I-90 Interchange Improvement Project & West Station | Allston
- Thread starter Matthew
- Start date
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
The MBTA is not going to be the first system to implement a PTC system using ACSES coupled with wayside signals. MTA in NY awarded their large PTC contract for Metro-North and Long Island Railroad last year. The system will use ACSES and it will use ACSES in sections of automatic block territory on the Long Island Railroad that are not equipped with cab signals (portions of the Far Rockaway, Oyster Bay, Central, and Montauk branches).
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/ptc/siemens-bombardier-pair-on-nymta-ptc.html
The MBTA actually included the specifications for the Long Island Railroad's PTC plan as a reference in the material they made available to firms bidding on the MBTA's PTC plan.
The MBTA's PTC plan calls for Wayside Interface Units to be used with ACSES-II on the north side lines that don't have cab signals. The PTC plan however is for all south side territory to be cab signal equipped. The PTC installation contract requires the winning bidder to also install cab signals on the Franklin and Needham lines. Interestingly (and addressing some of the the quoted points raised above), the PTC specs state that the Boston-Framingham section will have cab signals installed before PTC installation begins, but unlike the Needham and Franklin lines, it won't be the PTC contractor installing the cab signals. The MBTA is reviewing the proposals for the PTC installation now but has not awarded the contract yet. Presumably then, separate efforts under the Worcester Line improvements project, are moving forward for cab signal installation on the Boston-Framingham section.
The MBTA is not going to be the first system to implement a PTC system using ACSES coupled with wayside signals. MTA in NY awarded their large PTC contract for Metro-North and Long Island Railroad last year. The system will use ACSES and it will use ACSES in sections of automatic block territory on the Long Island Railroad that are not equipped with cab signals (portions of the Far Rockaway, Oyster Bay, Central, and Montauk branches).
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/ptc/siemens-bombardier-pair-on-nymta-ptc.html
The MBTA actually included the specifications for the Long Island Railroad's PTC plan as a reference in the material they made available to firms bidding on the MBTA's PTC plan.
The MBTA's PTC plan calls for Wayside Interface Units to be used with ACSES-II on the north side lines that don't have cab signals. The PTC plan however is for all south side territory to be cab signal equipped. The PTC installation contract requires the winning bidder to also install cab signals on the Franklin and Needham lines. Interestingly (and addressing some of the the quoted points raised above), the PTC specs state that the Boston-Framingham section will have cab signals installed before PTC installation begins, but unlike the Needham and Franklin lines, it won't be the PTC contractor installing the cab signals. The MBTA is reviewing the proposals for the PTC installation now but has not awarded the contract yet. Presumably then, separate efforts under the Worcester Line improvements project, are moving forward for cab signal installation on the Boston-Framingham section.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,199
- Reaction score
- 9,005
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
Maybe on one of the DMU routes converging here if you stripped it to the bone, but not all 3. There's those pre-existing interlockings on the east and west ends of Beacon Park (i.e. the single-track gap that'll be infilled very soon). If they configured the 3rd passing track up-front so everything Framingham/Worcester can just blast right by it should be able to handle it, because functionally that would be no different than the single-track they navigate on the full schedule today. Yawkey is bookended on both sides by crossovers so that station is fine.
The problem is you have to sacrifice a lot of Worcester/Framingham trains stopping there to make it work. Because the next set of crossovers is way the hell out in Wellesley, this is where everything has to cross for a meet when 1 train is doing the Newtons and the other is skipping the Newtons. And that western interlocking by Everett St. is last chance for one of those trains to time it correctly or else stuff starts backing up out into Wellesley.
Say you have this, or a multitude of similar combinations:
#1 -- a DMU just finished discharging passengers at West or New Balance (whichever one gets built first and is the shuttle terminus), and is idling on one side of the island platform waiting for the go-ahead to reverse back inbound to South Station.
#2 -- an outbound Worcester/Framingham is stopped occupying the other side of the platform, and will be making the Newton stops. Remember, because there's crossovers on both sides of Beacon Park it doesn't matter what side of the platform they're on...anything can cross over to anything within 1/4 mile of that location.
#3 -- an inbound W/F train not making the Newton stops has just crossed over 'wrong rail' at Wellesley Farms so outbounder #2 can make the Newton stops.
#4 -- an outbound Worcester just left South Station, and is going to skip Newton. It has to time itself at the Beacon Park crossovers for a meet around #3 so it can blast past #2 in Newton.
If there weren't so few passing opportunities, all of the Worcester/Framingham trains might be able to use this stop like they do Yawkey. But #3 is late, and is occupying the track #4 has to use while #2 makes the Newton stops. #4 is going to have to hold for awhile till #3 makes it to Brighton. #4 is now late. Now dispatch is starting to get nervous about this cascading to trains that are well outside 128, and the next outbound DMU currently boarding at SS might have to get held. Project outward.
There's a bazillion different combos like that where the margin for error gets stepped on. You'd be able to recover if there were more crossovers in Newton. Then it's just slow up, wait for the train to clear the platform, pass at 2nd best opportunity, make up time later in the run. That's the whole science of schedule padding, and why lines that do a lot of track switching (like the Old Colony) seemingly have way more passing sidings and crossovers than actually get used on most schedules. But Worcester doesn't have error recovery inside Framingham, so the only way you're going to keep trains from regularly getting fouled is to blow by this station on the passing track half the time and have thru frequencies here much closer to the Newtons than Yawkey.
So, yeah...you get a station. You get some sort of shuttle service in the "technically correct is the best kind of correct" sense. But the very act of front-loading it that way passes up a lot of motivation for follow-through. Yawkey works as a station to anchor a major redevelopment because it can take the full, no-gimmick Worcester schedule right away in addition to all the future shuttle schedules. There is motivation to fill it up with more. If you have to start with lots of trains skipping one or both potential Allston stops out of necessity just to get some sort of IOU signed in steel and concrete that they're going to follow through with Indigo on the spider map...that's not a promise, that's an out. An out to never bring anything more in from Newton. An out to never bring the other 2 shuttle services in there. An out to not care nearly as much about cross-Allston connecting transit or ever fix the fare inequities. Basically...you get Fairmount: the line that's got ALL the steels and all the concretes, but forgot about the trains.
I honestly think you'd be better off building it as a regular Worcester/Framingham stop like Yawkey that forces their hand to fill it up. Fill it up by doing the Newton track work to get more Framingham/Worcester trains in there. The demand for more conventional Framingham/Worcester trains is insatiable, so there won't be shortage of service. Fill it up to beckon more to this "New Kendall" mecca like Yawkey is trying to anchor the new mecca at Fenway. Fill it up so when Yawkey and here get shuttle service it's a superstation from Day 1 that begs to be filled up with the other 2 shuttle routes and more transfer flex (i.e. the fare equity follow-through).
This is the only way Indigo will work. Commuter rail's the most expensive mode to operate, and that specialized a niche within the commuter rail mode has to hit a narrow cost/benefit target to succeed or else it's an albatross. The stations don't make the service, the vehicles don't make the service, the service makes the service. And the follow-through is the follow-through on delivering the service, not the station buildings or rolling stock.
So I'm not sure if looking for "well, this pre-build scenario is physically possible and could get foot in the door" is the right way to look at it. You're not trying to jam a door open. Jamming a door open means the door has a natural inclination to close when your foot isn't actively jammed in it; that's a losing battle with public services that we're painfully aware of. You're trying to encourage that door to want to be opened, and to be used so often it stays open. That's a little more the Yawkey template. I honestly wonder if the answer to the lax commitment to the Fairmount schedule is not waiting for DMU's and "oh, I guess now we have to come up with an excuse to run these puppies now" as motivation to expand the schedule. But to instead just let them do what they do best--fawn over suburbanites--and full-on greenlight the $84M Foxboro extension right this second. Shove 32 more all-stops 6-car bi-level push-pulls down the Fairmount like the feasibility study says, and surf some local demand on the backs of all those Zone 4 park-and-riders out of Walpole, Norwood, and the lots at Dedham Corporate. I bet with those frequencies piled on top of the current snoozer of a schedule they'd start to fill 'er up real good at Talbot Ave. and pick up some genuine motivation to recast the shuttle service around real rapid transit-lite features. Might as well try motivation from outside-in if inside-out isn't netting any obvious signs of commitment.
Maybe on one of the DMU routes converging here if you stripped it to the bone, but not all 3. There's those pre-existing interlockings on the east and west ends of Beacon Park (i.e. the single-track gap that'll be infilled very soon). If they configured the 3rd passing track up-front so everything Framingham/Worcester can just blast right by it should be able to handle it, because functionally that would be no different than the single-track they navigate on the full schedule today. Yawkey is bookended on both sides by crossovers so that station is fine.
The problem is you have to sacrifice a lot of Worcester/Framingham trains stopping there to make it work. Because the next set of crossovers is way the hell out in Wellesley, this is where everything has to cross for a meet when 1 train is doing the Newtons and the other is skipping the Newtons. And that western interlocking by Everett St. is last chance for one of those trains to time it correctly or else stuff starts backing up out into Wellesley.
Say you have this, or a multitude of similar combinations:
#1 -- a DMU just finished discharging passengers at West or New Balance (whichever one gets built first and is the shuttle terminus), and is idling on one side of the island platform waiting for the go-ahead to reverse back inbound to South Station.
#2 -- an outbound Worcester/Framingham is stopped occupying the other side of the platform, and will be making the Newton stops. Remember, because there's crossovers on both sides of Beacon Park it doesn't matter what side of the platform they're on...anything can cross over to anything within 1/4 mile of that location.
#3 -- an inbound W/F train not making the Newton stops has just crossed over 'wrong rail' at Wellesley Farms so outbounder #2 can make the Newton stops.
#4 -- an outbound Worcester just left South Station, and is going to skip Newton. It has to time itself at the Beacon Park crossovers for a meet around #3 so it can blast past #2 in Newton.
If there weren't so few passing opportunities, all of the Worcester/Framingham trains might be able to use this stop like they do Yawkey. But #3 is late, and is occupying the track #4 has to use while #2 makes the Newton stops. #4 is going to have to hold for awhile till #3 makes it to Brighton. #4 is now late. Now dispatch is starting to get nervous about this cascading to trains that are well outside 128, and the next outbound DMU currently boarding at SS might have to get held. Project outward.
There's a bazillion different combos like that where the margin for error gets stepped on. You'd be able to recover if there were more crossovers in Newton. Then it's just slow up, wait for the train to clear the platform, pass at 2nd best opportunity, make up time later in the run. That's the whole science of schedule padding, and why lines that do a lot of track switching (like the Old Colony) seemingly have way more passing sidings and crossovers than actually get used on most schedules. But Worcester doesn't have error recovery inside Framingham, so the only way you're going to keep trains from regularly getting fouled is to blow by this station on the passing track half the time and have thru frequencies here much closer to the Newtons than Yawkey.
So, yeah...you get a station. You get some sort of shuttle service in the "technically correct is the best kind of correct" sense. But the very act of front-loading it that way passes up a lot of motivation for follow-through. Yawkey works as a station to anchor a major redevelopment because it can take the full, no-gimmick Worcester schedule right away in addition to all the future shuttle schedules. There is motivation to fill it up with more. If you have to start with lots of trains skipping one or both potential Allston stops out of necessity just to get some sort of IOU signed in steel and concrete that they're going to follow through with Indigo on the spider map...that's not a promise, that's an out. An out to never bring anything more in from Newton. An out to never bring the other 2 shuttle services in there. An out to not care nearly as much about cross-Allston connecting transit or ever fix the fare inequities. Basically...you get Fairmount: the line that's got ALL the steels and all the concretes, but forgot about the trains.
I honestly think you'd be better off building it as a regular Worcester/Framingham stop like Yawkey that forces their hand to fill it up. Fill it up by doing the Newton track work to get more Framingham/Worcester trains in there. The demand for more conventional Framingham/Worcester trains is insatiable, so there won't be shortage of service. Fill it up to beckon more to this "New Kendall" mecca like Yawkey is trying to anchor the new mecca at Fenway. Fill it up so when Yawkey and here get shuttle service it's a superstation from Day 1 that begs to be filled up with the other 2 shuttle routes and more transfer flex (i.e. the fare equity follow-through).
This is the only way Indigo will work. Commuter rail's the most expensive mode to operate, and that specialized a niche within the commuter rail mode has to hit a narrow cost/benefit target to succeed or else it's an albatross. The stations don't make the service, the vehicles don't make the service, the service makes the service. And the follow-through is the follow-through on delivering the service, not the station buildings or rolling stock.
So I'm not sure if looking for "well, this pre-build scenario is physically possible and could get foot in the door" is the right way to look at it. You're not trying to jam a door open. Jamming a door open means the door has a natural inclination to close when your foot isn't actively jammed in it; that's a losing battle with public services that we're painfully aware of. You're trying to encourage that door to want to be opened, and to be used so often it stays open. That's a little more the Yawkey template. I honestly wonder if the answer to the lax commitment to the Fairmount schedule is not waiting for DMU's and "oh, I guess now we have to come up with an excuse to run these puppies now" as motivation to expand the schedule. But to instead just let them do what they do best--fawn over suburbanites--and full-on greenlight the $84M Foxboro extension right this second. Shove 32 more all-stops 6-car bi-level push-pulls down the Fairmount like the feasibility study says, and surf some local demand on the backs of all those Zone 4 park-and-riders out of Walpole, Norwood, and the lots at Dedham Corporate. I bet with those frequencies piled on top of the current snoozer of a schedule they'd start to fill 'er up real good at Talbot Ave. and pick up some genuine motivation to recast the shuttle service around real rapid transit-lite features. Might as well try motivation from outside-in if inside-out isn't netting any obvious signs of commitment.
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
I'm worried that they're going to just claim "out of scope" when I point out that they need to fix the Newton mess in order to provide any level of decent service to West Station.
I'm worried that they're going to just claim "out of scope" when I point out that they need to fix the Newton mess in order to provide any level of decent service to West Station.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,038
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
I mean, technically it is. The T is going to try to hedge here the same way they did in Brighton: "Oh, well, we only ever said it would be a Commuter Rail station. If someone else decides later that they want more frequent service there, we've future-proofed it for that."
I feel like the T's strategy is pretty clear already from Yawkey and Boston Landing. They spend money to build stations in places that want stations, so they can say they built them. How much use they get, or how slow all those inner stations make the trains go, isn't a priority for them.
One question for me is how the schedules actually have to adapt once they build new stations they must stop at. They can cheat with the old stations by skipping them with most of their trains during peak, but you can't serve a brand new Yawkey, Boston Landing, or West Station once in a peak hour. The Newton stops are basically invisible right now, because they vanish during the most congested times. Once the T is forced to serve all these new stops by pretending that Boston Landing is more "core" than West Newton to satisfy the developer's investment, things may get quite a bit slower.
I realize that the T doesn't get money for unsexy things like signals and crossovers, but skipping the boring stuff is actually a really risky move from an imaging standpoint precisely because the public doesn't understand the project. Now that the DMUs have been written up in the Globe and such I wonder how long it takes before the public starts demanding the service they were promised. When that day comes, and the T has to say "well, it'll be at least another 5 years while we fix the tracks and signals", they're going to look really incompetent.
I mean, technically it is. The T is going to try to hedge here the same way they did in Brighton: "Oh, well, we only ever said it would be a Commuter Rail station. If someone else decides later that they want more frequent service there, we've future-proofed it for that."
I feel like the T's strategy is pretty clear already from Yawkey and Boston Landing. They spend money to build stations in places that want stations, so they can say they built them. How much use they get, or how slow all those inner stations make the trains go, isn't a priority for them.
One question for me is how the schedules actually have to adapt once they build new stations they must stop at. They can cheat with the old stations by skipping them with most of their trains during peak, but you can't serve a brand new Yawkey, Boston Landing, or West Station once in a peak hour. The Newton stops are basically invisible right now, because they vanish during the most congested times. Once the T is forced to serve all these new stops by pretending that Boston Landing is more "core" than West Newton to satisfy the developer's investment, things may get quite a bit slower.
I realize that the T doesn't get money for unsexy things like signals and crossovers, but skipping the boring stuff is actually a really risky move from an imaging standpoint precisely because the public doesn't understand the project. Now that the DMUs have been written up in the Globe and such I wonder how long it takes before the public starts demanding the service they were promised. When that day comes, and the T has to say "well, it'll be at least another 5 years while we fix the tracks and signals", they're going to look really incompetent.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,199
- Reaction score
- 9,005
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
Zone fare inequity. They have to say how they're going to change all this, and square it when the zone escalation follows no consistent pattern line-to-line.
-- Auburndale and West Newton are Zone 2, Newtonville Zone 1. Which is a little nutty for them all being closeby Newton stops. New Balance is probably going to be the last Zone 1A with the break at the city line and Newton Corner a 1. OK...so a shuttle terminating in Brighton is all 1A'd, but there's their out for laying a finger on Newton or dealing with Worcester capacity until Worcester County pols start getting impatient.
-- Fairmount's all 1A except for Readville (understandable given the hard-to-square way the Franklin fares scale). Are they even going to be willing to attempt a Westwood/128 turn when that's a Zone 2? How much is that redev narnia at Westwood Landing hurt by being shut out?
-- Lowell breaks 1A at West Medford and 1 at Wedgemere, 1 to 2 on the enormous gap between Winchester Ctr. and Mishawum. If West Med-terminating buses get looped down Boston Ave. to GLX Route 16 the only 1A station gets diminished utility. It's another intra-town break to Zone 1, but one with no good answers because you can bloody see Zone 1 Winchester Ctr.'s platforms the next town over from the end of Wedgemere's platforms. Then the humongous gap omitting downtown Woburn and no easy bus transfers from the population center to Anderson. Herky-jerky at best, an out to "fuggedaboutit" at worst.
-- Eastern Route has the most inequitable inside-128 fares of any line. Chelsea a 1A, then Riverworks and Lynn jump to 2. Which is unconscionable when they won't build the Blue Line out there...anything more than a 1 is sadism. And this line terminates 30% shorter than the other 3 Indigo routes that hit 128 or (Readville) get within the nearest populated sniff of it because Swamscott and Salem are 3's and Beverly's a 4. Bigtime out if they don't rebalance it. I'm not even sure where they're going to lay over the vehicles near Lynn station way up on the embankment where crews can't reach street level.
So...yeah. The fares. The transfer portability. You only have to look at how fucked up this is and the total silence about altering the zones to pick which ones are going to get walked back first: Riverside, Lynn, Anderson. Throw in the Grand Junction's probable infeasibility and you're left with Fairmount, Track 61, and maybe a substitute SS-Allston shuttle. Track 61 they pre-emptively said not to expect great headways. And trust in Fairmount's already been eroded by lack of action on the schedule with infrastructure now complete.
What does that leave for semi-solid commitments-to-execute except for the scraps of remainders they steadfastedly won't talk about how they're going to serve?
Zone fare inequity. They have to say how they're going to change all this, and square it when the zone escalation follows no consistent pattern line-to-line.
-- Auburndale and West Newton are Zone 2, Newtonville Zone 1. Which is a little nutty for them all being closeby Newton stops. New Balance is probably going to be the last Zone 1A with the break at the city line and Newton Corner a 1. OK...so a shuttle terminating in Brighton is all 1A'd, but there's their out for laying a finger on Newton or dealing with Worcester capacity until Worcester County pols start getting impatient.
-- Fairmount's all 1A except for Readville (understandable given the hard-to-square way the Franklin fares scale). Are they even going to be willing to attempt a Westwood/128 turn when that's a Zone 2? How much is that redev narnia at Westwood Landing hurt by being shut out?
-- Lowell breaks 1A at West Medford and 1 at Wedgemere, 1 to 2 on the enormous gap between Winchester Ctr. and Mishawum. If West Med-terminating buses get looped down Boston Ave. to GLX Route 16 the only 1A station gets diminished utility. It's another intra-town break to Zone 1, but one with no good answers because you can bloody see Zone 1 Winchester Ctr.'s platforms the next town over from the end of Wedgemere's platforms. Then the humongous gap omitting downtown Woburn and no easy bus transfers from the population center to Anderson. Herky-jerky at best, an out to "fuggedaboutit" at worst.
-- Eastern Route has the most inequitable inside-128 fares of any line. Chelsea a 1A, then Riverworks and Lynn jump to 2. Which is unconscionable when they won't build the Blue Line out there...anything more than a 1 is sadism. And this line terminates 30% shorter than the other 3 Indigo routes that hit 128 or (Readville) get within the nearest populated sniff of it because Swamscott and Salem are 3's and Beverly's a 4. Bigtime out if they don't rebalance it. I'm not even sure where they're going to lay over the vehicles near Lynn station way up on the embankment where crews can't reach street level.
So...yeah. The fares. The transfer portability. You only have to look at how fucked up this is and the total silence about altering the zones to pick which ones are going to get walked back first: Riverside, Lynn, Anderson. Throw in the Grand Junction's probable infeasibility and you're left with Fairmount, Track 61, and maybe a substitute SS-Allston shuttle. Track 61 they pre-emptively said not to expect great headways. And trust in Fairmount's already been eroded by lack of action on the schedule with infrastructure now complete.
What does that leave for semi-solid commitments-to-execute except for the scraps of remainders they steadfastedly won't talk about how they're going to serve?
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,038
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
I wonder if what's needed is for someone like a Governor (whoever that is) to just declare that no T station within 128 will cost more than the subway fare. Starting tomorrow. I mean, it's just numbers in the ticket office computers and in the heads of conductors, right? It's not like they have to implement Charlie to make it happen.
I wonder if what's needed is for someone like a Governor (whoever that is) to just declare that no T station within 128 will cost more than the subway fare. Starting tomorrow. I mean, it's just numbers in the ticket office computers and in the heads of conductors, right? It's not like they have to implement Charlie to make it happen.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,199
- Reaction score
- 9,005
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
I agree in principle, although it's maybe not quite that simplistic. The Zones rise gradually to the ends of the system and are supposed to scale by distance and travel time (see map).
If the edict starts to warp the Zone vs. time/distance rise in the 128-to-495 there's some kinks to solve for.
-- Some of the more transit-oriented 'tweener stops aren't classic park-and-ride suburbs. Brockton, for instance. A jump from 1A at Braintree to the same old Zone 4 is a shitty thing to do to them.
-- Dedham Corporate vs. Islington. 1A vs. 3? That ain't fair when they're staring at each other across the 128 chasm, the Dedham-Westwood town line is within a whisker of each, and the Islingtonites can't walk across to the cheaper stop. The 2 vs. 3 difference today is minor enough to stand, but +2 is a bit much.
-- Poor transit-starved Needham...what side of 128 do they land on? How strict-constructionist do you want to be about the dividing line?
-- By same token, you can't shrink back so many zones without causing a revenue shortfall and making it too easy on the more expensive-to-operate outskirts. Like, a more equitable rise to Westwood/128 shouldn't take Wickford Jct. out of Zone 9 or 10.
So...eh...it's complicated. You may have to think 1A's for everything well inside 128, 1's for "this is the 128 stop", then recalculate a rise out from there that balances the needs without shorting revenue too severely or causing line-vs.-line customer fights about who got a sweet deal and who got a raw deal.
Any which way, the Zone map is old and crusty and long overdue for a recalibration. But they seem loathe do breach that subject at all when they're in perpetual budget crisis mode. And that is cutting the legs out from any realistic hope of follow-through on the Indigo plan because it can't execute without a massive fare redistribution. Same old political paralysis; there probably isn't a way forward without Legislative reform of the finances. If they can't talk about this, then all they've got that's 'safe' in their minds to talk about is theoretical shiny things. Except the riders are starting to get surly about theory without execution and not buying it.
I agree in principle, although it's maybe not quite that simplistic. The Zones rise gradually to the ends of the system and are supposed to scale by distance and travel time (see map).
If the edict starts to warp the Zone vs. time/distance rise in the 128-to-495 there's some kinks to solve for.
-- Some of the more transit-oriented 'tweener stops aren't classic park-and-ride suburbs. Brockton, for instance. A jump from 1A at Braintree to the same old Zone 4 is a shitty thing to do to them.
-- Dedham Corporate vs. Islington. 1A vs. 3? That ain't fair when they're staring at each other across the 128 chasm, the Dedham-Westwood town line is within a whisker of each, and the Islingtonites can't walk across to the cheaper stop. The 2 vs. 3 difference today is minor enough to stand, but +2 is a bit much.
-- Poor transit-starved Needham...what side of 128 do they land on? How strict-constructionist do you want to be about the dividing line?
-- By same token, you can't shrink back so many zones without causing a revenue shortfall and making it too easy on the more expensive-to-operate outskirts. Like, a more equitable rise to Westwood/128 shouldn't take Wickford Jct. out of Zone 9 or 10.
So...eh...it's complicated. You may have to think 1A's for everything well inside 128, 1's for "this is the 128 stop", then recalculate a rise out from there that balances the needs without shorting revenue too severely or causing line-vs.-line customer fights about who got a sweet deal and who got a raw deal.
Any which way, the Zone map is old and crusty and long overdue for a recalibration. But they seem loathe do breach that subject at all when they're in perpetual budget crisis mode. And that is cutting the legs out from any realistic hope of follow-through on the Indigo plan because it can't execute without a massive fare redistribution. Same old political paralysis; there probably isn't a way forward without Legislative reform of the finances. If they can't talk about this, then all they've got that's 'safe' in their minds to talk about is theoretical shiny things. Except the riders are starting to get surly about theory without execution and not buying it.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 66
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
F-Line - I'm not getting exactly why the DMU discussion comes down to fare parity. Just call every DMU service a subway fare - whether that's in Lynn, or Readville, or Yawkey. Understanding, of course, that when a big Commuter Rail train comes through the same station, you'll pay more to get on if you're in Lynn or Readville, etc. I don't see the issue. CR is an express service with theoretically greater speed and comfort. DMU is a "local." No different than express buses costing more than their slow local counterparts.
F-Line - I'm not getting exactly why the DMU discussion comes down to fare parity. Just call every DMU service a subway fare - whether that's in Lynn, or Readville, or Yawkey. Understanding, of course, that when a big Commuter Rail train comes through the same station, you'll pay more to get on if you're in Lynn or Readville, etc. I don't see the issue. CR is an express service with theoretically greater speed and comfort. DMU is a "local." No different than express buses costing more than their slow local counterparts.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,199
- Reaction score
- 9,005
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
That doesn't work in a blended system, though. Indigo's draw is based on frequency. That "you will get a train each direction once every 15 all day long, guaranteed". Well, push-pulls and DMU's have to use the same tracks, right? And at peak hours there are a lot of push-pulls in a row, especially those 7-car bi-level Worcester behemoths that parade in/out at the bewitching hour. There are lines with plenty of capacity to handle a whole lot of both vehicles at rush, but it's a fact of life that some slots have to get handed to those big honking commuter trains for simple laws of physics. And that many, if not most, commuter rail schedules do stop at these key inside-128 nodes the Indigo hinges itself on. If people work in the Fenway, then Worcester's gonna stop at Fenway. A lot. You might as well just close half the CR routes if there's a prohibition on Purple Line stops between 128 and the terminal because people are going to walk to the car with their feet. And be prepared for a lot of pols to get voted out of office in the first ring of 'burbs inside 128 that are closer to 128 than they are to the city (that's you, Newton). It's either that or you better get to work on this before 10 miles of nonstops is the iron rule.
So if you're standing on the West platform waiting for an inbound to SS "once every 15", on some of those intervals a push-pull is going to have the slot. If you can't board it and have to wait for the next DMU because it's 4 minutes after the push-pull's slot, then it's not really a once-every-15 service. Especially when the past-128 trains are out in full-force at 8:00am and 5:00pm the hours you are most likely to need a once-every-15. If there's a prohibition because fares are too messy, then they've failed to execute on one of the key promises--once-every-15--of Indigo.
What happens then is that they just level the headways down to an artificially low 20-22 mins or worse so people don't complain about the 'inverse-peak' dropoff when laws of physics say the push-pulls have to have their slots. And don't significantly change the rise in zone fare because Legislators from Worcester County will throw a shitfit about their riders who commute to work at those same stops getting boned on the interzone fare by a different, inequitable structure. It affects Fairmount too with 32 daily Foxboro trains making some or all of the local stops if that line opens and a long-term future of more Franklins getting diverted off the NEC. Some Indigo headways will inevitably be on a push-pull slot everywhere except Track 61 (incl. on the Grand Junction if the 5 rush hour trips is part of what has to float the upgrade package).
There's very good reason why commuter rails nationwide, including those like Metro North and Long Island RR that have a bazillion overlapping service patterns, do the zone/interzone system and let anyone board any train hitting 2 common stops at the same Ground Zero on fare. They'll get eaten alive by political special interests if somebody's constituents get treated differently than somebody else's at the same station. This is why Westwood/128 starts at the same zone whether you're going 3 stops out to Stoughton, 55 miles out to Wickford, or 2-3 stops in to Back Bay. And why they don't tell you at Hyde Park "Oh, a Franklin inbound is going to cost more than a Stoughton inbound...and you're going to get turned away at the door if it's a Providence inbound." You always start at a common place on the Zone ladder and go as many interzone rungs as you will on any T-logoed vehicle that happens to stop there.
Common carriers: that's how they work. It's not dissimilar to how subway branches and blended-route subways work inside of prepayment (flat fare to anywhere, or flat entry + exit fare). It's newer here in Boston, but it's not new or unusual at all to the world. It just can't be enacted without some sort of revamped common-carrier fare structure. They can't not do that and still deliver on the plan. They can't overcompartmentalize and still deliver on the plan.
That doesn't work in a blended system, though. Indigo's draw is based on frequency. That "you will get a train each direction once every 15 all day long, guaranteed". Well, push-pulls and DMU's have to use the same tracks, right? And at peak hours there are a lot of push-pulls in a row, especially those 7-car bi-level Worcester behemoths that parade in/out at the bewitching hour. There are lines with plenty of capacity to handle a whole lot of both vehicles at rush, but it's a fact of life that some slots have to get handed to those big honking commuter trains for simple laws of physics. And that many, if not most, commuter rail schedules do stop at these key inside-128 nodes the Indigo hinges itself on. If people work in the Fenway, then Worcester's gonna stop at Fenway. A lot. You might as well just close half the CR routes if there's a prohibition on Purple Line stops between 128 and the terminal because people are going to walk to the car with their feet. And be prepared for a lot of pols to get voted out of office in the first ring of 'burbs inside 128 that are closer to 128 than they are to the city (that's you, Newton). It's either that or you better get to work on this before 10 miles of nonstops is the iron rule.
So if you're standing on the West platform waiting for an inbound to SS "once every 15", on some of those intervals a push-pull is going to have the slot. If you can't board it and have to wait for the next DMU because it's 4 minutes after the push-pull's slot, then it's not really a once-every-15 service. Especially when the past-128 trains are out in full-force at 8:00am and 5:00pm the hours you are most likely to need a once-every-15. If there's a prohibition because fares are too messy, then they've failed to execute on one of the key promises--once-every-15--of Indigo.
What happens then is that they just level the headways down to an artificially low 20-22 mins or worse so people don't complain about the 'inverse-peak' dropoff when laws of physics say the push-pulls have to have their slots. And don't significantly change the rise in zone fare because Legislators from Worcester County will throw a shitfit about their riders who commute to work at those same stops getting boned on the interzone fare by a different, inequitable structure. It affects Fairmount too with 32 daily Foxboro trains making some or all of the local stops if that line opens and a long-term future of more Franklins getting diverted off the NEC. Some Indigo headways will inevitably be on a push-pull slot everywhere except Track 61 (incl. on the Grand Junction if the 5 rush hour trips is part of what has to float the upgrade package).
There's very good reason why commuter rails nationwide, including those like Metro North and Long Island RR that have a bazillion overlapping service patterns, do the zone/interzone system and let anyone board any train hitting 2 common stops at the same Ground Zero on fare. They'll get eaten alive by political special interests if somebody's constituents get treated differently than somebody else's at the same station. This is why Westwood/128 starts at the same zone whether you're going 3 stops out to Stoughton, 55 miles out to Wickford, or 2-3 stops in to Back Bay. And why they don't tell you at Hyde Park "Oh, a Franklin inbound is going to cost more than a Stoughton inbound...and you're going to get turned away at the door if it's a Providence inbound." You always start at a common place on the Zone ladder and go as many interzone rungs as you will on any T-logoed vehicle that happens to stop there.
Common carriers: that's how they work. It's not dissimilar to how subway branches and blended-route subways work inside of prepayment (flat fare to anywhere, or flat entry + exit fare). It's newer here in Boston, but it's not new or unusual at all to the world. It just can't be enacted without some sort of revamped common-carrier fare structure. They can't not do that and still deliver on the plan. They can't overcompartmentalize and still deliver on the plan.
Last edited:
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
In a previous post, you made a very good argument why scheduling an every-15-minute Allston/Brighton to South Station shuttle is going to be difficult to mix with the existing Worcester schedule (much less an expanded one).
I'm anticipating being told that they are going to scale back their plans of serving West Station with any kind of train service to once every 30 minutes or once an hour, erratically. I already know that they were only thinking of stopping 2 trains in the morning rush at New Balance, but that was before the whole Interchange project came along.
So, I'm going to be making the argument to them that they absolutely must serve West Station (and hopefully New Boston Landing) with every-15-minute service or better. Whether it be DMU or push-pull, I don't care, I just want to make it clear that some kind of vehicle had better be making at least 4 stops per hour, as evenly spaced as possible throughout the hour. This isn't a theoretical argument. Unless they happen to show up with a great plan, it's probably going to be a big topic of discussion sometime in October.
What is the minimum additional investment that they would need to put into the Framingham line in order to have every-15-minute service at West Station while not interfering with the existing Framingham/Worcester schedule? Obviously they need to add at least one more mainline track, and that should have already happened. Would an additional crossover somewhere west of West Station be enough to resolve scheduling difficulties? A siding for the DMU shuttle to sit while changing ends?
In a previous post, you made a very good argument why scheduling an every-15-minute Allston/Brighton to South Station shuttle is going to be difficult to mix with the existing Worcester schedule (much less an expanded one).
I'm anticipating being told that they are going to scale back their plans of serving West Station with any kind of train service to once every 30 minutes or once an hour, erratically. I already know that they were only thinking of stopping 2 trains in the morning rush at New Balance, but that was before the whole Interchange project came along.
So, I'm going to be making the argument to them that they absolutely must serve West Station (and hopefully New Boston Landing) with every-15-minute service or better. Whether it be DMU or push-pull, I don't care, I just want to make it clear that some kind of vehicle had better be making at least 4 stops per hour, as evenly spaced as possible throughout the hour. This isn't a theoretical argument. Unless they happen to show up with a great plan, it's probably going to be a big topic of discussion sometime in October.
What is the minimum additional investment that they would need to put into the Framingham line in order to have every-15-minute service at West Station while not interfering with the existing Framingham/Worcester schedule? Obviously they need to add at least one more mainline track, and that should have already happened. Would an additional crossover somewhere west of West Station be enough to resolve scheduling difficulties? A siding for the DMU shuttle to sit while changing ends?
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,959
- Reaction score
- 8,038
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
Ok, who is "they?" We can argue all day that the lack of true integration between MassDOT and the MBTA is bad, and it is, but do you know the T planners will be the ones there to hear you?
Making a forceful argument to the guys planning the highway project isn't going to help much - they aren't the people who are going to be able to help you.
Ok, who is "they?" We can argue all day that the lack of true integration between MassDOT and the MBTA is bad, and it is, but do you know the T planners will be the ones there to hear you?
Making a forceful argument to the guys planning the highway project isn't going to help much - they aren't the people who are going to be able to help you.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,707
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
They absolutely need to design this area to support 15 minute headways on the West-Yawkey-Back Bay-South Station "shuttle" or it is going to be a waste of money to even try.
See also The Freemark Rule, which I'm happy see named for Yonah Freemark (even thouit isn't like it is a new idea, it certainly is a lost idea, especially when "road" DOTs doodle transit services on a map)
They absolutely need to design this area to support 15 minute headways on the West-Yawkey-Back Bay-South Station "shuttle" or it is going to be a waste of money to even try.
See also The Freemark Rule, which I'm happy see named for Yonah Freemark (even thouit isn't like it is a new idea, it certainly is a lost idea, especially when "road" DOTs doodle transit services on a map)
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,199
- Reaction score
- 9,005
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
The mainline track's not a big deal. The Yawkey construction delays and single-tracking through there during construction overshot the original deadline, so it would've been pointless to do BP in a hurry. Digsafe spraypaint for modifying the interlocking and some yard rail removal were already done last year. This year track gangs have been busy installing new rail on the northside, engineering dept. has been on loan for the Knowledge Corridor project that's due to wrap before Christmas, the whole MBCR-to-Keolis transition happened, and they're swamped testing new cars and locomotives. Next fattened Worcester schedule has to wait to spring with such a ridiculously busy year. It'll get done. This is one they can quietly knock out in a week or two since it only spans the pre-existing interlockings on the east and west side of BP.
West and/or New Balance are situated around the existing set of Beacon Park crossovers, and Yawkey's already sandwiched by a set. Nothing new needed in the actual shuttle service area, and shifting the interlockings a few feet east or west of a newly constructed station platform is not a big deal.
Shuttle trains on-shift probably reverse on the platform. When the Track 61 plan for BBY short-turns was first brought up, a T southside engineer explained on RR.net that they can change ends and do the brake test quickly enough on-platform to get back out of there without a hitch before the next train arrives. They wouldn't be able to lollygag it...but on any given week they reverse hundreds of trains under similar time pressure like second-nature. The layover yard for shift changes would be the one they're building at BP. You'll notice at Readville that to get to/from the platform and the adjacent layover yard the trains have to reverse, cross over, reverse. They get that done so quickly it'll never foul another train's slot.
The problem is entirely with Worcester/Framingham trains and the next set of crossovers. You only have 1 set by Wellesley Farms, and next set after that is way the hell out at Framingham Jct. When Newton locals and nonstop trains are hopping over each other, missing such a precision passing target by even a little bit torpedoes the whole schedule. On other lines there's Plan B passing opportunities, and schedule slip can be halted at a few minutes or recovered later in the run to stop the delays from cascading to gridlock. Here, when something's late...something else doesn't move. And the something that doesn't move makes something else behind it not move. All-or-nothing...and that's why when Worcester's late, it's the line most likely to be a half-hour or full hour late.
Like I said earlier, the interlockings may be set up just fine to poke a shuttle to West or NB and not one inch further without fouling anything in regular conditions. On any other line that would look like a fan-fucking-tastic deal. But if it's enough added congestion for a 1% reduction in the razor-thin OTP margins for all those Worcester/Framingham trains that have to thread the needle...do the math. 240 trains per workweek right now, an increase coming with the BP 2nd track + new equipment, an increase coming for the 80 MPH uprate past Framingham, and probably a few small step-ups beyond that. A 1-out-of-100 borking = ~3 disaster commutes per week with cascading delays taking down multiple trains at a time if it happens at a bad time of day. That is enough to get Adam at UHub dedicating one of his daily "trains are dead!" limericks to the Worcester Line once a week, and some high-profile blowback from Worcester County voters sending their pols nipping at the MassDOT Secretary's heels. With good reason.
So...bare minimum is they have to put some crossovers halfway out in Newton. Probably before Newtonville so the track switching dance happens much closer to the affected station. Then move the Wellesley Farms one to Riverside Jct. so it bookends Auburndale and settles up the future access to the Riverside spur (can't get there at all from today's outbound track). Then probably another set by one of the outer Wellesleys to re-balance the distance to Framingham. This is very hard to do with such an old and inflexible Absolute Bblock Signal system they're stuck with. That's why the work wasn't done 20 years ago when service past Framingham returned. New crossovers can be installed without a totally new signal system...but it's at high pain and cost threshold for each new touch.
Given everything else they want to do in the Transportation Bill with the B&A--Inland Service, the Boston-Montreal study, and keeping-on keeping-on with the stepped-up Worcester schedule--going to the well again and again modifying the old won't work. It needs a rip-out/rebuild to the same cab signals the whole rest of the line has out to Albany. Cost/benefit doesn't wash for any of those Transit Bill priorities until they get a Fitchburg-level funding dump for a total resignal job. Go to Waltham this weekend and watch the small army of electricians trench wire around the grade crossings while the line is closed...it is a total do-over for getting formerly system-worst Fitchburg to 80 MPH, reliably on-time, with fattened schedule, and primed for expansion. Money extremely well-spent, but...lots and lots of money.
It's a misnomer that you need the shiny new DMU vehicles to run those headways at all. You don't. Push-pulls can run these schedules. The acceleration difference between a very beefy HSP-46 and a DMU is much smaller on such close stop spacing than the difference between holding doors for a few seconds because the last passenger is sprinting up the ramp waving to hold the train. It's functionally zilch. I think the difference gets exaggerated by us having to watch one of those gimp 25-year-old F40 locomotives struggle like hell to grip the rails when pulling sardine-packed 7 bi-levels out of Yawkey. Those things were bought back when few trains went longer than 4 single-level coaches. Passengers riding with the new engines for the first time are remarking on RR.net how they're (pleasantly) not used to feeling a jolt of that many G's coming out of a dead stop. You've really got to get to EMU-level performance to count up a schedule difference that's going to outpace crapshoot door-closing times at any given stop any given time.
Now, it gets progressively less cost-effective to run push-pulls like that the more saturated such short-distance schedules get. The 4-car minimum consist size (esp. with the fleet overturning to majority bi-level) is overkill, and would run heavier operating losses off-peak than a smaller vehicle. The vestibule door configuration is not great for grab-and-go boarding; you want mid-spaced doors. And 3 x 2 seating sucks ass on routes with stop-by-stop ridership overturn.
But note there's nothing in those characteristics that makes the service or the schedule. The DMU configuration optimizes the service...optimizes the hell out of it. But it's not a requirement for starting the schedule. You can run Fairmount with the full clock-facing schedule on 4 coaches and a locomotive, and you can implement that necessary fare redistribution on 4 coaches and a locomotive. You will board a push-pull in your Indigo travels those occasional "once every 15" slots when something from outside 128 is stopping at your station. That's how much the vehicle doesn't make the service. Now, they wouldn't want to run it on nothing but push-pulls for more than the first few years because the operating margins in shuttle service are a little meh and as people get more reliant on it they'll start to find the door/interior layout a little limiting.
But they're absolutely good for establishing service and acting as the bridge fleet. No all-new vehicle arrives on the property in less than 4 years from first Request For Proposals to delivery. The HSP-46's were bid out 5 years ago; the Red and Orange Line cars won't see the light of day for 5 or 6 years. It's a load of crap to say "Oh, we can't increase the Fairmount schedule until we get the DMU's; it's just not feasible." It's not feasible to do more than a lame 22 round trips because shiny thing and reasons? That's a cop-out. And anyone who has stood at a Silver Line stop and been left wanting more about how that service unfolded ought to have their BS detector going off re: specialty rolling stock being the story they're sticking to about what makes or breaks a service. DMU's are very nice vehicles. You will love them if they run that frequently.
But you will hate them if you bought the hype...then had to use Talbot Ave. every day where the very nice vehicle only runs every 25 minutes...then had to listen to Joe Pesaturo's voice trail off about "budgets and changing priorities and reasons". Rolling stock ≠ service. Rolling stock can optimize the service, but if the service isn't there at meaningful levels there's nothing to optimize. Then the rolling stock is a white elephant siphoning resources away from replacing more kaput old equipment. Nail these spokesflaks to their every word on what the service actually is. You will know if new rolling stock is a wise investment by how much they do or do not talk in specifics about the service plan when pressed.
The mainline track's not a big deal. The Yawkey construction delays and single-tracking through there during construction overshot the original deadline, so it would've been pointless to do BP in a hurry. Digsafe spraypaint for modifying the interlocking and some yard rail removal were already done last year. This year track gangs have been busy installing new rail on the northside, engineering dept. has been on loan for the Knowledge Corridor project that's due to wrap before Christmas, the whole MBCR-to-Keolis transition happened, and they're swamped testing new cars and locomotives. Next fattened Worcester schedule has to wait to spring with such a ridiculously busy year. It'll get done. This is one they can quietly knock out in a week or two since it only spans the pre-existing interlockings on the east and west side of BP.
West and/or New Balance are situated around the existing set of Beacon Park crossovers, and Yawkey's already sandwiched by a set. Nothing new needed in the actual shuttle service area, and shifting the interlockings a few feet east or west of a newly constructed station platform is not a big deal.
Shuttle trains on-shift probably reverse on the platform. When the Track 61 plan for BBY short-turns was first brought up, a T southside engineer explained on RR.net that they can change ends and do the brake test quickly enough on-platform to get back out of there without a hitch before the next train arrives. They wouldn't be able to lollygag it...but on any given week they reverse hundreds of trains under similar time pressure like second-nature. The layover yard for shift changes would be the one they're building at BP. You'll notice at Readville that to get to/from the platform and the adjacent layover yard the trains have to reverse, cross over, reverse. They get that done so quickly it'll never foul another train's slot.
The problem is entirely with Worcester/Framingham trains and the next set of crossovers. You only have 1 set by Wellesley Farms, and next set after that is way the hell out at Framingham Jct. When Newton locals and nonstop trains are hopping over each other, missing such a precision passing target by even a little bit torpedoes the whole schedule. On other lines there's Plan B passing opportunities, and schedule slip can be halted at a few minutes or recovered later in the run to stop the delays from cascading to gridlock. Here, when something's late...something else doesn't move. And the something that doesn't move makes something else behind it not move. All-or-nothing...and that's why when Worcester's late, it's the line most likely to be a half-hour or full hour late.
Like I said earlier, the interlockings may be set up just fine to poke a shuttle to West or NB and not one inch further without fouling anything in regular conditions. On any other line that would look like a fan-fucking-tastic deal. But if it's enough added congestion for a 1% reduction in the razor-thin OTP margins for all those Worcester/Framingham trains that have to thread the needle...do the math. 240 trains per workweek right now, an increase coming with the BP 2nd track + new equipment, an increase coming for the 80 MPH uprate past Framingham, and probably a few small step-ups beyond that. A 1-out-of-100 borking = ~3 disaster commutes per week with cascading delays taking down multiple trains at a time if it happens at a bad time of day. That is enough to get Adam at UHub dedicating one of his daily "trains are dead!" limericks to the Worcester Line once a week, and some high-profile blowback from Worcester County voters sending their pols nipping at the MassDOT Secretary's heels. With good reason.
So...bare minimum is they have to put some crossovers halfway out in Newton. Probably before Newtonville so the track switching dance happens much closer to the affected station. Then move the Wellesley Farms one to Riverside Jct. so it bookends Auburndale and settles up the future access to the Riverside spur (can't get there at all from today's outbound track). Then probably another set by one of the outer Wellesleys to re-balance the distance to Framingham. This is very hard to do with such an old and inflexible Absolute Bblock Signal system they're stuck with. That's why the work wasn't done 20 years ago when service past Framingham returned. New crossovers can be installed without a totally new signal system...but it's at high pain and cost threshold for each new touch.
Given everything else they want to do in the Transportation Bill with the B&A--Inland Service, the Boston-Montreal study, and keeping-on keeping-on with the stepped-up Worcester schedule--going to the well again and again modifying the old won't work. It needs a rip-out/rebuild to the same cab signals the whole rest of the line has out to Albany. Cost/benefit doesn't wash for any of those Transit Bill priorities until they get a Fitchburg-level funding dump for a total resignal job. Go to Waltham this weekend and watch the small army of electricians trench wire around the grade crossings while the line is closed...it is a total do-over for getting formerly system-worst Fitchburg to 80 MPH, reliably on-time, with fattened schedule, and primed for expansion. Money extremely well-spent, but...lots and lots of money.
It's a misnomer that you need the shiny new DMU vehicles to run those headways at all. You don't. Push-pulls can run these schedules. The acceleration difference between a very beefy HSP-46 and a DMU is much smaller on such close stop spacing than the difference between holding doors for a few seconds because the last passenger is sprinting up the ramp waving to hold the train. It's functionally zilch. I think the difference gets exaggerated by us having to watch one of those gimp 25-year-old F40 locomotives struggle like hell to grip the rails when pulling sardine-packed 7 bi-levels out of Yawkey. Those things were bought back when few trains went longer than 4 single-level coaches. Passengers riding with the new engines for the first time are remarking on RR.net how they're (pleasantly) not used to feeling a jolt of that many G's coming out of a dead stop. You've really got to get to EMU-level performance to count up a schedule difference that's going to outpace crapshoot door-closing times at any given stop any given time.
Now, it gets progressively less cost-effective to run push-pulls like that the more saturated such short-distance schedules get. The 4-car minimum consist size (esp. with the fleet overturning to majority bi-level) is overkill, and would run heavier operating losses off-peak than a smaller vehicle. The vestibule door configuration is not great for grab-and-go boarding; you want mid-spaced doors. And 3 x 2 seating sucks ass on routes with stop-by-stop ridership overturn.
But note there's nothing in those characteristics that makes the service or the schedule. The DMU configuration optimizes the service...optimizes the hell out of it. But it's not a requirement for starting the schedule. You can run Fairmount with the full clock-facing schedule on 4 coaches and a locomotive, and you can implement that necessary fare redistribution on 4 coaches and a locomotive. You will board a push-pull in your Indigo travels those occasional "once every 15" slots when something from outside 128 is stopping at your station. That's how much the vehicle doesn't make the service. Now, they wouldn't want to run it on nothing but push-pulls for more than the first few years because the operating margins in shuttle service are a little meh and as people get more reliant on it they'll start to find the door/interior layout a little limiting.
But they're absolutely good for establishing service and acting as the bridge fleet. No all-new vehicle arrives on the property in less than 4 years from first Request For Proposals to delivery. The HSP-46's were bid out 5 years ago; the Red and Orange Line cars won't see the light of day for 5 or 6 years. It's a load of crap to say "Oh, we can't increase the Fairmount schedule until we get the DMU's; it's just not feasible." It's not feasible to do more than a lame 22 round trips because shiny thing and reasons? That's a cop-out. And anyone who has stood at a Silver Line stop and been left wanting more about how that service unfolded ought to have their BS detector going off re: specialty rolling stock being the story they're sticking to about what makes or breaks a service. DMU's are very nice vehicles. You will love them if they run that frequently.
But you will hate them if you bought the hype...then had to use Talbot Ave. every day where the very nice vehicle only runs every 25 minutes...then had to listen to Joe Pesaturo's voice trail off about "budgets and changing priorities and reasons". Rolling stock ≠ service. Rolling stock can optimize the service, but if the service isn't there at meaningful levels there's nothing to optimize. Then the rolling stock is a white elephant siphoning resources away from replacing more kaput old equipment. Nail these spokesflaks to their every word on what the service actually is. You will know if new rolling stock is a wise investment by how much they do or do not talk in specifics about the service plan when pressed.
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
As I said earlier, I don't care what kind of vehicle shows up at the platform, as long as it shows up 4 times an hour or more, about evenly spaced. I think DMUs make a good excuse to cut the ridiculously large staffing requirements that make commuter rail a total dog when comparing operating costs. But in terms of service, what I want to see is: four evenly spaced departures per hour from each platform, or better.
So it sounds like you're saying that the "minimum cost" to run every-15-minute service from West Station is going to imply resignalling the whole inner-Framingham line to avoid the worst-case contingencies from getting even worse. That's pretty hefty. I don't think I can talk them into that for the sake of getting good service at West Station, even if they're supposed to be doing all this signal work anyway to meet the PTC mandate + make Framingham service suck less in general.
There's gotta be another angle.
As I said earlier, I don't care what kind of vehicle shows up at the platform, as long as it shows up 4 times an hour or more, about evenly spaced. I think DMUs make a good excuse to cut the ridiculously large staffing requirements that make commuter rail a total dog when comparing operating costs. But in terms of service, what I want to see is: four evenly spaced departures per hour from each platform, or better.
So it sounds like you're saying that the "minimum cost" to run every-15-minute service from West Station is going to imply resignalling the whole inner-Framingham line to avoid the worst-case contingencies from getting even worse. That's pretty hefty. I don't think I can talk them into that for the sake of getting good service at West Station, even if they're supposed to be doing all this signal work anyway to meet the PTC mandate + make Framingham service suck less in general.
There's gotta be another angle.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,199
- Reaction score
- 9,005
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
Everything's interrelated, and they're the ones who interrelated it all by stuffing these Inland studies into the Transit Bill, the storage expansion at Beacon Park to serve these ever-escalating Worcester frequencies, and cramming 3 different DMU routes into West. What else could that possibly entail other than a whole lot of infrastructure work to get trains using that station at high frequencies?
I'd limit the scope to less-technical things. Diversions into the PTC mandate and finer points of railway dispatching probably aren't a great use for limited face time. But you can pitch it in terms of place in their pan-Worcester Line strategy. . .
-- Worcester needing a lot more elbow grease to improve its OTP; there's a whole lot more going on and needing to go on than just booting CSX
-- Incredibly large number of all-new and overlapping service patterns being flung onto a line that has brittle OTP and big demand for more outlying service.
-- These trains going near and far need to stay out of each other's way on 2 tracks that don't offer much passing flex.
-- Isn't the to-do list much longer, more expensive, and stretching further out of town than just building West and running DMU's?
(^-- this is so they can't brush it off with "well, West will have a passing track" and attempt to limit scope to just the West station site)
-- Explain to me, please, where this fits in the context of statewide investment in the Worcester/Boston & Albany corridor outlined in Gov. Patrick's bill and the priorities that need investing first for delivering on those goals and promises across the corridor How does someone who doesn't go to Boston but uses this corridor benefit (reverse commutes to Worcester, Springfielders who want good cross-state train service, people in Worcester or Framingham who want progress on OTP or travel time to Worcester trimmed closer to an hour)?
(^--- make them give the campaign speech to the whole damn B&A about what they plan to do, so they don't compartmentalize it to West-only and the audience in the room)
-- With so much on your plate, what is your plan for rationing resources so all of the above keeps moving forward and promises don't get dropped? Frequencies are important to everyone all the way out to Worcester and Western MA, so what's the best way of pushing that ball forward for all users if your finances get pinched? Is it doing track work first before worrying about station [please itemize major priorities]? Is it using existing equipment to establish the frequencies, then worry about DMU vehicles later [please get Keolis to elaborate how they'd run an Indigo train efficiently with push-pull equipment, and name the realistic headway]? Which Indigo route gets postponed first in a shortfall? If you're scaling back headways, what is your fallback headway?
(^--- Hold to specifics. What's the order of priority, what's the order of cutbacks?)
-- What do you say to riders skeptical that you have the finances to pull this off that this isn't going to get pulled back after commitments were made? [cite Red-Blue / Urban Ring / huge station cost overruns / slow Fairmount rollout / South Coast Rail price tag / 25 years of South Coast Rail promises]
(^--- Yeah...I like the SCR guilt trip angle. Tell them Boston is sad that that they've been waiting so long for the train and we feel for them. Make them pull out all the campaign speeches and see if they get their audiences straight.)
Everything's interrelated, and they're the ones who interrelated it all by stuffing these Inland studies into the Transit Bill, the storage expansion at Beacon Park to serve these ever-escalating Worcester frequencies, and cramming 3 different DMU routes into West. What else could that possibly entail other than a whole lot of infrastructure work to get trains using that station at high frequencies?
I'd limit the scope to less-technical things. Diversions into the PTC mandate and finer points of railway dispatching probably aren't a great use for limited face time. But you can pitch it in terms of place in their pan-Worcester Line strategy. . .
-- Worcester needing a lot more elbow grease to improve its OTP; there's a whole lot more going on and needing to go on than just booting CSX
-- Incredibly large number of all-new and overlapping service patterns being flung onto a line that has brittle OTP and big demand for more outlying service.
-- These trains going near and far need to stay out of each other's way on 2 tracks that don't offer much passing flex.
-- Isn't the to-do list much longer, more expensive, and stretching further out of town than just building West and running DMU's?
(^-- this is so they can't brush it off with "well, West will have a passing track" and attempt to limit scope to just the West station site)
-- Explain to me, please, where this fits in the context of statewide investment in the Worcester/Boston & Albany corridor outlined in Gov. Patrick's bill and the priorities that need investing first for delivering on those goals and promises across the corridor How does someone who doesn't go to Boston but uses this corridor benefit (reverse commutes to Worcester, Springfielders who want good cross-state train service, people in Worcester or Framingham who want progress on OTP or travel time to Worcester trimmed closer to an hour)?
(^--- make them give the campaign speech to the whole damn B&A about what they plan to do, so they don't compartmentalize it to West-only and the audience in the room)
-- With so much on your plate, what is your plan for rationing resources so all of the above keeps moving forward and promises don't get dropped? Frequencies are important to everyone all the way out to Worcester and Western MA, so what's the best way of pushing that ball forward for all users if your finances get pinched? Is it doing track work first before worrying about station [please itemize major priorities]? Is it using existing equipment to establish the frequencies, then worry about DMU vehicles later [please get Keolis to elaborate how they'd run an Indigo train efficiently with push-pull equipment, and name the realistic headway]? Which Indigo route gets postponed first in a shortfall? If you're scaling back headways, what is your fallback headway?
(^--- Hold to specifics. What's the order of priority, what's the order of cutbacks?)
-- What do you say to riders skeptical that you have the finances to pull this off that this isn't going to get pulled back after commitments were made? [cite Red-Blue / Urban Ring / huge station cost overruns / slow Fairmount rollout / South Coast Rail price tag / 25 years of South Coast Rail promises]
(^--- Yeah...I like the SCR guilt trip angle. Tell them Boston is sad that that they've been waiting so long for the train and we feel for them. Make them pull out all the campaign speeches and see if they get their audiences straight.)
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
There was a plan years ago to add interlockings between
Framingham (CP-21) and CP-4 (west end of Beacon Park).
CP-11, located at the RT128/Pike interchange, would be
moved to MP10 with new interlockings at MP16 and MP6.
D
There was a plan years ago to add interlockings between
Framingham (CP-21) and CP-4 (west end of Beacon Park).
CP-11, located at the RT128/Pike interchange, would be
moved to MP10 with new interlockings at MP16 and MP6.
D
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,199
- Reaction score
- 9,005
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
And I'm gonna guess those modifications proved too expensive to do with what they were forced to work with for a signal system.
. . . .
BTW, guys...in layman's terms what he's saying is:
-- They had plans a long time ago--and long since shelved--to add a couple more crossovers between Beacon Park and Framingham to solve for exactly this problem of limited passing opportunities that hurt the Worcester Line's reliability. Therefore, the expense of this is going to rear its ugly head sooner or later...be it from enough incremental schedule expansion to Worcester or introducing whole-new services layered on top.
-- They were going to move that 128-area crossover by Wellesley Farms further inbound to Riverside Jct., which helps the Newton passing and is the only way the Riverside spur can be made accessible for future service.
-- "MP" = milepost, counted up from the point where the Worcester Line officially splits from the NEC.
-- "CP" = "control point" = the dispatcher-controlled interlockings where these crossovers are located, also counted in miles from Boston. Similar to how non-New England states count their highway exits and highway points of interest by milepost instead of sequentially.
-- Those crossovers at the west end of Beacon Park between Market and Everett are 4 miles from the start of the Worcester Line...ergo "CP4", a control point located within the span of Mile 4. Framingham is 21 miles, "CP21" at Milepost 21.
And I'm gonna guess those modifications proved too expensive to do with what they were forced to work with for a signal system.
. . . .
BTW, guys...in layman's terms what he's saying is:
-- They had plans a long time ago--and long since shelved--to add a couple more crossovers between Beacon Park and Framingham to solve for exactly this problem of limited passing opportunities that hurt the Worcester Line's reliability. Therefore, the expense of this is going to rear its ugly head sooner or later...be it from enough incremental schedule expansion to Worcester or introducing whole-new services layered on top.
-- They were going to move that 128-area crossover by Wellesley Farms further inbound to Riverside Jct., which helps the Newton passing and is the only way the Riverside spur can be made accessible for future service.
-- "MP" = milepost, counted up from the point where the Worcester Line officially splits from the NEC.
-- "CP" = "control point" = the dispatcher-controlled interlockings where these crossovers are located, also counted in miles from Boston. Similar to how non-New England states count their highway exits and highway points of interest by milepost instead of sequentially.
-- Those crossovers at the west end of Beacon Park between Market and Everett are 4 miles from the start of the Worcester Line...ergo "CP4", a control point located within the span of Mile 4. Framingham is 21 miles, "CP21" at Milepost 21.
Re: I-90 Interchange Improvement Project (Allston)
I'm sure expense was part of it. Wonder how much of the
Conrail split to CSX/NS played into the situation?
They are desperately needed even from a MW perspective.
Still remember the horrible delays we took when CR ran a
tie job east of Framingham, creating single track to CP-11
or likewise CP-11 to CP4. Throw in freights that ran in daylight
like TV10B, TV6 and Q422 and it was nasty!
D
I'm sure expense was part of it. Wonder how much of the
Conrail split to CSX/NS played into the situation?
They are desperately needed even from a MW perspective.
Still remember the horrible delays we took when CR ran a
tie job east of Framingham, creating single track to CP-11
or likewise CP-11 to CP4. Throw in freights that ran in daylight
like TV10B, TV6 and Q422 and it was nasty!
D