Dave's Framingham-Worcester MBTA Commuter Rail Blog
  • Blog
  • Helpful Links
  • Helpful Information
  • Turn Table
  • Glossary
  • Map
  • Newsletter
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy

Proposed Auburndale Station Redesign Would Destroy Train Schedule

2/19/2017

15 Comments

 
The new design of a proposed change to the Auburndale Commuter Rail station moves the platform from track 2 to track 1. This doesn't sound like a big deal - trains can just switch tracks, right? It's not that simple, and this proposed design will either result in massive disruption to the entire schedule (for EVERYONE) or massive changes to service at the Auburndale station. 

The simple problem is that moving trains back and forth from one track to another blocks both tracks for opposing traffic while the switches are aligned for the track change and while the train moves from one track to another. Properly implementing this would require precise timing for trains to meet (or actually NOT meet) at these locations. The current schedule is not designed to accommodate that timing. And with the AM and PM rush hour schedules jam packed with trains, tweaking the times of ANY train will require changing the times for ALL TRAINS. 
THIS IS WHY THIS ONE STATION DESIGN AFFECTS EVERYONE ON THIS LINE. It's not just a problem for the Auburndale passengers. 
​
I'll dive into the details below and present some potential solutions at the bottom. Skip forward to those if you're not interested in the technical details. 

100% Design Now Complete

On February 15, 2017, the MBTA held a public meeting to present the final design for the reconstruction of the Auburndale Commuter Rail Station. I joined about 50 people to listen to the presentation which was led by a combination of the MBTA Capital Delivery Department Project Manager, the Design Consultant Project Manager, and the Project Manager from the architecture firm. Much thanks to the Village Bank in Auburndale for their hospitality and for providing snacks!

About 17 people spoke to provide comments on the station design. Many comments focused on construction issues such as the potential loss of parking and road closures while the station is being rebuilt. Some relevant comments related to the design and final product included:
- Shelter has no walls to provide protection from the wind (multiple comments on this topic);
- Design does not include screening between the station and the Mass Pike; and 
- Thanks and praise for the accessibility that the new station will provide. 

I used my public comment time to highlight the switching platform problem and the potential schedule and/or service disruption problem.  

Ari Ofsevit spoke after me and echoed the concerns about a single platform station on track 1. He picked up on a potential interesting solution to part of the problem - please read his blog post for his summary of the problem and his idea for a solution. 

Why design a new station with a platform on one track only?

Since the Mass Pike was constructed along the railroad right-of-way in the 1960's, the three Newton stations have had a platform on the track 2 side only. This is the reason that those stations have no 'reverse peak' service: track 2 is used for inbound AM trains AND outbound PM trains. Similarly, track 1 is used for outbound AM trains and inbound PM trains - and without a platform on track 1 at any of those stations, none of those trains can stop there. 

The concept of a redesign of the Auburndale station has been ongoing for many years - driven by the local community and local politicians. The major goal of the redesign appears to have been to provide an accessible station - but both a handicapped accessible station AND a more accessible station to the village center and the surrounding community. 

Maintaining a one platform station (rather than constructing platforms on both sides of the station) is apparently a strategy that was adopted to minimize the cost of the project. It is important to note that the Americans with Disabilities Act essentially mandates that when any improvements or changes are made to a Commuter Rail station that exceed 30% of the assessed value of the station, all elements of the station must be made fully ADA-accessible. These accessibility requirements require full length high level platforms and the 'typical' accessibility elements that we are familiar with at newer stations like Yawkey and Boston Landing. This means that it is not legal nor acceptable to build a new platform on track 1 and keep the low level existing platform on track 2. 

In 2013, a 30% design review meeting was held for the Auburndale station where a single rebuilt platform on track 2 was presented (at least as one of the options). This design required passengers to go "up and over" both tracks to get from the village center to the platform. According to reports, this design was widely criticized at that public meeting and the public advocated or agreed that having the station platform on track 1 was the correct option - where the "up and over" is not needed. There does not appear to have ever been a concept or plan to design or build a two-platform solution, nor did the project team convey the operational issues with a platform on the track 1 side only. 

In my opinion, NO COMMUTER RAIL STATION on a two track line should ever be allowed to have a one platform station designed, constructed, or even talked about. Commuter Rail stations don't get built very often, and having a station with a platform on only one track potentially locks that station into reduced service for many years. 

The current design for the Auburndale station (with the new platform on track 1) includes a new "universal interlocking" just east of the station. This interlocking is a set of switches that allows a train to switch from either track to the other track. The new interlocking ("CP 10") will mean that Auburndale will have interlockings on either side of the station (CP 11 already exists). The intent of adding a new interlocking was to provide a way for trains to switch from track 2 to track 1 to make a station stop at the new platform on track 1. It is apparent that everyone involved assumed that these interlockings and this switching back-and-forth concept would allow for either the same level of service or even better service. BUT THERE WAS NO MODELING OF THE SCHEDULE TO PROVE THAT. 

During the public meeting, I described the problem as this: even with two interlockings on either side of the station, there are still essentially two one-way streets pointed at each other. Switching trains back and forth will require precise timing and probably will require some trains pausing to allow these switching moves to happen. This is less than ideal - well, actually, it's disastrous. 

What does switching the platform from track 2 to track 1 do to the schedule? 

Let's focus on the AM commute to see how disastrous the track change could be. First, we'll take a look at how things work on the proposed May 2017 schedule. As discussed above, track 2 is the inbound track and track 1 is the outbound track for the AM commute (actually from Framingham all the way to Boston). Keeping the tracks dedicated to these 'directions' for the AM commute allows for unimpeded flow. I've added the approximate times that EVERY train passes Auburndale to the schedule image below - the orange boxes with italicized times are NOT station stops, but rather the times that a train passes Auburndale without stopping. 
​
Picture
If we focus on the Auburndale station stop times and rotate the data, we get the table below.
Picture
It is clear that there are multiple moments that trains are passing each other near Auburndale. From about 6 AM to about 8 AM, there are 5 train pairs where an inbound and outbound train pass at Auburndale within seven minutes of each other. That's TEN TRAINS affected. 

To take a closer look at the schedule implications, we'll assume that we will maintain the same service as the current schedule with Auburndale continuing to have 'normal' rush hour service: inbound AM trains and outbound PM trains stopping there (and no reverse peak service). 

In the morning, this requires inbound trains to switch from track 2 to track 1 at CP 11 after Wellesley Farms and then back to track 2 at new CP 10 after Auburndale. The problem is that with opposing movements on the same track, one train has to stop at (or not get to) each interlocking until the other train is completely clear of that track and switched onto the other track at the interlocking. If the sections of track were long enough and train density low enough, the schedule could be timed to allow this meet to happen unimpeded - each train could occupy the interlocking while the other train is still underway towards the interlocking.

​Can that work for us? Let's look at the times and how this switching can be done. We'll start with the P587 / P584 conflict as a test case for how this would happen on the proposed May 2017 schedule. P584 is scheduled to stop at Auburndale at 7:06 AM and P587 is moving as an express outbound and should be near Auburndale at 7:08 AM. Here's the timeline, with some horribly crude not-to-scale track diagrams. 


7:01 AM:
Track 1 in Boston: P587 moving westbound, approaching Boston Landing
Track 2 near Wellesley Farms: P584 departing the station stop.  ​
Picture
7:03 AM: 
Track 1 at Boston Landing: P587 departing the station stop.  
Track 2 at CP 11: P584 passing inbound through CP 11 and switching to track 1.  ​
Picture
7:06 AM:
Track 1 at Auburndale: P584 making the station stop.  
Track 1 near West Newton: P587 approaching CP 10.
Picture
7:07 AM: 
Track 1 at CP 10: P584 stopped inbound at CP 10 awaiting P587.
Track 1 at CP 10: P587 switching from track 1 to track 2.
Picture
7:08 AM: 
Track 1 at CP 10: P584 stopped while switches are realigned to allow it to switch to track 2. 
Track 2 at Auburndable: P587 passing P584 and moving outbound on track 2. ​
Picture
7:09 AM:
Track 1 at CP 10: P584 moving inbound from track 1 to track 2 towards the station stops at West Newton
Track 2 at CP 11: P587 moving outbound from track 2 back to track 1. ​
Picture
This scenario has taken less than 10 minutes but it involves about 8 miles of track along with each train passing through FOUR switches - two at each interlocking. Obviously that's less than ideal - and it doesn't even work (one train needed to wait at a signal / interlocking). And we've only tried to solve ONE of the conflicts.  

Part of the problem is the one mile length of the "wrong direction" track at Auburndale. For these scenarios to work, it is almost impossible to get the timing exact so that the trains are both on the 'wrong' track at the same time - in other words, having the inbound train moving through CP 11 from track 2 to 1 and the outbound train moving from track 1 to 2 at CP 10 AT EXACTLY THE SAME MOMENT. If either of those movements doesn't happen at the same time, then it is likely one train will get through their set of switches but will arrive at the next interlocking before the other train has cleared through it. With only ONE mile between interlockings, there just isn't enough time for anything to go less than perfectly. The first train will have to stop at the 'blocked' interlocking and wait for the other train to clear the interlocking. 

This can be illustrated by attempting to fix the CP 10 conflict in our model scenario above by moving the operation of P587 five minutes earlier.  But this just moves the conflict to CP 11! P587 will arrive at CP 11 before P584 has had time to switch from track 2 to track 1 at CP 11.

This analysis proves that to have trains pass each other at Auburndale on the 'wrong' tracks requires precisely timed meets that would have to occur with the precision measured in seconds. Any delay of even a few minutes to one of the trains involved in the meet would most likely delay the other train. Most of you realize that keeping trains on time to the precision of under a minute is not a realistic goal on this line. 

With this short distance between interlockings, the clear solution is to move one train completely through BOTH interlockings before the other train arrives. Then the timing does not have to be as precise, since the second train just needs to arrive after the first train has cleared both interlockings. But wait a minute...by doing that, THE RAILROAD IS EFFECTIVELY REDUCED TO A SINGLE TRACK AT THAT LOCATION! We've been waiting years for them to fix the single track bottleneck at Beacon Park, and now we're implementing a new one. That's one context to prove this won't work. Also remember that the new CP 10 interlocking can't be moved east to make the single track section longer - the West Newton platform is still on track 2 just east of new CP 10. Ugh. 

But even if you accept the concept of an effective single track at Auburndale solution, the schedule consequences are massive. P587 would have to move 10-15 minutes earlier so that it could get past CP 11 before P584 arrived there... but once you start making changes that dramatic, the schedule completely falls apart for multiple different reasons:
1) Meets at Framingham (departure/arrival of local trains vs. expresses);
2) Arrival times of trains at Boston; and
3) The equipment cycle. 

The equipment cycle problem is easy to illustrate since it isn't even possible to move P587 five minutes (let alone 10-15 minutes) earlier - it is using the equipment from P502 which arrives at South Station at 7:33 AM. With 15 minutes as the most reliable time to turn a train from inbound to outbound at South Station, moving the departure time of P587 from 7:48 AM to 7:43 AM would require moving P502 five minutes earlier... and you can see how the problems cascade exponentially (especially if you start moving departure times by 10 or 15 minutes). In fact, the AM schedule is completely jam packed at both Framingham and in Boston - so there isn't any way to tweak the times of any train without AFFECTING EVERY OTHER TRAIN FROM 6 AM TO 9 AM.  
​
THIS IS WHY THIS ONE STATION DESIGN AFFECTS EVERYONE ON THIS LINE. It's not just a problem for Auburndale passengers. 


But wait, it gets worse. The signal system of a railroad is designed to prevent collisions, and it does this by essentially warning a train crew about the condition of the rail and signals ahead. For example, when you're driving around town in your 2 ton car, you can see any traffic signal with plenty of time to stop. On a higher speed highway, there might be a warning sign that a traffic signal is ahead - and sometimes those even warn you of the CONDITION of the signal (i.e. signs which say "red signal ahead when flashing"). For a multi-ton train that isn't as easy to stop, this is exactly how the railroad signal system works. If a signal is red for stop, then signals BEFORE that red signal will require the train to start slowing down well before it reaches the red signal. 

The implications of this for the CP 11 - CP 10 dance are clear. If our inbound P584 is switching from track 2 to track 1 to make the station stop at Auburndale, it is effectively occupying BOTH tracks in that area, and there will be stop signals facing an outbound train coming from Boston. The 'warning' signals that require the outbound P587 to slow down approaching the stop signals will stretch towards Boston for at least a few miles. This means that P587 is either going to have to slow down as it approaches the area (with the resultant negative schedule consequences) or the schedule will have to be adjusted to keep it away from that entire area until the signals can allow for the train to operate at normal full speed. Either way, the overall schedule is drastically affected. And remember - the schedule of an AM outbound train is critical for inbound service - those outbound trains have to get out to Worcester or Framingham in order to operate back inbound. 

So what's the solution for this mess? There are a number of possibilities:

1) Build Auburndale with a platform on both tracks. This should be the ONLY solution. It allows for flexible scheduling with increased service for the reverse commute option. But it isn't funded and it isn't designed. Your first reaction might be that a two platform station would be much more expensive than the current plan, but that's not the case. The two-platform Yawkey station cost ~$13.5 million and the two-platform South Acton station recently cost ~$9.5 million. The average of those is $11.5 million - which is the amount budgeted / estimated for the current Auburndale design. We're getting a one platform station for about the same cost as a two platform station - because we're also getting a new interlocking and signal system upgrades (which don't really help us).  
There are two sub-options under this solution:
a) Postpone implementation of the current design until a two platform solution can be designed, funded, and implemented. Obviously this delays accessibility for Auburndale station.
b) Modify the current design to incorporate elements that will allow for a two platform station in the future. For example, set aside space that can accommodate elevators, ramps, and other required elements to get across the tracks - even if they can't be built now. 

2) Implement Ari's solution detailed in his blog - build new platforms on track 1 at all three Newton stations using the money budgeted for the new CP 10 interlocking (which Ari readily admits is inferior to building a two-platform station at Auburndale). This would presumably allow all three Newton stations to have the same rush-hour only service that they have now. It still may require some schedule changes, because Wellesley Hills and West Natick require rush hour service on track 2 only (see this blog post about that). So rush hour trains would still be required to switch tracks at CP 11. But it would be easier to manage ONE change of tracks rather than two for rush hour trains. Also note that this solution perpetuates the lack of reverse commute service throughout Newton. And with millions of dollars being spent on stations in Newton now, the second platform at each station will probably be delayed well into the distant future. 

3) Build the station as designed and change the use of Auburndale. This concept eliminates rush hour 'normal' commute service at Auburndale but implements NEW 'reverse' commute service at Auburndale. In other words, since the 'reverse' commute trains are already using track 1, having them stop at the new Auburndale platform will not introduce the switching tracks CP 11 - CP 10 dance problem. Keep the trains traveling on the tracks they use today. Obviously the downside to this is the loss of the brand new Auburndale station to the ridership that uses the station the most - passengers commuting to and from Boston on a 'typical' schedule. And although the data is somewhat old, the indications are that Auburndale is the busiest of the three stations. This solution also means that the new CP 10 will be relatively unused (although more interlockings on a railroad are generally good, since they offer solutions to unforeseen problems). 

4) Demand the MBTA develop a functional schedule AND solicit public input BEFORE construction proceeds. This should have been how the project started - isn't the schedule the most important aspect of a station? What does accessibility matter if the station has no service? Regardless of how we got to where we are now, this solution should be implemented in conjunction with any solution above or any other possible solution. Who knows, maybe they can come up with something that works... but I seriously doubt it.   

I will be raising this issue in future meetings of the Worcester Working Group and I'll engage with local politicians and stakeholders. It's never too early to reach out to your legislators to sound off on this issue. I'll keep you updated with what I learn. 
15 Comments

Construction and New Schedule update

5/26/2016

3 Comments

 
I've gathered some great information over the past few weeks. Here's an update on the following topics:
1) Rail Destressing & Tie Replacement Projects
2) Boston Landing & Allston single track
3) Turn Table for new schedule
4) Track assignments for new schedule

1) Rail Destressing & Tie Replacement Projects

It was a race to the heat and the weather won. The MBTA was trying their best to accelerate the rail destressing construction so that it would be completed before the hot weather arrived. Our little late May heat wave dashed those hopes.

As I've previously reported, the funding for the completion of ALL rail destressing between Boston and Worcester was only approved in late March. Until that point, there was one large section of rail that would never have been destressed. So along with the tie replacement project, the last portion of the entire rail destressing project has been ongoing throughout this spring.

The last sections of track that needed destressing are typically used for inbound trains in the afternoon. All of the 'outbound' tracks have already been destressed. So how do outbound trains become delayed in that scenario?

As you may recall, the new schedule eliminated the idea of 'interlining' trains. Meaning that there are now 8 sets of equipment dedicated to the Framingham-Worcester line. They just go back and forth from Worcester (or Framingham) to Boston. In the middle of the day, some of them are parked in yards or go for service, since 8 train sets aren't needed for the reduced service in the middle of the day.

With no interlined trains, a delayed inbound train can delay an outbound train since that inbound equipment is needed for outbound trips. The inbound/outbound non-interlining system is also a reason why evening trains are delayed even though the construction ended before rush hour.

That's why it was so important to get all of the tracks destressed. So kudos again to however they came up with the money for these construction projects - we've gotten a big influx of money and the payoff will be good.

The other good news is that both the rail destressing project and the tie replacement project are ahead of schedule and will be completed in June. So only a few more weeks of construction and heat restrictions. After the projects are complete, there will be no more heat restrictions and no more construction delays west of Boston Landing. Hang in there, we're almost there!

Actually there will be construction later this year. The tie replacement project will continue on track 2 west of Framingham in the fall. So we're not completely done with construction delays. But the summer should be much better than recent weeks.

To be specific, the current status of the rail destressing project is:

Track 1:
CP 4 (near Boston Landing) to CP 11 (Weston switch) - destressing completed this spring.
CP 11 (Weston switch) to CP 21 (Framingham) - destressing completed late 2015.
CP 21 (Framingham) to Worcester - track replaced during 2014 and 2015.

Track 2:
CP 4 to Framingham - destressed in 2015.
Framingham to Worcester - destressing will be completed in June.

CP = "Controlled Point." You can read about the definition of CP in the glossary.
CP 4 = The interlocking just west of the new Boston Landing construction. CP 4 is where the two tracks from Worcester become a single track through the Beacon Park freight yard.
CP 11 = What I call the "Weston switch," this is the interlocking between the Wellesley Farms and Auburndale stations, right next to the Leo J. Martin golf course and just west of Route 128.

You can see the precise locations of all these places on my map.

Until Track 2 is fully destressed, certain sections of track 2 between Framingham and Worcester will have a 30 mph speed restriction imposed in hot weather. The previous rule was that ambient temperatures above 85 degrees at Worcester, Framingham, or Boston triggered the heat restrictions and that appears to be what happened on Tuesday 5/25. The temperature spiked above 85 degrees at Framingham and the heat restrictions were imposed. I'm not sure if Boston is still a part of the rule since the section of affected track is far from Boston. And who knows, the entire rule could have changed.

If you're a first time reader and would like the background on heat restrictions and rail destressing, read this post for an introduction to the topic. Also don't forget to use the 'category' links on the right side of this page to read all the posts about certain topics.

Astute readers may notice that I don't spend much time talking about the tie replacement project in the above discussion regarding heat restrictions. That's because the tie replacement actually has nothing to do with removing heat restrictions - the rail destressing is performed FIRST, and then the ties are replaced after the rail is destressed. The tie replacement is important, but it won't affect heat restrictions, regardless of what politicians and the mainstream media try to tell us.

The tie replacement project is proactive maintenance that maintains the track in good condition. Rotted ties are one of the most common causes of speed restrictions. Some of you may recall a 5 mph speed restriction just west of Yawkey at the CP 3 interlocking for about a week in April or May. That speed restriction was imposed after the FRA (Federal Railway Administration) inspection car came across the line and found TWO rotted ties at that location. That was enough to impose a speed restriction for safety purposes. So proactive tie replacement is very important to avoid the imposition of those speed restrictions (and keep the system safe!), but it doesn't really have anything to do with heat restrictions.

However, tie replacement is actually more disruptive to the rail bed than rail destressing. Therefore tie replacement results in speed restrictions that last longer (on the calendar) and affect more trains over more days. Areas where the ties are replaced have new ballast (stone) spread and tamped, which takes time to settle and stabilize. This results in a requirement for temporary speed restrictions related to the amount of tonnage (number and weight of trains) that pass over the modified railbed.

Most of the tie replacement has been completed (obviously, since they only have a few weeks left of construction!). The remaining few sections for tie replacement include a section on track 1 in Wellesley and Natick, a section within and near Framingham station on track 1, and a section on track 1 in Ashland and Southboro. Track 1 through Wellesley and Natick never carries rush hour trains (AM or PM), so temporary speed restrictions there don't affect most of us. Track 1 from Framingham to Worcester is the outbound track (all day), so temporary speed restrictions have affected lots of passengers on that stretch and will continue to affect us. It should also be noted that the temporary speed restrictions related to the tie replacement project will last PAST the completion of construction - again, the speed restriction remains in place until a certain amount of tonnage passes over the disturbed railbed. So expect delays through the Ashland and Southboro areas through June on track 1 (outbound track).

2) Boston Landing & Allston Single Track

The background on Boston Landing station is in this post. More good news to report today - the construction is ahead of schedule and the station should be completed before the end of this year. The original schedule put construction completion in the spring of 2017. With both the Celtics and Bruins practice facilities being built at Boston Landing, maybe we'll see players taking the train to practice this winter?

As most of you are aware, the section of track from CP 4 (near Boston Landing) to CP 3 (just west of Yawkey) has been the only section of single track between Worcester and Boston since the Mass Pike extension was built in the 1960's. That foolish decision is now being corrected, with the MBTA and Keolis starting construction on a second mainline track through this section.

As you pass through the former Beacon Park freight yard you can see this construction. The first step in the process is the removal of the 40 foot sections of 'stick rail,' which will be replaced with continuously welded rail. All of the switches connecting into the freight yard are also currently being removed. The path of the new mainline 'second track' will follow the existing path of the freight lead closest to the existing single track mainline. This includes going up onto the little 'rise' and under the Mass Pike viaduct since there is a column supporting the Mass Pike preventing the second track from being directly adjacent to the existing single track.

The only bad news is that this second track construction will be synchronized with the completion of the Boston Landing station, so the second track won't be completed as soon as we would all like. The new second track will be 'stubbed out' to align with the new tracks alongside the new Boston Landing station and only connected once the tracks alongside the station are completed.

For fellow rail nerds, part of this overall project will be the decommissioning of CP 4 (it will no longer exist as an interlocking). It will be replaced with a new interlocking at CP 6, which will be on the straight / tangent rail section along the Mass Pike near the Staples store on Soldiers Field Road. A freight lead switch will be included somewhere near Boston Landing station and the former location of CP 4 to allow freight trains to access the parts of Beacon Park yard still in service.

3) Turn Table for New Schedule

I've updated the "Turn Table" for the new schedule. Theoretically, with 8 dedicated sets of equipment, we should be able to figure out the 'turns' at South Station as well as the 'turns' at Worcester. I gave it a try but it is impossible since all of the equipment goes to storage or service in the middle of the day. How that equipment returns to service in the afternoon is where I couldn't 'reverse engineer' the schedule. We'll see if I can't get some additional information and create a more comprehensive table of equipment usage and all equipment turns.

4) Track Assignments for New Schedule

As detailed in previous blog posts, the 'inbound' and 'outbound' tracks are really not labeled properly or helpfully. Based on the new schedule, I've updated my table of track assignments, which includes the status of the rail destressing as of now. As explained above, this table will soon be covered entirely in green!

For information on which track is which, see this blog post.

I'm NOT 100% confident this is correct, so please let me know if you notice any errors or changes. Click on the image for a PDF version.
Picture
Compare the table above to the corresponding table from September 2015 in this blog post. Notice the lack of red - everything has been funded. And we're almost to all green!

Also note that there are no leapfrog moves with the new schedule, and the Newton stretch is kept more consistent than with previous schedules (at the expense of reverse commute options for Newton passengers). Overall an operational improvement that should result in better service and less delays (remember, the current delays are primarily related to construction, and those should be gone soon). 


3 Comments

Why do Framingham - Worcester trains switch tracks?

5/13/2016

5 Comments

 
Finally! The long awaited inbound vs. outbound track blog post. And just in time for the 10 year anniversary of the switch in track usage!

For some good background that is helpful for this blog entry, please read my previous entry: "Framingham-Worcester: which track is which?" 

As many riders will notice, the rush hour Framingham-Worcester trains board on the same platform for both inbound and outbound rush hour trips between West Natick and Wellesley Farms. The MBTA and Keolis call this the "inbound" track but it is actually track 2. So why do they use track 2 for all the rush hour service here? 

For most train operations where there is more than one track over a long distance, the routing of trains is usually similar to roadway traffic in the US: trains stay on the right side track. This practice is followed between Ashland and Grafton: there is an "inbound" (track 2) and "outbound" (track 1) arrangement that is almost always true. The recent construction has meant shuffling of service on this stretch, but that is a temporary condition due to the construction. Worcester's platform is only on a siding accessed from track 1, so that's the problem there. 

So what is going on between West Natick and Wellesley Farms? 

Before May 15, 2006, the section between West Natick and Wellesley Farms actually used the same pattern all day long: track 1 was always outbound and track 2 was always inbound. You fellow long term riders remember this - boarding on one side in the morning and getting off on the other side in the evening. That's what the Grafton to Ashland passengers do every day even now (ignoring construction related changes). 

Prior to May 15, 2006, the MBTA (and MBCR) distributed this notice to announce the change to the track usage pattern, instituting the pattern that we have now: track 2 is used for both inbound and outbound rush hour trains between West Natick and Wellesley Farms. 

The notice that was published hints at the reason: safety. 

Those of you familiar with the West Natick and Wellesley Hills station know that they are unique among the stations on the line. At both of those stations, the only access to the track 1 platform is via a wooden walkway from the track 2 platform across both sets of tracks. There is no access to the 'outside world' from the track 1 platform at either of those stations - the West Natick track 1 platform is up against neighborhood backyards, and the Wellesley Hills track 1 platform is up against a giant cliff (where an excavator tried to tumble onto the tracks, but that's an entirely different story, with pictures, of course...).

This picture from the Wikipedia entry for the Wellesley Hills station shows the walkway and illustrates the issue quite clearly. 

So everyone who gets on or off a train on track 1 at those stations has to cross the wooden walkway across both tracks. A less than ideal situation. During the morning, it's not a problem -  track 2 is the 'natural' inbound track. But in the afternoon, prior to May 15, 2006, the large volume of commuters would get off on track 1 at those stations and have to cross both track 1 and track 2 to get to the parking lots or sidewalks or anywhere. 

Moving all the outbound rush hour trains to track 2 in the afternoon means that the largest volume of afternoon / evening passengers no longer have to cross the tracks. 

Also remember that the only 'cross over' switches in this area are near Framingham(CP 21) and between Wellesley Farms and Auburndale (CP 11, what I've nicknamed the "Weston Switch"). See the map for the locations of these switches, and see the glossary for definitions of "CP," "interlocking," and the "Weston Switch." The locations of the switches explain why the track 2 usage affects all the Natick and Wellesley stations - there is no way for trains to change tracks in the middle of this stretch of the line (or between Wellesley Hills and Wellesley Farms, for example).  

Also convenient is the fact that the only platforms at the Newton stations are on track 2. So even prior to May 15, 2006, all rush hour inbound and outbound trains were using track 2 along the Newton stations in order to provide those stations with 'normal' (AM inbound, PM outbound) rush hour services. The May 15, 2006 change just extended the existing practice along the Newton stations all the way to West Natick. 

Why did this become an issue in 2006 after years of operations without the track change along the West Natick to Wellesley Farms stations? As with most issues, a fatality may have played a role. 

Prior to July 2004, a walkway across tracks 1 and 2 also existed at the Wellesley Farms train station. This walkway existed even though there was a sidewalk on the track 1 side and a stairway on the track 2 side that led to the Glen Road bridge. 

In December 2003, Wellesley Farms was the location of a fatality. Quoting from one of the decisions regarding the wrongful death lawsuit:

"On December 6, 2003, Robert McTague, an employee of MBCR, was helping to clear snow from the railroad tracks at the Wellesley Farms commuter rail station during a storm. A CSX freight train passed through the station, striking and killing Mr. McTague."

News reports from the time indicate that a snowblower was being used along the tracks and that the freight train struck the snowblower which then struck Mr. McTague. There was never any reporting that Mr. McTague (or anyone) was on the cross-tracks walkway at the time of the incident, and it also isn't clear that Mr. McTague was actually operating the snowblower. 

Sometime prior to July 2004, news reports indicate that the Federal Railway Administration (FRA) received complaints from Wellesley residents that the cross-tracks walkway at the Wellesley Farms station was dangerous. In collaboration with the FRA and the MBTA, MBCR decided to close the walkway with a fence to prevent pedestrians from walking across the tracks. 

There is no indication that the fatality in December 2003 was a factor in closing this walkway, but all the parties involved in the collaboration would have been aware of the fatality and my guess is that it could not have been completely ignored. But there are no reports directly linking the closure of the walkway to the worker fatality. 

After the walkway at Wellesley Farms was closed, commuters using that station were upset that they were being inconvenienced by being required to walk up to Glen Road to access the parking lot on the track 2 side of the station after deboarding their evening train on track 1. Many passengers would just walk east along the tracks and go around the fence between the tracks, rather than go up and over. I can recall seeing passengers make this walk behind the back of outbound trains. 

A news report from March 2005 indicated that the issue had "reached a fever pitch." 200 passengers signed a petition asking the MBTA to re-open the closed walkway at Wellesley Farms. The MBTA held firm and I believe the fence was even extended at each end to make it less attractive as an alternative to the 'up and over.' MBTA spokesman Joe Pesaturo is quoted in the March 2005 article: "If we hear about people trying to jump the fence, then we'll grease it."

Clearly the issue of walkways and shortcuts across tracks was a hot topic during this time period (2003 to 2006). The wrongful death lawsuit regarding Mr. McTague ensnared the MBTA, MBCR, and CSX (then the owner and dispatcher of the line) starting in 2004. Again, although there is no public documentation or reporting regarding it, I have to believe that the fatality and the incredibly stupid and dangerous trespassing by commuters at Wellesley Farms kept the cross-track access issue on the front burner.

Given that context, it is natural to see how the FRA and all parties took a look at the situation not only at Wellesley Farms, but also at West Natick and Wellesley Hills - the only other stations with cross-track walkways on the line. Which leads us directly to the May 2006 notice and implementation of the idea to just get the bulk load of evening outbound commuters off of track 1. An elegant mitigation for a potentially hazardous safety issue. 

The May 2006 track switch also alleviated the complaints at Wellesley Farms - evening passengers were now being discharged on the track 2 platform, directly adjacent to the parking lot. So no need to walk around the fence or 'up and over.'

As noted in the May 2006 notice, with the outbound rush hour trains on the "inbound track" (track 2), the inbound trains have to use the outbound tracks. Passengers going into Boston in the afternoon and evening must still use the walkways at West Natick and Wellesley Hills. But that is far less passengers crossing both tracks than forcing all of the outbound commuters to use the walkways.

This leads to another operational rule put into effect around the same time: trains are not allowed to pass each other within the West Natick or Wellesley Hills stations. This is to avoid the potential for a passenger to deboard the train in the station and then immediately cross the walkway behind the departing train - and not see a train coming from the opposite (or even same) direction on the other track. So you may notice your train stop or slow when approaching West Natick or Wellesley Hills (even if you are on an express train that isn't making a station stop there) - this is probably because another train is in the station on the opposite track. 

Unfortunately, the issue of "board inbound trains on the outbound" track is quite confusing, and I have always disliked the naming of tracks by "inbound" and "outbound." For rush hour commuters between West Natick and Wellesley Farms, track 2 is always both the "inbound" and "outbound" track!

The problem is that the only clear labeling on signs at those stations is "inbound" and "outbound." There are no clear signs indicating track numbers. This is poor communication design in my opinion. But correcting it would cost money even if the powers that be agreed with my opinion. 

At some point in the recent past, the MBTA and/or Keolis customer service decided that this afternoon track 'switch' needed to be announced EVERY DAY. One of our twitter friends likens the deluge of messages to the boy who cried wolf: 

@N42_21_W71_04 @MBTA_CR @AlexisDeise They actually reduce value of meaningful alerts like the boy who cried wolf. People tune out to all.

— Wendy Ware (@wware11) May 12, 2016
Keolis customer service folks have a different perspective and believe the notices do communicate necessary information to the masses:

@AlexisDeise @N42_21_W71_04 2/3 We receive a high amount of communications regarding these swaps, even thou they're a daily occurrence.

— MBTA Commuter Rail (@MBTA_CR) May 12, 2016

@AlexisDeise @N42_21_W71_04 3/3 So daily LED messages & alerts are sent, to include impacted trains w/in that time frame.

— MBTA Commuter Rail (@MBTA_CR) May 12, 2016
It is worth noting here that the track usage at Framingham is not as easily described. Some outbound trains terminate there and become an inbound train, so within a few minutes the same track will serve as both an "outbound" and an "inbound" track. The easiest example of this is in the morning between 7 AM and 8:30 AM. P506 and P508 use track 2 since they are coming from Worcester. And outbound P505 uses track 1 since it continues on towards Worcester. But P507 terminates in Framingham on track 1 and becomes inbound P510 on track 1. There are other examples throughout the day where the pattern of track usage within any particular day (although similar from day to day) is difficult to describe at Framingham.


5 Comments

Framingham-Worcester: which track is which? 

6/12/2015

2 Comments

 
The easiest way to talk about the double track mainline from Worcester to Boston is by track number. The line has two tracks, conveniently named "1" and "2" (except where they're called "5" and "7"....).

From just west of Yawkey station all the way to Worcester, track #1 is on the north side of the line. In other words, looking or traveling from Boston out to Worcester, track #1 is on the right. Therefore, track #2 is the track closest to the parking lots in Wellesley Hills and West Natick. Through the stations in Newton, the platforms are only on the track #2 side. At Worcester station, the platform is on track #1 only. 

In Back Bay station, tracks #1, #2, and #3 are on the Providence / Northeast Corridor line (sometimes just called the "corridor"). So that forces us to have different track names, otherwise we would all get on trains to Providence! From just outside South Station to just past Yawkey (including in Back Bay station), track #7 is closest to the Mass Pike, is the northernmost track, and is almost exclusively outbound. From just outside South Station to just past Yawkey (including in Back Bay station), track #5 is closest to the Orange Line, is the southernmost track, and is almost exclusively inbound.  

In Allston, where there is only one track, it is just called the "main" or the "single track." This is the section of track that runs alongside the former Beacon Park freight yard between Exit 17 on the Mass Pike and Boston University. Although there are multiple parallel tracks, only the track closest to BU (the "single track") can be used for through train traffic. All of the other tracks are not signaled or controlled for traffic - they can only be used as part of the freight yard. So this "single track" doesn't have a track number, even though it could logically be considered track #2, since traveling straight from the single track in either direction puts you back on track #2 where the track becomes two parallel tracks. 

But the Back Bay naming oddities and the Allston single track situation are not that important - the important thing to remember is that  track #1 is on the north side of the line and track #2 is on the south side for the main part of the line west of Allston. 

I wanted to post this info here since it will be important for a couple of future blog post topics:
1) The current construction won't solve all of our heat restriction problems; and
2) Why do inbound and outbound rush hour trains use the same track from Framingham to Boston? [This topic is why I never refer to any track as "inbound" or "outbound" - the MBTA uses those names, but that really bugs me, since the trains travel in both directions on either track depending on the time of the day. Oh well.]
2 Comments

    Links

    Helpful Links

    Helpful Information

    Turn Table

    Glossary

    Map

    Newsletter

    Contact

    Privacy Policy

    Author

    As of late October 2017, the author is an MBTA employee. Blog posts prior to that time were created when I was NOT affiliated with the MBTA nor Keolis and therefore were my own opinion. Blog posts after October 2017 are my own personal statements and do not represent any official position or opinion of the MBTA and should not be construed as having been endorsed by the MBTA.  

    Tweets by @FramWorMBTA

    Archives

    May 2018
    October 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015

    Categories

    All
    Ask The Managers
    Beacon Park
    Boston Landing
    Bullet Train
    Bustitution
    Construction
    Delays
    Extra Trains
    "Fare Is Fair"
    Freight Trains
    Heart To Hub
    Heat Restrictions
    Lake Shore Limited
    Medical Emergency
    Natick Flooding
    New Schedule
    Parking
    "Police Activity"
    Public Hearing
    Rail Destressing
    Rail Replacement
    Ridership
    Slippery Rail
    South Station
    Tower 1
    Track Charts
    Track Numbers
    Turn Table
    West Station
    Worcester Line Working Group

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.