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

[RandomWalk]

I know we in Boston tend to look askance at ideas from elsewhere, but why is all the electrification around catenary? Metro North seems to have done decently well with third rail. Couldn’t the T crib from them, up to and including grabbing EMUs off the shelf from Kawasaki?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

I know we in Boston tend to look askance at ideas from elsewhere, but why is all the electrification around catenary? Metro North seems to have done decently well with third rail. Couldn’t the T crib from them, up to and including grabbing EMUs off the shelf from Kawasaki?

1) We already have 25 kV AC overhead on the Providence Line, the most common mainline rail electrification voltage in the world with standard parts available both lineside and vehicle-side. Why would we ever want to make things harder on ourselves by adopting something incompatible with that for the buildout?

2) Third rail is significantly more expensive to build out at long distances. The DC voltage is much lower because of proximity to the ground, topping out around 750 volts vs. the 25,000 volts you've got on the NEC overhead. Lower voltage means you have to build many more substations, about one every 5-6 miles vs. one every 30 miles. Substations are the most expensive by far part of an electrification scheme.

3) Third rail does not allow for very high speeds. 80 MPH average, 90 MPH max before you're simply grinding the third rail shoes to dust. Pantographs can do 200 MPH with no issues whatsoever. While I'm no fan of TransitMatters' 100 MPH systemwide proof-of-concept for lots of technical and hidden-cost reasons, you absolutely can't aspire to something like that (or even take advantage of using existing Providence Line track classes) at all with third rail.

4) It goes without saying that third rail is very dangerous around grade crossings. Dangerous for cars and pederstrians, and dangerous for trains. Metro-North had a nasty fatal accident on the Harlem Line in 2015 where a train derailed while striking an SUV at a crossing and several passengers on the train died when a segment of live third rail punctured the floor of the train.

5) Metro-North's EMU's are not "off-shelf". They and their LIRR sisters are some of the most overcustomized in the world for LIRR's uniquely small loading gauge and the tri-voltage complexities of the New Haven Line stock. They're overweight, overly pricey, incompatible with curved full-high platforms (which we have) because of the quarter-point doors, and incompatible with low or mini-high platforms because they lack door traps. We would never be looking at M8 or M9 clones as a starting point for our own EMU's.

6) Metro-North third rail is a constriction for system expansion. To wire up to Albany for NYHSR you'd have to rip out all the third rail on the Hudson Line from Spuyten Duyvil Jct. to Croton-Harmon, replace it with 25 kV overhead, and order New Haven Line M8 clones...leaving only the city itself (necessary, because Park Ave. Tunnel + Grand Central Terminal clearances don't allow for any overhead of any voltage) as third rail. You wouldn't be able to extend third rail to Poughkeepsie for regular service because it'd be too many more substations for the cost vs. the 25 kV option, and to wire up diesel territory on the Harlem Line you'd probably need to do the same because the number of substations required to run an electric schedule to Wassaic (the 1984 North White Plains-Southeast electrification extension section is already notoriously underpowered for its loading, restricting schedules). LIRR can expand out OK because they're a geographically isolated system with only 1 connection (Penn Station) to the outside world and Long Island is already blanketed with a thick-enough net of traction power line interconnects meaning their substation builds are about as cost-controlled as they're ever going to get. But Metro-North literally can't electrify any further within an acceptable cost if they stick with 750V DC third rail.

 

[Stlin]

1) We already have 25 kV AC overhead on the Providence Line, the most common mainline rail electrification voltage in the world with standard parts available both lineside and vehicle-side. Why would we ever want to make things harder on ourselves by adopting something incompatible with that for the buildout?

2) Third rail is significantly more expensive to build out at long distances. The DC voltage is much lower because of proximity to the ground, topping out around 750 volts vs. the 25,000 volts you've got on the NEC overhead. Lower voltage means you have to build many more substations, about one every 5-6 miles vs. one every 30 miles. Substations are the most expensive by far part of an electrification scheme.

3) Third rail does not allow for very high speeds. 80 MPH average, 90 MPH max before you're simply grinding the third rail shoes to dust. Pantographs can do 200 MPH with no issues whatsoever. While I'm no fan of TransitMatters' 100 MPH systemwide proof-of-concept for lots of technical and hidden-cost reasons, you absolutely can't aspire to something like that (or even take advantage of using existing Providence Line track classes) at all with third rail.

4) It goes without saying that third rail is very dangerous around grade crossings. Dangerous for cars and pederstrians, and dangerous for trains. Metro-North had a nasty fatal accident on the Harlem Line in 2015 where a train derailed while striking an SUV at a crossing and several passengers on the train died when a segment of live third rail punctured the floor of the train.

5) Metro-North's EMU's are not "off-shelf". They and their LIRR sisters are some of the most overcustomized in the world for LIRR's uniquely small loading gauge and the tri-voltage complexities of the New Haven Line stock. They're overweight, overly pricey, incompatible with curved full-high platforms (which we have) because of the quarter-point doors, and incompatible with low or mini-high platforms because they lack door traps. We would never be looking at M8 or M9 clones as a starting point for our own EMU's.

6) Metro-North third rail is a constriction for system expansion. To wire up to Albany for NYHSR you'd have to rip out all the third rail on the Hudson Line from Spuyten Duyvil Jct. to Croton-Harmon, replace it with 25 kV overhead, and order New Haven Line M8 clones...leaving only the city itself (necessary, because Park Ave. Tunnel + Grand Central Terminal clearances don't allow for any overhead of any voltage) as third rail. You wouldn't be able to extend third rail to Poughkeepsie for regular service because it'd be too many more substations for the cost vs. the 25 kV option, and to wire up diesel territory on the Harlem Line you'd probably need to do the same because the number of substations required to run an electric schedule to Wassaic (the 1984 North White Plains-Southeast electrification extension section is already notoriously underpowered for its loading, restricting schedules). LIRR can expand out OK because they're a geographically isolated system with only 1 connection (Penn Station) to the outside world and Long Island is already blanketed with a thick-enough net of traction power line interconnects meaning their substation builds are about as cost-controlled as they're ever going to get. But Metro-North literally can't electrify any further within an acceptable cost if they stick with 750V DC third rail.

Not to distract from Boston focused things, but wouldn't all that *waves-hands-at-above* mean that BEMUs would make more sense in LIRR/Metro North territory, compared to Boston, which isn't nearly as physically constrained in adding catenary?

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

Not to distract from Boston focused things, but wouldn't all that *waves-hands-at-above* mean that BEMUs would make more sense in LIRR/Metro North territory, compared to Boston, which isn't nearly as physically constrained in adding catenary?

Yes, but more because of their service characteristics than the physical constraints. BEMU's work pretty well in worldwide adoption with un-electrified tails of frequent-service electrified mains, and light-service branches off frequent-service electrified mains. Hudson and Harlem Line diesel territory definitely qualify for the un-electrified tail profile, and the Danbury and Waterbury Lines definitely qualify for the branch profile. And LIRR did try to do a pilot BEMU conversion of its M7 cars for the light-service Oyster Bay Branch, which if it succeeded (it didn't...it was scrapped due to technical problems) would've also provided a solution for the un-electrified tail of the Port Jefferson Branch. Those at least fit the mold of the types of service characteristics BEMU's have been successfully deployed at worldwide, and is sort of the antithesis of the T's "get out of jail free from electrifying the mains" cop-out.

But the reality is a little more granular.

• As mentioned, the M7/M9's and M8's are hyper-customized beasts. The LIRR M7 conversion pilot had lots of trouble fitting in the battery bulk, and de-powering bogies (the typical means of fitting in batteries) would've harmed mainline schedule adherence so they were loathe to try that. The M8's simply had no room for batteries, since they already are stuffed full of tri-voltage guts (750V DC third rail, 12.5 kV AC overhead, 25 kV AC overhead) and were already morbidly obese. The costs and performance compromises for trying to shoehorn in BEMU guts in M# packaging is a threshold too much for the MTA to bear, so they're not entertaining it (at least not after the LIRR pilot proved to be way more difficult than hoped).
• As mentioned, the Harlem Line in particular has very weak power draw on the North White Plains-Southeast electrification segment, and needs massive substation upgrades if it's to support any increased schedules over today. Hell...it's so tapped out the M7's need to be limited in consist length to avoid shorting out the joint, with older lighter-loading M3's assigned to rush-hour consists. South of North White Plains also needs even more sub upgrades if it's to support subway-like Urban Rail, which is desired by many advocates. BEMU's suck up massive amounts of juice when they're in charge mode, way more than a straight EMU which will draw little power while coasting and put power back into the grid while braking. So BEMU adoption on Metro-North would run headfirst into the very expensive-to-fix power draw problems on the Harlem Line making those substation upgrades mandatory if the tail is to be treated with batteries. And it would probably push the Hudson Line...which is currently OK with its loading (but would also need upgrades for Urban Rail frequencies to Croton-Harmon)...past a critical threshold triggering sub upgrades if it needed to swallow BEMU loading for the Poughkeepsie runs.
• The un-electrified Hudson/Harlem tails are long...about equal in length to the electrified portions. That poses some challenges to keeping a charge all the way to Poughkeepsie and Wassaic and back without having to throw down some extra discontinuous third rail up north and at the terminals to bridge the gaps...which means at least a couple more substations at considerable $$$ on top of all the crushingly expensive mainline sub upgrades they'd have to do. On LIRR the east-end Montauk and Greenport diesel territories are similarly really freaking long. The Danbury and Waterbury Branches are not long and would be much easier to swing, but the New Haven Line's M8's wouldn't be able to take the battery bulk to begin with so it's all moot.
• Throwing up 25 kV wire everywhere outside the MNRR Park Ave. Tunnel and LIRR East Side Access then BEMU'ing the respective Grand Central terminal districts is the same ass-backwards approach the T is taking. You'd never leave terminals so singularly huge and busy un-electrified for integrity-of-concept's sake, much less subject such critical infrastructure to the greater failure modes of BEMU's in battery mode.

No easy answers.

 

[lainpimicaja]

Really nice to see the new Fairmount Line spring / summer schedule take effect today with service every 30-mins for most of the service day. I know the rest of the system has a long way to go until the Regional Rail vision is achieved, but still this is a good step worth celebrating (especially for the neighborhoods along the Fairmount Line that have fought for years for this kind of service).

 

[The EGE]

Fairmount Line ridership quadrupled from 2012 to 2022. By late 2022, it was at 107% of 2018 ridership - 25% ahead of the next-best line. That's entirely attributable to service quality.

In 2012, there were 75 weekly round trips: 15 weekday round trips with 2-hour midday gaps, and no weekend service. There were only 3 intermediate stations; much of the corridor was not walkable to a station. OTP was typically in the high 80s. Weekday ridership was 789 - an average of just 26 passengers per train.

In 2022, there were 144 weekly round trips: 24 weekday round trips with 45-minute headways, and 12 weekend round trips. Four new intermediate stations had been added, with almost all the corridor walkable to a station, but running times were only a few minutes longer than in 2012. Span of service was also improved from 2012, with an 18-hour service day that matches most bus service. OTP was typically in the mid-to-high 90s. Weekday ridership was 2,843 - an average of 59 passengers per train.

The new schedule has 222 weekly round trips: 34 weekday round trips with 30-minute headways, and 26 weekend round trips. If ridership continues to increase, it will be a very strong case both for continued service increases on the Fairmount Line (including electrification) and similar investment in other lines.

 

[stefal]

New MBTA job posting: Rail Modernization Commercial Strategy Director

Notably, the posting includes "primary responsibility for managing the development of the procurement strategy and documents for the 2027 Operator re-procurement, coordinating inputs to them from consultants and other departments within MBTA/MassDOT." Seems like secondary responsibilities fall under financial/funding management and grant applications. policy and regulations, etc.

 

[Stlin]

New MBTA job posting: Rail Modernization Commercial Strategy Director

Notably, the posting includes "primary responsibility for managing the development of the procurement strategy and documents for the 2027 Operator re-procurement, coordinating inputs to them from consultants and other departments within MBTA/MassDOT." Seems like secondary responsibilities fall under financial/funding management and grant applications. policy and regulations, etc.

I have a copy of the CR operator RFI; in short the T is looking at potentially a Design/Build/Finance/Operate/Maintain model, which would outsource just about everything to the future operator, including procuring the electric fleet, building out the electrification infrastructure and financing that, then operating it all in almost a concession model. I will say that doing so would take the cost of Rail Vision off the T's books, and onto the contractor's, which, in a world where the CIP is very fiscally constrained, may be enough reason for the T to do so, and would justify the funding/financial bits of the job.

Personally, I will say that Keolis has been doing quite a good job of operating and maintaining the current CR system, and with their European roots one hopes that they would be able to leverage their SNCF resources.

 

[F-Line to Dudley]

New MBTA job posting: Rail Modernization Commercial Strategy Director

Notably, the posting includes "primary responsibility for managing the development of the procurement strategy and documents for the 2027 Operator re-procurement, coordinating inputs to them from consultants and other departments within MBTA/MassDOT." Seems like secondary responsibilities fall under financial/funding management and grant applications. policy and regulations, etc.

Really? We need to hire consultants to tell us who to hire/re-hire as operator?

 

[stefal]

Really? We need to hire consultants to tell us who to hire/re-hire as operator?

I think it's more on the technical development and implementation they will be asking Keolis/the future operator related to electrification. I agree to an extent you should have in-house staff for this, but if they're going to keep outsourcing commuter rail, actually expanding the outsourcing to practically 100% of it, I'd want a consultant next to me while writing, negotiating, and managing the contract that lays out the groundwork now for some large scale capital projects including electrification for the next few years.

 

[RandomWalk]

I fear the next time we get a Baker as governor, they will jump at a full privatization. Fully private passenger rail doesn’t seem to work in the US, so we’ll end up having to reacquire it in a decade’s time.

 

[Brattle Loop]

I fear the next time we get a Baker as governor, they will jump at a full privatization. Fully private passenger rail doesn’t seem to work in the US, so we’ll end up having to reacquire it in a decade’s time.

I don't think a governor can do that unilaterally. And it's harder to see the legislature having an appetite for wholesale privatization.

 

[TallIsGood]

I fear the next time we get a Baker as governor, they will jump at a full privatization. Fully private passenger rail doesn’t seem to work in the US, so we’ll end up having to reacquire it in a decade’s time.

What about Brightline?

 

[Aprehensive_Words]

Its business model relies on really intensive, high-priced mixed-use real estate development around its stations, though. You aren't going to be able to get that at most MBTA CR stations.

 

[kdmc]

I am no expert, but I think there's a big difference between gradually and strategically opening service where it's potentially profitable vs. wholesale inheriting a huge, famously-unprofitable legacy rail system that is billions of dollars away from state-of-good-repair.

 

[Longfellow]

I am no expert, but I think there's a big difference between gradually and strategically opening service where it's potentially profitable vs. wholesale inheriting a huge, famously-unprofitable legacy rail system that is billions of dollars away from state-of-good-repair.

There's definitely businesses who would happily take it over and take a lump sum to make up for the lack of profit each year. And when the money isn't enough to operate the system? They'll just ask for more consultants, more money, or threaten to shut down lines. Paying someone to own our priceless infrastructure, something Massachusetts liberals and conservatives alike would salivate over. Anything to stick it to riders.

 

[clam]

Its business model relies on really intensive, high-priced mixed-use real estate development around its stations, though. You aren't going to be able to get that at most MBTA CR stations.

Infill stations with TOD would easily pay for the NSRL

 

[Stlin]

Infill stations with TOD would easily pay for the NSRL

Errrr just where are you going to find 2+ billion dollars worth of land within the project boundaries that isn't already spoken for? Brightline got its land via inheritance from the Florida East Coast RR, whereas the MBTAs land inheritance was largely sold off by the bankrupt New Haven, Pen Central and B&M railroads long before the state came into the picture.

 

[TheRatmeister]

Infill stations with TOD would easily pay for the NSRL

Where are we finding probably 4 times the area of Suffolk downs exactly?

 

[bakgwailo]

I am no expert, but I think there's a big difference between gradually and strategically opening service where it's potentially profitable vs. wholesale inheriting a huge, famously-unprofitable legacy rail system that is billions of dollars away from state-of-good-repair.

We'd need to follow JR's path in this: massive up front investment to shore up all the infrastructure and state of good repair, spin off the lines into their own quasi public/private companies and grant them essentially unlimited eminient domain rights around their stations/row, along with full control/build as of right on their properties. At which point we could eventually spin them off into private companies as lines become profitable. Except, that was at the Federal level in Japan, not the prefecture, and will almost certainly never happen here. Although, I do think the MBTA needs to be reimagined and giving them by right development powers around stations makes a ton of sense, as long as they are land leasing for development and not just selling it off.

Probably be able to fund a decent chunk of electrification and station upgrades in that model, but the $4-10 billon NSRL? That's not very feasible.