I'm aware of the historical precedence for a route in that location. What I'm getting at is the primary beneficiary of restoring that track to more frequent passenger rail is Boston. This is because CT in the past few years established commuter service that extends from Springfield down to the beginning of Metro-North (heading into NYC). So a byproduct is more frequent service to NYC, which given Amtrak ticket costs is going to be the primary use. The secondary beneficiary is any stop west of Springfield. They will now get more than one train each way daily, which up to now had been an early afternoon train from Boston and a late afternoon train back to Boston, and had made it useless for commuters who live in those places.

Worcester being on that route is an afterthought in terms of the decisions being made now. It will also likely result in more people going from Worcester to NYC than people stopping beyond a transfer or return trip in Worcester for any reason. Which in itself isn't a bad thing - more access to NYC is nice - but it's not at all how this is being advertised.

While we're talking about making use of historical rail, if you want something that will surely benefit Worcester substantially, why doesn't anyone in state government talk about running passengers on the rail between Providence and Worcester? The answer is that Boston already has extensive service direct to Providence through Amtrak. We did have a start-up planning a private commuter rail service for a while (it evaporated with the pandemic), but that's about it.