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

[F-Line to Dudley]

So, in RRWorld, the Southside would run 8tph on the Worcester Line, 4tph Providence, 4tph Stoughton, 4tph Franklin, 4tph Fairmount. Lets assume 6tph on OC.
Thats 30 tph. With 2 tracks(2 tunnel option) in the NSRL, there would be more than enough capacity for all of them. And I dispute your notion that NSRL advocacy is "naive". Because Steffie's minions have yet again sandbagged the numbers for a project they don't want?

That's irrelevant. This is about what TransitMatters says is necessary to run the system. In their recommended ops universe, each southside service pattern is going to need its own 'home' platform berth for the optimizations at the interlockings to do their magic. Well...when Amtrak is factored there are fewer platforms available than incumbent services, so there are not in fact enough 'home' berths to go around. By their own implementation plan's logic, they've dead-ended themselves into a basic arithmetic problem.

There can absolutely be alternate theories of how to make it work. The problem is THIS is the one they went with, and it doesn't compute at its most basic level so THIS is the one the sandbaggers @ MassDOT are going to pick apart. TM can take any alternate explanation in the world that does the job; we aren't here to debate what those are. The bottom line is if it's going in their report it has to bloody agree with its own logic, whatever that happens to be. The one they went with doesn't. The problem is the one they actually published is a "2 + 2 = 5" facepalm...not that there could be a different one that self-checks out.

Needs fix...pronto...or they are going to get raked on this by the State.

 

[Tallguy]

That's irrelevant. This is about what TransitMatters says is necessary to run the system. In their recommended ops universe, each southside service pattern is going to need its own 'home' platform berth for the optimizations at the interlockings to do their magic. Well...when Amtrak is factored there are fewer platforms available than incumbent services, so there are not in fact enough 'home' berths to go around. By their own implementation plan's logic, they've dead-ended themselves into a basic arithmetic problem.

There can absolutely be alternate theories of how to make it work. The problem is THIS is the one they went with, and it doesn't compute at its most basic level so THIS is the one the sandbaggers @ MassDOT are going to pick apart. TM can take any alternate explanation in the world that does the job; we aren't here to debate what those are. The bottom line is if it's going in their report it has to bloody agree with its own logic, whatever that happens to be. The one they went with doesn't. The problem is the one they actually published is a "2 + 2 = 5" facepalm...not that there could be a different one that self-checks out.

Needs fix...pronto...or they are going to get raked on this by the State.

Not at all addressing the point I was making, which is that, in NSRL/RR World MOST TRAINS COULD INDEED GO THROUGH THE TUNNEL.

But now, I will address your non-NSRL ops concern. If you were to read the original TM report of last year, you would see a diagram of the track layout in SS. Thirteen platforms:

1&2 Worcester Line- 8tph-15min dwell
3-7(5 tracks) Prov-4tph Stou-4tph Franklin-4tph, Needham 4tph 16tph- 18?min dwell
8&9 Amtrak-1-2 tph 60-120min dwell
10&11 Fairmount Line-4tph- 30min dwell
12&13 Old Colony-6tph-20min dwell
You could move Franklin to Fairmount and still have 15min dwells, leaving 10tph on 5 tracks
Convert Needham Line to OL and you are down to 8tph on 5 tracks. Two tracks for Amtrak aren't enough? Give them 3 tracks and leave Prov and Stoughton with 4 tracks and 30min dwells.

 

[StillInTheHood]

To be clear, I’m very much a supporter of NSRL. But I stand by my statement that most trains won’t initially be through trains … unless the construction of NSRL is far into the future, which renders the arguments meaningless.

The simple spreadsheet math is flawed for a bunch of reasons. To point out just the most obvious: 1) there is a fundamental demand imbalance between north and south sides. South side is and always will have much more inbound traffic. Even in the hoped-for distant future, when all of the lines are electric, it will make sense to turn a bunch of them somewhere in the city. Sure, you could notionally run more into the tunnel and turn them instead at North Station, maximizing one-seat rides, but that just pushes the platform shortfall across the river. The further north you go to reach a yard to turn, the more deadhead cost you incur, never mind the capital investment required there as well. In the medium term, of course 2) the process of electrification is going to take a long while to play out across the various lines, and that means it will be a long while before every train can go everywhere. That will add to the imbalance. The point is, you are going to have to turn a lot of trains somewhere, and it’s not usually going to be practical for that somewhere to be at the remote end of a Northside line. But if you look at a bunch of the advocacy for NSRL (take, for example, northsouthraillink.org) there is literally no mention of where the trains are supposed to stop and turn (or even be serviced, for that matter). The focus is entirely on the fact that dwell times are a lot faster in through stations (no kidding!). It’s as if the trains follow the model of Charlie and the MTA, they ride forever and never stop, and there’s never any investment required for a yard or a layover point in the cost calculations. Yes, that’s naïve.

Could South Station function without additional platforms? Yes, there are other terminals around the world handle more turns than are proposed here with fewer tracks. But the tighter the capacity, the greater the impact of the slightest wobble. In theory it all looks fine – fifteen minutes dwell time! But in the real world, all sorts of glitches cause trains to be delayed, and when capacity is tight, a delay on one line will cause a cascade on others. Spend a few minutes every day reading Universal Hub … there’s often some operational SNAFU. Now consider how each one of these incidents would play out in a world where there are three times as many trains and limited provision for central layovers or short turns. Even if our ambition is to ultimately make Keolis/MBTA function more like the Swiss Rail, the simpler we make things, and the more redundancy we build in, the better off we will be and the more certain our success. Look, I’d never advocate for a Taj Mahal scale expansion, and maybe it’s all impossible if the USPS can’t be moved or tweaked, but even two or three additional platforms would be useful. If the land were available, what’s actually required wouldn’t be very expensive to build. The alternative is to build more short-turn capacity elsewhere in the system, and that also costs money.

And, frankly, I’d urge everyone to get out more. NSRL advocates frequently cite to the example of Philadelphia, because of their center city tunnel, which is ironic given SEPTA’s overall poor service. The tunnel itself is great, but SEPTA on steroids would be gridlock. Better examples of what we are trying to ultimately achieve are obviously in Europe, and it’s worth seeing what they do. If the Swiss, who are a zillion times more sophisticated than we are, manage to run commuter rail with bi-level coaches without being choked by dwell times, then maybe bi-level coaches aren’t the devil after all. We should also look at Munich, which has the perfect two-track central city tunnel we desire … and which is scrambling to build a second tunnel, because even with modern equipment and a culture of precision, “stuff happens,” and the central tunnel is frequently borked, cascading problems across multiple lines. The Munich S-bahn has a lot of platform and yard capacity to terminate and short-turn at both ends of the tunnel and at multiple other stations, and the MVV uses that capacity A LOT. They’d croak without it.

The simple math spreadsheets showing what’s possible when things work perfectly aren’t interesting to me. The devil is in the details of “what’s the recovery mode for each of the many things that could go wrong?” The answer can’t often be, “well, train 123 needs to sit between stations for 90 minutes because our spreadsheet didn't contemplate we'd ever need more than 15 minutes to turn or that we'd ever be unable to access certain platforms or the tunnel.”

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Not at all addressing the point I was making, which is that, in NSRL/RR World MOST TRAINS COULD INDEED GO THROUGH THE TUNNEL.

But now, I will address your non-NSRL ops concern. If you were to read the original TM report of last year, you would see a diagram of the track layout in SS. Thirteen platforms:

1&2 Worcester Line- 8tph-15min dwell
3-7(5 tracks) Prov-4tph Stou-4tph Franklin-4tph, Needham 4tph 16tph- 18?min dwell
8&9 Amtrak-1-2 tph 60-120min dwell
10&11 Fairmount Line-4tph- 30min dwell
12&13 Old Colony-6tph-20min dwell
You could move Franklin to Fairmount and still have 15min dwells, leaving 10tph on 5 tracks
Convert Needham Line to OL and you are down to 8tph on 5 tracks. Two tracks for Amtrak aren't enough? Give them 3 tracks and leave Prov and Stoughton with 4 tracks and 30min dwells.

Alright...this is getting needlessly circular. I'm just going to bullet out in the most succinct terms possible what's at stake here, and then we can do whatever we want...talk on-topic or throw more TPH spreadsheets into the void.

1. TransitMatters published a Phase I implementation plan. The goal of the implementation plan was to synthesize their biggest-picture 'manifesto'-type golden principles established from last several years of advocacy into a document that can trace out build priorities for Phase I. It accomplishes that by laying out breadcrumbs from the generic to the more specific.​

2. The document is not an ops explainer. 85% of its intended casual rider + involved rider + municipal leader + state leader audience does not know what "TPH" means; that's Klingon to them. Years of demographic data, community input, and technical research informed these findings, and years more of all-the-above will flesh it out to actual on-the-ground implementation. Its purpose is merely laying out the breadcrumbs from soft-focus to spot-focus and pointing in the direction to any deeper-dive resources that foretell consequential things about the big picture. That includes acknowledging up-front where there is uncertainty still to flesh out, where outside factors may change decision-making, and charting inflection points where build decisions and bang-for-buck decisions may lump differently in the end.​

3. "Phase I" implementation means "Phase I RUR"...not NSRL. TM could not possibly have been any more explicit from Day 1 that RUR has buck-nothing to do with NSRL. It compels debate on NSRL without depending on it. Anything NSRL by sheer physical timing will slot on Phase Eleventeenth of RUR implementation years ahead of ANY timeframe treated in this document. Yikes...we'll be spending most of RUR Phase I's duration figuring out what the hell can be done about the State's last tankapalooza NSRL paper study, and trying to get public debate that's been dragged way off-topic back on functional footing. Only then can we actually 'manifesto'-to-'action' ourselves a stab at implementation plan there.​

​

NSRL is not a question anyone--least of all TM--is asking here. It is doubly so irrelevant to any of the 'proof' addressing unforced-error logical inconsistencies in this report. There's plenty of grift for NSRL talk amid pan-RUR universe...but stop invoking it in reference to this implementation plan. It couldn't possibly be further off-topic.​

4. The document is not making giant risky leaps of faith un-backed by detail analysis. It's also not refraining from taking declarative stances in spite of variability of micro-analysis. All it sets out to do is establish its own logic that will follow through from the general declarative statement to the action plan...for Phase I, not Phase Eleventeen. It's wholly understood there will be snags. Take the following hypothetical example that is NOT indidicative of any logical problem.​

EXAMPLE: Haverhill :30 RUR​

• Declarative statement: "Haverhill is an RUR corridor worthy of service parity to the other ID'd corridors, meriting :30 bi-directional all-day service scheduled at consistent clock-facing intervals."
• Detail problem: "Crap!...our traffic sim plots keep getting Andover-Lawrence meets on the midday off-peak snared in Pan Am and Amtrak interference, even with Ballardvale double-tracked. We don't have money for additional track work in Phase I. We can sort of make it work by moving individual trains back and forth 3-9 minutes on that shift, but that makes a mess of the clock-facing and MVRTA-Larwrence bus transfers."
• Burning question, via Mayor of Lawrence: "You recently asterisked our schedules as up for further refinement, which concerns me. Is my city going to get the :30 minute service you say it needs?
• Declarative answer: "We are absolutely committed to making sure the Haverhill Line has RUR schedule parity with the other Phase I priorities. Your frequencies will average out to :30 in Phase I, even if there has to be make-up slots for the interference. We are actively problem-solving how to better even out the clock."
• Mayor's reply: "Thank you! That direct-addresses my biggest concern. Our rep from MVRTA has some additional comment."
• Helpful extra, via MVRTA GM: "Read us in on this. We have flex to accelerate or delay bus departures by up to 5 minutes, but it gets harder from there. It'd be better to schedule as many small variances as you can fit, and stack any missed-transfer writeoffs to bigger whiffs that are fewer/further between."
• Follow-up: "Great to know! I'll make sure the ops team involves you every step of the way."

^See^...nuthin' the least bit illogical about how the 'manifesto' level follows its own action breadcrumbs, even with known probabilities of hitting snags.​

5. It doesn't matter if there are 80 different spreadsheets showing something that could work when the report's own logic ensnares itself in a trap before ever getting that far. Doesn't matter even if TM's own scoping studies show a way, because their stated logic precludes showing that way. The document is supposed to read self-contained on its own logical progression, and the breadcrumbs to supplemental info are just that...wholly supplemental, not something the 85th-percentile audience will ever seek. So let's run with that example.​

EXAMPLE: South Station is solved by ops reform, not SSX.​

• Declarative statement: "If the terminal is organized with every service having a 'home' berth instead of ad-hoc platform assignments, interlocking and ops optimization handles all the traffic making SSX unnecessary."
• Logical conflict: "There are more services at the terminal than number of 'home' berths, and the interlocking optimization is already happening. That makes no sense. Either you expand the terminal, or it's 'ad hoc' assigning like you said wouldn't work. It can't be neither."
• Burning question, via Boston City Council: "Something has to give here. Are we building some of SSX but not all of it, or is service not going to be as full as it's cracked up to be? What do I tell Fairmount Corridor voters who are sick to death of contradictory answers???"
• Weak reply: "Well, we have some Trains Per Hour charts that say it works out anyway. It's in Appendix Q of our scoping archives."
• Trolly retort, via Councillor Michael Flaherty ( ): "TPH?!?! That sounds loud. And I will tell you the good people of middle B Street DO NOT LIKE loud things! WHARRGARBL!!!"
• Drowned-out plea, via district Councilor: "Look, it's hard enough to hold a Q&A session in my district with three different language barriers to contend with. I can't reassure anyone with 'Oh, it doesn't really mean what it says.' Why doesn't it just say it???"

We haven't even gotten to the State meeting yet where Pollack is dunking on them left and right and the Globe gleefully runs red-meat headlines about the dunk context. No nth-level citations of 80 different proof-of-concept TPH charts left on cutting room floor are going to matter one whit when years of TM firmly in driver's seat of the prevailing narrative gets coughed up to the naysayers in one moment of rush-release pique. Their own "show-me" document gets upended by the "show-me" statement becoming all about how it can't take the manifesto to a more actionable place without self-contradiction. It doesn't matter what 'proof' is in the actual technical memorandum Appendices yet to come. It upended itself on the very salvo-to-action messaging.​

6. Invoking one's own "put up or shut up" advice...perhaps aB is not the place to be sharing 80 different ops-explainer TPH plots alleging that a written-word contradiction isn't so bad if only one were to dive deep enough into the weeds to practically drown in the detail. Nobody at a civic meeting is going to be referencing an annotated aB thread transcript when they try to parse a "2 + 2 = 5"-level whopper to the audience. Maybe TPH spreadsheets are an inquiry best-served by e-mail straight to TM asking why they aren't making a layman's TPH argument or using their own scoping data, because for all it's beaten-to-death here no amount of TPH replying on this forum ends up pressing the "UNDO publication" button on what they chose to say. How much more bluntly can this be put? TM pressed the "Publish" button; only they can press "UNDO" for a fix. It's their problem they chose to run it with such *extremely* specific declarative terms that left them with no other way.​

​

​

Carry on, now.

 

[tysmith95]

North Side demand is lower than south side because north station isin't ideally located and transfers are more common. With the NSRL, north side demand increases greatly.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I love how one throwaway caution about "arguments about a North-South rail link that are also a distraction" re: on-point critiques of the RUR Phase I implementation plan turns into...the RUR Phase I implementation plan is a discussion about NSRL derailsville in the span of exactly one post.

It's sort of proving my point in extreme-roundabout fashion about talking-point breadcrumbs needing to follow their own logic in order to lead to usefully focused action, but okay Y.O.L.O.

 

[Tallguy]

I am confused. The southside generates 28-30 tph(Needham as OL). The Northside 18-20. The imbalance is 8-12tph. Well within SS capacity.
And thats only at peak. Several(not all) lines cut back to 30 min off peak. Any Southside layovers could go through the tunnel and park @ BET. Say there were 4. That cuts SS trains to 4-8 tph. BET could be the short turn for ALL of the Southside imbalance, if need be.

 

[Tallguy]

You keep prattling about more "services than platforms". THIS IS NOT TRUE. The premise is 15min turnarounds. If you want to argue that there is something about the USA that makes that impossible when shorter turnarounds than that happen every day in numerous countries(and often here), then I guess that's a fundamental disagreement we will never get past.
TM is proposing 30 tph(during peak).There are 11 available platforms(assigning 2 to Amtrak) That is an average of 22min per train, a nearly 50% cushion. And offpeak drops by 4-6tph, creating a larger cushion.
But I forget. Facts are anathema. Math is for other people.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

You keep prattling about more "services than platforms". THIS IS NOT TRUE. The premise is 15min turnarounds. If you want to argue that there is something about the USA that makes that impossible when shorter turnarounds than that happen every day in numerous countries(and often here), then I guess that's a fundamental disagreement we will never get past.
TM is proposing 30 tph(during peak).There are 11 available platforms(assigning 2 to Amtrak) That is an average of 22min per train, a nearly 50% cushion. And offpeak drops by 4-6tph, creating a larger cushion.
But I forget. Facts are anathema. Math is for other people.

Let's try this again in pictures instead. . .

The premise is not "15 minute turnarounds". The premise is not what makes the USA born failsons. The premise...that they state...in their own Phase IA implementation plan...is that "switch optimization and dedicated platforms achieve capacity increases for lower costs and without the negative impacts of expanding a downtown terminal." How does that follow from there is the only question that matters...because they were the ones who bloody raised it in the first place and will get called out on it.


You can keep screaming at a lowly messageboard about everything ^^except^^ these words in the implementation bullet of TM's own published implementation plan all you want. It doesn't make it any more relevant to the narrative that is set by TM's own published words. What could work...that's not the narrative. ^^This^^ is the narrative they set...and it direct-contradicts itself. The solve is TM un-contradicting themselves with a better proofread and re-release...not blowing one's top and screaming ever more unrelated number sets into the void.

 

[Tallguy]

You post a screenshot that has the words "10-20 min. turn times" and then state "The premise is not' 15 min turnarounds'".
I am sorry if you are fuzzy on the concept of averaging. I would be happy to explain if you'd like......

 

[Tallguy]

Goal: 10-20 min turnarounds
Cost:40M
Actions: switching upgrades and dedicated platforms

You may not agree that the actions will result in the goal, but arguing that TM has contradicted themselves in some way.....I don't see the logic in that.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

You post a screenshot that has the words "10-20 min. turn times" and then state "The premise is not' 15 min turnarounds'".
I am sorry if you are fuzzy on the concept of averaging. I would be happy to explain if you'd like......

Look further to the right. No...further. The crayon-underlined portion.

Since TM is confirmed to be monitoring this thread for feedback, we can direct our energies here to helpful suggestions of how they can more accurately word their declarative statements to stay on-point, promote clear follow-thru sans confusion, and shore up their defensive flanks against critics who will seize upon any wording sloppiness to use against them. Across the document, because lest we forget this one thing you're hung up on is not the only mangled declarative statement exposing them to risk. Or...you can continue screaming insults at an internet messageboard in distraction.

I'm reminded of something T.R. Roosevelt said. How'd that go again?

 

[Tallguy]

And you do realize that every other source in MA refers to the concept as "Regional Rail" not RUR?

 

[Tallguy]

Look further to the right. No...further. The crayon-underlined portion.

Since TM is confirmed to be monitoring this thread for feedback, we can direct our energies here to helpful suggestions of how they can more accurately word their declarative statements to stay on-point, promote clear follow-thru sans confusion, and shore up their defensive flanks against critics who will seize upon any wording sloppiness to use against them. Across the document, because lest we forget this one thing you're hung up on is not the only mangled declarative statement exposing them to risk. Or...you can continue screaming insults at an internet messageboard in distraction.

I'm reminded of something T.R. Roosevelt said. How'd that go again?
[/QUOTE
Again, you seem to think that there is some inconsistency between the proposed actions and the goal that only you seem to see.
Are you trying to say that switch optimization and dedicated platforms wont get you 10-20 min turnarounds or that SSX won't have negative impacts?

 

[tysmith95]

The issue with a SSX is that it diverts funds away from a possible NSRL. There's not unlimited funds for projects.

 

[JeffDowntown]

The issue with a SSX is that it diverts funds away from a possible NSRL. There's not unlimited funds for projects.

But we have been through this argument before, we need both to provide for future capacity at RUR frequencies. Terminal capacity (South and North) and through running capacity.

It's simply not either/or.

 

[Tallguy]

But we have been through this argument before, we need both to provide for future capacity at RUR frequencies. Terminal capacity (South and North) and through running capacity.

It's simply not either/or.

But no one has refuted the math with math of their own. How many trains do you expect on the southside? Even at 5 min frequency, two tunnels should handle 24 tph, 4min freq. 30tph. 3min frequency, 40tph. How many trains will stay on the surface? I cannot understand the position that NSRL will still require large numbers of surface berths. The math just doesn't make sense. And, yes, I understand that more trains are needed in the south, but still a minority. And they could short turn in a number of locations on the northside.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Aww, hell. I want to play this woebegone off-topic game too. You know what math has never been refuted: North-South gondolas, that's what. Sure, no one has figured any math for it before...but damnit, that's why it's so fucking pristine!


I've spent good time this weekend collecting my thoughts on the whole "how to help TM build a better report revision" issue. I'll rip out a series of posts next week tackling it category-by-category, try to keep it tightly wound around core principles...can't promise there'll be no ineffectual yelling but it'll definitely be more current-eventsy than this inexplicable NSRL threadjack. Today...whoo, today is not the day for attempting to do anything productive within 10 feet of this topic.

 

[Tallguy]

So, if your intent is to assist TM, why not reach out to them directly and not provide ammunition for the anti-RR folks @ the MBTA and MassDOT by doing it here?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

So, if your intent is to assist TM, why not reach out to them directly and not provide ammunition for the anti-RR folks @ the MBTA and MassDOT by doing it here?

Ammunition? You mean...ammunition like troll-bombing a thread so hopelessly off-topic it's rendered impossible to parse. That kind of ammunition?

Heavens, no. I'll wait until this outbreak of insanity has tuckered itself right out and it's safe to get back in the pool. Right now imma goin' enjoy my afternoon on the Maps Thread.


"anti-RR folks" @ the railroad with the Rail Vision...lolz.