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

MBTA Announces Partial Opening of Winchester Center Station | News | MBTA

Official website of the MBTA -- schedules, maps, and fare information for Greater Boston's public transportation system, including subway, commuter rail, bus routes, and boat lines.
www.mbta.com www.mbta.com
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) announced today that Winchester Center station on the Lowell Commuter Rail Line will partially reopen on Monday, September 30. The south end of the station will be fully accessible and will serve passengers riding both inbound and outbound. Signage will direct riders to the platform.
Click to expand...
 
TheRatmeister said:
Should they wish to contribute to NSRL they could have all the layover space in Boston that they could possibly dream of.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure how you mean this. Are you saying this should be the T's bargaining position? ("Help us with NSRL and we'll free up some space for you.") Or are you saying NSRL automatically frees up space that Amtrak could start using?
 
ritchiew said:
I'm not sure how you mean this. Are you saying this should be the T's bargaining position? ("Help us with NSRL and we'll free up some space for you.") Or are you saying NSRL automatically frees up space that Amtrak could start using?
Click to expand...
The latter, essentially. Turning a project with localized benefits into one that can benefit the whole NE Corridor and interstate transportation is really the only way I see NSRL happening.
 
The only important sentence in that article is third from the end:

Boston Globe said:
By staking a claim for layover at Beacon Park at the outset, Gardner has put the politically powerful Amtrak in an even stronger position than if it had come into these talks only seeking room at Widett.
Click to expand...
There will be no layover at Beacon Yard. Nobody wants that, including Amtrak. They just want the strongest bargaining position they can obtain.

* the article actually brings up one other point, which leaves room for a temporary yard at Beacon, during Pike construction. If that's all Amtrak is saying, then I say let them have it, so long as Widett is the long term solution.
 
TheRatmeister said:
The latter, essentially. Turning a project with localized benefits into one that can benefit the whole NE Corridor and interstate transportation is really the only way I see NSRL happening.
Click to expand...
Do you mean the former? Or, if you mean the latter, how does NSRL open up space?
 
kdmc said:
Do you mean the former? Or, if you mean the latter, how does NSRL open up space
Click to expand...
NSRL reduces the need for layover space in the city by through running trains, so if the MBTA doesn't need that layover space then Amtrak could have it, along with more capacity at South Station.
 
Why are they bitching? The Widett Circle layover stores 24 T trainsets. 30 if they take the cold storage warehouse property. They don't need Beacon Park's pathetic 8-and-shrinking trainsets at all. Widett's enough to satiate all current service and all Regional Rail growth. The T will never have to bogart space inside AMTK Southampton ever again.

If Amtrak still needs space, they should be complaining that they don't have enough federal funding to expand Southampton, not lobbing shots at the T.


FWIW...I drove by Widett last week, and there's construction equipment staged all around. So the site clearing looks like it's about to begin.
 
TheRatmeister said:
NSRL reduces the need for layover space in the city by through running trains, so if the MBTA doesn't need that layover space then Amtrak could have it, along with more capacity at South Station.
Click to expand...
You still need a place to park trains overnight. A whole freaking lot of trains if we're in NSRL universe and the frequencies from start-of-day are cranked up to the moon. Central layover is going to be necessary because the Route 128 short-turns for the most part have very little room to add layover yards of any appreciable size, and the layovers at the outskirts of the system will be constrained by property acquisition politics for their potential expansion. Plus you still have shift changes where those layover-few 128 turns are going to need to go out-of-service and swapped for other trains, as well as required peak/off-peak changes in the number of cars per consist. In this region there's never going to be a moment when all trains are going to be in constant motion 24/7 at their default consist sizes.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
You still need a place to park trains overnight. A whole freaking lot of trains if we're in NSRL universe and the frequencies from start-of-day are cranked up to the moon. Central layover is going to be necessary because the Route 128 short-turns for the most part have very little room to add layover yards of any appreciable size, and the layovers at the outskirts of the system will be constrained by property acquisition politics for their potential expansion. Plus you still have shift changes where those layover-few 128 turns are going to need to go out-of-service and swapped for other trains, as well as required peak/off-peak changes in the number of cars per consist. In this region there's never going to be a moment when all trains are going to be in constant motion 24/7 at their default consist sizes.
Click to expand...
If the yards are split among the outer part of the lines, how big do they have to be? You mentioned storing 24-30 trains at Widett for Regional Rail. If that is split among eight lines, then 3-4 trains per mini-yard out around 128 somewhere? It seems reasonable to me that the T could, over the next couple decades, find space for 3-4 trains on each line. Even if it's just most lines, that could greatly diminish the need for a massive central yard, right?

(I'm genuinely asking. I don't have a good sense of how this works logistically.)
 
ritchiew said:
If the yards are split among the outer part of the lines, how big do they have to be? You mentioned storing 24-30 trains at Widett for Regional Rail. If that is split among eight lines, then 3-4 trains per mini-yard out around 128 somewhere? It seems reasonable to me that the T could, over the next couple decades, find space for 3-4 trains on each line. Even if it's just most lines, that could greatly diminish the need for a massive central yard, right?

(I'm genuinely asking. I don't have a good sense of how this works logistically.)
Click to expand...
The overnight layovers would also need to store the first trains that up-shift in length for the 7:00-9:00am rush, so it's more than just cramming the first hour's worth of :15 frequencies and nothing more. I don't think it's reasonable, though, that it'll only take 20 years to site 128-turning layover yards on each line. Even if they're electrified, communities hate train yards and fight them tooth and nail. It's just not a projectable expectation that all the necessary space is going to be secured before it's needed. And the T (and Amtrak, which wants to stop the T from storing trains on its property) needs something right now, so it's a moot point what 20 years from now might bring.

If, someday, the space does get secured...you can potentially cut down on Widett's train storage size. But that space is probably immediately going to go over to expansion and/or Albany-replacement bus storage, so it's not like the T won't be using every inch of that property's ground level for the next 100 years.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
The overnight layovers would also need to store the first trains that up-shift in length for the 7:00-9:00am rush, so it's more than just cramming the first hour's worth of :15 frequencies and nothing more. I don't think it's reasonable, though, that it'll only take 20 years to site 128-turning layover yards on each line. Even if they're electrified, communities hate train yards and fight them tooth and nail. It's just not a projectable expectation that all the necessary space is going to be secured before it's needed. And the T (and Amtrak, which wants to stop the T from storing trains on its property) needs something right now, so it's a moot point what 20 years from now might bring.

If, someday, the space does get secured...you can potentially cut down on Widett's train storage size. But that space is probably immediately going to go over to expansion and/or Albany-replacement bus storage, so it's not like the T won't be using every inch of that property's ground level for the next 100 years.
Click to expand...

FRA rules aren't exactly something I know a lot about, so forgive my ignorance...

Why would larger sets be needed for peak service in a world where everything is EMUs with full-high platforms? Is it really that bad if an 8-car train leaves Worcester at 5am and arrives in Fitchburg at 6:45am and then departs at 07:00am back to Boston? Is it just about labor costs for Assistant Conductors?

I get why it makes sense today with different kinds of cars and crew opening doors/traps and collecting fares.
 
www.trains.com

Keolis preparing request for MBTA battery-electric equipment - Trains

BOSTON — Keolis Commuter Services, contract operator of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, has announced plans to release a Request for Proposals for battery-electric rolling stock later this year. The new equipment will be used on the commuter system’s Fairmount Line under a plan...
www.trains.com www.trains.com
 
737900er said:
FRA rules aren't exactly something I know a lot about, so forgive my ignorance...

Why would larger sets be needed for peak service in a world where everything is EMUs with full-high platforms? Is it really that bad if an 8-car train leaves Worcester at 5am and arrives in Fitchburg at 6:45am and then departs at 07:00am back to Boston? Is it just about labor costs for Assistant Conductors?

I get why it makes sense today with different kinds of cars and crew opening doors/traps and collecting fares.
Click to expand...
It's also about electricity budget in EMU-land. An 8 car set made of 4 EMU married pairs on a packed rush hour run is going to be gobbling twice or more the watts than a 4-car set made of 2 EMU married pairs running on off-peak passenger loading. If they end up buying married-pair EMU's instead of permanently coupled sets it's going to make a ton more sense to cut the trains down to size when the loading gets smaller rather than run with the defaults all-day. The T has a wide array of loading profiles by-line and by time-of-day that'll definitely influence how they plan out electrical loading in the future.
 
Last edited:
themissinglink said:
www.trains.com

Keolis preparing request for MBTA battery-electric equipment - Trains

BOSTON — Keolis Commuter Services, contract operator of the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, has announced plans to release a Request for Proposals for battery-electric rolling stock later this year. The new equipment will be used on the commuter system’s Fairmount Line under a plan...
www.trains.com www.trains.com
Click to expand...
Tangentially related but surrounding our questions and discussion about the Fairmount funding, this article posted Sept 26 snuck this small bit about that funding:

IMG_6146.jpeg

It doesn't specify exactly what CIP item(s) or what particular "infrastructure" but if said infrastructure is a new small maintenance facility, charging wires at Readville, and most of station renovations for full highs and whatnot at Readville/Fairmount, then most of that $54mil could be for rolling stock
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top