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

HelloBostonHi said:
My hot take is that if the MBTA wants to restore a previously removed double/triple track anywhere within existing right of way there should be some kind of blanket exemption from permitting and outreach. The railroads predate most of what surrounds them and there are proven tangible environmental and societal benefits from added rail capacity.
Click to expand...
There sort of is. Railroads being federally regulated means a lot of the state and local permitting overhead for things done on the ROW are inapplicable. They don't really have to do outreach for things like restoring double-track to a double-track railbed, but of course it's bad politics not to do so and the T doesn't want some town's local reps getting sicced on them in some sort of Operation Chaos. I think they know that it's a futile gesture and that they're only going to get a bunch of screaming at clouds in return, but it'd be poor form to not go through the song-and-dance number.
 
www.readingrecap.com

📰 Breaking News – MBTA Turnback Track Pulled

*10:00AM Edit - The meeting scheduled for tonight 2/25 at 7pm is still planned. Jeremy Fontaine, Environmental Compliance Officer with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) / MASS D…
www.readingrecap.com www.readingrecap.com
Jeremy Fontaine, Environmental Compliance Officer with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) / MASS DOT has notified the Town of Reading the following:
The MBTA is requesting to withdraw our Notice of Intent for the proposed MBTA Reading Turnback Track Project (0 Vine Street), MassDEP file #270-0792, without prejudice. We will be re-filing at a later time.
Click to expand...
 
Does it bother anyone else that these headlines are always Train crashes into car rather than Car is hit by train after disobeying signal or even just a value-neutral Car and train collide ? Or am I reading into this too much?
 
kdmc said:
Does it bother anyone else that these headlines are always Train crashes into car rather than Car is hit by train after disobeying signal or even just a value-neutral Car and train collide ? Or am I reading into this too much?
Click to expand...
The car (and its occupants) is always the victim -- American car-centric culture.
 
kdmc said:
Does it bother anyone else that these headlines are always Train crashes into car rather than Car is hit by train after disobeying signal or even just a value-neutral Car and train collide ? Or am I reading into this too much?
Click to expand...
The car is always at fault, but technically speaking, the train does hit the car.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FK4
kdmc said:
Does it bother anyone else that these headlines are always Train crashes into car rather than Car is hit by train after disobeying signal or even just a value-neutral Car and train collide ? Or am I reading into this too much?
Click to expand...
No. The car drove around the gates flagrantly illegally just as the train was about to pass. Clear-cut, open-shut driver at fault...no guesswork and no lawsuit that will ever be heard in court. The media reports would be outright misleading if they did not lead with the car driver's illegal and deliberate actions, and in these cases they frequently are.
 
bigeman312 said:
I haven't been following this saga closely. Is there a good reason not to build the turnback track next to I-93 here?
Click to expand...
It's operationally easiest to have it nearest to Reading Station so the turnbacks can be staged quickly around adjoining thru-Haverhill slots and occasional Downeasters that get as-needed re-routed to the Reading Line. They're basically shooting for an identical setup to what exists with the crossovers 1/2 mile north of Haverhill station, where there's a designated engine holdpoint for reversing between the outbound-side platform at the end of a run to the inbound-side platform at the start of a run and such switches are frequently done around Downeaster and freight slots that scoot around very close to the T turnarounds. 93 is 2 miles from Reading Station and there'd be a fair amount of single-track to traverse for reaching the engine holdpoint, so the meets under Regional Rail would be a little more brittle.

I mean, if the community opposition is fierce enough they could do it just to get what they need while quieting down the rabble. But it would be less flexible than having one adjacent to Reading Station.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
It's operationally easiest to have it nearest to Reading Station so the turnbacks can be staged quickly around adjoining thru-Haverhill slots and occasional Downeasters that get as-needed re-routed to the Reading Line. They're basically shooting for an identical setup to what exists with the crossovers 1/2 mile north of Haverhill station, where there's a designated engine holdpoint for reversing between the outbound-side platform at the end of a run to the inbound-side platform at the start of a run and such switches are frequently done around Downeaster and freight slots that scoot around very close to the T turnarounds. 93 is 2 miles from Reading Station and there'd be a fair amount of single-track to traverse for reaching the engine holdpoint, so the meets under Regional Rail would be a little more brittle.

I mean, if the community opposition is fierce enough they could do it just to get what they need while quieting down the rabble. But it would be less flexible than having one adjacent to Reading Station.
Click to expand...
Do you have a way to quantify how much less flexible a turnback at the pinned point (1.8 miles past Reading Station) would be than the proposed location (0.5 miles past Reading Station)? Does it lower the ceiling of frequencies, for example?

From 1.7 track miles to 2.0 track miles would be the ideal location with respect to local resident concerns, as that’s undeveloped land next to the highway and highway ramps.

0.7 track miles to 0.9 miles is conservation land. I’m not sure how much a rail turnback negatively affects non-humans.
 
Last edited:
The entire stretch was once double track, so there should be no issue here. Of course, this is Massachusetts. To me they are better off double-tracking the entire segment
once and for all. Prior to the restoration of double track between CPW-WJ and CPF-LJ, this was a nightmare to dispatch when things went wrong. The delays passengers
had to sometime endure was embarrassing. Too much single track.
 
A strange oddity in the new Spring/Summer CR Lowell Line schedule

The last 4 Trains are repeated, with the same numbers and departure times.
Inbound
1741186571579.png

Outbound
1741186687222.png

This only applies for the last 4 trains, inbound and outbound, weekdays only on the lowell line.

Edit: Only Lowell Line Schedule is affected by this
 
erf51trains said:
A strange oddity in the new Spring/Summer CR Lowell Line schedule

The last 4 Trains are repeated, with the same numbers and departure times.
Inbound
View attachment 60711
Outbound
View attachment 60712
This only applies for the last 4 trains, inbound and outbound, weekdays only on the lowell line.

Edit: Only Lowell Line Schedule is affected by this
Click to expand...
Not the first mistake to make if onto the schedules, and probably not the last.
 
erf51trains said:
A strange oddity in the new Spring/Summer CR Lowell Line schedule

The last 4 Trains are repeated, with the same numbers and departure times.
Inbound
View attachment 60711
Outbound
View attachment 60712
This only applies for the last 4 trains, inbound and outbound, weekdays only on the lowell line.

Edit: Only Lowell Line Schedule is affected by this
Click to expand...
Maybe they can add those four trains to the mid-day schedule. Very frustrating to see this time of day still operating trains every two hours. With Winchester Center done and West Medford mini-highs looking almost completed, what other work is left that requires reduced service mid-day? They shut down last weekend and this upcoming weekend for signal work. Anything else?
 
Notes on the March 24 schedules:
  • Across the system, train numbers have changed. Saturday and Sunday trains now have the same numbers (finally!). Weekend trains are now generally 5YXX (where Y is the first digit of weekday trains) and weekday short turns are now 1YXX.
    • Y is counterclockwise: [0] for Rockport, 1 for Newburport, 2 for Haverhill, 3 for Lowell, 4 for Fitchburg, 5 for Worcester, 6 for Needham, 7 for Franklin, 8 for Providence, 9 for Stoughton.
    • Foxboro is 16xx and 66xx. Kingston and Greenbush are 10xx and 60xx (Kingston below 1050, Greenbush above). Fall River is 19xx/69xx, New Bedford is 20xx/70xx
  • Many trains systemwide also have a minute or two of winter padding removed.
  • No substantive changes to Fitchburg, Lowell, Haverhill, Franklin, Providence/Stoughton, and Needham.
  • Newburyport/Rockport has some midday trains cancelled until June for track work, and some others are shifted a bit.
  • F/W has some minor shifts. 10 minutes added to the 8:21 (now 8:11) inbound from Worcester, though most of that seems to be padding. The 6:52 outbound drops all stops between Framingham and Worcester.
  • Fairmount schedule now shows which trains are to/from south of Readville, but no schedule changes
  • South Coast Rail service begins. Service on the mainline increases from 14 weekday RT to 16, and 10 to 13 on weekends.
  • Greenbush actually loses a weekday round trip - down to 12 - and the remaining trips shift.
  • Kingston loses a weekday outbound - also down to 12 - and gains a weekend outbound. Other trips shift.
 
I have to ask, why does the T/Keolis do this consistent Spring/Summer and Fall/Winter schedule system, vs. just putting out new schedules when changes happen? Obviously this is a bigger schedule change with SCR and trains being renumbered, but most of the time no actual changes happen. Sorry if this is dumb, I’m not really familiar with the operations side of trains.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top