Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)

[riptide]

Still clinging to the argument that putting up wires is a gigantic expense. Can they really not be aware that the substations are the bulk of the electrification cost?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

These (to me) appear to also use overhead catenary. Isn’t that the best we can get right now?

They charge on overhead cat and drive traction off the battery. In theory it can throttle the consumption of overhead electricity on a mostly-electrified line by weighting more heavily to the battery at times, which can blunt the effects of being gouged by Amtrak for electricity rates like ConnDOT is for SLE. But they cost about 3x as much as a straight electric or straight diesel, are horribly overweight because of the required battery bulk, are incredibly complex to maintain, and have more failure modes because of the extra complexity. Plus...you know, actually trying to negotiate with Amtrak is way easier than spending yourselves stupid with unicorn rolling stock. ConnDOT/MTA is absolutely debasing itself trying to run Penn Station Access with $23.5M-a-pop battery Siemens Chargers (vs. $12.5M each for the conventional dual-mode electro-diesel Charger and $6.5-7M for a straight-diesel Charger) because it can't come to agreement with their avowed enemy Amtrak on a lousy 1-mile extension of third rail territory on the Hell Gate Line and its associated substation upgrades to run the extra M8 EMU's they already bought for that purpose. As wastes of money go, batt locos are extreme. And given that the Metro-North Chargers are the literal only FRA-compliant battery make on the market, the cost to the T is going to be equally extreme.

The worst part, though, is that you get no schedule savings doing this. Battery locos accelerate far worse than straight electric locos because of the added bulk (and inability because of the added bulk to compensate with brawnier traction), and straight electrics pale in comparison to the acceleration profiles of an EMU. The T's and Amtrak's own internal data projects an 18% reduction in Boston-Providence travel time on any local slot from the acceleration profile of a vanilla EMU, 16% on a Boston-Wickford run if RIDOT finished their wire-up to-do's. Caltrain got a real-world 25% reduction in its 22-stop San Fran-San Jose locals (it scales upward the more stop density you have). You will get barely any better than today's diesel with a battery loco. It's probably on the order of 5% depending on how much a Charger can out-haul an HSP-46, which won't be enough to measurably change Providence Line schedules when so much padding already has to go in for the low-level platform dwell penalty. So doing this as a perma-fix is a MASSIVE retreat from the core goals of Regional Rail-ification. We're supposed to be shooting for better travel times. We're supposed to be shooting for more elastic schedules so you can absorb infill stops and still wind up with better end-to-end travel times than today. It's knifing their own Rail Vision in the back. It's proving that the ultra-outsourced Fairmount BEMU dalliance is a cynical fig leaf to decarbonization to quiet some inner-city rabble and not a serious commitment with any sort of phaseable expansion to other lines.


Frankly, I'm not surprised. Commuter Rail head Mike Muller is such a starry-eyed battery evangelist it's not even funny, and Eng handing him the keys to the kingdom to sprout Grade-A bullshit about battery trains making everything cheaper and easier telegraphs cromulently well where the head honcho stands on all that. Their brains are absolutely cooked on this shit.



EDIT: You could buy 41 cars worth of Caltrain-mod Stadler KISS straight EMU's at $5.7M per car (which were very overpriced as EMU's go) for what it's likely to cost the T to order just 10 battery Charger locos at the Metro-North price. And get actual systemwide capacity expansion and 18% schedule savings for the investment instead of just treading water pulling the status-quo push-pull fleet.

bUt BaTtErIeS sAvE mOnEy!!6!

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

BTW...here's some required (if technical) reading on loco vs. EMU performance, based on specs for the Caltrain corridor.

http://tillier.net/stuff/caltrain/diesel_vs_elecloco_vs_emu.pdf

EMU's do about 17% faster times (138 seconds) to reach 79 MPH from a dead stop than a diesel (166 seconds), and 13% faster times to reach 79 MPH than a straight electric (158 seconds). Straight electric push-pull is only about 5% max better than diesel push-pull, and battery-electric push-pull is somewhat less than that because of the extra battery bulk. 5% difference barely even clears the OTP fudge factor in a typical loosy-goosey Keolis schedule, so the net schedule savings of switching the Providence fleet to battery-electric is either zero or absolutely negligible. Acceleration of an EMU to the first 43 MPH is also about twice as good as a straight electric loco, which matters the world if you ever want to see denser intracity stop spacing on Providence runs like regular Forest Hills and Readville usage without clobbering schedules.

I see too many uninformed Redditors cheering this Providence batt loco purchase on "at least it's something!" grounds. It's not something. It's an outright fleecing, and total operational faceplant.

 

[3decker]

Any info on BEMU performance comparisons to those?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Any info on BEMU performance comparisons to those?

Nothing direct-comparable. Stadler hasn't even built a BEMU KISS set yet that's running anywhere in the world; Caltrain is self-flagellating for the task of being that first-time guinea pig. It kind of has to be an apples-apples EMU vs. BEMU configuration, because of the wide variances in number of powered cars vs. unpowered trailer cars across the market already makes EMU-on-EMU model direct comparisons very difficult unless you dig a little more into the weeds of averaged-out per-car tractive effort. BEMU's usually have more trailers in their sets because the battery pack (at least in the Caltrain BEMU case) usually doesn't reside in a traction-powered car due to its bulk, which will hurt performance a little compared to an identical car-configuration EMU set. But they still all blow electric pull-pull completely out of the water.

Anything EMU/BEMU is worlds better than what the T is doing here.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Per the Board presentation today and the newly-issued RFP the T is partnering with MARC on the battery procurement: 10 batt locos and 10 diesels on the base order for the T, 5 batt locos and 0 diesels on the base order for Maryland. MARC is using the base order to retire their 6 problem-plagued Bombardier HHP-8 electrics which have no parts support left because the corresponding Amtrak Hippo fleet is long-retired and they are true design oddballs. Options in the RFP for the T for +50 more in any combination (in units of 5) of diesels or batt locos. That would be enough if all of the exercised options were diesel to replace all GP40MC, F40PH-3C, and MP36PH-3C diesels on the roster, which will support *some* measure of frequency growth within the current terminal-district traffic limits because of the slight surplus of GP40MC's currently rostered and the slight-to-moderate surplus of cab cars when all of the new Rotems are rostered. Meaning, long-term motive power state-of-repair for the status-quo (+ slightly frequency-enhanced) system would be guaranteed between this diesel procurement and the HSP-46 midlife rebuild contract, and that's a good thing for ops stability.

MARC has options for +23 battery locos (no diesels) exerciseable 5 or 8 units at a time, which would be enough to re-decarbonize the Penn Line...something they've verbally committed to doing. That's more units than they'll probably ever need for Penn Line service, as it currently runs with the 6 Hippos and 8 Chargers (albeit very stratified D.C.-Baltimore vs. north-of-Baltimore service levels) while the other two diesel lines on their system (which are way too long to plausibly run on battery) run with 23 MP36PH-3C's. MARC is doing the battery thing because their main NEC maintenance yard at Martin State Airport is un-wired and this gets them out of having to contract out to Amtrak to service the HHP-8 fleet out of Washington. Right now the electrics only run on weekdays with weekends being all-diesel because of labor limitations with the Amtrak maint agreement. This also gets them out of any obligation to ever have to wire up their Martin Yard facility, so their (incredibly short-sighted) icky-poo reasoning for not stringing up wires is same as the T's (i.e. "Ooooh...it's just too hard to wire up piddly little Pawtucket and Widett layovers! Won't somebody give us some magic beans!"). And even though MARC already has a 54-car Bombardier-Alstom MLV coach roster that could be easily supplemented with slush options from NJT for MLV power cars to turn into full-on EMU sets, they're plying the same "It's too hard!" excuse for both the battery decision and the staying push-pull forever decision. Brainworms abound in North American transit management!

Contract length is ultra-long...more than a decade, which offers some flexibility on holding onto the options to exercise if there's any short-term funding shortfalls. Projected total costs not provided because it's only an RFP; there's bits and pieces of CIP funding, but most of it is unallocated.

Obviously, Siemens is the only qualified vendor out there who can end up delivering these two loco types simultaneously, so it's a 100.00% guarantee to be Chargers. If this ends up being a 5/6ths diesel procurement, it's probably a good thing overall because we'll have 20 years of state-of-repair stability between this, the HSP rebuild, and the next Rotem coach procurement displacing the remaining single-levels with only a fairly low-drama 2030's rebuild-again-or-not decision due on the Kawasaki coaches. And if we do indeed ever get our electrification house in order, straight Charger diesels are eminently re-sellable to a multitude of other agencies for very viable midlife rebuild prospects because of the size of the North American installed base...so it's not necessarily a setback to electrification if they pull their heads out of their asses and start buying real EMU's soon enough for real Regional Rail schedules. But...they need to pull their heads out of their asses, STAT! The 10 batt locos on the base are a very bad investment for all the reasons I've detailed, and mixing any quantity of additional options coupled with partial-electrification kludges on other lines on top of that instead of furthering EMU/BEMU expansion is going to be apocryphally bad for a very long term and significantly constrict Regional Rail-ification prospects (specifically, the "better schedules = way better ridership" and "ability to absorb infills on same-or-better schedules = way better ridership" points).


EDIT: Also...the Board presentation was explicit about the "Providence" part but concerningly not the "Providence/Stoughton" part of where the battery locos were going to roam, so are any of these 10 unicorns even going to play the decarbonization game on more than one line?

 

[StreetsblogMASS]

MBTA Teaming Up With Maryland to Procure New Battery-Electric Locomotives - Streetsblog Massachusetts

The MBTA and the Maryland Transit Administration have issued a joint “request for proposals” to procure at least 25 new locomotives, more than half of which would operate on electric power from existing overhead wires on the MBTA’s Providence Line and the MARC Penn Line. The procurement seeks 10...

mass.streetsblog.org

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

MBTA Teaming Up With Maryland to Procure New Battery-Electric Locomotives - Streetsblog Massachusetts

The MBTA and the Maryland Transit Administration have issued a joint “request for proposals” to procure at least 25 new locomotives, more than half of which would operate on electric power from existing overhead wires on the MBTA’s Providence Line and the MARC Penn Line. The procurement seeks 10...

mass.streetsblog.org

Good on TransitMatters for already hammering the point that this purchase does nothing to actually improve service like EMU's/BEMU's would very noticeably improve service.


As an example of how this hurts, I did some math recently on the T's bi-level for single-level coach replacement based on the fleet seating numbers for what's actively in-service (i.e. not stored as surplus, like about 40% of the single-levels currently are). The next Rotem order, draining the last options on that contract, will leave the T about 3500 seats short of currently available seating capacity if they truly are retiring every single one of the flats. They'd either have to keep all 30 active Pullman flats in continued active service (probably only surged for rush hour to save on wear) or order +18 more Rotems on an all-new contract just to stay par with today's not-quite pre-COVID level capacity, nevermind expanding capacity for future ridership growth. Now, until now this wasn't supposed to be a big deal because they were considering BEMU's. Which at least are real EMU's even if the battery expense and complexity is a little dodgy. Fairmount's fleet likely isn't going to put that big a dent in the seating deficit because they'll be short sets and the loading on that line is light with much flatter peak surges than the suburban lines so the sets are not likely to be fully occupied at any time like rush-hour sets on the suburban lines frequently are. But we all thought the Fairmount BEMU's would be a precursor to a second order of them for really heavy-loading Providence/Stoughton. Which would be a BIG bump in systemwide seating capacity if an order was placed, and would definitely square the capacity discrepancy with the pending retirement of the single-level push-pull fleet. And might even, if they were considering more expansion BEMU lines beyond just Providence/Stoughton, make the decision to program no CIP funds or stated wish for rebuilding the 21-year-old 33-car 900-series Kawasaki bi-levels not so much of a head-scratcher because that much more seating capacity would be coming online to the system to keep up with further attrition.

Now that's all out the window. If the BEMU coverage doesn't immediately expand beyond Fairmount...and it looks like it won't...we've got a very immediate capacity crisis to square and no procurement (or maintenance, if holding onto one batch of decrepit flats and a past-rebuild-prime set of bi's longer into their dotage) plans for addressing it. So, yeah...better service my ass. This is (stupidly expensive) greenwashing, plain and simple.

 

[ritchiew]

The T's and Amtrak's own internal data projects an 18% reduction in Boston-Providence travel time on any local slot from the acceleration profile of a vanilla EMU, 16% on a Boston-Wickford run if RIDOT finished their wire-up to-do's.

Where exactly do these numbers come from? Anything publicly availible?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Where exactly do these numbers come from? Anything publicly availible?

Yes. An Amtrak slide deck published last year that had precise EMU-projected travel times to Providence and Wickford. I can't find it on board search; it was either many pages ago in this thread or in the Commuter Rail thread. The 16-18% figure tracks with many other known world cases of time savings when implementing conventional commuter-class EMU's. Caltrain's actuals are somewhat of a high outlier because they have a very high number of stops on a pretty long run, so have a lot of starts and stops for the EMU's to prove their mettle. Providence and Wickford trend to the lower end of the scale because of the much wider stop spacing. Generally speaking, you're looking at a floor of 15% and a ceiling of 25% within the given characteristics of a line and an average of 18-20%.

 

[ritchiew]

Yes. An Amtrak slide deck published last year that had precise EMU-projected travel times to Providence and Wickford. I can't find it on board search; it was either many pages ago in this thread or in the Commuter Rail thread. The 16-18% figure tracks with many other known world cases of time savings when implementing conventional commuter-class EMU's. Caltrain's actuals are somewhat of a high outlier because they have a very high number of stops on a pretty long run, so have a lot of starts and stops for the EMU's to prove their mettle. Providence and Wickford trend to the lower end of the scale because of the much wider stop spacing. Generally speaking, you're looking at a floor of 15% and a ceiling of 25% within the given characteristics of a line and an average of 18-20%.

Thanks, I'll have a look. If you remember any more specifically where I can find it, let me know. (But please don't waste time digging it up. This is an idle curiosity.)

From a quick check, you cited that number Jan last year, so the Amtrak slide deck is presumably from before 2025. Time flies.

 

[Stlin]

Thanks, I'll have a look. If you remember any more specifically where I can find it, let me know. (But please don't waste time digging it up. This is an idle curiosity.)

From a quick check, you cited that number Jan last year, so the Amtrak slide deck is presumably from before 2025. Time flies.

It's very possibly the slide from the NEC Connect 2037 presentation I posted way back in 2023?

So the NEC recently-ish NEC Commission Connect 2037 report (pdf warning) in November. Specifically relating to regional rail, they've included the following blurb.

View attachment 45576

Their benchmarked Wickford/PVD-BOS travel times, which I assume came from MassDOT or the T itself, is exactly 10 minutes slower than transit matters estimate. I know that TM report was questionable as being overly rosy in its assumptions, but does 57 and 84 min sound realistic to folks as a target speed? Being in PVD in under an hour would definitely make it feel substantially closer.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It's very possibly the slide from the NEC Connect 2037 presentation I posted way back in 2023?

That's the one! Nov. '23 NEC Commission report.

https://nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/C37-Full-Report-Nov-23.pdf

Page 26:

It says generic "electric service", but they mean EMU because those travel time reductions are not possible with anything other than EMU's/BEMU's.


EDIT: The % savings are even a little larger than I remember!

 

[bakgwailo]

Speaking of Regional Rail, anyone know if there are any updates on the Phase 2 double track completion of the Franklin Line double tracking? Last updates I could see were completion in Jan 2026, and, well, given we are about to be in March I am going to assume that's rather behind schedule. My understanding is Phase 2 allows closer to Regional Rail frequencies - although Phase 3 might be still needed to hit the full 30 minutes out to Franklin and 15 minute inner times? Also unclear if travel times will improve with either Phase 2 or 3, or if we need electric service to see anything meaningful.

 

[4300th]

On top of everything F-line said, I wanted to note that NJT somehow managed to get 110mph-capable bilevel EMUs for less money per car ($4.7 million per Alstom Multilevel III EMU) than what the MBTA paid for unpowered Rotem coaches in 2024 (at $4.9 million per car) that can't even do more than 80mph.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Speaking of Regional Rail, anyone know if there are any updates on the Phase 2 double track completion of the Franklin Line double tracking? Last updates I could see were completion in Jan 2026, and, well, given we are about to be in March I am going to assume that's rather behind schedule. My understanding is Phase 2 allows closer to Regional Rail frequencies - although Phase 3 might be still needed to hit the full 30 minutes out to Franklin and 15 minute inner times? Also unclear if travel times will improve with either Phase 2 or 3, or if we need electric service to see anything meaningful.

Phase 2 doesn't bring all that much above-and-beyonds for schedule management, which is why they're taking their sweet time finishing it without a ton of urgency. It's Phase 3 Norwood-Walpole that's the critical one, and once that's in place you'll be able to fully tap the benefits of Phases 1 & 2. The only schedule savings to come are maybe a little less padding with the single-track meets gone, and obviously a whole lot better OTP because the frequently mis-timed meets will be eliminated. Doing the work now is mainly a down payment on being able to fully uncork :30 frequencies to both Forge Park and Foxboro (and, thus, :15 to Walpole) later on when they get around to that. Forge Park trains still have lingering limitations in how much peak schedules can be increased due to incredibly small Franklin layover; they still have no identified solution for that. Off-peak schedules can increase lots, though, as a result of this work.

Forge Park's a line that gets shot in the foot by pursuing mass battery locos instead of BEMU expansion. It's the longest to-495 schedule on the system (where 1 hour is the ideal target for competitiveness with cars). If you (B)EMU'd it that 78 minutes to Forge Park would snap back to about an hour on-the-button, right on target for driving more ridership. If you don't, you're basically pouring cement over the current schedule because the ROW (especially the curve-a-thon between Franklin/Dean and Forge Park) just doesn't have much more give for performance improvement. And if you don't do it, extension to Milford (and solutions therein for the layover quandry) pretty much isn't in the cards because the schedules would be way too long.

 

[themissinglink]

It's Phase 3 Norwood-Walpole that's the critical one, and once that's in place you'll be able to fully tap the benefits of Phases 1 & 2.

Is Phase 3 fully funded? Or does the MBTA still have to line up funding for Phase 3 construction?

 

[Charlie_mta]

MBTA begins development of rail modernization plan:
https://www.trains.com/pro/passenge...egins-development-of-rail-modernization-plan/

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Is Phase 3 fully funded? Or does the MBTA still have to line up funding for Phase 3 construction?

All 3 phases were funded, but construction contract for Phase 3 hasn't been awarded yet (Keolis got the Phase 2 contract). They're supposed to be doing design work for it right now, but there haven't been status updates in a very long time.

 

[riptide]

Forge Park trains still have lingering limitations in how much peak schedules can be increased due to incredibly small Franklin layover; they still have no identified solution for that. Off-peak schedules can increase lots, though, as a result of this work.

Is having a layover facility at the end of the line only advantageous for peak-oriented service patterns, or am I misunderstanding the above quote? From different plans and reports I’ve read over time, I always had the impression that it was considered ideal to put the layover at the end of the line, because that meant minimal deadhead mileage, which in turn meant better cost efficiency. But is that only true for traditional commuter rail operations? If you ran a perfectly balanced, bidirectional/regional rail service pattern, would it not really matter where along the line you put the layover?