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

I don't really get the point of Blue to Riverside. You'd need to spend at least $1 billion and shut down the entire branch for months (more likely years), and in exchange you get all door boarding, 60 mph top speed, and higher capacity. All door boarding is already coming, Type 10s will already be bringing back 50mph speeds, and the corridor doesn't demand that much capacity. Really the only argument I could see for this would be to open up capacity in the GL tunnel for a A-branch to Harvard, but tunneling the BL though Lower Alston seems like a more compelling option if this is the goal.
 
Blue-west has zilch to do with RER or NSRL. There's only one scenario where it would ever go on the table: if there was agreement to tear down Storrow Dr., and if that agreement came with ironclad commitment to a transit trade-in in the same project area. That means it's off-limits without Storrow, and anything west of Kenmore is out-of-scope.


It's SEVERAL degrees of difference apart to be talking Lynn-Riverside.




The other demerits listed here are legit. Can't do Needham Branch without LRT because the grade crossing eliminations are blowout-cost for little benefit on HRT and Blue wouldn't fare well under branching. And you need the D to Brookline Village for the Urban Ring. And the ridership characteristics for the D are wretched for load-balancing w/Eastie-Revere dwells, making headway management overly brittle.


But mainly, you simply can't consider it at all until Storrow's got a mandate and the Kenmore extension is built. Is...four?...wholly theoretical steps from now relevant discussion today? What about Step 1 to Charles as first use of energy?
 
...plus where the Blue actually wants to go is Watertown Sq...
 
Meanwhile, my first AM Orange Line commute from the Northside in 10 years shows it is crush loaded from NS to Back Bay (where it suddenly empties) Some of the pitch for NSRL really is the naive Northside to Back Bay (and giving the Orange Line "back" to its neighbors).
 
Last edited:
tysmith95 said:
With electric 3rd rail wouldn't require removing any trees.
Click to expand...

Third rail isn't an option for the commuter rail because of the issues presented by at grade crossings. F-Line has some detailed posts explaining the issues with third rail electrification. Plus it would be a waste to electrify the commuter rail using third rail because the Providence line is already electrified with standard overhead wires and that doesn't seem to cause too many issues for the trains at least not more than third rail does in bad weather. The risks are just different for each type of electrification.
 
Riverside said:
Rail Vision open house presented the 7 alternatives they've come up with, each focusing on different aspects and noting different benefits and drawbacks. They've posted the various alternatives here: https://www.mbta.com/projects/rail-vision#alternatives

Of note is that they were given the mandate not to restrict themselves to what there is budget for. Likewise, the next phase will focus on modeling ridership, infrastructure and capital costs, land use changes, etc. for each alternative. Most models will assume no changes to existing parking capacities, though some models may assume unconstrained parking. Likewise, fare changes are generally out-of-scope for this effort, though the "Urban Rail" alternatives will (if I understood correctly) be modeled with subway-equivalent (or close thereto) pricing within Zones 1 and 2.

Presentation was not super lengthy.
Click to expand...

Whoever is making these PDFs deserves a raise.

Including links to the other PDFs within the document so you dont have to go back and forth? Thats next level stuff

Option 3 should be the short-term goal. Get it running by 2020!
 
Agreed, they are well prepared info sheets. We should advocate for option 3 right away, followed ultimately by option 6.
 
I disagree. Option 3 would leave us saddled with DMUs. I’d argue for Alternative 2 in the short term (shortest time to value— procure more equipment and build several full-length high platforms), followed by Alternative 4 in the medium (electrification, including acquisition of EMUs, negotiating with Amtrak for power, building new substations, which lays good groundwork for the future), with ultimate goal of Alternative 6 or 7. (I’m on the fence, but I slightly prefer 7, as it presents as more realistic.)
 
HenryAlan said:
Agreed, they are well prepared info sheets. We should advocate for option 3 right away, followed ultimately by option 6.
Click to expand...

We should patiently wait for potential ridership data and timelines of implementation before immediately backing one or another. Just a thought.

Interesting to note only alternative 1 shows what South Coast Rail actually is, the others all show the no plans to be built and won't be anytime soon, full build SCR.
 
Riverside said:
Option 3 would leave us saddled with DMUs.
Click to expand...

I agree. If we could even procure DMUs in the first place, that will just put us in the usual MBTA situation of having niche rolling stock that will be a nightmare to procure in the future. No thanks.
 
fattony said:
I agree. If we could even procure DMUs in the first place, that will just put us in the usual MBTA situation of having niche rolling stock that will be a nightmare to procure in the future. No thanks.
Click to expand...

Did you just call a DMU niche? LOL
 
I'd take the NSRL at 9 billion over the SSX at 4.5 billion.

Anyway, with 15 min rush hour headway's wouldn't you run into capacity issues at South Station and North Station?
 
tysmith95 said:
I'd take the NSRL at 9 billion over the SSX at 4.5 billion.

Anyway, with 15 min rush hour headway's wouldn't you run into capacity issues at South Station and North Station?
Click to expand...

Capacity issues are exactly why you need both SSX and NSRL and the third bridge back at North Station.
 
tysmith95 said:
With electric 3rd rail wouldn't require removing any trees.
Click to expand...

Not an option administratively because as a member of the NEC committee the state already signed onto going with Amtrak-standard 25 kV AC overhead for any new Purple Line electrifications as part of the fed funding deal that got the NEC electrified to Boston. But even more important than that, on a pure technical level 3rd rail runs on lower-voltage DC requiring many more substations (one every 2-5 miles) than world-standard 25 kV AC overhead which hits a sweet spot of one sub every approx. 30 miles. The cost blowout for an all-new DC installation would be exponential. Also, 25 kV is the most widely available vehicle purchase option in the world with widest available standard parts selection. Anything else adds cost from greater customization, which is a necessary for New York because they're fitting special-dimension trains into underheight tunnels and have no choice but to go all-custom...but a lousy value for literally everyone else.

DC is the realm of rapid transit systems where it's more ideally suited to the tight confines of subway tunnels, and service density over a more compact region. HRT + LRT are also where the inverse is true of rolling stock buying options compared to RR electrification: far more off-shelf stock to choose from at lower-voltage DC in rapid transit land than anything AC or high-voltage.
 
tysmith95 said:
With a 4 track NSRL station expansions aren't even necessary.
Click to expand...

False. How many times does this myth have to get debunked???

The mangled, assymetrical switch layout at SS still requires surface-bound Amtrak to foul platform access as their service levels increase. Crossing too many switches to fan out across the middle platforms bottles up trains on the platforms forcing longer layovers. Then, these Amtrak trains have to deadhead to and from Southampton Yard between runs to crew-change, restock food service, and once every X runs empty the toilets. While single-ended NE Regionals and Inlands (only Acelas are double-ended) must loop at Widett Circle before backing in for their next runs. On a squished interlocking setup that means more cross-cutting movements on the deadheads.

More commuter trains get pinned into the platforms with Amtrak growth preventing orderly turnarounds, a real problem for trying to maintain clock-facing frequencies. And it gets harder to be nimble at matching train lengths to demand, chewing excess operating costs. For example, when the Providence crowd-swallower that just dumped its load is pinned in and the next slot is a light-patronage Needham outbound...they don't have time to fetch an appropriate-length train and may have to re-badge that absurdly long consist with half its cars closed.

These things still matter with NSRL because it's not a drop-in replacement retiring the surface terminals; run-thru isn't above-and-beyond enough to do it when the same constipated approach interlockings are re-created in the middle of steep speed-limited grades. Amtrak 2040 growth is still going to make the Atlantic Ave. side of the surface terminal a hairy proposition. Some schedules like extra peak-direction surge runs are going to continue to be far more appropriate to assign to the surface rather than upset the even turnover of steady-headway bi-directional service in the tunnel...meaning there will still be similar severity rush-hour traffic on the surface. Vertical transportation to the deep underground caverns is going to be very constrained, meaning there will always be a need (esp. at rush) for quick on/off surface surge service. Certain extreme-length schedules like Hyannis abd whatever remains of past-Providence/T.F. Green once RIDOT intrastate picks up Wickford won't be all that appropriate to dispatch amidst a bunch of taut 128 or 495 tunnel slots.


Once more: SSX's track work is not the controversial part of the project. All it's doing is 1) moving USPS, 2) re-establishing the symmetrical track layout that was broken in the 60's, 3) adding the new platforms NOT to indulge on more ops sloth but as a necessary byproduct of eliminating cross-movement conflicts, and 4) evening out the lengths of current platforms shorted by the botched switch layout (i.e. rounding up the Old Colony platforms to 800 ft., and a couple Amtrak platforms to 1000 ft.).

Other than USPS, which is mainly a fed vs. state permissions thing since they've already had sites in Southie long-ID'd, most of this work is fixed-cost for materials & labor. Ground prep, rail, switches, modified signal plant, concrete platform slabs, the same corrugated metal platform awnings, more between-track air rights anchors like the pre-existing ones from the 1989 renovation. That's it. It's not complicated.

The mission creep is where everything else is coming from. MassDOT wants them to redo another interlocking to install a diamond between the Fairmount Line and Track 61 so BCEC flaks who've never taken a train in their lives can wank off some more about that useless dinky plan. They're bundling in the Widett Circle yard acquisition to the SSX report. It's needed...now...but the timing doesn't fit inclusion with SSX at all because today is when the property is up for sale.

Then there's the empire-building cruft. Expansion of the waiting hall. Bejeweled headhouse. Cripple fights with the City and BDPA over the Dot Ave. row redevelopment. Fricking pleasure boats in the Channel! What the hell??? How are those transportation projects? How did those become one part of the same billion-dollar monolith?

Break this monster apart into its constituent parts, and I guarantee it's not so controversial. The purely traffic management parts...again, all basic fixed-cost...are lifetime-benefit, now and IN TANDEM with NSRL. If we want a Northeast Corridor that's good or better than short-haul air travel that Amtrak traffic is going to be dizzying and tough to manage even with greatly modified post-NSRL Purple Line traffic. The other unrelated transpo pieces move along better sheared off as separate projects. And let the real estate interests fight each other over the empire-building stuff and where the money is going to come from. Nothing of that should be coming out of MassDOT's coffers...just a basic agreement on what future property lines and air rights overhangs have to respect for maintaining mission-critical transpo infrastructure. That's all...T does their thing, City/BDPA/etc. do their thing.
 
Globe: MBTA Mulling Electric Locomotives

Adam Vaccaro said:
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority apparently wants to test some electric commuter rail trains.

The agency has been in touch with Amtrak about leasing some electric locomotives for some of the trips between Boston and Providence, according to Joseph Aiello, the chairman of the agency’s board.

Amtrak already runs electric service on that stretch of its Northeast Corridor route. But the T uses diesel locomotives on its commuter rail network, even on rail lines that have electric service.

Aiello disclosed the Amtrak discussions at a recent event in Lynn. Such an arrangement would allow the T to test electric commuter rail on a line that is already equipped for the service, while freeing up existing locomotives for service on other lines. He had previously urged the T to consider testing electric service on the Providence line, following a similar request from the activist group Transit Matters.

[...]
Click to expand...
 
JumboBuc said:
Globe: MBTA Mulling Electric Locomotives
Click to expand...

That's actually a quite good idea. I'm not sure if there will be that many benefits to riders from the move but tried and tested locomotives pared with existing carriages, this kind of thing could be implemented literally tomorrow. Can provide needed extra locomotives during peak times. Unfortunately I think the T needs more carriages than it needs more locomotives right now, more locomotives could provide more frequency but as far I can tell commuter rail needs more capacity and needs it like last year. Shame there's not many passenger rail services in the US to lease carriages from.
 
HelloBostonHi said:
That's actually a quite good idea. I'm not sure if there will be that many benefits to riders from the move but tried and tested locomotives pared with existing carriages, this kind of thing could be implemented literally tomorrow. Can provide needed extra locomotives during peak times. Unfortunately I think the T needs more carriages than it needs more locomotives right now, more locomotives could provide more frequency but as far I can tell commuter rail needs more capacity and needs it like last year. Shame there's not many passenger rail services in the US to lease carriages from.
Click to expand...

I think it at least helps commuters a bit even without capacity upgrades: the electric push/pulls should at least accelerate better (maybe shaving a few minutes off), and, most importantly should in theory be an order of magnitude more reliable than the existing diesels.
 
Beware that the electric infrastructure is not set up for even a significant portion of the Providence schedule to run electric, so when they say "trial" they mean like no more than 2 or 3 short-term lease Siemens Sprinters covering a fraction of the schedule...everyone else riding behind the same diesels as always, and no schedule improvements because the schedule still has to be predicated on a 79 MPH-capped diesel set. Pawtucket layover is un-wired, and the T's own parking spots at Widett Circle are un-wired. An electric set would have to take up space at crowded Southampton Yard on the Boston end or shivving onto an extremely short wired turnout track along Harris Ave. just south of Providence Station. Until capital spending is approved for the layover and raw electric capacity it ensures that basically only 1 electric set can be in-service on any given Providence schedule at any time...2 sets at absolute max. if they're going to be passing each other midway.

This is a technology demonstrator for the Siemens Sprinter in T hands so they can poke around it, and to match them in sets with bi-level coaches that have been uprated to 93 MPH max speed to see where they can gun it in non-revenue tests. It is not a service demonstrator, and because of the rest of the schedule still needing to be spaced for running 79 MPH-rated F40/GP40 locos and 79 MPH-rated single-level coaches or the portion of Kawasaki bi-levels that haven't yet gone through midlife rebuild...it's not going to be a different rider experience. The capital prerequisites (layovers, Sharon substation expansion, etc.) would need to be programmed a few years in advance in order to make for a real service trial.

It's still a good thing that they're reaching out for the tech demo. That alone suggests a willingness for doing their homework that we haven't seen before, and opens up the door for trying the same thing in same limited fashion with a borrowed EMU set. Just don't get too overexcited about it because the commuter electrification infrastructure is in no way set up to do better than one-at-a-time runs, and thus this is meant to be an internal-facing demonstrator for the agency not customer-facing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top