underground
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 2,390
- Reaction score
- 3
Re: T construction news
As per GLX thread, they'll be doing Phase I too.
As per GLX thread, they'll be doing Phase I too.
MBTA Construction Projects
- Thread starter justin
- Start date
AmericanFolkLegend
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,212
- Reaction score
- 248
Re: T construction news
Kenmore was a shit show, but they actually do a lot of T work so I have hope. Barletta also did the North Point Park and Ped Bridge.
We're lucky it wasn't the #2 bidder (a successor to Modern Continental who gave us the Back Bay Station with an apparent 12 year useful life). The #2 bidder also keeps going out of business, re-organizing, and somehow getting pre-qualified again. The latest time they got an Italian company to come in and inject a bunch of money.
Aside: The notion of Phase I of the GLX is so silly. It's like and $800M project and the first couple bridge adjustments cost something like $20M. But DOT wants to be able to say they've started GLX so they call it Phase I.
Who ever heard of a 2-phase project that is split 2%/98% between phases?
Kenmore was a shit show, but they actually do a lot of T work so I have hope. Barletta also did the North Point Park and Ped Bridge.
We're lucky it wasn't the #2 bidder (a successor to Modern Continental who gave us the Back Bay Station with an apparent 12 year useful life). The #2 bidder also keeps going out of business, re-organizing, and somehow getting pre-qualified again. The latest time they got an Italian company to come in and inject a bunch of money.
Aside: The notion of Phase I of the GLX is so silly. It's like and $800M project and the first couple bridge adjustments cost something like $20M. But DOT wants to be able to say they've started GLX so they call it Phase I.
Who ever heard of a 2-phase project that is split 2%/98% between phases?
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
Re: T construction news
What made me red-in-the-face furious is the B&T article doesn't use the word "re-extend", it says "extension". I assume Jim Cronin, the reporter, knew the E-line down there for years, but for some reason it was left out of the story.
What made me red-in-the-face furious is the B&T article doesn't use the word "re-extend", it says "extension". I assume Jim Cronin, the reporter, knew the E-line down there for years, but for some reason it was left out of the story.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,283
Re: T construction news
South Coast FAIL is even worse in that regard. They had to rebuild those 4 decrepit weight-restricted bridges south of Taunton for freight as an explicit condition of the CSX line sale and got the stimulus grant to do it for that freight-only purpose. What do they do: hold a ribbon cutting ceremony with 50 dignitaries at one of the bridges with the Gov. shouting into the microphone "SOUTH COAST RAIL IS UNDERWAY!!!" Then issue a year's worth of self-congratulatory press releases from the SCR Task Force.
South Coast FAIL is even worse in that regard. They had to rebuild those 4 decrepit weight-restricted bridges south of Taunton for freight as an explicit condition of the CSX line sale and got the stimulus grant to do it for that freight-only purpose. What do they do: hold a ribbon cutting ceremony with 50 dignitaries at one of the bridges with the Gov. shouting into the microphone "SOUTH COAST RAIL IS UNDERWAY!!!" Then issue a year's worth of self-congratulatory press releases from the SCR Task Force.
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 128
Re: T construction news
Anyone else think the MBTA and Feds/VA should do a land swap? The Heath St loop should trace the edge of the parking lot, allowing for a much longer platform. They could then run 3-trolley trains on the E Line. And the VA then has two buildable (actually, the small one might not be) plots combined into one larger one.
Anyone else think the MBTA and Feds/VA should do a land swap? The Heath St loop should trace the edge of the parking lot, allowing for a much longer platform. They could then run 3-trolley trains on the E Line. And the VA then has two buildable (actually, the small one might not be) plots combined into one larger one.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,283
Re: T construction news
Heath fits 3-cars on either platform. Google Satellite caught 2 back-to-back deuces in the act crammed on the smaller inner loop: http://goo.gl/maps/0hDVq. Outer loop can fit a 3 and a 2 back-to-back.
The only reason the T says triplets can't run there is that street-running track is *inherently* so fragile that the weight of just one more car will literally collapse the street and send the train plunging straight into the earth's core.
Heath fits 3-cars on either platform. Google Satellite caught 2 back-to-back deuces in the act crammed on the smaller inner loop: http://goo.gl/maps/0hDVq. Outer loop can fit a 3 and a 2 back-to-back.
The only reason the T says triplets can't run there is that street-running track is *inherently* so fragile that the weight of just one more car will literally collapse the street and send the train plunging straight into the earth's core.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,658
Re: T construction news
What's the plan for when GLX opens and E trains are running 3-cars to Somerville?
Heath fits 3-cars on either platform. Google Satellite caught 2 back-to-back deuces in the act crammed on the smaller inner loop: http://goo.gl/maps/0hDVq. Outer loop can fit a 3 and a 2 back-to-back.
The only reason the T says triplets can't run there is that street-running track is *inherently* so fragile that the weight of just one more car will literally collapse the street and send the train plunging straight into the earth's core.
What's the plan for when GLX opens and E trains are running 3-cars to Somerville?
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,283
Re: T construction news
Since the E routes over the Union branch, probably not much. I doubt triplets get introduced until the carhouse opens. There'll temporarily be tighter storage on the north end when Lechmere yard goes.
When the time comes I expect their official answer to be: "We'll turn at Brigham and cut weekend service!"
Unofficially, I expect 3-car trains to be running to Heath exactly 1 week after that announcement. And maybe Pesaturo will tweet that fact 3 months later. The earth's core will probably not be breached and Huntington Ave. will probably not flood with molten lava.
Since the E routes over the Union branch, probably not much. I doubt triplets get introduced until the carhouse opens. There'll temporarily be tighter storage on the north end when Lechmere yard goes.
When the time comes I expect their official answer to be: "We'll turn at Brigham and cut weekend service!"
Unofficially, I expect 3-car trains to be running to Heath exactly 1 week after that announcement. And maybe Pesaturo will tweet that fact 3 months later. The earth's core will probably not be breached and Huntington Ave. will probably not flood with molten lava.
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 128
Re: T construction news
I'm confused. That image clearly shows the inner loop being just barely enough for a two-car set. So how can a three-car fit on either track? I'm not sure it would even fit on the outter one.
Heath fits 3-cars on either platform. Google Satellite caught 2 back-to-back deuces in the act crammed on the smaller inner loop: http://goo.gl/maps/0hDVq. Outer loop can fit a 3 and a 2 back-to-back.
The only reason the T says triplets can't run there is that street-running track is *inherently* so fragile that the weight of just one more car will literally collapse the street and send the train plunging straight into the earth's core.
I'm confused. That image clearly shows the inner loop being just barely enough for a two-car set. So how can a three-car fit on either track? I'm not sure it would even fit on the outter one.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Re: T construction news
Yeah, it's a rare case, but F-Line made a mistake. It fooled me at first too, but that's just a typical 2-car train ("deuce") at Heath St/VA Medical Center.
A Type 8 is 888 in. long (74'), meaning the 3-car trains are a whopping 222' long. The outer platform is only 180' feet long, with the curve out to Heath St. The MBTA's reasoning for no 3-car trains to Heath St/VA Medical Center is valid: the train would literally be hanging off the platform into the street.
Yeah, it's a rare case, but F-Line made a mistake. It fooled me at first too, but that's just a typical 2-car train ("deuce") at Heath St/VA Medical Center.
A Type 8 is 888 in. long (74'), meaning the 3-car trains are a whopping 222' long. The outer platform is only 180' feet long, with the curve out to Heath St. The MBTA's reasoning for no 3-car trains to Heath St/VA Medical Center is valid: the train would literally be hanging off the platform into the street.
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 128
Re: T construction news
Apologies for the screwed up cropping up top...
Anyway. Here's the basic plan I have in mind. Red is the track. Yellow is the platform + sidewalk + walkway general area. Blue box is where the VA could build/have a bigger parking lot.
Bonus: MBTA gives air rights, which could potentially enclose the station (shelter from weather) and allow for a prepaid station (yay! no more front door crap!).
Apologies for the screwed up cropping up top...
Anyway. Here's the basic plan I have in mind. Red is the track. Yellow is the platform + sidewalk + walkway general area. Blue box is where the VA could build/have a bigger parking lot.
Bonus: MBTA gives air rights, which could potentially enclose the station (shelter from weather) and allow for a prepaid station (yay! no more front door crap!).
found5dollar
Senior Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 1,148
- Reaction score
- 401
Re: T construction news
plans and renders of the new parking gara--... i mean... commuter rail station in Salem
http://salem.patch.com/articles/a-virtual-look-ahead-salem-s-new-mbta-station#photo-13819253
plans and renders of the new parking gara--... i mean... commuter rail station in Salem
http://salem.patch.com/articles/a-virtual-look-ahead-salem-s-new-mbta-station#photo-13819253
BostonUrbEx
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2010
- Messages
- 4,340
- Reaction score
- 128
Re: T construction news
You guys don't realize how good we have it... they didn't block the potential to re-add the leg of the wye which goes from the tunnel to the Peabody Branch directly. THIS IS BIG. I mean, the MBTA DIDN'T FUCK UP A FUTURE POSSIBILITY! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! THINKING AHEAD!!!!!
You guys don't realize how good we have it... they didn't block the potential to re-add the leg of the wye which goes from the tunnel to the Peabody Branch directly. THIS IS BIG. I mean, the MBTA DIDN'T FUCK UP A FUTURE POSSIBILITY! JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! THINKING AHEAD!!!!!
Re: T construction news
Just wait. They'll scramble to put a utility room there as soon as they can.
Just wait. They'll scramble to put a utility room there as soon as they can.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,262
- Reaction score
- 9,283
Re: T construction news
No...they won't. Peabody Branch is an active freight line with liability considerations that have to keep that option open. The new full-high station platform is on a very slight curve which means it could get nicked up by otherwise within-clearance freight cars that have bad suspension. And Pan Am runs some equipment with baaaaaad suspension...just look how beat-to-shit the North Leominster mini-high gets from frequent side-swipes by the Ayer intermodal train. Full-highs pose no problem for the vast majority of freight cars, but they are tricky propositions when they're not 100% tangent. Pan Am may be up to 3 round trips a week soon to Rousselot Gelatin, and Peabody is still seeking new rail tenants at the industrial park on the out-of-service west end of that track. If it comes to the point where increased freights leave the T needing to repair cracked platform edging every couple months or the moves get frequent and long enough to start overstressing schedule slots during the cumbersome reverse move...they may opt to just put the old switch back in service.
At mutual expense. Pan Am usually does this run at the end of a crew shift; if they don't finish on-time they lay over the empty train for the night on the branch, send a van to bus the crew back to Lawrence, and come back in the morning to finish up. They're incentivized to get in and out faster if the reverse is chewing up too much time and labor.
What probably will be the tipping point is simply the city saying it wants a 'purdy walking path or something behind the station...and they'll move the tracks as a purely aesthetic favor. But it probably was the liability considerations of crud freight cars on a curved full-high that got the design demand put in that the old wye must never be blocked (you'll see the drawings even puts that ROW off-limits to the project scope).
Now, the stoopid part of this project is that they're spending so much extra cash on auto infrastructure and creature comforts that they aren't even touching the #1 capacity issue at this station: the single track. If they installed a second platform at the tunnel mouth and graft a ped overpass to the garage and Bridge St. to that side they solve forever the problem of staging train meets at the single-track tunnel. Plenty of room for a turnout at the immediate portal and the latest renderings don't appear to block future installation. Any one train could occupy either platform leaving the other completely open for train passing in/out the tunnel. They wouldn't have to continually watch the schedule come unglued by trains blowing their margin of error for meets way back at Swampscott and Beverly. And it would clear the way for the desired future infill stop in South Salem at the south portal with staging points at either portal.
Instead they caved to the locals' demands for stupid heated (reason why they're so damn tiny) shelters and let all the money for that get sucked up by the garage overruns. There's nothing about this project that makes the trains run better...it's 100% auto lard and monument-building. Yeah, they can add it later whenever they see fit. But grafting on the required ped overpass is a whole lot more expensive on a new project instead of tied into an active construction site.
Total Exhibit E as to why the T can never be trusted on a station build. And it did take multiple design revisions before the renderings came back NOT blocking the Peabody wye provision and NOT blocking the 2nd platform provision...so they continue to hire contractors who know nothing about building TRAIN stations designed for TRAINS.
No...they won't. Peabody Branch is an active freight line with liability considerations that have to keep that option open. The new full-high station platform is on a very slight curve which means it could get nicked up by otherwise within-clearance freight cars that have bad suspension. And Pan Am runs some equipment with baaaaaad suspension...just look how beat-to-shit the North Leominster mini-high gets from frequent side-swipes by the Ayer intermodal train. Full-highs pose no problem for the vast majority of freight cars, but they are tricky propositions when they're not 100% tangent. Pan Am may be up to 3 round trips a week soon to Rousselot Gelatin, and Peabody is still seeking new rail tenants at the industrial park on the out-of-service west end of that track. If it comes to the point where increased freights leave the T needing to repair cracked platform edging every couple months or the moves get frequent and long enough to start overstressing schedule slots during the cumbersome reverse move...they may opt to just put the old switch back in service.
At mutual expense. Pan Am usually does this run at the end of a crew shift; if they don't finish on-time they lay over the empty train for the night on the branch, send a van to bus the crew back to Lawrence, and come back in the morning to finish up. They're incentivized to get in and out faster if the reverse is chewing up too much time and labor.
What probably will be the tipping point is simply the city saying it wants a 'purdy walking path or something behind the station...and they'll move the tracks as a purely aesthetic favor. But it probably was the liability considerations of crud freight cars on a curved full-high that got the design demand put in that the old wye must never be blocked (you'll see the drawings even puts that ROW off-limits to the project scope).
Now, the stoopid part of this project is that they're spending so much extra cash on auto infrastructure and creature comforts that they aren't even touching the #1 capacity issue at this station: the single track. If they installed a second platform at the tunnel mouth and graft a ped overpass to the garage and Bridge St. to that side they solve forever the problem of staging train meets at the single-track tunnel. Plenty of room for a turnout at the immediate portal and the latest renderings don't appear to block future installation. Any one train could occupy either platform leaving the other completely open for train passing in/out the tunnel. They wouldn't have to continually watch the schedule come unglued by trains blowing their margin of error for meets way back at Swampscott and Beverly. And it would clear the way for the desired future infill stop in South Salem at the south portal with staging points at either portal.
Instead they caved to the locals' demands for stupid heated (reason why they're so damn tiny) shelters and let all the money for that get sucked up by the garage overruns. There's nothing about this project that makes the trains run better...it's 100% auto lard and monument-building. Yeah, they can add it later whenever they see fit. But grafting on the required ped overpass is a whole lot more expensive on a new project instead of tied into an active construction site.
Total Exhibit E as to why the T can never be trusted on a station build. And it did take multiple design revisions before the renderings came back NOT blocking the Peabody wye provision and NOT blocking the 2nd platform provision...so they continue to hire contractors who know nothing about building TRAIN stations designed for TRAINS.
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Re: T construction news
Wonderland, taken by a friend:
Wonderland, taken by a friend: