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

When the T was working on the RFPs for the rebuilds of the F40s, I wondered why they didn’t price out replacing the fleet with Chargers.
 
RandomWalk said:
When the T was working on the RFPs for the rebuilds of the F40s, I wondered why they didn’t price out replacing the fleet with Chargers.
Click to expand...
Remember that the T first RFP'd the F40 rebuilds back in mid-2016. It went through several iterations before the program was finally bid out, but the thrust was set 6-1/2 years ago. 6-1/2 years ago there were no Chargers whatsoever running in revenue service, and only 1 production test unit undergoing shakedown. The Chargers used a prime mover that had never been tried before in a locomotive, while the current -3C designation F40PH modernization spec had a 13-year proven record with multiple agencies. Plus the T was able to score a parts deal that would guarantee a 25-year extended lifespan if components were refreshed, something they wouldn't have been able to count on if the Chargers ended up being a market flop. So given what they knew at the time, rebuilding the F40's was the sanest decision. The Charger ended up taking off and cornering the market for new diesel purchases...but look what's still the #2 incumbent across North America: ye olde indestructable F40 and its 4-1/2 decades of variants and rebuilds.

It ended up being one of the few truly sane and properly risk-averse decisions they've made with rolling stock in the last 20 years. They Just Work™, something which is in short supply across this agency.
 
Stlin said:
There's lots going on at the T, and well... the indecision appears to extend to CR electrification. The newest slides from the fiscal subcommittee have a FY24-28 CIP Preview, which includes $50 Million for multimode locomotives - presumably, the same ones that they sent out an RFI for back in December. Realistically however, $50m isn't actually enough to buy a substantial fleet of anything, or for the T to be dabbling in unicorns. If we assume that the quantity means they're going off the shelf "exists today," NEC, push-pull compatible, and with a reasonable delivery timetable, I'd be willing to bet that this could only be exercising some of NJT's remaining ALP45 options. But say $50M is enough to buy just about 5 of them, realistically 4 with parts and spares. Is that enough to do anything meaningful to Providence Line ops other than a photo-op?
View attachment 35149
There's worse possibilities than NJT options, admittedly - Notably, the Chicago Metra battery F40 conversion seems dead in the water as they failed to come to an agreement, and they're going to have to re-bid the thing.
Click to expand...
The other option is buying Montreal Exo's fleet of 20 ALP-45DP's, which no longer run in electric mode up there with the Mt. Royal Tunnel shut down for LRT conversion. The price would be right, and they're only 10 years old and fairly lightly run. Exo is buying Chargers to replace some of its straight diesels on other lines, and the ALP's are somewhat inefficient in diesel mode (two small and more maintenance-intensive genset diesel engines instead of one large prime mover). They'd be better off picking up some more Chargers to unify their fleet rather than running the ALP unicorns solely in D mode. The units would only have to be fitted with new signaling equipment to move down here. But I suspect NJ Transit would be ahead of us at picking up the Exo fleet, since they have a far larger installed base of ALP-45's and dearly want to get rid of their problematic PL42AC diesel, which are unicorn lineage and fast approaching rebuild age. NJT has the incumbent scale to make that worth their while.

The ALP's have zip in E-mode and are sufficiently overpowered in D-mode to accelerate faster than most of the fleet. So performance-wise they'd be an improvement for Providence. But the extra complexity is largely a waste on already-wired Providence, a waste in D-mode on other lines (with not much to be gained by running them electric on the NEC for Needham and Franklin). They're not as fuel-efficient in D-mode as the current HSP-46 fleet owing to the twin-engine setup (the emissions are roughly par). They're obscenely heavy. They're a lot more complicated to maintain, basically being two locomotives in one...and the diesel half being two diesels in one (the T barely maintains its 2 newish work-loco gensets because the engines are more complicated for the shop). And it's further fleet fragmentation when you have one type of diesel engine for the F40PH's/GP40MC's, one type of diesel engine for the HSP-46's, and the duals. I too don't get what they're flailing at here with these RFI's. It reeks of going-through-the-motions on electrifying anything, much like the BEMU attempt.


I'm not at all surprised that Metra's F40 battery conversion project failed. F40's are older-style DC-electricity traction, while most new components for locos are AC traction. Component selection for meshing the incumbent systems with a battery would be tough, plus you also have to fit that into more or less the incumbent weight for the frames to handle it. Long odds. But Metra is a hella weird agency for its maniacal devotion to 20th century EMD product and retrofitting them ad infinitum. They're the only passenger agency in the Western Hemisphere to run 6-axle power with their recent rebuild conversions of old SD70 freight units, something no one else is crazy enough to try. Attempting to make a unicorn battery loco out of a stock F40 is completely and utterly in-character for them, anathema to most anyone else.
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
F40's are older-style DC-electricity traction, while most new components for locos are AC traction.
Click to expand...
Could battery locomotives ever be a solution in a partially wired-up system? Perhaps a conversion of the more modern locomotives would work? I feel like that could be a solution for outside-128 bound trains with EMU’s working inside. Maybe if freight railroads pour enough resources into battery locos that could be a viable option in the future.
 
BosMaineiac said:
Could battery locomotives ever be a solution in a partially wired-up system? Perhaps a conversion of the more modern locomotives would work? I feel like that could be a solution for outside-128 bound trains with EMU’s working inside. Maybe if freight railroads pour enough resources into battery locos that could be a viable option in the future.
Click to expand...
Battery locos have all the shortcomings of push-pull--worse performance than multiple unit trains--with added weight and complexity. The T's BEMU dalliance isn't exactly great, but it's better than trying battery push-pull.

Battery locos are starting to percolate into the freight space. They do well in a yard switcher role where the unit is traveling short distances, usually in a yard where it can plug-in to recharge when not in use, where the repetitive braking maneuvers of shunting cars helps recharge the batteries in motion. It also does a world of good for air quality in a limited-space yard setting. Those will start seeing widespread adoption. It's not likely to be more than a niche for passenger ops, though (example: batteries for unventilated tunnels like NYC).
 
F-Line to Dudley said:
Battery locos have all the shortcomings of push-pull--worse performance than multiple unit trains--with added weight and complexity. The T's BEMU dalliance isn't exactly great, but it's better than trying battery push-pull.

Battery locos are starting to percolate into the freight space. They do well in a yard switcher role where the unit is traveling short distances, usually in a yard where it can plug-in to recharge when not in use, where the repetitive braking maneuvers of shunting cars helps recharge the batteries in motion. It also does a world of good for air quality in a limited-space yard setting. Those will start seeing widespread adoption. It's not likely to be more than a niche for passenger ops, though (example: batteries for unventilated tunnels like NYC).
Click to expand...

Plus, they can function as reservoirs for all of the electricity diesels generate during regenerative braking.
 
Anyone know how serious this idea is from the 'South Boston Seaport Strategic Transit Plan.' This is my first time seeing this cross harbor RR plan - one of the slides cites London Crossrail/Elizebeth Line as a precedent ($🙃$).

Screenshot 2023-03-17 at 16.27.04.png


Screenshot 2023-03-17 at 16.27.18.png
 
I would venture the "idea" is serious but it's being explored by the City of Boston, and their web page notes they'll be relying upon the MBTA and other agencies to follow through on implementation of the study's findings, so there's not much weight behind this..

If it was an MBTA study, however, that would be a different story.
 
That would be a massive waste of money and resources to spend the billions on creating a cross harbor cr tunnel instead of the nsrl tunnel. Nsrl gives every commuter line a transfer to blue (or silver) to get to logan. Thats on top of the system wide revolution it allows to the cr network.
 
This slide is also included in the 'mid-term strategies.' I'm confused where these 'strategies' are coming from - seem crayon level!
Screenshot 2023-03-20 at 06.08.48.png
\

Another 'long term strategies' slide:
Screenshot 2023-03-20 at 06.09.59.png

(edited to add another slide)
 
I'm all for anything that'll make more use of the outrageously huge Courthouse station. Instead of expanding South Station into the Post Office space for East West Rail, let's just have it all terminate at Courthouse station.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top