Possible revival of the Boston North-South Rail Link Project

North-South Rail Link advocates look to get project back on track

Supporters of a North-South Rail Link project that’s been batted around for a century are dusting off the proposal and making another push, in hopes the incoming administration will show more interest in the pricey connection than the prior one.

One look at the MBTA commuter rail map makes the need for this tunnel crystal clear. That said, the priority right now should be electrifying those parts of the system that still use diesel engines IMO. The tunnel is only as useful as the number of trains that can pass through it, and as long as most trains in the area have diesel engines that number isn't likely to be very high, plus electrification is technically easier and less likely to rile up the NIMBYs.

AmtrakMaineiac said:

North-South Rail Link advocates look to get project back on track

Supporters of a North-South Rail Link project that’s been batted around for a century are dusting off the proposal and making another push, in hopes the incoming administration will show more interest in the pricey connection than the prior one.

Click to expand...

Not gonna happen.
There just isn’t the political will for a project of this scope and size, especially with the looming I-90 Allston interchange project currently in the works.

It’s possible this could be on a 50-75 year timeline, but certainly not anytime soon.

Before anything like this should ever happen, they should electrify the entire network. Trains electrified and running 15 minute frequencies is more valuable than a NS rail link. If you have the money for the link, spend it elsewhere.

I tend to agree with the above post. The time to build the NSRL was as part of the Central Artery Tunnel project (so called Big Dig). That opportunity came and went. I also agree that electrification of more of the network should be a higher priority.

b1xn00d said:

One look at the MBTA commuter rail map makes the need for this tunnel crystal clear. That said, the priority right now should be electrifying those parts of the system that still use diesel engines IMO.

Click to expand...

That would be the entire MBTA system at present since even where the tracks are electrified MBTA service runs on diesel!

The tunnel is only as useful as the number of trains that can pass through it, and as long as most trains in the area have diesel engines that number isn't likely to be very high, plus electrification is technically easier and less likely to rile up the NIMBYs.

Click to expand...

When there are thousands of internal combustion engine cars that are able to safely use the Ted Williams Tunnel I don't see why a few diesel trains cannot operate through a tunnel of similar length with properly designed air circulation system. Mind you I am not advocating such, but I don't see a persuasive technical argument there for electrification merely for that.

jis said:

That would be the entire MBTA system at present since even where the tracks are electrified MBTA service runs on diesel!

When there are thousands of internal combustion engine cars that are able to safely use the Ted Williams Tunnel I don't see why a few diesel trains cannot operate through a tunnel of similar length with properly designed air circulation system. Mind you I am not advocating such, but I don't see a persuasive technical argument there for electrification merely for that.

Click to expand...

It's certainly possible to design such a ventilation system. It just further drives up the cost of what will already be sn expensive project.

b1xn00d said:

It's certainly possible to design such a ventilation system. It just further drives up the cost of what will already be sn expensive project.

Click to expand...

As a country we don’t bat an eyelash to do this kind of expensive work for car related infrastructure.

Of course, for a project that could approach 20 billion, the money can and should be spent elsewhere, not that this project will ever be more than round table discussion.

b1xn00d said:

It's certainly possible to design such a ventilation system. It just further drives up the cost of what will already be sn expensive project.

Click to expand...

So ignoring my belief that it is better to electrify the whole system, tunnel or not, the immediate cost calculus for the tunnel would be whether the additional ventilation systems to handle diesel exhaust cost more or less than electrifying the relevant parts of the system. In some sense if electrifying is viewed as something that should be done anyway then this argument is irrelevant.

I just don't think that any funding discussion for the tunnel would be swayed this way or that based on the electrification issue. I have my doubts that this tunnel would be funded in my lifetime because the overall advantages that accrue other than addressing London/Paris/Philadelphia envy may not be viewed as persuasive enough.

When I want to go through Boston, I travel between Back Bay and North Station on the Orange line. Most people want to go to Boston, not through it, so I don't think this costly project is necessary.

If I understand correctly, the tunnel was eliminated from the Big Dig as a cost saving measure, which was incredibly stupid.

Diesels through the tunnel of this length should not be that big a deal. You have to have a fair amount of ventilation anyway to reduce the piston effect of trains going through the tunnel. I don't recall how long this project was, but didn't think it was that much. There are plenty of places in this world that operate frequent diesel services in tunnels.

George Harris said:

If I understand correctly, the tunnel was eliminated from the Big Dig as a cost saving measure, which was incredibly stupid.

Diesels through the tunnel of this length should not be that big a deal. You have to have a fair amount of ventilation anyway to reduce the piston effect of trains going through the tunnel. I don't recall how long this project was, but didn't think it was that much. There are plenty of places in this world that operate frequent diesel services in tunnels.

Click to expand...

Part of the plan includes a central station very close to the current Aquarium blue line station.
If it were just a through running tunnel, I really don't see the need for anything special ventilation wise, never mind electrification.

But since there is a station involved, does that change anything? I don't know much about this.

Maglev said:

When I want to go through Boston, I travel between Back Bay and North Station on the Orange line. Most people want to go to Boston, not through it, so I don't think this costly project is necessary.

Click to expand...

Building the tunnel also greatly improves capacity at North and South Stations, though. Turning trains around at stub-end terminals takes a lot longer (=fewer trains per hour) then stopping just long enough to take on passengers before continuing through the tunnel.

Is capacity at North and South Stations an issue? I'm honestly don't know the area well enough to say, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't. South Station didn't look very big the last time I was there, and the nearby real estate that would need to be condemned to add more tracks in its current stub-end configuration isn't cheap.

b1xn00d said:

Is capacity at North and South Stations an issue? I'm honestly don't know the area well enough to say, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't. South Station didn't look very big the last time I was there, and the nearby real estate that would need to be condemned to add more tracks in its current stub-end configuration isn't cheap.

Click to expand...

Expansion of South Station to add 8 more platform tracks is already in motion.

https://www.mass.gov/lists/south-expansion-final-environmental-impact-report
Incidentally this expansion proposal explicitly recognizes the possibility that a North-South Tunnel will be built some day and accommodates its needs in the new track layout, by leaving space for future construction, should it ever materialize.

b1xn00d said:

Building the tunnel also greatly improves capacity at North and South Stations, though. Turning trains around at stub-end terminals takes a lot longer (=fewer trains per hour) then stopping just long enough to take on passengers before continuing through the tunnel.

Is capacity at North and South Stations an issue? I'm honestly don't know the area well enough to say, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't. South Station didn't look very big the last time I was there, and the nearby real estate that would need to be condemned to add more tracks in its current stub-end configuration isn't cheap.

Click to expand...

For North S, this isn't a problem so much as the two drawbridges are. They need to be replaced.
At the moment, capacity is a minor issue, but by far the cheapest fix for this is simply electrify, and procure EMU which have faster accel/decel, and station dwell times decrease significantly.
Transitmatters did a whole thing about electrification here:
https://transitmatters.org/blog/rrelectrification
It would be pennies compared to the cost of a N-S connect, and essentially transforms the regional rail network far more than the tunnel ever would. Not saying the tunnel doesn't have some real benefits, but the bang for the buck isn't there.

jis said:

Expansion of South Station to add 8 more platform tracks is already in motion.

https://www.mass.gov/lists/south-expansion-final-environmental-impact-report

Click to expand...

Perhaps you can shed some light on this before I dive into what looks to be a substantial read, but I was always under the impression that the adjacent post office facility and getting that land was an issue with the official platform/track expansion. Has this been cleared up?

The current SS concourse project is nearing completion, and will look quite nice. Added platforms will certainly be huge.

Tlcooper93 said:

Perhaps you can shed some light on this before I dive into what looks to be a substantial read, but I was always under the impression that the adjacent post office facility and getting that land was an issue with the official platform/track expansion. Has this been cleared up?

Click to expand...

Don't know the latest. The last I heard Massport had initiated acquisition of the Post Office land and the adjacent land owned by Army Corp of Engineers.

it was four years ago with that I called in to the WGBH radio station (2 million audience) to talk with then mayor Marty Walsh, and he was very receptive him having a. conversation with the governor Baker regarding adding better bus service from south station the north station, including adding buses down into the new seaport area because if you’re working gig work say at the Boston convention center - which has up to 1000 gig workers alone plus can conventioneers - existing but there is just a morning bus and an evening bus nothing in between and nothing after seven 7:00PM Bor before 7:30 AM It’s the 5 Bus.

A while later after speaking with Mayor Walsh I got into North Station out in the front and there were tons of buses all of a sudden, but they were designated to private companies.. I notice a few going to the new Seaport District. One building in the Seaport District offered express trips to South Station and off peak offered rides on demand.

The real BEST WAY to and from BOS to BON is Taxi!

$15 with tip.

So why is the lower level of South station not used?

west point said:

So why is the lower level of South station not used?

Click to expand...

What is this "lower level of South Station" that you allude to? The one that is yet to be proposed, planned, funded and built? Even the North-South Rail Link does not exactly propose building a "lower level South Station".

jis said:

What is this "lower level of South Station" that you allude to? The one that is yet to be proposed, planned, funded and built? Even the North-South Rail Link does not exactly propose building a "lower level South Station".

Click to expand...

In the original configuration, two tracks came off each approach to join into a four-track line and then run under the main platforms in a two-track loop. These tracks were never put into service, and later became a parking lot and bowling alley for employees.[10]

My understanding was it never used due to loco smoke.

jis said:

What is this "lower level of South Station" that you allude to? The one that is yet to be proposed, planned, funded and built? Even the North-South Rail Link does not exactly propose building a "lower level South Station".

Click to expand...

There was originally a loop track under South Station which has never been used and I believe was (a) incompatible with modern day equipment and (b) partially destroyed by later construction projects, either the Big Dig or other projects in the area. That may be the "lower level" being referred to.

AmtrakMaineiac said:

There was originally a loop track under South Station which has never been used and I believe was (a) incompatible with modern day equipment and (b) partially destroyed by later construction projects, either the Big Dig or other projects in the area. That may be the "lower level" being referred to.

Click to expand...

I think when South Station track layout was rebuilt at the time of electrification any possibility of reviving use of that infrastructure was destroyed. So presumably they are not used because it does not exist anymore.

As far diesel or electric in the north-south tunnel my understanding was that stopping at a station underground and embarking and disembarking passengers with diesel fumes is the problem. Keep in mind these stations will be far underground. Also EMU's can climb at steeper grades than diesel trains thus shorting the tunnel which brings down costs. So rail electrification or duel mode engines were always required for the north-south tunnel. This was the reason the Dukakis administration dropped the North-South tunnel option from the Big Dig.

Bostontoallpoints said:

As far diesel or electric in the north-south tunnel my understanding was that stopping at a station underground and embarking and disembarking passengers with diesel fumes is the problem. Keep in mind these stations will be far underground. Also EMU's can climb at steeper grades than diesel trains thus shorting the tunnel which brings down costs. So rail electrification or duel mode engines were always required for the north-south tunnel. This was the reason the Dukakis administration dropped the North-South tunnel option from the Big Dig.

Click to expand...

So lack of money was not an issue then?

Bostontoallpoints said:

As far diesel or electric in the north-south tunnel my understanding was that stopping at a station underground and embarking and disembarking passengers with diesel fumes is the problem. Keep in mind these stations will be far underground. Also EMU's can climb at steeper grades than diesel trains thus shorting the tunnel which brings down costs. So rail electrification or duel mode engines were always required for the north-south tunnel. This was the reason the Dukakis administration dropped the North-South tunnel option from the Big Dig.

Click to expand...

In 87 President Reagan vetoed funding for the Central Artery Project, specifically citing the inclusion of a rail connection. The EMU procurement was not the issue.

Though everything you say regarding them being a prerequisite is true.

Tlcooper93 said:

In 87 President Reagan vetoed funding for the Central Artery Project, specifically citing the inclusion of a rail connection. The EMU procurement was not an issue.

Though everything you say regarding them being a prerequisite is true.

Click to expand...

What a difference 30 years makes! Today requiring DEMU would be a non-issue since scads of them are available off the shelf. It was very different in the '80s. Heck US didn;t even have an off the shelf DMU available, let alone a DEMU or EDMU;