Fairmount Line Upgrade

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.

It'll be overhead. 60 Hz/25 kV AC like the NEC to New Haven, all non-NEC NJ Transit lines, AMT in Montreal, and the planned GO and Caltrain electrification. That is the worldwide standard for modern installs with the most widespread equipment availability (including transmission infrastructure). All Euro rolling stock built for 50 Hz/25 kV on that continent runs unmodified here. Of course, Congress and Amtrak didn't follow its own advice and abandoned plans their plans to change the whole NEC over to that. But the T would be able to order much cheaper and lighter single-voltage vehicles that don't have extra transformers for changing voltage on the fly. Nothing they run is ever going to cross the New Haven voltage break.

Third rail is DC power vs. AC for overhead requires extremely different transmission infrastructure. DC needs very frequent substations...advantageous for a compact subway system which is why nearly all metro systems (including Green + Blue overhead) are DC. It's much poorer for a suburban commuter rail. LIRR does it because they only have 1 connection (Penn) to the national network, so its original experimental electrification scheme matured in isolation. Metro North only does it because they have no choice: it's physically impossible to retrofit the Grand Central tunnels for overhead clearance. They're permanently consigned to being special like that.


Electrification also requires a threshold of train frequencies to really pay off on ops when there's not an unventilated tunnel (i.e. N-S Link) in play forcing its use. The only lines that are slam-dunk for that kind of investment in the near future are Worcester and Fairmount. Fairmount for obvious reasons of frequency, short length, and pre-existing wires at each end. Worcester for dense overlapping service patterns.

But there's very little else on the system that meets the frequency threshold because of branchlines forking out before 128 (Old Colony and Eastern Route) and branch schedules too diffuse for it. Dual-mode push-pulls also don't make a lot of sense on the mainlines with branches unless the tunnel forces that hand by necessity. An ALP-45DP guzzles a lot more fuel in diesel mode than any regular diesel loco because the only way to fit two modes in one carbody is by using a physically small engine that spins way faster to output the same power. It's the train equivalent of a Ferrari engine. They would never make back the cost of their higher fuel consumption on only 10 miles of Old Colony main wire to Braintree and 10 miles of Eastern Route main wire to Salem/Beverly. Whereas an Amtrak Inland probably would save money on a dual-mode using 30 extra miles of wire from Worcester, future 60 extra miles when the Springfield Line gets wired, and no need any longer to tie up 2 locos for the New Haven power switch.

Other places it's simply impossible because of freight. You need 25 ft. wire clearance to clear a double-stack freight car without danger of an electric arc. That's the default height for all wires out in the open which is why small parts of the Keystone and NEC do handle double stack freight under the wires. But it gets hideously expensive when you've got many bridges to raise, and nearly impossible with tunnel bores. Worcester-Westborough would be easy because there's only 5 overhead structures already cleared to 20'2", and it's an ex- 3 track line so if finding up to 4'10" extra is a problem the freight can flow just fine if there was a 3rd unpowered track. But Fitchburg west of Willows Jct., Haverhill/Downeaster north of Wilmington Jct., and the B&A west of Worcester are nearly impossible with sheer quantity of bridges.

For Haverhill you've got the same dual-modes fuel efficiency issue after the first 10 miles. For Fitchburg the frequencies past 128 just aren't high enough (and even if you did wire to 128 for an EMU shuttle nothing thru-running would touch those wires). For Needham the frequencies are too constrained and it's better off going rapid transit. For Reading you've got duplicate Orange Line DC electrification for half the distance that makes little economic sense to duplicate with all-new AC (see also Haverhill thru-running and dual-mode efficiency). For Franklin you've got no intercity anchors and possible frequency diffusion with future branching at/past Walpole. Stoughton's logical if it stays a stub, but South Coast FAIL has pathetic branch frequencies and the NEC imposing a Taunton capacity cap that's probably not quite at the payoff threshold. Taunton and Franklin are dual-modes candidates since they'd fork much further out, but are 2 lines or relatively mundane strategic importance enough to float that expensive a purchase? That's scale as lousy as buying expensive-ass DMU's for just one line.

That leaves...Lowell/Nashua. EMU's to Nashua, maybe some NHDOT-owned dual-modes exclusively for Concord with eventual full wiring. Would most definitely hit paydirt on frequency, ease/speed, and bringing Lowell very close indeed to Boston. But does that really work as the only northside outpost feasible until the Link gets built? Do we really want to electrify every North Station platform, the whole Boston Engine Terminal complex, and the Grand Junction so the vehicles can physically get there for one line? I don't think that's going to float itself until northside and southside get a real thru interconnection.



RE: Worcester...Beacon St. is the worst of the inside-128 bridges. That has to get raised, although it's in bad structural shape so replacement's probably < dozen years away. The ones west of Beacon Park to Framingham are clear for single freight cars a little taller than a commuter rail bi-level, and would only need safe wire clearance over a bi-level since the freight's all gone. You're talking inches, so undercutting the trackbed works in nearly every spot. Framingham to the 495 overpass at Westborough yard is probably OK since they used to run autoracks there (a bit than bi-levels) and the largest freight run out of Framingham today goes under NEC wires between Mansfield and Attleboro. I'm going to guess if there's any tight squeezes it's a game of inches and inexpensive trackbed shaving.
 
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.

Yes. T's got a very detailed CR fleet management doc that spells it all out: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/portals/0/docs/infoCenter/docs_materials/Fleet_Plan.pdf.


There is a massive pileup at the end of the decade of end-of-life equipment.

-- Coaches: The initial Rotem order retires all of the MBB single-levels, and all of the Kawasaki bi-levels are rotating out for mid-life rebuilds right now. The +75 option order on Rotem contract would displace about half the Bombardiers single-levels by 2015 if it gets picked up.

The other half of the Bombardiers + the entire Pullman single-level fleet are up for retirement in '20: ~110-120 cars. By that point the coach fleet will be 2/3 bi-level, and it'll be cheaper on ops and maintenance to make the push-pull fleet 100% bi rather than trying to breathe more life into singles built in 1978 and 1987.


-- Diesels: The 20 HSP-46's in the initial order replace 18 wheezing F40PH's, 1 F40PH2-C that was wrecked and scrapped years ago, and 1 extra. The next option for 7 replaces 2 GP40MC's that will be sent over the work fleet (so they can retire 2 ancient non-revenue engines), the 3 MARC rentals (all of 'em now dead in the shop), and 2 extras. The last option for 13 that they just exercised last month (pushing the grand total to 40) is TBD: they either retire half the GP40MC's + fleet expansion, or retire some GP40MC's + re-sell the 2 MP36's to a new buyer (since they'll be fleet outliers) + fleet expansion.

2020 all remaining GP40MC's, 25 F40PH-2C's, and 12 F40PHM-2C's have to go. Probably another order of 40 engines. The GP's are 40 years old now and just went through their second rebuild...no mas. The PH-2C's are 25 years old and the workhorses for long routes, so they don't have another rebuild in them. The PHM's are 20 years old and might be able to stretch comfortably to 2025. But they plan to lump them in with the others because by this point those dozen will be the last DC-traction engines left in a fleet that's gone all-modern AC-motor...so they'll be expensive to keep maintaining and buy parts for.



Bang...that is literally every not-new locomotive and every not- bi-level coach all up in the same year. That is a terrifying amount of money that has to get appropriated all at once.

The good news is, if they're gonna go electric that's the time to do it with so much equipment overturning. Either replacing one class with electric push-pulls or evaluating EMU's. The fact that the F40PHM's have a little bit of leeway left in them for stretching lifespan to 2025 also buys them time for building out Fairmount wires, studying a Riverside shuttle, etc. before replacement vehicles have to arrive on-property.


And if DMU's fit into the picture...2020 is when that procurement fits into the mix. But that market doesn't have an infinite window to perk up and come down in price before all these purchase decisions have to be made. If it's still lukewarm in another 5 years, they have to appropriate based on what is out there. Can't keep riding old crap into the ground indefinitely waiting and waiting for this mode to take off. Either DMU's are ready for mass acceptance by the 2020 purchase onslaught or they probably never run here.

I think the electrics prospects are a lot rosier. Especially if some other operators like NJ Transit move ahead with this kind of halfway-EMU "power car" concept where souped-up EMU units bookend generic bi-level coaches. Basically: EMU <--> bi-level <--> bi-level <--> EMU. EMU bookends sandwiching up to 2 generic coaches, add extras until getting desired train length. Slight acceleration penalty over an M8 or Silverliner, but still beats the hell out of every other mode including DMU...hugely higher seating capacity, interoperability with an existing coach fleet, and only have to purchase half as many EMU units to get a full train. That would be the sweet spot for Providence + RIDOT + Fairmount because it's a considerably less scary up-front investment and doesn't change their system-wide coach usage.

Bombardier's apparently got a design (nothing available online) that it's pitching to NJT. Kawasaki expected to also pitch one. Metro North and LIRR are mildly interested as a possible replacement for their minority fleet of third-rail M3's (basically, because it's either increase the seating capacity on the overstuffed rush hour runs or spend a couple billion dollars lengthening platforms and upgrading power draws to run 10-car M7/M7-clones).
 
Last edited:
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 "

No F-line, it has not been in the CIP for the last 15 years, it only appeared this year. They still have past CIPs on line, please find where DMU's have been mentioned before (they haven't). And they have $200 million allocated for this in the proposed budget, $40 million for each of the next five years, that is quite a lot for a study! (see table on page 17 of the CIP) The DMU pilot will probably be to buy 15-20 for the Fairmount Line, and if they work out to buy more to use elsewhere. The BRT pilot will probably be Silver Line Gateway.

The Nippon-Sharyo DMU's, if they prove workable, will be available within the next five years. Siemens also bid on the SMART DMU contract, but lost to Nippon-Sharyo. They could bid as well.

I don't think Nippon-Sharyo thinks it will take 10 more years to get working DMU's on the market
http://www.nipponsharyousa.com/nisshadmucatalog.pdf
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

No F-line, it has not been in the CIP for the last 15 years, it only appeared this year. They still have past CIPs on line, please find where DMU's have been mentioned before (they haven't). And they have $200 million allocated for this in the proposed budget, $40 million for each of the next five years, that is quite a lot for a study! (see table on page 17 of the CIP) The DMU pilot will probably be to buy 15-20 for the Fairmount Line, and if they work out to buy more to use elsewhere. The BRT pilot will probably be Silver Line Gateway.

The Nippon-Sharyo DMU's, if they prove workable, will be available within the next five years. Siemens also bid on the SMART DMU contract, but lost to Nippon-Sharyo. They could bid as well.

I don't think Nippon-Sharyo thinks it will take 10 more years to get working DMU's on the market
http://www.nipponsharyousa.com/nisshadmucatalog.pdf



Well, OK then. You go show the T an FRA-compliant DMU that can be had for under $3M per unit...today...at their specifications...that builds in the cost of testing and all the new maintenance overhead required for introducing a wholly unique vehicle to the fleet: modifying their shop lifts to jack up a conjoined-pair vehicle ('cause they can't fit 'em right now), stock unique parts for, train their service techs and engineers on a completely alien design, etc. I don't see anything in Nippon Sharyo's little 3-page glossy saying what that is. But $200M--to be divvied up between several bus and RR projects--doesn't come close to paying for it.

They have a rolling procurement schedule for a huge amount of equipment. And they know what prices they can and can't afford. If the price point doesn't fit and it misses the procurement window staring them down in the FY2018-2022 budget for all the shit they have to buy in 2020...it ain't happening. They can't spend stupid money for a niche product with massive up-front overhead and can't hold up their procurements waiting for unicorns. The market either matures in a damn hurry or DMU's aren't going to be part of the equation.



You don't have to believe that. You can believe whatever you want. But if you're going to argue this point, please substantiate with some evidence as to HOW this crop of DMU's and the sluggish DMU market are going to snap into widespread acceptance fast enough to fit into that budget and the T's procurement schedule. Something more than hope and faith and blind trust that 'things are gonna happen, I feel it'. People have been saying exactly what you've been saying since the late-90's. It's 2013. Where's this momentum everybody's been hoping and trusting is about to crest?
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

F-Line, the MBTA put the DMU line item in the MBTA capital plan, not me. You act like its my idea and I'm trying to convince them. I'm only passing along data from their plan, since you and others here don't seem to realize they are serious about a DMU procurement. Its right there in black and white in the CIP.

Not sure why you think $3 million a car is a deal killer. The same table in the CIP shows projected new Green Line car costs at over $4 million per car (180 cars for $732 million).

They have put out recently that the Silver Line Gateway might be about $70 million. That would leave about $130 million for other projects including DMUs. $60 mil for 20 DMUs at 3 million a car and that still leaves $70 million for maintenance facility modifications for a small DMU fleet. It could be done with the amount of money they have proposed.

Another note from the capital plan, look at the commuter rail vehicle procurement budget for the next five years on page 51. You see money for 42 new locomotives (the 40 HSP46s on order and the 2 ex UTA units already here), you see the Kawasaki overhaul project, and you see the present 75-car Rotem order. What you don't see is the 75-car option from Rotem being funded. So we have a capital plan with proposed spending for DMUs but only money for 75 Rotems. The fleet plan might be changing from the one put out several years ago (which you linked).
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

F-Line, the MBTA put the DMU line item in the MBTA capital plan, not me. You act like its my idea and I'm trying to convince them. I'm only passing along data from their plan, since you and others here don't seem to realize they are serious about a DMU procurement. Its right there in black and white in the CIP.

It's a blurb. It doesn't detail what's in that blurb. It doesn't break out the costs associated with DMU's.

That's not "data". That's reading into it what you want to read into it.

Not sure why you think $3 million a car is a deal killer. The same table in the CIP shows projected new Green Line car costs at over $4 million per car (180 cars for $732 million).
Low-floor LRV's built to the Green Line's unique-as-snowflake specs bear no relation whatsoever to pricing for FRA commuter rail equipment. Apples vs. fishsticks comparison.

They have put out recently that the Silver Line Gateway might be about $70 million. That would leave about $130 million for other projects including DMUs. $60 mil for 20 DMUs at 3 million a car and that still leaves $70 million for maintenance facility modifications for a small DMU fleet. It could be done with the amount of money they have proposed.
Do you know that for sure, or are you making a hopeful assumption there? We don't know how many total "projects including DMU's" are in that funding pool. We don't know what ancillary expenses are required to maintain a DMU model, so it's a whole lot of wishful thinking to divide that funding pie to arrive at a specific # of units for a Fairmount service plan.

Another note from the capital plan, look at the commuter rail vehicle procurement budget for the next five years on page 51. You see money for 42 new locomotives (the 40 HSP46s on order and the 2 ex UTA units already here), you see the Kawasaki overhaul project, and you see the present 75-car Rotem order. What you don't see is the 75-car option from Rotem being funded. So we have a capital plan with proposed spending for DMUs but only money for 75 Rotems. The fleet plan might be changing from the one put out several years ago (which you linked).
No. The Rotem option order hasn't been appropriated. Option orders do not work that way. The funds are not "real" and committed until the order is exercised. That's their protection against buying duds, incurring unacceptable cost overruns on the initial order, or 'shit-happens' short-term funding crises they didn't anticipate 5 years in advance. The extras on the HSP-46 order came from state and fed grants from outside the T approved by the MassDOT board. They only have 1 more year before they have to decide on the option +75 order. If these things aren't total lemons (and they don't appear to be), they are on the hotseat to make that decision soon.

And yes, the fleet plan has evolved. They're losing 33 restroom-equipped coaches from the fleet in this first order. Design compromise made where the space reserved for bathrooms on the blind coaches becomes the operator cab when it's a rear trailer. The MBB single-levels they're replacing have bathrooms in both the blind coaches and the cab units. They have to order more blind coaches to balance out the losses, otherwise some trains are no longer going to have bathrooms. They also decided during design that every bi-level (including the rebuilt Kawasakis) is getting an ASA announcement/display system installed. But it only works if there's a bi-level cab car at the rear, because that's where the ASA computer lives. The announcements and displays won't work if there's a single-level cab car as the trailer, so the 27 Bombardier cab cars are next on the chopping block.

That's 60+ more cars to replace or they risk accessibility legalities with artificially kneecapping bathroom availability on certain runs and sticking some (probably all-northside) trains with non-functioning ASA. But this is a feature, not bug; they made those design mods knowing full well they had every intention of picking up the option.

There is no door ajar for more DMU $$$ or hesitation in the coach fleet plan. Full speed ahead.




Sorry...I am not seeing a DMU path here that isn't a whole lot of wishful thinking. You can read into a CIP blurb what you will, but there is not a DMU vehicle out there that they can buy within the next 4 years with enough units to fulfill their Fairmount service plan and fit neatly inside that funding line item that is spread around for multiple projects. That vehicle does not exist at that price point. And Fairmount is not going to run a fullly realized schedule until they acquire 100% of the units + spares they need for that schedule. No partial starter orders, because if you're running some DMU's but have to plug the rest of the schedule with push-pulls...everything gets padded for push-pull headways and you're little better than where you started. Because a printed schedule cannot predict what trainset is going to be available.

That's the burden of proof. This is far short of that. Wishful thinking doesn't make up the difference.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

F-Line, its a $200 million "blurb" in an official planning document, not just something they threw in there casually.

The point of comparing Green Line LRV costs per car to DMU costs is not that the two types are comparable for their usage, the point is that they are willing to spend a large amount per car to buy something that meets unique needs.

The obviously have something in mind or they would not have included the reference in the document. Fairmount seems to be the obvious first choice of where they would try a pilot. The quantity of cars is based on how many would be required to run 20 minute service plus spares. You stated the $200 million was not enough to fund a pilot service and I am pointing out that if Silver Line Gateway and Fairmount DMUs are the two BRT and DMU pilots they want to pursue in the next five years, then it is enough,

As far as the Rotem option, option orders are usually in the CIP. The CIP came out before the option with MPI for locomotives was exercised, but it states 42 locomotives (the full 40 MPI order plus the 2 Utah units). The recent 13 unit option was already allocated in the CIP before it was actually placed. Any major capital expense planned for the next five years, especially if it is going to be executed within the next 2 years, is usually included in the CIP. Just because it is in the CIP doesn't mean they have the money lined up to fund something, but it is supposed to be in the CIP first before it can be funded. Note that this CIP includes allocations for new Red and Orange cars, new Green Line cars, the future overhaul of existing buses and new buses, but only 42 locomotives and 75 commuter rail cars.

"And yes, the fleet plan has evolved. They're losing 33 restroom-equipped coaches from the fleet in this first order. "

The 75-car Rotem order includes 47 restroom equipped cars. They will be retiring 65 MBBs (two cars were already retired several years ago). They are losing 18 restroom equipped cars (65-47). They also have 33 restroom-equipped 900 series cars, which will give them a total of 80 restroom equipped cars (47 800 series Rotems and 33 900 series). Right now they run 62 consists in service during the peak, 23 on the north side and 39 on the south, so 80 restroom equipped cars is still enough for one per train plus 18 spares. Their fleet plan envisions the 900s running mostly on the north and the 800s on the south, but as noted above, these things can change. If they buy DMUs for Fairmount, that frees up a couple of more bi-level restroom cars.

If they don't pick-up the Rotem option, the Bombardier 1600s will be around for awhile. As noted above, they have been planning to move the 900s to the north side as the restroom cars once the 75 Rotems are all in. and the newer 900s are not part of the Kawasaki overhaul contract (not even as an option) so thy won't be getting any stop announcement displays any time soon. So it won't be a problem to run them with 1600 series cab cars for several more years.

"There is no door ajar for more DMU $$$ or hesitation in the coach fleet plan. Full speed ahead."

Except that their official five-year capital plan has an allocation for DMUs and no allocation for picking up the Rotem option. Looks like they are holding that door open a few inches.

"Sorry...I am not seeing a DMU path here that isn't a whole lot of wishful thinking. You can read into a CIP blurb what you will, but there is not a DMU vehicle out there that they can buy within the next 4 years with enough units to fulfill their Fairmount service plan and fit neatly inside that funding line item that is spread around for multiple projects. That vehicle does not exist at that price point "

Please explain why the Nippon-Sharyo DMU or a proposed competing product from Siemens, if it performs to the specs, is not an option for Fairmount?
Also, as noted here:
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/sonoma-marin-orders-commuter-dmu-cars.html
The Nippon-Sharyo contract has a large number of options from other agencies: "The contract includes an option for a further nine cars to extend the SMART trains to three cars as ridership grows, and further options for more than 100 vehicles for other transit agencies including Denver RTD, Portland TriMet and Harris County MTA in Houston. " The SMART/Toronto order was $82.7 million for 27 cars, more than $20 cheaper than the next bidder. If the options for the other units are executed once the initial SMART order is complete, Nippon-Sharyo may be able to lower the price further, especially if Siemens is going to be sharpening their pencils to get their price down. Yes, until the first units are done, the Nippon-Sharyo DMUs are an unknown. But Nippon-Sharyo has been building EMUs and push-pulls for the U.S. market since the early 1980s and they have been building DMUs for their home market in Japan for decades. There is every reason to be optimistic about the potential for these cars. The pilot cars for the SMART order are pretty far along:
http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/6-19-13 GM Report to Board_Final.pdf
Pretty impressive for "vaporware"

"And Fairmount is not going to run a fullly realized schedule until they acquire 100% of the units + spares they need for that schedule. No partial starter orders"

As noted above, the $200 million allocation would b enough to build Silver Line Gateway and buy enough DMUs to fully equip Fairmount. The pilot is to buy enough for Fairmount, the expansion beyond a pilot would be to buy some more to use elsewhere on the system.

"That's the burden of proof. This is far short of that. Wishful thinking doesn't make up the difference."

I think an official MBTA planning document including a $200 million line item for BRT and DMUs is at least proof that they are considering it, Where is your proof that they aren't? I also note in this thread considerable discussion about electrifying the Fairmount Line and other parts of the commuter rail system, buying Bombardier EMUs's that are proposed for New Jersey Transit (but not even actually ordered yet). Is there any MBTA or MassDOT document that suggests any of these thing are being considered? Please provide source.














It's a blurb. It doesn't detail what's in that blurb. It doesn't break out the costs associated with DMU's.

That's not "data". That's reading into it what you want to read into it.

Low-floor LRV's built to the Green Line's unique-as-snowflake specs bear no relation whatsoever to pricing for FRA commuter rail equipment. Apples vs. fishsticks comparison.

Do you know that for sure, or are you making a hopeful assumption there? We don't know how many total "projects including DMU's" are in that funding pool. We don't know what ancillary expenses are required to maintain a DMU model, so it's a whole lot of wishful thinking to divide that funding pie to arrive at a specific # of units for a Fairmount service plan.

No. The Rotem option order hasn't been appropriated. Option orders do not work that way. The funds are not "real" and committed until the order is exercised. That's their protection against buying duds, incurring unacceptable cost overruns on the initial order, or 'shit-happens' short-term funding crises they didn't anticipate 5 years in advance. The extras on the HSP-46 order came from state and fed grants from outside the T approved by the MassDOT board. They only have 1 more year before they have to decide on the option +75 order. If these things aren't total lemons (and they don't appear to be), they are on the hotseat to make that decision soon.

And yes, the fleet plan has evolved. They're losing 33 restroom-equipped coaches from the fleet in this first order. Design compromise made where the space reserved for bathrooms on the blind coaches becomes the operator cab when it's a rear trailer. The MBB single-levels they're replacing have bathrooms in both the blind coaches and the cab units. They have to order more blind coaches to balance out the losses, otherwise some trains are no longer going to have bathrooms. They also decided during design that every bi-level (including the rebuilt Kawasakis) is getting an ASA announcement/display system installed. But it only works if there's a bi-level cab car at the rear, because that's where the ASA computer lives. The announcements and displays won't work if there's a single-level cab car as the trailer, so the 27 Bombardier cab cars are next on the chopping block.

That's 60+ more cars to replace or they risk accessibility legalities with artificially kneecapping bathroom availability on certain runs and sticking some (probably all-northside) trains with non-functioning ASA. But this is a feature, not bug; they made those design mods knowing full well they had every intention of picking up the option.

There is no door ajar for more DMU $$$ or hesitation in the coach fleet plan. Full speed ahead.




Sorry...I am not seeing a DMU path here that isn't a whole lot of wishful thinking. You can read into a CIP blurb what you will, but there is not a DMU vehicle out there that they can buy within the next 4 years with enough units to fulfill their Fairmount service plan and fit neatly inside that funding line item that is spread around for multiple projects. That vehicle does not exist at that price point. And Fairmount is not going to run a fullly realized schedule until they acquire 100% of the units + spares they need for that schedule. No partial starter orders, because if you're running some DMU's but have to plug the rest of the schedule with push-pulls...everything gets padded for push-pull headways and you're little better than where you started. Because a printed schedule cannot predict what trainset is going to be available.

That's the burden of proof. This is far short of that. Wishful thinking doesn't make up the difference.
 
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.

F-Line and I have reached the point where we'll just be saying "you're wrong - no, you're wrong!" forever, so I won't continue that argument, but I do feel the need to respond to this. First of all, you clearly have no idea what MTC actually does. MTC is not a project management agency. They operate the SF Bay bridges, appropriate money to local agencies and jurisdictions for projects, and (this is the most important part) build and run planning models of future demand and development patterns. They DO NOT build anything.

The Warm Springs extension is, according to every source I could find, on-time for it's opening in 2015 and on or under-budget at $890M. This project is a 5-mile extension of a transit line, so basically, it's GLX with faster and more comfortable trains and only one station at 60% of the cost (and they had to tunnel under a lake). Fremont is most assuredly not the "middle of nowhere" - it has a population of 215,000. The station may have parking (and TOD, which BART paid off UP already to secure the land for), but that just means that about 50,000 folks don't have to drive to work on congested freeways.

That doesn't even get into the fact that Warm Springs is a prelude to BART-to-San Jose, so really it's meant to extend high-capacity heavy-rail service to a city of 1.5 million people and a metro area which is one of the fastest growing and most economically vibrant in the United States. That extension is being built by Santa Clara County to be operated by BART, so neither MTC nor BART are responsible for planning it.

You and F-Line have started echoing whatever unsupported assertion the other makes and taking it as fact, so I feel like I have to step in here and say that basically none of it is true. If Boston (which I love and want dearly to return to soon) had its transportation planning crap together half this much, we'd have the Blue Line in Lynn, GLX would be opening in 18 months, the City would be pressuring for Arborway restoration, etc. Don't hate on the region that's actually doing things because you're frustrated that yours is not.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

The Warm Springs Extension is on easy ground, using a suburban corridor originally preserved for the cancelled 238 freeway. GLX, on the other hand, is in a very tight location in a dense urban setting.

So, the cost difference of GLX compared to Warm Springs Extension is justifiable.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Yes, MTC does planning, and they suck at it.

BART is a sprawl-generating machine. It's not a transit line. Its main purpose is to be the sidekick to a massive highway, so that when the further sprawl congests that highway, there'll still be some way to get around. That's planning for sprawl.

Building BART out to Warm Springs and San Jose is enormously irresponsible, and is only happening because the powers-that-be in that region are playing parochial politics combined with a love for pumping billions into contractor-welfare projects. It doesn't make any sense to overextend BART like that operationally, especially out in the midst of suburban sprawl. It's not comparable to GLX which is actually going to serve a densely populated area, for all its flaws.

But, you know, Geary might get a bus-rapid transit lane sometime in the next ten years. So it's all even?

It's true, I've lost track of many of the agencies involved in that area since I haven't been back in 2 years. VTA is its own special pile of fail, a "transit agency" that builds highway expansions, and manages to operate "modern" Light Rail that is slower than the Green Line here.

San Jose is full of itself. It's nothing more than a collection of suburbs and egotastic politicos like Rod Diridon, "father of VTA light rail" who build monuments to themselves. Have you seen what they demanded from CAHSR? "Signature" viaducts, elevated glass palaces, concrete galore!

The "city" itself is a joke, whatever passes for downtown was a ghost town whenever I visited, and the rest seems to be highway interchanges and ramps. My impression of San Jose was that of "cargo cult urbanism." The big shots there want people to think that they are a city, so they copy all the things that cities have. Tall buildings, light rail, highway interchanges, anything that makes it look like a city. But there's no there, there.

Few things make me appreciate Boston like living in the Bay Area. The weather is fantastic there but that's about it. If you don't want to live in sprawl-sprawl-sprawl then you can move to San Francisco which is overpriced NIMBY hell. And MUNI makes the MBTA look competent.

Ugh.

So how'd we get on this topic? Oh right, trying to hold up SMART as a model. Yeah -- I love the idea of DMUs (really, I do) but I'll wait until someone can show a working FRA monster (or the FRA fixes itself). And the general planning record in the Bay Area is so bad (Caltrain, ARGGH!!) that I want to see them actually do something right first.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Well_that_escalated_quickly.jpg


So how 'bout that Fairmount Line, eh? :rolleyes:
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Hah, yeah. I just got annoyed at someone holding up a region known for its planning incompetence, cronyism and NIMBYism as an "example" for us to follow.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Sooooooooooooo...

Is there any reason that they couldn't at least install Charlie gates on the inbound platforms on the fairmont?
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Sooooooooooooo...

Is there any reason that they couldn't at least install Charlie gates on the inbound platforms on the fairmont?

Can't. Because as long as CR fare collection isn't on Charlie they'd be useless.


If there are system issues with the integration people will put up with it if they've at least got a schedule for how many years it'll take to port the commuter rail over. But they won't. Only "Oh HELL no!".
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

But why buy DMUs now and then replace them latter with EMUs. They are cleaner, quiter, and start and stop faster than DMUs.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Well you can shift the DMUs to elsewhere in the system like the Greenbush Branch or the Needham Branch. Electrification costs for the South Station Divison I would peg at 4.2 billion and another billion for EMUs which you would need 400-500 cars.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

I'm only talking about the Fairmont line in the short term. I think this process would have to happen in baby steps. Perhaps South Station to New Balance could be phase two.

Another advantage is that it can serve as a backup line for the Excela incase something happens to the existing tracks.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Its a toss up. If you buy EMUs you can electrify the Fairmont (which wouldn't be too, too expensive in the grand scope of things, you already have power at both ends), which gets you a faster trip on the line proper as well as redundancy for when someone jumps on the tracks in the sw corridor. You also can wholesale replace the Providence fleet with them, which frees up equipment that can be used elsewhere. It also gets the dog slow diesels out of the way of amtrak, perhaps opening up another slot or two on the NEC, as well as quickening the trip to PVD.

On the other hand, with DMUs you can use them on other lines with dense inside-128 stop spacing from day one without having to build extra infastructure, which is a HUGE bonus. You could also do things like run a single DMU on lines that could use off peak service, but dont warrent enough for a whole pushpull train, like they used to do in the budd days. But their acceleration isn't as good, they aren't being made with any kind of frequency (leading to possible reliability issues now, and parts issues later), and it doesnt push the Ts hand to consider electrification. If anything, a DMU purchace would probably stall the T from getting the move on an electric fleet for another generation, or worse if they do you now have three types of power running around the system.

So I don't know. The one good thing either way is that they are taking about any kind of multiple unit operation.

*on my phone, I know I can't spell.
 

Back
Top