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

[devnull]

Baker proposed an amendment to the transportation bond bill to explicitly direct the T to pursue "battery electrification" (rather than "electrification") of the commuter rail: https://bankerandtradesman.com/baker-seeks-order-for-battery-electrification-of-commuter-trains/

One of Baker’s amendments would rework a section of the bill in which lawmakers called on the T to outline short-, medium- and long-term plans to transform the commuter rail system.

Instead of working to roll out “electric locomotive” service or pursue “electrification” on several lines in the near future, the MBTA would instead be ordered to implement “battery electric locomotive” service and “battery electrification” under Baker’s amendment.

“I support this planning to make the commuter rail system more productive, equitable and decarbonized,” Baker wrote in his amendment letter. “I am proposing changes to ensure the plans incorporate the most up to date technology.”

Just what the T needs... an unproven technology that would leave us with worse service in the end compared to the century-old proven alternative (given BEMUs very likely wouldn't be able to nearly match the acceleration of straight EMUs).

I wonder if the "top of the ladder" has been the one nudging the T towards battery electrification over EMUs all along...

 

[bakgwailo]

That is completely my conjecture, and agree with the above. There seems to be a big disdain for OCS and having more permanent long-term infrastructure investment, and I do wonder how much of that comes from Baker, and Poftak looking for any way to save a penny. Or is it just standard MBTA operating procedure like with restoring the E line and Red Blue connector where they just continually make things up to ignore/punt projects down the road that they don't want to do? Maybe it is just the MBTA attempting to minimize anything they need to do any type of long-term maintenance since they realize they are utterly incompetent at maintaining anything?

I really can't wrap my head around the BEMU proposal and how it makes sense in any world. Upwards of $20-120 million to run OCS on the Fairmount Line? That's a pretty big spread for about 8 miles of track bookended by existing OCS. Plus an additional $50-80 million to undercut two bridges? Weren't there any alternatives looked into, like just not wiring under the bridges themselves? The consulting agency used for the study seems pretty legit, but something doesn't add up.

edit: cleaned up grammar/etc

 

[Tallguy]

That is completely my conjecture, and agree with the above. There seems to be a big disdain for OCS and having more permanent long-term infrastructure investment, and I do wonder how much of that comes from Baker, and Poftak looking for any way to save a penny. Or is it just standard MBTA operating procedure like with restoring the E line and Red Blue connector where they just continually make things up to ignore/punt projects down the road that they don't want to do? Maybe it is just the MBTA attempting to minimize anything they need to do any type of long-term maintenance since they realize they are utterly incompetent at maintaining anything?

I really can't wrap my head around the BEMU proposal and how it makes sense in any world. Upwards of $20-120 million to run OCS on the Fairmount Line? That's a pretty big spread for about 8 miles of track bookended by existing OCS. Plus an additional $50-80 million to undercut two bridges? Weren't there any alternatives looked into, like just not wiring under the bridges themselves? The consulting agency used for the study seems pretty legit, but something doesn't add up.

edit: cleaned up grammar/etc

The only reason they claim that the bridges are too short is that they plan on using bi-levels cars, not the multi-door flats that route needs to be a substitute subway

 

[Brattle Loop]

The only reason they claim that the bridges are too short is that they plan on using bi-levels cars, not the multi-door flats that route needs to be a substitute subway

Well, unless they plan on getting rid of all the bilevels at once and never buying any more, ever, it's probably not the world's best idea to make the line unuseable for a good chunk of the rolling stock. (I suppose you could theoretically height-restrict for now and fix the clearances for bilevels later, but that's kind of half-assing it unnecessarily.)

 

[BeyondRevenue]

That is completely my conjecture, and agree with the above. There seems to be a big disdain for OCS and having more permanent long-term infrastructure investment, and I do wonder how much of that comes from Baker, and Poftak looking for any way to save a penny. Or is it just standard MBTA operating procedure like with restoring the E line and Red Blue connector where they just continually make things up to ignore/punt projects down the road that they don't want to do? Maybe it is just the MBTA attempting to minimize anything they need to do any type of long-term maintenance since they realize they are utterly incompetent at maintaining anything?

I really can't wrap my head around the BEMU proposal and how it makes sense in any world. Upwards of $20-120 million to run OCS on the Fairmount Line? That's a pretty big spread for about 8 miles of track bookended by existing OCS. Plus an additional $50-80 million to undercut two bridges? Weren't there any alternatives looked into, like just not wiring under the bridges themselves? The consulting agency used for the study seems pretty legit, but something doesn't add up.

edit: cleaned up grammar/etc

I’m gonna go with BEMU lobbyists with cash filled briefcases. When it makes no sense, follow the money.

 

[Tallguy]

If you are going to buy EMUs, why would you need to run K-cars? And if you did need to you could de-energize the route

 

[Tallguy]

If you are going to buy EMUs, why would you need to run K-cars? And if you did need to you could de-energize the route

Also, the better question is "why are we still buying K-cars?"

 

[Brattle Loop]

Also, the better question is "why are we still buying K-cars?"

Still buying K-cars because some of the CR routes need the capacity (or can't be assumed that they won't in the future), and because any proper electrification won't be done overnight. (And even if electrified some routes wouldn't have subway-frequency service and so might well in the future need bilevel EMUs for capacity reasons, same as why NJT has them.)

Theoretically, I suppose if you're talking electrification that doesn't physically impede the K-cars from passing if it's deenergized should a contingency arise that required it, it wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world. That said, a sane transit agency would simply do the work to make it so that any existing or future equipment could use all routes as necessary. It's not like they've pointed out some fatal blocker on Fairmount that makes fixing the clearances impossible, they just can't be bothered (and I'm not inclined to like equipment-side kludges as solutions to institutional laziness.)

 

[Tallguy]

Still buying K-cars because some of the CR routes need the capacity (or can't be assumed that they won't in the future), and because any proper electrification won't be done overnight. (And even if electrified some routes wouldn't have subway-frequency service and so might well in the future need bilevel EMUs for capacity reasons, same as why NJT has them.)

Theoretically, I suppose if you're talking electrification that doesn't physically impede the K-cars from passing if it's deenergized should a contingency arise that required it, it wouldn't necessarily be the end of the world. That said, a sane transit agency would simply do the work to make it so that any existing or future equipment could use all routes as necessary. It's not like they've pointed out some fatal blocker on Fairmount that makes fixing the clearances impossible, they just can't be bothered (and I'm not inclined to like equipment-side kludges as solutions to institutional laziness.)

Part of what makes Regional Rail work is multiple doors for quick loading and unloading. K-cars are not suited for it. The only lines where a 850ft flat EMU can't handle the load is Prov and Worc, and that is for 1-2 trains at peak. Put triple locos on a 10 K-car beast and the time wouldn't be that bad, although modding them for double doors might help. Greenbush and Plymouth might stay diesel for a while. But saddling the rest of the system with less than ideal equipment to make that every line could use those 3-4 crowd-swallowers is not good public policy. The General Court has already voted bonds nearly sufficient (assuming Fed match)to electrify Worcester, Providence, Fairmount, and out to Beverly.

 

[Brattle Loop]

Part of what makes Regional Rail work is multiple doors for quick loading and unloading. K-cars are not suited for it. The only lines where a 850ft flat EMU can't handle the load is Prov and Worc, and that is for 1-2 trains at peak. Put triple locos on a 10 K-car beast and the time wouldn't be that bad, although modding them for double doors might help. Greenbush and Plymouth might stay diesel for a while. But saddling the rest of the system with less than ideal equipment to make that every line could use those 3-4 crowd-swallowers is not good public policy. The General Court has already voted bonds nearly sufficient (assuming Fed match)to electrify Worcester, Providence, Fairmount, and out to Beverly.

And I'll believe it just as soon as I see wires being strung over the ROW. That's also irrelevant, as is the discussion as to what the ideal EMU would look like (though you buy what's available if you don't want to be stuck with unicorn equipment...again). The discussion is whether it's appropriate for the T to simply say that they can't be bothered to ever do any bridge clearance work (just on Fairmount, or can we expect this practice to spread to other lines) that would allow them considerably-higher flexibility in equipment purchasing and assignment, because they can't be bothered. (Again, if there's some fatal blockers that mean it would cost $10 billion to improve a handful of bridge clearances, that'd be one thing.) Forced line-equipment restrictions and potentially future forced order-splits (if, say, Providence and Worcester should turn out to regularly need bilevel EMUs in the future) are not a particularly good trade-off for avoiding a little bit of bridge work right now. Is it the end of the world? No. Is it a disaster if you just kick that can down the road and hope you never wind up having to address it? No. Is it good policy? Not really. (This is especially true because while bilevels might not be ideal its entirely plausible that the T determines that they're the best option in the RFP process.)

 

[Tallguy]

Is this the same T the determined that trolley buses had to go and coerced it's consultant to agree? That T?

 

[Brattle Loop]

Is this the same T the determined that trolley buses had to go and coerced it's consultant to agree? That T?

They do a lot of very stupid things (see: battery EMU as the "solution" to electrifying the CR. Is the anti-wire obsession the T's replacement for their/the politicians' BRT-everything fetish from twenty years ago?).

That they have done (and seem to desire to continue to do) stupid things doesn't mean we should either a.) accept more stupid things or b.) uncritically accept alternatives to official solutions as appropriate without proper analysis simply on the basis that the official decisions are, at times, exceedingly stupid.

With respect to EMUs, there's an "ideal" in terms of what the best theoretical vehicle is, which (as you rightly point out) is a single-level vehicle with multiple large access doors (i.e. something like a Metro-North M8, though ideally without those things' obesity). Transit agencies don't buy theoretical vehicles, they buy what the builders will make. The T has an atrociously nasty habit of ordering unicorn equipment which it then has to painfully beta-test, often leaving us with subpar outcomes. Before they went on their BEMU trip to fantasyland, the T's own EMU RFI had a mix single and double EMUs, of which the only FRA-qualified single-level offering was the Silverliner V, which isn't exactly a good choice, even if it wasn't from a manufacturer that has basically given up on the US market as a direct result of their own misadventures. The only other FRA-qualified or to-be-qualified vehicles proposed by the manufacturers were Bombardier's MultiLevel EMU (where NJT will handle the duties of unicorn beta-tester with a large-volume order) and Stadler's California KISS (which is bilevel, and incompatible with our platforms as-designed without clarity on whether or not that incompatibility could be easily fixed). Everything else would require at least some modification just to be able to run on US rails, meaning we're back to being the beta-test guinea pig. Now, that might be worth it for a better-fit vehicle, if the technical/engineering capabilities of the chosen manufacturer (i.e. the risk of a new design) and the price point are competitive; it might well be worth paying (to some extent) more money or taking on more uncertainty to get a better-fit vehicle. It also might not. If, for example, NJT has a smooth EIS for the MultiLevel EMU, it could well be the case that BBD/Alstom could have a running production line for a quality EMU (or even slushing some of NJT's options) such that the less-"ideal" vehicle has the lowest risk and/or best price point, at which point it's a much harder ask to say we must have single-level.

None of which is necessarily related to the Fairmount question. Permanently lowering the clearances means that no bilevels can ever serve the route. Best-case scenario, that's annoying but not really a problem. Run to a situation where the procurement points to bilevels as the best option, then you're either costing potentially more money than undercutting a few bridges, or forcing you to do the work anyway to get the vehicles. Those would also be examples of bad public policy. Of course the ideal situation is an appropriate single-level EMU where you can (permanently or for a good long while on most routes) just cut down the clearances if needs be to allow full wiring, but if that's not on the table, then it's not an option.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

They do a lot of very stupid things (see: battery EMU as the "solution" to electrifying the CR. Is the anti-wire obsession the T's replacement for their/the politicians' BRT-everything fetish from twenty years ago?).

That they have done (and seem to desire to continue to do) stupid things doesn't mean we should either a.) accept more stupid things or b.) uncritically accept alternatives to official solutions as appropriate without proper analysis simply on the basis that the official decisions are, at times, exceedingly stupid.

With respect to EMUs, there's an "ideal" in terms of what the best theoretical vehicle is, which (as you rightly point out) is a single-level vehicle with multiple large access doors (i.e. something like a Metro-North M8, though ideally without those things' obesity). Transit agencies don't buy theoretical vehicles, they buy what the builders will make. The T has an atrociously nasty habit of ordering unicorn equipment which it then has to painfully beta-test, often leaving us with subpar outcomes. Before they went on their BEMU trip to fantasyland, the T's own EMU RFI had a mix single and double EMUs, of which the only FRA-qualified single-level offering was the Silverliner V, which isn't exactly a good choice, even if it wasn't from a manufacturer that has basically given up on the US market as a direct result of their own misadventures. The only other FRA-qualified or to-be-qualified vehicles proposed by the manufacturers were Bombardier's MultiLevel EMU (where NJT will handle the duties of unicorn beta-tester with a large-volume order) and Stadler's California KISS (which is bilevel, and incompatible with our platforms as-designed without clarity on whether or not that incompatibility could be easily fixed). Everything else would require at least some modification just to be able to run on US rails, meaning we're back to being the beta-test guinea pig. Now, that might be worth it for a better-fit vehicle, if the technical/engineering capabilities of the chosen manufacturer (i.e. the risk of a new design) and the price point are competitive; it might well be worth paying (to some extent) more money or taking on more uncertainty to get a better-fit vehicle. It also might not. If, for example, NJT has a smooth EIS for the MultiLevel EMU, it could well be the case that BBD/Alstom could have a running production line for a quality EMU (or even slushing some of NJT's options) such that the less-"ideal" vehicle has the lowest risk and/or best price point, at which point it's a much harder ask to say we must have single-level.

None of which is necessarily related to the Fairmount question. Permanently lowering the clearances means that no bilevels can ever serve the route. Best-case scenario, that's annoying but not really a problem. Run to a situation where the procurement points to bilevels as the best option, then you're either costing potentially more money than undercutting a few bridges, or forcing you to do the work anyway to get the vehicles. Those would also be examples of bad public policy. Of course the ideal situation is an appropriate single-level EMU where you can (permanently or for a good long while on most routes) just cut down the clearances if needs be to allow full wiring, but if that's not on the table, then it's not an option.

Permanently lowering the clearances on Fairmount is going to be a problem so long as the southside's primary heavy maintenance facility is being planned for Readville Yard. You've got to be able to get T bi-levels down the Fairmount to the shop, even in a perfect world where every single southside line except Cape Flyer gets wired. They are not going to consider going below Plate C (i.e. T bi-level) clearances. That's a nonstarter for all kinds of reasons, primarily amongst which is that 100.00% electrification can't happen overnight and there will be a multi-decade mixed-fleet era. The non-sandbagged (emphasis) costs of fixing the clearances will have more than amortized themselves before you have complete uni-make uniformity and no need to ever take something with a second level down there.


As for whether single-levels is the "right and only" choice....I think TransitMatters and some of the transpo blogosphere wind up flogging that one way too hard for credulity. Yes...flats with extra center doors dwell a little faster. But that's not to say a well-designed bi-level doesn't board/alight pretty darn well. In worldwide Regional Rail adoption there's no clear winner between flats and bi's sales-wise, and we see that dichotomy in what the market will bear. There are many, many top-notch EMU systems that adopt bi-levels and still make their trains run on time with schedules denser than we'd ever imagine. What you adopt is always a strategic decision between maximizing speed and maximizing capacity, and plenty of top-flight systems out there lean towards capacity for wholly justified reasons. They don't seem to take excessive criticism for those decisions, despite how this decision is being framed. It's a decision with many pathways and outcomes.

Besides, having real total level boarding makes a way bigger difference in overall dwell times than having a third or fourth set of doors, so getting overly precious about vehicle type kind of diverts attention from the most important thrust here. We need systemwide high-level platforms, and need them done sooner. That's going to count way more than flats vs. bi's, or what quantity of multi-door flats we're going to have to pay for to net equivalent capacity. And ultimately (as I've critiqued TM for with their hyper-unrealistic EMU performance specs) you can only buy something that somebody submits a bid for in your RFI/RFP. No off-scripting when those chips don't fall the way you prayed they would, or when there's not enough Buy America compliance to make the finances work. We got only 6 EMU bids...only 3 that arguably have a chance when B.A. gets factored. With few qualified choices to choose from, you might not get your platonic ideal livery configuration when all else has to be considered. TransitMatters already gets nothing on its demanded performance specs from who's bid us vehicles. The rolling stock market is what it is, and right now it's a market that's skeptical of U.S. transit agencies and isn't willing to stick its neck out for them. So the EMU choices are few. The point is to buy something good, reliable, and scalable for the price...right now from what's available. That may well end up being a bi-level when the chips fall. If we do the necessary follow-through on the infrastructure side that's probably going to be quite very good enough for us.

 

[Tallguy]

They do a lot of very stupid things (see: battery EMU as the "solution" to electrifying the CR. Is the anti-wire obsession the T's replacement for their/the politicians' BRT-everything fetish from twenty years ago?).

That they have done (and seem to desire to continue to do) stupid things doesn't mean we should either a.) accept more stupid things or b.) uncritically accept alternatives to official solutions as appropriate without proper analysis simply on the basis that the official decisions are, at times, exceedingly stupid.

With respect to EMUs, there's an "ideal" in terms of what the best theoretical vehicle is, which (as you rightly point out) is a single-level vehicle with multiple large access doors (i.e. something like a Metro-North M8, though ideally without those things' obesity). Transit agencies don't buy theoretical vehicles, they buy what the builders will make. The T has an atrociously nasty habit of ordering unicorn equipment which it then has to painfully beta-test, often leaving us with subpar outcomes. Before they went on their BEMU trip to fantasyland, the T's own EMU RFI had a mix single and double EMUs, of which the only FRA-qualified single-level offering was the Silverliner V, which isn't exactly a good choice, even if it wasn't from a manufacturer that has basically given up on the US market as a direct result of their own misadventures. The only other FRA-qualified or to-be-qualified vehicles proposed by the manufacturers were Bombardier's MultiLevel EMU (where NJT will handle the duties of unicorn beta-tester with a large-volume order) and Stadler's California KISS (which is bilevel, and incompatible with our platforms as-designed without clarity on whether or not that incompatibility could be easily fixed). Everything else would require at least some modification just to be able to run on US rails, meaning we're back to being the beta-test guinea pig. Now, that might be worth it for a better-fit vehicle, if the technical/engineering capabilities of the chosen manufacturer (i.e. the risk of a new design) and the price point are competitive; it might well be worth paying (to some extent) more money or taking on more uncertainty to get a better-fit vehicle. It also might not. If, for example, NJT has a smooth EIS for the MultiLevel EMU, it could well be the case that BBD/Alstom could have a running production line for a quality EMU (or even slushing some of NJT's options) such that the less-"ideal" vehicle has the lowest risk and/or best price point, at which point it's a much harder ask to say we must have single-level.

None of which is necessarily related to the Fairmount question. Permanently lowering the clearances means that no bilevels can ever serve the route. Best-case scenario, that's annoying but not really a problem. Run to a situation where the procurement points to bilevels as the best option, then you're either costing potentially more money than undercutting a few bridges, or forcing you to do the work anyway to get the vehicles. Those would also be examples of bad public policy. Of course the ideal situation is an appropriate single-level EMU where you can (permanently or for a good long while on most routes) just cut down the clearances if needs be to allow full wiring, but if that's not on the table, then it's not an option.

4 different US transit agencies use Stadler FLIRTs and 4 others use it's predecessor, the GTW.

And because 4 of the 60+ trainsets used precovid need them, we should saddle the other routes with slower bi-levels?

 

[Tallguy]

So, granted that bond bill inclusion does not mean that money actually gets spent, the G&G Court has provided (assuming Fed match) nearly enough to electrify Prov/Stoughton, Fairmount and Worcester on the Southside, Leaving Franklin(accessable to Readville from the south) and OC, which if needed, could access by way of the NEC

 

[Tallguy]

And just for the routes mentioned, we would need to buy over 200 cars(or more with shorter cars) for the south side and another 40+ for ER. If the T put out an RFP for 2/3rds flats and 1/3rd bi-levels, they would have a lot of choices in each category. Or all flats and use the K-cars with multiple electric locos for the few crowd-swallower runs and get only flats for the first round.

 

[Brattle Loop]

And just for the routes mentioned, we would need to buy over 200 cars(or more with shorter cars) for the south side and another 40+ for ER. If the T put out an RFP for 2/3rds flats and 1/3rd bi-levels, they would have a lot of choices in each category.

And if some manufacturer had appropriate products to offer, that would be a good idea. They don't. The only FRA-qualified vehicles proposed in the T's EMU RFI were the MultiLevel EMU, the California KISS (presumably with modifications to work with our platforms instead of those unicorn 50" platforms), and the dead-end Silverliner V. Getting a mix of flats and bi-levels would require at least one new carbody to be FRA-qualified, which the T would have to pay for, and which would drive the cost up even more. (Bombardier or whatever Alstom's calling them now might well get around to a single-level version of the MultiLevel EMU once NJT works through all the EIS kinks of the MLV, but that's a ways off. Now, if they could make them interoperable, a T order with bilevels frontloaded because that's what's being made first, and flats later might well be a good idea.) About the only thing dumber and more expensive than needing to import and FRA-qualify one unicorn carbody is needing to do it twice as the launch-customer guinea pig. (Ask SEPTA how it felt to be the guinea pig for the aforementioned Silverliner Vs.)

Or all flats and use the K-cars with multiple electric locos for the few crowd-swallower runs and get only flats for the first round.

Leaving aside the regrettable fact of the dearth of single-level options that don't require the T to be the launch customer for the Americanized version, this isn't a terrible idea if someone has or is expected to have a surplus of electric locomotives available in the reasonable-term future. I've seen different accounts on whether Amtrak's new NEC trainsets are going to displace the ACS-64s or not, because if they do (or even if they just cut down the number Amtrak needs) that fleet is certainly new enough to be re-purposed. Buying new electric locomotives, on the other hand, knowing both that your aim is to eventually replace them and the K-cars with EMUs and that there's going to be an atrociously bad resale market, seems like an even more foolish proposition than FRA-qualifying two new carbodies (unless you think that the second wave of EMUs, in this timeline the bi-levels, won't be available for twenty years...which seems problematic given that NJT's MLVs might well be looking at their first major rebuild at that point in time...)

 

[Tallguy]

And let's look at 2030. Let's assume the aforementioned routes are ready. All present flats, and even some of the first order of K-cars should be retired. That leaves about 200 cars, or enough for 24 full sets, although if all cars are bi-levels, a lot of the sets can be 4-6 cars long. OC and Franklin would need around 100 couches and Fitchburg and Lowell/Haverhill would use the rest. Hopefully, we have plans to OLX both Needham and Reading by then, but if not, we would have to nurse the rest of the first K-cars into their 40th year.

 

[BosMaineiac]

And let's look at 2030. Let's assume the aforementioned routes are ready. All present flats, and even some of the first order of K-cars should be retired. That leaves about 200 cars, or enough for 24 full sets, although if all cars are bi-levels, a lot of the sets can be 4-6 cars long. OC and Franklin would need around 100 couches and Fitchburg and Lowell/Haverhill would use the rest. Hopefully, we have plans to OLX both Needham and Reading by then, but if not, we would have to nurse the rest of the first K-cars into their 40th year.

I don’t see why they can’t order more multilevel cars, especially if they would be operable with bi-level EMU’s. 2030 seems like an aggressive timeline for OLX to Needham AND Reading, considering past projects

 

[Tallguy]

Because rolling stock is a 30-40 yr decision, and if we are still using diesel in 2040 never mind 2050 the planet will be nearly dead.