F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
OK...rather than nitpick everything I'll choose 4 overarching examples deeply emblematic of the larger problems with this document.
Stoughton -- TM wants it electrified from Day 1. Well, that's not really possible until you know where substation placement is going to be. If the line forever-ends at Stoughton that's easy enough: mini sub @ Will Dr. in Canton where the ROW is crossed by the same 25 kV-capable power lines that feed Sharon sub. But if South Coast Rail Phase II is happening subs need to go nearish the middle of their power sections otherwise voltage losses don't compute. That means sub @ MA 106 in Easton next to Southeastern Regional Voc Tech school, supplied by the lines that cross just south in the swamp. Okie-dokie...here's one very concrete decision-making inflection point. What are the options for electrifying now? Is it Canton mini-sub made future-expandable, then a distended southern reach to the power section for the power section to Taunton and rejiggered placement of the Fall River and New Bedford branch subs to compensate? Is it Canton mini-sub, but then having to live with an unusually tiny-length power section because adding Easton-or-south is the only way you can feasibly chunk out SCR Phase II wires?
At bare minimum, electrics on Stoughton are no-go until this question is answered. An implementation plan that bullets SCR has to incorporate this somehow. Has this been vetted by a railway electrification expert to see how much costs may have to double-dip if SCR Phase II is still up in the air? This can't be treated as simple manifest destiny. If you want your Phase IA wad to spread the furthest and net the most service increases for the buck, this isn't one that's possible to gloss over. And if it's an unfavorable assessment, what's the backup plan for an inflection point that's too steep for inclusion in Phase IA? Do you try for at least the Foxboro half of Franklin/Foxboro instead? Expedite Worcester so there's less squishiness about whether it's going to be EMU-ready the second the Pike project is finished?
The answer can't be "Stoughton...because we said so" when that direct-contradicts the maxing of bang-for-installment-buck they call one of their core planks.
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Beverly -- Touched on in last post, but the inflexibility of stanning for Beverly Depot as the self-described demarcation point for the "environmental justice" zone and demanding that all Salem trains 1:1 hit Beverly is self-limiting in so many ways. One, Beverly Draw is a bottleneck unto itself so if you don't use the spread of load-balancing options in Salem to the fullest--like using the Peabody-side turnout with its more-fluid tunnel interface. You'll have brittle OTP if all schedules are predicated on every last train hitting Beverly on rote clock-facing. Which is doubly problematic since they're deferring branch electrifcation. How is that going to work with HEFTY majority of the service pie still having to be diesel. If you aren't using the Peabody turnout to make a third EMU-only service pattern, they're just going to be the rounding error in a sea of still-diesels. How is that a good resource expenditure for first priorities??? And how is it going to deliver "justice" soonest when diesels are going to outnumber EMU's by a wide margin thru the constraints set by Salem tunnel + mainline platforms and Beverly Draw?
Of "justice" is the target, maybe those Rockport/Newburyport substations can't be deferred at all to later phases. You fund all at once, turn on the Bev-south juice when Sub #1 is done, but keep charging along so the branches follow ASAP and there's a set date for when EMU's are carrying water for the Urban Rail zones. Or maybe you wire up to the Peabody turnout so there's 3 distinct service patterns from Day 1 and the EMU share is a little more substantial than a rounding error. Or maybe since this is your only northside outpost and the initial-dip north electrification has to include very pricey terminal district work, you rationalize whether North should be included in the first phase. Maybe you get bigger bang-for-buck shifting attention immediately to Franklin/Foxboro or expediting Worcester, and load up for bear on a later phase for breaking North.
These are real inflection-points for the investment decision, and if they're not fleshed-out enough to be ready for prime time...what's the pivot? If the Eastern has too many questions marks--sky-high upside and all--are we going to let this get bogged down in "justice" principle or allow selves the flexibility to make quick but tough decisions to circle back? It doesn't sound like TM has thought much at all about how the deck could be reshuffled if details aren't fleshed out enough for original suppositions or if further analysis uncovers complications. This implementation plan has to be more nimble than that. This build in particular--first on the northside, willfully engaging maximum bottlenecks in target fixation, unclear transition plan for full services, leaves fungible traffic offsets on the table because they don't neatly fit target fixation--seems ripe for getting upended on those issues.
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
SSX -- Has long been TM's kryptonite, as they've railed against the project's excesses but have been incoherent in what parts of the massive lump of ops, eye-candy, and real estate empire-building is most objectionable and have defaulted to monolithic screeds against (which just plays into Baker's hands, because the monolithic lumping of disparate interests serves to keep the attack angles from landing blows). Now that it's crunch-time, they aren't getting any less incoherent. They say every southside line needs a dedicated platform, but that all of that is accomplishable by ops reform. Slight math problem there. There's 13 platforms at SS, 10 present-day commuter rail endpoints, 1 more with the South Coast Rail distending of Middleboro, and now the 'excuse-me' Buzzards Bay study promise as direct outflow of some of the convoluted decision-making on SCR. And, oh BTW, the 2-ton elephant in the room Amtrak with its voracious expansion appetite and ironclad requirement for a yard deadhead in between all Acela, Regional, or Inland slots. The interlockings are already being streamlined for fault-tolerance. What else "ops-only" could there possibly be that squares the inherent contradiction of every service needing a home berth but there not being enough home berths for every service. Name those offsets, please.
If they can't, is there going to be some acknowledgment that track expansion is necessary? If not the full doubling of platform capacity all the way to Dot Ave., then how many more? Assail the gold-plated headhouses and real estate kingmaking and rec boat docks on the Channel with all the bile and gusto as before, because that extracurricular shouldn't be lumped into the same budget as the track work or bare platform & shelter pours any which way. But we've reached a conundrum that is beyond monolithic opposition. What is the pivot? Because if the answer is only "5 more tracks" instead of 13, that's potentially an awesome cut-rate deal shorn of the other extracurricular. But break it down so that your own self at least agrees with your own selves first.
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
EMU procurement -- OK, TM's release trails by 1 week the T's presentation of its RFI bidders. But I see they're still stanning for single-levels, single-levels, single-levels as if that's the only option. Well...parse the bids we just got.
Why are we not acknowledging odds that this is most likely gonna be a bi-level order? The 3 with the biggest lead--Bomabardier, Stadler, Alstom--are all peddling bi's. In cases of existing FRA-compliant builders BBD & Stadler they don't have flats this second because the adapting bodies for our platform heights just happen to be bi, not single, and they'd have to fish through their Euro catalogues for something not yet FRA-certified to plug that hole so it's not a today proposition for them. They'll have those product holes filled for North America later on; it's just not top priority today because their initial U.S. buyers were bi-level.
So where's the treatment of this inflection point, TM??? We now have very well-established probabilities of where this order is going to break...and it is overwhelmingly likely to be be-level. Do we plan for the first order to be bi...but for subsequent orders to take pains to differentiate flats for intra-128 Urban Rail and bi's for trans-495 RUR? Do you put immediate attention to making sure these bi's are 2 x 2 seating, generous aisles, wide doors, and efficient vestibules so they're 'good enough' as Fairmount placeholders on that first wave where we don't have much choice? Does the reality that it will be initial purchase of bi's change any of the first-wave electrification corridor priorities? Or do we just double-down on the flats preference like we're still living in abstract world where the RFI hasn't already been responded thoroughly to?
Stoughton -- TM wants it electrified from Day 1. Well, that's not really possible until you know where substation placement is going to be. If the line forever-ends at Stoughton that's easy enough: mini sub @ Will Dr. in Canton where the ROW is crossed by the same 25 kV-capable power lines that feed Sharon sub. But if South Coast Rail Phase II is happening subs need to go nearish the middle of their power sections otherwise voltage losses don't compute. That means sub @ MA 106 in Easton next to Southeastern Regional Voc Tech school, supplied by the lines that cross just south in the swamp. Okie-dokie...here's one very concrete decision-making inflection point. What are the options for electrifying now? Is it Canton mini-sub made future-expandable, then a distended southern reach to the power section for the power section to Taunton and rejiggered placement of the Fall River and New Bedford branch subs to compensate? Is it Canton mini-sub, but then having to live with an unusually tiny-length power section because adding Easton-or-south is the only way you can feasibly chunk out SCR Phase II wires?
At bare minimum, electrics on Stoughton are no-go until this question is answered. An implementation plan that bullets SCR has to incorporate this somehow. Has this been vetted by a railway electrification expert to see how much costs may have to double-dip if SCR Phase II is still up in the air? This can't be treated as simple manifest destiny. If you want your Phase IA wad to spread the furthest and net the most service increases for the buck, this isn't one that's possible to gloss over. And if it's an unfavorable assessment, what's the backup plan for an inflection point that's too steep for inclusion in Phase IA? Do you try for at least the Foxboro half of Franklin/Foxboro instead? Expedite Worcester so there's less squishiness about whether it's going to be EMU-ready the second the Pike project is finished?
The answer can't be "Stoughton...because we said so" when that direct-contradicts the maxing of bang-for-installment-buck they call one of their core planks.
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
Beverly -- Touched on in last post, but the inflexibility of stanning for Beverly Depot as the self-described demarcation point for the "environmental justice" zone and demanding that all Salem trains 1:1 hit Beverly is self-limiting in so many ways. One, Beverly Draw is a bottleneck unto itself so if you don't use the spread of load-balancing options in Salem to the fullest--like using the Peabody-side turnout with its more-fluid tunnel interface. You'll have brittle OTP if all schedules are predicated on every last train hitting Beverly on rote clock-facing. Which is doubly problematic since they're deferring branch electrifcation. How is that going to work with HEFTY majority of the service pie still having to be diesel. If you aren't using the Peabody turnout to make a third EMU-only service pattern, they're just going to be the rounding error in a sea of still-diesels. How is that a good resource expenditure for first priorities??? And how is it going to deliver "justice" soonest when diesels are going to outnumber EMU's by a wide margin thru the constraints set by Salem tunnel + mainline platforms and Beverly Draw?
Of "justice" is the target, maybe those Rockport/Newburyport substations can't be deferred at all to later phases. You fund all at once, turn on the Bev-south juice when Sub #1 is done, but keep charging along so the branches follow ASAP and there's a set date for when EMU's are carrying water for the Urban Rail zones. Or maybe you wire up to the Peabody turnout so there's 3 distinct service patterns from Day 1 and the EMU share is a little more substantial than a rounding error. Or maybe since this is your only northside outpost and the initial-dip north electrification has to include very pricey terminal district work, you rationalize whether North should be included in the first phase. Maybe you get bigger bang-for-buck shifting attention immediately to Franklin/Foxboro or expediting Worcester, and load up for bear on a later phase for breaking North.
These are real inflection-points for the investment decision, and if they're not fleshed-out enough to be ready for prime time...what's the pivot? If the Eastern has too many questions marks--sky-high upside and all--are we going to let this get bogged down in "justice" principle or allow selves the flexibility to make quick but tough decisions to circle back? It doesn't sound like TM has thought much at all about how the deck could be reshuffled if details aren't fleshed out enough for original suppositions or if further analysis uncovers complications. This implementation plan has to be more nimble than that. This build in particular--first on the northside, willfully engaging maximum bottlenecks in target fixation, unclear transition plan for full services, leaves fungible traffic offsets on the table because they don't neatly fit target fixation--seems ripe for getting upended on those issues.
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
SSX -- Has long been TM's kryptonite, as they've railed against the project's excesses but have been incoherent in what parts of the massive lump of ops, eye-candy, and real estate empire-building is most objectionable and have defaulted to monolithic screeds against (which just plays into Baker's hands, because the monolithic lumping of disparate interests serves to keep the attack angles from landing blows). Now that it's crunch-time, they aren't getting any less incoherent. They say every southside line needs a dedicated platform, but that all of that is accomplishable by ops reform. Slight math problem there. There's 13 platforms at SS, 10 present-day commuter rail endpoints, 1 more with the South Coast Rail distending of Middleboro, and now the 'excuse-me' Buzzards Bay study promise as direct outflow of some of the convoluted decision-making on SCR. And, oh BTW, the 2-ton elephant in the room Amtrak with its voracious expansion appetite and ironclad requirement for a yard deadhead in between all Acela, Regional, or Inland slots. The interlockings are already being streamlined for fault-tolerance. What else "ops-only" could there possibly be that squares the inherent contradiction of every service needing a home berth but there not being enough home berths for every service. Name those offsets, please.
If they can't, is there going to be some acknowledgment that track expansion is necessary? If not the full doubling of platform capacity all the way to Dot Ave., then how many more? Assail the gold-plated headhouses and real estate kingmaking and rec boat docks on the Channel with all the bile and gusto as before, because that extracurricular shouldn't be lumped into the same budget as the track work or bare platform & shelter pours any which way. But we've reached a conundrum that is beyond monolithic opposition. What is the pivot? Because if the answer is only "5 more tracks" instead of 13, that's potentially an awesome cut-rate deal shorn of the other extracurricular. But break it down so that your own self at least agrees with your own selves first.
---- ---- ---- ---- ----
EMU procurement -- OK, TM's release trails by 1 week the T's presentation of its RFI bidders. But I see they're still stanning for single-levels, single-levels, single-levels as if that's the only option. Well...parse the bids we just got.
- Alstom - bi-level
- Bombardier - bi
- *CRRC - single-level
- Hitachi - single
- *Hyundai-Rotem - single
- Stadler -- bi
Why are we not acknowledging odds that this is most likely gonna be a bi-level order? The 3 with the biggest lead--Bomabardier, Stadler, Alstom--are all peddling bi's. In cases of existing FRA-compliant builders BBD & Stadler they don't have flats this second because the adapting bodies for our platform heights just happen to be bi, not single, and they'd have to fish through their Euro catalogues for something not yet FRA-certified to plug that hole so it's not a today proposition for them. They'll have those product holes filled for North America later on; it's just not top priority today because their initial U.S. buyers were bi-level.
So where's the treatment of this inflection point, TM??? We now have very well-established probabilities of where this order is going to break...and it is overwhelmingly likely to be be-level. Do we plan for the first order to be bi...but for subsequent orders to take pains to differentiate flats for intra-128 Urban Rail and bi's for trans-495 RUR? Do you put immediate attention to making sure these bi's are 2 x 2 seating, generous aisles, wide doors, and efficient vestibules so they're 'good enough' as Fairmount placeholders on that first wave where we don't have much choice? Does the reality that it will be initial purchase of bi's change any of the first-wave electrification corridor priorities? Or do we just double-down on the flats preference like we're still living in abstract world where the RFI hasn't already been responded thoroughly to?