Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)

Here’s my cheap rant…
The problem is people.
The people are cheap. We get cheap solutions from the cheap politicians we vote for, who then appoint cheap bureaucrats. And we are all cheapened by them. Cheap bureaucrats don’t read white papers extolling the benefits of electrification.

BEMUs are short term cheap.
Long-term, smart investment in rail isn’t.
 
New Bedford looking to jump on the TOD bandwagon... The more localities that figure this out the more likely a NSRL political wave can start.
www.southcoasttoday.com

South Coast Rail stations coming to New Bedford — here's how it will affect neighborhoods

TOD is a type of community development that includes a mixture of housing, office, retail and/or other amenities in a neighborhood near transit.
www.southcoasttoday.com
 
Stlin said:
Does anyone have an idea of the bridge clearances currently on Fairmount? It would help understand how reasonable the Ts reluctance to touch them is, as the southern end of it does have quite the density of Road-over-Rail bridges. That said, per the verbal information, apparently a battery pack from a battery electric bus is good enough to get a train from Boston to Newburyport. On the scale of a train, that wouldn't be particularly heavy, and for the 9 miles of Fairmount would seem to be fairly nominal for something fully battery.
Click to expand...
Plate C (15'6"), same as the NEC all points north of Readville Yard and same loading gauge as the T's Kawasaki and Rotem bi-levels. That would require 18 ft. of underclearance, but 18 ft. of underclearance has been the MA state default standard for road-over-rail bridges for eons so most of the bridges are already compliant. The NEC segment posed no issues for electrification 20 years ago, so I don't see why Fairmount would. It's 12 overhead bridges with majority of them dating to the mid-1990's or newer.

The reluctance to do coasting under dead sections for hard pinches is really baffling. Most stock straight EMU's these days have small batteries that can prevent 'gapping' and turn the wheels slowly should the train be brought to a dead stop right on a power cutout. It's not miles and miles of full-speed running like a full-on BEMU, but it can cover one of the few failure modes of coasting through a small cutout. Likewise, trackbed undercuts are not a pricey item. They can be used in a majority of the cases where a bridge may be low to cut down on the number of dead sections without needing to do any span mods. It's also one-and-done expense, instead of buying the hybridization cost premium with every vehicle order.

They're literally choosing the more expensive way to do it. That has way more failure modes and significantly worse performance for a dense stop-spaced corridor. Fairmount should be no-excuses full wired. This proposal reeks of BS.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but both T and Amtrak loco hauled services use standard AAR couplers, and what I would assume are standard HEP connections and standard trainline comm systems for things like door logic and cab cars. Implicitly, wouldn't things like Sprinters, HHP-8s, even the AEM-7s would presumably need no modification at all to pull a rake of MBTA coaches over the same territory?
Click to expand...
Correct. As long as the HEP hookup is standard and it's equipped with cab signals and ACSES II positive train control--as any loco assigned to east-region Amtrak would be--it can pull T coaches in revenue service. It doesn't even make a difference for the onboard stop announcements, as that computer lives in the cab car not the locomotive.

Now, what are the chances that what Amtrak is proposing is a modification of the Acela power cars into coach hauling locomotives? It's also a fairly common, yet extremely impractical foamer idea, but it's the only thing I can come up with that jives with the mentioned increased availability with avelia arrivals. I know they have a standard AAR on the front, but I believe their rear is a semipermanent drawbar. 20+ years after they were built, it might not be too major surgery to change that to an AAR and adapt the gangway to fit a standard low-level.
Click to expand...
The power cars are just as much temperamental overcustomized junk as the rest of the A1's. They're derived from the same Alstom platform as the HHP-8's, but the active-tilt mechanisms changed their carbodies significantly and the HEP hookups are customized for running as integrated trainsets. Absolutely no one on the face of the earth is going to spend significant sums of money to try to "de-Acela" them.
 
Looking at the potential construction timeline in the regional rail pdf was depressing. Even with the battery-only option being the "fastest" I'd be 56 years old by the time it was completely done. And for some reason if they were to just hang OCS and use EMUs like most of the rest of the developed world manages to do it wouldn't be done until I was 71. I just turned 30...

Maybe I'm just ignorant but I see absolutely no reason a project like rail electrification should take the better part of my lifetime to accomplish. Especially when the technology has existed for well over a century at this point and other countries seem to pull it off in fractions of the time.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Plate C (15'6"), same as the NEC all points north of Readville Yard and same loading gauge as the T's Kawasaki and Rotem bi-levels. That would require 18 ft. of underclearance, but 18 ft. of underclearance has been the MA state default standard for road-over-rail bridges for eons so most of the bridges are already compliant. The NEC segment posed no issues for electrification 20 years ago, so I don't see why Fairmount would. It's 12 overhead bridges with majority of them dating to the mid-1990's or newer.

The reluctance to do coasting under dead sections for hard pinches is really baffling. Most stock straight EMU's these days have small batteries that can prevent 'gapping' and turn the wheels slowly should the train be brought to a dead stop right on a power cutout. It's not miles and miles of full-speed running like a full-on BEMU, but it can cover one of the few failure modes of coasting through a small cutout. Likewise, trackbed undercuts are not a pricey item. They can be used in a majority of the cases where a bridge may be low to cut down on the number of dead sections without needing to do any span mods. It's also one-and-done expense, instead of buying the hybridization cost premium with every vehicle order.

They're literally choosing the more expensive way to do it. That has way more failure modes and significantly worse performance for a dense stop-spaced corridor. Fairmount should be no-excuses full wired. This proposal reeks of BS.


Correct. As long as the HEP hookup is standard and it's equipped with cab signals and ACSES II positive train control--as any loco assigned to east-region Amtrak would be--it can pull T coaches in revenue service. It doesn't even make a difference for the onboard stop announcements, as that computer lives in the cab car not the locomotive.


The power cars are just as much temperamental overcustomized junk as the rest of the A1's. They're derived from the same Alstom platform as the HHP-8's, but the active-tilt mechanisms changed their carbodies significantly and the HEP hookups are customized for running as integrated trainsets. Absolutely no one on the face of the earth is going to spend significant sums of money to try to "de-Acela" them.
Click to expand...
I find myself agreeing with F-Line twice in as many days. I am looking for further proof of the end-times as we speak. ;)
 
BostonObserver said:
Shouldn’t the electrification Fairmont line be considered important as a backup to the NEC in case of an emergency
Click to expand...
That's a fringe benefit, but since it's not really used for that function today it's unlikely to factor in the decision-making. Being a high-priority core service should alone be enough.



Also noteworthy: the unwillingness to do the Somerville-Chelsea core of the Eastern Route means the conjoined Reading Line is also doomed to a future of partial-electrification kludges. And that one's a Plate F (17 ft., non- high-and-wide, non-protected) route all points north of the split from the Eastern so likely needs zero mods to wire up in-full. Probably the easiest of all the northside lines to do up. But their unwillingness to treat the terminal district and 3 Sullivan Square overpasses ends up handcuffing half the northside. "Savings", my ass...there's basically no smarter place to spend the money for doing it right than right there on the innermost Eastern. This just reeks of a cop-out. Forunately/unfortunately (whichever you prefer), they're going to have to cope with the likely grim reality that the BEMU RFP isn't going to net viable rolling stock options at a unit cost they're willing to pay...and go back to the drawing board. But we'll surely waste another year on this faux technological diversion instead of picking up the straight-EMU RFP and getting down to business.
 
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley said:
That's a fringe benefit, but since it's not really used for that function today it's unlikely to factor in the decision-making. Being a high-priority core service should alone be enough.



Also noteworthy: the unwillingness to do the Somerville-Chelsea core of the Eastern Route means the conjoined Reading Line is also doomed to a future of partial-electrification kludges. And that one's a Plate F (17 ft., non- high-and-wide, non-protected) route all points north of the split from the Eastern so likely needs zero mods to wire up in-full. Probably the easiest of all the northside lines to do up. But their unwillingness to treat the terminal district and 3 Sullivan Square overpasses ends up handcuffing half the northside. "Savings", my ass...there's basically no smarter place to spend the money for doing it right than right there on the innermost Eastern. This just reeks of a cop-out. Forunately/unfortunately (whichever you prefer), they're going to have to cope with the likely grim reality that the BEMU RFP isn't going to net viable rolling stock options at a unit cost they're willing to pay...and go back to the drawing board. But we'll surely waste another year on this faux technological diversion instead of picking up the straight-EMU RFP and getting down to business.
Click to expand...
Okay, now my head is exploding 🤯
 
I really have limited knowledge of diesel/battery locomotives, but maybe someone with more knowledge could answer this. Would it be possible in concept to convert a locomotive from diesel to battery/diesel hybrid with OCS charging capability? Would it be too heavy? The smaller Diesel engine can act as a generator for only emergency/limited use, and allow room for a big battery. That would allow you to use existing rolling stock and seems like a simpler/safer approach to the battery corridors issue.
 
So here's a little clearances explainer for some of the technical terminology that's been thrown about. . .

Railcars conform to a "Plate" loading gauge designation. The "Plates" are:
  • Plate B: 15 ft., 1 in.
  • Plate C: 15 ft., 6 in. (this is the size of a T bi-level)
  • Plate D & E: 15 ft., 9 in.
  • Plate F: 17 ft. (comes in high-and-wide and...mostly...non- high-and-wide varieties)
  • Plate F+ (autorack dimensions): 19 ft., 2 in. (19 ft., 6 in. in Northeast as ice buildup hedge)
  • Plate H (double-stack): 20 ft., 2 in. (20 ft., 6 in. in Northeast as ice buildup hedge)

25 kV electrification requires 2 ft., 7 in. of safe wire clearance above the Plate designations, netting electrified underclearances of:
  • B: 17 ft., 8 in.
  • C: 18 ft., 1 in. (T bi-level)
  • D/E: 18 ft., 4 in.
  • F: 19 ft., 7 in.
  • F+: 21 ft., 9 in.
  • H: 22 ft., 9 in.
Note that state regs on bridge underclearance spec 18 ft. minimums going back at least 50 years, so most structures are within 1-4 inches of taking Plates C-E.


The current physical "Plate" clearances of every Commuter Rail line are:
North
  • Eastern Route mainline: F to Everett; E to Beverly (Newburyport & Rockport branches unknown, but likely E)
  • Lowell: F (incl. all the way to Concord)
  • Haverhill/Wildcat (i.e. Wilmington-north): F
  • Reading: F
  • Fitchburg: E Boston to Waltham; F Waltham to Willows Jct., Ayer; F+ Willows Jct. to Wachusett
  • Grand Junction: C (tightest single clearance on MBTA system)
South
  • Providence/NEC: C Boston to Readville Yard; E Readville to Mansfield; F Mansfield to Providence; F+ Providence (south of station) to West Davisville (mixture of mainline and un-wired "FRIP" track)
  • Stoughton: E
  • Worcester: C Boston to Beacon Park; F Beacon Park to West Natick; F+ West Natick to Westborough; H Westborough to Worcester
  • Fairmount: C
  • Forge Park: F Readville to Walpole Jct.; E Walpole Jct. to Forge Park
  • Foxboro: F
  • Middleboro (incl. Boston-Braintree): F
  • Kingston/Plymouth: E
  • Greenbush: E
  • Middleboro-Hyannis: E
  • Needham: (unknown)
  • Fall River/New Bedford: F Middleboro to Taunton; E both branches

These are the lines that have legally protected freight clearances:
  • Lowell: F
  • Haverhill/Wildcat: F
  • Fitchburg: F+ Willows Jct., Ayer to Wachusett
  • Worcester: F Framingham to Westborough (note this is 2'2" less than the actual F+ physical clearance, because CSX contractually sunset its future rights to run autoracks to the long-closed unloading facility in Framingham); H Westborough-Worcester
  • Franklin: F Readville Jct. to Walpole Jct.
  • Foxboro: F
  • Providence: F Mansfield Jct. to Attleboro Jct.; F+ Providence to West Davisville (affects some segments of un-wired "FRIP" track only, such as the T.F. Green station turnout)
  • South Coast Rail: F Middleboro Jct. to Cotley Jct., Taunton
Additionally:
  • Eastern Route: F Boston to Everett (not a "legal" Interstate Commerce-enforced one, but the T did some clearance work @ Sullivan Sq. in 2019-20 to enable Plate F cars to Everett Terminal so a revenue consideration).
Anywhere else not on ^this^ list...the clearances can be cut down by 2 ft., 7 in. under T fiat regardless of what its physical plate is. That means all the other Plate E's & F's like the Reading Line and Old Colony can be chopped as low as Plate C no-foul. It's only the "protected" ones where electrification can expect to incur any substantial cost chew, and that varies a lot by line (for example, Plate F Haverhill is going to cost a lot more than Plate H Worcester because of quantity of affected spans and exceptionally difficult individual cases).
 
Last edited:
BosMaineiac said:
I really have limited knowledge of diesel/battery locomotives, but maybe someone with more knowledge could answer this. Would it be possible in concept to convert a locomotive from diesel to battery/diesel hybrid with OCS charging capability? Would it be too heavy? The smaller Diesel engine can act as a generator for only emergency/limited use, and allow room for a big battery. That would allow you to use existing rolling stock and seems like a simpler/safer approach to the battery corridors issue.
Click to expand...
It would be pointless, because you could buy a new hybrid for less unit cost than it would take to retrofit a diesel in such fashion. Especially when talking the T's older F40 and GP40 locos, which use old-fashioned DC propulsion and not the AC propulsion that any newer makes would use. The scope of work is equivalent to buying all-new. And yeah, it would be superduper heavy and accelerate like ass.


The main problem is that anything battery is going to be stupidly expensive, and experimental-by-nature.
 
Be on the lookout for corporate lobbyists from BEMU companies carrying heavy briefcases. #unfoundedaccusations
 
So, the Acela power car is 14'2", and the KISS is 15'1", so if the NEC line is at the bare minimum for Acela, then 11" of undercutting would be necessary¿
 
Tallguy said:
So, the Acela power car is 14'2", and the KISS is 15'1", so if the NEC line is at the bare minimum for Acela, then 11" of undercutting would be necessary¿
Click to expand...
15'6" T bi-levels do NEC east-of-New Haven 25 kV territory just fine. That's the dimension that truly matters here. All of these lines could go down to the minimum extant Massachusetts NEC height: Fairmount; Stoughton; Reading (excepting NS-Sullivan); Rockburyport (excepting NS-Sullivan); Old Colony trio + Cape; Needham; South Coast excepting Middleboro-Taunton; Walpole-Forge Park; Boston-Framingham; Boston-Willows/Ayer.
 
Last edited:
U
F-Line to Dudley said:
15'6" T bi-levels do NEC east-of-New Haven 25 kV territory just fine. That's the dimension that truly matters here. All of these lines could go down to the minimum extant Massachusetts NEC height: Fairmount; Stoughton; Reading (excepting NS-Sullivan); Rockburyport (excepting NS-Sullivan); Old Colony trio + Cape; Needham; South Coast excepting Middleboro-Taunton; Walpole-Forge Park; Boston-Framingham; Boston-Willows/Ayer.
Click to expand...
So, Mystic Ave, Maffa Way(due for rebuilding) Cambridge St and the OL bridge are possible problems.
 
So I am a bit confused. If F plate requires 17ft, and Haverhill is F plate, how is it that Bridge hunter reports several bridges at 16' 4"¿
 
Tallguy said:
So, Mystic Ave, Maffa Way(due for rebuilding) Cambridge St and the OL bridge are possible problems.
Click to expand...
Yep. Some undercutting is needed there. The T upgraded the road bridges at Sullivan from Plate E to Plate F a couple years ago by relocating offending drainage pipes that hung underneath. They haven't yet tried any undercutting.

Tallguy said:
So I am a bit confused. If F plate requires 17ft, and Haverhill is F plate, how is it that Bridge hunter reports several bridges at 16' 4"¿
Click to expand...
NBI reports pick a random spot on the ground instead of the track centerline, so if ground or structures aren't completely level end-to-end (e.g. "humped") they miss their spot.


EDIT: As an example of BridgeHunter/NBI's general unreliability for this, check out the page for the Cambridge St. overpass in Sullivan Square. Says 13.1 ft. of underclearance. Well...that would tear the whole second level off a bi-level and impale every locomotive on the T roster if it were accurate. It's low by a full third from actual. So you can really only trust BridgeHunter if it shows enough excess clearance to eliminate a structure from consideration.
 
Last edited:
Ive run across a few like that. Pretty much everything west of BB to Beacon Park is listed at 13'1", yet I have regularly rode bi-levels on the Worc run
 
Ive assumed that there is an allowance for dynamic load, but been unable to find any data. I mean, railcars do bounce a bit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top