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

That 400kWh of battery pack takes up about 90 cubic feet (when estimating based on Model S pack size; using the larger model 3 cells and changing the overall shape might reduce the size). http://www.evwest.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=476 lists one Tesla Model S motor at about 5.9 cubic feet, so 4 Tesla motors might be somewhere around 23.6 cubic feet. (It would be ideal to find Model 3 numbers instead of Model S numbers, but those numbers seem to be harder to come by.) Also, that photograph suggests that the motor is not exactly rectangular, so maybe if it fits inside a rectangular box roughly 5.9 cubic feet its actual volume might be even smaller.

Also, you might not need the full 90 cubic feet / 400 kWh of batteries per axle; the comment on Alon Levy's blog post claimed 1.1 megawatt hour is needed for a Providence to Boston trip for a 320 ton train, and if that train consists of four 80 ton cars, each of the 16 axles on the train only needs about 69 kWh of batteries connected. There's also the question of whether you get adequate acceleration, but it looks like the 300 mile range Tesla Semi may accelerate just as well as the 500 mile range version, and if 2 MPH/s is good enough for Metro North it might be good enough for a minimal battery powered train too; if the 800kWh estimate for the 500 mile range Tesla Semi turns out to be accurate, then 160kWh per axle might provide enough batteries to achieve 2 MPH/s. (And that assumes each Kawasaki bilevel car with batteries added would weigh 160,000 pounds; since they'd actually weigh a bit less, the battery packs could probably be downsized a bit further. Also, if the goal is reduced to 2 MPH/s, downsizing to three Tesla Model 3 motors per truck instead of four ought to work, and perhaps some trucks could even get only two Tesla Model 3 motors.)

If you look at the gasoline engine in a 1960s Chevy sedan, can you conclude that a smaller gasoline engine could not possibly work in a 2018 Toyota Camry?
 
Joel: can you please use the thread starter to start a battery-electric Transit thread and stop posting on TransitMatters' thread?

It is trivially true that anything that TM proposes will be to the exclusion of other tech and modes--but, just as it would not be fair to beat a dog for being the wrong sort of cat, it is wrong to beat up on a fast, cheap, off-the-shelf kit of cat(enary) parts for not being pioneering tech.

I could hijack this thread to sing the virtues of e-bikes as the solution for Zone 1A, AVs, or e-navettes, or whatnot but none would give the TM team the respect they've earned of taking their proposal seriously on it's own terms--a proposal that MA and RI politicians can focus on for immediate planning and procurement cycles.
 
Last edited:
Arlington said:
Joel: can you please use the thread starter to start a battery-electric Transit thread and stop posting on TransitMatters' thread?

It is trivially true that anything that TM proposes will be to the exclusion of other tech and modes--but, just as it would not be fair to beat a dog for being the wrong sort of cat, it is wrong to beat up on a fast, cheap, off-the-shelf kit of cat(enary) parts for not being pioneering tech.

I could hijack this thread to sing the virtues of e-bikes as the solution for Zone 1A, AVs, or e-navettes, or whatnot but none would give the TM team the respect they've earned of taking their proposal seriously on it's own terms--a proposal that MA and RI politicians can focus on for immediate planning and procurement cycles.
Click to expand...

Yes please! If this forum had an ‘agree’ button, I’d use it right now. Hell, even if we just kept hijacking this thread for NSRL, it would still be hijacking, and that is something that is on their agenda.
 
Arlington said:
Joel: can you please use the thread starter to start a battery-electric Transit thread and stop posting on TransitMatters' thread?

It is trivially true that anything that TM proposes will be to the exclusion of other tech and modes--but, just as it would not be fair to beat a dog for being the wrong sort of cat, it is wrong to beat up on a fast, cheap, off-the-shelf kit of cat(enary) parts for not being pioneering tech.

I could hijack this thread to sing the virtues of e-bikes as the solution for Zone 1A, AVs, or e-navettes, or whatnot but none would give the TM team the respect they've earned of taking their proposal seriously on it's own terms--a proposal that MA and RI politicians can focus on for immediate planning and procurement cycles.
Click to expand...

Thank you!

The battery stuff belongs in either one of the general transit pitch threads (I'd recommend the crazy pitches) or perhaps its own thread, but it is tiresome to see it mucking up this thread.
 
Without going back to the batteries discussion (and I agree with the request others have made to move that to a separate thread), could I raise my earlier questions about electrification again? Basically just better understanding the pros and cons of third rail vs catenary.

I'm not raising it to try to argue against the current proposal-- I just want to better understand the background.

As I say, there seems to be a large fleet (and presumably suppliers for said fleet) of commuter rail EMUs not far from us. I assume there are very good reasons for not going the route that they have, but I just don't know what they are (beyond the obvious point of not reinventing the wheel).

Riverside said:
Question about electrification in general, and then applied to the T:

Why does Metro-North use third-rail electrification instead of overhead catenary? What are the pros and cons associated with third-rail for regional/intercity systems?

I assume that third-rail does not make sense for the MBTA's Commuter Rail, simply because the infrastructure is already in place for overhead for a sizable fraction of the system, and so there's no point in reinventing the wheel.

(That said, would third-rail be cheaper on a per-mile basis, since it's a rail close to the ground, and not something that requires hundreds of masts be put up?)

I guess, lurking in the back of my mind, is the long-term question-- would third-rail be a better long-term investment than overhead? I seem to recall that one of the (many) reasons for handwringing over Indigofying the Fairmount Line was that there aren't many commercially available EMUs in the US. I assume that assumes overhead electrification, because clearly there are plenty of EMUs down in the Tri-State area that could be used up here, if we had third-rail-- right?
Click to expand...
 
Riverside said:
Without going back to the batteries discussion (and I agree with the request others have made to move that to a separate thread), could I raise my earlier questions about electrification again? Basically just better understanding the pros and cons of third rail vs catenary.

I'm not raising it to try to argue against the current proposal-- I just want to better understand the background.

As I say, there seems to be a large fleet (and presumably suppliers for said fleet) of commuter rail EMUs not far from us. I assume there are very good reasons for not going the route that they have, but I just don't know what they are (beyond the obvious point of not reinventing the wheel).
Click to expand...

I hear ya and it's something we discussed at length when forming the proposal. Third rail is simply dangerous for a couple of reasons: at crossings and at grade ROWs (trespassers can get more easily electrocuted). It also introduces maintenance issues regarding general maintenance of the rail, but also weather-related concerns like the need for 3rd rail heaters, which also need regular maintenance. Overhead catenary just made more sense for MA's commuter rail situation and it does align with global precedents. 3rd rail for Regional Rail systems is the anomaly. Most use overhead.
 
The big issue with third rail is the operating voltage- because it's so close to the ground, it can only operate at around 750V. This means substations every mile and significantly more transmission loss vs overhead wire, which can operate at 14kV easily.
 
3rd rail was a better choice only in tunnels with low overhead clearances (NYC Park Avenue tunnel) and 100 years ago in an era of lighter wooden cars and when DC hadn't yet lost to AC and most RRs generated their own rather than tapping the grid. The long term penalty of 3rd rail is worth it if it saves you enough money on enough smaller diameter subway tunnel.

New England's High voltage 60Hz AC requires more clearance above, but is lightweight, and delivers high power safely and without need of converters to DC (NY Central/Grand Central) or 25Hz.(Pennsylvania RR). Our wire is world class and ready for upgrading.
 
Last edited:
Riverside said:
Without going back to the batteries discussion (and I agree with the request others have made to move that to a separate thread), could I raise my earlier questions about electrification again? Basically just better understanding the pros and cons of third rail vs catenary.

I'm not raising it to try to argue against the current proposal-- I just want to better understand the background.

As I say, there seems to be a large fleet (and presumably suppliers for said fleet) of commuter rail EMUs not far from us. I assume there are very good reasons for not going the route that they have, but I just don't know what they are (beyond the obvious point of not reinventing the wheel).
Click to expand...

As others have said -- centenary for safety, easier transmission. Also worth noting, the off the shelf EMUs generally are designed for overhead transmission wires, so it's a good choice for standardization of equipment purchases. Then consider that one of our lines already has cat strung, and it becomes a fairly obvious choice.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Is the North South Rail Link about to be enacted as an emergency law??

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/H4549?et_rid=1937952638&s_campaign=talkingpoints:newsletter

"Emergency Preamble: Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to provide forthwith for the immediate capital improvement needs of the commonwealth, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience."


redacted email bulletin;

Chesto; Governor Charlie Baker may have to make a decision about the North South Rail Link after all.

The Legislature sent a bonding bill today to Baker that includes a long wish list of earmarks. Among them: $10 million for the controversial project that would connect the North Station and South Station via a tunnel below downtown Boston.

Don’t get too excited, Rail Link fans.

This bill just authorizes borrowing for the costs of environmental permitting work. It’s up to Baker’s administration -- or his successor's -- to decide whether to spend the money. Many public officials in Massachusetts, particularly those from cities north of Boston, endorse the tunnel link. But Baker, like Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, is taking a wait-and-see approach.

We should know more later this month, when the state is expected to release the results of a Rail Link feasibility study. But the report from consultant Arup probably won’t quell the debate about the project’s multibillion-dollar cost, or whether it would be a smart investment in the first place.

Senator Jamie Eldridge says he secured the earmark with the hope it can better position the project should the federal government start spending big money again on large train projects. He sees the tunnel as a crucial missing link, one that could give North Station commuters better access to the Seaport and provide more flexibility for the entire system.

At the very least, the earmark could provide Rail Link supporters with more political leverage in their quest. Until Baker and Walsh climb on board, the proponents will need all they can get.
 
Last edited:
Re: North-South Rail Link

The NSRL will help the property value of bakers Swampscott home. He should be championing it.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

This is a Boring video with some thoughts on things that might reduce tunneling cost, like using the dirt to make bricks instead of treating it as a worthless waste product, and building concrete reinforcing sections on site. 15:07 has a video clip of a mining train powered by a pair of Tesla Model 3 motors and batteries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwX9G38vdCE
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Joel N. Weber II said:
This is a Boring video with some thoughts on things that might reduce tunneling cost, like using the dirt to make bricks instead of treating it as a worthless waste product, and building concrete reinforcing sections on site. 15:07 has a video clip of a mining train powered by a pair of Tesla Model 3 motors and batteries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwX9G38vdCE
Click to expand...

That all has minimal credibility. Consider: Bricks made from Boston Blue Clay would also be a nearly-worthless waste product. Does anyone really believe that failure to extract value from the dirt is the reason tunneling is expensive?

I think this probably indicates that the top of the current tech-hype cycle is upon us, or nearly so.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

odurandina said:
Is the North South Rail Link about to be enacted as an emergency law??

https://malegislature.gov/Bills/190/H4549?et_rid=1937952638&s_campaign=talkingpoints:newsletter

"Emergency Preamble: Whereas, The deferred operation of this act would tend to defeat its purpose, which is to provide forthwith for the immediate capital improvement needs of the commonwealth, therefore it is hereby declared to be an emergency law, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public convenience."


redacted email bulletin;

Chesto; Governor Charlie Baker may have to make a decision about the North South Rail Link after all.

The Legislature sent a bonding bill today to Baker that includes a long wish list of earmarks. Among them: $10 million for the controversial project that would connect the North Station and South Station via a tunnel below downtown Boston.

Don’t get too excited, Rail Link fans.

This bill just authorizes borrowing for the costs of environmental permitting work. It’s up to Baker’s administration -- or his successor's -- to decide whether to spend the money. Many public officials in Massachusetts, particularly those from cities north of Boston, endorse the tunnel link. But Baker, like Boston Mayor Marty Walsh, is taking a wait-and-see approach.

We should know more later this month, when the state is expected to release the results of a Rail Link feasibility study. But the report from consultant Arup probably won’t quell the debate about the project’s multibillion-dollar cost, or whether it would be a smart investment in the first place.

Senator Jamie Eldridge says he secured the earmark with the hope it can better position the project should the federal government start spending big money again on large train projects. He sees the tunnel as a crucial missing link, one that could give North Station commuters better access to the Seaport and provide more flexibility for the entire system.

At the very least, the earmark could provide Rail Link supporters with more political leverage in their quest. Until Baker and Walsh climb on board, the proponents will need all they can get.
Click to expand...

I don't think you understand how bond bills work. The bill simply sets out a series of things that the state may legally spend money on. The bill itself has no value. The earmarks are worth precisely the paper they are printed on. If you look at the rest of the bills you will see billions of dollars of projects that will never happen. Because the bill is not connected to actual spending, legislators can put in whatever they feel like to demonstrate their support of something. Ultimately the governor has to file a capital spending plan that includes items from the bill and this is fiscally constrained by borrowing conditions and the budget. The treasurer needs to sell bonds to fund it.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

CSTH said:
That all has minimal credibility. Consider: Bricks made from Boston Blue Clay would also be a nearly-worthless waste product. Does anyone really believe that failure to extract value from the dirt is the reason tunneling is expensive?
Click to expand...

IIRC they may have said that hauling dirt away is normally 15%-20% of the total tunneling cost.

They seemed to be describing a slightly different brick making process than what is typically done, which may result in a higher quality product.

I've seen something claiming that asphalt is basically a waste product of gasoline production, and if that turns out to be true, asphalt for resurfacing roads may end up being a lot more expensive 10 years from now than it is today as demand for gasoline declines.

They didn't say anything that would lead one to believe that their bricks are likely to be especially good insulators, and I think for future construction of high quality homes in New England, insulation is going to be the key criterion in selecting building materials.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

They also said something about minimum tunnel depth to avoid surface disruption being a function of tunnel diameter; I think it may have been a requirement to go two tunnel diameters down. I'm not sure if that's two tunnel diameters from the top of the tunnel to the bottom of the existing utilities, or something else.

Alon Levy has been simultaneously arguing for very large diameter tunnels that can accommodate two tracks in a single tunnel bore, while also complaining about the inconvenient access to deep tunnels, and it sounds like if we want to minimize the depth, perhaps we should be choosing a single track per tunnel bore.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Joel N. Weber II said:
They also said something about minimum tunnel depth to avoid surface disruption being a function of tunnel diameter; I think it may have been a requirement to go two tunnel diameters down. I'm not sure if that's two tunnel diameters from the top of the tunnel to the bottom of the existing utilities, or something else.

Alon Levy has been simultaneously arguing for very large diameter tunnels that can accommodate two tracks in a single tunnel bore, while also complaining about the inconvenient access to deep tunnels, and it sounds like if we want to minimize the depth, perhaps we should be choosing a single track per tunnel bore.
Click to expand...

I don't think it particularly matters - the depth and the path of the tunnel is pretty much already set in stone (pun possibly intended) and provisions were (supposedly) made for it during the Big Dig.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

I think the provisions made in the big dig mean that you can dig out whatever you want from under the Central Artery tunnels without worrying about what happens to the soil above, since the roadways are all supported by the slurry walls on the side, rather than by the dirt underneath them. So at least for the segment under the Central Artery, neither diameter nor depth is important.

That is my understanding, anyway.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

Joel N. Weber II said:
This is a Boring video with some thoughts on things that might reduce tunneling cost, like using the dirt to make bricks instead of treating it as a worthless waste product, and building concrete reinforcing sections on site. 15:07 has a video clip of a mining train powered by a pair of Tesla Model 3 motors and batteries.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwX9G38vdCE
Click to expand...

Some will fault Mr. Musk for his tunnel-vision, but dig deeper and I guarantee you’ll find it absolutely excavating.
 
Re: North-South Rail Link

orulz said:
I think the provisions made in the big dig mean that you can dig out whatever you want from under the Central Artery tunnels without worrying about what happens to the soil above, since the roadways are all supported by the slurry walls on the side, rather than by the dirt underneath them. So at least for the segment under the Central Artery, neither diameter nor depth is important.

That is my understanding, anyway.
Click to expand...

Yes, my understanding is that the slurry walls go all the way down, and was clean backfilled for where the NSRL would go. From my understanding, also, the tunneling portion because of this is probably pretty easy/cheap. It would be the portals into the tunnel where most costs will be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top