My point was to convert the Braintree section of the Red Line back to heavy rail, but electrified. It would enable rapid service between Boston Quincy and Brockton and not be as expensive because it could use existing Red Line stations and right of way. The idea of a hub at Savin Hill could better be described as a way to connect Dorchester with the heavy rail service. I think it would most certainly improve service on the original Red Line
Regional Rail (RUR) & North-South Rail Link (NSRL)
- Thread starter quadratdackel
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,656
Remove the Braintree branch altogether? In favor of urban-rail on 15-20 min headways? Why not just fix the Red Line and Old Colony pinch to have your cake and eat it too? This seems like reinventing the wheel when all it needs is some new spokes...
Because it connects Brockton to Quincy and Boston. It will improve the remaining service on the Red Line, and increases capacity to include South Coast service in that corridor. and It can be done without widening the current right of way where the Old Colony is single track.
Call me crazy but I would also re locate the T Maintenance facility in Southie down to Savin Hill. And I would put the heavy rail on the existing bridge which goes over the old cut section where the Haul road is. The property there could make the T a lot of money (assuming the T actually owns it)
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,656
Moved to Crazy Transit Pitches. Better venue.
Took the train to Gloucester yesterday and rode around Gloucester and Rockport and caught the last train (Rockport, 10pm) home. Living in Roslindale, it's a real pity (and a pain in the ass) that I couldn't catch another CR home. There might have been enough time (doubtful) to get off at NS at 11:10 and catch the last train to Roz (11:21) from SS... but, the Rockport Line train was delayed by 15 minutes, and with the OL closed due to construction from Ruggles to FH, just biked home from NS. Overall, taking those NS trains up north is a great day's outing, though. We have a pretty good system but the NSRL would just make it infinitely better. I hope someday the politicians realize this and put some real money toward the project.
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2012
- Messages
- 5,078
- Reaction score
- 1,656
Understand that none of this is groundbreaking or new info but:
I rode train 834 inbound from Canton (9pm) on a weekday evening last week. A full 8-car set of bi-levels on the run, with only the last car open with something like 6 or 7 riders in total. Understand that this was likely repositioning equipment for the next morning, but I can't help think what wonders a HSP hauling two bi-levels would do for acceleration and trip times. It'd help keep up with the Amtrak expresses and schedule a consistent 2tph, making off-peak CR that much more useful..
I rode train 834 inbound from Canton (9pm) on a weekday evening last week. A full 8-car set of bi-levels on the run, with only the last car open with something like 6 or 7 riders in total. Understand that this was likely repositioning equipment for the next morning, but I can't help think what wonders a HSP hauling two bi-levels would do for acceleration and trip times. It'd help keep up with the Amtrak expresses and schedule a consistent 2tph, making off-peak CR that much more useful..
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
The minimum set you can run systemwide is 4 cars given the way the signal interface in locos/cabs are configured. You can go shorter (Metro North shuttles do) with a reprogramming, but 4 is an efficient enough catch-all.
FWIW car count isn't a huge weight factor on the propulsion...
human weight is. Those Sun. night positioning runs of Mon. morning rush hour sets are effortless to haul and use very little fuel. The same 8-pack when it's filled to the brim with passengers will strain even a very powerful engine.
(Yes, same thing happens to lesser degree with empty vs. full EMU's.)
"Baker admin. looks to lease electric trains from Amtrak
Could improve commuter rail service on Providence line"
Could improve commuter rail service on Providence line"
ErnieAdams
Active Member
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 280
- Reaction score
- 134
^ Of course the Globe's top-line takeaway is "Express train to Providence is on the table." Staring a hole through a single tree and missing the forest. No link because they don't deserve the traffic.
(edited to add link post-page jump)
Last edited:
Equilibria
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 6, 2007
- Messages
- 6,943
- Reaction score
- 7,976
In their defense, they're down there reporting on the NGA conference, which was the context for Baker's remarks. The discussion between him and Raimondo would have seemed like the bigger deal.
HenryAlan
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2009
- Messages
- 3,884
- Reaction score
- 3,712
I've wondered whether this is more of an opportunity to partner with Amtrak on subsidized fares between Boston and Providence rather than an express MBTA service.
Two problems with Amtrak-as-express-commuter-rail:
1. Doesn’t stop at Ruggles, which is a major commuter draw (but less of an intercity draw).
2. Not really viable on current schedule for morning commute. Basically only one train, leaves PVD at 7, and is actually the tail end of an overnight journey from DC, meaning — you guessed it — it’s not almost the most reliable, scheduling-wise. You have to build a significant amount of buffer into your schedule, at which point you might as well take the semi-express 7:13 AM train that expresses after Mansfield and is pretty reliable.
1 isn’t a dealbreaker, but 2 definitely is, especially since a monthly commuter rail pass includes subway and bus fares to help with the last mile, while an Amtrak monthly pass does not, and is itself more expensive.
If Amtrak (or a New England Inter-State rail authority) ran some early morning trains from New Haven, maybe it might make more sense. But not for now.
1. Doesn’t stop at Ruggles, which is a major commuter draw (but less of an intercity draw).
2. Not really viable on current schedule for morning commute. Basically only one train, leaves PVD at 7, and is actually the tail end of an overnight journey from DC, meaning — you guessed it — it’s not almost the most reliable, scheduling-wise. You have to build a significant amount of buffer into your schedule, at which point you might as well take the semi-express 7:13 AM train that expresses after Mansfield and is pretty reliable.
1 isn’t a dealbreaker, but 2 definitely is, especially since a monthly commuter rail pass includes subway and bus fares to help with the last mile, while an Amtrak monthly pass does not, and is itself more expensive.
If Amtrak (or a New England Inter-State rail authority) ran some early morning trains from New Haven, maybe it might make more sense. But not for now.
MBTA wants electric trains.
Amtrak is retiring the current Acelas in two years.
Providence-Boston is one of two spots where the Acelas work well.
The Acelas are old, yes, but their life could be extended by running on a short corridor rather than 500 miles every day. Could also do well limited to 135mph or some other random number.
Let's do it gang!
Amtrak is retiring the current Acelas in two years.
Providence-Boston is one of two spots where the Acelas work well.
The Acelas are old, yes, but their life could be extended by running on a short corridor rather than 500 miles every day. Could also do well limited to 135mph or some other random number.
Let's do it gang!
HelloBostonHi
Senior Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2018
- Messages
- 1,420
- Reaction score
- 3,672
Acelas really work best with all high level platforms, something the MBTA doesn't yet have. Acelas also have pretty poor seating density for a commuter service. They're made for business class long distance travel. If the T were to completely overhaul the interiors and add steps for low level platforms then sure... But at that point why not just get some Siemens electric locos that already run on the NEC without issue.
I would assume that adoption of any electric rolling stock on the Providence Line would be coordinated with construction of full-highs.
But yeah, the seating density (to say nothing of the cafe car) is intended for intercity, not commuter, rail.
But yeah, the seating density (to say nothing of the cafe car) is intended for intercity, not commuter, rail.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,185
- Reaction score
- 8,948
No, the Acelas are junk. They're a Frankenstein mashup of Bombardier and Alstom tech that are notorious shop queens and very nearly the most expensive trainsets to operate in the world. And Bombardier's onerous Service & Support contract with co-ownership clauses is so contentious and has so strained relations with AMTK that BBD is effectively blackballed from bidding on any more AMTK equipment. If the Acela service weren't so hugely profitable in spite of the vehicle contract, it'd be a major scandal.
They're wholly inappropriate for commuter duty. Stop density doesn't allow for speeds higher than 90 for more than short, schedule-insignificant lengths...wasting the Acelas' primary advantage amidst too many unacceptable downsides. Acceleration to lower speed isn't lights-out better than a Sprinter loco segregated to only the 93 MPH-rated bi-level coaches in the T fleet, because the sets are so heavy for their limited capacity and the power cars an aging, problematic design. And for comparison, EMU's wouldn't be ordered rated higher than 90-100 MPH because the excess isn't worth the extra cost/weight/electric demand (though 125 MPH commuter makes are factory-orderable, they're rarely maintained over life at >100).
The only halfway-officially confirmed repurposement of the Acelas, mentioned by AMTK shop employees on RR.net, was retaining 1 set as a high-speed work train and a couple extra carriages and power cars as parts sources for the test set. And that proposal seems to have gone by the boards because the Bombardier contract would still have its teeth in them. Talk of sticking them on the Keystones or as NEC supplementals has never gone further than railfan foamer acid dreams. The Keystone Line tops out at 125 MPH...so another case of lacking the one upside that counteracts a pile of vehicular downsides.
They'll be placed in dead storage until the Bombardier contract hits repossession-by-inactivity clauses. Then they're BBD's problem, but by that point parts scarcity will have gotten so acute that re-use anywhere in the world is out of the question. Blame it on that awful contract if you wanted to see them continue, but the vehicles bleed so much maint money per every hour of service duty that in dollars-and-sense you never practically would've wanted to do that in the first place.