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

[Stlin]

So I was recently going through the MBTA roster on NE transit, and I found this line - apparently, 2 of the overhauled MBBs got turned into office cars.

In an era where the T is facing a fiscal cliff, at first blush it definitely feels like an extravagance - especially since I'm fairly sure the MBB overhauls were outsourced. Their first and apparently only use so far has been to take Eng to the 9/18 press conference in New Bedford. The T's system isn't so expansive that it necessarily makes sense, especially as it continues to borrow Amtrak's corridor clipper geometry car and doesn't need their own. I realize that having an office train isn't exactly uncommon amongst private carriers, but my understanding is that amongst US commuter railroads only Metro-North has office cars - but theirs are historic equipment from the 40s. Granted, the reality of maintaining an extra car or two is marginal given their willingness to hold onto a pair of seasonal cafe cars for the CapeFlyer; I suppose next season they could be used as parlour cars.

(As an aside, what I was actually looking for was this:

[screen grab from YouTube] apparently, the T quietly retrofitted one of its Pullman flats with *lasers* to clean leaf debris off of the tracks, replacing the old wash train. The tech is apparently from the same vendor as the LIRR/Metro North's - which means they can run it and clean at track speed. hopefully, we see less slippery rail delays this fall. This sort of investment feels... necessary in a way the office cars don't.

 

[TheRatmeister]

So I was recently going through the MBTA roster on NE transit, and I found this line - apparently, 2 of the overhauled MBBs got turned into office cars.

In an era where the T is facing a fiscal cliff, at first blush it definitely feels like an extravagance - especially since I'm fairly sure the MBB overhauls were outsourced. Their first and apparently only use so far has been to take Eng to the 9/18 press conference in New Bedford. The T's system isn't so expansive that it necessarily makes sense, especially as it continues to borrow Amtrak's corridor clipper geometry car and doesn't need their own. I realize that having an office train isn't exactly uncommon amongst private carriers, but my understanding is that amongst US commuter railroads only Metro-North has office cars - but theirs are historic equipment from the 40s. Granted, the reality of maintaining an extra car or two is marginal given their willingness to hold onto a pair of seasonal cafe cars for the CapeFlyer; I suppose next season they could be used as parlour cars.

It really depends how extensive the modifications were. If it's just a new paint job and some light refurbishments (ripping out some of the seats, slightly larger tables, maybe a couple power outlets) then whatever, think of it as a mobile podium for giving speeches.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It really depends how extensive the modifications were. If it's just a new paint job and some light refurbishments (ripping out some of the seats, slightly larger tables, maybe a couple power outlets) then whatever, think of it as a mobile podium for giving speeches.

• Moderate mechanical and electrical overhaul
• New flooring (the MBB's were prone to floor rot)
• New seating upholstery
• New replacement toilets

The mods only figured to result in a 7-year projected life extension, so it's well shy of a midlife overhaul.

All specialty cars to-date--bike cars, cafe cars, leaf laser car--excepting these two office cars have been Pullman 200-series conversions. The Pullmans, despite being 1978 vintage, got a complete 1996 remanufacturing (meaning basically all-new cars made out of the old shells) and are generally thought to be in the best condition of any of the flats. Make of that what you will. These office cars may not be long-lasting additions to the fleet.

 

[Java King]

This was an interesting listen. He actually made a good case for Battery-Electric rather than the full overhead electric infrastructure.

Commuter Rail Revolution with Mike Muller

Podcast Episode · Spilling the T · 10/18/2024 · 34m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

This was an interesting listen. He actually made a good case for Battery-Electric rather than the full overhead electric infrastructure.

Commuter Rail Revolution with Mike Muller

Podcast Episode · Spilling the T · 10/18/2024 · 34m

podcasts.apple.com

No, he really didn't. He complained that it would cost too many billions and take too many decades to electrify with catenary, but cited discontinuous electrification as some great cost and time saver because "Progress!" when that's been thoroughly debunked. When the facts say that the discontinuous electrification costs almost exactly as much because of the need for extra-beefy substation infrastructure to do the charging, and when the rolling stock costs 2-4x as much while performing worse than straight electrics.

He was thinly rote-reciting a bunch of bullshit talking points. It was disappointing, not enlightening.

 

[Java King]

No, he really didn't. He complained that it would cost too many billions and take too many decades to electrify with catenary, but cited discontinuous electrification as some great cost and time saver because "Progress!" when that's been thoroughly debunked. When the facts say that the discontinuous electrification costs almost exactly as much because of the need for extra-beefy substation infrastructure to do the charging, and when the rolling stock costs 2-4x as much while performing worse than straight electrics.

He was thinly rote-reciting a bunch of bullshit talking points. It was disappointing, not enlightening.

Fair points. However, as a person not really knowledgeable in the finer details, it sounded good. .........and that's a problem, because 99% of the population is probably even less knowledgeable about the specific details and points you make. The way he laid it out, it seemed like a good idea. However, I totally understand the argument you are making, and I agree with you 100%, and I appreciate your vast experience and information on this subject.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Fair points. However, as a person not really knowledgeable in the finer details, it sounded good. .........and that's a problem, because 99% of the population is probably even less knowledgeable about the specific details and points you make. The way he laid it out, it seemed like a good idea. However, I totally understand the argument you are making, and I agree with you 100%, and I appreciate your vast experience and information on this subject.

Most of the interview was very good. Muller is a full-throated backer of :30 Regional Rail systemwide and making aggressive strides towards achieving that. Since he (and that whole podcast) are an in-house mouthpiece for the T, it signals that institutionally they are buying into the Rail Vision bigtime...which is a welcome change from the Baker years where they were clearly going through the motions and holding their nose at the prospect. So that's very exciting.

The electrification segment was a big clunker, however. They're still holding their nose with a baked-in fear of stringing up OCS, and plying every excuse in the world for magic BEMU pixie dust when the costs don't wash. There's been no corresponding evolution towards world best-practices when it comes to that.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Fair points. However, as a person not really knowledgeable in the finer details, it sounded good. .........and that's a problem, because 99% of the population is probably even less knowledgeable about the specific details and points you make. The way he laid it out, it seemed like a good idea. However, I totally understand the argument you are making, and I agree with you 100%, and I appreciate your vast experience and information on this subject.

It sounds like a great idea if you don't know the details, and if the idea is told like how they tell it. It's a lie by omission. The story is that they want electrification with lower upfront costs. The reality is that the cost of leasing BEMUs and installing charging infrastructure is so high that any cost savings will have completely disappeared, even reversed, by the time you get around to full electrification.

Also for a line like Fairmount the upfront costs aren't actually that high in the first place, so the absolute best you could hope for in terms of cost savings would probably be in the low double digit millions, hardly something to write home about, and definitely not something to risk the project over.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

It sounds like a great idea if you don't know the details, and if the idea is told like how they tell it. It's a lie by omission. The story is that they want electrification with lower upfront costs. The reality is that the cost of leasing BEMUs and installing charging infrastructure is so high that any cost savings will have completely disappeared, even reversed, by the time you get around to full electrification.

Also for a line like Fairmount the upfront costs aren't actually that high in the first place, so the absolute best you could hope for in terms of cost savings would probably be in the low double digit millions, hardly something to write home about, and definitely not something to risk the project over.

Muller also talked at length about the need for faster starts/stops on a line like Fairmount so the schedule starts to become more subway-like. Well...BEMU's don't accelerate that great vs. straight-EMU's because of all the battery deadweight they're carrying around and the acceleration-sapping design compromises (i.e. de-powered bogies) for fitting the battery bulk into the frames. It's like halfway between a DMU and a straight EMU. So his whole reasoning was rendered incoherent by that particular lie of omission.

 

[ritchiew]

Muller also talked at length about the need for faster starts/stops on a line like Fairmount so the schedule starts to become more subway-like. Well...BEMU's don't accelerate that great vs. straight-EMU's because of all the battery deadweight they're carrying around and the acceleration-sapping design compromises (i.e. de-powered bogies) for fitting the battery bulk into the frames. It's like halfway between a DMU and a straight EMU. So his whole reasoning was rendered incoherent by that particular lie of omission.

I've been wondering about this. There's a practical limit to how fast a train can accelerate, just for passenger safety and comfort. Which means that once BEMUs can hit that limit then they'll be "good enough," and comparisons to straight-EMU acceleration becomes moot. So how close are BEMUs to that limit? And batteries keep getting better. I don't know if it's on any reliable trend line. But has anyone gamed out when batteries will get sufficiently energy dense that a BEMU's acceleration is "good enough?"

 

[JeffDowntown]

I've been wondering about this. There's a practical limit to how fast a train can accelerate, just for passenger safety and comfort. Which means that once BEMUs can hit that limit then they'll be "good enough," and comparisons to straight-EMU acceleration becomes moot. So how close are BEMUs to that limit? And batteries keep getting better. I don't know if it's on any reliable trend line. But has anyone gamed out when batteries will get sufficiently energy dense that a BEMU's acceleration is "good enough?"

My understanding is that EMUs in France and China use their full acceleration potential with no issue of rider comfort. So until BEMUs are directly on par with EMUs in acceleration, you are leaving transit performance potential on the table. And you are also leaving transit capacity on the table because BEMUs have less passenger space per car.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

My understanding is that EMUs in France and China use their full acceleration potential with no issue of rider comfort. So until BEMUs are directly on par with EMUs in acceleration, you are leaving transit performance potential on the table. And you are also leaving transit capacity on the table because BEMUs have less passenger space per car.

Commuter-class EMU's have no issues with using full acceleration. Intercity-class EMU's with brawnier acceleration, however, pretty much require you to have intercity livery (well-cushioned seats, no standees) to not allow it to be a rider comfort issue. The fatal flaw with all of TransitMatters' 100 MPH systemwide traffic modeling is that they spec intercity-class EMU acceleration (specifically, the intercity variant of the Stadler FLIRT...which doesn't even fit our platform heights) outfitted with commuter livery to achieve their schedules. And that's totally inappropriate for rider comfort because we have standees (more of them the more subway-like and short-hop tripmaking the service becomes).

Some BEMU's like the Stadler KISS that was bid here and that Caltrain is adopting have really wretched spatial utilization. The batteries take up the whole front car, so it looks externally like a loco-hauled push-pull trainset. Caltrain's 4-car versions will only have 3 passenger cars. And the battery car is an unpowered modified cab car, meaning the stock power cars in the middle have to do lots of extra work to lug all the extra bulk around. Caltrain hasn't modeled the BEMU schedule improvements on the un-electrified Gilroy shuttle yet because it's only ordering 1 BEMU trainset with all other sets on the schedule remaining diesel for the foreseeable (till 2030 at least) future...so their Gilroy schedule is still predicated on a diesel backbone. But it's quite likely to be a bit worse than the straight EMU's on their mainline schedule.

Stadler's FLIRT single-level BEMU's (again...not applicable to our platform heights) stick an articulated battery section with pass-thru vestibules between the open-gangway ends of the cars...again, an unpowered empty-calorie segment of pure bulk that significantly blunts the acceleration potential. Most other single-level makes de-power one of the bogies per powered car on the underside to create battery compartment space. It results in no net loss of seating, which means the livery doesn't have to be customized any. But it comes at the cost of the cars only having up to half the acceleration power of a straight EMU. The negative effects can be blunted a little bit by using more powerful traction motors on the remaining powered bogies (basically, intercity-class motors to try to make up the gap as much as possible), but they're the assiest-profile BEMU acceleration on the market and more akin to a DMU than a straight EMU.

There's no real way the performance is ever going to hit 1:1 with a straight EMU, just like there will never be a DMU or HMU that performs equivalent to its straight-EMU counterpart. Pure physics...anything that has to lug around extra deadweight in a fuel source is going to have a performance penalty to anything that has a fully external fuel source. Batteries can get lighter with evolution and propulsion can be made more powerful to compensate, but it'll always be more work vs. more weight to run a BEMU vs. a straight EMU.

 

[ritchiew]

Commuter-class EMU's have no issues with using full acceleration. Intercity-class EMU's with brawnier acceleration, however, pretty much require you to have intercity livery (well-cushioned seats, no standees) to not allow it to be a rider comfort issue. The fatal flaw with all of TransitMatters' 100 MPH systemwide traffic modeling is that they spec intercity-class EMU acceleration (specifically, the intercity variant of the Stadler FLIRT...which doesn't even fit our platform heights) outfitted with commuter livery to achieve their schedules. And that's totally inappropriate for rider comfort because we have standees (more of them the more subway-like and short-hop tripmaking the service becomes).

So then what would be a maximum reasonable acceleration for our commuter rail trains? I see all kinds of examples around, but no clear standards. Something like 1.1 meters/second/second? 1.4?

(and in whatever units you choose. trying to research this gets annoying when acceleration gets variously written in terms of mph/s, mps/s, kmph/s, fps/s, or g. and "m" can mean miles or meters)

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

So then what would be a maximum reasonable acceleration for our commuter rail trains? I see all kinds of examples around, but no clear standards. Something like 1.1 meters/second/second? 1.4?

(and in whatever units you choose. trying to research this gets annoying when acceleration gets variously written in terms of mph/s, mps/s, kmph/s, fps/s, or g. and "m" can mean miles or meters)

Stadler's commuter-class EMU's do 0.8 m/s² empty and their intercity-class EMU's do 1.3 m/s² empty. So it's about an 0.5 m/s² difference before the G-forces become too uncomfortable for commuter livery with standees. I don't know how acceleration is figured using passenger loading weight, because that loading depends heavily on seating configuration (2 x 2 vs. 3 x 2, single-level vs. bi-level).

It also makes a difference during what speed range the acceleration G's are at their sharpest. The Rotem Silverliner V, for example, does pretty gentle acceleration in the 0-30 MPH (0.4 MPH/s, or 0.178 m/s²), then quadruples it in the 30-50 MPH range (1.6 MPH/s or 0.715 m/s²), then steps it up to 2.5 MPH/s or 1.118 m/s² in the 50-90 MPH range. Intercity-class acceleration would push harder at the lower end of the range because there's no standees to fling around. The commuter-class Stadlers most likely have very similar gearing, although their datasheets only show the maxes.


EDITED: for units conversion from MPH/s to m/s² via this handy online converter: https://conversion.org/acceleration/miles-per-hour-per-second/metres-per-second-squared

 

[Koopzilla24]

UK rail forums and Reddit have discussed the acceleration concerns of BEMUs v EMUs fairly extensively and for the Fairmount Line there's negligible difference in performance depending on the specific BEMU. The main penalty is in the reduced top speed over EMUs primarily to preserve batteries which doesn't matter on the Dorchester Branch where top speeds rarely reach 60mph. Siemens's Mireo only drops from 1.2 m/s^2 to 1.1 while Stadler's FLIRT Akku is 1.1 either way. Regardless of the BEMU or EMU it's going to be a full sized heavy regional rail train which will never get subway performance because they want to use it as a test bed for their partial OCS regional rail model.

 

[ritchiew]

Stadler's commuter-class EMU's do 0.8 m/s² empty and their intercity-class EMU's do 1.3 m/s² empty. So it's about an 0.5 m/s² difference before the G-forces become too uncomfortable for commuter livery with standees. I don't know how acceleration is figured using passenger loading weight, because that loading depends heavily on seating configuration (2 x 2 vs. 3 x 2, single-level vs. bi-level).

It also makes a difference during what speed range the acceleration G's are at their sharpest. The Rotem Silverliner V, for example, does pretty gentle acceleration in the 0-30 MPH (0.4 MPH/s, or 0.178 m/s²), then quadruples it in the 30-50 MPH range (1.6 MPH/s or 0.715 m/s²), then steps it up to 2.5 MPH/s or 1.118 m/s² in the 50-90 MPH range. Intercity-class acceleration would push harder at the lower end of the range because there's no standees to fling around. The commuter-class Stadlers most likely have very similar gearing, although their datasheets only show the maxes.


EDITED: for units conversion from MPH/s to m/s² via this handy online converter: https://conversion.org/acceleration/miles-per-hour-per-second/metres-per-second-squared

So if that's the acceptable range, 0.8 m/s² to 1.3 m/s², then here's a BEMU that does 1.1 m/s². I'm sure there are a lot of confounding variables there, but BEMU acceleration looks like it's in the range of "good enough," or will be soon.

I'm agreeing with you that it's bad for the MBTA to go down this BEMU route, for lots of the reasons you and other have mentioned: less passenger capacity, expensive quick-charging, and generally taking a risk on new technology when catenary has been so thoroughly tested and improved. I just don't think bad acceleration is the problem you're making it out to be, or won't be for long.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

So if that's the acceptable range, 0.8 m/s² to 1.3 m/s², then here's a BEMU that does 1.1 m/s². I'm sure there are a lot of confounding variables there, but BEMU acceleration looks like it's in the range of "good enough," or will be soon.

What's the range for starting acceleration, though? Those quoted figures for Stadler were just the top-gear maxes. 0-30 MPH is where the most time gets chewed up, especially on a stop-dense line like Fairmount. That's where the Silverliner V's gearing example was far and away most gentle, while they only hit 1.1 m/s² above 50 MPH. If that Talent's 1.1 m/s² is, like, only above 60 MPH and it's significantly worse at 0-30 and 30-60 the topline is pretty much inapplicable on the densely stop-spaced inside-128 Urban Rail services where the BEMU's are going to be rolled out first. So if the Talent BEMU is worse than a Silverliner V at gearing, there's going to be a significant performance demerit.

I just don't think bad acceleration is the problem you're making it out to be, or won't be for long.

You'd have to find per-gearing numbers to substantiate that. If it's a significantly slower slog from a dead stop because of the battery deadweight, you're going to see a schedule drag. All of the BEMU makes that the T was bid in its RFP performed worse than the straight-EMU bids they received in the previous straight-EMU RFP, because they were derivative adaptations to limit per-car cost bloat that did without any brawnier-acceleration compensating increases in the power output of the traction motors. So this is indeed a factor for buying options right now. I don't know what "not for long" is supposed to mean in terms of generations of battery tech, but if the T is truly as resistant to wiring up the whole system as they seem to be we're probably going to be stuck running 1st-generation BEMU's for their whole 25-year rated vehicle lifespan, with systemwide schedule padding needing to be predicated on those worst-performing 1st generation cars. So the state of affairs on the vehicle market RIGHT NOW matters the world.

 

[ritchiew]

What's the range for starting acceleration, though? Those quoted figures for Stadler were just the top-gear maxes. 0-30 MPH is where the most time gets chewed up, especially on a stop-dense line like Fairmount. That's where the Silverliner V's gearing example was far and away most gentle, while they only hit 1.1 m/s² above 50 MPH. If that Talent's 1.1 m/s² is, like, only above 60 MPH and it's significantly worse at 0-30 and 30-60 the topline is pretty much inapplicable on the densely stop-spaced inside-128 Urban Rail services where the BEMU's are going to be rolled out first. So if the Talent BEMU is worse than a Silverliner V at gearing, there's going to be a significant performance demerit.

Oh that's interesting. I don't have any of those numbers and can't find them easily. Where might one look those up? There's the train model I linked to, and two that @Koopzilla24 mentioned.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Oh that's interesting. I don't have any of those numbers and can't find them easily. Where might one look those up? There's the train model I linked to, and two that @Koopzilla24 mentioned.

You'd have to find a manufacturer datasheet that breaks it down by gearing. Stadler and CAF (for the Talent) only provide the maxes, which isn't all that instructive when most Commuter/Regional Rail acceleration is in the lower gears. Rotem did provide the gearing ranges for the Silverliner.

 

[Koopzilla24]

You'd have to find a manufacturer datasheet that breaks it down by gearing. Stadler and CAF (for the Talent) only provide the maxes, which isn't all that instructive when most Commuter/Regional Rail acceleration is in the lower gears. Rotem did provide the gearing ranges for the Silverliner.

Unfortunately it's a toss-up which publicly available datasheets contain this info or not. Stadler's RS Zero which is basically a modern battery train equivalent of a Budd RDC lists a max starting accel. of 0.95 m/s^2 but it's unsure if the more powerful motors of the heavier FLIRT Akku maintain the same acceleration.

The Siemens Mireo Plus B lists "starting accel up to 1.1 m/s^2" with 380kW more power than the Akku which is a bit more ambiguous but it seems like the industry, albeit limited, standard for BEMUs is 0.9-1.1