Crazy Transit Pitches

^ I'm not sure I see the connection? At any rate, expanding any combination of Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton for likely less than a quarter of that $77 billion boondoggle makes so much more sense.
 
^ Red Line all the way down to Braintree?? What are you smoking?
 
The more I see future maps it just makes me realize how desperately we need to move away from colors and migrate towards numbers as route designators. The Green Line is already a confusing mess to visitors (and residents who don't use it regularly, for that matter) so I can't imagine what adding more branches would do to the public psyche.
 
Just keep adding letters to the Green Line. People who use the T regularly already use the letter designations more than just "the Green Line".
 
What is the minimum headway the Central Subway can currently support? What is the minimum headway the Central Subway could support with upgrades to track and/or signals?
 
BussesAin'tTrains said:
Just keep adding letters to the Green Line. People who use the T regularly already use the letter designations more than just "the Green Line".
Click to expand...

Even that's going to break down as a system if you start considering short-turns and alt routes.

What, for example, would you prefix these with?
-- Boston College via Cleveland Circle and Chestnut Hill Ave.
-- Boston College via Reservoir and Chestnut Hill Ave.
-- Boston College via Huntington Ave., Brookline Village, Reservoir, and Chestnut Hill Ave.*

(*assuming D-to-E connecting trackage)


I mean, are those B's, C's, D's, or E's? It could be any of those...or none at all.


The old BERy/MTA-era numbering system, which still lives on as the bus numbers for ex-trolley routes, at least had a means amidst its unkemptness to tell an end-to-end run apart from a short-turn apart from an alt route. While I wouldn't recommend going back to that specific system, clearly if the LRT system in this town is going to grow on any appreciable scale they need to figure out something more flexible for marking both terminal stations on the schedule and the route it takes to get there. I don't have any particularly good ideas.

Maybe start by bringing back the slashed letters for short-turns? That was straightforward when it was on the old mechanical rollsigns. They just never made much use of short-turns in regular service after 1985 and the end of double-barrel Heath and Arborway peak service.
 
LED rollsigns may make it easier to designate different routes by some flavor. I can't see any real reason to run service to BC via Reservoir, though.
 
^ I could see it as an alt route if there was a problem somewhere on the usual Comm Ave route. Or as some sort of future BC - South Station routing via Huntington, but I think that alternative routings/short-turns/service interruptions can normally be announced or on the destination scroll. A B-train ending at Harvard Ave could say "B - Harvard Ave" instead of "B - Boston College". Maybe that's too confusing, but riders are already used to trains changing in the Central Subway and suddenly stopping at Government Center.
 
Well...I was never suggesting that all of those would be regular routes. Just that going back-to-the-future with alt routings and short-turns is probably the way the LRT system in Boston is going to grow in the 21st century. Urban Ring, Transitway-Back Bay laying the foundation for an eventual parallel downtown trunk, mix-and-match destinations between the westbound branches and the GLX branches.

The lettering system is going to show its limitations in short order when variances in service patterns start showing up. Variances the system has basically never had since the letters were first assigned in 1967. They don't even have the slashies anymore as a designation, which could prove problematic if the B ever got a badly-needed Harvard Ave. short-turn or the E got forked at Riverway for a Brookline Vill. turn. True, an LED sign can say anything. But they need a consistent scheme for route designation beyond "_____ via _____". Boston transit lives by the letter and bus number shorthand. Hell, even commuter rail riders tend to be well versed in their specific train number instead of time slot. Something flexible but readily understandable needs to be put in place. And not by 2050 because some of these short-turn and minor alt-routing situations (esp. things like inner B short-turns, C extended runs to BC, and D-to-E supplementals) are really minor builds that could happen quick or in conjunction with cost-sharing road projects.
 
Would BC via Reservoir be faster than Comm Ave? Or would the whole Cleveland Circle, Chestnut Hill Ave clusterfuck ruin that?
 
Related but somewhat random: can outbound B trains turn left at CHA?
 
I think the track connection has been partially cut there. IIRC, you can see some stub end tracks, but I might not be remembering correctly.
 
The B-to-C track connection is still there; it's a full wye at CHA/Comm. There is no crossover track, though; you'd have to pull a double reverse move on the wye.
 
The EGE said:
The B-to-C track connection is still there; it's a full wye at CHA/Comm. There is no crossover track, though; you'd have to pull a double reverse move on the wye.
Click to expand...

The switch is out to take the left from Comm Ave. outbound down Chestnut Hill Ave. The wire is still in place suggesting that someday, it might be reinstalled.
 
The leg of the wye from CHA down the hill got taken out of service after a derailment at the switch a few years ago brought down the wire onto the roof of a Type 8 and flambéd the car to a crisp. That car's sitting wrecked at Everett shops, never to run again. Worn out switch was the culprit, so they took it out of service.

But that turn was very rarely, if ever, used because if they're putting something in/out of service it's far easier to take it to BC carhouse then sit and wait for an ideal slot to shuttle it off to Reservoir. I'm sure they'll rebuild the switch since the Chestnut Hill Ave. track and the other switches are only a few years away from needing a regular programmed rehab. But it's not a pattern that'll ever see more than truly oddball one-off moves for oddball one-off reasons. The prevailing direction is Reservoir-BC. That's where the daily grind of non-revenue moves go. That's where there's future revenue potential should instituting Harvard Ave. short-turns require compensation of extra service at the BC end via the C. Only thing they'd have to do there is move the CHA outbound platform to the other side of the intersection so it's accessible from the C/D side. The rest is already there moving dozens of empty trains every single day.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The leg of the wye from CHA down the hill got taken out of service after a derailment at the switch a few years ago brought down the wire onto the roof of a Type 8 and flambéd the car to a crisp. That car's sitting wrecked at Everett shops, never to run again. Worn out switch was the culprit, so they took it out of service.

But that turn was very rarely, if ever, used because if they're putting something in/out of service it's far easier to take it to BC carhouse then sit and wait for an ideal slot to shuttle it off to Reservoir. I'm sure they'll rebuild the switch since the Chestnut Hill Ave. track and the other switches are only a few years away from needing a regular programmed rehab. But it's not a pattern that'll ever see more than truly oddball one-off moves for oddball one-off reasons. The prevailing direction is Reservoir-BC. That's where the daily grind of non-revenue moves go. That's where there's future revenue potential should instituting Harvard Ave. short-turns require compensation of extra service at the BC end via the C. Only thing they'd have to do there is move the CHA outbound platform to the other side of the intersection so it's accessible from the C/D side. The rest is already there moving dozens of empty trains every single day.
Click to expand...


The car that derailed and caught fire at Chestnut Hill Ave. when it hit the pole holding the feeder cables for the section (and thus didn't short out the section when it made contact) was 3879. That's the car that is now at the Broadway station security training facility. They made some cosmetic repairs to make it presentable at the training facility. The fire did major damage to the wiring of the car which made it non cost effective to repair and return to service. The wrecked car at Everett (the original 3807, Breda later made a second one)was from another early Type 8 derailment on Comm Ave at Chiswick Rd..

All of the switches at Chestnut Hill Ave. and Commonwealth are manual switches that require a switch stick to be thrown. They usually send an inspector with a radio car there at the end of the PM rush to throw the switches when they send several consists "down the hill" to shift cars from BC to Reservoir. Tolerable for a few deadhead moves a day, but not practical for a full time service. Electric switches would have to installed.

The track layout to connect the inbound B line to the inbound C line sends a car into the loop and layover area at Reservoir carhouse (the layover next to Mary Anns's bar). Not a very practical route for a through service, it would require a reconfiguration of the tracks to directly connect the inbound B to the inbound C.

Also, as far as the suggestion to connect the D line and E line at Brookline Village, some consideration was given to building a link in the 1960s and 1970s. The last time it was mentioned in any official plannng document was the 1978 PMT which stated "new building construction in the Brookline Village area makes construction of this connection difficult. Further study will be necessary to determine the best routing of this piece of track"
And that so far has been the last word on the topic from the MBTA for the last 35 years.
 
winstonoboogie said:
Also, as far as the suggestion to connect the D line and E line at Brookline Village, some consideration was given to building a link in the 1960s and 1970s. The last time it was mentioned in any official plannng document was the 1978 PMT which stated "new building construction in the Brookline Village area makes construction of this connection difficult. Further study will be necessary to determine the best routing of this piece of track"
And that so far has been the last word on the topic from the MBTA for the last 35 years.
Click to expand...

Shit, if you gotta nitpick, at least be right.

From the 2004 PMT, page E3, quote:

Brookline Village Connector (D Line-E Line)*
According to the 1994 PMT, there has been a considerable
amount of new construction in the
Brookline Village area since 1978. As a result,
construction of this connector would face prohibitive
technical challenges.
Click to expand...
 
The EGE said:
Shit, if you gotta nitpick, at least be right.

From the 2004 PMT, page E3, quote:
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have written it to make clear that the 1978 PMT as the last one to (sort of) consider it as a future project, and not just reference it as a non recommended project from past PMTs.
 
It's been mentioned subsequently. 2010 Program for Mass Transportation needs assessment for the Central region brought it up, and it's been brought up at GL Ops public meetings as recently as this year.


Of course...there's nothing substantive to talk about until you undertake a technical study. Which, no, has not been done in a few decades. Because there's only so many studies you can prioritize at any one time. This hasn't risen to that level of need yet to re-examine. If it does...re-examine.

What could be a reason for re-examining: future evolution of the GL into more mixed service patterns, spurred on by growth of the additional branches and load-balancing considerations. It's very open-ended where this could trend. So whether Chestnut Hill Ave.'s switches are mechanical or electric or whether 1978's PMT is the last word about Brookline Village is a whole lotta moot. Everything has a cascading effect on everything, and demands will be reshaped as a result. Where...who the hell knows. But the GL is gonna be reshaped more during this half-century, I am fairly sure of that. It's a living beast, and will have needs to study.


The example I was giving re: Chestnut Hill Ave. is indicative. There is NO need today to throw C's and D's into a blender with routings to BC and station inspectors at these manual switches on Chestnut Hill Ave. just because they can. Just as there is NO need today to build the D-to-E connector just to say "Whee! I can send anything anywhere!" There's no need that that fills.

But say some "How To Save The B Line From Itself" study gets commissioned in a few years, and one of the recommendations in its needs assessment is a turnback in the Harvard Ave. area? If it does, do they have an opportunity to build it if/when MassHighway relocates the reservation? And if they consider doing this, what are the effects of increased service Harvard Ave.-in slightly reducing the service up the hill? Maybe the lighter-use stops up the hill get a good deal all the same by having more available seats, on-time schedules, and less bunching for higher quality of service despite a minute or two longer headways. But does BC get the same deal...or is there a need to supplement them with more service? OK...now what's it look like if that Chestnut Hill Ave. outbound platform were moved to the other side of the intersection accessible to all trains, if those switches went electric, if the Cleveland Circle switches allowed thru movements?

ID the needs, game the possible solutions, rate the feasibility. And have some clear reason for doing so. I do not know why this is so hard to grasp. It could be go/no-go at any or every checkpoint in that process. The ripple effects for one enhancement to the rest of the system could be anything. Maybe--in this one scenario I just outlined--up the hill and BC make out just fine and no backstopping of BC from the C is ever needed. Maybe the "How To Save The B Line From Itself" study turns up recommendations we never thought of, or that the ones we thought of don't matter as much as the surprises.


As I recall, this whole discussion spawned from a what-if about how the letter/color designations on the system map can adapt to future needs without making the map unreadable. The whole point of the discussion is A) the Green Line is going to morph and change because it's a living beast, and B) we have no idea how it's going to evolve because there's so many needs to quantify, prioritize, and study.



But here we go again...that "technically correct is the best kind of correct!" needling that has little to nothing to do with the flow of discussion. Do you have anything to say about the last half-dozen posts...winston :rolleyes:...or is this now a moderated discussion on hand-throw switches and the 1978 PMT?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top