General MBTA Topics (Multi Modal, Budget, MassDOT)

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Interesting that implementation of DMUs is dropped into State of Good Repair items under modernization pilots.

Not gonna happen until there's a viable manufacturer for the U.S. market. This many years later, those Colorado Railcar lemons are still the only FRA-compliant ones out there. Their original manufacturer went bankrupt trying to produce them, and their new manufacturer can't ramp up to any sort of scale. Everybody wants DMU's...nobody wants to make them. And the FRA doesn't seem interested in revisiting its regs with DMU's like it is with next-gen HSR equipment.


What they should be doing is looking at EMU options, for Providence and Fairmount as starters. NJ Transit bid out a Request for Information on a whole new type of EMU to replace its ancient Arrow fleet: bi-levels that can sandwich around off-shelf coaches. Instead of every car being a self-propelled married pair like the M8's or SEPTA Silverliners, these would be single-ended power cars: front half the 'guts' that normally are below-floor on an M8, back half with bi-level seating. With the power to tow 2 bi-level dead coaches for every 1 power car. For example: front-facing power car + coach + coach + rear-facing power car. Add +1 power car as a spacer for every + 2 coaches added. Every 2 power cars equals the seating of one bi-level coach.

Not as nimble on starts/stops as an M8...still way, way better than an electric loco in push-pull. Interoperable with any old coach, and many many fewer EMU cars needed to net a useful fleet. Bombardier just produced a bazillion new bi-level coaches for NJ Transit, so they've got the inside track at building to the specs for this. We'll have to see. NJ taxpayers are already getting cold feet at the extreme risk they're taking entertaining this never-before-done and very expensive idea, so it might get shelved. But if they go through with it with a later Request for Build bid that might be what lowers the EMU barrier of entry enough for the T to take the plunge after NJT's worked the bugs out.


I like the idea of those a lot better than more of this Colorado Railcar custom crap that passes for DMU's in this country.

 

[Arlington]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

They've still got 15 mothballed P40 diesels in storage rated 110 MPH, and the current Springfield Shuttle service goes away when NHHS commuter rail starts. Coach equipment's going to shift around as some of those new orders for the midwest end up sending more Amfleets back east. Equipment's always going to be at a premium, but they're not standing still in the face of demand. There'll be reinforcements on the roster by 2017.

Is that Amtrak with the P40s? Is that where the 3rd Downeaster appeared from? Why haven't we seen the T beg/borrow/steal P40s to fill the near-term gap (that the MARC trains have blown up in)?

 

[Lrfox]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Actually, nobody has advanced any "High Speed" plans that go via Springfield. Trains in the 80mph range could easily go from New Haven to Springfield to Boston, though--what's called the Inland Route.

As for Amtrak High Speed plans, some long range plans draw their line via Worcester, but most now see keeping PVD as the gateway to Boston.

This (older) Amtrak set of alternatives leaves out only three recently-floated ideas: One to go further out Long Island before crossing to near New London CT, One to go from Hartford to PVD (Amtrak's current plan), and the other to cut off Springfield between Hartford and Worcester (via I-84, essentially)

If your question is more about Providence, then fear not, Amtrak's latest proposal sees going Hartford-Providence, like this:

In all cases, there's enough traffic from all the intermediate stops that Amtrak has always seen a sort of "braided" system, which mixes trains onto and off of the highest speed tracks (some run all "high", some run all "normal", and many run mixed"), like this schematic:

Great. Thanks for the info. I saw a graphic somewhere a few years ago with what looked to by HSR upgrades that bypassed PVD and went NYC-BOS via Springfield instead. Providence was a concern for me because I felt the city would really face some setbacks if it was removed from the HSR corridor.

 

[BostonUrbEx]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Is there a ridership map anywhere that shows how many people get on at stops along the NEC? Similar to the commuter rail ridership map in the MBTA blue book?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Is that Amtrak with the P40s? Is that where the 3rd Downeaster appeared from? Why haven't we seen the T beg/borrow/steal P40s to fill the near-term gap (that the MARC trains have blown up in)?

Amtrak had 30 in storage...got a stimulus grant to upgrade and return 15 to service. There's 15 left in storage they're planning to pull back out for misc. needs and to retire the last of their Dash 8 west coast backup fleet, which are too slow to run in regular revenue service.


The T got those MARC units because the vendor building their new locos handled the disposition of the old MARC units and had a 'loaner' clause in the contract. They were every bit as old and broken down as advertised, but were practically free to have and to beat into the ground. Can't fault the logic at all on that one. Amtrak's surplus was in storage for a long time and would've needed a rehab job to return to service, which wouldn't have worked in an acute equipment shortage like the T had 2 years ago. They also don't have parts or maint expertise on those models like the mostly similar MARC and T GP40's.

Amtrak did sell a bunch of P40's to CTDOT when they expanded Shore Line East; they make up about half the fleet.

 

[Equilibria]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Not gonna happen until there's a viable manufacturer for the U.S. market. This many years later, those Colorado Railcar lemons are still the only FRA-compliant ones out there. Their original manufacturer went bankrupt trying to produce them, and their new manufacturer can't ramp up to any sort of scale. Everybody wants DMU's...nobody wants to make them. And the FRA doesn't seem interested in revisiting its regs with DMU's like it is with next-gen HSR equipment.

You keep saying this, and I don't doubt that you are right, but I keep seeing new DMU projects pop up all over the country, and only the Portland WES and TriRail use Colorado Railcar. Austin's Capital MetroRail system uses Stadler GTW rolling stock on an active freight line, while eBART hasn't selected their vehicles yet (though I don't believe they will share track with any other mode - the ROW is being constructed specifically for DMUs).

DMUs are a highly-successful and commonly-implemented mode around the world with many years of engineering capital behind them. I understand that the FRA isn't likely to change their regs, but given that the T has its LRT vehicles custom-designed already, wouldn't it be possible for a European company to put something together?

If you're going to electrify Fairmount and ultimately Worcester and Lowell for regional rail, then EMUs are obviously the better choice. I'm just not sure how likely that is given that the NEC is already electrified and that's the approach to Boston HSR will use.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

You keep saying this, and I don't doubt that you are right, but I keep seeing new DMU projects pop up all over the country, and only the Portland WES and TriRail use Colorado Railcar. Austin's Capital MetroRail system uses Stadler GTW rolling stock on an active freight line, while eBART hasn't selected their vehicles yet (though I don't believe they will share track with any other mode - the ROW is being constructed specifically for DMUs).

DMUs are a highly-successful and commonly-implemented mode around the world with many years of engineering capital behind them. I understand that the FRA isn't likely to change their regs, but given that the T has its LRT vehicles custom-designed already, wouldn't it be possible for a European company to put something together?

If you're going to electrify Fairmount and ultimately Worcester and Lowell for regional rail, then EMUs are obviously the better choice. I'm just not sure how likely that is given that the NEC is already electrified and that's the approach to Boston HSR will use.

Stadler GTW's aren't FRA-compliant. Austin MetroRail and NJ Transit RiverLINE both use the same vehicles and have to do that time separation thing to get their waiver. And MetroRail mixes their DMU's on RR track and street-running trolley track. They're diesel LRV's. Even a rethink of the FRA's rules is not going to get those things running on mixed traffic. They flat-out can't survive a collision with something heavy, and have to be treated as a quasi- light rail mode.

Since you can't physically enter Boston city limits on the commuter rail without hitting mixed traffic...much less get into one of the terminals...exemptions like that aren't an option for us like they are for places like Austin and NJ that don't run to a union station and do traverse a bit more suburban sprawl without as much one-seat orientation to a single downtown. The systems that can do the time separation thing are jumping all over it or studying the hell out of it, but that's a very limited audience that probably doesn't have a single New England application.

There are some crashworthy Euro models that could be modded for the U.S. if the FRA would get away from its single-minded buff strength inanity and start granting compliance based on aggregate crashworthiness. But we still have to have vehicles that can survive a bad collision in mixed traffic no worse than what we do have. Treating crashworthiness as a whole bunch of cumulative factors instead of one narrow-minded single measure of buff strength is a good way to open up the market a bit and get some bona fide manufacturers to bite. But it's not going to get Stadler tincans running on the Fairmount Line. Unless you feel like holding your breath every time it putters into Readville while CSX is a few feet away switching 30 boxcars into the yard.


It's still Colorado Railcar, museum-piece Budd's, or nuthin' at all.

 

[winstonoboogie]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Nippon-Sharyo/Sumitomo is now building FRA complient DMUs. Sonoma-Marin county CA has several on order for a new line which are supposed to arrive later this year. They are also building some for GO Transit in Toronto.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/sonoma-marin-orders-commuter-dmu-cars.html

While building DMUs for North AMerica is new, Nippon-Sharyo/Sumitomo has been building cars for U.S. operators for years including gallery car push-pulls and EMUs for Metra, EMUs for the South Shore Line, and single-level push-pulls for MARC.

 

[datadyne007]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

BIGGEST. NEWS. EVER. (if this comes to fruition)

Green Line to take another step into the 20th century with real-time tracking
By adamg - 1/19/13 - 1:37 pm
The Walking Bostonian reports MBTA officials promised at a meeting Thursday to install the equipment and software needed for real-time tracking on the Green Line by 2015 - similar to the tracking that lets riders known when to run for a train on the other three subway lines.

H/t Boston Zest.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are not enough exclamation points for this news.

 

[omaja]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Unsurprisingly, though, it is going to take way, way longer than it actually should. More than two years after the other lines get it? Unacceptable considering Green sees over 30 percent of the T's total ridership.

Also interesting that they've abandoned the idea of the Park St crossover track...

 

[choo]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Patrick's Plan includes running T til 2 am on Fridays and Saturdays. I think its a worthwhile investment anyway (I was looking at a dead train for 20 min yesterday at Porter, and would've paid triple to get it moving. But anyway, good to see this included.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...-proposal/gQLuQOuwM7dWVGTvaDyA9J/story-1.html

 

[Shepard]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

OMG... do NOT read the comments on that article

 

[jass]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Patrick's Plan includes running T til 2 am on Fridays and Saturdays. I think its a worthwhile investment anyway (I was looking at a dead train for 20 min yesterday at Porter, and would've paid triple to get it moving. But anyway, good to see this included.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/ma...-proposal/gQLuQOuwM7dWVGTvaDyA9J/story-1.html

Now this is a megaton.

The "tracks need to be maintained" excused was always a pile of bull. Crews work weekdays like everyone else.


Also, LA started late night service this year. 10 mintue headways too. Fare is $1.50.

 

[Riverside]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

A pretty bold plan. Shoot for the moon and you'll land among the stars?

I like the state-wide approach to transit improvements, though I'm troubled that a Blue-Red Connector is not included. Especially since they'll be closing GC for three years, it really seems like a bad call. But it sounds like keeping transit open for even an extra hour on Friday and Saturdays will be greatly successful, so that's encouraging. (And they make a very good point about the ubiquity of smartphones changing the Night Owl equation.)

A question about South Coast Rail: I've been given to understand that the projected ridership figures for service south of Taunton are problematically low. (Anyone have a URL link to the SCR studies? I only have the old PMT.) But are those studies examining the possibilities of reverse commuting as well? ie. including passengers whose destinations are in Fall River or New Bedford (or even Taunton)?

From what I know of the area, residents of FR and NB are much more likely to commute to Providence than Boston, and the projected travel times aren't going to turn FR and NB into bedroom communities for Boston. But, on the other hand, they are themselves relatively major urban centers in southeast Massachusetts. Did the studies take that kind of thing into account?

 

[Matthew]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Waiting in GC on Monday, I was getting the sinking feeling that the GC closure is going to be complete disaster. It gets such heavy usage, even on an off-day like that. A whole trolley crush-load of people were waiting and once they got picked up, a whole other load came flooding up the escalators to replace them. What a mess this is going to be.

 

[jass]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Waiting in GC on Monday, I was getting the sinking feeling that the GC closure is going to be complete disaster. It gets such heavy usage, even on an off-day like that. A whole trolley crush-load of people were waiting and once they got picked up, a whole other load came flooding up the escalators to replace them. What a mess this is going to be.

Its ok, public transit riders riders dont mind long wait, long walks, and crush loads. 3 years? Please, thats nothing,

Now, 93 drivers? Its of the utmost importance that the bridges be replaced in 72 hours or less.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

A question about South Coast Rail: I've been given to understand that the projected ridership figures for service south of Taunton are problematically low. (Anyone have a URL link to the SCR studies? I only have the old PMT.) But are those studies examining the possibilities of reverse commuting as well? ie. including passengers whose destinations are in Fall River or New Bedford (or even Taunton)?

From what I know of the area, residents of FR and NB are much more likely to commute to Providence than Boston, and the projected travel times aren't going to turn FR and NB into bedroom communities for Boston. But, on the other hand, they are themselves relatively major urban centers in southeast Massachusetts. Did the studies take that kind of thing into account?

Combo of factors.

1) The ridership projected lower than the over-optimistic initial estimates, in part because of the E-W commute orientation of those cities and in part because the existing express buses just ain't that bad as an existing mode. But this isn't nearly as big a drag as. . .

2) The killer: Because the Stoughton Line has to be built as single-track to appease the 3-year-old little monsters running the towns of Easton and Raynham, the headways after the branch split to each city end up so low that the ridership craters to spit. It was estimated (and I can't remember which of the ten zillion project docs or news stories it was in, because this was at least 2 years ago) that the boardings at the end of the line would be about 500 per terminal. Which is not enough to pay for the diesel fuel and crew wages for the running miles south of Taunton.


This is doubly a problem because the station designs have not revised down their number of parking spaces accordingly or gone with small lots that could be expanded later (like Middleboro in its initial build), so the line would have by far the most number of parking spaces on the entire CR system, by far the lowest % utilization of any line, and probably would place pretty middling on the whole CR system in terms of total car counts...outslugged by lines that have many more stations with little to no parking but do have a couple large lots with huge/overflow utilization. That is what's sending the station costs through the roof on the branches, as well as other diamond-encrusted design features. Actually, the parking glut on the mainline stations is a bit looney too compared to most other CR stations, but those at least will get enough ridership for the lot utilization to look only moderately disappointing.

The T already gets criticized for CR parking overbuilds when some of their lots routinely clock pretty far underfull. At the very least they should be taking the hint that they have to be more selective where they choose to build a big lot because there seems to be much wider variance town-to-town on which are 'feelin it' on using their P&R's than the pre-build studies seem to predict. Here they're not being selective; they're gorging on it farcially.


The Stoughton main is designed to be double-tracked later. Single tracking was the shiv they had to concede to to get it built at all. Canton Jct. to Stoughton would get doubled, and the active Middleboro Secondary would get doubled on the small part in Taunton shared with SCR for Taunton Depot station. On the rest of the de-abandoned Stoughton Line, it's all single with the passing sidings positioned at North Easton and Raynham stations so the stops in those royal P.I.T.A. towns are 2-track from Day 1. That leaves Easton Depot and Downtown Taunton as the only two mainline stations needing later mods when they throw down complete double iron...years later when the towns stop getting the vapors about the very concept of trains.

This is the insanity of not phasing it to Taunton first. Taunton it's pretty well-established will support the boardings (if not the parking utilization) and will operationally support a nice, fat schedule. The branches pretty conclusively will not support the threshold of headways required to net useful ridership numbers. The schedules might even end up a wash or less frequent than the express buses. And there's no way to push the schedule above that threshold because unlike the single-track Old Colony main in Dorchester...these branches split outside of 495 and have so much single-track running miles to get there that it's nearly impossible to cram any more train meets. Ergo...WTF are they doing building the branches with a crippled-capacity mainline? Build 'em on the second pass when they double up the Stoughton Line and actually can throw enough of a schedule down to FR and NB to crest the demand.


Until the Task Force starts acknowledging the laws of physics on supportable schedules and fact that their parking math is ludicrously off-scale...they aren't being serious.

 

[choo]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I am crossing my heart if this plan gets passed that they are smart about doing right thing in building up this line over time as you suggest.

 

[omaja]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

Waiting in GC on Monday, I was getting the sinking feeling that the GC closure is going to be complete disaster. It gets such heavy usage, even on an off-day like that. A whole trolley crush-load of people were waiting and once they got picked up, a whole other load came flooding up the escalators to replace them. What a mess this is going to be.

According to the 2010 Blue Book, GC and Park saw very similar passenger volumes - 10K at GC and 11K at Park. Considering that they are not extending B and D trains (except Ds during non-peak) past Park and those two lines make up around 60 percent of all Green Line traffic, it's entirely possible that Park will see around 6K more Green Line riders when GC is closed (while C and E passengers will be able to utilize Haymarket as well).

That's an absolutely massive increase in throughput to shove through one station that is already severely overcrowded during peak hours. I am still beyond shocked that they even considered closing one of the four hub stations, let alone that they plan to move forward with it.

While the scene at Kenmore during today's morning rush closure was extreme, I think that's a flavor of what is to come at Park during the first days of GC being closed.

 

[Arborway]

Re: Driven By Customer 'Service' Parte Dos

I'm not sure why the GC construction will need to take 2 years.

I'm guessing we'll see a rapid initial demolition and construction phase that will make it difficult to imagine how it could possibly take 2 years, before everything stops. Followed by stretches where you see 3 guys working for one day, then nothing for 2 or 3 months, ala Kenmore, Copley and Arlington.

And the partial closure of Kenmore was a disaster. Anybody remember the one-turnstile temp lobby and single staircase from hell?