- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
This, exactly. Regional Rail is not dependent upon NSRL, but NSRL is dependent upon Regional Rail.
Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)
- Thread starter quadratdackel
- Start date
@F-Line to Dudley , what if as a temporary solution we just towed electric equipment over the Grand Junction with a diesel?
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,261
- Reaction score
- 9,269
Disavow oneself of this fantasy forthwith. The Wellington people mover was a goddamn maintenance nightmare for decades before having to be put out of its misery. What are the odds of one twice as long subject to constant intrusion from salt spray off the ocean somehow faring any better on uptime? And do not claim "Jetsons Shit". The agency that has monumental difficulties keeping ho-hum length escalators of every kind of vintage up and running is the wrongest place on earth to be sprinkling magic moving sidewalk pixie dust around as an excuse to not built badly needed expansion projects (BLX) or as an excuse to pursue that dodgy downtown superstation consolidation riders aren't asking for. If the moving parts aren't moving, said stations are outright accessibility demerits to the system.
Rockburyport RER compels BLX-Lynn in a massive way. As detailed a million times over, the Lynn bus hub upon which last-mile trips across the North Shore depend barely maintains representative headways with the equipment siphon of all routes having to thru-route in heavy traffic to Wonderland, Haymarket, and South Station. Nothing fixes that unless you bring Blue up, and the drag of not fixing it hurts RER just as badly when bus frequencies across all that population density remain uniformly terrible and Yellow Line route expansion to improve coverage is impossible so long as the same equipment suck takes a toll on those routes. They've already proposed Wonderland CR multiple times over, and its ridership projections failed (at any frequencies) to keep the lights on because it doesn't address any of the core multimodal mobility issues and is simply too long a transfer queue APM or no. Doing it right on RER doesn't leave them a choice but to do it right on BLX, because the buses don't work without it and the increased RER frequencies are a half-cocked fix without follow-through on last-mile frequencies.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,261
- Reaction score
- 9,269
Problem is to significantly densify Reading service beyond scraping the 15 min. minimum turns you have to pour a shitload of money into grade crossing improvements and do more double-track infilling than just the minimum bits (2 x 2 split w/ Eastern Route + Wellington passer + Reading Station 2nd platform). And that really becomes a megaproject. When those are the primary performance handicaps for the line, electrification alone isn't going to be the killshot. Spiraling Eastern Route traffic means Reading Jct. is going to gradually force more Western Route trains to cede priority over time (esp. if that Sullivan superstation ever happens), which puts pressure on upstream fluidity. The crossings in Melrose and Wakefield are already extremely busy, with Greenwood retaining a staffed crossing tender. There's only so much more they can do in queue dump tricks to offset the increased train traffic, since the crossings are very awkwardly-spaced from adjacent major intersections. And then NSRL might as well be armageddon, because the line is singularly ill-equipped to take a pair-matching without major issues.
What it'll take is a corridor-wide study to ballpark the needs. We're lucky that that nearly the whole of the difference to the minimum RER frequency can come just by vacating thru Haverhill slots to the Lowell Line. So fast-starts on diesel trainsets can happen more quickly here than elsewhere, giving the service a head-start but buying a solid decade to figure out other upgrades. They'll need to see what escalating traffic levels and increasingly brittle traffic-sharing in Somerville highlights as 20-year needs, and then see what dropping NSRL in the mix does in terms of mandating more radical solutions. The fear, highlighted by Alon Levy amongst others, is that the cost for doing it all right such that Reading can thrive at >20-year levels on RER and be in a state of NSRL readiness starts approaching then exceeding the cost of doing an outright Orange Line-Reading conversion. Because you'd have to rip the shit out of Medford-Malden for extra tracks, have to zap probably 75% of the grade crossings at RR grades and rebuild/relocate every single station Wyoming-north because they all abut crossings, and run duplicate 25 kV electrification next to the 600V Orange electrification. Whereas an Orange conversion, despite requiring ALL instead of merely most crossings to be separated, can incline around those eliminated crossings at much steeper grades, can squish into tighter vertical clearances on an underpass than a RR line needing 18 ft. for a 25 kV wire, require zero touches to the Medford-Malden ROW except for extending the express track on-footprint to Oak Grove, completely vacate Reading Jct. meaning the Eastern can flush ever-more dizzying growth instead, and do it all at as little as 3-min. headways (or throttled for the 'burbs with OG short-turns) for the money instead of 15. The crossing eliminations are massive outlays, so if you're forced to three-quarters of them any which way it makes all the cost difference in the world that each elimination can have its project area compacted by the mode choice.
The Rail Vision anticipates this being a thorny future dilemma by ID'ing Orange-Reading on some of its slides as a potential future project. That doesn't mean it's likely to happen, but it does mean a corridor study has to pick through the future possibilities in much more detail than "string 'em up and build full-high platforms". For that reason Waltham/Littleton, despite being a lower ridership corridor, might net better bang-for-buck on initial electrification because the Fitchburg Line is extremely far below-capacity and wouldn't take much more than settling up the ADA backlog to net a now-and-forever ready RER corridor. That is going to be a driving consideration, because if absolute priority were ruling then the Lowell Line would be the alpha construction project...but the Lowell Line has a steep premium at needing to raise clearances to run 17' freight cars under-wire.
Pollack said that the rail vision estimate for the cost of station improvements was well below the cost of Natick Center ($36.2 million). This doesn't appear to be case. Alts 4 and 6 are both estimating $36-37million per station undergoing construction and $34million per station in Alt5 (I don't think Rail Vision has made enough detail public to calculate these numbers for Alts1-3). The difference between Alts 4 and 5 was 6 improved stations and $100million total for stations. One of these 6 stations was Kendall, the cost of which appears to be classified under under expansions. The other 5 are all on the Old Colony Lines, and a lower cost for improving those stations seems reasonable given that 4 of them already have 1 high level platform and the 5th (Braintree) has a high level center island platform. (also I'm curious why there are additional improvements to OC in Alt5 over 4 given that OC is supposedly getting the same service level under each Alternative; and 4 has SCR to deal with)
She also said implied that Natick should be seen as a low end of how much a station improvement should cost. While I'm venturing much further from what I'm qualified to speak about, this does not seem to be the case to me. The cost estimate for 2 side platforms for the Newton stations was $37mil per station (excluding the cost of bridge modifications which Rail Vision seems be accounting for separately). And I think all the new or improved stations we've built recently (Fairmont Line, Lansdowne, Boston Landing, Littleton) have come in considerably cheaper.
And on this note, would anyone who knows what they're talking about care to comment on her claim that high level platforms don't improve boarding times? I was under the impression that even if they don't noticeably improve the speed a single person can enter or leave the train, they enable far more doors to be used without the presence of a conductor.
She also said implied that Natick should be seen as a low end of how much a station improvement should cost. While I'm venturing much further from what I'm qualified to speak about, this does not seem to be the case to me. The cost estimate for 2 side platforms for the Newton stations was $37mil per station (excluding the cost of bridge modifications which Rail Vision seems be accounting for separately). And I think all the new or improved stations we've built recently (Fairmont Line, Lansdowne, Boston Landing, Littleton) have come in considerably cheaper.
And on this note, would anyone who knows what they're talking about care to comment on her claim that high level platforms don't improve boarding times? I was under the impression that even if they don't noticeably improve the speed a single person can enter or leave the train, they enable far more doors to be used without the presence of a conductor.
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,261
- Reaction score
- 9,269
Needing to burn a switcher assignment to make an equipment move is a waste of time and money. It's more efficient to just limit the amount of intermixing between north and south equipment pools. If you have an initial south investment in EMU's, new shops by Readville capable of handling EMU's or coaches can do that. Then you only need to ship locos and cycled Downeaster equipment up north. By the time you're ready to make first north electrification, Providence/RIDOT + Fairmount + Worcester + Franklin/Foxboro are probably all wired and there is substantial fleet robustness to go around. The EMU's you buy for the north expansion can then strictly run northside, and the swaps can be very rare. Yes...rare enough that it's not a regular waste of time/money to bum a switcher.
But this split initial pool ensures that either south nor north EMU rosters will be threadbare enough that they have to be interdependent. Even moreso than today, because it'll increase the swap needs because EMU's (or even the "sandwich" coaches + power cars like the NJ Transit MLV's) have more cab ends on their rosters that need 92-day "locomotive" inspections. To make that work I think you have to electrify the GJ. It's not that expensive in terms of hardware, but the insulated section under Memorial Drive will be the scene of regular T Alerts for stalled trains that painstakingly need to be "walked" at 1 MPH on aux battery at significant delay. LIRR riders are used to "gapping" misadventures after 100 years, so it's not a killer. But it is going to induce a few groaner moments. Just think how many times--fencing be damned--those stupid Charles River white geese would end up spilling onto the tracks by the bridge and force a stop in the electric gap region to avoid a bloody mess on the front of the train. That kind of inanity can become regular occurrence at that spot, since those honking disease bags already regularly block T/Amtrak moves when the flock is too stupid to get off the tracks.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
On a different subject, now that we've changed the thread name and all, Aiello spitballed the name "Regional Urban Rail". RUR is not a good acronym. This effort needs a better brand.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
I agree and my bias shows in that, as Moderator renaming this thread, could not bring myself to insert the "Urban" into Regional Rail, but still, in the interests of search-and-find, think that people are going to be searching for RUR and NSRL. And the act of renaming (away from Commuter Rail and toward something that evokes an all-day mode), was a pretty big political shift and victory for TransitMatters, even if the actual branding sucks.
ArchBoston, and Railroad.net have used RER as shorthand-brand until now. RER is a French (originally Parisian) acronym Réseau Express Régional (transliterates as Network Express Regional or Regional Express Network), and is not particularly catchy either though transit nerds know *exactly* what is meant by it.
London calls their (rough) equivalent the London Overground to stress that it has subway-like operations, but is surface rail.
If we wanted to Backronym RER to mean Regional Electric Rail, that'd be OK by me.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
I suspect that by picking Option 6, what we'll actually get is Option 5½ . Where:
Option 6 = Full electric & 15min headways everywhere
Option 5 = 15 min & electric inside 128 (similar to Vision 2024 DMU plan) with 30 minute service elsewhere
But Option 5½ would get you something better than :30 but not quite :15 (call it :20) service to key stations like Lowell-Anderson & Worcester-Framingham & Fitchburg-Littleton
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
The easy one is "Regional Express" or REX, since when paired with the agency you get T-REX. I believe that one is already used in Denver, but who cares?
Montreal is building out a system like this and went with "Exo" in the end, though that replaced a not bad REM (it's much easier to say than RUR). This is more about serving the interior than the exterior, but a similar non-acronymic name like "HubLink" could work, as London does with "Overground" and "Crossrail".
And of course, you could still call the whole thing the "Indigo Line".
FWIW, I've never understood how they use "RER" in Paris, since with the French pronunciations of the letters it is a very hard acronym to pronounce: "Airh-UH-Airh". I actually avoid using it in conversation because it's a so painful to say it. However corny-American our pronunciation sounds, "Arr-EE-Arr" is much easier on the mouth.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
I think think that BLX will be seen as the locally-justified project that it is, particularly when:
1) Suffolk Downs TOD gets loaded on (and isn't easy via RUR)
2) Red-Blue gets connected & MGH & Kendall keep growing (and isn't easy via RUR)
3) Logan Terminal E (or a peoplemover) reaches the Blue Airport doorstep (and isn't easy via RUR)
4) Lynn becomes a clear RUR-bus hub (with fewer buses going onward to Boston)
5) Wonderland makes and interesting-but-too-far to schlep every day RUR-to-BL connection
Last edited:
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
It certainly doesn't preclude people talking about Blue Line extension to Lynn for the next 30 years. Either way it isn't happening. And I seriously hope nobody spends money on another "study".
tangent
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 11, 2012
- Messages
- 1,789
- Reaction score
- 68
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,963
- Reaction score
- 3,887
Yeah, Lynn doesn't seem like an either/or, as both are needed. Compare that to say, the Needham Line's catchment, which could be well served by either RER or rapid transit extensions.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 7,004
- Reaction score
- 8,128
And they may get both. Let this be a lesson to every town in the Boston area: make a lot of noise. Both Somerville and Lynn have had outspoken mayors bulldoze the MBTA's priorities-setting process under the FMCB.
“RER” is indeed ridiculous to say aloud in French. However, I really like the idea of backronyming it to “Regional Electric Rail.”
“T-REX” is fun, but 1) is already attached to a vaguely similar plan in NYC and 2) obviously connotes “dinosaur”, which may not be what the T wants to frame a modernization effort as.
“T-REX” is fun, but 1) is already attached to a vaguely similar plan in NYC and 2) obviously connotes “dinosaur”, which may not be what the T wants to frame a modernization effort as.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,710
It seems completely appropriate: if you have a voter-dense area that currently uses buses, and in unanimous in favor of rail that they should go to the head of the list, particularly if willing to densify/TOD around stations.
Far better to use Lynn and Somerville as models of "pull" than to re-run the Greenbush "pushback" playbook of having to bribe (with a tunnel) and area to take $500m of rail tha tthey then don't use.