BeyondRevenue
Active Member
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2020
- Messages
- 547
- Reaction score
- 1,142
I guess we were too busy keeping their roads paved and their towns solvent to think they’d raise a fuss about us on this side of the state
Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)
- Thread starter quadratdackel
- Start date
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2006
- Messages
- 4,323
- Reaction score
- 5,938
An economically and socially healthy Boston metro area benefits the entire state. Does anyone really want Boston to become another Baltimore? If it did, it would have negative consequences for all of Massachusetts.
Thursday's Board meeting included new renders of conceptual electric sets for the CR - besides the Stadler Flirt we've seen before, there's what looks uncommonly like a Siemens Charger /Airo and something I've never seen before from Alstom, even if it's on the Xtrapolis or Cordalia architectures. That said, I'm surprised that Alstom pitched something new, and not the NJT MLV.
Attachments
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
If it's a BEMU presentation, Alstom didn't bid a MultiLevel BEMU. None of the BEMU offers the T got were compatible with push-pull coaches, so it rules them out. Probably because the MLV's are too heavy for batteries and couldn't be sufficiently overpowered enough while carrying batteries to tow any stock coaches between the power packs. It was only for the straight-EMU request that the MLV's were bid.
BosMaineiac
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2020
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 378
Are those rendering BEMU’s or EMU’s? I’d be surprised to hear that Siemens is working on a battery locomotive. And I thought the Stadler rendering was part of the EMU RFI?
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
The EMU RFI had renders and/or actual vehicles pictured, and couple of these renders from the meeting recap don't look like those at all. So I'm guessing they're BEMU's, with the Stadler render from the straight-EMU bid recycled because the BEMU variant is fitted to the same body.
Renders, or even single- vs. bi-level, really don't tell us much of anything about a BEMU's suitability. The key is whether the battery installs make the manufacturers de-power some of the bogies on the vehicles. That's the most common design compromise worldwide for fitting the batteries into a standard EMU frame, and it's where BEMU's take their biggest performance hit vs. straight-EMU's. We really need to see the fine print from these bids and compare them to similar make/model straight-EMU's to see which ones are going to take suckier performance hits vs. others.
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,943
- Reaction score
- 7,977
Am I missing something? All of those renders include catenary wires...
I think the idea is, “Use wires where they exist, use batteries elsewhere.”
stick n move
Superstar
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2009
- Messages
- 11,050
- Reaction score
- 14,704
So I just came across this on reddit. Theres currently a bill in the legislature about electrifying the fairmount line. Click on view text in the link.
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/H3315
Thats good to see that there is some new movement on this issue.
https://malegislature.gov/Bills/193/H3315
Thats good to see that there is some new movement on this issue.
Koopzilla24
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2022
- Messages
- 377
- Reaction score
- 1,116
Not sure if I’m understanding this correctly but it looks as though the bill was redrafted as H3908.
The new draft removes the short term electrification requirement and specific 7.5min headways, and replaces then with a more ambiguous “3 dedicated trainsets” and “electrification designs by July 2025.”
Aprehensive_Words
Active Member
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2022
- Messages
- 265
- Reaction score
- 507
I'm no expert, but electrifying the Fairmount line in 18 months from a standing start sounds....extremely, extremely ambitious.
I would concur... Look at Caltrain, I think that line is at most 45 miles between SF and San Jose, and they started in 2018 and it's still not done. There is no way in hell that MassDOT could get the Fairmount constructed in 18 months. Just look at their track record, no pun intended.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,884
- Reaction score
- 3,712
Well, California political interference with infrastructure building is even worse than it is here, so that's part of it. Then, consider that 45 miles may not sound like much, but it's about 6.5 times further than South Station to Readville. Maybe we can't do this in 18 months, but we damn well ought to be able to do it.
As I read that, it's just the designs are due in 18 months. Not actually building it. I am also no expert, but that sounds.... unambitious.
Koopzilla24
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2022
- Messages
- 377
- Reaction score
- 1,116
Considering that Caltrain was starting with zero infrastructure, while South Station through Southampton and directly adjacent to Readville’s Fairmount platform are already electrified, the T is starting from a much more advanced point.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
Caltrain Modernization includes way more than the electrification project, and the fact that they tried to wad up so many different initiatives into the program made it "Too Big To Fail" and prone to gross mismanagement. It was electrification. It was a tortured (and ultimately failed) Positive Train Control installation that nearly shipwrecked the whole agency when the contractor bit off more than it could chew. It was an expensive vehicle redesign that very nearly shipwrecked the agency when they couldn't make their FrankenKISSes' novel door interface conform to the ADA. It was a mass grade separation project that was subject to horrible overdesigns, tortured community input, and lawsuits from multiple communities who felt they weren't being listened to. And then the electrification hit cost blowouts in the stupidest of places, right down to stupid things like over-fussy overdesign to their catenary towers. They're even planning to embark on their own BEMU folly for the un-electrified Gilroy tail. Caltrain is basically writing the new book on how to do Commuter Rail modernization completely stupid and wasteful. Depending on what you may think of SEPTA these days, Caltrain is now pretty much the worst-run Commuter Rail agency on the continent. There's nothing we could or should be learning from them except on how NOT to do Regional Rail properly.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
Amtrak managed to go from signing a contract for design-build and getting to ground-breaking on the New Haven-Boston electrification in 8 months...December 1995 to July 1996. And get full completion on all 155 miles, 4 substations, and the SS terminal district facilities within 3 years of groundbreaking. So Fairmount in 2 years--no substations, only 8 route miles--is a very reasonable ask if they're absolutely serious about doing it. It takes close to 5 years to do a vehicle procurement from start-to-finish these days, so it's actually a very generous timetable compared to how long they'd be waiting to get their own EMU's on the line.
I'm replying to the discussion about TransitMatters' Fitchburg Line report here -- it really isn't about "current Commuter Rail operations" at all. Preceding posts linked below.
The more I think about it and look at it, the more gobsmacked I am that they just casually propose a Berlin-style viaduct along downtown Waltham. That's, like, a huge change to that public space, with impacts well beyond the scope of improving frequencies and dwell times. I'm reminded of something I said in the God-mode thread: Thou Shalt Not Destroy The Aesthetic Of The Village.
I wish they had instead offered some specifics on how to rework Waltham station to enable higher frequencies. The current design places the "inbound" platform on the single track segment and squished between Moody and Elm Streets, meaning that a stopped train is always going to block Moody St (as far as I can tell). Something like what @F-Line to Dudley proposed would be much more valuable and actionable:
(Photo credit to John Phelan on Wikimedia Commons)
^ This design is supposed to accommodate a train every 15 minutes on each track?
I also in general am struck at the lack of a holistic approach to some of their proposals. I'd argue that the best way to increase access to jobs at Brickbottom, Union Square, and Alewife is to extend the Green Line to Fresh Pond. Then Porter becomes the transfer hub -- Red to Harvard, Kendall and Alewife, Green to Brickbottom, Union, and Fresh Pond, with regional rail trains running express to North Station in <5 minutes, relieving crowding on both Red and Green.
I really need to "put up or shut up" here, so I'll just say that in my opinion the better strategy would be to focus on how to get 15-min headways within 128 in the next three years, by focusing on:
(Maybe 15-minute headways aren't achievable without full-highs everywhere, I don't know -- but if so I'd want to see that analysis please.)
The more I think about it and look at it, the more gobsmacked I am that they just casually propose a Berlin-style viaduct along downtown Waltham. That's, like, a huge change to that public space, with impacts well beyond the scope of improving frequencies and dwell times. I'm reminded of something I said in the God-mode thread: Thou Shalt Not Destroy The Aesthetic Of The Village.
I wish they had instead offered some specifics on how to rework Waltham station to enable higher frequencies. The current design places the "inbound" platform on the single track segment and squished between Moody and Elm Streets, meaning that a stopped train is always going to block Moody St (as far as I can tell). Something like what @F-Line to Dudley proposed would be much more valuable and actionable:
Also, while it's not particularly "sexy", we'd also need plans to reshape the mildly-terrifying setup at Lincoln station:
(Photo credit to John Phelan on Wikimedia Commons)
^ This design is supposed to accommodate a train every 15 minutes on each track?
I also in general am struck at the lack of a holistic approach to some of their proposals. I'd argue that the best way to increase access to jobs at Brickbottom, Union Square, and Alewife is to extend the Green Line to Fresh Pond. Then Porter becomes the transfer hub -- Red to Harvard, Kendall and Alewife, Green to Brickbottom, Union, and Fresh Pond, with regional rail trains running express to North Station in <5 minutes, relieving crowding on both Red and Green.
I really need to "put up or shut up" here, so I'll just say that in my opinion the better strategy would be to focus on how to get 15-min headways within 128 in the next three years, by focusing on:
- Waltham rebuild
- High-levels at Porter
- A short-turn location
- Rolling stock needs
- Optionally, high-level rebuilds of the other within-128 stations
(Maybe 15-minute headways aren't achievable without full-highs everywhere, I don't know -- but if so I'd want to see that analysis please.)
BosMaineiac
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2020
- Messages
- 191
- Reaction score
- 378
The more I think about it, the more I believe a Waltham viaduct may be able to complement the village square well. It doesn’t necessarily need to be an imposing divide like Winchester. I think you can genuinely create good storefront use out of it, as Ratmeister has posted in another thread. The Waltham Common is bound by buildings across the street from it in almost it’s entirety, and this wouldn’t be too much different. Plus, on the south side of the tracks there isn’t anything oriented directly towards the park.
I’m actually mildly satisfied with TM for even bringing this up, they often neglect to point out that the frequency of trains traveling over busy grade crossings creates an inherent danger. Another grade crossing we’ve talked about before is West Medford. That too, I believe, would be a prime candidate for an elevated track. If these exist in other communities within 128 (albeit built a long time ago) that means there’s precedent for it.
Pick your poison, trains crossing your downtown streets every 7.5 mins on average (15mins both directions) or an elevated track with opportunity to activate the street. What creates a bigger divide? Which option is safer?
I'd add to this uncluttering the approach to NS and SS. I think in a previous transitmatters report they mentioned that the entire mess of switches can be upgraded from 10mph to 25mph for relatively low cost and effort. This allows trains to clear the switches much faster and increase terminal capacity as well as shaving several full minutes off every trip. That seems like way-too-low hanging fruit that should've been completed 20 years ago if true, but I'm sure theres some other complicating factors here right?