MBTA Commuter Rail (Operations, Keolis, & Short Term)

Yes, that's a new thing. Schedules prior to the 2015 storms didn't mention winter service, 2015-2017 had a pared-down weekday schedule for snow, and 2018-2020 just had a vague mention of reduced schedules being available online.
 
Bikes not being allow on peak trains has, unfortunately, returned.

No change to Fairmount, Fitchburg, Framingham/Worcester, Needham, Newburyport/Rockport, and Providence/Stoughton.

Franklin has trains shifted by a few minutes, and some running times slightly lengthened. Windsor Gardens becomes a flag stop for all trains.

Greenbush has minor shifts, and one afternoon inbound that skipped QC and JFK/UMass now stops.

Haverhill has slight shifts, mostly of stop times at Bradford.

Kingston has minor shifts.

Lowell has a couple minutes added to outbound trains between North Billerica and Lowell.

Middleborough running times are lengthened 1-2 minutes.
 
(I thought I saw minor changes to Providence, but I didn't look carefully.)

One thing to note about the weekend schedule now also being the snow schedule is that, in my opinion, the weekend schedules are a bit better than they used to be. Regular service that is clockfacing and typically every 2 hours (and if not, the cadence remains consistent throughout the day). If memory serves, that is not that far off from last winter's storm schedules to begin with. Making the weekend and storm schedules one and the same greatly simplifies communications during storms.
 
stick n move said:
This looks really good! Minus the caltrain high/low doors… Its just a photoshop for their presentation so I wouldnt look to far into it. The T colors go really well with these trainsets imo.



Pulled from the envision everett presentation
http://www.cityofeverett.com/DocumentCenter/View/6491/Envision-Everett?bidId
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that picture's from the MBTA's presentation on the EMU Request for Information last year. Theoretically possible the T would buy something like that, though there was some discussion here about how they might not be the best choice thanks to Caltrain's tinkering.
 
The other issue is that we're designing stations for raised platforms, whereas the Caltrain's system is designed for low platforms.
 
WormtownNative said:
The other issue is that we're designing stations for raised platforms, whereas the Caltrain's system is designed for low platforms.
Click to expand...

That particular Stadler EMU is even worse-off, because they had to mod it to fit both Caltrain's low platforms and CAHSR's bizarrely-customized 50-inch raised platforms. Stadler outright admitted in the RFI response that the California EMU is not compatible with our platforms (without modification, that is).
 
Does anyone happen to go past North Wilmington station (on train or in car)? Construction of an accessible platform should be proceeding, but there haven't been any updates since May, at which time it was supposed to be completed by the end of the year.
 
The EGE said:
Bikes not being allow on peak trains has, unfortunately, returned.
Click to expand...

Apparently they will be discussing this at the board meeting this week. While they're allowed to make changes to times, a policy change like a return to no bikes had to be approved by the board (which as we know, did not exist for a while).
 
1635264580378.png

This bus is built for our real future. And it has a jetpack. And a motorcycle.
 
Here's one of the possible electric trains that the MBTA had thought about. But unfortunatly, it is not compatible with being used for the high-level platforms. :(
electrozoom.jpg
 
Last edited:
Jahvon09 said:
Here's one of the possible electric trains that the MBTA had thought about. But unfortunatly, it is not compatible with being used for the high-level platforms. :(
View attachment 18247
Click to expand...

That's a Stadler KISS, specifically from the rendering made for the T's EMU RFI presentation to the FMCB in 2020. It's the version they're making for Caltrain, which they proposed for here because it's already being designed for US regulations (they literally just changed the color scheme and logos in the rendering). It's listed as not compatible because California HSR's high platforms are specified at 50 inches high (instead of the MBTA and Amtrak standard of 48 inches) for reasons passing beyond human understanding. That two-inch difference is just enough to break platform compatibility without modification, and since this was an RFI they listed that as a factor despite the fact that it would presumably be possible to modify the design to make it compatible. (The other designs on offer were compatible without modification, since no one else seems to be as boneheaded as California when it comes to unicorn platform heights.)
 
Jahvon09 said:
Yeah, I thought that it may be modified, possibly to suit the needs of the MBTA. Time will tell. :unsure:
Click to expand...

Well, it was an RFI so very early stages of the procurement process. The lack of compatibility will undoubtedly cut against the California-KISS in the analyses, because everything else proposed is already design-compatible with the MBTA's platforms, where the KISS would have to be modified. That said, it's not particularly likely to be a modification that introduces a lot of design difficulty or extra cost (especially compared to the difficulty that was getting that thing to have two separate sets of doors for different platform heights, because California just had to have a unicorn.)
 
Jahvon09 said:
You'd think that they would either wait for electrification of the commuter rail to begin, or maybe set up a test track with an overhead wire so that they can begin testing the trains when they are made & delivered. :unsure:
Click to expand...

Procurement takes years. We know they're considering electrification, they know that that requires new equipment. The way it works is you put out an RFI to get information on what is available in the market. That Stadler KISS has that note about the incompatibility precisely because that's the product that exists right now. Eventually if you proceed with the procurement they'll go to an RFP with more-tailored requirements so that manufacturers can propose how their vehicles would meet the requirements (one of which would be that they have to be compatible with our platforms; Stadler would answer how they'd make that KISS compatible at that stage of the process), before making any decision on awarding a contract. Setting up a test track, be it on some existing line or one of the state's other quasi-abandoned tracks somewhere would be part of the electrification and equipment-procurement process, and both of those processes have to proceed relatively simultaneously. You don't wait till you're hanging wires to start the procurement, but you also don't start building out infrastructure when you're still in the procurement equivalent of brainstorming (excepting in cases where it's tacked on to ongoing work, but that's not relevant here).
 
Jahvon09 said:
Yup! Like I said, time will tell. But I think that they should work on things at hand, such as getting the new trains on the Red & Orange Lines & for the Green Lines, or they'll have too many irons in the fire. :unsure:
Click to expand...

Procurement is not the province of the operations and maintenance people shepherding the EIS of the new Orange and Red trains, and the people whose job it is to handle procurements had better be capable of managing more than one thing at a time, or the T is in deep, deep trouble.
 
Before the lockdown I remember there being some momentum toward electrification of the CR. Has there been any progress?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top