Other People's Rail: Amtrak, commuter rail, rapid transit news & views outside New England

stick n move said:
Yup. They havent decided yet if they are going to pull the trigger or not on the tunnel, so thats why theyre still showing the current plan of light rail vehicles. I agree though that if they do make it entirely grade seperated they need to go full heavy rail. More commonality of equipment, much higher capacity…etc. I have to imagine if they do go with the tunnel those questions will come up.
Click to expand...
From what I've seen, it looks unlikely that traditional NYC subway cars will be run along the corridor even if it is fully grade-separated. The local Transit Worker's Union (TWU) is very strongly opposed to automation and I believe has a handshake agreement with the MTA to not automate subway lines (I can't find sourcing on this but stopping OPTO was a major negotiating point last contract cycle.) Because of this, if automation is on the table, we'll probably see a fair amount of finagling to call high-floor, high-capacity options "light rail" even if it's a poor descriptor.

That being said, running high-frequency consists similar to Vancouver's Expo line (4 cars totaling almost 70 meters long) could be plenty here. Much of the traffic on the corridor will be transfers between other lines and should results in significant lower average trip lengths than other lines would. This means crowding will become a problem at significantly higher ridership levels than other lines.
 
stick n move said:

Caltrain’s Electric Fleet More Efficient than Expected​

“Caltrain announced at its monthly Board of Directors meeting that regenerative braking on the new trains is generating and sending back to the electric grid approximately 23% of the energy consumed by the system. The new electric trains are outperforming Caltrain’s original projections, which is welcome news for a public agency that holds sustainability as a core value.

Originally estimated to cost approximately $19.5 million annually, Caltrain’s electricity use since the launch of electric service averages 207 MWh on weekdays and 175 MWh on weekends, revising cost estimates to $16.5 million. With the agency expecting approximately $6 million annually in energy credits from the California Air Resources Board’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard Program, the first year of electric service will have lower fuel costs than the previous diesel service. Currently, Caltrain is providing that power to the grid free of charge as there is no legal requirement for the agency to be reimbursed for the energy generated….”

https://www.caltrain.com/news/caltrains-electric-fleet-more-efficient-expected
Click to expand...
Note that this is one thing you don't get with BEMU's. Instead of putting electricity back into the grid with regenerative braking like straight EMU's will, all of the regenerative braking energy goes towards charging the batteries and under wired sections they are constantly drawing max power for charging whether the train is coasting/stopping/braking or not. The substations will have to have maximum capacity because of the voracious appetite of the charge cycles, and that adds significant capital cost.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Note that this is one thing you don't get with BEMU's. Instead of putting electricity back into the grid with regenerative braking like straight EMU's will, all of the regenerative braking energy goes towards charging the batteries and under wired sections they are constantly drawing max power for charging whether the train is coasting/stopping/braking or not. The substations will have to have maximum capacity because of the voracious appetite of the charge cycles, and that adds significant capital cost.
Click to expand...
I’d consider myself to be a member of the “BEMUs are a stepping stone, not a solution” camp when it comes to electrification. But, I think you’re mistaken here, F-Line.

BEMUs should benefit from regenerative braking the same way that my electric car does: by increasing effective range. I’ll admit I’m not super familiar with the details of over-head charging, but assuming the battery is less than 95%-ish full, regenitive braking should work just fine on a BEMU and any energy gained through regen is energy that doesn’t need to be pulled from the grid while charging later on. When back under the wire, regenerative braking will mean that BEMUs finish charging sooner since they start charging at a higher state of charge. And once the battery is full, it’s full. It doesn’t matter if the pantograph is still in contact for another mile: with a full battery, the train can only draw as much power as it’s using for the rest of the time it’s under wire.

Overall, sure there’s some losses from having the battery as a middle man, so an EMU would still be more efficient, but this particular benefit applies to both BEMUs and EMUs.
 
Last edited:
astroTrain27 said:
I’d consider myself to be a member of the “BEMUs are a stepping stone, not a solution” camp when it comes to electrification. But, I think you’re mistaken here, F-Line.

BEMUs should benefit from regenerative braking the same way that my electric car does: by increasing effective range. I’ll admit I’m not super familiar with the details of over-head charging, but assuming the battery is less than 95%-ish full, regenitive braking should work just fine on a BEMU and any energy gained through regen is energy that doesn’t need to be pulled from the grid while charging later on. When back under the wire, regenerative braking will mean that BEMUs finish charging sooner since they start charging at a higher state of charge. And once the battery is full, it’s full. It doesn’t matter if the pantograph is still in contact for another mile: with a full battery, the train can only draw as much power as it’s using for the rest of the time it’s under wire.

Overall, sure there’s some losses from having the battery as a middle man, so an EMU would still be more efficient, but this particular benefit applies to both BEMUs and EMUs.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I'd think the service penalties of heavier--i.e., slower accel/decel--trains and the need for either lower frequency or longer non-revenue times for charging cycles is a bigger issue with them with relative to EMUs. Putting up wires remains the objectively most sensible option for any line that anticipates heavy usage.
 
aquaticko said:
I'd think the service penalties of heavier--i.e., slower accel/decel--trains
Click to expand...
It's not immediately easy to tell, but it seems like this part is not necessarily a problem anymore. High cost and charging time remains an issue however.
 
TheRatmeister said:
It's not immediately easy to tell, but it seems like this part is not necessarily a problem anymore. High cost and charging time remains an issue however.
Click to expand...
BEMUs appear to have decent accel/decel now, but you have to sacrifice passenger space, capacity for the batteries. There is no free lunch.
 
Someone's finally proposing a CTrail connection for Hartford's airport.

www.hartfordbusiness.com

Proposed rail link to Bradley International Airport gains traction with new bill

A Hartford-based rail advocate who travels frequently, Casey Moran, has pitched an idea to build a rail line that would connect Bradley International Airport to the region's rail network. The Bradley Airport Rail Link would provide a one-seat train ride to Bradley from throughout much of...
www.hartfordbusiness.com www.hartfordbusiness.com

Picture1.png


A Hartford-based rail advocate who travels frequently, Casey Moran, has pitched an idea to build a rail line that would connect Bradley International Airport to the region's rail network.

The Bradley Airport Rail Link would provide a one-seat train ride to Bradley from throughout much of Connecticut. It would have stops in Hartford, Bloomfield and Windsor Locks.

The idea was picked up by Rep. Christopher Rosario (D-Bridgeport) who has introduced a bill that would amend a state statute to require the Department of Transportation to establish a new commuter rail line from Hartford’s Union Station to the airport.
Click to expand...

Also, Moran says travel to Bradley would be convenient for people in the Massachusetts cities of Worcester, Northampton and Springfield, with rail travel times ranging from 1 hour and 25 minutes (Worcester) to 25 minutes (Springfield).

Also, Moran offers a compelling reason for residents of Bridgeport and Stamford to use rail to access Bradley instead of JFK – a faster transit time, without any seat changes. For example, a train ride from Bridgeport to JFK takes 2 hours and 15 minutes (with three seat changes). A one-seat train ride from Bridgeport to Bradley would take 1 hour and 29 minutes.
Click to expand...

You can tell that since Moran couldn't get any of the Hartford delegation to pick up the idea and had to rely on an out-of-town legislator, this isn't really a serious idea. But still.
 
Aprehensive_Words said:
Someone's finally proposing a CTrail connection for Hartford's airport.

www.hartfordbusiness.com

Proposed rail link to Bradley International Airport gains traction with new bill

A Hartford-based rail advocate who travels frequently, Casey Moran, has pitched an idea to build a rail line that would connect Bradley International Airport to the region's rail network. The Bradley Airport Rail Link would provide a one-seat train ride to Bradley from throughout much of...
www.hartfordbusiness.com www.hartfordbusiness.com

View attachment 59933





You can tell that since Moran couldn't get any of the Hartford delegation to pick up the idea and had to rely on an out-of-town legislator, this isn't really a serious idea. But still.
Click to expand...
That's a lot of new ROW for the western route compared to the easy way of just building a spur off the Hartford Line along the Bradley Connector.
 
I mean... I know the current official BDL connection is at Hartford Union since the current Windsor Locks station is wholly inadequate, but once they open the replacement in a couple of months? Looking at the CTransit routes, the 24 is set up more for local service to the airport than train connections, but BDL is like 10 minutes away by road. I almost feel that adding a dedicated bus shuttle pinging back and forth would make more sense than a rail extension?
 
This looks like a revival of the light rail plans from the 90s. It's never going to get anywhere. Six miles of completely new ROW, including a substantial river crossing, and three miles of new construction along the Connector alignment. Replaces 10 pretty straight miles of route with 18 curvy miles - that's probably an additional 10 minutes of travel time between Hartford and Springfield. All to give a one-seat ride to an airport that averages less than 9,000 daily boardings. (For comparison, TF Green averages just under 10k and Logan about 115k.)

A dedicated bus shuttle timed to meet every train (and perhaps with luggage racks) would be sufficient for the vast majority of travelers on the line. I would support retaining a direct bus from Hartford Union Station (and add Springfield Union Station) as well, given that they're major hubs in their own right. The Windsor Locks shuttle would be intended for those already using the Hartford Line, for whom the timed transfer at Windsor Locks would be more useful than an every-X-minutes bus from Hartford.

In the event that airport travel somehow shifted heavily to transit, fine, you can study whether a new alignment following the Connector would be worth the cost. It might pencil out better than extending the existing spur, since that line is indirect, curvy, and full of grade crossings. But that's only plausible in a scenario where there's been a massive mode shift to the point where you want a one-seat ride to Bradley as an overlay service.

I could also see a future where service as far as 187 on the line northwest from Hartford (the Griffins Branch) makes sense. It's a low-density corridor, so definitely not the highest priority. But I could see 187-Middletown and Waterbury-Manchester services be useful in a scenario with actual mode shift.
 
I diagrammed this one out a few years ago. If you recycle the active Griffins Secondary to Bloomfield (where the original 1990's light rail plan was going to go), the active Bradley Branch, a power line ROW that ConnDOT has a wishlist item in its State Rail Plan to acquire for exactly this rainy-day purpose...it's not a super lot of new ROW they'd have to carve to string together Urban Rail through the Airport. Definitely a Crazy Pitch in terms of priority, but not feasibility because it recycles so much of the 1990's Griffins LRT plan + the study-fascination Bradley Branch shuttles. It helps that Hartford-north has pretty good residential density along the Griffins (which drove the 1990's LRT plan ridership probably more than Bradley itself), plus University of Hartford as a ridership anchor.

But yeah...once the new Windsor Locks station on the Hartford Line opens the bus shuttles to the Bradley terminal are going to be extremely quick, so there isn't much purpose-and-need for simply planting the flag on car-free airport trips.
 
www.syracuse.com

Man hit and killed by passenger train in the town of Manlius

The Amtrak passenger train hit a vehicle near North Kirkville Road.
www.syracuse.com www.syracuse.com
The train was also significantly damaged to its front end, Carnie said.

Passengers will be rerouted, but it’s not known when they’ll be put onto another train, he said.

The train was the Lake Shore Limited traveling from New York City to Chicago, according to dispatches.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top