Inland Route Regional Service Question

[afigg]

Question about the Inland Route NE Regionals. According to Wikipedia, the last scheduled regionals to run over Inland Route ended in 2004. Was there a stated reason for ending direct NYP service to Worcester and Framingham? Too few passengers and losing too much money while Amtrak was struggling to make payroll? Or did CSX not want a Regional tying up their line?

Track upgrades and trip time improvements are coming to the New Haven to Springfield line over the next 4 years. MA will complete the purchase of the tracks to Worcester later this year with plans to run more Boston to Worcester MBTA trains. Trip time improvements compared to the 2004 schedule should be possible. With the number of weekday Amtrak trains maxed out on the Shore Line East, any chance that Amtrak would return to running a Regional over the Inland Route in the next several years? I would think MA would want it because of the service to Worcester and Framingham.

 

[jis]

Primary reason was equipment shortage. Those were the Gunn years when NERs were down to 5 and sometimes even 4 car consists.

Ironically, primary reason for not re-introducing them now still continues to be equipment shortage and a bit of CSX malarchy, which will still remain in place even after MA extending its reach to Worcester.

 

[amamba]

Well the MBTA trains already run on those tracks between BOS - Framingham - Worcester, so I am not sure that one or two extra regionals a day would make a difference.

They ran trains from NYP - BOS over the "inland route" a few years ago (2? 3?) when RI had a bad flood. The coastal route was closed - heck the airport and I-95 were also totally underwater when the pawtuxet river flooded.

If you look at the plans for the next generation of high speed rail - the plains that involve a new right of way - I think they track more towards the inland route and I believe it skirts Providence.

 

[amamba]

I should add that they do run the vermonter and at least one regional a day from Springfield, MA down to NYP. That gives some folks a one seat ride from Springfield. Unfortunately there isn't the connection with the MBTA all the way out to Springfield from BOS.

 

[DingDong]

Could they run inland regionals to North Station in Boston and then on to Maine?

 

[afigg]

I should add that they do run the vermonter and at least one regional a day from Springfield, MA down to NYP. That gives some folks a one seat ride from Springfield. Unfortunately there isn't the connection with the MBTA all the way out to Springfield from BOS.

Springfield MA has decent service options to NYC with the Vermonter, the Regional running to WAS (and Lynchburg southbound on weekends), and the shuttles. But SPG has only the Lake Shore Limited to Boston. With SPG slated to get a new rebuilt intermodal station with several high level platforms, MA is going to want to improve service from SPG to Worcester & BOS. A nearer term way to do that as a start is to restore at least one daily Regional over the Inland Route.

With the 2008 PRIIA act requirements for state support, would MA have to subsidize the Springfield to Boston segment of an Inland Route Regional? That segment is not on the NEC, but would it qualify as an NEC substitute and covered by Amtrak's NEC federal funding? If MA has to subsidize their part of the Inland Route, determining how much they should provide could be quite complicated as an Inland Route train will be on the NEC in BOS and south of SPG.

 

[Eric S]

Could they run inland regionals to North Station in Boston and then on to Maine?

Well, yes, it is possible, although the trackage in question would almost certainly need upgrades before regular/revenue passenger service is operated over it.

MBTA and Amtrak use the Grand Junction Railroad to connect (for non-revenue equipment moves) their north side and south side operations in Boston. It would permit trains from the west (FRA, WOR, etc) to operate into North Station, rather than South Station. In fact, there had been some discussion in recent months/years about MBTA sending some of their Worcester Line trains over it and into North Station to relieve some of the burden on South Station in future years.

Also, it would be possible to turn north at WOR and operate to Lowell, then east to HHL, then joining the current Downeaster route north into NH & ME. At least one ME-based group (Car Free Maine I believe) has suggested using that route to operate service from Maine to New York.

 

[Eric S]

Well the MBTA trains already run on those tracks between BOS - Framingham - Worcester, so I am not sure that one or two extra regionals a day would make a difference.

As part of the deal whereby MA is taking ownership of the tracks between FRA & WOR (they already own BOS-FRA), CSX is shifting most of its operations from Beacon Park Yard in Boston to Worcester. CSX will have significantly greater freight traffic west from WOR than east of it.

Of course, I don't mean to suggest that additional Amtrak service on that line is impossible or even unlikely, just that I imagine CSX will require some additional infrastructure (new sidings, lengthened sidings, complete double-track?) before agreeing to much additional Amtrak service between SPG & WOR.

 

[Anderson]

Could they run inland regionals to North Station in Boston and then on to Maine?

Well, yes, it is possible, although the trackage in question would almost certainly need upgrades before regular/revenue passenger service is operated over it.

MBTA and Amtrak use the Grand Junction Railroad to connect (for non-revenue equipment moves) their north side and south side operations in Boston. It would permit trains from the west (FRA, WOR, etc) to operate into North Station, rather than South Station. In fact, there had been some discussion in recent months/years about MBTA sending some of their Worcester Line trains over it and into North Station to relieve some of the burden on South Station in future years.

Also, it would be possible to turn north at WOR and operate to Lowell, then east to HHL, then joining the current Downeaster route north into NH & ME. At least one ME-based group (Car Free Maine I believe) has suggested using that route to operate service from Maine to New York.

I read that during some of the chatter on the Downeaster extension recently. My best guess is that doing so would trigger a logical hangup ("You're skipping Boston?!?") even if there was a ready MBTA into Boston.

 

[Eric S]

Could they run inland regionals to North Station in Boston and then on to Maine?

Well, yes, it is possible, although the trackage in question would almost certainly need upgrades before regular/revenue passenger service is operated over it.

MBTA and Amtrak use the Grand Junction Railroad to connect (for non-revenue equipment moves) their north side and south side operations in Boston. It would permit trains from the west (FRA, WOR, etc) to operate into North Station, rather than South Station. In fact, there had been some discussion in recent months/years about MBTA sending some of their Worcester Line trains over it and into North Station to relieve some of the burden on South Station in future years.

Also, it would be possible to turn north at WOR and operate to Lowell, then east to HHL, then joining the current Downeaster route north into NH & ME. At least one ME-based group (Car Free Maine I believe) has suggested using that route to operate service from Maine to New York.

I read that during some of the chatter on the Downeaster extension recently. My best guess is that doing so would trigger a logical hangup ("You're skipping Boston?!?") even if there was a ready MBTA into Boston.

Yeah, I can imagine that being a problem of sorts, although if this service (Maine to New York via HHL-Lowell-WOR) represented the 7th or 8th Downeaster and the 5th or 6th Inland Regional service (in other words if sufficient BOS/BON service existed on the routes) it would be less of a hangup. Especially if there were relatively easy connections (mainly thinking of time here) at HHL and/or WOR for BOS/BON passengers.

 

[the_traveler]

Besides missing the population stops of PVD and RTE (not to mention KIN

), one reason that more trains do not use the inland route is that it is is not electric! Thus, no Acelas could operate there, and any Regions would need to switch tomfrom a diesel locomotive at NHV.

 

[MattW]

The big problem I've heard with using the Grand Junction Railroad to North Station is the numerous grade crossings and the potential NIMBYism, particularly in regards to horns. If the route were made a quiet zone, the costs would likely increase just to improve the crossings.

 

[jis]

Not to mention that Cambridge will probably go into a hissy fit if one tries to run trains down the Grand Junction Line by MIT in the middle of the day blocking Mass Ave. etc. There has been talk of digging it into a trench or some such, but that is not imminent as far as I can tell, and it will run smack dab into the Red Line tunnel at Main Street too.

 

[afigg]

Besides missing the population stops of PVD and RTE (not to mention KIN

), one reason that more trains do not use the inland route is that it is is not electric! Thus, no Acelas could operate there, and any Regions would need to switch tomfrom a diesel locomotive at NHV.

Well, of course, the Inland Route is not electrified. The trip time for the Inland Route Regionals from NHV to BOS was about 4 hours versus ~2:45 for the Regionals via the NEC. That the trip time gap is not bigger says something about how much time is spent on the curvy Shore Line East route. The track miles for either route, interestingly, is almost the same: 156 miles NHV-PVD-BOS versus ~160 miles Inland Route (62 miles NHV-SPG + 98 miles SPG-BOS).

However, the Inland Route provides through service to BOS or NYP for Hartford, Springfield MA, Worcester which are major New England cities. The city of Worcester has a larger population than the city of Providence. See the largest cities in New England list on wikipedia. There are large population centers along the Inland Route that are not well served at all with Amtrak service to Boston or NYC.

There are long term plans, driven by CT for their commuter rail plans, to electrify the Springfield line. The big gap is the Springfield to Worcester section with MA taking full ownership of the Worcester to Boston tracks. If CSX is willing to work with MA, the CSX portion could be double tracked and max speeds increased to 79 mph, which along improvements to the Springfield and WOR-BOS lines, should cut diesel powered trip times on the Inland Route to be more competitive for BOS-NYP through traffic. Or electrify the entire route if CSX would accept it.

The revised vision/plan for the HSR NEC is supposed to released soon. I will be interested to see whether the thinking for the route in CT and MA has changed, because the original vision skipped all the population centers between Hartford and Boston suburbs. Is that the best approach? On the other hand, few of us may live long enough to see a new HSR route selected and built through CT.

 

[amamba]

However, the Inland Route provides through service to BOS or NYP for Hartford, Springfield MA, Worcester which are major New England cities. The city of Worcester has a larger population than the city of Providence. See the largest cities in New England list on wikipedia. There are large population centers along the Inland Route that are not well served at all with Amtrak service to Boston or NYC.

Sure, by 3,000 people for the actual city limits. But if you look at the population of the metro center, Providence is bigger than Worcester by over 800,000 people. That is pretty significant.

 

[MattW]

North station aside, one thing I had forgotten about for the inland route is the Springfield to New Haven commuter rail. Once that's going, there may be more political and citizen-based impetus to develop a SPG-BOS corridor service with some through service which could give Springfield residents a one seat ride down the NEC.

 

[afigg]

Not to mention that Cambridge will probably go into a hissy fit if one tries to run trains down the Grand Junction Line by MIT in the middle of the day blocking Mass Ave. etc. There has been talk of digging it into a trench or some such, but that is not imminent as far as I can tell, and it will run smack dab into the Red Line tunnel at Main Street too.

From several on-line posts I saw, many people in Cambridge did throw a hissy fit last December on the MBTA proposal to run commuter trains on the Grand Junction line. Found this 28 page viewgraph public session presentation by MBTA from last December on the Grand Junction Transportation Study. Regardless of possible commuter service from Worcester to North Station over the Grand Junction, MBTA plans to make improvements to the Grand Junction with welded rail, max speed raised to 30 mph, safety upgrades to the 6 grade crossings.

Once it is upgraded to 30 mph, a passenger train will not obstruct the grade crossings for long. There may be resistance to frequent commuter service, but a once a day Amtrak service crossing the Grand Junction to/from Maine might be an easier sell. Of course, the NIMBY factor for a wealthy and politically powerful community in Cambridge is not to be underestimated. The Grand Junction is only around 2-1/2 miles long, so at 30 mph, it would not take long to transverse it to the line to Worcester.

Since the Downeasters have cab cars, the train to NYP could pull into BON, then reverse to the Grand Junction and onwards to Worcester and NYP. Or make a reverse move along the route. I don't see a Brunswick ME to NYP train happening soon, but after upgrades to the Downeaster route, the Inland Route and the Springfield line and as the 6th or 7th train from Boston to Maine, then it could very well happen. Maine tourism would benefit from direct service to NYC & CT, so I expect there would be a lot of support from the Maine Portland and coastal businesses for it.

 

[jis]

North station aside, one thing I had forgotten about for the inland route is the Springfield to New Haven commuter rail. Once that's going, there may be more political and citizen-based impetus to develop a SPG-BOS corridor service with some through service which could give Springfield residents a one seat ride down the NEC.

Current Shore Line East equipment is going to be cascaded to New Haven - Hartford commuter service when the last tranche of M-8s take over the Shore Line East service sometime in the next several years. Hopefully MA and CT will work out something for that service to extend to Springfield.

 

[afigg]

Sure, by 3,000 people for the actual city limits. But if you look at the population of the metro center, Providence is bigger than Worcester by over 800,000 people. That is pretty significant.

I am not saying NEC service should be taken away from Providence RI. It is that there are other large population centers in Hartford, Springfield MA, Worcester that could use better Amtrak service. Once the commuter service is running on the Springfield line with upgraded stations and as more people take the MBTA in Worcester, Framingham, there will be a larger customer base for an Inland route Regional service than there was when the plug was pulled on the service in 2004.

 

[MattW]

Oh yes, I sometimes forget that electrification won't be part of just getting the line running, my mistake. My thinking was that inland corridor service would be more likely to happen if there wasn't need for an engine change in New Haven, but I had also forgotten that that would require electrifying SPG-BOS.

 

[afigg]

Current Shore Line East equipment is going to be cascaded to New Haven - Hartford commuter service when the last tranche of M-8s take voer the Shore Line East service sometime in the next several years. Hopefully MA and CT will work out something for that service to extend to Springfield.

The plans for the corridor are for New Haven to Hartford to Springfield service from what I see on the project website. However, I guess after they got further into costing the project, the federal funding CT has received now only covers upgrades through Phase 3A from New Haven to Windsor. I see that the formal Environmental Assessment documents for the corridor have been posted with public meetings scheduled for June 7, 13, 14. The executive summary states that the new track will be aligned to support up to 110 mph speeds, so the corridor will see significant improvements.

 

[TCRT]

Not to mention that Cambridge will probably go into a hissy fit if one tries to run trains down the Grand Junction Line by MIT in the middle of the day blocking Mass Ave. etc. There has been talk of digging it into a trench or some such, but that is not imminent as far as I can tell, and it will run smack dab into the Red Line tunnel at Main Street too.

From several on-line posts I saw, many people in Cambridge did throw a hissy fit last December on the MBTA proposal to run commuter trains on the Grand Junction line. Found this 28 page viewgraph public session presentation by MBTA from last December on the Grand Junction Transportation Study. Regardless of possible commuter service from Worcester to North Station over the Grand Junction, MBTA plans to make improvements to the Grand Junction with welded rail, max speed raised to 30 mph, safety upgrades to the 6 grade crossings.

Once it is upgraded to 30 mph, a passenger train will not obstruct the grade crossings for long. There may be resistance to frequent commuter service, but a once a day Amtrak service crossing the Grand Junction to/from Maine might be an easier sell. Of course, the NIMBY factor for a wealthy and politically powerful community in Cambridge is not to be underestimated. The Grand Junction is only around 2-1/2 miles long, so at 30 mph, it would not take long to transverse it to the line to Worcester.

Since the Downeasters have cab cars, the train to NYP could pull into BON, then reverse to the Grand Junction and onwards to Worcester and NYP. Or make a reverse move along the route. I don't see a Brunswick ME to NYP train happening soon, but after upgrades to the Downeaster route, the Inland Route and the Springfield line and as the 6th or 7th train from Boston to Maine, then it could very well happen. Maine tourism would benefit from direct service to NYC & CT, so I expect there would be a lot of support from the Maine Portland and coastal businesses for it.

I once got some rather annoying campaign literature at my apartment about this issue - apparently it was a hot topic for the last Cambridge city council election. I especially enjoyed its reference to "high speed diesel trains".

It's also worthwhile to note that CSX already runs a freight train on the Grand Junction Line during business hours fairly regularly at whatever speed the line is currently good for (it seems like ~15mph), and nobody seems to throw a fit over that.

 

[afigg]

I once got some rather annoying campaign literature at my apartment about this issue - apparently it was a hot topic for the last Cambridge city council election. I especially enjoyed its reference to "high speed diesel trains".

It's also worthwhile to note that CSX already runs a freight train on the Grand Junction Line during business hours fairly regularly at whatever speed the line is currently good for (it seems like ~15mph), and nobody seems to throw a fit over that.

The Mass DOT viewgraph presentation indicates the current max speed is 15 mph. I've seen those tracks and they cut right through neighborhoods and are next to the MIT campus. With the public used to very slow trains passing through just a few times a day (the 1 daily freight train plus deadhead moves), I can see the concern with more daily trains now running at 30 mph. But if Mass DOT puts up fences to keep people and students from crossing the tracks at the locations they are not supposed to, installs better grade crossings and warnings, and does a public education campaign about the trains running up to 30 mph, people will get used to it. Then Mass DOT can propose running a couple of scheduled passenger trains over the Grand Junction.

 

[afigg]

The New Haven - Springfield Line Environmental Assessment and Impact Evaluation report has a number of interesting pieces of data and information. One is Appendix 2, an example schedule based on analysis of routes with assumed 2030 infrastructure improvements for the NEC New Haven Line and the Inland Route. The Inland Route in the schedule includes a station stop at Palmer MA. Since Mass DOT is conducting a study on upgrades to the BOS to WOR to SPG tracks, the trip times in the Appendix 2 schedule for SPG to BOS may be placeholders with some modest improvement.

The northbound schedule has the #56 Vermonter departing NYP at 11:45 AM, arriving NHV at 1:06 PM (12 minutes faster than the current schedule). Then departing NHV 1:17 PM, arriving SPG at 2:21 PM with stops only at Hartford, Windsor Locks for a 1 hr 4 min trip time compared to the current 1 hr 38 mins. Departs SPG at 2:41 PM, arrives St. Albans 8:07 PM. Even with a 20 minute layover in SPG, trip time from NYP to St. Albans is 90 minutes shorter than the current schedule.

For something interesting, the schedule also has a #144 Regional, origin NFK (Norfolk obviously), running over the Inland Route to Boston. Departs NYP 2:30 PM, arrives NHV 3:53 PM (83 minutes with stops at NRO, STM, BRP), departs NHV 4:04 PM, arrives SPG 5:16 PM (1 hr 12 min trip time with more stops), stops at Palmer at 5:49 PM, arrives BOS at 7:35 PM (2 hr 4 min SPG to BOS trip time).

 

[acelafan]

Besides missing the population stops of PVD and RTE (not to mention KIN

), one reason that more trains do not use the inland route is that it is is not electric! Thus, no Acelas could operate there, and any Regions would need to switch tomfrom a diesel locomotive at NHV.

Or electrify the entire route if CSX would accept it.

If the inland route were ever electrified that would be a dream come true. But given the perpetual lack of funding for rail projects I don't think it will be done in the next 20-30 years.

Also, there are a lot of grade crossings east of Framingham on the CSX tracks that Massachusetts just bought; I think it's going to be interesting to see how the local communities react to considerably more commuter trains in the coming years. I think MBTA wanted to double or triple the number of daily trains operating on that corridor. Unless the multiple crossings are grade separated (not easy/cheap/elegant in a lot of places) the public might get annoyed with the increased number of trains.