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

Charlie_mta said:
Waaay back in the day, Washington DC did have trolley cars in its central area powered through an electrified underground rail. This was done because they didn't want the visual pollution of overhead wires around the significant national buildings and park areas,.
Click to expand...

I'd forgotten about that, though I thought I remembered seeing somewhere that that setup had problems with either snow or leaves, I can't remember which. I know there's been a few instances with different methods for electrifying LRVs and trams without overhead lines, but if there's anything equivalent on the RR mode, I'm not aware of it.
 
Brattle Loop said:
I know there's been a few instances with different methods for electrifying LRVs and trams without overhead lines, but if there's anything equivalent on the RR mode, I'm not aware of it.
Click to expand...

Bog standard third rail electrification for mainline rail, like in NYC, southeast England, and Berlin would be the equivalent. Pre HS1, even Eurostar trains ran on legacy third rail power from London to the Chunnel.
Not sure if FRA allows new third rail grade crossings (Metro North, LIRR, and Chicago L (!) have existing crossings), but Im sure stakeholders would (rightly) put up a stink if it was ever proposed for the commuter rail. Third rail electrification is worse in almost every conceivable way than overhead line anyway. Even most new metro systems are moving to overhead line.
 
There's some systems in European city centers where the electrification goes through the running rails, and it's segmented so that the tracks are only live when there's a train on them. Of course, it vastly complicates the track and signaling design and you definitely can't have CWR.
 
Highwayguy said:
Bog standard third rail electrification for mainline rail, like in NYC, southeast England, and Berlin would be the equivalent. Pre HS1, even Eurostar trains ran on legacy third rail power from London to the Chunnel.
Not sure if FRA allows new third rail grade crossings (Metro North, LIRR, and Chicago L (!) have existing crossings), but Im sure stakeholders would (rightly) put up a stink if it was ever proposed for the commuter rail. Third rail electrification is worse in almost every conceivable way than overhead line anyway. Even most new metro systems are moving to overhead line.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, I know third rail exists as an option, though I can see how my post could be read to imply that I was overlooking it. It was poorly-worded. I was referring to the types of electrification on LRV systems that don't use overhead lines (which are quite rare, for good reason).

I don't think the FRA would look kindly on new-construction third rail crossings, at least without some serious protections. That said, for my part I say ignore the NIMBYS and just string the overhead wires already.
 
Highwayguy said:
Bog standard third rail electrification for mainline rail, like in NYC, southeast England, and Berlin would be the equivalent. Pre HS1, even Eurostar trains ran on legacy third rail power from London to the Chunnel.
Not sure if FRA allows new third rail grade crossings (Metro North, LIRR, and Chicago L (!) have existing crossings), but Im sure stakeholders would (rightly) put up a stink if it was ever proposed for the commuter rail. Third rail electrification is worse in almost every conceivable way than overhead line anyway. Even most new metro systems are moving to overhead line.
Click to expand...
The El is FTA I believe
 
themissinglink said:
Not sure if this has already been posted somewhere else (I couldn't find it when I looked), TransitMatters released the Modernizing the Haverhill Line Regional Rail report.
Click to expand...
While l agree with most of it, the presumption that 100 MPH operation could be achieved on the inner Haverhill line strains the credibility of the whole report. Even if the track geometry allowed it, with the five Melrose-Wakefield stations averaging a mile apart (plus all the grade crossings), l think even EMUs would find it difficult to reach 60 MPH before slamming on the brakes into the next stop.
 

Attachments

  • 6BF259F8-F31A-42F4-9F3D-CCE1A916ABAC.jpeg
    6BF259F8-F31A-42F4-9F3D-CCE1A916ABAC.jpeg
    158 KB · Views: 123
However, l whole heartedly agree that it is ridiculous that it costs $9.40 to travel from Reading to DTX on CR VS $2.40 from Braintree and Riverside when the latter two have objectively better service with rapid transit. In what world does worse service warrant a 400% premium?

Personally, its the reason l don’t go to Malden much. Frankly not worth it to pay $14 for a round trip to travel 5 miles when North Station is the same price.
 
I would like to see a phased approach consisting of electrifying from Wilmington (Lowell line) up to Haverhill, (assuming an electrified Lowell Line), and extending Orange to Reading eventually/when there's money for it. That seems to solve the inability of and EMU hitting 60 between close stops, and the frequency, fare, and one-mode ride possibilities bring a lot more convenience. If you're going to run electrical infrastructure through the area, perform extensive trackwork and rebuilds, why not expand rapid transit? By electrifying/running EMUs through Reading, you are locking in that corridor having less-optimal transit options for many many decades, likely at a similar cost.

I haven't dived into the report, but what are the tradeoffs of Orange to Reading?
 
Highwayguy said:
While l agree with most of it, the presumption that 100 MPH operation could be achieved on the inner Haverhill line strains the credibility of the whole report. Even if the track geometry allowed it, with the five Melrose-Wakefield stations averaging a mile apart (plus all the grade crossings), l think even EMUs would find it difficult to reach 60 MPH before slamming on the brakes into the next stop.
Click to expand...

Oddly the text of the report seems to state that 60-80 is the max expected on the inner (Reading-inbound) portion of the line, which conflicts with that speed map.

As I recall at least one of their previous line reports (Greenbush/Old Colony?) got pretty well eviscerated by F-Line for similarly-unrealistic speed assumptions between stations, on account of while EMUs might well be able to handle that level of acceleration-deceleration on paper, they'd make the passengers seasick (railsick?) if they actually tried it in practice. It wouldn't surprise me if these speeds are similarly unrealistic.
 
stefal said:
I would like to see a phased approach consisting of electrifying from Wilmington (Lowell line) up to Haverhill, (assuming an electrified Lowell Line), and extending Orange to Reading eventually/when there's money for it. That seems to solve the inability of and EMU hitting 60 between close stops, and the frequency, fare, and one-mode ride possibilities bring a lot more convenience. If you're going to run electrical infrastructure through the area, perform extensive trackwork and rebuilds, why not expand rapid transit? By electrifying/running EMUs through Reading, you are locking in that corridor having less-optimal transit options for many many decades, likely at a similar cost.

I haven't dived into the report, but what are the tradeoffs of Orange to Reading?
Click to expand...

Neither have I, but: required grade separations would also be cheaper, as subway cars should be able to handle steeper grades, lower clearances and less heavily-built bridges.
 
stefal said:
I would like to see a phased approach consisting of electrifying from Wilmington (Lowell line) up to Haverhill, (assuming an electrified Lowell Line), and extending Orange to Reading eventually/when there's money for it. That seems to solve the inability of and EMU hitting 60 between close stops, and the frequency, fare, and one-mode ride possibilities bring a lot more convenience. If you're going to run electrical infrastructure through the area, perform extensive trackwork and rebuilds, why not expand rapid transit? By electrifying/running EMUs through Reading, you are locking in that corridor having less-optimal transit options for many many decades, likely at a similar cost.

I haven't dived into the report, but what are the tradeoffs of Orange to Reading?
Click to expand...

The Haverhill Line report doesn't go into detail about the tradeoffs it mentions in the choice of OLX to Reading or electrified Regional Rail / double tracked (NSRL world) CR to Reading. One of the tables mentions that removing Reading while routing Haverhill via the Wildcat would create an imbalance of branches for the NSRL, though I don't know if that presumes Needham hasn't similarly been swallowed by the OL and GL or not; it also seems to presuppose that Reading's been double-tracked which is...optimistic (and if that doesn't happen its functionality as a NSRL line pair to anything other than similarly-constrained Needham is questionable at best).

Cutting Reading off of the CR does mean you lose direct NSRL run-through benefits. It'd require transferring at North Station (which would be a doable if fairly long transfer due to depth and station siting) or Back Bay (shorter transfer for applicable CR routes). That said, unless Reading somehow gets double tracked all or most of the way from Sullivan to Oak Grove, it's not going to be running through the NSRL to the south side near as much as some of the other lines because of the pair-matching problem, so a fair number of the Regional Rail CR trains in that instance would be terminating on the surface anyway.

OLX brings a bunch of benefits, albeit at a cost, and it's worth noting that the political lift needed to electrify the extant CR line is probably an order of magnitude easier than bringing the OL through. Melrose was...not exactly on board with the idea of the Orange Line coming through town the last time, and I don't get the sense that it'll be much less controversial the next time around. (I still think the T absolutely should do it, but we live in a world where the transportation agency is beholden to the politicians who fund it, so...we'll see.)
 
You have to assume 1 benefit of the OLX is that it would offer a semi Express OL train from Malden to Boston which is turn would probably be more popular than the regular every stop OL trains coming from Malden helping to balance the North side OL trains that today come packed to the gills from all the bus feeders.
 
guitarguynboston said:
You have to assume 1 benefit of the OLX is that it would offer a semi Express OL train from Malden to Boston which is turn would probably be more popular than the regular every stop OL trains coming from Malden helping to balance the North side OL trains that today come packed to the gills from all the bus feeders.
Click to expand...

Assembly throws a bit of a wrench into the prospect of express running. They'd have to build a third platform (and rehab the disused second platform at Community College) in order to move the northbound trains to the easternmost track to free up the center track to run express. It's not a megaproject by any means, but whether they would do it (and whether it would be worthwhile) would have to be studied, especially since OLT improvements to the signal system and fleet expansion with the CRRC cars will already be providing increased service (more capacity and lower headways), and there'd be dispatching headaches making the inbound expresses play nice with the main subway.
 
Brattle Loop said:
Assembly throws a bit of a wrench into the prospect of express running. They'd have to build a third platform (and rehab the disused second platform at Community College) in order to move the northbound trains to the easternmost track to free up the center track to run express. It's not a megaproject by any means, but whether they would do it (and whether it would be worthwhile) would have to be studied, especially since OLT improvements to the signal system and fleet expansion with the CRRC cars will already be providing increased service (more capacity and lower headways), and there'd be dispatching headaches making the inbound expresses play nice with the main subway.
Click to expand...
The whole point of "express" is NOT stopping at every station!
 
Tallguy said:
The whole point of "express" is NOT stopping at every station!
Click to expand...

Yes, this is true.

The problem is that Assembly has no platform on the easternmost track (the current test track). All of the other stations from Community north have platforms there, though Malden's (and Oak Grove's, once in a while) serves the Commuter Rail, and Community's is not used and looks to be in somewhat poor condition. Assembly's platform serves the center track (current northbound) and the westernmost track (southbound).

The issue is that the center track has to be the express track unless you completely reconfigure the interlocking at Community College to allow traffic to cross over from the easternmost track to the westernmost track. That would essentially be putting in a flat junction where none exists and forcing inbound expresses off the easternmost track to cross in front of outbounds coming out of the tunnel, which is a recipe for operational problems. That would also have the effect of eliminating the cross-platform transfer from the expresses except going from an outbound express to an outbound local, which doesn't have operational implications but which would be annoying. And the center track can't be used for expresses because it'd force the outbounds to the easternmost track, which does not serve Assembly (except for if you did it the most kludgy way possible and made all the expresses stop at Assembly, which makes very little sense).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top