Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Also why would all of Fairmount line be in 1A but Roslindale-West Roxbury is in 1?
Also why would all of Fairmount line be in 1A but Roslindale-West Roxbury is in 1?
Fairmount Line Upgrade
- Thread starter Scott
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,279
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Well...no, it's not when the most promising FRA-compliant DMU's are running $3M (Nippon Sharyo) or higher (Colorado Railcar is ~$4M). That's where this gets dismissed. If no one is buying them in quantity, the unit price is too extreme for Fairmount or other limited installations on the T. The T has over 430 coaches and 90 locomotives to maintain and do programmed replacements of. 1 Nippon Sharyo 2-car married pair DMU seats a dozen fewer people than 1 Rotem bi-level and costs over $500,000 more. It's three-fifths the cost of an HSP-46 locomotive that can pull 8 bi-levels at up to 90 MPH. Those economics of that can't be justified for a small specialty operation like the Fairmount Line when the T has very equipment-hungry other lines to feed. If they can get 20 more bi-levels for the cost of the barest minimum DMU purchase to make Fairmount headways useful...they're going to take the bi-levels and stick with push-pull because those Providence and Worcester rush hour consists need seats.
For the premium they would have to pay on a DMU unit price for such limited applications on the system they could electrify the Fairmount and buy a much wider array of electrics (push-pull loco or EMU) for a much larger Providence + RIDOT South County CR + Fairmount equipment pool, get equal or better performance, and get much higher return on investment by applying that capital premium to buying lower operating costs under wires. For a large CR operator vs. a small single-line one like SMART, that's the value proposition. If it costs less for the life of the car order to electrify the line instead, DMU's are still a novelty item they aren't going to consider. And it would be silly to adopt them on the principle of it when there's nothing (freight clearances, etc.) preventing an electric branch that returns its cost better.
Mind you, this isn't about electrification. It's just that DMU's have a long way to go before the unit cost is practical. Today it's not. At all. The upstart CR operators that have no other vehicle types to maintain except for their one and only line are the only ones that are taking the plunge. It just doesn't work yet for large or diverse systems. The cost per mode share of the system's equipment pool is just too extreme. That might change, but it'll probably require more of these single-line upstart CR's to buy these in quantity...and not have so many problems with them...before there's enough manufacturing scale for the economics to work with on a big/diverse system like this.
Well...no, it's not when the most promising FRA-compliant DMU's are running $3M (Nippon Sharyo) or higher (Colorado Railcar is ~$4M). That's where this gets dismissed. If no one is buying them in quantity, the unit price is too extreme for Fairmount or other limited installations on the T. The T has over 430 coaches and 90 locomotives to maintain and do programmed replacements of. 1 Nippon Sharyo 2-car married pair DMU seats a dozen fewer people than 1 Rotem bi-level and costs over $500,000 more. It's three-fifths the cost of an HSP-46 locomotive that can pull 8 bi-levels at up to 90 MPH. Those economics of that can't be justified for a small specialty operation like the Fairmount Line when the T has very equipment-hungry other lines to feed. If they can get 20 more bi-levels for the cost of the barest minimum DMU purchase to make Fairmount headways useful...they're going to take the bi-levels and stick with push-pull because those Providence and Worcester rush hour consists need seats.
For the premium they would have to pay on a DMU unit price for such limited applications on the system they could electrify the Fairmount and buy a much wider array of electrics (push-pull loco or EMU) for a much larger Providence + RIDOT South County CR + Fairmount equipment pool, get equal or better performance, and get much higher return on investment by applying that capital premium to buying lower operating costs under wires. For a large CR operator vs. a small single-line one like SMART, that's the value proposition. If it costs less for the life of the car order to electrify the line instead, DMU's are still a novelty item they aren't going to consider. And it would be silly to adopt them on the principle of it when there's nothing (freight clearances, etc.) preventing an electric branch that returns its cost better.
Mind you, this isn't about electrification. It's just that DMU's have a long way to go before the unit cost is practical. Today it's not. At all. The upstart CR operators that have no other vehicle types to maintain except for their one and only line are the only ones that are taking the plunge. It just doesn't work yet for large or diverse systems. The cost per mode share of the system's equipment pool is just too extreme. That might change, but it'll probably require more of these single-line upstart CR's to buy these in quantity...and not have so many problems with them...before there's enough manufacturing scale for the economics to work with on a big/diverse system like this.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Fine, but I'm not arguing for DMUs in the context of replacing every commuter rail trainset on the network, I'm arguing for them on the basis of providing new service. That's the cost comparison here - DMU service to bring the interior sections of several commuter rail lines (several of them, not just Fairmount) up to 15-minute headways vs. the 1.5 billion dollars the T is spending to run light rail out to Medford.
Electrifying the lines is a nice idea, and I hope it happens and makes this all irrelevant. I've seen no indication that the T has made any moves toward doing so, though the NEC will ultimately be electrified for HSR, at which point hopefully other lines will follow. The T has, however, studied DMU use and found them to be the most cost effective option above a certain frequency floor, maintenance efficiency aside.
I understand that a single interspersed service at Fairmount may not be worth picking up a new vehicle type for, but I don't see it as just being for Fairmount. By adding additional DMU stations to the Worcester Line, for instance, you're bring transit-level service to the entire northern half of Newton, the Arsenal, Brighton and Allston (north of the Pike). Do it on the Fairmount, it's Dorchester and Mattapan, or Waltham and Belmont (in a way the locals might finally accept) on the Fitchburg. The list goes on.
I understand the cost constraints. I'm not arguing that the T forgo buying a single additional locomotive-coach trainset and switch entirely to DMUs. I'm arguing that dollar-for-dollar this is the best investment we can make in NEW transit-level service to communities through which trains currently run either without stopping, or at low frequencies, and that precedents exist for this kind of thing elsewhere in the country (by the way, SMART may not have additional fleet types to maintain, but BART certainly does).
Fine, but I'm not arguing for DMUs in the context of replacing every commuter rail trainset on the network, I'm arguing for them on the basis of providing new service. That's the cost comparison here - DMU service to bring the interior sections of several commuter rail lines (several of them, not just Fairmount) up to 15-minute headways vs. the 1.5 billion dollars the T is spending to run light rail out to Medford.
Electrifying the lines is a nice idea, and I hope it happens and makes this all irrelevant. I've seen no indication that the T has made any moves toward doing so, though the NEC will ultimately be electrified for HSR, at which point hopefully other lines will follow. The T has, however, studied DMU use and found them to be the most cost effective option above a certain frequency floor, maintenance efficiency aside.
I understand that a single interspersed service at Fairmount may not be worth picking up a new vehicle type for, but I don't see it as just being for Fairmount. By adding additional DMU stations to the Worcester Line, for instance, you're bring transit-level service to the entire northern half of Newton, the Arsenal, Brighton and Allston (north of the Pike). Do it on the Fairmount, it's Dorchester and Mattapan, or Waltham and Belmont (in a way the locals might finally accept) on the Fitchburg. The list goes on.
I understand the cost constraints. I'm not arguing that the T forgo buying a single additional locomotive-coach trainset and switch entirely to DMUs. I'm arguing that dollar-for-dollar this is the best investment we can make in NEW transit-level service to communities through which trains currently run either without stopping, or at low frequencies, and that precedents exist for this kind of thing elsewhere in the country (by the way, SMART may not have additional fleet types to maintain, but BART certainly does).
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
The SMART order for the Nippon-Sharyo DMU's is a joint order with GO Transit of Toronto. GO is buying 18 of the DMU's for a new airport express service. The rest of the GO fleet are several hundred locomotive hauled bi-level cars. They don't seem to have an issue with buying a small number of non-standard cars for a specialized service.
The SMART order for the Nippon-Sharyo DMU's is a joint order with GO Transit of Toronto. GO is buying 18 of the DMU's for a new airport express service. The rest of the GO fleet are several hundred locomotive hauled bi-level cars. They don't seem to have an issue with buying a small number of non-standard cars for a specialized service.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,279
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Union-Pearson Express in Toronto isn't GO Transit. It's run by GO's parent agency, Metrolinx, as a wholly separate division with its own management. Their DMU purchase is no different from any other to-date: upstart service with only 1 line to serve and no mixed fleets.
GO's planning thrust right now is mass electrification of all its busiest lines and investing heavily in EMU's. The Kitchener Line that the Airport link shares for a stretch is one of the first that'll get wired, so Metrolinx has this clusterfuck of a plan to electrify the Airport link when that happens then send these brand spanking new DMU's out to be converted into Frankenstein EMU's. Except nobody knows how that is feasible or what extra it would cost on a line that's already costing a half-billion to implement. Hugely controversial project; they are rightly getting slammed for not planning the electrification from the get-go. But all the political pressure behind this is to get it operating in time for Toronto to host the 2015 Pan American Games, so everything is being rushed with no consideration for the long term.
GO is not exactly licking its wounds that it doesn't have to touch this boondoggle. I can't see any way this will work out well or give DMU's a good name when they're only going to be used for a few years before getting radical unproven surgery. Odds are it'll prove infeasible, they'll have to tack on with GO's EMU order and possibly be absorbed outright by GO, and the DMU's get re-sold to another agency at a steep loss after less than 10 years of service.
I'd look elsewhere for an endorsement because this plan has epic FAIL written all over it.
Union-Pearson Express in Toronto isn't GO Transit. It's run by GO's parent agency, Metrolinx, as a wholly separate division with its own management. Their DMU purchase is no different from any other to-date: upstart service with only 1 line to serve and no mixed fleets.
GO's planning thrust right now is mass electrification of all its busiest lines and investing heavily in EMU's. The Kitchener Line that the Airport link shares for a stretch is one of the first that'll get wired, so Metrolinx has this clusterfuck of a plan to electrify the Airport link when that happens then send these brand spanking new DMU's out to be converted into Frankenstein EMU's. Except nobody knows how that is feasible or what extra it would cost on a line that's already costing a half-billion to implement. Hugely controversial project; they are rightly getting slammed for not planning the electrification from the get-go. But all the political pressure behind this is to get it operating in time for Toronto to host the 2015 Pan American Games, so everything is being rushed with no consideration for the long term.
GO is not exactly licking its wounds that it doesn't have to touch this boondoggle. I can't see any way this will work out well or give DMU's a good name when they're only going to be used for a few years before getting radical unproven surgery. Odds are it'll prove infeasible, they'll have to tack on with GO's EMU order and possibly be absorbed outright by GO, and the DMU's get re-sold to another agency at a steep loss after less than 10 years of service.
I'd look elsewhere for an endorsement because this plan has epic FAIL written all over it.
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
FRA-compliant or alternatively-compliant DMUs are still overweight, unproven beasts that will not be as satisfactory or reliable as lightweight off-the-shelf DMUs used overseas. Carrying your own fuel kills power-to-weight ratios. That's why diesel buses have so much difficulty accelerating, especially on hills. Why go through the trouble of acquiring and maintaining DMUs if they don't show significantly better performance than a push-pull with a few cars?
I just don't see how we're going to get around this problem until the FRA reforms entirely. SMART is already looking like a fiasco. eBART will likely be as well -- the whole region is planned by the incompetent (BART to SFO anyone?).
And we haven't touched on work rules or maintenance schedules. Will MBCR be willing to operate with low staffing? OPTO, even? Or do we have to continue the 19th-century ticket-punching nonsense?
FRA-compliant or alternatively-compliant DMUs are still overweight, unproven beasts that will not be as satisfactory or reliable as lightweight off-the-shelf DMUs used overseas. Carrying your own fuel kills power-to-weight ratios. That's why diesel buses have so much difficulty accelerating, especially on hills. Why go through the trouble of acquiring and maintaining DMUs if they don't show significantly better performance than a push-pull with a few cars?
I just don't see how we're going to get around this problem until the FRA reforms entirely. SMART is already looking like a fiasco. eBART will likely be as well -- the whole region is planned by the incompetent (BART to SFO anyone?).
And we haven't touched on work rules or maintenance schedules. Will MBCR be willing to operate with low staffing? OPTO, even? Or do we have to continue the 19th-century ticket-punching nonsense?
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Sure looks like the GO logo on the front of the artist rendering when the order was first announced:
http://www.metro-magazine.com/news/story/2011/04/metrolinx-taps-sumitomo-for-dmus.aspx
Metrolinx and GO have been merged since 2009. The separate airport service division is a matter of branding, its going to be the same GO maintenance facilities and crews that maintain the DMU's when it starts. Doesn't seem that different than the idea of branding Fairmount line service as "Indigo Line", and using unique equipment and fare structures, even though it would be operated and maintained as part of the commuter rail system.
Nippon-Sharyo also has a lot of experience building EMU's. Designing a DMU body shell so it can be converted to an EMU at a later date would not be beyond their expertise.
The MBTA seems very serious about buying a small fleet of DMU's for the Fairmount Line, don't be surprised if they start a procurement process for them at some point in the next year or two.
Sure looks like the GO logo on the front of the artist rendering when the order was first announced:
http://www.metro-magazine.com/news/story/2011/04/metrolinx-taps-sumitomo-for-dmus.aspx
Metrolinx and GO have been merged since 2009. The separate airport service division is a matter of branding, its going to be the same GO maintenance facilities and crews that maintain the DMU's when it starts. Doesn't seem that different than the idea of branding Fairmount line service as "Indigo Line", and using unique equipment and fare structures, even though it would be operated and maintained as part of the commuter rail system.
Nippon-Sharyo also has a lot of experience building EMU's. Designing a DMU body shell so it can be converted to an EMU at a later date would not be beyond their expertise.
The MBTA seems very serious about buying a small fleet of DMU's for the Fairmount Line, don't be surprised if they start a procurement process for them at some point in the next year or two.
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Most of the standardized European DMUs such as the Siemens Desiro, Alstom Coradia, Stadler GTW, or the Bombardier Talent are set up for low platform or medium height platform boarding. Even if you had an FRA waiver, those designs won't work on the high-platform Fairmount line.
Most of the standardized European DMUs such as the Siemens Desiro, Alstom Coradia, Stadler GTW, or the Bombardier Talent are set up for low platform or medium height platform boarding. Even if you had an FRA waiver, those designs won't work on the high-platform Fairmount line.
Nexis4jersey
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2012
- Messages
- 760
- Reaction score
- 127
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Canada is not the US and does not follow the FRA...they follow the UIC.
Canada is not the US and does not follow the FRA...they follow the UIC.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Because the performance IS significantly better. The MBTA-sponsored Fairmount alternatives study found that they reduce travel time by 20% over current vehicles (they considered modified coaches with additional doors in addition to DMUs), emissions reductions up to 70% over current technology, and an incremental cost savings compared to loco-pulled trainsets as long as headways were 15 minutes or less.
A push-pull with a "few cars" gets horrific performance, because the fewer cars you stick on an engine the more fuel you're wasting. Push-pull technology is designed for long trains and long distances, not urban rail lines which never leave the city limits.
First, the FRA has reformed to some extent and no longer maintains the standards a lot of people on this board have been arguing that they do. Second, why does SMART look like a fiasco to you? I live here, and they seem to be progressing construction on schedule. They aren't ballooning their budget. Their biggest chance of becoming a fiasco is that their whole concept hinges on a rail connection to Larkspur which they have yet to fully figure out how to do. That has nothing to do with their rolling stock, however.
Really, you're casting aspersions on a region which is about 30 years ahead of Boston in terms of regional planning. Anyone know what the MPO is called in Boston? Anyone in Boston know what an MPO even is (not just the planners - people on the street in SF have heard of MTC and know what it does)? As for BART planning, BART is currently constructing extensions to 2 lines (including a massive extension to San Jose), planning another to Livermore, replacing its entire fleet, streamlining operations to increase peak frequencies on key segments, and rehabbing its elevated track to new earthquake standards, all at once. Let me know when the T finishes with GLX in 2025 so I can plan for the 5 years they'll be completely shuttering Government Center as yet another station rehab progresses at a snail's pace. Oh, and BART will soon (at great expense) provide service directly to the terminals of 2 metro area airports, while the T's idea of fixing Airport station was moving it farther away.
If it comes to that, don't bother with MBCR. MBCR is the operator for the commuter rail system, as specified in their contract. They don't own the rails, stations, or yards. Why not just have the Indigo Line be a separate contractor (if you can find one, that is)?
Because the performance IS significantly better. The MBTA-sponsored Fairmount alternatives study found that they reduce travel time by 20% over current vehicles (they considered modified coaches with additional doors in addition to DMUs), emissions reductions up to 70% over current technology, and an incremental cost savings compared to loco-pulled trainsets as long as headways were 15 minutes or less.
A push-pull with a "few cars" gets horrific performance, because the fewer cars you stick on an engine the more fuel you're wasting. Push-pull technology is designed for long trains and long distances, not urban rail lines which never leave the city limits.
First, the FRA has reformed to some extent and no longer maintains the standards a lot of people on this board have been arguing that they do. Second, why does SMART look like a fiasco to you? I live here, and they seem to be progressing construction on schedule. They aren't ballooning their budget. Their biggest chance of becoming a fiasco is that their whole concept hinges on a rail connection to Larkspur which they have yet to fully figure out how to do. That has nothing to do with their rolling stock, however.
Really, you're casting aspersions on a region which is about 30 years ahead of Boston in terms of regional planning. Anyone know what the MPO is called in Boston? Anyone in Boston know what an MPO even is (not just the planners - people on the street in SF have heard of MTC and know what it does)? As for BART planning, BART is currently constructing extensions to 2 lines (including a massive extension to San Jose), planning another to Livermore, replacing its entire fleet, streamlining operations to increase peak frequencies on key segments, and rehabbing its elevated track to new earthquake standards, all at once. Let me know when the T finishes with GLX in 2025 so I can plan for the 5 years they'll be completely shuttering Government Center as yet another station rehab progresses at a snail's pace. Oh, and BART will soon (at great expense) provide service directly to the terminals of 2 metro area airports, while the T's idea of fixing Airport station was moving it farther away.
If it comes to that, don't bother with MBCR. MBCR is the operator for the commuter rail system, as specified in their contract. They don't own the rails, stations, or yards. Why not just have the Indigo Line be a separate contractor (if you can find one, that is)?
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,279
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
UPearson Express is not GO Transit. GO is a division of Metrolinx; UP Express is a division of Metrolinx. They are separate Metrolinx-subservient entities with their own management. Like MassHighway, Massport, and the T are separate subservient subdivisions of the DOT, except in Canada it's under a crown corporation instead of a state agency. GO is the mercenary operator and equipment maintainer in the same way that Amtrak runs Shore Line East and Metro North shops maintein them, but GO has no management oversight over UP Express and GO takes a reimbursed check from them for every finger they lift. Which is why it's turning into a boondoggle...there's no accountability because it's pretty much just provincial pols' little plaything. But I could easily see GO having to absorb them in 8 years to clean up the toxic corruption and take all the losses on the electric conversion.
And that's not an accurate rendering of the vehicle livery. It's a manufacturer sample. This is the official branding and paint job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_ARL.jpg.
That will never ever ever ever ever happen here. You can paint it on a spider map however you want (and they chose "Indigo" for a reason...you don't have to repaint the Purple Line), but it will always be run by the commuter rail for the commuter rail interoperable with the commuter rail. And it would be silly not to because Fairmount's going to become the load-bearing line in the future for more of the Franklin schedule and all of the would-be Foxboro schedule, because the NEC can't handle it. You cannot have "uniqueness" on that line putting it in conflict with the way the other ones are run. Nor can you template the "Indigo" model to other lines when every possible application (Allston-Riverside, Reading, Waltham, Needham) shares routes with a regular CR line. The closest you are going to get is if Zone 1A gets synced by happenstance with the subway fare or some future "Zone 0" layer gets added as a shiv for direct subway card compatibility.
Now, for fare collection and staffing reform...that is an issue universal to the CR. The whole damn system--fares, parking, everything--should be Charlied. Every coach should have a tap surface for OPTO capability and every conductor a hand scanner. They should try to reform the union requirements for 1 conductor per 2 cars (although going all bi-level does bring the labor costs down a little bit). All of that. But across the commuter rail, not some special niche here.
Equipment is the same. DMU's don't wash today because today's makes are so unique, so much more expensive per unit than regular CR equipment, so much harder to maintain than push-pull or EMU's (requiring specialized parts and expertise), and as Matthew noted so asphyxiated by FRA insanity that the weight nullifies most of the performance difference vs. push-pull. They are nowhere near as good a mode as they should be, nowhere near above-and-beyond a 2-4 car push-pull set fronted by a zippier accelerating HSP-46 (if they took the care to assemble Fairmount trainsets more carefully). And the cost, performance, and cost recovery over life of the car order is inferior to electrifying the damn thing and going pool service with Providence and RIDOT.
The biggest CR systems in the country are not going to budge on this until there's that sea change. It is too big an anvil on their sprawling fleets to support what's now a novelty mode. All 13 North American CR systems (yes, including GO Transit-proper) that have more than 15,000 daily boardings have no immediate plans to buy DMU's. 6 of those systems already juggle more than 1 type of mode: diesel push-pull, EMU's, electric push-pull, or dual-mode push-pull (all 4 of 'em in NJ Transit's case). 2 more systems (GO and Caltrain) are set to introduce new EMU's to their currently all-diesel systems within 3-10 years. 2 more (SEPTA and Mexico City Ferrocarrill Suburbano) already are 100% electric. And 2 more (MBTA and L.A. Metrolink) have electrification study decisions to make within 7-10 years on their currently all-diesel systems due to shared HSR track commitments with the NEC and California HSR. Plus Amtrak has a well-publicized aversion to running Frankenstein vehicles when it's contracted for CR ops; the T's ham-fisted GP40 loco purchase/oddball-retrofit was one of the last straws before they left town one finger in the air.
Where exactly does not-mature niche technology fit into the mix with these guys? They have way way more pressing and consequential purchase decisions to make with all they have to oversee.
EMU ≠ DMU. Stripping out the diesel guts and replacing with electric guts is de facto buying a new car. They are completely different animals. Yes, you can recycle the shell and the interior livery. Maybe even the wheel traction motors if the initial purchase is some super-premium $$$ component akin to ALP-45DP loco's dual-mode motors. But the steel and fiberglass frame is the least expensive part of the car. And the weight distribution is going to be very different with the fuel weight removed. DMU fuel tanks are oddly spread to balance out the car weight. Remove them and the weight distribution gets weird and the car is unlikely to ride as well (swaying, herky-jerky starts/stops, potentially more serious out-of-whack issues that would limit their max speed). That's why UP Express's plan to convert the Nippon Sharyo's is so insane. They will be below-average quality Frankenstein EMU's at a time when GO Transit is buying battle-tested generics. It is not worth their while to preserve the shell when the shell is cheap. They're better off just buying new EMU's. Which is going to look really silly when they have to dump their incredibly expensive DMU's for a huge loss when they're still close to new.
UPearson Express is not GO Transit. GO is a division of Metrolinx; UP Express is a division of Metrolinx. They are separate Metrolinx-subservient entities with their own management. Like MassHighway, Massport, and the T are separate subservient subdivisions of the DOT, except in Canada it's under a crown corporation instead of a state agency. GO is the mercenary operator and equipment maintainer in the same way that Amtrak runs Shore Line East and Metro North shops maintein them, but GO has no management oversight over UP Express and GO takes a reimbursed check from them for every finger they lift. Which is why it's turning into a boondoggle...there's no accountability because it's pretty much just provincial pols' little plaything. But I could easily see GO having to absorb them in 8 years to clean up the toxic corruption and take all the losses on the electric conversion.
And that's not an accurate rendering of the vehicle livery. It's a manufacturer sample. This is the official branding and paint job: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Toronto_ARL.jpg.
No. Because the labor contracts bind it hard to the CR system. SEPTA tried to do this in the 80's by "transitizing" its Regional Rail to scrape the RR unions off its books. It abandoned all its diesel routes and went on this quixotic management quest to reinvent ops on their electric lines. As if it were BRT-esque hybrid of a subway line with FRA-compliant vehicles. They lost over 50% of their ridership over a 5-year span because of the corrosive effects of crippling labor strikes and talent drain sending their customer service to worst-in-nation levels. And the whole pointless civil war distracted them from doing barest system maintenance, creating a backlog that forced further shrinkage of the system that they are still in a bind trying to recover from 3 decades later. It took 28 years for ridership to recover back to 1979 levels, and there is still a movement to take the Regional Rail away from SEPTA and let the state DOT run it because some managers are still pushing bad "transitization" ideas that keep the system permanently treading water.
That will never ever ever ever ever happen here. You can paint it on a spider map however you want (and they chose "Indigo" for a reason...you don't have to repaint the Purple Line), but it will always be run by the commuter rail for the commuter rail interoperable with the commuter rail. And it would be silly not to because Fairmount's going to become the load-bearing line in the future for more of the Franklin schedule and all of the would-be Foxboro schedule, because the NEC can't handle it. You cannot have "uniqueness" on that line putting it in conflict with the way the other ones are run. Nor can you template the "Indigo" model to other lines when every possible application (Allston-Riverside, Reading, Waltham, Needham) shares routes with a regular CR line. The closest you are going to get is if Zone 1A gets synced by happenstance with the subway fare or some future "Zone 0" layer gets added as a shiv for direct subway card compatibility.
Now, for fare collection and staffing reform...that is an issue universal to the CR. The whole damn system--fares, parking, everything--should be Charlied. Every coach should have a tap surface for OPTO capability and every conductor a hand scanner. They should try to reform the union requirements for 1 conductor per 2 cars (although going all bi-level does bring the labor costs down a little bit). All of that. But across the commuter rail, not some special niche here.
Equipment is the same. DMU's don't wash today because today's makes are so unique, so much more expensive per unit than regular CR equipment, so much harder to maintain than push-pull or EMU's (requiring specialized parts and expertise), and as Matthew noted so asphyxiated by FRA insanity that the weight nullifies most of the performance difference vs. push-pull. They are nowhere near as good a mode as they should be, nowhere near above-and-beyond a 2-4 car push-pull set fronted by a zippier accelerating HSP-46 (if they took the care to assemble Fairmount trainsets more carefully). And the cost, performance, and cost recovery over life of the car order is inferior to electrifying the damn thing and going pool service with Providence and RIDOT.
The biggest CR systems in the country are not going to budge on this until there's that sea change. It is too big an anvil on their sprawling fleets to support what's now a novelty mode. All 13 North American CR systems (yes, including GO Transit-proper) that have more than 15,000 daily boardings have no immediate plans to buy DMU's. 6 of those systems already juggle more than 1 type of mode: diesel push-pull, EMU's, electric push-pull, or dual-mode push-pull (all 4 of 'em in NJ Transit's case). 2 more systems (GO and Caltrain) are set to introduce new EMU's to their currently all-diesel systems within 3-10 years. 2 more (SEPTA and Mexico City Ferrocarrill Suburbano) already are 100% electric. And 2 more (MBTA and L.A. Metrolink) have electrification study decisions to make within 7-10 years on their currently all-diesel systems due to shared HSR track commitments with the NEC and California HSR. Plus Amtrak has a well-publicized aversion to running Frankenstein vehicles when it's contracted for CR ops; the T's ham-fisted GP40 loco purchase/oddball-retrofit was one of the last straws before they left town one finger in the air.
Where exactly does not-mature niche technology fit into the mix with these guys? They have way way more pressing and consequential purchase decisions to make with all they have to oversee.
EMU ≠ DMU. Stripping out the diesel guts and replacing with electric guts is de facto buying a new car. They are completely different animals. Yes, you can recycle the shell and the interior livery. Maybe even the wheel traction motors if the initial purchase is some super-premium $$$ component akin to ALP-45DP loco's dual-mode motors. But the steel and fiberglass frame is the least expensive part of the car. And the weight distribution is going to be very different with the fuel weight removed. DMU fuel tanks are oddly spread to balance out the car weight. Remove them and the weight distribution gets weird and the car is unlikely to ride as well (swaying, herky-jerky starts/stops, potentially more serious out-of-whack issues that would limit their max speed). That's why UP Express's plan to convert the Nippon Sharyo's is so insane. They will be below-average quality Frankenstein EMU's at a time when GO Transit is buying battle-tested generics. It is not worth their while to preserve the shell when the shell is cheap. They're better off just buying new EMU's. Which is going to look really silly when they have to dump their incredibly expensive DMU's for a huge loss when they're still close to new.
The T is not considering DMU's today. At all. There is no evidence of that. No chatter. Nothing. It has 75 more bi-levels on its Rotem option order it has to pay for in a constrained funding environment, and is obligated by Amtrak as an NEC improvements partner to study their post-2020 electric options. Just because the Fairmount studies modeled "generic DMU's" performance doesn't mean they are moving in that direction or that it's go-time for planning that. "Generic DMU" doesn't exist in this country yet. The T cannot do waivered units because there is no time separation from freight traffic. And the compliant units are what they are: too heavy, too complicated, too expensive. They have to model for "generic DMU" because the glass-half-full view says we're only elimination of a few silly paper barriers away from being able to import them en masse. Therefore they have to do due diligence on the schedule modeling so that option is on the table if the availability of "generic DMU" ever comes like it has in Europe. Glass-half-empty view, however, says the regs are not going to change before end of this decade, that the current batch of FRA-compliants are not falling in price nearly fast enough, and that the SPRINTER's/SMART's/eBART's/UP Expresses of the world fucking up their rollouts time and again with rank incompetence is doing the vehicles no favors at opening up the market. At the timetable where a cost-effective DMU option is likely to start looking attractive for an agency like the T, they will already be spending bucks buying Providence Line electrics and will have had enough time to do their Fairmount electrification study and make a go/no-go decision. 2020 or beyond before it's realistic. On that timetable, why are we holding out for the great white DMU hope? Start the prelim electrification study.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,279
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
No. Fairmount's studies were done with: 1) Colorado Railcar, which is a nonstarter for its miserable reliability and cost that hasn't fallen below $4M, 2) generic Euro DMU's that aren't allowed, and 3) our 1970's-tastic push-pull garbage that's going to get much more nimble on starts/stops with 40 HSP-46's coming online. The DMU performance in the study is not comparable to the FRA-compliants that are being purchased now. It is modeled after "generic American DMU" that we thought would be widely available by now. Smart study decision because have to be prepared for a purchase environment that can change quick. But study decision does not beget a concerted plan to buy them when the options today are so expensive and have such a mediocre track record.
I'm not familiar with SMART, so Matthew can elaborate on that. Looks like they're having some considerable construction cost bloat, but that's not unusual. However...their 9 Nippon Sharyo units are a ghastly $6.6M each. The same unit price as Amtrak's new Sprinter electric loco, and $1.6M more than an HSP-46. At that price the T can buy a bunch more HSP-46's and a bunch more Rotem bi-levels, flood the Fairmount with as many 2-4 car bi-levels with 1-2 conductors as it takes to do a train every dozen minutes, seat 4x as many people as one SMART train, and take in a ton more revenue.
I mean...wow. If SMART is somehow doing something "right" here with that purchase, it is a stupendous argument AGAINST making a DMU purchase at any point until the cost gets halved or better.
Never ever ever ever ever will "transitization" on a FRA common-carrier line be tried again by anyone, except for these time-sharing LRV exemption situations like RiverLINE (which is run out of NJ Transit Light Rail division, not NJ Transit Rail) or SPRINTER that aren't remotely applicable here with daytime freight.
No. Fairmount's studies were done with: 1) Colorado Railcar, which is a nonstarter for its miserable reliability and cost that hasn't fallen below $4M, 2) generic Euro DMU's that aren't allowed, and 3) our 1970's-tastic push-pull garbage that's going to get much more nimble on starts/stops with 40 HSP-46's coming online. The DMU performance in the study is not comparable to the FRA-compliants that are being purchased now. It is modeled after "generic American DMU" that we thought would be widely available by now. Smart study decision because have to be prepared for a purchase environment that can change quick. But study decision does not beget a concerted plan to buy them when the options today are so expensive and have such a mediocre track record.
You have a much more optimistic view of the FRA than most people. They have not relaxed the standards yet to get true DMU performance. The buff strength relaxation is an implied commitment, not a new codified standard. They have not committed to rewrites of the rules that would allow for something resembling off-shelf Euro equipment on common-carrier lines. The required modifications are still heavier, clunkier, and expensive to pull off.
I'm not familiar with SMART, so Matthew can elaborate on that. Looks like they're having some considerable construction cost bloat, but that's not unusual. However...their 9 Nippon Sharyo units are a ghastly $6.6M each. The same unit price as Amtrak's new Sprinter electric loco, and $1.6M more than an HSP-46. At that price the T can buy a bunch more HSP-46's and a bunch more Rotem bi-levels, flood the Fairmount with as many 2-4 car bi-levels with 1-2 conductors as it takes to do a train every dozen minutes, seat 4x as many people as one SMART train, and take in a ton more revenue.
I mean...wow. If SMART is somehow doing something "right" here with that purchase, it is a stupendous argument AGAINST making a DMU purchase at any point until the cost gets halved or better.
I explained that in the previous post. It's been tried, it nearly killed SEPTA dead, and the Philly area has never recovered from it. SEPTA's decision to go full-bore into that attempt at changing the game is widely regarded as the single worst decision in the history of North American passenger rail's public ownership era.
Never ever ever ever ever will "transitization" on a FRA common-carrier line be tried again by anyone, except for these time-sharing LRV exemption situations like RiverLINE (which is run out of NJ Transit Light Rail division, not NJ Transit Rail) or SPRINTER that aren't remotely applicable here with daytime freight.
Last edited:
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
F-Line, you're simultaneously making the arguments that DMUs will never happen on the MBTA because (a) The MBTA has no plans to implement them (which is true) and (b) The time it would take to implement them would be time better spent doing a preliminary study for something assuredly better. The preliminary studies for DMUs have already been done! They're finished! The 5-10 years it takes to get the institutional ware withal to even raise the issue of electrification with politicians and members of the public (cue another 10 year wait for sufficient support) isn't necessary with DMUs. We could be planning on providing improved service on these lines in 5 years at minimal cost, or we could get started on waiting 30 years for the 10 billion dollar project to electrify MBCR. That's the choice you're presenting.
Seriously, you're Mr. Low-Hanging Fruit, and this is as low-hanging as it gets, and you're against it because we should hold out a few decades for a full re-conceiving of the entire system?
Also, SPRINTER and WES has problematic roll-outs. The roll-outs for SMART and eBART have not yet occurred. That's not to say they'll be flawless, but you and Matthew seem oddly willing to toss those projects in the pile of debacles before they've even seen a day of service (or in eBART's case a single foot of track laid).
And by the way: the same arguments you're making about vehicle selection for single-line agencies apply to electrification as well. Just because Caltrain - a 1-line commuter railroad which does nothing else and functionally answers to no one - has chosen to do it does not mean that the MBTA - which runs 10 commuter rail lines in addition to 3 other modes and is subservient to a state government which already saddled it with so much debt that it can't do a damn thing as it is - would even try to do it, much less succeed without major delays and complications.
You can discredit the study all you want, but that's still the data we have. Perhaps those numbers don't quite reflect the actual vehicles in use on Fairmount or elsewhere, or the actual status quo on the T, but I doubt they're off by enough to completely ignore them.
The one place where we do have real numbers is the price. The MBTA paid $5.7 million per HSP-46 in the current order (closer to 6 million than the 5 million you cited). Each coach, according to the MBTA budget report from 2010 (http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Financials/MBTA FY10-FY14 CIP.pdf, p.28) costs in the neighborhood of $3 million. The Fairmount report did not address engines, but pegged the cost for new carriages at $2.1 million.
If a DMU train contains 2 vehicles (for argument's sake) and they pay the same price as SMART (unlikely, since the technology WILL be more popular by then), that means each trainset costs the T $13.2 million. For that price, they can buy an HP-46 and 2 coaches. You see some savings from the fact that that equipment can see service across the network, but remember that I see multiple lines using DMUs as well.
In any case an engine and 2 coaches is not "a bunch more HSP-46's and a bunch more Rotem bi-levels", and it most definitely will not allow the T to "flood the Fairmount with as many 2-4 car bi-levels with 1-2 conductors as it takes to do a train every dozen minutes, seat 4x as many people as one SMART train, and take in a ton more revenue."
In any case, running that many 2-4 car trains on the Fairmount line would waste an enormous amount of fuel and cause serious emissions issues, which is why the Fairmount report concluded (using cost figures for BOTH ALTERNATIVES lower than currently estimated) that the operating costs for DMUs would be better than that for conventional commuter rail once headways dropped below 15 minutes.
F-Line, you're simultaneously making the arguments that DMUs will never happen on the MBTA because (a) The MBTA has no plans to implement them (which is true) and (b) The time it would take to implement them would be time better spent doing a preliminary study for something assuredly better. The preliminary studies for DMUs have already been done! They're finished! The 5-10 years it takes to get the institutional ware withal to even raise the issue of electrification with politicians and members of the public (cue another 10 year wait for sufficient support) isn't necessary with DMUs. We could be planning on providing improved service on these lines in 5 years at minimal cost, or we could get started on waiting 30 years for the 10 billion dollar project to electrify MBCR. That's the choice you're presenting.
Seriously, you're Mr. Low-Hanging Fruit, and this is as low-hanging as it gets, and you're against it because we should hold out a few decades for a full re-conceiving of the entire system?
Also, SPRINTER and WES has problematic roll-outs. The roll-outs for SMART and eBART have not yet occurred. That's not to say they'll be flawless, but you and Matthew seem oddly willing to toss those projects in the pile of debacles before they've even seen a day of service (or in eBART's case a single foot of track laid).
And by the way: the same arguments you're making about vehicle selection for single-line agencies apply to electrification as well. Just because Caltrain - a 1-line commuter railroad which does nothing else and functionally answers to no one - has chosen to do it does not mean that the MBTA - which runs 10 commuter rail lines in addition to 3 other modes and is subservient to a state government which already saddled it with so much debt that it can't do a damn thing as it is - would even try to do it, much less succeed without major delays and complications.
You can discredit the study all you want, but that's still the data we have. Perhaps those numbers don't quite reflect the actual vehicles in use on Fairmount or elsewhere, or the actual status quo on the T, but I doubt they're off by enough to completely ignore them.
The one place where we do have real numbers is the price. The MBTA paid $5.7 million per HSP-46 in the current order (closer to 6 million than the 5 million you cited). Each coach, according to the MBTA budget report from 2010 (http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Financials/MBTA FY10-FY14 CIP.pdf, p.28) costs in the neighborhood of $3 million. The Fairmount report did not address engines, but pegged the cost for new carriages at $2.1 million.
If a DMU train contains 2 vehicles (for argument's sake) and they pay the same price as SMART (unlikely, since the technology WILL be more popular by then), that means each trainset costs the T $13.2 million. For that price, they can buy an HP-46 and 2 coaches. You see some savings from the fact that that equipment can see service across the network, but remember that I see multiple lines using DMUs as well.
In any case an engine and 2 coaches is not "a bunch more HSP-46's and a bunch more Rotem bi-levels", and it most definitely will not allow the T to "flood the Fairmount with as many 2-4 car bi-levels with 1-2 conductors as it takes to do a train every dozen minutes, seat 4x as many people as one SMART train, and take in a ton more revenue."
In any case, running that many 2-4 car trains on the Fairmount line would waste an enormous amount of fuel and cause serious emissions issues, which is why the Fairmount report concluded (using cost figures for BOTH ALTERNATIVES lower than currently estimated) that the operating costs for DMUs would be better than that for conventional commuter rail once headways dropped below 15 minutes.
Last edited:
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
MTC does a horrible job. BART to SFO is just one example. The massively overpriced extension to Warm Springs and San Jose is another. Nearly a billion to get to Warm Springs, and over another two billion to Berryessa. They're building at urban subway cost in the middle of suburban nowhere. And the stations (as with most BART stations) are monuments to sprawl: parking palaces. Caltrain is a whole other mess.
This is the kind of planning they do in that region:South Bay Marin.
SMART is falling behind schedule by one to two years, on top of its cost overruns. Maybe they will overcome that and maybe the equipment will be a great success. And maybe not.
MTC does a horrible job. BART to SFO is just one example. The massively overpriced extension to Warm Springs and San Jose is another. Nearly a billion to get to Warm Springs, and over another two billion to Berryessa. They're building at urban subway cost in the middle of suburban nowhere. And the stations (as with most BART stations) are monuments to sprawl: parking palaces. Caltrain is a whole other mess.
This is the kind of planning they do in that region:South Bay Marin.
SMART is falling behind schedule by one to two years, on top of its cost overruns. Maybe they will overcome that and maybe the equipment will be a great success. And maybe not.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,279
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Yes. The studies were done 10 years ago. And there is nothing to buy because the vehicles predicated in the study don't exist at acceptable performance cum price point! There is NOTHING low-hanging fruit about 1 two-car married pair DMU costing the same as a bleeding-edge Amtrak electric that can haul 10 Regional cars with baggage compartments at 125 MPH. Or the minimum-most dedicated Fairmount fleet costing the same as a shitload more universal commuter rail capacity.
What is so hard to understand about this? DMU's are not being actively ordered on a scale that will reduce the unit cost for new purchases ordered in the next 5 years, which have to have programmed funding 2 years in advance of orders that take 3 years to build. That's a decade right there. The molasses-slow FRA is also not going to relax the regs fast enough to break down the wall for placing Euro orders within 5 years. If by good fortune it does, and more generic equipment starts getting ordered that pushes prices down...that's still 10 years to fulfillment! When the T is going to be preoccupied with fulfilling orders for Providence Line electrics, replacing another hundred coaches at end-of-life, and replacing another 40 locomotives at end-of-life.
It's a post-2020 decision. And only if things start improving with the mode's viability soon. And there aren't a lot of winning signs that that the DMU market in 2015 is going to look much riper than it does in 2013. Life and transit planning goes on.
9 miles of Fairmount line track hitting wires on one end at Southampton Yard and wires on the other end at Readville Jct. is not "re-conceiving the whole system". Amtrak is already calling for a major substation upgrade at Southampton Yard to future-proof the SS end for 2025 traffic levels and terminal expansion. This is as simple as stringing Fairmount up and adding a spacer substation (1 every 6 miles) somewhere halfway between Southampton and the existing Readville spacer. $75M...$100M tops if they have to raise any low bridges where wires won't clear a bi-level.
You are talking about something entirely parallel-universe different. And probably impossible because those freight routes like Fitchburg, Haverhill, and Franklin probably never can.
Every implementation that doesn't go smoothly impedes the mode's adoption. Even if they eventually work the bugs out...inexperience, ham-fistedness, and rookie mistakes with the rolling stock don't exactly encourage future adoption by the big agencies. Collectively this is not a promising start.
There is no DMU in the world that recovers its cost that well over life of vehicle, and no DMU available in this country that can compete on price.
And Caltrain is much more comparable to the T than it is to these little starter trains. 32 stations over 52 miles, almost 50,000 riders a day, overlapping service patterns, fleet of 28 locomotives and 93 bi-levels. That is a big frickin' operation. And they are replacing ALL that rolling stock with EMU's over the next 7 years. Not the same. Not the same at all.
The T can not program a vehicle order on a vaporware market. It has too much other shit to do.
Emissions reduction on the Fairmount corridor can't realistically happen for another decade. The mythical fair-priced DMU's won't appear fast enough, and then it takes a 5-year procurement. If it is minimum 10 years any which way, better start poking around that electrification study. Because they sure don't have a lot of attractive options right now.
Yes. The studies were done 10 years ago. And there is nothing to buy because the vehicles predicated in the study don't exist at acceptable performance cum price point! There is NOTHING low-hanging fruit about 1 two-car married pair DMU costing the same as a bleeding-edge Amtrak electric that can haul 10 Regional cars with baggage compartments at 125 MPH. Or the minimum-most dedicated Fairmount fleet costing the same as a shitload more universal commuter rail capacity.
What is so hard to understand about this? DMU's are not being actively ordered on a scale that will reduce the unit cost for new purchases ordered in the next 5 years, which have to have programmed funding 2 years in advance of orders that take 3 years to build. That's a decade right there. The molasses-slow FRA is also not going to relax the regs fast enough to break down the wall for placing Euro orders within 5 years. If by good fortune it does, and more generic equipment starts getting ordered that pushes prices down...that's still 10 years to fulfillment! When the T is going to be preoccupied with fulfilling orders for Providence Line electrics, replacing another hundred coaches at end-of-life, and replacing another 40 locomotives at end-of-life.
It's a post-2020 decision. And only if things start improving with the mode's viability soon. And there aren't a lot of winning signs that that the DMU market in 2015 is going to look much riper than it does in 2013. Life and transit planning goes on.
?????
9 miles of Fairmount line track hitting wires on one end at Southampton Yard and wires on the other end at Readville Jct. is not "re-conceiving the whole system". Amtrak is already calling for a major substation upgrade at Southampton Yard to future-proof the SS end for 2025 traffic levels and terminal expansion. This is as simple as stringing Fairmount up and adding a spacer substation (1 every 6 miles) somewhere halfway between Southampton and the existing Readville spacer. $75M...$100M tops if they have to raise any low bridges where wires won't clear a bi-level.
You are talking about something entirely parallel-universe different. And probably impossible because those freight routes like Fitchburg, Haverhill, and Franklin probably never can.
I detailed what an utter clusterfuck UP Express is. And SMART's got a massive strike against it for the off-the-charts unit cost of their Nippon Sharyos. There isn't a lot of online info about eBART. But BART-the-agency has some bad mismanagement reputation to overcome with this project.
Every implementation that doesn't go smoothly impedes the mode's adoption. Even if they eventually work the bugs out...inexperience, ham-fistedness, and rookie mistakes with the rolling stock don't exactly encourage future adoption by the big agencies. Collectively this is not a promising start.
No. EMU's are not DMU's. They cost less to build, cost less to maintain, cost a whole lot less to operate, and they last a lot longer. SEPTA's Silverliner V's and Metro North/LIRR's M7's were $2.2M per unit. Metro North M8's with their overhead + third rail power cost $2.8M per unit. Metra's new Nippon Sharyo bi-level EMU's are $3.6M unit. SEPTA's Silverliner IV's are still going after 40 years and will finish out the decade before they need retirement. NJ Transit's Arrow III's are 37 years old and still about 5 years from programmed replacement. Metro North/LIRR M1's and M2's lasted 40 years and over a million odometer miles before retirement.
There is no DMU in the world that recovers its cost that well over life of vehicle, and no DMU available in this country that can compete on price.
And Caltrain is much more comparable to the T than it is to these little starter trains. 32 stations over 52 miles, almost 50,000 riders a day, overlapping service patterns, fleet of 28 locomotives and 93 bi-levels. That is a big frickin' operation. And they are replacing ALL that rolling stock with EMU's over the next 7 years. Not the same. Not the same at all.
You're damn right the numbers don't reflect. There is NO vehicle available for purchase that performs to the study numbers. That's not the study's fault; the DMU market hasn't happened. It's vaporware. You can't initiate a purchase decision on something that doesn't exist anywhere close to the price point you need it to hit.
Well, when "WILL" it? It hasn't happened in the 10 years since the study, these brand new purchases made within the last 2 years are off-scale by an extreme, and new purchase orders being evaluated now haven't come down.
The T can not program a vehicle order on a vaporware market. It has too much other shit to do.
Yeah. And if you can't physically procure those DMU's for the next 10 years because price/availability suck...what do you have? Push-pull. There's no decision they are procrastinating on here. They cannot operate their system paying such a ridiculous premium for unproven tech. The cost of equipping the fleet with such an extreme outlier prevents them from meeting their service goals across the system. And prevents them from doing programmed replacements of their other vehicles. They have over 200 commuter rail vehicles they to make purchase decisions on between THIS year and FY2016.
Emissions reduction on the Fairmount corridor can't realistically happen for another decade. The mythical fair-priced DMU's won't appear fast enough, and then it takes a 5-year procurement. If it is minimum 10 years any which way, better start poking around that electrification study. Because they sure don't have a lot of attractive options right now.
Last edited:
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
"The T is not considering DMU's today"
I guess you didn't take a good look at the last CIP:
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Financials/14-18 Final CIP.pdf
page 17:
"Modernization Pilot Projects
This project funds the development and piloting of innovative programs at the MBTA, including the implementation of a new Bus Rapid Transit system and the use of Diesel Multiple Unit vehicles. These innovations will allow the MBTA to experiment with new vehicle technologies and new methods of service provision."
"The T is not considering DMU's today"
I guess you didn't take a good look at the last CIP:
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About_the_T/Financials/14-18 Final CIP.pdf
page 17:
"Modernization Pilot Projects
This project funds the development and piloting of innovative programs at the MBTA, including the implementation of a new Bus Rapid Transit system and the use of Diesel Multiple Unit vehicles. These innovations will allow the MBTA to experiment with new vehicle technologies and new methods of service provision."
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,279
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
"Pilot" projects. That means studies and evaluation of tech. This line item has been in the CIP for 15 years now and has been applied as a misc. slush fund for pilots for station energy reduction, solar studies, vehicle tech like regenerative braking and alternative bus fuels, and wasting tons of money convincing themselves BRT is the great goldilocks mode. It's pilots like that that got them adopting CNG buses, Silver Line dual-modes, LED station lighting for reduced power consumption, etc. It's systemwide. The yearly apportionments to individual items run anywhere from a few hundred grand to a couple million and are constantly doled on-demand every year.
All that means for DMU's is that they're going to continue to study it. Which they should. But they won't have the money to physically buy one DMU evaluation unit with how many things that funding pot has to feed. It is not for vehicle procurement.
Seriously...stop squinting yourself crosseyed looking for a way this is going to happen in 5 years. The DMU market is setting the tone. The prices are not going to halve themselves before the decade is out because the regs haven't relaxed and active and pending procurements as of 2013 are tiny and overly specialized. It is not realistic to expect that the FRA's going to get its house in order to lift the restrictions on generics, purchases of 50+ DMU's per one order are going to start flying off the shelves and upping manufacturing scale by orders of magnitude, and that multiple agencies are going to be considering orders of that size for general-purpose use...all before 2018. All we are seeing today are a slight uptick of these specialty orders of 9-18 customized vehicles for little airport dinkys and 1-line/1-agency upstarts. It's not evolving nearly fast enough for it to fit into a vehicle procurement cycle this decade for a commuter rail colossus like the T, or MNRR/LIRR/CTDOT, or NJT, or Metra, or MARC/VRE, or GO, or AMT, etc. etc.
Right now, not buying DMU's is a feature...not a bug. It's not a mature market, and won't be in this country until--optimistically--2020. Well out-of-range for procurements in the CIP. Is there anything wrong with looking before you leap? Don't we routinely tear the MBTA a new one for its embarrassing gaffes at not doing its homework before it blows an extreme wad of money on the unproven? What is different here?
"Pilot" projects. That means studies and evaluation of tech. This line item has been in the CIP for 15 years now and has been applied as a misc. slush fund for pilots for station energy reduction, solar studies, vehicle tech like regenerative braking and alternative bus fuels, and wasting tons of money convincing themselves BRT is the great goldilocks mode. It's pilots like that that got them adopting CNG buses, Silver Line dual-modes, LED station lighting for reduced power consumption, etc. It's systemwide. The yearly apportionments to individual items run anywhere from a few hundred grand to a couple million and are constantly doled on-demand every year.
All that means for DMU's is that they're going to continue to study it. Which they should. But they won't have the money to physically buy one DMU evaluation unit with how many things that funding pot has to feed. It is not for vehicle procurement.
Seriously...stop squinting yourself crosseyed looking for a way this is going to happen in 5 years. The DMU market is setting the tone. The prices are not going to halve themselves before the decade is out because the regs haven't relaxed and active and pending procurements as of 2013 are tiny and overly specialized. It is not realistic to expect that the FRA's going to get its house in order to lift the restrictions on generics, purchases of 50+ DMU's per one order are going to start flying off the shelves and upping manufacturing scale by orders of magnitude, and that multiple agencies are going to be considering orders of that size for general-purpose use...all before 2018. All we are seeing today are a slight uptick of these specialty orders of 9-18 customized vehicles for little airport dinkys and 1-line/1-agency upstarts. It's not evolving nearly fast enough for it to fit into a vehicle procurement cycle this decade for a commuter rail colossus like the T, or MNRR/LIRR/CTDOT, or NJT, or Metra, or MARC/VRE, or GO, or AMT, etc. etc.
Right now, not buying DMU's is a feature...not a bug. It's not a mature market, and won't be in this country until--optimistically--2020. Well out-of-range for procurements in the CIP. Is there anything wrong with looking before you leap? Don't we routinely tear the MBTA a new one for its embarrassing gaffes at not doing its homework before it blows an extreme wad of money on the unproven? What is different here?
The EGE
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2013
- Messages
- 1,658
- Reaction score
- 4,217
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
At 6.6 million a pop, for the cost of a Fairmount-based DMU fleet you can make a pretty substantial dent in the electrification money.
If third-rail and overhead capable EMUs are available (like the M8s), I wonder if it would be better to push for those rather than overhead-only. Some of the potential future MU routes - Salem, Riverside, Reading - would require a lot of bridge-raising money to add catenary.
At 6.6 million a pop, for the cost of a Fairmount-based DMU fleet you can make a pretty substantial dent in the electrification money.
If third-rail and overhead capable EMUs are available (like the M8s), I wonder if it would be better to push for those rather than overhead-only. Some of the potential future MU routes - Salem, Riverside, Reading - would require a lot of bridge-raising money to add catenary.
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade
Am I right in thinking that the next round of coach replacement, locomotive procurement, and electrification thoughts are all going to happen within roughly the same timeframe? If that is the case it seems like a VERY strong case for EMUs, especially if the T can get in on the next replacement order NJ Transit or Metro North places to lower costs even further. Would the T perhaps also be able to get some federal money for stringing wires along the Fairmont Line as an Amtrak alternate? It misses Back Bay, but would be very useful for the times that the whole NEC gets screwed when someone jumps in the trench.
Am I right in thinking that the next round of coach replacement, locomotive procurement, and electrification thoughts are all going to happen within roughly the same timeframe? If that is the case it seems like a VERY strong case for EMUs, especially if the T can get in on the next replacement order NJ Transit or Metro North places to lower costs even further. Would the T perhaps also be able to get some federal money for stringing wires along the Fairmont Line as an Amtrak alternate? It misses Back Bay, but would be very useful for the times that the whole NEC gets screwed when someone jumps in the trench.