# Boston Considers Downeaster Link To South Station, East Coast Corridor



## crabby_appleton1950 (Sep 22, 2015)

BOSTON – Advocates pushing for an underground rail connection between Boston’s North Station and South Station met at the Statehouse on Monday to help organize public support for the proposal.
The group is hoping to persuade Republican Gov. Charlie Baker to consider the rail link, which they say would provide for the possibility of uninterrupted Amtrak passenger service between Washington, D.C., and Maine.

Former Govs. Michael Dukakis, a Democrat, and William Weld, a Republican, have endorsed the plan. Dukakis said the project has the backing of two-thirds of state lawmakers.

Gov. Baker ... has expressed skepticism, saying after that meeting that he needs more time to study the idea, adding that “the devil is very much in the details.”
http://www.pressherald.com/2015/09/22/boston-considers-downeast-link-to-south-station-east-coast-corridor/


----------



## fairviewroad (Sep 22, 2015)

Well, Boston's good at digging tunnels in the downtown area. All they'll need is about 20 years and roughly $14 billion. 

Actually, this proposal reminds me of the tunnel that linked the two sections of SEPTA's Regional Rail system 30 or so years

ago. That made a lot of sense, as would this. And this project would have the added benefit of being used by Amtrak.

That said, unless they electrified the DownEaster route you'd still have to change trains, or at least engines, in Boston.

But that would be much better than the cross-town self-transfer by a long shot.


----------



## neroden (Sep 22, 2015)

Long overdue. This was originally pushed as a cheaper, more effective *alternative* to the Big Dig. When the Big Dig was done, they managed to get passive provisions made for the tunnel underneath the highway tunnel (so we know exactly where the tunnel would go from South Station to North Station; the complicated parts are all north of North or south of South). I'm glad to see that there's still solid advocacy for this.

Pretty much every city with train terminals on opposite sides of town has built some sort of crosstown tunnel for regional rail -- from Paris (RER) to London (Thameslink and Crossrail) to Philadelphia (Center City Connection) to Berlin (forget what they called the Hauptbahnhof links). It's a big plan because it requires electrification, but it would make the regional rail system cheaper and easier to operate.


----------



## jis (Sep 22, 2015)

The first crosstown link in Berlin was the elevated Stadtbahn from Zoo to Lichtenberg through Tiergarten, Lehrter Stadtbahnhof, Friedrichstrasse and Alexanderplatz.

Both London and Paris were lucky to have built their first crosstown link very early on - London's north-south Citylink which is used by Thameslink now, and Paris' what now is RER-C along Rive-Gauche (the left bank). When the rail resurgence began they had a standing example to justify the construction of the later ones. Boston is a complete outlier and New York is just plain unfathomably weird. It has a crosstown line with no stations on it within the five boroughs except the big on in Manhattan, and the other with a terminal station may or may not get connected to the one on the crosstown link. At least the cross town line is now likely to get several more stations on it within the five boroughs.


----------



## afigg (Sep 23, 2015)

The long proposed North-South connection tunnel is a good idea, but I think the realities of the MBTA financial situation will postpone the tunnel from moving past the feasibility or basic study stage for at least a decade or two. The Green Line extension is facing close to a $1 billion cost increase and it is, IMO, more important to get the GLX built within the next 6-8 years than to advance the N-S connection tunnel. The MBTA is facing a circa $7 billion state of good repair backlog that will consume a lot of the available capital funding in the coming years.

Then there are the technical questions of how the N-S connection tunnel would work for an all diesel commuter rail network. The tunnel project might have to combined with electrification of much of the MBTA commuter rail system. Or by replacing all the diesels with dual mode locomotives with a 3rd rail in the tunnel. The N-S tunnel presents operational use questions and likely would have cost impacts beyond the building of the tunnel(s) and the rebuild of the North and South station track and platform configuration.


----------



## railiner (Sep 23, 2015)

Wondering why Amtrak doesn't at least provide a "thruway" bus connection between North and South Stations, instead of the "self-connect" requirement?

They used to do just that between NYP and NYG prior to the Empire Connection...... :unsure:


----------



## neroden (Sep 24, 2015)

afigg said:


> Then there are the technical questions of how the N-S connection tunnel would work for an all diesel commuter rail network. The tunnel project might have to combined with electrification of much of the MBTA commuter rail system.


Oh, the electrification should have been done long ago. There's a long backlog of track-and-signal upgrades on some of the lines, but they could run so much faster with electrification, due to better acceleration -- lots of closely spaced stops and curves and so on.


----------



## jebr (Sep 24, 2015)

railiner said:


> Wondering why Amtrak doesn't at least provide a "thruway" bus connection between North and South Stations, instead of the "self-connect" requirement?
> 
> They used to do just that between NYP and NYG prior to the Empire Connection...... :unsure:


From what it sounds like, the traffic there is terrible. I would think it would almost make more sense to simply work with MBTA and essentially ticket the transfer as part of the Amtrak trip, maybe a la the Capitol Corridor local transit transfers.


----------



## railiner (Sep 27, 2015)

jebr said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Wondering why Amtrak doesn't at least provide a "thruway" bus connection between North and South Stations, instead of the "self-connect" requirement?
> ...


Street traffic in New York City is not exactly a picnic, either, but the Thruway bus they used to run at least offered a 'one seat' ride (NYC also requires changing subway trains to get from Penn Station to Grand Central). In addition the New York thruway bus had an agent and a red cap assist passenger's making the connections, and the driver was in contact with station services personnel in case of delays enroute. The buses were timed to meet all Empire Service trains. They used to load on Vanderbilt Avenue at NYG, and in the now closed off taxi tunnel at NYP.


----------



## neroden (Sep 28, 2015)

jebr said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Wondering why Amtrak doesn't at least provide a "thruway" bus connection between North and South Stations, instead of the "self-connect" requirement?
> ...


This could be done with mailed tickets or tickets purchased from a live agent.

Unfortunately you can't print a CharlieCard from home.

Thankfully, this is about the easiest subway transfer possible. I'm doing it twice next week; I decided to take a ride on the Maine Eastern because there's a high likelihood of passenger service to Rockland ending completely.

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/09/02/rockland-brunswick-tourist-train-imperiled/

http://www.wmtw.com/news/maine-eastern-railroad-to-end-passenger-service-oct-31/35329602

It's only been possible to get to Rockland by an all-train routing since the Brunswick extension to the Downeaster opened. I figure I'd better do it now.


----------



## Palmetto (Oct 7, 2015)

neroden said:


> Long overdue. This was originally pushed as a cheaper, more effective *alternative* to the Big Dig. When the Big Dig was done, they managed to get passive provisions made for the tunnel underneath the highway tunnel (so we know exactly where the tunnel would go from South Station to North Station; the complicated parts are all north of North or south of South). I'm glad to see that there's still solid advocacy for this.
> 
> Pretty much every city with train terminals on opposite sides of town has built some sort of crosstown tunnel for regional rail -- from Paris (RER) to London (Thameslink and Crossrail) to Philadelphia (Center City Connection) to Berlin (forget what they called the Hauptbahnhof links). It's a big plan because it requires electrification, but it would make the regional rail system cheaper and easier to operate.


Don't you find it interesting, though, that major cities in the U.S. with more than one terminal* do not *have crosstown links?


----------



## neroden (Oct 7, 2015)

Palmetto said:


> Don't you find it interesting, though, that major cities in the U.S. with more than one terminal* do not *have crosstown links?


An artifact of the US's failure to invest in rail for the last century. Basically you're talking Boston and NY here. Various changes have eliminated the second terminal in most of the other cities in the country; the cities which still have multiple terminals have built crosstown links of one sort or another, except Boston and NY. Chicago's a bit weird in that it has lots of infrastructure for crosstown links but doesn't use all of it effectively for various reasons; again down to failure to invest in rail.


----------



## west point (Nov 5, 2015)

Some posters have hit on the point of lack of funds for rail. Although BOS - BON & NYP - NYG are desirable connections any funds at the present time are much more needed for other capital projects. Low ball figures of $10b for BOS - BON and probably $20B NYP - NYG better spent on NY Gateway and other NEC projects. As well $1.5 B would buy enough rolling stock for 1000 Passenger cars and 100 new LOCOS.

Those extra cars could carry enough demand to eventually get political will to connect these two cities train terminals. Before that connecting BOS - BON by way of direct Grand crossing tracks much cheaper but longer time.. NYP - NYG should be covered fairly well by the planned MNRR running several locals from both New Haven and Hudson lines long before tunnel connecting two stations can be built.


----------



## neroden (Nov 6, 2015)

A large portion of the cost of the N-S Rail Link is down to the need to electrify the lines (which is well understood and included in the cost).

Electrifying the lines is beneficial *by itself* -- speeds up the trains -- so it should be done first. That will build political will for the rail link.

NYP-NYG should be the alternative to the "station under Macy's Basement" or to Amtrak's proposed "Penn South". With neither of those likely to get funded in the near future, it's just a matter of bringing up NYP-NYG every time someone does propose funding one of those stupidly expensive and unproductive projects.


----------



## jis (Mar 24, 2016)

I do not expect NYP - NYG to get funded anytime before Gateway is funded and built.

Besides there are many more useful and deserving projects to fund before this railfan obsession gets funded, so no I would not recommend campaigning for it, unless of course one suffers from that specific railfan obsession of course  If so, of course - go for it


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 24, 2016)

Is it determined when the North - South Rail Link should be complete?


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 24, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Is it determined when the North - South Rail Link should be complete?


First the money needs to be found, and contracts signed, and land bought, and design work, and, and, and... Hello development hell! This project has been in the hopper for decades with no money or design work developed from what I can recall. It seems to be DOA at almost all levels.


----------



## jis (Mar 24, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Is it determined when the North - South Rail Link should be complete?


No.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Mar 25, 2016)

Speaking of electrification, I thought I'd seen something about a one of the MBTA lines being electrified in the near term, but can't remember which.


----------



## keelhauled (Mar 25, 2016)

At one point the idea was to electrify the proposed lines to Fall River and New Bedford. It was a terrible idea, given the frequency and cost. I don't know whether it is still planned, or whether the endless budget problems for Massachusetts and the MBTA have once again delayed the entire project.


----------



## jis (Mar 25, 2016)

The proposed electrification on that route was not to meet traffic goals but to meet environmental goals. the EIS was approved only with electrification AFAIR.


----------



## jis (Aug 17, 2017)

Harvard study: North South Rail Link would cost less than thought

https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2017/08/17/harvard-study-north-south-rail-link-would-cost.html


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Aug 18, 2017)

Jishnu, we should only post credible schools research.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Aug 24, 2017)

jis said:


> Harvard study: North South Rail Link would cost less than thought
> 
> https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2017/08/17/harvard-study-north-south-rail-link-would-cost.html


Other stories on it. (Link above hit a pay wall.)

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2017/08/downtown-boston-rail-link-could-be-built-more-cheaply-study-says/

http://www.lowellsun.com/news/ci_31232897/study-boston-rail-link-cost-4b-6b

Well, I like it. But I lived thru the Big Dig a few hundred miles away in NYC. LOL.


----------



## neroden (Aug 29, 2017)

N-S Rail Link is an idea which won't go away unless Boston has to be evacuated due to flooding.

I think it'll get built. It's got too much going for it. But I think we're going to have to wait a couple more years.

The general disorganization and tolerance of chiseling in the MBTA is finally being fixed; I've got to give Baker credit for that. Once the Green Line Extension finally gets built, hopefully in 2021, most of the MBTA backlog will be done. They will also have finished the installation of PTC by then, and the ADA station backlog should be fairly short (Wollaston is under construction; Hynes and Symphony have designs; which leaves Bowdoin, Boylston, and a bunch of surface stations, many of which are being done). The appetite for a program which reduces carbon emissions, improves operational efficiency, eases commutes, relieves pressure on the subway, benefits Amtrak, etc. will be high at that point.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 26, 2018)

fairviewroad said:


> That said, unless they electrified the DownEaster route you'd still have to change trains, or at least engines, in Boston.
> 
> But that would be much better than the cross-town self-transfer by a long shot.


Don't 448/449 use P42s? So why would the Downeaster need electrics?


----------



## Palmetto (Feb 26, 2018)

It wouldn't. But an engine change in Boston would be obligatory, such as it is in DC for trains coming up from south of there.


----------



## west point (Feb 26, 2018)

Wonder how many railfan BOS <> BON tickets would be sold ?


----------



## Palmetto (Feb 27, 2018)

west point said:


> Wonder how many railfan BOS <> BON tickets would be sold ?


Interesting question. But I believe that BBY, BOS, and BON would probably be stations where a restriction is in place: no local travel between those stations. Downeaster does, though, allow travel within the commuter zone on the North Side: Anderson/Woburn, and Haverhill.


----------



## cpotisch (Feb 27, 2018)

west point said:


> Wonder how many railfan BOS <> BON tickets would be sold ?


I don't think many. It would be so much cheaper and easier to just catch the Green Line. Even with the novelty of a BOS to BON Downeaster, I don't think anyone would really find that ride worth it.


----------



## west point (Feb 27, 2018)

Instead of spending mega bucks for a 2 track tunnel bores go by Grand crossing. That route can be revised so a direct connection from BOS to grand by way of a new connection and make grand a sealed corridor to connect to BON. Probably only 20% of cost of tunnel bores. Do see a problem with the diesel locos as they will either nose in at BOS or BON.

It will be much better to take the savings and rebuild, upgrade, and expand both Amtrak and MBTA services. Money could be used for upgrading WOR <> SPG ?


----------



## jis (Feb 27, 2018)

west point said:


> Instead of spending mega bucks for a 2 track tunnel bores go by Grand crossing. That route can be revised so a direct connection from BOS to grand by way of a new connection and make grand a sealed corridor to connect to BON. Probably only 20% of cost of tunnel bores. Do see a problem with the diesel locos as they will either nose in at BOS or BON.
> 
> It will be much better to take the savings and rebuild, upgrade, and expand both Amtrak and MBTA services. Money could be used for upgrading WOR <> SPG ?


Could you please rewrite that in simpler English so that somewhat less brilliant common folks like us can actually stand a chance of understanding what you are trying to say please?




Thanks.


----------



## west point (Feb 28, 2018)

OK First a reversal at BOS is required to go from BOS to BON. Then equipment has to proceed almost to Beacon Park yard then reverse direction to travel on Grand. Equipment would pass the MBTA facility on one leg of the wye directly to BON then have to reverse to become a Downeaster. Or proceed on other leg of wye and then back into BON.

If a direct connection at Beacon Park was built then equipment could much faster travel between stations. If a diesel is attached to NER train at BOS then if train noses into BON using this proposed solution the limitation of no diesel s near station BON is applied.

Grand needs all grade crossings to be eliminated for higher speeds or for any backing move over it becomes operated at restricted speeds. Understand at present ferry moves take over an hour to traverse this connection at present.

Downeasters usually approach BON with diesels on far end of train. Then if train could go directly to BOS but have not seen diesels go to stops at BOS ? Then the extra cars for NERs could be backed onto train by an ACS-64.

It is a complicated problem.


----------



## jis (Feb 28, 2018)

You would be able to walk from BOS to BON before the train makes it from BOS to BON





How would one go about eliminating grade crossing on the line through Cambridge by MIT?


----------



## Palmetto (Feb 28, 2018)

jis said:


> You would be able to walk from BOS to BON before the train makes it from BOS to BON
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Pretty much true. It's about a mile. Obviously, the N-S Rail link is the preferred solution here as opposed to changing directions 3 times.


----------



## railgeekteen (Mar 23, 2018)

Maine to New York trains could go via Lowell, Ayer, and Worcester.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Mar 23, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> Maine to New York trains could go via Lowell, Ayer, and Worcester.


I don't think Maine has the population density to support high frequencies, so it would be better to utilize the few trains that run there to serve both Boston and New York. Besides, Amtrak is only a small part of the North-South Rail Link when compared to MBTA, whereas your proposed routing would probably have to be built just for Amtrak. Lowell would be roundabout, but passengers could easily travel from Maine to Worcester via just one transfer in Downtown Boston if South and North stations are connected.


----------



## lo2e (Mar 25, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> Downeaster does, though, allow travel within the commuter zone on the North Side: Anderson/Woburn, and Haverhill.


You cannot travel WOB-BON or BON-WOB on the Downeaster, WOB is discharge only southbound and receive only northbound.

You are correct about Haverhill though, you could take either the Downeaster or the purple line to get there.


----------



## Palmetto (Mar 26, 2018)

Thanks for the correction! Haverhill business is somewhat brisk, I think. Beats riding on a clunky T train that stops at everyone's back door.


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 14, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> > Maine to New York trains could go via Lowell, Ayer, and Worcester.
> ...


This would be a cheaper alternative. It would also give Worcester a direct train to NYC.


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 14, 2018)

You do know that Pan Am's Worcester Main is a 10 MPH railroad, don't you? That's the worst of it between Lowell Jct and Worcester, but the rest of it isn't much better. I don't think Amtrak would dare to put one of their trains on it!





The plan is to run more trains via the Inland Route, since the Shore Line is maxed out. That will give Worcester lots more access to NYC than it has now, fortunately.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 14, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > railgeekteen said:
> ...


It would be cheaper, but the cost per passenger would be much higher. The line connecting that used by the Downeaster to Worcester would have to be upgraded, and CSX approval would have to be gained from Worcester to Springfield. Meanwhile, only a select number of Amtrak passengers would benefit. The tunnel through Boston would benefit even more Amtrak passengers as well as a large number of MBTA passengers and would likely even reduce operating costs.


----------



## west point (Apr 14, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> You do know that Pan Am's Worcester Main is a 10 MPH railroad, don't you? That's the worst of it between Lowell Jct and Worcester, but the rest of it isn't much better. I don't think Amtrak would dare to put one of their trains on it!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That unfortunately would eliminate BOS <> inland route station service. That is a non starter IMHO


----------



## Lonestar648 (Apr 15, 2018)

Looks like the N-S Link is the only way. I think with good marketing and connection Boston South, there could be many seasonal extra trains especially if Maine had bus companies sell tour connections.


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 15, 2018)

west point said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > You do know that Pan Am's Worcester Main is a 10 MPH railroad, don't you? That's the worst of it between Lowell Jct and Worcester, but the rest of it isn't much better. I don't think Amtrak would dare to put one of their trains on it!
> ...


I don't think so. The Lake Shore Limited already runs between Springfield and Boston on CSX and MBTA tracks on the route. It's just a matter of adding more Inland Route trains in the future, which is part of the MassDOT plan. The proposed Boston-Montreal train would also use those tracks.


----------



## P42 AC/DC (Sep 7, 2018)

Having done the transfer from BOS or BBY to BON by the T, a connection from South to North Station would be a lot faster, and I personally think could bring more folks up to Maine. If Amtrak sees the Downeaster doing better ridership wise perhaps it can provide a better profit margin, with an easier one seat ride to NYP/NWK/PHL/WAS


----------



## railiner (Sep 7, 2018)

P42 AC/DC said:


> Having done the transfer from BOS or BBY to BON by the T, a connection from South to North Station would be a lot faster, and I personally think could bring more folks up to Maine. If Amtrak sees the Downeaster doing better ridership wise perhaps it can provide a better profit margin, with an easier one seat ride to NYP/NWK/PHL/WAS


Welcome to AU...





You are absolutely correct, but I believe 'that ship sailed', when they had not taken the opportunity to do just that during the construction of "The big dig", several years ago...

It would probably be prohibitively costly to do it now....


----------



## west point (Sep 7, 2018)

Speculation of the politics. Is this mainly BOSTON politicians being able to say we have the connection ? Would not expect for many commuters to cross over to far station as Orange and Green lines provide better service to jobs ? For Amtrak riders the few that need to carry on would be the double reverse by Grand crossing if there was a direct connection from Grand to the inbound B&A tracks. The Down-easter and other trains in future would push into BON then pull into BOS then a regional could back onto the DE cars and pull toward NYP. From NYP loco would back onto the rear of a Regional go to wye and back into BON then pull DE.

The money needed for the tunnel connection could do much better for other projects, Building the Grand connection listed above, buying and double main tracks to Springfield, expansion of NEC capacity, Electrifying the Fairfield line, and other MBTA projects desperately needed. In meantime left over funds could start engineering and environmental work. Meanwhile the actual demand for traffic between stations would be assessed. Another point is how the OBS service for the DE could possibly be resolved.

Before a direct connection 'Grand to B&A there would be no reason that some trains arriving BON could pull trains Springfield - New Haven for connections to NE regionals. Connecting at New Haven will probably be required until CT DOT finishes replacing all the draw bridges New haven - Shell due to the capacity restraints caused by 2 tracking over each draw during replacements.


----------



## cpotisch (Sep 7, 2018)

You do also have to take into consideration the fact that the Downeaster is state funded and operated, and operates push-pull, unlike all the other Amtrak trains that serve Boston, which might complicate things if equipment is you have through cars or through service with a Regional.


----------



## Palmetto (Sep 8, 2018)

They operate push pull because there's no easy way to turn the trains at North Station. Extending Downeasters to South Station would allow them to go to Southampton Yard, and around the loop there in order to head north.


----------



## cpotisch (Sep 8, 2018)

Palmetto said:


> They operate push pull because there's no easy way to turn the trains at North Station. Extending Downeasters to South Station would allow them to go to Southampton Yard, and around the loop there in order to head north.


So they have facilities to turn the trains in Brunswick and Portland?


----------



## Palmetto (Sep 8, 2018)

cpotisch said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > They operate push pull because there's no easy way to turn the trains at North Station. Extending Downeasters to South Station would allow them to go to Southampton Yard, and around the loop there in order to head north.
> ...


I believe they do.


----------

