general, I think you’re missing my point.
At the moment, money is coming but political will in Boston is not an infinite resource, especially with the lowering of i90 and the Allston interchange project. To propose and break ground on a project nearly as big, complex and expensive as the Big Dig, not even 20 years later, will run the tank of public will low.

I figure, with the 10 billion or so that is potentially in the pot for rail projects, electrify the system, and acquire new rolling stock. That alone will eat up enough money, and transform the T. Electrification won’t be such an emotionally taxing, eye soar project, and it will bring huge dividends in terms of ridership and usefulness. 

we can agree to disagree about adding terminus platforms to SS.


----------



## neroden (Nov 18, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I figure, with the 10 billion or so that is potentially in the pot for rail projects, electrify the system, and acquire new rolling stock. That alone will eat up enough money, and transform the T. Electrification won’t be such an emotionally taxing, eye soar project, and it will bring huge dividends in terms of ridership and usefulness.



Well, since TransitMatters agrees with me that building a tunnel without electrifying, using dual-modes, would be a terrible choice and a bad use of money.... we can agree on this. Electrify NOW. We shouldn't be breaking ground on a tunnel, or on extra terminating platforms, until full electrification is committed.

(If there's some weird convenient opportunity to safeguard the future tunnel by acquiring land, for instance if a parcel in the right location next to the shared MassPike/Worcester Line corridor comes up for sale, sure, safeguard the route, but there's no point in even starting to dig a tunnel until full electrification is committed.)

I think the entire political picture will look different once electrification is nearing completion. I think the political will for rail projects will skyrocket as the ridership skyrockets and the convenience of the service skyrockets. So we don't have to decide about building a tunnel until then -- and we shouldn't decide until then. The North-South Rail Link should be much, much easier than the Big Dig because (a) it doesn't need much ventilation and (b) it's significantly narrower and smaller, but you're right that the public will perceive it as Big-Dig-like at this point. There is no point in starting it until the electrification is fully committed anyway.



> we can agree to disagree about adding terminus platforms to SS.


Yes, let's spend the money on electrification instead.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 18, 2021)

neroden said:


> Well, since TransitMatters agrees with me that building a tunnel without electrifying, using dual-modes, would be a terrible choice and a bad use of money.... we can agree on this. Electrify NOW. We shouldn't be breaking ground on a tunnel, or on extra terminating platforms, until full electrification is committed.
> 
> (If there's some weird convenient opportunity to safeguard the future tunnel by acquiring land, for instance if a parcel in the right location next to the shared MassPike/Worcester Line corridor comes up for sale, sure, safeguard the route, but there's no point in even starting to dig a tunnel until full electrification is committed.)
> 
> ...


We agree!
Electrification, in my opinion, should be the single most important goal of the MBTA Purple Line. Without electrification, there is no future in rail. The dinosaurs that we ride every day are really dampening the support for what could be one of the best rail systems in the country.

The MBTA could significantly cut commute times. By doing this, it will help get people out of their cars, which will help what is now the most congested city in the country. Its a real nightmare.


----------



## west point (Nov 19, 2021)

Usually electrification can mean fewer train sets needed for same number of passengers. That can mean longer trains for equipment spread to operating trains.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 19, 2021)

west point said:


> Usually electrification can mean fewer train sets needed for same number of passengers. That can mean longer trains for equipment spread to operating trains.



While that’s true, South Station platforms at the moment are capped at an unusually short length, so MBTA train lengths probably won’t grow much beyond their usual 6 cars. With EMU’s however, you can have 15 minute frequencies, therefore voiding the need for longer trains.


----------



## west point (Nov 19, 2021)

Since the NS line at SS would e lower than present tracks maybe that platform can be made for longer trains ?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Nov 25, 2021)

west point said:


> Since the NS line at SS would e lower than present tracks maybe that platform can be made for longer trains ?



In the plans, the underground “Central Station,” would include longer platforms than the current SS platforms.


----------



## Fenway (Mar 5, 2022)

Last I heard the post office has put on hold any move of the South Postal Annex. The N-S link should have been part of the Big Dig but ironically it was the Dukaslis administration that nixed it. 

Massachusetts is taking a hard look at changing commuter patterns and the reality that downtown workers may never return to pre-pandemic levels. 

The only plus for Amtrak is a N-S connector would allow direct service from Maine to the NEC but it would be cheaper to have a dedicated Amtrak bus shuttle between North and South stations that MBTA commuter rail passengers could use. 

Using the Grand Junction RR might be revisited as the one Cambridge politician who was against it has retired but that really would not be a viable option for the NEC. 

I am bemused that the city with the most Amtrak station is Boston with 3.


----------



## neroden (Mar 19, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> In fact, MBTA officials have been touring the Stadler factory to observe the same EMU’s that Caltrain is purchasing. My personal hope is that they have a mix of both ACS-64s and EMU’s in the fleet. EMU’s have significantly faster acceleration speeds, and therefore would have an easier time on the NEC. If they can manage to electrify other routes like the Worcester Line, the ACS-64’s would be better utilized there.



Inner Worcester Line has a lot of closely spaced stations and tight curves; definitely needs EMUs. I actually strongly suspect that the medium-term approach will be to get EMUs for inner services and keep using diesels for outer-zone expresses. 

They'll probably eventually get electric locomotives for outer-zone expresses, but the payback from electrification is lower for the outer zones.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Mar 19, 2022)

neroden said:


> Inner Worcester Line has a lot of closely spaced stations and tight curves; definitely needs EMUs. I actually strongly suspect that the medium-term approach will be to get EMUs for inner services and keep using diesels for outer-zone expresses.
> 
> They'll probably eventually get electric locomotives for outer-zone expresses, but the payback from electrification is lower for the outer zones.


Word on the street is Providence Line will get electric locos or EMUs soon.


----------



## AFS1970 (Mar 19, 2022)

I grew up visiting family in Boston and road the T (Before it had that nickname) but I am not all that familiar with some of the names of the rail lines and branches. I have made the transfer from south station to north station a couple of times, and I think what is missing in some of this discussion is how this will impact the passenger. Even if it is faster to take the T than it is to do two different Y maneuvers, it is far less impact and far more ease for the passenger to do this in a single train ride, especially if luggage is involved. 

I am a little confused about the insistence that electrification has to happen before any sort of tunnel is built. I agree that electric trains are the future of rail travel and full electrification should be a workable goal, but even a tunnel designed for those trains will have some sort of shat access. Be it for maintenance or evacuation. So, in theory ventilation could be part of construction. If people are not talking about it, perhaps they should, as the tunnel project may well be DOA if it becomes prohibitively expensive to buy new rolling stock. A tunnel built for diesel can be used for electric, but the reverse is not true.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Mar 19, 2022)

AFS1970 said:


> I grew up visiting family in Boston and road the T (Before it had that nickname) but I am not all that familiar with some of the names of the rail lines and branches. I have made the transfer from south station to north station a couple of times, and I think what is missing in some of this discussion is how this will impact the passenger. Even if it is faster to take the T than it is to do two different Y maneuvers, it is far less impact and far more ease for the passenger to do this in a single train ride, especially if luggage is involved.
> 
> I am a little confused about the insistence that electrification has to happen before any sort of tunnel is built. I agree that electric trains are the future of rail travel and full electrification should be a workable goal, but even a tunnel designed for those trains will have some sort of shat access. Be it for maintenance or evacuation. So, in theory ventilation could be part of construction. If people are not talking about it, perhaps they should, as the tunnel project may well be DOA if it becomes prohibitively expensive to buy new rolling stock. A tunnel built for diesel can be used for electric, but the reverse is not true.


In theory you are right about it being possible, but it’s silly to suggest it to be the case. there is absolutely no way that non electric (must be at least hybrid) trains will run underground in this day and age (or for that matter, the last hundred years).

If you look at even partially underground stations like Cleveland Tower Union Terminal, they would do a complex switch of locomotives before they entered the station that ended up being so inconvenient that trains would bypass the otherwise beautiful and convenient station altogether on the road to Chicago.

fully underground stations like NYC stations electrified a hundred years ago and never looked back.

By no stretch of the imagination will they let full diesel locos into a possible underground Boston station.


----------



## NES28 (Mar 20, 2022)

An important thing to keep in mind is that bi-mode trains, able to operate with or without wires, are now becoming regular production items. Note the recent Amtrak order for a large number of regional trains.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Mar 21, 2022)

NES28 said:


> An important thing to keep in mind is that bi-mode trains, able to operate with or without wires, are now becoming regular production items. Note the recent Amtrak order for a large number of regional trains.


Amtrak accounts for a very small percentage of the train operating out of South or North station.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac (Mar 21, 2022)

AFS1970 said:


> I am a little confused about the insistence that electrification has to happen before any sort of tunnel is built. I agree that electric trains are the future of rail travel and full electrification should be a workable goal, but even a tunnel designed for those trains will have some sort of shat access. Be it for maintenance or evacuation. So, in theory ventilation could be part of construction. If people are not talking about it, perhaps they should, as the tunnel project may well be DOA if it becomes prohibitively expensive to buy new rolling stock. A tunnel built for diesel can be used for electric, but the reverse is not true.


If you want to see what Diesels in a tunnel is like, check out Back Bay station in Boston sometime.


----------



## neroden (Mar 21, 2022)

AFS1970 said:


> I grew up visiting family in Boston and road the T (Before it had that nickname) but I am not all that familiar with some of the names of the rail lines and branches. I have made the transfer from south station to north station a couple of times, and I think what is missing in some of this discussion is how this will impact the passenger. Even if it is faster to take the T than it is to do two different Y maneuvers, it is far less impact and far more ease for the passenger to do this in a single train ride, especially if luggage is involved.
> 
> I am a little confused about the insistence that electrification has to happen before any sort of tunnel is built. I agree that electric trains are the future of rail travel and full electrification should be a workable goal, but even a tunnel designed for those trains will have some sort of shat access. Be it for maintenance or evacuation. So, in theory ventilation could be part of construction. If people are not talking about it, perhaps they should, as the tunnel project may well be DOA if it becomes prohibitively expensive to buy new rolling stock. A tunnel built for diesel can be used for electric, but the reverse is not true.


Soooo, the ventilation requirements for a diesel train tunnel are pretty massive. Lots and lots and lots and lots of ventilation shafts. And even then they end up not-so-great. See Back Bay Station (Worcester Line Platform), as AmtrakMaineiac mentioned, which is actually open to the air at one end and still has problematically bad air.

By contrast, the ventilation requirements for an electric train tunnel are much smaller. Very roughly speaking, much less than half as many ventilation shafts needed, and much smaller fan requirements.

So when you're digging under historic downtown Boston, cutting the number of shafts needed in half or more is a very big deal for constructability, construction time, cost, land acquisition, everything.

If you're considering adding ventilation for diesels to the tunnel, it would actually be cheaper just to electrify the system, and electrifying the system has a bunch of other benefits anyway. (Faster acceleration and deceleration, better air quality, cheaper operations.) 

And yes, there are dual-modes so you could run diesel in the outskirts and electric in the center. Electric is much better for closely spaced stations.


----------



## west point (Mar 22, 2022)

Even if there i two tubes ventilation shafts are required every 800 feet so passengers can get to the surface especially if there is only one tunnels bore for 2 trcks.


----------



## Exvalley (Mar 22, 2022)

Does anyone know what all of the construction is for adjacent to South Station, just to the south side? I am assuming that it is a parking garage.

We were in Boston this past weekend, and my impression is that, for Amtrak passengers, there just aren't nearly enough passengers connecting between South and North station to justify the cost of a connection.

In a perfect world, I would love to see Amtrak trains stop at South Station, North Station, and the airport before heading north toward Portland. But that will never happen in my lifetime.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Mar 22, 2022)

Exvalley said:


> Does anyone know what all of the construction is for adjacent to South Station, just to the south side? I am assuming that it is a parking garage.
> 
> We were in Boston this past weekend, and my impression is that, for Amtrak passengers, there just aren't nearly enough passengers connecting between South and North station to justify the cost of a connection.
> 
> In a perfect world, I would love to see Amtrak trains stop at South Station, North Station, and the airport before heading north toward Portland. But that will never happen in my lifetime.


There is a large parking complex included in the first phase of this "expansion" project (separate from the official SS expansion project).
For the tunnel connection, Amtrak traffic is not the reason to do it, but rather MBTA traffic.


----------



## jis (Mar 22, 2022)

Exvalley said:


> In a perfect world, I would love to see Amtrak trains stop at South Station, North Station, and the airport before heading north toward Portland. But that will never happen in my lifetime.


South Station and North Station might. Airport won't.


----------



## Exvalley (Mar 22, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> For the tunnel connection, Amtrak traffic is not the reason to do it, but rather MBTA traffic.


I did notice that there are a LOT of office buildings near South Station, but they aren't exactly far from the Downtown Crossing T station.

Also, it had been about ten years since I spent time in the Seaport District. Holy cow has that area changed!


----------



## neroden (Mar 24, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> For the tunnel connection, Amtrak traffic is not the reason to do it, but rather MBTA traffic.



Yes, it's entirely for the MBTA "Purple Lines". 

I suppose there's a possibility of Amtrak running Downeasters with dual-mode locomotives through the tunnel and onto the NEC, but that would be very much an opportunistic thing, and probably wouldn't happen at all.


----------

