This is truly absurd. We at TransitMatters will be rebutting this in the coming weeks. They should not be including rolling stock procurement costs in the total number when they they need to procure rolling stock EITHER WAY. All along we have been saying "you need to buy new trains anyway, so buy EMUs."
Exactly. And scaremongering with a monolithic number for the full system does not say anything useful because the number of 4-year CIP's it'll take to do that will have flushed the budget several times over. This isn't like "NSRL will cost $8 beeeeeeelion!" The rate at which it'll take to get individual lines electrified will span MULTIPLE procurement cycles...stuff they
already earmark on a rolling basis. All you do is make sure the rolling cycles are in-sync with when the next X units of fleet turnover and Y units of fleet expansion are necessary.
The flat cost also doesn't take into account prioritization. Some lines will malinger to the back of the line, and some might not have the traffic levels to merit electrification at all. Certainly it needs to be broken out northside vs. southside, because northside is going to be a whole procurement cycle later on with how much has to be done to implant first-time electrification there. It also needs to show where the highest rate-of-return is going to be. We know that Fairmount and Riverside can chain off upgraded Providence Line substations, and that's a substantial start. We know that Worcester would be the next reach, and put a majority of southside equipment on EMU's. Where are those calculations? Don't we have to know what the fattest targets are to space this out to roll with procurement cycles?
They're actually claiming they would only need about 800 coaches/cab cars to maintain the same level of service as 1450 EMUs. So to those here who know more than me:
1. Is there a significant enough difference in capacity between coaches and EMUs to justify this difference?
2. Minus any difference in capacity per car, wouldn't we need less cars since EMUs can complete their journey quicker?
There is not a significant difference. Especially when NJT's MultiLevel EMU's are concerned. Those are 2 x 2 seating with 142 seats in an unpowered trailer, 132 seats in a restroom-equipped trailer, and 127 seats in the cab cars that are being adapted into power cars. The T's 3 x 2 seat bi-levels run 182 seats in a trailer, 178 seats in a restroom trailer, and 173 seats in a cab car. It's about a 20% difference that has absolutely nothing to do with with vehicle tech and everything to do with seating configuration. 3 x 2 is more or less designed for parking your butt from 495 to the terminal, and stinks to high heaven for interzone trips. If we implement real RER there's going to be a hell of a lot more interzone trips, so the Rail Vision should be considering a move to 2 x 2 anyway for future procurements.
We move to 2 x 2...there's no difference. We're basically running NJT's MLV's whether they're in the newfangled EMU form or pulled for eternity by diesels as coaches. It's B.S. concern-trolling to say push-pull is in competition with EMU's over something like seating capacity when NJT just proved otherwise. Now, single-level EMU's have a lot of boarding advantages...but given that we're talking procurement cycles and service ramp-ups and required changes like lengthening of short platforms...nothing's going to happen instantaneously. So there is solid reasoning to stick with bi-levels. While that's a little inconvenient for Fairmount and Riverside, it's prudent for pooling a starter fleet. You can always break out the Urban Rail routes into more specialized single-level equipment on the
next procurement.
EMU's are not magic. You need as many as you have schedules, for as many cars per train as you need on the schedule. And those schedules will be lots denser with RER ops, so you'd need MORE of them. The one thing RER will do with all-day bi-directional frequencies is keep fewer sets idled in yards on the off-peak. And the more even frequencies will mean sets can be put together with more consistent length, so the monster rush hour crowd-swallowers don't have to be idle so long before their one and only trip of the day. But RER is the same with diesel as it is with EMU. It's going to take fleet expansion to get it done. If they are getting all scared of EMU's and making some either/or noises about push-pull...beware: they'd have to pony up a ton of money per equipment cycle to expand the push-pull fleet as well. It means they're scared of expanding and don't want to spend any money on anything.
