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

ritchiew said:
That turned out a lot clearer than I thought would be possible.

One thing that's a small problem though: including rapid transit on the map can give the wrong impression about how much that would cost. Someone unfamiliar with the system might think they have to pay extra to take the Red Line from Braintree because it is in Zone 2. There should be easy fixes to keep Alewife and all the Green Lines in 1A, but I don't see how to do that for Quincy/Braintree. (Sorry if this has already been brought up and I missed it.)
Click to expand...
It's also a problem for the ferries, which have their own non-nonsensical fare structures. I probably will take take the note on the legend approach.
 
quick question since idk how operations work. If I’m correct the NR line is the 2nd busiest line. So why do the Old Colony lines run with all bi levels and the Franklin line runs mostly bi levels but the NR line only uses 1 or 2? Is it entirely because the lack of need on the north side besides that line?
 
CheapLeak said:
quick question since idk how operations work. If I’m correct the NR line is the 2nd busiest line. So why do the Old Colony lines run with all bi levels and the Franklin line runs mostly bi levels but the NR line only uses 1 or 2? Is it entirely because the lack of need on the north side besides that line?
Click to expand...
I am nowhere near an expert on regional rail operations, but this F-Line comment implies that any southside equipment that has a chance of operating on NEC needs to comply with Amtrak's standards. This rules out the use of many older cars, which have a disproportionally higher share of single-level cars, from the southside lines:

F-Line to Dudley said:
There's an Amtrak requirement for "traction interlock", which safeguards the automatic doors from being open while the train is in motion. That affects most of the GP40MC locomotives and the ancient/being-retired single-level cab cars. The T complies with that requirement by shipping all of the Geeps and flat cabs to the northside, so southside equipment is currently 100% compliant. The flat cabs will all be retired by the end of 2024, and they've got a plan to slowly upgrade all the Geeps so this requirement can go north eventually.
Click to expand...
 
CheapLeak said:
quick question since idk how operations work. If I’m correct the NR line is the 2nd busiest line. So why do the Old Colony lines run with all bi levels and the Franklin line runs mostly bi levels but the NR line only uses 1 or 2? Is it entirely because the lack of need on the north side besides that line?
Click to expand...
There's only 51 single-levels out of 256 total southside cars (20%), and 111 single-levels out of 157 total northside cars (70%). Most of the reason is lighter loading up north, but there are a few mechanical reasons for the split:

  • Traction interlock - This is a requirement by the southside's Amtrak dispatcher that locomotive propulsion cannot electronically be engaged while doors on the train are open. All of the Rotem 800/1800-series and rebuilt Kawasaki 700/1700-series bi-levels have traction interlock. So that informs the southside rostering decisions based on trains assigned all/partly to the NEC vs. Worcester/Fairmount/Old Colony. Very few of the single-levels have this capability.
  • Automatic doors - Required by the Old Colony lines. All of the bi-level roster has auto doors, but only the 200-series Pullman single-levels and 500-series MBB single-levels have them. The 200's and 500's are all exiled north right now, so the Old Colony is presently 100% bi-level.
  • Retirements - The ongoing Rotem supplemental order is retiring all of the 1600-series Bombardier cab cars. So while those retirements are imminent, they're keeping the 1600's (save for a few that run as trailers-only because of long-ago deactivated cab controls) bottled up north at Boston Engine Terminal to make yanking them from service a more orderly affair. So right now 100% of the southside cab cars are bi-level, while it's still a mix up north. By year's end all cab cars systemwide will be bi-level, so every train on the system will have at least 1 bi-level car at all times.
  • Maintenance - The single-levels are all old and in need of frequent servicing. So they're clustered up north in closer proximity to Boston Engine Terminal.
 
Will the now retired coaches be turned Into regular coaches, like what happend with some 1600s in 2012-2014?
 
CheapLeak said:
Will the now retired coaches be turned Into regular coaches, like what happend with some 1600s in 2012-2014?
Click to expand...
Probably not. The T's got a glut of stored coaches...50+ single-level trailers...sitting mothballed in yards across the system. Any of those could be reactivated easier than de-cabbing the 1600's.
 
What’s the deal with the T stuffing various yards with unused cars like a squirrel hiding nuts? Are they really expecting to rehab the MBBs yet again for another generation of service, or are they hoarding them for when the Pioneer Institute hacks regain control of the T?
 
RandomWalk said:
What’s the deal with the T stuffing various yards with unused cars like a squirrel hiding nuts? Are they really expecting to rehab the MBBs yet again for another generation of service, or are they hoarding them for when the Pioneer Institute hacks regain control of the T?
Click to expand...
Most likely they can't decide which class of flats to scrap first. The cab cars...Bombardier 1600's and remaining MBB 1500's...are a natural first pick for the blowtorch. But after that the 4 classes of trailers--Pullman 200-series (1978...remanufactured 1996), Bombardier 300-series (1986...never rebuilt), MBB 500-series (1987...a handful recently "refurbished" but otherwise never rebuilt), and Bombardier 600-series (1989-90...never rebuilt)--are all in pretty equally horrible shape.

They also just got some MBB's back off lease from ConnDOT, to stuff the yards even further. They're slightly refurbished, but were such rough-riding crap that CT couldn't wait to get rid of them once its ex-Shore Line East push-pull fleet got reassigned to the Hartford Line.
 
Riverside said:
I can see why these would be nice to have, but why are they a hard requirement on the OCR lines?
Click to expand...
State law requires maximal accessibility to be enforced onboard where maximal accessibility is available lineside, so 100% full-high lines require automatic doors to be enabled.

It sucked riding the OC during the height of the Kawasaki rebuilds and first-gen Rotem teething issues because there'd be Bombardier flats sans auto doors working their way into the mix, and everything had to be manually opened meaning only certain doors would be open during station stops. I can't imagine how other lines cope with it on a daily basis, because it really is a traffic clog and dwell killer.
 
themissinglink said:
TransitMatters released a report today about modernizing the Framingham/Worcester Line.
Click to expand...
Viaducting all of Framingham for grade separation but failing to provide any cost estimates other than a single "grade separation is expensive, on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars" sentence is burying the lede just a little too far. At least on the Fitchburg Line report with Waltham Center separation they so much as hazarded a guess on a round figure. Totally mum here.

This one could easily cost $⅓ billion at the most conservative paper estimates...nevermind at estimates in the inflation-happy construction world we live in...since it involves:
  • Separation of 4 total grade crossings (2 on the B&A main, 2 on the Framingham Secondary)
  • A brand new elevated station on a compact footprint with maximal vertical circulation needs
  • A mid-viaduct line junction (meaning tri-legged viaduct) and a mid-viaduct interlocking tying into the new/funded Wellesley-Framingham tri-track segment (meaning likely a tri-track viaduct period)
  • 3000 ft. total's worth of maximum-height viaduct and embankment work on 3 separate legs of the junction
  • Approximately one mile's worth of embankment inclining on the 3 separate legs of the grade separation and re-graded wye legs
  • Challenging construction mitigations for traffic flow, since Framingham (unlike Waltham) eschews any sort of orderly paralleling street grid and has massive traffic impacts for any single road disruption...something they have found through piles and piles of studies thinking of ways to improve traffic flow (with and without grade separations) through here.
  • Complete reconfiguration of all legs of the Framingham Jct. wye for differing inclines, and having to accommodate daily freight traffic on all legs of the wye and through the Framingham Secondary junction mid-construction.
  • EIS'ing concerns for building above the Sudbury Aqueduct, which passes through the wye at the west end of the viaduct and through the west-end incline embankment (and is why doing a depressed cut instead is physically impossible)
  • Chewing through paper and design at-cost while negotiating with the infamously planning-hostile City of Framingham. As the TM report notes, they've deadlocked themselves through 40 previous grade separation studies. As well as deadlocking themselves multiple times over on dirt-simple things like MBTA-requested security fencing around the ROW and basic crossing protection improvements.
$⅓ billion if we're lucky. I can't fathom how this boiled down in spite of ^all that^ to such a certainty that progress with "optimization of the grid and crossings" never once entered into their minds as a fallback or interim option. It's presented as total all or nothing. Good freaking luck with an all-or-nothing in this particular spot.
 
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley said:
Viaducting all of Framingham for grade separation but failing to provide any cost estimates other than a single "grade separation is expensive, on the order of hundreds of millions of dollars" sentence is burying the lede just a little too far. At least on the Fitchburg Line report with Waltham Center separation they so much as hazarded a guess on a round figure. Totally mum here.

This one could easily cost $⅓ billion at the most conservative paper estimates...nevermind at estimates in the inflation-happy construction world we live in...since it involves:
  • Separation of 4 total grade crossings (2 on the B&A main, 2 on the Framingham Secondary)
  • A brand new elevated station on a compact footprint with maximal vertical circulation needs
  • A mid-viaduct line junction (meaning tri-legged viaduct) and a mid-viaduct interlocking tying into the new/funded Wellesley-Framingham tri-track segment (meaning likely a tri-track viaduct period)
  • 3000 ft. total's worth of maximum-height viaduct and embankment work on 3 separate legs of the junction
  • Approximately one mile's worth of embankment inclining on the 3 separate legs of the grade separation and re-graded wye legs
  • Challenging construction mitigations for traffic flow, since Framingham (unlike Waltham) eschews any sort of orderly paralleling street grid and has massive traffic impacts for any single road disruption...something they have found through piles and piles of studies thinking of ways to improve traffic flow (with and without grade separations) through here.
  • Complete reconfiguration of all legs of the Framingham Jct. wye for differing inclines, and having to accommodate daily freight traffic on all legs of the wye and through the Framingham Secondary junction mid-construction.
  • EIS'ing concerns for building above the Sudbury Aqueduct, which passes through the wye at the west end of the viaduct and through the west-end incline embankment (and is why doing a depressed cut instead is physically impossible)
  • Chewing through paper and design at-cost while negotiating with the infamously planning-hostile City of Framingham. As the TM report notes, they've deadlocked themselves through 40 previous grade separation studies. As well as deadlocking themselves multiple times over on dirt-simple things like MBTA-requested security fencing around the ROW and basic crossing protection improvements.
$⅓ billion if we're lucky. I can't fathom how this boiled down in spite of ^all that^ to such a certainty that progress with "optimization of the grid and crossings" never once entered into their minds as a fallback or interim option. It's presented as total all or nothing. Good freaking luck with an all-or-nothing in this particular spot.
Click to expand...
Honestly it sounds like something from crazy transit pitches. And $333.33M? I love it
 
There's no need to elevate anything but the mainline passenger tracks (and a spur to the Agricultural Branch if passenger service is added), and nowhere does TM suggest to do so. Elevated only passenger vastly reduces the complications and allows for steeper (ie shorter) approaches. Only 2,100 feet of viaduct is at maximum height, with no need for any elevated interlockings unless you do the spur. Why go through a massive amount of work to grade separate a handful of daily freights?

I do like the idea of shifting the station to the east side of Concord Street - I think it makes sense both for access and constructability. If you're willing to deal with some single-tracking, you can build one track of the viaduct while keeping one track in service, then construct the rest of the viaduct. (You can even run a shoofly track through the parking lots so you can build all the viaduct west of Concord Street at once.)

The station doesn't need to be anything unusually complicated. Three tracks, island platform and a side. Fits in a 75-foot profile, no takings except for the auto body shops.
 
I haven’t read the report in detail yet but wouldn’t it make more sense to discuss the TM report in the Regional Rail thread? At this point, they aren’t proposing primarily operational changes, which I feel like moves it beyond the scope of this thread?
 
Riverside said:
I haven’t read the report in detail yet but wouldn’t it make more sense to discuss the TM report in the Regional Rail thread? At this point, they aren’t proposing primarily operational changes, which I feel like moves it beyond the scope of this thread?
Click to expand...
Totally. It's almost in the "Fantasy" category of transportation requests. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top