Fairmount Line Upgrade

Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Am I dreaming if I remember seeing handheld readers being used by the T at points on the green line to tab people in in the past? Why can't these just be given to the conductors on this line to run down and tap or quickly swipe charlie tickets, in lieu of a fare gate. Is it really that hard? I scanned my phone to board a plane yesterday!

Not dreaming, and I've been wondering this since day 1.

Although since the fare is reduced to $2 I don't understand why they just don't put up charle gates at the new stations, and not check tickets until after that zone.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

There is still the issue of the South Station transfer if you are going and hoping on the red line, which I don't think they could gate. You either need the zone 1A or pay twice.

It doesn't sound like a big deal, but from a customer experience perspective it really matters. I live in Porter and sometimes take the CR to North Station if the timing works and I'm going to a game/north end. I only do this 1-2 a month so I just pay the extra fare, because the act of opening my wallet putting in the ticket, having it read and go in and out and then open is more annoying then the extra $4-$8. Tapping and walking through is just easier, especially in winter if you have gloves and stuff.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Transfers between commuter rail and subway are crummy in this town. For whatever reason, walking access between platforms was never thought out well. South Station is only slightly better. I guess it's easier to transfer to the Silver Line-Wash.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Am I dreaming if I remember seeing handheld readers being used by the T at points on the green line to tab people in in the past? Why can't these just be given to the conductors on this line to run down and tap or quickly swipe charlie tickets, in lieu of a fare gate. Is it really that hard? I scanned my phone to board a plane yesterday!

There has never been a good explanation given as to why they aren't doing it. They've only said "Ha-ha! Fuck never!" since they reversed course on CR Charlies. From what I understand there are real-deal vexing technical hurdles in the system for getting the commuter rail on it, but that doesn't explain why they aren't even trying. A modern software system that probably is backended by some scalable Oracle database should not be that hard to reprogram. And yes, if they can do tap surfaces on all rapid transit, buses, the bike cages at stations, and nearly all other RTA's in the state there is clearly enough flexibility in it to port to other modes and use card readers. Parking is an equally baffling omission given all their pearl-clutching about people abusing the honor system. I mean, the DOT had no problems porting EZ Pass to commuter lots, including the T's own Westwood/128. What gives?


The smartphone app simply doesn't cover all needs. Not everybody has a smartphone. The most transit-reliant inner city residents are the least-likely demographic to have a data plan. It's class-biased to shove everyone onto that ticketing method and put a punitive surcharge on onboard purchases.


We should be moving towards this:

-- Charlie machines at every CR station so there's less need for staffed ticketing locations.
-- Charlie machines at every park-and-ride lot.
-- Card readers for every CR conductor, since they aren't reducing staff there with the ironclad union rule about 1 conductor per every 2 open cars.
-- Tap surfaces on the coach doors for Fairmount or other such installations (Riverside via Worcester Line?) that are on a unified "Indigo" fare. Tapping auto-opens the door. Will reduce dwell times significantly by allowing all-doors boarding instead of front-door only on the off-peak, only requires doors actively being used to open, and allows onboard staff to only monitor compliance and help customers at doors that are being triggered (have their onboard readers wirelessly indicate which doors got opened, sort of like the unused door pushbuttons on the new Blue Line cars pinging the operator's display).
-- Timed free transfers off the "Indigo" fares to Red or Silver at SS or other rapid transit lines additional routes would intersect.
-- If they can ever can reduce onboard staffing, roll out the tap surfaces to all CR. Tap at the doors to get on + tap at the doors to get off so your Zone fare is accurately auto-calculated. Security cameras at the doors and random-sample review of security tapes to track compliance. Assign extra roving conductors to fare-evading runs to condition compliance. You know, like they should be doing on the Green Line to end this asinine front door-only constriction.
-- After all this automation is introduced, shift the conductor role to more a roving onboard customer service rep vs. a rote ticket collector. For example, assign extra staff to the packed rush hour runs on certain lines where door queues are going to degrade dwell times and extra human help can speed things up...but fewer staff to the lines that aren't so packed or concentrated to boardings at certain stops (Fairmount, Greenbush, etc.). Assign roving on-platform conductors at individual stations where the door queues are particularly extreme and need a hand (e.g. the terminals, max ridership + frequency stops that have available staffing shelters like Westwood, Anderson). And have onboard staff focus on the doors on the train that are most crowded, since people instinctively clutter to the doors closest to the egresses on their stop's platform.


This is not so hard to gradually roll out. They have the backoffice capability for doing all this, it significantly improves their farebox recovery and schedule efficiency, and other CR systems are running circles around them implementing exactly this array of stuff.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

The really painful part is that the post-2005 Fairmount builds were oh-so-clearly designed for fare control. Ramps with high sides, and big concrete walls preventing easy fare evasion. The entire line is grade-separated, too - a distinction only the Providence line shares.

Fairmount would need full-highs and some better access control, but that's on the T's long-term list anyway. Readville needs a major reconfiguration to preserve future access to both Franklin and Providence, but even that's nothing more than a few ramps and fence can solve.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Was driving past Newmarket today, and they were doing some sort of ribbon cutting ceremony for the Fairmont line. Wanted to take a picture, but traffic was hell and there was nowhere to park.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

http://www.boston.com/businessupdat...nt-corridor/k5sz9l29dLEUa9ffywzdWO/story.html

The Boston Foundation, a large community-based grant maker, said it will commit at least $10 million over the next four years to projects along the Fairmount Corridor, a nine-mile stretch that runs along the MBTA’s Fairmount rail line and includes the Boston neighborhoods of Roxbury, Dorchester, and Mattapan, Boston Foundation chief executive Paul S. Grogan said Wednesday.


Paul S. Grogan. File photo by Bill Brett for The Boston Globe.
Grogan made his announcement at the ceremonial ribbon cutting for the MBTA’s new Four Corners/Geneva station in Dorchester.

The foundation’s investment will support projects that look to bring jobs and housing to the corridor.

According to the foundation, its investments in the area began in the mid-1990s with support for community groups working to return rail service to the neighborhoods the commuter line passed through.

“The opening of new transit stations and the continued development along the Fairmount line underscores the power community funders can have when they invest in neighborhoods for the long term,” Grogan said in a statement. “We are honored to have been there from the early days of this effort to bring transit equity to the Fairmount Corridor, and we remain committed to ensuring that increased transit service in not an end in itself, but a step in the strengthening of these neighborhoods for all their residents.”
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

^ Cool stuff.

What are the chances that we ever see DMU's on the Indigo line and if ever, how soon? It seems to me that DMU's and more frequent service are the only way to make this sizable investment pay off.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

As soon as the FRA stops being stupid.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Not soon. SPRINTER commuter rail in San Diego County was outright shut down for 3 months this year when its entire fleet of FRA-waivered Siemens Desiro DMU's were pulled after a routine inspection uncovered advanced brake deterioration in the vehicles. Hugely embarrassing fuck-up for a line that was already problem-plagued.


That is a considerable setback for future FRA waivers on non-compliant off-shelf Euro rolling stock. The Desiros are used by the hundreds worldwide, but Siemens' very first U.S. manufacturing batch was a dud. And that is not good for future prospects. Still waiting for someone who can manufacture FRA-compliant cars with any sort of manufacturing scale. Colorado Railcar was a dud, and those new Nippon-Sharyo cars look promising but are $2.9M a pop and unproven. The economics are still many years away from washing for any large commuter rail operator that has to maintain any sort of large or diverse equipment pool. The only agencies that can afford them right now are little single-line starter operations that only need a few vehicles to run 1 line. And SPRINTER is a rueful lesson that even those upstarts are fucked if they choose their purchase unwisely.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Well.. the SPRINTER fiasco was partially due to the experimental "specialized" brakes that were retrofitted in California, IIRC.

Stupid to reinvent the wheel, and fail at it. Or in this case, the brake.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Ok, so speaking of proven, why can't they slip a modern diesel into the old RDC shells? (last had the pleasure of riding a B&O RDC on the MARC Camden line in 1992 :-/ ) Systems seem to do OK gutting the electro-guts of PCC Trolleys, why not the combustion guts of an RDC?
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

I rode MARC Camden in May because my friend works at College Park. Believe it or not they had THREE locomotives hooked up to a few passenger coaches to pull a few dozen people. WTF.
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

FRA-waivered vehicles are also virtually impossible to use on MBCR, so we can't hold out hope for that. No time separation possible on Fairmount where freights pull in and out of this switch at Readville all day long from the CSX yard. No time separation possible on the Old Colony with Fore River tankers filling up Braintree yard 6 afternoons a week. No time separation to be had anywhere on the northside with Boston Sand & Gravel served 6 afternoons a week, and Everett Terminal runs crossing every single mainline 7 afternoons a week.

Needham is the only line that can do an end-to-end run without being clipped even momentarily by a single freight slot during the service day. And that is the one line on the system least able to have its frequencies usefully increased because it draws the perennial short straw on NEC congestion.



Unfortunately every good idea studied like Fairmount has to include a DMU option in its modeled data because some day someone will build one that's usable and they need a basis to evaluate. But who the hell knows when that day is going to come. We can't buy Stadler LRV-ish tincans...they'll still get crushed at 5 MPH by a 30-car freight backing out of Readville. We can't buy Euro off-shelfs without a sea change in exemption regulations that the SPRINTER debacle sure as hell didn't help. And we can't spend nearly $3M on a Nippon-Sharyo FRA-compliant until somebody starts buying those in enough quantity to seriously lower the unit cost.


Honestly...how did this country have this whole thing figured out so thoroughly 65 years ago and manage to so completely un-figure it out 30 years ago:

8567234834_71224ed6c7.jpg
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

We didn't have it figured out 65 years ago. Non-deformation is an insane standard. It just transfers all the force of the collision to the occupants of the vehicle. Automobile manufacturers gave up on it decades ago, with the introduction of crumple zones and crash energy management.

The FRA standards are actively dangerous to passenger railroad riders. It's just that railroad collisions are relatively rare so it's never really been questioned. Automobile crashes are so common that the early 20th century regulations had to be changed.

Of course the best collision is one that never happens. And railroads are capable of that kind of avoidance. But I digress.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Ok, so speaking of proven, why can't they slip a modern diesel into the old RDC shells? (last had the pleasure of riding a B&O RDC on the MARC Camden line in 1992 :-/ ) Systems seem to do OK gutting the electro-guts of PCC Trolleys, why not the combustion guts of an RDC?

That's been asked many times, and there isn't a satisfactory answer. Budd is long out of business, and their 1940's patents on the RDC are definitely long expired. However, Budd's rail properties are still a going concern since Bombardier bought whoever bought them and absorbed them into its portfolio. There is still some indeterminate amount of intellectual property preventing the design from being open-sourced (possibly the actual blueprints themselves still under copyright?). And whatever that barrier is it prevents anyone from cleanrooming a reverse-engineered design and manufacturing new ones at recoverable cost. There is definitely a vigorous after-market for getting any existing Budd stuffed with parts from other Budds and running forever. But for whatever reason Bombardier is sitting on all the designs and keeping the "open-sourcing" bar too high for anyone to crack. They're knee-deep in trying to push modern DMU's with adapted Euro stock like the Talent, so they're not exactly motivated by charity nor seem willing to saddle their manufacturing plants with another carbody design.

Unfortunately, big business does what big business does. And Bombardier sees more big business for itself in premium new tech rather than inexpensive old.



For what it's worth, the Budd carbody is almost perfect. Comfortable ride, excellent interior noise dampening, nice styling, configurable, overbuilt trucks and suspension designed to handle the shittiest track, excellent safety record. Designed to trainline together like tinker toys or get switched off and run in push-pull. They are no longer FRA-compliant for the most insane and pointless modern buff strength regs, but they are grandfathered as legacy-compliant and can be used if left unmodified (thus, the aftermarket push to keep every surviving operable one in immortal service). Some not-insane relaxing of FRA rules and/or some not-invasive design tweaks should keep them in line with modern regs. But that's another barrier to reverse-engineering: the design mods are only cost-effective enough if somebody has access to the blueprints Bombardier's sitting on.

The engines are also a problem for a modern update because they were honest-to-god WWII tank engines. Not even 1960's diesel-electrics...old oil-spewing hydraulic beasts. Designed for bankrupt RR's that ran them in abominable conditions with years of deferred maintenance so..they...would...not...quit no matter how worn out they got. Every one stocked with 2 simultaneous engines so the train could run on 1 engine and pull other cars if the other engine crapped out. Look at any old pic and see how much smoke they belched. Fuel efficiency, cleanliness, and decibel level were not their virtues.

Given that it was designed for battlefield indestructibility it would take some deft engineering to fit an efficient modern diesel-electric that performed as well or reliably as the old beasts. Budd actually tried to do a modern update to it with the SPV-2000 in the late-70's, which were briefly tested on the T. They found out the hard way that swapping out a tank engine for sensitive electrical components made the engines stall out when snow, ice, and leaves got sucked into the undercarriage. Kind of a fatal issue for...oh...every railroad in North America that has 4 seasons. Amtrak and Metro North had to run frequent leaf-sprayer trains on the branchlines they assigned their SPV's to otherwise the things would choke to death on the foliage. Components weren't as resilient to outside conditions as the RDC engines, weren't as overbuilt and fail-safe, and couldn't be stuffed in the same location under the car as the old hydraulics. Only two dozen SPV's were ever made, and the ones that were got stripped and converted into coaches after only a few years of service. Components are a lot better now than the low-quality junk a flailing Budd was using in the 70's, but it requires some degree of re-design a bit more involved than "take out the antique tank, stuff in the Tier 3-emissions compliant diesel with AC traction". And that redesign is going to be too cost-prohibitive for anyone to produce without Bombardier's blueprints.
 
Last edited:
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

Re: fares: there's an ad in the metro today about the improved service. A regular linkpass (7 day or 1 month) gives unlimited 1A travel, which will be the whole of Fairmount up until Readville. The ad advises passengers to get a charlieticket (the paper one) because the conductor won't be able to read the charliecard (the tap one).

Here's what I don't get: all that these conductors would need is the handheld electronic fare collectors like they use at Coolidge Corner for inbound rush hour. Once they have that, then this can really claim to be integrated firmly into the subway fare structure. So...
 
Re: Fairmont Line Upgrade

We didn't have it figured out 65 years ago. Non-deformation is an insane standard. It just transfers all the force of the collision to the occupants of the vehicle. Automobile manufacturers gave up on it decades ago, with the introduction of crumple zones and crash energy management.

The FRA standards are actively dangerous to passenger railroad riders. It's just that railroad collisions are relatively rare so it's never really been questioned. Automobile crashes are so common that the early 20th century regulations had to be changed.

Of course the best collision is one that never happens. And railroads are capable of that kind of avoidance. But I digress.

Actually, the standards changed in 2010 to allow up to 10 inches of deformation:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/238/appendix-F

There are compliant DMU vehicles with crumple zones. The Bay Area will soon have 2 lines using them in SMART and eBART, the latter of which is using dedicated ROW (so no compliance required) but is using a vehicle model which can be slightly modified for compliance where necessary.

The problem with DMU technology is not that none exists. It's that someone in the US has to be the first to do it and so far all the early adopters have had serious reliability and maintenance issues (Austin, Tri-Met, etc.) With more cities adopting even complaint systems, the technology will be proven within the timeframe of planning and executing an Indigo Line DMU project (10-15 years). Will it be like buying off-the-shelf streetcars? No, but it isn't like the T buys off-the-shelf much as it is.

The fact of the matter is that DMU service integrated with existing MBCR to Readville, Riverside, Reading, etc. is one of the cheapest and most cost-effective ways of bringing transit-level headways to under-served interior suburban markets. It should be something the MBTA is studying and trying to make work, instead of something we dismiss into the ether because NYC, Chicago, DC, SF, and LA haven't been doing it for a couple of decades. If we held to that logic in Boston, we wouldn't have any subways at all.
 

Back
Top