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

Yeah, It was obvious from the discussion that this would be the result. The argument is that capacity was needed yesterday, the single level coaches need replacing regardless, and we can sell them (theoretically) if we turn out not to need them for full life because there is a dearth of coaches in the market.

Take that as you will.

The quantities are the same as the Rotem option that they hemmed and hawwed on picking up a couple years ago, so I'm guessing they were somehow able to loophole their way either directly back into that contract or to reprint the contract for the options. If that's how it went down they did some creative voodoo around Buy America regs, as the infamous Philly plant of Rotem's that botched the original order and SEPTA's Silverliner V's so badly has long since been shuttered. I honestly don't know if they even have a North American plant of any kind, so these may have to be produced entirely overseas. Possible assist for those contractual acrobatics may go to the accessibility deficit created by the T having fewer restroom-equipped coaches on the roster now than it did before, because of the inability to tap the Rotem option the first time around.

The T will have to issue yet another RFP for the remainder of the single-level replacements, since 80 is only enough to retire the remaining MBB coaches (the ones the original contract was supposed to displace), and one class of Bombardier coaches. There'll still be the other half of the Bombardier fleet rotting away at fast-diminishing reliability, with only the '96-remanufactured Pullman flats still in anything resembling above-par condition. And if Rotem doesn't have a factory set up they aren't going to have any chance to bid on the next one, meaning they're staring into the abyss again on anyone who can make Kawasaki bi-level clones. For those of you keeping electrification tabs...yes, that means the Bombardier MLV coach that will be able to trainline in push-pull or EMU configuration is still sitting at pole position for the next replacement + fleet expansion order of ~125-150. Watch those 400+ 'slush' options on NJ Transit's MLV contract carefully. That could still be a laundering pipeline for either/or diesel or electric fleet needs.
 
The PR from the MBTA says the new Rotem coaches are funded by the Commonwealth, so I assume Buy America is out the window.
 
The PR from the MBTA says the new Rotem coaches are funded by the Commonwealth, so I assume Buy America is out the window.

Looks like they will all be built in South Korea with a certain amount of American material.
 
Looks like they will all be built in South Korea with a certain amount of American material.

NETransit also says single-source contract that is in addition to the RFP for 200 coaches, which is still open. So this was indeed a quickie job where a new contract was ripped out approximating the canceled +75 options on the first Rotem contract, gerrymandered to exclude Buy America since Rotem no longer has a U.S. plant.

Conclusions:
  • I guess it's true what Kawasaki has been telegraphing that they're done with the U.S. coach market and are focusing their attention on subway cars and EMU's.
  • With Kawasaki out, Rotem is literally the only manufacturer who can currently produce bi-level K-car clones for fleet commonality on the T. Shoddy (and continuingly shoddy!) build quality and all, the T was backed into a corner here on ordering options it could get delivered in < 3 years before an already serious fleet shortage started cutting service levels.
  • Rotem is most definitely out on the 200-coach order since the quantities are too high to exclude Buy America and they can't get a U.S. factory going in time. That means with Kawasaki also on the sidelines the next order will NOT be for K-car clones, and it's pretty much the end of the line for new manufactures of that make of bi-level (though the nearly 300 in-service on the T and MARC will be around for a very long time).
  • 200 + 80 = 280 is cosmically higher than a 1:1 replacement of the single-level fleet, which currently rosters 199 for the Bombardiers and Pullmans, and 22 in-service + 40 stored or temp-leased to ConnDOT (i.e. the ones displaced by the original Rotem order, which will never run in T service again). When considering that's a +30% seating difference per 1:1 flat-to-bi replacement, we're looking at a massive capacity gain both immediate and especially overall.
  • Since all coaches now are 3 x 2 seating, I'm now very interested to see if the 200-unit RFP makes a move to much more RER-friendly 2 x 2 seating trading slightly less butts-in-seats capacity for better on/off movements. In which case, Bombardier as predicted sits in pole position with the MultiLevel (MLV) coach that it fortuitously EMU-compatible, and CRRC with its homegrown SEPTA push-pull coach design (not EMU-compatible) is right there. 2 x 2 seems to be where the bi-level market is heading given the available options.
  • I'd also be keenly interested to see what the ratio of cab cars to trailers is going to be in this Rotem order, because if it goes heavier on the cabs then we would have the ability to run more but shorter trains with equal seating capacity via a locomotive lease. Locos are MUCH more plentiful on the aftermarket and will soon be flooded when Amtrak's Siemens Charger order displaces 75+ GE Genesis P42's...so if we beefed up the cabs roster now and went looking for some worn-but-reliable power service increases can get implemented soon. Simply by segmenting the new cabs vs. trailers ratio accordingly.
  • The RFP still has a great aura of mystery about whether they're covering their butts for EMU compatibility. As I've mentioned several times before, NJ Transit's ongoing Bombardier MLV EMU contract runs about 600 units and has already "slushed" options over to SEPTA to replace their Silverliner IV's. Because it's all one carbody the contract does not differentiate between stock coach trailer, stock coach cab car, and the new EMU power cars that sandwich between them. So if the T happens to order 200 MLV's from Bombardier on its RFP ostensibly as a "push-pull" fleet, they would only have to phone up NJT for a few dozen slush options on the power cars to hedge on those 200 coaches being either/or push-pull or EMU -compatible. If their own rumors of an EMU RFP or RFI don't pan out, it only ends up mattering if Bombardier wins the 200-coaches RFP for them to have in-house forward compatibility with a move to EMU's. This is worth watching.
  • More bike and cafe car conversions! The best-of-the-flats condition Pullmans are the ones to-date that have gotten bike/ski and cafe car conversions. Look for them to do a bunch more guilt-free conversions of those units since they're in fine shape for years of additional service at the limited miles the specialty cars run.
  • Urban Rail sets? Likewise, since the Pullmans are good enough to manage for a bunch more years at limited mileage this may be an opportunity to trial some Urban Rail-configured trainsets with then and a few "best of the rest" Bombardier or MBB cabs. Since the electrification debate is tortured at best and the FRA-compliant DMU market is dead at the moment, 4-car sets of flats on Fairmount, Riverside, and elsewhere can start implementing the frequencies. Ad-hoc adjust the interiors to 2 x 2 seating and more grab handles, do an onboard AFC 2.0 interface if station-side interfaces won't be in-play, and maybe tweak the auto-door logic for pushbutton or limited-open access. Set a 12-year maintenance window before replaced by something self-powered, to cover the spread. You have 55 (minus specialty conversions) Pullman trailers, 25 Bombardier cabs, and 14 restroom-equipped MBB cabs to choose from...3 trailers + 1 cab needed per set. You could probably come up with 15 Urban Rail starter sets from those pickings, acknowledging that a majority of the cabs are junk and you'll have to be choosy about which of those are in decent-enough condition.
 
Oh boy here we go, Springfield Mayor is mad that the T is sole sourcing the 80 bonus coaches and not using CRRC. Someone might want to tell him that A. Hyundai has made the previous coaches meaning a design is ready to go, B it's not the full coach order it's a small one, C the MBTA already has a massive order with CRRC that is worth far more than this little order, D CRRC has no proven experience building MBTA bi-levels, E CRRC has enough orders on their plate right now without adding a rather short lead time 80 brand new design coaches.

 
Oh boy here we go, Springfield Mayor is mad that the T is sole sourcing the 80 bonus coaches and not using CRRC. Someone might want to tell him that A. Hyundai has made the previous coaches meaning a design is ready to go, B it's not the full coach order it's a small one, C the MBTA already has a massive order with CRRC that is worth far more than this little order, D CRRC has no proven experience building MBTA bi-levels, E CRRC has enough orders on their plate right now without adding a rather short lead time 80 brand new design coaches.


CRRC's bi-level fleet being manufactured for SEPTA is a radically different design from the K-cars & Brokem-clones, so they wouldn't have met the base requirements for this contract anyway. I'm not even sure they'd be able to trainline non-wonkily with the mixed sets on the T depending on how the cab car computers are configured; SEPTA didn't ask for backwards ASA/auto-door/misc. systems compatibility with older makes, so there probably isn't any and the default configuration assumes alike-cars. Fantastic relationship and all with the state, CRRC damn well knew that beforehand that this was a K-car clone order and didn't bother inquiring at all about this 80-coach contract. And Mr. Mayor better not get his hopes up for the next 200-car bi order being assembled in his city, because if there's any allowances being left for fed funds to pick up some slack CRRC is already disqualified because of Chinese sanctions...and their bi-level product isn't dual compatible with push-pull or EMU sets like Bombardier's considerably higher-leverage MLV's are.
 
I noticed some track work being done along the Franklin line in the Norfolk area. What are they doing? Replacing the track in this area?

PTC equipment and systems are currently being installed along the Franklin and Needham Line.
 
Also installing/restoring a portion of the double track between Norwood and Walpole. There has been a ballast train operating out of Franklin Jct for the past week.
 
How is the current project beneficial to the Franklin line?

PTC is a federally mandated project, but it should lead to more reliable and safer service on Commuter Rail.

As for what they're installing:

The safety system works through signals and transponders along the rail corridor that transmit data to the train, onboard controls that can regulate a train’s speed, and communications throughout the commuter rail network.

Here's the MBTA page on it.
 
Also installing/restoring a portion of the double track between Norwood and Walpole. There has been a ballast train operating out of Franklin Jct for the past week.

Are they installing double track between Norwood and Walpole as well? I was aware of the double track construction between Walpole and Norfolk, but I haven't heard anything about any other double track projects on the Franklin Line.
 
Could we solve the various problems with historic buildings preventing the commuter rail from adding full-high platforms by jacking them up however many feet? Lesley University jacking their chapel up five feet to build their new arts center proves that it's doable in an urban areas for larger buildings than we're talking about.

Of course, this doesn't say much about keeping the buildings open during the jacking process; the T would probably have to compensate building owners for lost revenue, modifications, etc., which could get very expensive very fast.

That said, it might be a useful tool in certain cases.
 
How is the current project beneficial to the Franklin line?

Whacks the largest source of delays currently on the Franklin Line. That's the immediate upside. Later on it'll help increase Forge Park service levels, but they first have to find a solve for the extremely limited capacity at Franklin layover yard before that happens.

Are they installing double track between Norwood and Walpole as well? I was aware of the double track construction between Walpole and Norfolk, but I haven't heard anything about any other double track projects on the Franklin Line.

The Foxboro study for full-build service had double-tracking from Norwood Central to the foot of Windsor Gardens station as a prerequisite to doubling-up service to 16 Foxboro round-trips and 16 Forge Park round-trips daily. So there'll be another 2 miles of DT added attached to that budget whenever they proceed. The remaining single between WG and Walpole Jct. is a least-concern until you crank it up an extra notch for RER, and the small tunnel in downtown Walpole can't be re-doubled because tall freights have to ride centered under the arch.
 
Hmm, that's certainly a possibility. I can't think of too many stations where that's a likely issue, though. Reading and Sharon are the only two that immediately come to mind.

Sharon won't need it because there's so much space on the west parking lot side to fan out that they'll probably shift the platform out a few feet while they're adding more Amtrak passing tracks.

Reading, Concord, and Beverly are probably going to be the hardest because they're all good-sized buildings massed right up against the tracks with no realistic ways to carve out more room with track-shifting. Swampscott less difficult so because it's small, but it's the single-oldest station building in use on the T so that'll be a very reluctant project.
 
The Foxboro study for full-build service had double-tracking from Norwood Central to the foot of Windsor Gardens station as a prerequisite to doubling-up service to 16 Foxboro round-trips and 16 Forge Park round-trips daily. So there'll be another 2 miles of DT added attached to that budget whenever they proceed. The remaining single between WG and Walpole Jct. is a least-concern until you crank it up an extra notch for RER, and the small tunnel in downtown Walpole can't be re-doubled because tall freights have to ride centered under the arch.

Thanks for the clarification.

This may be a bit off-topic, but if an extension of the Franklin line to Milford was constructed, how much additional double track would be required on the line to run 16 Milford round-trips daily? All the way to Forge Park?
 
Regarding raising platforms along the older station houses; would you say this a case where the State was penny wise but pound foolish in privatizing railroad operations thru lease or sell-off properties in the name of efficiency and partnering to reduce the bottom line?. They essentially handcuff themselves, no upgrades for 30 year stints.
 
The DT between Walpole and Norfolk seems to stop at 115 crossing. Will Norfolk ever get a second platform in an RER world?
 
The DT between Walpole and Norfolk seems to stop at 115 crossing. Will Norfolk ever get a second platform in an RER world?

Yes. This project stops at 115 because it's simply cheapest and nets them the maximum length of DT for their money to not have to engage that grade crossing or rebuild the station right now. Whenever DT comes to town that new interlocking switch will get turned into a set of crossovers.

Thanks for the clarification.

This may be a bit off-topic, but if an extension of the Franklin line to Milford was constructed, how much additional double track would be required on the line to run 16 Milford round-trips daily? All the way to Forge Park?

DT would have to go to Franklin Jct. Which right now would only have to consist of infills. . .
  1. Norwood Central (DT currently ends 500 ft. south of platforms) to Windsor Gardens, stopping at foot of WG platforms. Approx. 1.3 mi. Base requirement for 16 F'boro round-trips, already planned if the full-build service gets enacted.
  2. through Windsor Gardens platforms to Walpole tunnel. Approx. 2 miles. Tunnel goes underneath Route 1A about a half-mile north of station. Short-length (no traffic pinch) constriction of permanent single-track; zero impact on RER or future extensions. Plimptonville gets permanently retired. Windsor Gardens would have to be rebuilt, probably shifted south a little towards Mylod St. so there can be ramp access to 2 platforms (which wouldn't alter the current egress much at all since these would be 800 footers). MA Architectual Commission may have to grant a mini-high exemption for this one since Walpole Jct.-Readville Yard is a high-and-wide freight clearance route, and adjacent wetlands make doing a passing track more difficult. (You can see why they aren't touching that stop for Foxboro full-build).
  3. Walpole Station. Stop would have to be relocated away from the historic building because middle of the wye is too cramped to make ADA. New stop easiest to do as a full-high island platform atop widened Elm St. and Neponset River bridges with the northbound freight wye separated onto a third track. Trailing crossovers to the southbound wye allow access to/from Foxboro from each platform track. Junction switches would probably be chained together with the nearby switches for the tunnel single-track so they all act in-tandem for traffic sorting. This will be a controversial project for the town and somewhat expensive because of the bridge work, but it's the only plausible way you can make such an extremely busy stop ADA-compliant and serve both Forge Park and Foxboro directions from a unified station.
  4. 115 grade crossing + Norfolk Station to Franklin layover leads. Approx. 3.8 miles. All stops Norfolk-south can be full-high since the clearance route ends at Walpole Jct. This stretch of mainline has been single-track longer than points north, so a few of the empty bridge decks need rebuilding. Other than that, nothing any more expensive than what the current Walpole-to-115 project is doing.
Foxboro full-build would reconfig the Franklin layover leads into passing crossovers to whack one cascading traffic conflict upstream between Forge Park and expanded Foxboro schedules, making that half-mile "real" DT instead of just yard access. Franklin station has a scant 1600 ft. of single sandwiched between the end of the layover DT and the Franklin Jct. runaround siding. It's not clear if that's even impactful enough to need to backfill for RER. Depends greatly on future extension plans.


Anything past Franklin Jct. is going to be majority-single.

The Milford Branch was never historically a double-track line, is extremely curvy, and passes through lots of wetlands (pretty much bolted to the Charles River from Bellingham Jct. out) so chances are that's going to remain single with passing sidings. But the only stops being considered were Bellingham Jct. and Milford on a very long schedule because of the slow speeds, so meets aren't hard to stage on passing tracks or if the stops themselves get doubled in lieu of the running track. Note that the power plant by Bellingham Jct. is where they ID'd the only plausible replacement layover site for Franklin with enough space to increase service, so the ruling assumption going into the Milford study 10 years ago was that those low-margin extension stops were necessary just to get the increased service Norfolk-Forge Park. I don't know if attitudes have changed now. The MPO oddly never ended up publishing the results of the Milford study, which lends suspicion that the ridership numbers were really really not worth the cost. At any rate, the Milford Branch has a long-term safe freight franchise and isn't going anywhere, so we'll have another crack at troubleshooting this one later.

If the line instead/additionally gets extended to Woonsocket via Blackstone as RIDOT covets, it would probably also be single with passing tracks. Maybe the DT gets extended along the active Franklin Industrial Track stub of the old mainline to Canal St. and a replacement station (permanent or temp until Milford is figured out) for Forge Park gets sited there with shuttle buses 'inverted' from that site to the FP area. And then from the former Canal St. grade crossing it goes single with a couple passers to the Blackstone River and the new southbound wye onto the P&W mainline to Woonsocket Union Station (already DT). Downtown layover gets shared with the one ID'd on existing freight stubs for RIDOT Providence-Woonsocket service, which ends up being a convenient solve for the whole Franklin layover mess and a convenient cost consolidator. The only other intermediate stop you're likely to have on this route other than that Canal St. drop-in for Forge Park is Millerville on Route 126 in Bellingham, which has a convenient RIPTA catchment from the northern neighborhoods of Woonsocket as well as 'good enough' GATRA shuttles from downtown Bellingham. And, yes, there is luxurious space for rail-with-trail here...even accommodations for a tree barrier between the track and the SNE Trunkline trail (which is poorly utilized and minimally maintained on its Franklin rump, so the rail extension may actually help trail usability a lot). In Woonsocket's case the travel times on a very straight and brisk ROW make the meets easy to stage on single if Millerville is the target area for the passers.
 
Last edited:
But the only stops being considered were Bellingham Jct. and Milford on a very long schedule because of the slow speeds, so meets aren't hard to stage on passing tracks or if the stops themselves get doubled in lieu of the running track.

Would the speed through Bellingham and Milford be slower than the current 40 MPH speed limit between Forge Park and the Franklin Junction?
 

Back
Top