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

Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

^Maybe this will allow for regular fare gates at North Station/South Station/Yawkey/and Ruggles.

Passengers would have to go through the gates to enter or to exit. Since most passengers either enter or exit at those stations it would really cut down on fare evasion. If the passenger did not tap in and wants to exit at a central station then they would have to pay a zone 10 fare.

800px-Rejsekort_validators_in.jpg


Something like this could be added to the outer station platforms. That and readers on the outside (but not inside) of the train could work. I wouldn't want one on the inside because then people would wait to tap in when they get to zone 1a even if they started in Lowell.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

Arlington said:
So how will this change how trains turn at SS/NS? Will it accidently trigger the need for additional faregate space or slower boarding/alighting as people tap their media?
Click to expand...

No.Tapping is instant. The validation machines can also be spread out around the station, not lined up.


BTW, Big opportunity for MBTA:

If you're interested in buying some trains and have an extra $78,000 lying around, the City of Ottowa has the deal for you. This ad, posted on a government asset liquidation site called GovDeals, advertises "Lot of Three (3) 1999 Bombardier Talent Trainsets and Parts."

The trains for sale are diesel multiple units or DMUs, which are powered by engines that are incorporated into one or more of the train's carriages. The trains were pulled out of service in March 2015 but are supposedly still in working order.
Click to expand...

https://ggwash.org/view/66653/got-78000-want-to-buy-some-trains
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

A bit late to the party here, but wanted to drop in my two cents.

Overall, I think it is a bang-up plan. Well-argued on all fronts, really doing a great job of pulling together all the different pieces. I hope it gets (continues to get?) traction.

The one thing I wished for: a better map. I don't think the spider map on page 35 really does the rest of the plan justice. For one thing, with most of the minor stations unlabeled, the additional service within Route 128 is easily overlooked. The NSRL is subtly indicated, with no real visual difference from a Link-less layout, and thus no depiction of the game-changing nature of the tunnel. In short, the included map looks too much like the current system, in my view, to be very convincing.

What I'd find more compelling is a second map, focused within Route 128, with the Regional Rail alongside the Rapid Transit lines, and labeled stations and landmarks.

As I understand it, one of the major benefits of the Parisian RER is that it created an express bypass for the overcrowded Métro. That's the piece that I find too-often lacking in discussions about modernizing Boston's rail systems. With respect to the question of maps, I think the Regional Rail proposal becomes that much more compelling when...

  • the NSRL is shown on equal visual footing to the Orange Line and Green Line as a "third subway" express running north-south through downtown from Back Bay to North Station
  • the Old Colony Regional Rail lines (for example) are shown as an express service equivalent to the Braintree Line
  • the Worcester Regional Rail line is shown as an express service equivalent to the Riverside Line, offering faster service from park-n-rides near 128 than you can currently get with the Green Line
  • the Fitchburg Regional Rail line is shown as an express service equivalent to the Red Line, pulling Alewife-bound drivers off of Route 2, into faster rail service to which they drive a short distance from their suburban homes, the raised frequency of the Regional Rail service meaning they no longer need to go all the way to Alewife in order to have flexibility in their schedule
  • the point is driven home that 7.5-15 minute headways would mean that you would get the scheduling flexibility of parking at Quincy Adams, Riverside or Alewife at every single node along the circumferential highway: Quincy, Route 128, Riverside/Auburndale, Brandeis, Anderson/RTC, Reading, Danvers, Beverly (to say nothing of the faster service into Boston from those locations)-- that's like having 7 more Red Lines!

The Transit Matters proposal for Regional Rail essentially calls for upgrading the Commuter Rail into something that, by Bostonian standards, is Rapid Transit. With a deft visual presentation of that equivalence, a single map would convey that vision better than 30 pages of text.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

Riverside said:
A bit late to the party here, but wanted to drop in my two cents.

Overall, I think it is a bang-up plan. Well-argued on all fronts, really doing a great job of pulling together all the different pieces. I hope it gets (continues to get?) traction.

The one thing I wished for: a better map. I don't think the spider map on page 35 really does the rest of the plan justice. For one thing, with most of the minor stations unlabeled, the additional service within Route 128 is easily overlooked. The NSRL is subtly indicated, with no real visual difference from a Link-less layout, and thus no depiction of the game-changing nature of the tunnel. In short, the included map looks too much like the current system, in my view, to be very convincing.

What I'd find more compelling is a second map, focused within Route 128, with the Regional Rail alongside the Rapid Transit lines, and labeled stations and landmarks.

As I understand it, one of the major benefits of the Parisian RER is that it created an express bypass for the overcrowded Métro. That's the piece that I find too-often lacking in discussions about modernizing Boston's rail systems. With respect to the question of maps, I think the Regional Rail proposal becomes that much more compelling when...

  • the NSRL is shown on equal visual footing to the Orange Line and Green Line as a "third subway" express running north-south through downtown from Back Bay to North Station
  • the Old Colony Regional Rail lines (for example) are shown as an express service equivalent to the Braintree Line
  • the Worcester Regional Rail line is shown as an express service equivalent to the Riverside Line, offering faster service from park-n-rides near 128 than you can currently get with the Green Line
  • the Fitchburg Regional Rail line is shown as an express service equivalent to the Red Line, pulling Alewife-bound drivers off of Route 2, into faster rail service to which they drive a short distance from their suburban homes, the raised frequency of the Regional Rail service meaning they no longer need to go all the way to Alewife in order to have flexibility in their schedule
  • the point is driven home that 7.5-15 minute headways would mean that you would get the scheduling flexibility of parking at Quincy Adams, Riverside or Alewife at every single node along the circumferential highway: Quincy, Route 128, Riverside/Auburndale, Brandeis, Anderson/RTC, Reading, Danvers, Beverly (to say nothing of the faster service into Boston from those locations)-- that's like having 7 more Red Lines!

The Transit Matters proposal for Regional Rail essentially calls for upgrading the Commuter Rail into something that, by Bostonian standards, is Rapid Transit. With a deft visual presentation of that equivalence, a single map would convey that vision better than 30 pages of text.
Click to expand...
This document/business model is about an overall concept. We deliberately hid the map in the back on a spare page in Appendix B because we didn't want people to obsess over the map - where stations are, what the link looks like, etc. We wanted the focus to be on the 5 key concepts and then maybe the Link. If we had featured the map, all the media & attention would have been focused on the map and if stations were located correctly/the Link. The Regional Rail report is not about specific capital projects such as new stations or the Link itself. We've made that clear in previous posts. Please take a look at my prior posts to understand how we approached the Link in this proposal.

This said, your suggestions for more visual imagery/new maps are greatly appreciated as we take this beyond the concept/business model phase. I'll share them with the team for consideration. This document is very much a living document and we are actively working on new appendices and marketing campaigns. The launch wasn't the time for maps (the NSRL Working Group generates plenty of those), but now as we move further into post-launch, the time is right.

Thanks for reaching out.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

In looking at an article discussing the Senate Launch System and Clipper, I found myself thinking that these space exploration projects probably cost in the ballpark of what the NSRL would. Asking either/or is probably wrong because we could probably both build NSRL and explore Europa (although I don't think we should keep funding SLS), but at the same time, it seems like if we're only going to have one, NSRL would be more useful than Europa exploration.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

sm89 said:
Would buying bi-level coaches with lower level doors be cheaper since they would allow for accessible boarding without building high level platforms at every station? I believe that's what Go Transit uses in Toronto.
Click to expand...

https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/01/04/dont-run-bilevels/ discusses how dwell times are longer for bi-level coaches, which probably makes them generally not worthwhile.
 
Re: electrification costs

datadyne007 said:
$2-3 billion is electrification, high platforms & track/signal improvements only (the 5 principles).
Click to expand...

Do you break out overhead wire costs vs high platforms and track / signal improvements anywhere?

My understanding is that when y'all were looking at electrification costs, any battery powered train technology you might have looked at as a possible alternative was several years old, and I think the pricing and capabilities Tesla announced for the Semi in November 2017 provide a much more compelling value than people generally would have thought possible a few years ago.

http://www.latimes.com/business/autos/la-fi-hy-tesla-truck-orders-20171219-story.html says the price for a 500 mile range Tesla Semi is expected to be $180,000.

https://www.tesla.com/semi says 20 second 0-60 MPH with 80,000 pounds, which works out to 3 MPH/s (which is about what passenger trains that accelerate well are generally expected to do). If you put the batteries and motors from a Tesla Semi in each truck of a commuter rail train, the batteries in the trucks might increase the weight a bit vs what we have now, but http://www.kawasakirailcar.com/CT_MBTA says the heavier Kawasaki bi-levels are 131,000 pounds, which is about 66,000 pounds per truck.

If $1 million ends up buying most of 6 Tesla Semis to build enough trucks for three commuter rail coaches, and if the T has 480 coaches, the cost to convert the fleet to battery power would be around $160 million, probably not including the charging infrastructure.

I suspect overhead power lines would cost 5-10 times what installing batteries in the current fleet would, and the batteries don't risk running into NIMBY problems with the historic preservation commission that delayed the Fitchburg Line improvements, or the folks who didn't want 802.11/cellular poles in their town, or the Greenbush Line town that demanded a tunnel, etc. There might be a bit of suspension engineering to make the batteries work, but it'll probably be a lot more possible to make that work than to fight with unmovable NIMBYs.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

“Senate” Launch System? Very nice Freudian slip.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

There is no way the MBTA is going to go completely custom and buy (non-existing) Tesla semi-trucks and do frankenstein builds to convert rolling stock to use batteries, even if it was feasible, which I doubt it would be. It would also be way, way more expensive than that figure - I would expect the labor, research, testing, and design work needed to do something like this would greatly dwarf the actual costs of materials.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

Progress update:

We're working through the Line by Line appendices as well as capacity & cost ones now and should be able to start rolling out the Line-by-Line & capacity ones through May starting with Newburyport/Rockport as we are presenting to their energy committee on Thursday. Cost is further out still because pricing this thing is very difficult to do without the proper resources, as we're all volunteer.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

You people rock. What kind of help/ work do you need? Can we crowdsource it?
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

Arlington said:
You people rock. What kind of help/ work do you need? Can we crowdsource it?
Click to expand...

They're all crowd-sourced within the TM Regional Rail subcommittee on Slack. If you want to get involved, send me a PM and what you think you could help with. We particularly need help with the Old Colony Lines, capacity & costs. All the others are nearing completion.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

bakgwailo said:
There is no way the MBTA is going to go completely custom and buy (non-existing) Tesla semi-trucks and do frankenstein builds to convert rolling stock to use batteries, even if it was feasible, which I doubt it would be. It would also be way, way more expensive than that figure - I would expect the labor, research, testing, and design work needed to do something like this would greatly dwarf the actual costs of materials.
Click to expand...

There are two working prototypes of the Tesla Semi. https://electrek.co/2018/03/07/tesla-semi-first-cargo-trip-gigafactory-1-fremont-factory-elon-musk/

Even if we were to go full speed ahead with an environmental study of 25kv power lines across the whole MBTA Commuter Rail system starting tomorrow, it's likely that there will be many Tesla Semis regularly operating on Massachusetts highways before we would get the first new overhead wire installed. While the Roadster, S, X, and 3 haven't been built as fast as had initially been hoped, they all have eventually materialized, and there's no reason to think there won't also be Tesla Semi production in 2020.

And the idea isn't to actually buy the semi truck body to convert to commuter rail use; it would be pointless to manufacture that highway truck body to throw it away. However, understanding the costs and capabilities is useful for estimating what the parts that are needed for battery powered commuter rail would cost and be capable of. I believe that the batteries and motors could likely be used as is in a commuter train, though the gear ratio from the motors to the wheels would probably need to be different for the train, and at least for the Model S the gearbox and motor are integrated into the drive unit which gets installed as a single piece. (I haven't seen a detailed description of the Model 3 / Semi motor's gearbox arrangement, but apparently Tesla is planning to simply use four copies of the Model 3 motor in the Semi. Also, since the Semi parts that would be relevant to a train are largely common to Model 3, those are parts that are already in production these days.)

(And if you want a Tesla battery to three phase 480V converter to handle the HEP loads in a commuter rail car, Tesla's commercial Powerpack stationary storage system has an inverter that does that, so that's another part which already exists.)

If the MBTA would never contemplate something custom, can you explain how the Mattapan Line snowplows came to exist? The Mattapan Line snowplow needed what is essentially a custom suspension. The major thing that is probably required for a Tesla battery EMU railroad truck that doesn't exist yet is a different suspension. Has anyone other than the MBTA ever ordered a snowplow like that? If not, that custom suspension was designed because the MBTA wanted fewer than 10 copies. Yet the snowplows actually exist; the T actually bought them.

If the batteries are mounted in the EMU trucks, it should be possible to develop standardized battery EMU railroad trucks that will work on any standard gauge commuter rail train and may also work for trains like the Downeaster if it turns out to have enough range. It will probably also work on North American intermodal freight cars: for the 5 car articulated deep well double stack sets that have 6 trucks and carry 10 containers (either 40' or 53' depending on the version), it should be possible to install the battery EMU trucks as the two end trucks and keep the middle four trucks unpowered to meet the weight requirements, and the trailer on flatcar arrangement should be lightweight enough that every truck could be replaced with a battery EMU truck within the weight requirement.

I don't see how custom engineering for every single bridge that currently is too low for 25kv power lines could be less effort than working out the battery EMU railroad truck design, especially when amortizing that battery EMU railroad truck design across all of the diesel commuter rail systems and the North American intermodal rail system.

Can you explain what you think is going to be more expensive than Tesla Semi + Mattapan snowplow about battery powered commuter rail?
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Joel N. Weber II said:
In looking at an article discussing the Senate Launch System and Clipper, I found myself thinking that these space exploration projects probably cost in the ballpark of what the NSRL would. Asking either/or is probably wrong because we could probably both build NSRL and explore Europa (although I don't think we should keep funding SLS), but at the same time, it seems like if we're only going to have one, NSRL would be more useful than Europa exploration.
Click to expand...

Well, the Federal budget is mostly fake money... ie invented money borrowed from the Federal Reserve with any profit made by the Federal Reserve on interest legally required to go back to taxpayers... So borrow away and stop being stingy on projects that would actually build infrastructure that will improve people's lives. State governments actually have to tax people and balance budgets, so the state matching money is the real issue.

The downsides to Federal borrowing for stupid spending is the potential for inflation, asset bubbles, and a general shift in power from individuals being able to save and cobble together capital for local investment to all the economic power being in the big banks and investment firms that are hooked into the Federal Reserve System and more geographically focused on just the big cities. The Federal Reserve System is the real "trickle down" economic system.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

^ Very intelligent post.

So long as the Fed is doing its job of not allowing the US currency to be devalued, and so long as the dollar remains a major world reserve currency, then yes - money can and should be "created" for value-added projects like these. Reaganist mantra of 'government bloat' and 'no-can-do' and 'we can't afford anything' are what's really taken a toll on this country.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

I think the fed should wait until the next recession to launch a big infrastructure initiative on the national level. Deficit spending during good economic times is not wise, but it makes sense during poor economic times.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

The Mattapan snowplow was literally custom fab'd up for fun by one of the welders at the workshop to fill a very custom niche (and then later the MBTA partnered with an actual manufacturer to produce them). No customers ride it, and it is needed for only specific circumstances (winter and snow). This is on a completely different level than attempting to custom build battery powered EMUs by retrofitting/shoehorning Tesla semi-truck motors/etc into existing CR rolling stock (in house?!). Until a major producer creates battery powered EMUs (they might exist?), there is no way the MBTA is going that route. It isn't "custom engineering" to undercut a bridge to string wires up - its pretty standard.
 
Re: 2/28/18: Thank You TransitMatters for a Bold and Practical Vision

Another comparison would be the unique 24 Type 9 Green Line cars with their unique truck design which might never get used anywhere else. If we can get even the low volume Type 9s, battery EMUs will have vastly more reasonable economies of scale on the design work.

One of the existing rail car makers should probably work with Tesla to build replacement battery EMU trucks. The T could probably make good use of roughly a thousand trucks (maybe eventually more if we get massive commuter rail expansion); when other commuter rail agencies and intermodal freight are added in, there should be demand for tens of thousands of these trucks, which any rail car manufacturer looking for more orders ought to be interested in.

I believe Tesla is planning to have each part of the Model 3 production line capable of 6,000 vehicles a week and to actually produce 5,000 vehicles a week in the near future; if they were able to run the motor and battery sections of the line a bit faster than the rest of the Model 3 line to make train parts, and if the parts for four copies of the Model 3 make one truck, Tesla might be able to build parts for 250 railroad trucks a week out of potentially spare capacity that they might have in the next few months. I doubt the railroad folks would be able to ramp up that fast, though.

I'd love to see the T just get a three car retrofitted battery EMU set operating as a demonstration. If the basic parts cost $1 million, there's no way you could argue that that's too expensive in the grand scheme of the MBTA budget; http://amateurplanner.blogspot.com/2016/09/a-single-letter-costs-t-23-million.html claims the end of evening service shutdown inefficiency the T used to have wasted $2-3 million/yr.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top