- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Seaport Transportation
- Thread starter bostoneophyte
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,707
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
At best we can call what the MBCR uses punch tickets (an 1890s technology).
Please, you're insulting punch cards ;-)(standardized in 1928).
At best we can call what the MBCR uses punch tickets (an 1890s technology).
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2010
- Messages
- 8,894
- Reaction score
- 271
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
My bad. I knew punch card wasn't quite the word. It just amazes me how they aren't carrying around credit card readers or something. The MBTA could even use Square.
Anyway, regarding the DMU... if they can't figure out how to schedule during the morning and evening peak, then the whole effort is useless.
My bad. I knew punch card wasn't quite the word. It just amazes me how they aren't carrying around credit card readers or something. The MBTA could even use Square.
Anyway, regarding the DMU... if they can't figure out how to schedule during the morning and evening peak, then the whole effort is useless.
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
At the very least, it would be considerably less crappy than missing out on connecting the line with the damn neighborhood itself / existing transit line a few blocks away.
Absolutely.
At the very least, it would be considerably less crappy than missing out on connecting the line with the damn neighborhood itself / existing transit line a few blocks away.
Absolutely.
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
Since they seem to have solved the issues getting around widett, the layover on the Back Bay platforms is what is really going to be the issue here, yes?
If that is the case, a better plan would be to have the DMU shuttle start at Riverside, hitting all the inside 128 stops. At the same time, have all the Worcester and Framingham trains skip everything except Back Bay.
Not only do the CR riders get a faster trip into town, but the layover is now off the main line so it could take an hour and it wouldn't matter. I believe having the CR trains operate as expresses would also open up a bit more flex in the schedule.
If this is too much to chew, at minimum I would have the DMU run to the New Balance station, since there are four tracks there that could also be used to layover on. Giving Yawkey and Brighton RT level service would also be massive.
Since they seem to have solved the issues getting around widett, the layover on the Back Bay platforms is what is really going to be the issue here, yes?
If that is the case, a better plan would be to have the DMU shuttle start at Riverside, hitting all the inside 128 stops. At the same time, have all the Worcester and Framingham trains skip everything except Back Bay.
Not only do the CR riders get a faster trip into town, but the layover is now off the main line so it could take an hour and it wouldn't matter. I believe having the CR trains operate as expresses would also open up a bit more flex in the schedule.
If this is too much to chew, at minimum I would have the DMU run to the New Balance station, since there are four tracks there that could also be used to layover on. Giving Yawkey and Brighton RT level service would also be massive.
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
Is there room for a meet between Back Bay Station and Track 61?
I still don't think this is practical, but I will say that a shuttle that goes out to New Balance would be a great boon for Allston. For example, I have a friend who commutes from Lower Allston to the convention center to work at a coffee shop. He doesn't have much money, a car is out of the question. The trip takes an hour, involving 66->Red->Silver. And I don't think he's the only one making this connection.
Is there room for a meet between Back Bay Station and Track 61?
I still don't think this is practical, but I will say that a shuttle that goes out to New Balance would be a great boon for Allston. For example, I have a friend who commutes from Lower Allston to the convention center to work at a coffee shop. He doesn't have much money, a car is out of the question. The trip takes an hour, involving 66->Red->Silver. And I don't think he's the only one making this connection.
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
I'm in the same boat, I cant WAIT until the NB stop opens, even if its just the CR. The station is going across the street from my apartment. Bringing DMUs up here would be a dream come true
I'm in the same boat, I cant WAIT until the NB stop opens, even if its just the CR. The station is going across the street from my apartment. Bringing DMUs up here would be a dream come true
JohnAKeith
Senior Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 4,321
- Reaction score
- 69
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
Why did I take 160 photos of a rail line? I dunno.
Here they are.
Slideshow:
http://s369.photobucket.com/user/JohnAKeith/slideshow/Track 61 - DMU
A couple fun ones:
The spur(?) from Back Bay/South End at the Broadway bridge.
Widett Circle.
The line through Southie, parallel to the Haul Road (and B Street).
There should be a people-mover between the BCEC and World Trade Center.
The proposed end of the line.
This is where the rail should end, around the bend from where its proposed terminus.
Gonna need some work if the rail is extended past the BCEC.
If the rail was extended, there would kind of be a problem when it hits 1-11 Drydock Ave.
If the rail was extended from there, it could go all the way here to this huge building - but I don't know its name? (This is further on than the Boston Design Center / Black Falcon Terminal.)
Why did I take 160 photos of a rail line? I dunno.
Here they are.
Slideshow:
http://s369.photobucket.com/user/JohnAKeith/slideshow/Track 61 - DMU
A couple fun ones:
The spur(?) from Back Bay/South End at the Broadway bridge.
Widett Circle.
The line through Southie, parallel to the Haul Road (and B Street).
There should be a people-mover between the BCEC and World Trade Center.
The proposed end of the line.
This is where the rail should end, around the bend from where its proposed terminus.
Gonna need some work if the rail is extended past the BCEC.
If the rail was extended, there would kind of be a problem when it hits 1-11 Drydock Ave.
If the rail was extended from there, it could go all the way here to this huge building - but I don't know its name? (This is further on than the Boston Design Center / Black Falcon Terminal.)
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
^ and a rail fan is born =P
As for the tracks beyond the BCEC, from what I've heard when freights were running down there they had "no parking from X:00-Y:00" signs where people can park on the tracks. The property owners are aware the line is there and technically active.
Also, it look like with relatively little construction you could add a useful stop at Widett to serve the SOWA (jesus I hate that name) neighborhood and the BUMC. From the end of East Newton St its a 1/4 mile walk.
They could also construct an elevated turn around (like at wood island) and extend the #1 bus there too, although traffic is so bad at rush hour that may do more harm than good.
^ and a rail fan is born =P
As for the tracks beyond the BCEC, from what I've heard when freights were running down there they had "no parking from X:00-Y:00" signs where people can park on the tracks. The property owners are aware the line is there and technically active.
Also, it look like with relatively little construction you could add a useful stop at Widett to serve the SOWA (jesus I hate that name) neighborhood and the BUMC. From the end of East Newton St its a 1/4 mile walk.
They could also construct an elevated turn around (like at wood island) and extend the #1 bus there too, although traffic is so bad at rush hour that may do more harm than good.
Last edited:
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,200
- Reaction score
- 9,015
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
Oh, I'm sure a DMU can handle it too. But that's not why the 2.2% standard exists. That is the max grade the hauling/braking power of a single locomotive hauling 30+ something cars (don't know how many, but it's a lot) can safely handle before there must be mandatory 2 or more locomotives. That's the rub in it being attached to a common-carrier network and being allowed to interoperate; it is required to support all manner of common-carrier traffic. The only exemptions given to the 2.2% standard in this country are some very isolated mountaintop mining RR's that by necessity follow the typography...they are required to lash up 2+ locomotives for every move up or down the grade. A couple of them out west are even self-electrified using ex-Amtrak E60 electrics to handle those grades.
Some of the int'l HSR lines that push the laws of physics harder are something less-than common carriers and aren't held by the same rules. The Germans in particular are diligent about segregating high-speed, mid-speed, and crud/freight on different routes. Here's it's not so much FRA inflexibility as there's too much shared freight and not nearly enough bypasses of key routes in this country (U.K. is similar) to feasibly start introducing degrees of separation.
Since Track 61 did in the old days handle freights much longer than 30 cars and Massport's stake in this DMU plan is to prop it up with some low-hanging fruit day utilization/revenue and track improvements to boost its container freight plan...well, it would be a particularly bad line to think about introducing new grades. Even if this DMU thing is a hit, the overnight freight is what's going to be generating more revenue for the state in a single pickup than the whole day's passenger schedule will.
Oh, I'm sure a DMU can handle it too. But that's not why the 2.2% standard exists. That is the max grade the hauling/braking power of a single locomotive hauling 30+ something cars (don't know how many, but it's a lot) can safely handle before there must be mandatory 2 or more locomotives. That's the rub in it being attached to a common-carrier network and being allowed to interoperate; it is required to support all manner of common-carrier traffic. The only exemptions given to the 2.2% standard in this country are some very isolated mountaintop mining RR's that by necessity follow the typography...they are required to lash up 2+ locomotives for every move up or down the grade. A couple of them out west are even self-electrified using ex-Amtrak E60 electrics to handle those grades.
Some of the int'l HSR lines that push the laws of physics harder are something less-than common carriers and aren't held by the same rules. The Germans in particular are diligent about segregating high-speed, mid-speed, and crud/freight on different routes. Here's it's not so much FRA inflexibility as there's too much shared freight and not nearly enough bypasses of key routes in this country (U.K. is similar) to feasibly start introducing degrees of separation.
Since Track 61 did in the old days handle freights much longer than 30 cars and Massport's stake in this DMU plan is to prop it up with some low-hanging fruit day utilization/revenue and track improvements to boost its container freight plan...well, it would be a particularly bad line to think about introducing new grades. Even if this DMU thing is a hit, the overnight freight is what's going to be generating more revenue for the state in a single pickup than the whole day's passenger schedule will.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,200
- Reaction score
- 9,015
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
No, according to one of the southside MBCR guys on RR.net BBY is not much of an issue, but it must--no give--be on the Worcester platforms. The NEC platforms are way too congested at all hours. Worcester will work without clogging anything at all hours except peak rush. And Yawkey and/or New Balance wouldn't be much different if this run were extended. It only gets dicey when you look at Fairmounting Worcester. Year 5 or 7 of this thing might be hitting a brick wall at BBY capacity, since you can't ever add a third Worcester platform inside the Pike tunnel.
This will necessitate the Worcester platforms being raised to full-highs. But they no longer need to be mini-highs because CSX no longer has a freight clearance route through here with Beacon Park closed and Yawkey going full-high. So that's a to-do item that now needs to happen regardless. And not real expensive.
The rush hour schedule thing is the Fatal Threat above all others. If you have southside ops guys saying running at all may be physically impossible at the 7-10 and 4-7 peaks because of all the crossing traffic on the Old Colony, Fairmount, Southampton non-revenue, and on the SS leads into BBY...there's no way this can possibly work. No schedule expansion at all those hours doesn't seem like it could possibly work when those are the start/end hours for conventions at BCEC and a very real tipping point for convention groups who want their transportation options detailed before signing on the dotted line. Local commuters might not care too much about that on "something's better than nothing" grounds and understanding of what a zoo SS and BBY are at crush load. But the bigwigs bringing the money won't, and the out-of-towners won't.
The other potentially fatal snag is Amtrak. That is very much real. It is total no-go if the state does not have a new layover yard to GTFO of Southampton. That is a real, nasty dispute that's been boiling over of late with the Worcester schedule expansion (those 6+ car consists can only fit in Amtrak's parking spots), glut of new equipment coming online, and all other incremental service expansion. And they don't have a parcel today. They can buy or lease one tomorrow, but it's too late to start design/permit/build and get it done in 2 years.
And as I said on the last page, if they have to keep Widett loop clear no other ad hoc parking spot works except for the Beacon Park engine yard with its loop...which they bafflingly have not looked at yet. Any off-line equipment moves to Widett--which happen every single midday shift change--have to reverse direction on the loop on the lines that don't have a detour shot down the Fairmount (i.e. all Worcester, Needham, and off-northside/Grand Junction) have loop so the locomotive exhaust faces the correct direction away from the SS platforms. It's Widett, BP @ Storrow, or bust. And they don't have an executable plan today.
The other Amtrak threat is simply making them late in the yard. Because the Amtrak building is south of all these switches the DMU has to cross, they need traffic modeling to the nines that says a Regional or Acela will never be delayed onto platform by a T revenue move. Because they usually don't lay over on platform between runs like the T does when half the time they have to pull into the maint building to restock the dining cars, empty the toilets, relieve a crew shift, and sometimes turn directions so the baggage car is facing the proper loading spot on-platform for Penn or D.C. Union. They lay down the hammer when those yard reloads have to play hurry-up to get back on-platform because some yard-crossing MBCR traffic has to get out of the way. They're the ones who could banish this thing at rush hour or limit the schedule from ever having an on-peak increase. That problem doesn't necessarily go away if the T gets a new layover because Old Colony + full-blast Fairmount schedule alone gets the yard pretty close to the limit for crossing traffic (everything converges from either side of the Amtrak building).
If either of these highly contentious issues are no-go with Amtrak, that's the end of it right there. And it's not all about Amtrak being bullheaded with its dispatching preemption...they can't run their desired NEC schedule without this priority. BOS-NYC schedules live and die by Southampton's efficiency. You should see how much they want to expand space in there to meet their 2040 vision. There could be nothing but MBCR and Amtrak tracks filling up the whole of Widett in 20 years...the BTD tow lot, cold storage building, and the Boston Food Market warehouses altogether. It's as much potential new train facility acreage as airlifting over 1-1/2 northside Boston Engine Terminals and plunking it next to everything else that's already there.
What concerns me here given all this traffic growth--Worcester "Fairmounting", Amtrak Amtrak Amtrak, SS expansion requiring Southampton super-sizing, likely full-blown Hyannis and Foxboro CR flooding the Old Colony and Fairmount even more--is that I'm not sure how this service can be permanent on a 10+ year range before whatever meager schedule it can top out at starts getting squeezed and whittled down further by exploding cross traffic. They almost MUST restart SL Phase III planning at some point if they want a permanent solution, because this thing is probably finished by 2030. Not to mention tend to the rest of their downtown circulation woes...CBTC signaling for 3-min. headways on Red and Orange, Red-Blue, North-South, UR. It all starts choking on its own congestion, and this is the first victim because its capacity ceiling is so crippled to begin with. They really shot themselves in the foot dropping all these projects from the official state Trans. Improvement Plan and halting all studies and prelim EIS'ing on every single build.
No, according to one of the southside MBCR guys on RR.net BBY is not much of an issue, but it must--no give--be on the Worcester platforms. The NEC platforms are way too congested at all hours. Worcester will work without clogging anything at all hours except peak rush. And Yawkey and/or New Balance wouldn't be much different if this run were extended. It only gets dicey when you look at Fairmounting Worcester. Year 5 or 7 of this thing might be hitting a brick wall at BBY capacity, since you can't ever add a third Worcester platform inside the Pike tunnel.
This will necessitate the Worcester platforms being raised to full-highs. But they no longer need to be mini-highs because CSX no longer has a freight clearance route through here with Beacon Park closed and Yawkey going full-high. So that's a to-do item that now needs to happen regardless. And not real expensive.
The rush hour schedule thing is the Fatal Threat above all others. If you have southside ops guys saying running at all may be physically impossible at the 7-10 and 4-7 peaks because of all the crossing traffic on the Old Colony, Fairmount, Southampton non-revenue, and on the SS leads into BBY...there's no way this can possibly work. No schedule expansion at all those hours doesn't seem like it could possibly work when those are the start/end hours for conventions at BCEC and a very real tipping point for convention groups who want their transportation options detailed before signing on the dotted line. Local commuters might not care too much about that on "something's better than nothing" grounds and understanding of what a zoo SS and BBY are at crush load. But the bigwigs bringing the money won't, and the out-of-towners won't.
The other potentially fatal snag is Amtrak. That is very much real. It is total no-go if the state does not have a new layover yard to GTFO of Southampton. That is a real, nasty dispute that's been boiling over of late with the Worcester schedule expansion (those 6+ car consists can only fit in Amtrak's parking spots), glut of new equipment coming online, and all other incremental service expansion. And they don't have a parcel today. They can buy or lease one tomorrow, but it's too late to start design/permit/build and get it done in 2 years.
And as I said on the last page, if they have to keep Widett loop clear no other ad hoc parking spot works except for the Beacon Park engine yard with its loop...which they bafflingly have not looked at yet. Any off-line equipment moves to Widett--which happen every single midday shift change--have to reverse direction on the loop on the lines that don't have a detour shot down the Fairmount (i.e. all Worcester, Needham, and off-northside/Grand Junction) have loop so the locomotive exhaust faces the correct direction away from the SS platforms. It's Widett, BP @ Storrow, or bust. And they don't have an executable plan today.
The other Amtrak threat is simply making them late in the yard. Because the Amtrak building is south of all these switches the DMU has to cross, they need traffic modeling to the nines that says a Regional or Acela will never be delayed onto platform by a T revenue move. Because they usually don't lay over on platform between runs like the T does when half the time they have to pull into the maint building to restock the dining cars, empty the toilets, relieve a crew shift, and sometimes turn directions so the baggage car is facing the proper loading spot on-platform for Penn or D.C. Union. They lay down the hammer when those yard reloads have to play hurry-up to get back on-platform because some yard-crossing MBCR traffic has to get out of the way. They're the ones who could banish this thing at rush hour or limit the schedule from ever having an on-peak increase. That problem doesn't necessarily go away if the T gets a new layover because Old Colony + full-blast Fairmount schedule alone gets the yard pretty close to the limit for crossing traffic (everything converges from either side of the Amtrak building).
If either of these highly contentious issues are no-go with Amtrak, that's the end of it right there. And it's not all about Amtrak being bullheaded with its dispatching preemption...they can't run their desired NEC schedule without this priority. BOS-NYC schedules live and die by Southampton's efficiency. You should see how much they want to expand space in there to meet their 2040 vision. There could be nothing but MBCR and Amtrak tracks filling up the whole of Widett in 20 years...the BTD tow lot, cold storage building, and the Boston Food Market warehouses altogether. It's as much potential new train facility acreage as airlifting over 1-1/2 northside Boston Engine Terminals and plunking it next to everything else that's already there.
What concerns me here given all this traffic growth--Worcester "Fairmounting", Amtrak Amtrak Amtrak, SS expansion requiring Southampton super-sizing, likely full-blown Hyannis and Foxboro CR flooding the Old Colony and Fairmount even more--is that I'm not sure how this service can be permanent on a 10+ year range before whatever meager schedule it can top out at starts getting squeezed and whittled down further by exploding cross traffic. They almost MUST restart SL Phase III planning at some point if they want a permanent solution, because this thing is probably finished by 2030. Not to mention tend to the rest of their downtown circulation woes...CBTC signaling for 3-min. headways on Red and Orange, Red-Blue, North-South, UR. It all starts choking on its own congestion, and this is the first victim because its capacity ceiling is so crippled to begin with. They really shot themselves in the foot dropping all these projects from the official state Trans. Improvement Plan and halting all studies and prelim EIS'ing on every single build.
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
It would make sense but that property is going to be worth so much that little expansion may happen -- unless you're building over it and dealing with air rights, and *that* would be a blast.
It would make sense but that property is going to be worth so much that little expansion may happen -- unless you're building over it and dealing with air rights, and *that* would be a blast.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2011
- Messages
- 5,599
- Reaction score
- 2,707
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
The awesome build-out would be:
Yawkey (Green/Kenmore)
Back Bay (Orange)
Herald St (South Silver)
BCEC
Silver Line Way (Airport Silver)
Seaport / Black Falcon
Are they thinking its a 1-vehicle, 1-track shuttle? It could easily be a victim of its own success.
The awesome build-out would be:
Yawkey (Green/Kenmore)
Back Bay (Orange)
Herald St (South Silver)
BCEC
Silver Line Way (Airport Silver)
Seaport / Black Falcon
Are they thinking its a 1-vehicle, 1-track shuttle? It could easily be a victim of its own success.
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,200
- Reaction score
- 9,015
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
I don't know, but if it's crossing traffic the whole duration of the trip from Southampton to BBY it certainly can't be more than 2-3 cars tops or it's going to block too many switches at one time and chew up extra minutes on the clock to reverse direction with all the system checks, brake tests, etc. The southside engineer on RR.net who gamed that out with the 8-minute figure as an 'efficient' on-platform turn for a push-pull set said that improvements over that were dependent on how many MU's you had trainlining. If it's a singlet or married pair they don't even have to exit the vehicle to get into the opposite cab. If it's a 3-car set it might take as long or longer because doing a preflight check on the MU electronics sync is something they don't have to do in a push-pull set. It's more like a combination of the system checks for 'rebooting' a Green Line consist coupled with some diesel engine elements coupled with the stricter FRA regs on what the crew has to inspect. Add more stuff to check, it adds minutes to the layover until there's no difference with push-pull.
So...yes, absolutely could be a victim of its own success. I wouldn't recommend reading all the pages of shouting and name-calling about DMU's in the "Customer Service. . ." thread because that would be masochistic, but the mode does have scalability issues with seating capacity and trainlining that leave it quite a bit less than a cure-all.
Plus...there is no FRA-compliant unit in existence that can trainline with an off-shelf coach. So bumming a bi-level in the yard to double the capacity with a trailer is impossible. The weight differential is problematic and the MU electronics are so fine-tuned that DMU's or EMU's can only trainline with another version of itself (i.e. a custom-built unpowered trailer). It can't correct for inert mass of unknown properties. For the same reason that if you've ever been on a disabled subway train that has to get a push from behind by the next train, everything starts or stops with a semi-violent jolt even at the slowest possible speed. That's the finely load-balanced MU electronics in the trolley or heavy rail consist having absolutely no idea what large inert thing it's dragging along. Pretty much all the East Coast EMU's have dead trailer versions of themselves...SEPTA Silverliners, NJ Transit Arrows, Metro North/LIRR M7's and M8's (that's what the bar cars are), but they are all demotorized EMU's with special electronics to talk to the powered units and smooth out the distribution. Just like the old-timey Budds could pull a dead Budd in a set with no ill-effects. But none of these vehicles can pull a generic coach without whiplashing you on starts/stops. There's too wide a variance in "generic coach" for what the MU system has to correct for, and push-pull doesn't have to care about those differences at all so its very 'dumbness' is why it rides smooth with anything in tow.
I also mentioned in the masochistic shouting thread that there's some neat EMU tech in development that would allow coupling with off-shelf coaches. It's sort of a hybrid between traditional EMU and an Acela-like power car trainset that's 'dumber' on the MU'ing controls but with enough 21st century doohickeys on the propulsion design to perform almost equivalently. NJ Transit is considering those, and if it works that might be THE entry point for EMU's on the T given the compatibility with the coach fleet. If that idea succeeds there is no reason why a DMU version can't soon follow. It's a more complex build because of all the fuel tank weight distribution requiring its own ride-smoothing tweaks, but if they can do it on EMU's the viable DMU versions shouldn't trail by more than 3-5 years.
Unfortunately, you're talking 2018 at the earliest for the first test units if NJT takes the plunge, which means this is really a next-decade solution. And that doesn't much help here if this service has to grow while having absolutely no give for schedule growth. And we might hit the end of the line anyway in 12 years for running it at all if other traffic increases to the point where it can no longer run any useful hour.
This pretty much has to be a 1-2 punch of starting the service now then restarting long-term planning on SL Phase III so they can get some workable design they can start building by 2025. Because they may not have more than a 10-year window to run this before service has to end with no recourse for re-routes or further finessing.
I don't know, but if it's crossing traffic the whole duration of the trip from Southampton to BBY it certainly can't be more than 2-3 cars tops or it's going to block too many switches at one time and chew up extra minutes on the clock to reverse direction with all the system checks, brake tests, etc. The southside engineer on RR.net who gamed that out with the 8-minute figure as an 'efficient' on-platform turn for a push-pull set said that improvements over that were dependent on how many MU's you had trainlining. If it's a singlet or married pair they don't even have to exit the vehicle to get into the opposite cab. If it's a 3-car set it might take as long or longer because doing a preflight check on the MU electronics sync is something they don't have to do in a push-pull set. It's more like a combination of the system checks for 'rebooting' a Green Line consist coupled with some diesel engine elements coupled with the stricter FRA regs on what the crew has to inspect. Add more stuff to check, it adds minutes to the layover until there's no difference with push-pull.
So...yes, absolutely could be a victim of its own success. I wouldn't recommend reading all the pages of shouting and name-calling about DMU's in the "Customer Service. . ." thread because that would be masochistic, but the mode does have scalability issues with seating capacity and trainlining that leave it quite a bit less than a cure-all.
Plus...there is no FRA-compliant unit in existence that can trainline with an off-shelf coach. So bumming a bi-level in the yard to double the capacity with a trailer is impossible. The weight differential is problematic and the MU electronics are so fine-tuned that DMU's or EMU's can only trainline with another version of itself (i.e. a custom-built unpowered trailer). It can't correct for inert mass of unknown properties. For the same reason that if you've ever been on a disabled subway train that has to get a push from behind by the next train, everything starts or stops with a semi-violent jolt even at the slowest possible speed. That's the finely load-balanced MU electronics in the trolley or heavy rail consist having absolutely no idea what large inert thing it's dragging along. Pretty much all the East Coast EMU's have dead trailer versions of themselves...SEPTA Silverliners, NJ Transit Arrows, Metro North/LIRR M7's and M8's (that's what the bar cars are), but they are all demotorized EMU's with special electronics to talk to the powered units and smooth out the distribution. Just like the old-timey Budds could pull a dead Budd in a set with no ill-effects. But none of these vehicles can pull a generic coach without whiplashing you on starts/stops. There's too wide a variance in "generic coach" for what the MU system has to correct for, and push-pull doesn't have to care about those differences at all so its very 'dumbness' is why it rides smooth with anything in tow.
I also mentioned in the masochistic shouting thread that there's some neat EMU tech in development that would allow coupling with off-shelf coaches. It's sort of a hybrid between traditional EMU and an Acela-like power car trainset that's 'dumber' on the MU'ing controls but with enough 21st century doohickeys on the propulsion design to perform almost equivalently. NJ Transit is considering those, and if it works that might be THE entry point for EMU's on the T given the compatibility with the coach fleet. If that idea succeeds there is no reason why a DMU version can't soon follow. It's a more complex build because of all the fuel tank weight distribution requiring its own ride-smoothing tweaks, but if they can do it on EMU's the viable DMU versions shouldn't trail by more than 3-5 years.
Unfortunately, you're talking 2018 at the earliest for the first test units if NJT takes the plunge, which means this is really a next-decade solution. And that doesn't much help here if this service has to grow while having absolutely no give for schedule growth. And we might hit the end of the line anyway in 12 years for running it at all if other traffic increases to the point where it can no longer run any useful hour.
This pretty much has to be a 1-2 punch of starting the service now then restarting long-term planning on SL Phase III so they can get some workable design they can start building by 2025. Because they may not have more than a 10-year window to run this before service has to end with no recourse for re-routes or further finessing.
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
Looking at the graphic from the Globe article, it looks like they may be proposing a bridge over the Southampton Yard to connect Track 61 with the Widett Loop. Wouldn't that solve a huge number of problems?
As for frequency issues; could they reroute a couple of commuter rail trains, especially Fairmounts and OCRs? Yes, that would only service the Seaport, but that's still something. And if they built that bridge, could a couple of inbound Worcesters (or Needhams or Franklins) be rerouted over to the Seaport instead of to South Station?
Especially if this were coupled with better BBY-BOS shuttle service (also using those DMUs)... I dunno.
The other thing that seems to a Big Deal about this: wasn't a big obstacle to providing 15-minute-ish headways on the Fairmount the lack of suitable DMUs (and the facilities to maintain them)? Couldn't this be a gateway to broader DMU use in Boston?
EDIT: Gosh would I love to see the official documents on this project. Anyone seen those?
Looking at the graphic from the Globe article, it looks like they may be proposing a bridge over the Southampton Yard to connect Track 61 with the Widett Loop. Wouldn't that solve a huge number of problems?
As for frequency issues; could they reroute a couple of commuter rail trains, especially Fairmounts and OCRs? Yes, that would only service the Seaport, but that's still something. And if they built that bridge, could a couple of inbound Worcesters (or Needhams or Franklins) be rerouted over to the Seaport instead of to South Station?
Especially if this were coupled with better BBY-BOS shuttle service (also using those DMUs)... I dunno.
The other thing that seems to a Big Deal about this: wasn't a big obstacle to providing 15-minute-ish headways on the Fairmount the lack of suitable DMUs (and the facilities to maintain them)? Couldn't this be a gateway to broader DMU use in Boston?
EDIT: Gosh would I love to see the official documents on this project. Anyone seen those?
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 9,200
- Reaction score
- 9,015
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
There is no physical path for a bridge. The junction with Southampton starts underneath the Red Line overpass, and it passes under S. Boston Bypass Rd. en route to the loop. Then has to get off the loop underneath the W. 4th overpass. Further back on Track 61 there are 5 overpasses on 5 consecutive blocks. At RR grades you need a practical 75-100 ft. of running room for every 1 ft. change in elevation, 18 ft. of elevation change passing over/under other tracks, 16 ft. of elevation change passing over/under state roads carrying trucks...which Southie Bypass Rd. is. And longer running room when those changes in elevation are coupled with curves...such as a loop.
Can't trench under, either because the Red Line tunnel is sitting directly underneath Track 61 at the Dot. Ave. overpass.
Go play with it on Google Maps. There is no physical path anywhere through the whole 2000 ft. x 4500 ft. Southampton Yard land parcel that accomplish that. Not even a Crazy Transit Pitches version with $200M to play with and which eminent-domains all the private businesses in the middle of the circle. It is physically impossible.
Fairmount thru-running may also be the only option left after 10 years to retain any Seaport service when traffic has increased to the point where it may no longer be possible to get any slots whatsoever into BBY and this service must end or be replaced by something different. But keep in mind...that's a straight Newmarket-BCEC shot. There's no BBY component, so the Fairmount audience is totally different (but beneficial) from the Seaport-BBY audience.
Forget about Needham for the sake of Rozzie/W. Rox to Seaport. Needham is already so constrained by the NEC it can't take any new schedule slots to peel off to Southie. Every train running today to SS is all they're ever going to get until Orange + Green supplant that CR route entirely.
This is a difficult issue that's not resolving itself fast enough for the T to be able to hit the ground running and start infilling these vehicles limitlessly into other configurations. It'll take a bunch of very expensive subsequent purchases to outfit themselves for it. It won't be anything like Cape Flyer where..."Oh, we've got a glut of new coaches coming for summer...let's rip out a few seats for a cafe car and do a little skunkworks Cape excursion at zero risk!" It's a large step to get beyond supporting initial Seaport + skeletal initial Fairmount baseline to being able to accumulate the cars for flipping the inner Worcester to DMU's or ramping Fairmount all the way from start of schedule to final top-off at 15 min. headways (which'll require expanded South Station to do).
There's good reason to worry that the enthusiasm is a little premature and that this got cooked up a little too fast and reckless grabbing those freight track plans and some T...not-Amtrak...quickie assessment about the loop and crossing over to BBY. Shades of the Tim Murray/Worcester-over-Grand Junction/Cambridge debacle. This one isn't on quite as shaky ground, but going to press without Amtrak representation or giving any indication what the hell they're going to do about moving equipment storage elsewhere is...ballsy to say the least.
There is no physical path for a bridge. The junction with Southampton starts underneath the Red Line overpass, and it passes under S. Boston Bypass Rd. en route to the loop. Then has to get off the loop underneath the W. 4th overpass. Further back on Track 61 there are 5 overpasses on 5 consecutive blocks. At RR grades you need a practical 75-100 ft. of running room for every 1 ft. change in elevation, 18 ft. of elevation change passing over/under other tracks, 16 ft. of elevation change passing over/under state roads carrying trucks...which Southie Bypass Rd. is. And longer running room when those changes in elevation are coupled with curves...such as a loop.
Can't trench under, either because the Red Line tunnel is sitting directly underneath Track 61 at the Dot. Ave. overpass.
Go play with it on Google Maps. There is no physical path anywhere through the whole 2000 ft. x 4500 ft. Southampton Yard land parcel that accomplish that. Not even a Crazy Transit Pitches version with $200M to play with and which eminent-domains all the private businesses in the middle of the circle. It is physically impossible.
There is no way in hell any regular push-pull CR train is getting diverted away from SS. That's a nonstarter. Push-pulls are even harder to swing through the yard, and those beyond-128 commuters have no interest in missing their critical terminal stop, Red Line, and SL1 for a Seaport diversion. This is intra-city transit. You could do it with some of the Fairmount schedule increase on DMU's since that is intra-city on a Zone 1A fare, and Fairmount is the least invasive line to cross straight through Southampton. That's an option. A pretty good one, to be honest!
Fairmount thru-running may also be the only option left after 10 years to retain any Seaport service when traffic has increased to the point where it may no longer be possible to get any slots whatsoever into BBY and this service must end or be replaced by something different. But keep in mind...that's a straight Newmarket-BCEC shot. There's no BBY component, so the Fairmount audience is totally different (but beneficial) from the Seaport-BBY audience.
Forget about Needham for the sake of Rozzie/W. Rox to Seaport. Needham is already so constrained by the NEC it can't take any new schedule slots to peel off to Southie. Every train running today to SS is all they're ever going to get until Orange + Green supplant that CR route entirely.
It could, but there are still major obstacles with scale for these vehicles because of limited seating capacity only 25% higher for a married-pair DMU than for one single-level coach, and total inability for them to couple with an off-shelf coach as a dead trailer for rush hour. The trainlining electronics in a DMU/EMU are so precise they can't correct for the variable weight of off-shelf generic coach. It's why the Metro North bar cars and other dead trailers used by them, LIRR, SEPTA, and NJ Transit are unpowered EMU shells and not coaches. They can only trainline with other versions of themselves. Nippon Sharyo and Colorado Railcar DMU's are the same way. You have to buy their custom trailers to add capacity. More expensive than an off-shelf coach, no intermixing of fleets, and exacerbates the equipment storage crunch.
This is a difficult issue that's not resolving itself fast enough for the T to be able to hit the ground running and start infilling these vehicles limitlessly into other configurations. It'll take a bunch of very expensive subsequent purchases to outfit themselves for it. It won't be anything like Cape Flyer where..."Oh, we've got a glut of new coaches coming for summer...let's rip out a few seats for a cafe car and do a little skunkworks Cape excursion at zero risk!" It's a large step to get beyond supporting initial Seaport + skeletal initial Fairmount baseline to being able to accumulate the cars for flipping the inner Worcester to DMU's or ramping Fairmount all the way from start of schedule to final top-off at 15 min. headways (which'll require expanded South Station to do).
There are none. The project didn't exist to the public until yesterday. Had no potential source of study funding until the Transportation Bill was passed a month ago. And it's still not known what they have to prioritize or cut from that bill now that the Legislature has significantly underfunded it...Patrick's project list predicated on 100% full funding was never revised down to the Legislature's final funding. Amtrak has not given consent at all, which likely means there's been nothing more than napkin-sketch traffic modeling at Southampton. The track construction there is all repurposed from what they were going to do anyway for the Southie freights, engineered a couple years ago in an official study.
There's good reason to worry that the enthusiasm is a little premature and that this got cooked up a little too fast and reckless grabbing those freight track plans and some T...not-Amtrak...quickie assessment about the loop and crossing over to BBY. Shades of the Tim Murray/Worcester-over-Grand Junction/Cambridge debacle. This one isn't on quite as shaky ground, but going to press without Amtrak representation or giving any indication what the hell they're going to do about moving equipment storage elsewhere is...ballsy to say the least.
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
"there are still major obstacles with scale for these vehicles because of limited seating capacity only 25% higher for a married-pair DMU than for one single-level "
Again, you are basing your seating capacity analysis on the layout for SMART which will have 2X2 seating, a service bar, a restroom, and bicycle storage space
http://www.nipponsharyousa.com/tp101216.htm
The original SMART specs:
http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/us...Draft DMU Technical Specification 1-20-10.pdf
F-Line, why do you believe the MBTA is going to spec cars for short urban runs to have 2X2 seating and a service bar when most of their existing commuter rail equipment (except the MBB cars) has 2X3 seating? I wonder what they will serve at the bar on the trip from Convention Center to Back Bay?
If they get cars with 2X3 seating and without a bar, that raises the seating capacity per car to about 100. That would be 200 for a married pair or 300 if configured as triplets. Nippon-Sharyo has said either pairs or triplets can be run in multiple, so you could have a 6-car train (two triplets or three married-pairs) with about 600 seats for peak trains. These could be broken up to shorter trains (and run on other lines) during the off-peak.They can get more seats if they decide they don't need a restroom on equipment intended for short urban runs.
"there are still major obstacles with scale for these vehicles because of limited seating capacity only 25% higher for a married-pair DMU than for one single-level "
Again, you are basing your seating capacity analysis on the layout for SMART which will have 2X2 seating, a service bar, a restroom, and bicycle storage space
http://www.nipponsharyousa.com/tp101216.htm
The original SMART specs:
http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/us...Draft DMU Technical Specification 1-20-10.pdf
F-Line, why do you believe the MBTA is going to spec cars for short urban runs to have 2X2 seating and a service bar when most of their existing commuter rail equipment (except the MBB cars) has 2X3 seating? I wonder what they will serve at the bar on the trip from Convention Center to Back Bay?
If they get cars with 2X3 seating and without a bar, that raises the seating capacity per car to about 100. That would be 200 for a married pair or 300 if configured as triplets. Nippon-Sharyo has said either pairs or triplets can be run in multiple, so you could have a 6-car train (two triplets or three married-pairs) with about 600 seats for peak trains. These could be broken up to shorter trains (and run on other lines) during the off-peak.They can get more seats if they decide they don't need a restroom on equipment intended for short urban runs.
winstonoboogie
Active Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 541
- Reaction score
- 1
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
"NJ Transit is considering those, and if it works that might be THE entry point for EMU's on the T given the compatibility with the coach fleet. If that idea succeeds there is no reason why a DMU version can't soon follow."
An EMU pulling a trailer can pass along power (coming from the catenary) to the trailer for air-conditioning and lights. A DMU pulling a trailer would have to generate enough horsepower to not only move both cars, but to also provide the HEP for the trailer car. If the trailer car had its own diesel generator for HVAC and lights, that might work. Budd actually did that with the RDC, as the offered an RDC-9 that was not self-propelled, but had an engine to supply power for HVAC and lights. The B&M was the only railroad to buy RDC-9s new.
"NJ Transit is considering those, and if it works that might be THE entry point for EMU's on the T given the compatibility with the coach fleet. If that idea succeeds there is no reason why a DMU version can't soon follow."
An EMU pulling a trailer can pass along power (coming from the catenary) to the trailer for air-conditioning and lights. A DMU pulling a trailer would have to generate enough horsepower to not only move both cars, but to also provide the HEP for the trailer car. If the trailer car had its own diesel generator for HVAC and lights, that might work. Budd actually did that with the RDC, as the offered an RDC-9 that was not self-propelled, but had an engine to supply power for HVAC and lights. The B&M was the only railroad to buy RDC-9s new.
Shepard
Senior Member
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2009
- Messages
- 3,518
- Reaction score
- 66
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
Good idea but misses the point. Every major or even minor convention now boasts a caravan of charter buses connecting Back Bay hotels with the BCEC. That's the existing demand this is looking to satisfy. It's a convenchoochoo.
Good idea but misses the point. Every major or even minor convention now boasts a caravan of charter buses connecting Back Bay hotels with the BCEC. That's the existing demand this is looking to satisfy. It's a convenchoochoo.
Re: Track 61 (Seaport - Back Bay DMU)
Right, but one thing those charter buses have over any public transit service is that they serve the endpoints directly. So, the DMU shuttle would have to be much, much better than custom tailored buses that pull up directly at your hotel, vs having to walk over to nasty Back Bay station and down the long flight of stairs to the platform covered in diesel smoke.
Does anyone know how long the bus shuttles take to travel from hotel to convention center typically?
Right, but one thing those charter buses have over any public transit service is that they serve the endpoints directly. So, the DMU shuttle would have to be much, much better than custom tailored buses that pull up directly at your hotel, vs having to walk over to nasty Back Bay station and down the long flight of stairs to the platform covered in diesel smoke.
Does anyone know how long the bus shuttles take to travel from hotel to convention center typically?