MBTA Commuter Rail (Operations, Keolis, & Short Term)

But best practice it to do layovers at a charging facility. MBTA plan for Newburyport/Rockport does not do that. They are asking for stacked performance degradation, and trains dying on their first inbound run on cold winter mornings.
Big batteries in things aren't new. People leaving their EVs in their garages overnight don't come back to them with significantly less charge, trains aren't any different. It's not like the battery is running all night to keep the lights on, that's what the extra electrical supply is for.
 
Big batteries in things aren't new. People leaving their EVs in their garages overnight don't come back to them with significantly less charge, trains aren't any different. It's not like the battery is running all night to keep the lights on, that's what the extra electrical supply is for.
1) Cold batteries hold less charge than warm batteries.
2) Under winter conditions (snowy, icy tracks) more traction power is required.
3) Under icy winter conditions catenary wires deliver less power (for both traction and recharge).
4) Older batteries hold less charge than new batteries.

These stackups can kill performance if not properly planned for. For some strange reason I really don't trust the T to get this right.
 
We have some of the oldest electric trains in the US. For some reason that is lost on everyone in power and we have to do a secret third thing.
 
It's not like the battery is running all night to keep the lights on, that's what the extra electrical supply is for.

Not necessarily. We also don't know if the BEMU's that the T is evaluating can even take HEP power from the plug-ins at Newburyport and Rockport to keep the lights and HVAC on in the cars to spare the batteries. It would be nice if they did, because as a side effect a diesel locomotive would be able to rescue them in a breakdown and finish the revenue run with full lights and heat/AC instead of it being a total dead-tow situation. But not all EMU's are electrically configured for HEP cabling (SEPTA's and Metro North's/LIRR's definitely aren't), and since BEMU's are derived from existing EMU lineages there's a lot of those makes who won't either. So if you can't plug in at the layovers to regulate the cars' temperature overnight, the HVAC is going to be draining the batteries all night and you'll have a problem retaining charge for the morning if the BEMU doesn't arrive at the layover at the end of the service day with a full-enough battery. If they don't know that the vehicle they eventually order can take HEP power, they have no choice but to overprovision the running-miles for extra charging and low-battery emergency considerations and hope for the best.

There are lots of little places where BEMU infrastructure investment has to slot just right in order to hit its cost target, because the technical considerations and fail-safes are a lot more complex. This is likely one of the instances where it's a bit askew from target and partial electrification is not providing adequate savings over full electrification.
 
Last edited:
Additional detail. . .

Coach power (Head-end Power, or HEP) in the U.S. uses three-phase 480V AC power, fed between cars by a specific nationalized cabling standard such that any train can cross-pollinate their layover usage across the continent (see: Amtrak) and also cross-pollinate basic push-pull coach compatibility between agencies. The HEP generator in the diesel locomotive or transformers in an electric locomotive would portion out the 480V, as would the ground power plug-ins at the layovers. Transformers in each individual coach would then portion out the 480V source to component-specific voltages (lights, HVAC, intercom, computers/WiFi, three-prong 120V electrical outlets, etc.). The cabling standards set limits on total load and provide redundancy for really power-hungry trains (like Amtrak long-distances where a sleeper can suck up 50 kW and a diner can suck up 100 kW vs. a coach's 20-40 kW).

EMU's (and to lesser degree integrated trainsets) don't have to care about portioning to a 480V source that is then portioned out to other components in the cars. They can choose the straightest-line and most cost effective route for transforming between the 25 kV (or whatever) overhead source to the voltage of the lights and electrical outlets, because they're always touching a 25 kV-or-whatever source. And unless they're a special case like the NJ Transit MultiLevel EMU's where they're designed to be interfacing with stock coaches, they don't have to care about the specific U.S. cabling standards (for example, the Amtrak Acela 1's use regular three-phase 480V HEP power from their power cars but the cabling is completely hard-wired and integrated so they cannot be towed lights-on by a stock rescue locomotive). The unpowered singlet cars in the Metro North M8 order, for example, use a pantograph and transform their HEP straight down to the component level because they're electrically isolated from any self-propelled pairs and don't need a 480V intermediary. The self-propelled M8's do the same, but distributed between the married pairs; they cannot interface with stock coaches except in a dead-tow. Therefore, any BEMU that's derived from a non-conforming EMU will not have plug-in HEP compatibility and their layover yards must have full charging stations to idle without draining the battery.

Foreign makes use different HEP voltages and different HEP cabling standards than North America. 1.5 kV AC in mainland Europe, a slew of different UK/Ireland standards, an Eastern Bloc standard, and so on. So even if an import EMU were able to trainline with stock import coaches, it's not likely to be compatible with U.S. HEP voltage without a vehicle customization for the domestic market. And, being EMU's that are always under wire, that's not going to be an oft-requested vehicle customization so stuff like the Stadler KISS used on Caltrain gets on just fine with whatever between-car Euro voltage it chooses. Therefore, BEMU makes derived from Euro EMU's are very unlikely to have plug-in compatibility with U.S. ground power...despite that being intrinsically a *little* bit more of a need with BEMU's. In most cases, including the T's other two proposed BEMU lines, the buyer just builds a full-on 25 kV charging station at the layovers and doesn't pussyfoot around with 480V idling hacks. The T just doesn't have that option with Newburyport and Rockport layovers because there's no 25 kV-suitable transmission lines in either vicinity. Now, DMU's have an ironclad need for a U.S. HEP hookup as a standard feature, because they need to plug in overnight to keep their engines off...so modular product families that do EMU/DMU/BEMU variants are often engineered to serve up country-standard HEP voltages and cabling easily. The Stadler FLIRT (low-level boarding only) has DMU sales in the U.S. that do this, so a BEMU variant of that can probably be ordered pretty easily with U.S. HEP compatibility because that feature is already part of their domestic DMU packaging. The KISS high-boarding make for Caltrain that's applicable to the T, however, does not have any DMU sales in this country nor any agencies sniffing around yet on DMU KISSes...so Stadler has not yet tried to change its car voltages for the domestic market, even with it now pitching its BEMU demonstrator to Caltrain (Caltrain is planning a charging station at Gilroy, so they don't have to care anyway).


TLDR: It's very likely that of the 6 EMU and 5 BEMU bids the T got in their respective RFP's that none other than the coach-compatible Alstom MultiLevel (EMU-only) bother with U.S. plug-in compatibility. Because they're either EMU's that don't need to care, or foreign imports. If they do have/need it, it's an added cost (not a huge technical deal, but an added cost nonetheless). And an outright customization on any of the makes derived from solely straight-EMU's that take the straightest-line path from 25 kV to sub-component voltage and don't even bother with the 480V middleman like an M8. Therefore, with Rockburyport not having layover charging stations as an option they have no choice but to over-provision their electrification for batteries that get depleted overnight at the layovers by HVAC that can't plug in. Which pours a load of cold water on the much-hyped partial electrification "cost savings".
 
The pilot program, developed in partnership between Keolis and MBTA, uses the new alternative fuel for all trains that lay over at the Newburyport Commuter Rail facility, Keolis said.

The company has so far measured “steady” performance from trains using the renewable fuel source. When the pilot program concludes, the T and Keolis will determine if the vegetable oil-based fuel can be expanded to other parts of the commuter rail system.
 
That's weird that they're trying this on only one line instead of having a demonstrator loco that can roam the whole northside. Outer layovers don't have any fueling facilities...only centralized Boston Engine Terminal and Southampton St. do. They must just be having a tanker truck come up Route 1 to Newburyport layover on as-needed basis, which is a little counterintuitive.
 
Another note here: burning HVO appears to significantly reduce NOx and particulate matter emissions, which is almost certainly worth some premium for the community health benefits.

I also wonder if the emissions here are "low enough" for the T to seriously consider using some DMUs. While it still makes more sense to electrify in the long run, getting faster, more reliable service sooner would be huge.
 
I also wonder if the emissions here are "low enough" for the T to seriously consider using some DMUs. While it still makes more sense to electrify in the long run, getting faster, more reliable service sooner would be huge.
DMU's have a lot of asterisks about lower emissions. Where they actually do lower emissions is from running shorter sets than a locomotive that's overpowered to haul up to 8 or 9 cars, whether it's actually pulling 4 or 5 cars. That benefits you on very frequent short-haul runs like our Rail Vision's :15-frequency zone, where 3-4 car self-propelled sets can do better than an overkill-to-task locomotive. But those short frequent runs are exactly the places you want to electrify first, and which the very frequency makes the emissions--any emissions--such fraught politics with the communities served. So the usage case for DMU's on the T is hard to justify unless we run into some very hard technical blockers with stringing up wires (and that's not really expected anywhere here). DMU's do a lot less well on emissions and fuel efficiency with long-haul crowd-swallower sets. Instead of having 1 smoke-belching diesel unit in the locomotive, you have smoke-belching diesel units every n cars...and usually 2 diesel engines per powered car. The air quality difference degrades to almost par when you start talking long sets of 6, 7, 8 cars, and the fuel consumption eventually overtakes a locomotive because of the number of diesel engines involved in a long set.

If we're committing to EMU's everywhere except for maybe a couple malingering long-haul remainders...it's not going to be DMU's that take up those remainders.
 
DMU's have a lot of asterisks about lower emissions. Where they actually do lower emissions is from running shorter sets than a locomotive that's overpowered to haul up to 8 or 9 cars, whether it's actually pulling 4 or 5 cars. That benefits you on very frequent short-haul runs like our Rail Vision's :15-frequency zone, where 3-4 car self-propelled sets can do better than an overkill-to-task locomotive. But those short frequent runs are exactly the places you want to electrify first, and which the very frequency makes the emissions--any emissions--such fraught politics with the communities served. So the usage case for DMU's on the T is hard to justify unless we run into some very hard technical blockers with stringing up wires (and that's not really expected anywhere here). DMU's do a lot less well on emissions and fuel efficiency with long-haul crowd-swallower sets. Instead of having 1 smoke-belching diesel unit in the locomotive, you have smoke-belching diesel units every n cars...and usually 2 diesel engines per powered car. The air quality difference degrades to almost par when you start talking long sets of 6, 7, 8 cars, and the fuel consumption eventually overtakes a locomotive because of the number of diesel engines involved in a long set.

If we're committing to EMU's everywhere except for maybe a couple malingering long-haul remainders...it's not going to be DMU's that take up those remainders.
Apologies, I was not clear at all about what I meant. First, I was referring specifically to DEMUs where all power generation occurs on specialized cars, like the Stadler FLIRTs used for TEXRail. I'm sure this has been discussed before on the forum before, but this could expedite Regional Rail-level service where the additional cost is only for the power cars. All passenger cars should be reusable as part of a fully electrified fleet. While I was under the impression this type of DMU had significantly lower emissions than diesel locomotives, I cannot find any decent evidence for this.

Second, when I was referring to lower emissions, that was in reference to using HVO instead of diesel. There seems to be a silent moratorium on purchasing any gas or diesel equipment (except for maybe ferries), but that isn't set in stone. It could foreseeably go away if the emissions were low enough and the new equipment could be viewed as transitory instead of permanent. Newer DEMUs fit that bill if we assumption the power packs will be either completely scrapped for full catenary or replaced with better/cheaper batteries in the future.
 
My understanding is that there is very limited volumes of R99/R100 biodiesel on the East Coast and no major refineries, most of that capacity being in CA. It's apparently usually imported or barged in from the Gulf, but I believe there's a small refinery in the Portland ME region. If that's where the MBTA is sourcing it, I can understand why they're running the pilot out of Newburyport compared to anywhere else. (With NYC & it's ferries + the Steamship Authority moving to biodiesel, we should expect to see more availability in the region with demand.)

 
Apologies, I was not clear at all about what I meant. First, I was referring specifically to DEMUs where all power generation occurs on specialized cars, like the Stadler FLIRTs used for TEXRail. I'm sure this has been discussed before on the forum before, but this could expedite Regional Rail-level service where the additional cost is only for the power cars. All passenger cars should be reusable as part of a fully electrified fleet. While I was under the impression this type of DMU had significantly lower emissions than diesel locomotives, I cannot find any decent evidence for this.
Buying a diesel power pack with the explicit commitment to scrapping it in a few years is bad value that only serves to further delay the electrification investment. Metrolinx in Toronto hedged on that with its Nippon Sharyo DMU's for the Union-Pearson Express service. They're supposedly compatible with retrofits to full EMU's, but the component replacements are pricey as hell and the used diesel engines wouldn't fetch enough in resale to offset the premium. Most advocates panned that as a dodge away from ever fully electrifying the service, and it would rouse considerable rabble in Greater Boston given how much electrification/decarbonization commitments have been hyped up and so-far underdelivered. For the Stadler full-car power packs, they're considerably pricier than the passenger-only cars and cab cars. Being integrated trainsets, you also have to consider the condition of the non- power cars at the age of the retrofit. If they're more than halfway to rated lifespan at the time you order new power packs, you're best off funding a full midlife overhaul for the full sets rather than pairing the aging passenger cars with the new power plants. Plus, who's going to buy just the used power packs when we're done with them? They aren't usable as standalones or paired with any old cars; you have to factory-order some brand new Stadler passenger cars and cab cars to make new trainsets out of. And then the new buyer has the inverse "Whither rebuilding?" problem of why pair new cars with older pre-rebuild power plants (especially diesel where the MTBF nosedives as you approach rebuild age) instead of spending to rebuild the power packs up-to-spec for a full service lifetime.

The procurement logistics are messy at best, and very uncertain for projecting ahead. Most of the newfangled modular-design families of xMU's are first-generation makes. None of them are old enough to have their rebuild economics battle-tested enough to real-world price out what midlife reconfigurations are going to go for. So a procurement planned today from Day 1 to hinge on a complicated midstream replacement of its power plant is likely going to get flagged as way too risky for credulity.
Second, when I was referring to lower emissions, that was in reference to using HVO instead of diesel. There seems to be a silent moratorium on purchasing any gas or diesel equipment (except for maybe ferries), but that isn't set in stone. It could foreseeably go away if the emissions were low enough and the new equipment could be viewed as transitory instead of permanent. Newer DEMUs fit that bill if we assumption the power packs will be either completely scrapped for full catenary or replaced with better/cheaper batteries in the future.
Pretty sure biodiesel is still categorized as diesel, so it's not going to skirt any moratoriums on diesel equipment. So no, I don't think you can buy a DMU and pinkie-swear "But I'll convert it to EMU before the deadline, honest!" and have that be legally kosher if there's a procurement moratorium in-place.
 
The proposed expansion involves replacing an existing train riser on the stadium side of the railroad tracks with a new 800 foot-long concrete platform, designed to accommodate a locomotive pulling eight passenger coaches
 
Don't they already double-berth the trains? I recall reading somewhere, probably here, that they moved the block boundary to the middle of the platform so they could do that.
 

Back
Top