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

Stlin

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2020
Messages
489
Reaction score
916

UHub reports from the meeting that the T is also looking to acquire the City-owned parcels. That would entail the BTD tow lot and some of the Public Works yards south of the main Public Works building. From the 2013 SSX Layover Analysis Report. . .
View attachment 31877

Another 10 trainsets of storage. That would beyond a shadow of a doubt zero-out the 8-set Beacon Park/West Station easement, if the main 'bowl' parcel doesn't already do that. And would pretty much swallow what day storage Readville is currently being used for. Alternatively, that land grab could be used for a new bus garage to replace Albany Garage on the other side of 93 and free up that lucrative parcel for redevelopment.
Having listened to the meeting live, I think there may be a parsing error - because the T is only ED taking the Cold Storage and Food Mart Parcels, (in Yellow) there remains the Widett Circle roadway RoW itself, and a BPDA parcel, which are owned by the city and not part of this taking. - I think it's those (the hatched parcel and the unshaded roads) that the T will be working with the city for in order to create a contiguous Widett Circle site.
Screenshot_20221215_111838_Chrome.jpg
 
Last edited:

Tallguy

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
685
Reaction score
321
This is totally unnecessary. They are planning for 2018, not 2035 and not even 2023. Because of the flattened scheduling, there are only 15 layovers midday on the South Side, 3 each on Worc and Prov/Stoughton, 4 on Franklin, and 5 on OC. SCR traffic can't be new trains, as the bottleneck is close to maxed out. Assuming that two consists continue to be stored/serviced at the MBTA maintenance facility, that leaves 13. Also assuming continued use of the Front Yard, at least until Readville is built, the total now hits 6, or space needed for 9 more. There is sufficient space on the 4 tracks on the west side of the present Readville repair building to store 6-8 depending on length. In addition, even during construction, the tail tracks coming out of Yard 2 could have some utility. In addition, the is space in what remains of Readville Yard 5 for at least 2-3 trainsets if needed.
Let's assume electrifcation of everything on the South Side except the OC. That would require diesel maintenance for 15 trainsets(probably a combo of Rochester and, if needed, a small facility at Kingston) and 40ish EMUs at Readville.
Looking at BET, I have assumed that a comparable building would be more than enough for South Side operations, as new EMUs should not require more maintenance.
That means 5 train length bays and 8 short bays. Or perhaps a comparison with Cabot Yard might be more appropriate. What are RL trains but FTA EMUs? Nine bays for 40 consists? That would leave space for a few trainsets next to it. Of course, you really need space for 8-10 sets for nighttime, for Fairmount
 

Tallguy

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
685
Reaction score
321
And if more peak service is needed, then 30 min frequencies could be added to at least Worcester and Providence. Keep the trains moving!
 

BeyondRevenue

Active Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2020
Messages
469
Reaction score
921
This looks like a byproduct of the stupid Pioneer Institute flavored SSX-NSX instead of NSRL chicanery. I will not miss Governor Milquetoast and his flowing red pen.
 

737900er

Active Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2021
Messages
224
Reaction score
334
Any idea what the reasoning for doing it now though? Was someone going to build on the parcels if they didn't acquire it?
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
8,318
Reaction score
5,124
This looks like a byproduct of the stupid Pioneer Institute flavored SSX-NSX instead of NSRL chicanery. I will not miss Governor Milquetoast and his flowing red pen.
For the 798th time, SSX is not in competition with NSRL. We don't get NSRL unless we implement Regional Rail, and we don't get Regional Rail across the whole southside unless we expand South Station. And South Station surface is not going to go disused because we eventually do NSRL. It'll be very busy with increased Amtrak presence and tons of slots that don't fit neatly into the tunnel churn.

Governor Pioneer Institute didn't like SSX either, because he doesn't like Regional Rail period.
 

F-Line to Dudley

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 2, 2010
Messages
8,318
Reaction score
5,124
Any idea what the reasoning for doing it now though? Was someone going to build on the parcels if they didn't acquire it?
Somebody bought the parcels a couple years ago with generous BDPA skids-greasing and promised to build immediate warehousing and future-focused upscaling. They immediately turned around and land-parked it to sit on and appreciate in value, punking the City in the process. The City got lots of egg over their faces for that bad-faith turnabout, since they were already on the hook for relocating the Food Market. Something had to go in in the immediate term, the state always wanted the parcels for transportation purposes, and the state ended up being called in to salvage the parcels.

Now we'll see if it's designed in a way to support future cover-over development, since that's always been the City's end goal and there had to be strings attached for such drastic action.
 

The EGE

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 29, 2013
Messages
1,387
Reaction score
2,867
I don't think we discussed it when the document was released in November, but the EENF for the Readville maintenance facility and layover is out:

12-track maintenance facility, 15 layover tracks (12 to the east, 3 next to the Fairmount Line), and some staging sidings. That's approximately the same size as the northside facility (although that has the advantage of double-ended tracks), so it should be able to handle the full southside needs. Temporary layover yard in 1-Yard (south of the station platform) during construction, which is to take place in 2023-2028. That theoretically should mean it'll be functional during the time the Grand Junction is temporarily severed during the I-90 project.

1671231180462.png

1671231230205.png
 

Tallguy

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
685
Reaction score
321
For the 798th time, SSX is not in competition with NSRL. We don't get NSRL unless we implement Regional Rail, and we don't get Regional Rail across the whole southside unless we expand South Station. And South Station surface is not going to go disused because we eventually do NSRL. It'll be very busy with increased Amtrak presence and tons of slots that don't fit neatly into the tunnel churn.

Governor Pioneer Institute didn't like SSX either, because he doesn't like Regional Rail period.
Well disproved by Transitmatters
 

devnull

New member
Joined
May 10, 2020
Messages
43
Reaction score
273
I don't think we discussed it when the document was released in November, but the EENF for the Readville maintenance facility and layover is out:
It doesn't look like they mention electrification in that memo at all, but does anyone know if they're leaning one way or the other on whether to electrify the tracks in the whole facility from the start?

It seems like an obvious move to me, especially since construction is proposed to end in 2028 (by that point, ideally the T would be a bit further along in their general commuter rail electrification efforts)
 

Tallguy

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
685
Reaction score
321
The planned building appears to have no provision for electrification, in fact, this building cannot hold a full-length EMU, which means that, depending on the type of EMUs purchased (assuming that they do so), EMUs will not be able to be repaired.
 

Tallguy

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
685
Reaction score
321
Mind referencing that particular disproving?

Bearing in mind that while F-Line is not infallible, neither is Transitmatters. They've got their blind spots too, this could well be one of them
Have you read any of the several Regional Rail reports?
 

Tallguy

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
685
Reaction score
321
Have you read any of the several Regional Rail reports?
And instead of reasonably well researched, documented multiple authored reports, we should take the word of the wizard of Oz?
 

roy_mustang76

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
60
Reaction score
100
And instead of reasonably well researched, documented multiple authored reports, we should take the word of the wizard of Oz?
Honestly? It's been a while since I've read them, and I figured your confident tone meant you'd be able to point me in the right direction to support your assertion. Seems I was mistaken, so I'll just have to assume this is just part of your long-running beef with F-Line until I get a chance to reread those reports.

EDIT to update: Based on what I'm reading, SSX being unnecessary is effectively predicated on Amtrak only needing 2 platformed tracks indefinitely (which I have a hard time buying), and OC only needing two tracks operationally, after they spent all that ink (rightly) skewering the diesels for being unreliable, when the OC lines are likely to be among the last to be electrified. So what happens when a diesel craps out and fouls a platform track? Similar concern on the Fram/Worcester tracks up on tks 1 and 2, at least before electrification.

Maybe TM has advanced less spurious assumptions (frankly, I'd hope so), but I'm not seeing them.
 
Last edited:

Tallguy

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
685
Reaction score
321
Honestly? It's been a while since I've read them, and I figured your confident tone meant you'd be able to point me in the right direction to support your assertion. Seems I was mistaken, so I'll just have to assume this is just part of your long-running beef with F-Line until I get a chance to reread those reports.
It would take a while to adequately explain.
I think those reports make a strong case for regional rail, with or without NSRL(or my particular preference, EWNSRL)
There is sufficient track space at SS already, it just needs 15 min turn arounds. Twenty min turn around will be enough for a while
 

Riverside

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 19, 2012
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
1,815
EDIT to update: Based on what I'm reading, SSX being unnecessary is effectively predicated on Amtrak only needing 2 platformed tracks indefinitely (which I have a hard time buying), and OC only needing two tracks operationally, after they spent all that ink (rightly) skewering the diesels for being unreliable, when the OC lines are likely to be among the last to be electrified. So what happens when a diesel craps out and fouls a platform track? Similar concern on the Fram/Worcester tracks up on tks 1 and 2, at least before electrification.
Which of the reports in particular goes through the assumptions about SSX? I also want to take a look.
 

roy_mustang76

New member
Joined
Jul 26, 2019
Messages
60
Reaction score
100
Which of the reports in particular goes through the assumptions about SSX? I also want to take a look.
I'm on mobile right now, so I may have overlooked something (in fact I'm hoping I am!), but I was operating from the Regional Rail Proof of Concept Report. Shots are taken at SSX from other reports, but this has some meat to work with.

It also occurs to me that assigned platforms becomes a huge issue if we ever add in expresses or peak-direction extras (especially on Framingham/Worcester), but I'll admit that issue is probably a long way off given current ridership.
 
Last edited:

Tallguy

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
685
Reaction score
321
Honestly? It's been a while since I've read them, and I figured your confident tone meant you'd be able to point me in the right direction to support your assertion. Seems I was mistaken, so I'll just have to assume this is just part of your long-running beef with F-Line until I get a chance to reread those reports.

EDIT to update: Based on what I'm reading, SSX being unnecessary is effectively predicated on Amtrak only needing 2 platformed tracks indefinitely (which I have a hard time buying), and OC only needing two tracks operationally, after they spent all that ink (rightly) skewering the diesels for being unreliable, when the OC lines are likely to be among the last to be electrified. So what happens when a diesel craps out and fouls a platform track? Similar concern on the Fram/Worcester tracks up on tks 1 and 2, at least before electrification.

Maybe TM has advanced less spurious assumptions (frankly, I'd hope so), but I'm not seeing them.
So, presently, Amtrak runs 1 tph except 3x per day, when there is a second train. If you doubled service(a very long term possibility) that would result in an hourly departure per platform, except, 6x per day when there would be 1.5 departures per platform in an hour. Doesn't sound very spurious to me, but perhaps with 2 advanced degrees, I misunderstand the definition of spurious.
Again, 15 min service on the Worcester Line AND 15 min to Framingham would be required before 15 min turn arounds become necessary. And if one platform does come out of service, a temporary ten min turn around spread out between the Worcester and Prov platforms would solve the problem. And it would only affect peak, unless that level of service happened all day.
So, why don't we spend the $2B on new equipment, such as EMUs, instead of patching the present, inadequate way of operations.
 

Tallguy

Active Member
Joined
May 2, 2018
Messages
685
Reaction score
321
And if Needham Line was converted to OL/GL and the Prov, Stoughton, and Franklin all ran 15 min frequencies, then 15 min turn around would require 3 platforms. So that would leave 8 berths extra. So, that averages just a tad under 20 min per turn around. And in many parts of the world, INCLUDING OCCASIONALLY THE MPTA, 10 min turnarounds are a normal occurrence. But hey, let's spend $2B instead.
 

Top