archBOSTON.org

Go Back   archBOSTON.org > Boston's Built Environment > Transit and Infrastructure

Transit and Infrastructure All things T or civilly engineered within Boston Metro.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 06-10-2016, 09:30 AM   #561
tangent
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,403
Re: North-South Rail Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by F-Line to Dudley View Post
Orange isn't that difficult to modify, as only the 1908 Chinatown-Haymarket tunnel is under-dimension for Red cars and would need a dimensional scraping. But there's jack-all reason to do it when the lines don't come anywhere close to a plausible interconnection point. It makes $0 difference in the unit cost to order the same exact car in two different tincan sizes. We're doing exactly that right now with Orange and Red out in Springfield. We did that on the last Orange order in '80 for the 01200's, which are identical make (right down to the unused rooftop pantograph mounts) to the smaller Blue 0600's that came from the same factory 18 months earlier.
I think in terms of cost/benefit you are probably right.

However, there certainly would be operational benefits to having train cars which were interoperable between red and orange lines. I am thinking of the Winter before last when trains were taken out of service for maintenance. In that case it would have been good to have the flexibility to shift trains between lines.

Also, per unit cost may not come down further on large orders, but it certainly goes up on smaller orders. Which is why we see long periods between train orders, which leads to the situation we are in now with really old trains on Orange and Red waiting for the next big order.

There must be some interconnections somewhere, even if they need a diesel to move cars between the lines?
tangent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 09:38 AM   #562
CSTH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,521
Re: North-South Rail Link

...and after you bring the BL to North Station via the ruins of the State Services Center, you can hang a left @ levrett circle and bring it a couple hundred yards to the Charles MGH to get your Blue-Red and a shortcut Red-NS, as a cherry on top of your Blue-NS link....
CSTH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 10:44 AM   #563
bakgwailo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 647
Re: North-South Rail Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by F-Line to Dudley View Post
Orange isn't that difficult to modify, as only the 1908 Chinatown-Haymarket tunnel is under-dimension for Red cars and would need a dimensional scraping. But there's jack-all reason to do it when the lines don't come anywhere close to a plausible interconnection point. It makes $0 difference in the unit cost to order the same exact car in two different tincan sizes. We're doing exactly that right now with Orange and Red out in Springfield. We did that on the last Orange order in '80 for the 01200's, which are identical make (right down to the unused rooftop pantograph mounts) to the smaller Blue 0600's that came from the same factory 18 months earlier.
Sure, but wouldn't all of the platforms also need to be modified to accommodate the new loading gauge of the Redline ? I would imagine they would come up a bit short. So, yeah, some tunneling to widen, some tunneling to create an actual track connection between the Red/Orange, and then modifying the Orange platforms, no?

Totally agree that it really gets us nothing, but, I guess it would be kind of neat to the red/orange on the same loading gauge/have identical rolling stock. Seems like there are much better ways to spend that money, though.
bakgwailo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 03:18 PM   #564
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,367
Re: North-South Rail Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by Deetroyt View Post
I don't think Aquarium is as close to Haymarket as you think it is. Those would be very long walkways and even moving wouldn't be a quick trip. I could be wrong, but would almost think South Station would be closer to Aquarium, and might make more sense for moving walkways. Additionally, the picture of the alignment shows that North Station Under isn't really at Haymarket, the birds eye view photo has it incorrectly positioned a little further south.
Bookending the deleted Central Station catchment with additional egresses stretching off the platform tips is going to be extremely difficult at North Station, and probably impossible at South Station. The renders in citylover's post show it (would be great to have a rotateable 3D topographical + depth render to fit it all in one schematic).

At South Station the tunnel straddling Ft. Point Channel a half-block east of Dewey Square sets finite northerly limits on what you can glom on for extra egresses. Station platforms would be centered from the USPS cornerstone ~250 ft. south of the Summer/Dot intersection to under the Harborwalk at Independence Wharf. Because it's partially underwater and a block east of Dewey Sq. the only access points to egresses are:
  • SSX headhouse, right upstairs from the south tip.
  • Existing Red/Silver mezzanine under Dewey Sq., glomming onto the south end and providing all the same access to rapid transit and the surface station as today.
  • *Maybe* a north-end egress at Pearl St. extension/Independence Wharf by the hotel lobbies. Although at only 1 block's difference from the pre-existing, fully-integrated Dewey mezzanine I'm not sure that's enough above-and-beyond difference to bother with.
i.e. The egresses all hook in at west-facing angles underneath Dot Ave./Harborwalk terra firma and have to follow the cross streets to Atlantic to have any unbroken shots to a headhouse. The good news is that the probable egress shafts are pretty much all unobstructed upstairs; the other crossing transit tunnels here don't constrain the options at all. And the 3 cross streets on the grid offer clean horizontal shots to Atlantic. You should be able to do nice and spacious high-traffic stairs/escalators at any of these spots, with clean and logical layout. However, the furthest north you can feasibly exit is that Pearl Ext. trajectory. Everything north of there--say, an Atlantic/Seaport Blvd. corner exit--requires an entirely underwater ped tunnel swerving at diagonal angle around building pilings and starts taking on lots of extra complexity. In all likelihood that's no-go because it's at the sensitive spot where the tunnel is doing its swing-out further into the water and 'plumbing attachments' like an escalator shaft grafted onto an underwater main bore starts chewing up exponential cost increases. Since either the Congress or Pearl Ext. trajectories are pretty uselessly close to the Dewey Sq. rapid transit entrance, there's probably very little additional value gained pushing any additional egresses beyond the SSX headhouse and the Dewey Sq. mezzanine.

I mean, you could augment the exits to the north if it truly mattered that much for access to the wharves up the street. But it starts becoming the proverbial engineering kidney stone to pass, and that's exactly the sort of thing that's got a lot of people souring on Central Station. Which, note from the depth diagram, ONLY has a shot to the surface by glomming onto the Blue Line station's very narrow egresses. 93 making that steep-grade 'hump' over Blue directly upstairs makes doing flanking egresses brutally difficult engineering, and explains why the Big Dig-era Aquarium modernization didn't attempt a widening-out of those tiny escalators.




North Station has some problems, unlike offset SS Under, of being centered directly underneath 93 at the south end. Note than the surface diagram contradicts the depth diagram a bit on platform placement; depth diagram places the north tip under Causeway St., not Valenti Way like the surface diagram. Causeway jibes more with what previous design concepts have verbally suggested, so I'm inclined to trust the depth render more than the surface render on accuracy. That makes Haymarket Station a little more distant than the surface diagram suggests. Note on the depth diagram that 93 is still pogoing up and down in depth here so it'll be messy engineering to reach around it. Whereas the interface with the Green/Orange superstation should be just as clean and efficient as SS Under with the Dewey Sq. mezzanine.

Again, not impossible. And not nearly as yucky as attempting any non-Blue egresses on Central Station or shafting an underwater Seaport Blvd. north-tip egress to SS. But it'll be a little bit fugly, and concessions may have to be made on plunking the #2 egress at a path-of-least-resistance spot engineering wise rather than an idealized place like "Haymarket lobby...Duh!" It's not going to be that simple, and we'll have no idea until a Final DEIS which of the candidates are feasible.

If I had to make a recommendation for the armchair designers...pick several plausible #2 egress candidates you can live with, and avoid the temptation to dig in heels and wave the battle flag for any one pick hell or high water. Unlike the alternate SS egresses, engineering scoring is the be-all/end-all for setting the (presently 100% unpredictable) recommended final Alternatives. Not the conceptual convenience of this block vs. that block, this building front vs. that building front. It'll require being more flexible than that and hedging on engineering feasibility vs. what placement meets 'good enough'--not perfect, but eminently functional--scoring on access convenience for the #2 egress.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-10-2016, 04:03 PM   #565
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,367
Re: North-South Rail Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by bakgwailo View Post
Sure, but wouldn't all of the platforms also need to be modified to accommodate the new loading gauge of the Redline ? I would imagine they would come up a bit short. So, yeah, some tunneling to widen, some tunneling to create an actual track connection between the Red/Orange, and then modifying the Orange platforms, no?

Totally agree that it really gets us nothing, but, I guess it would be kind of neat to the red/orange on the same loading gauge/have identical rolling stock. Seems like there are much better ways to spend that money, though.
They would, but it's not as difficult as you might think.

All heavy rail cars have adjustable air ballasts on their undersides. This is how they manage to stay 100% level with the platforms instead of having small inconsistencies open up after X decades of wear-and-tear and vibrations making the frames settle. Otherwise you'd get a car-to-car crapshoot of dips and spikes where the vertical alignment is off and you end up at risk for stubbing your toe on a misaligned door edge. The shop crews during inspection can use a laser level or something of that ilk to measure if the doors are staying level with the platform edge. Then they adjust the air ballast to raise or lower the cars (including individual sides/ends if the car starts listing on one side) to correct imbalances in the ballast level that naturally open up after several weeks or months of daily pounding. If you've ever ridden a car that has a leaking or blown air ballast you'll notice that they ride VERY rough and vibrate like crazy below the floor. And when the doors open there can be a jarring >1 inch discrepancy in the door vs. platform level where you have to step up or down from the platform to get in the car. If the ballast gets any more out-of-whack than that so the gap gets dramatic enough to be an injury risk, they abort the run and yank the car immediately out-of-service before it gets worse.

Height is adjustable enough for the small leveling difference between lines that cars can be tuned differently. When the T was still floating around the idea of putting the Orange 01200's through a full midlife overhaul, they considered grabbing 24 of the same-model Blue Line 0600 retirees to also rehab (with ATO signal equipment installed and pantographs removed) for a decade-plus of continued service as an Orange expansion fleet. In that case they'd have their ballasts readjusted for the slight platform height differences. Didn't prove feasible because the carbody corrosion on the 0600's was way worse than anticipated and too much more expensive to fix than they hoped, but those identical-make cars were factory-designed to be portable from Blue to Orange if the need arose.



As for the car width vs. platform edges, that would require a slow overchurn on the Orange platforms.
  1. On each overnight shift, incrementally cut off the extra width of concrete platform overhang making up the Orange vs. Red width difference.
  2. Nail on a wood temp platform edge replacement for the next morning's Orange service restoring the width that was sawed off.
  3. Churn through all stations like this. May take a couple years of low-impact, very gradual advance work. But eventually you will have all platforms equipped with edges where you just crowbar out the wood 'buffer' and net yourself a real Red-dimension platform edge.
  4. Vehicle clearance testing. Start on the open-air portion by removing a few of those wood buffers and running the cars back and forth on one side of the tracks with all the usual computer measuring doohickeys on-board to ID any obstructions. SW Corridor, Haymarket-north, and the South Cove tunnel from Tufts to Back Bay are all built to Red dimensions, but there may be standpipes or the odd wall-mount electrical box that get too close to the clearance envelope and have to be moved. This is S.O.P. for any new car orders. They had to move some too-close-for-comfort signal heads and whatnot for the Green Line Type 8's, Blue Line 0700's, and the first-time introduction of commuter rail bi-levels. They'll do exactly the same with these new Red/Orange cars.
  5. When all is set for the big changeover, do a partial weekend shutdown that yanks out all the platform buffers, does a final round of clearance-testing, and then reopens the line for revenue service with the bigger cars.
  6. Do night shift closeout work on the chopped-back concrete platform edges getting the permanent bumper pads, tactile strips, etc. installed.

That's a simplistic overview. Because they've never had to plan for a dimensions change there's probably been 40 years of minor intrusions on the new-ROW and new-station portions requiring a lot more utility relocation. And who the hell knows what a bitch that 3/4 mile of 1908 tunnel is going to be to shave back; nobody truly knows what bodies are buried around that thing.

But it is feasible. You just have to have a REALLY REALLY good reason to do it, because it sure isn't cost savings when 3 different tincan dimensions of the same exact HRT vehicle all have $0 difference in unit cost. I don't have the foggiest idea what would be big enough a change to make it worth it. We don't really need HRT interlining at all when the system is all set up as high-capacity linear spokes straight through the gut. Radial transit is a job way better suited to the more malleable Green Line than any interconnections on the other color lines. Unless there's some revolutionary demand change in the next 75 years requiring a radical re-think of the spokes system (unlikely since there's been no change in demand pattern for a spokes system in the past 100 years)...Red/Orange/Blue are probably never going to have any compelling interconnection need.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2016, 06:11 AM   #566
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: South Cove
Posts: 2,506
Re: North-South Rail Link

^ Besides, maintaining separate yards and maintenance facilities for the HRT lines ensures lots of bloated T Jobs.

I would guess that we are the only major transit system system in the world with ZERO commonality in rolling stock across lines.
__________________
Jeff H.
Downtown, South Cove
JeffDowntown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2016, 07:59 AM   #567
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,367
Re: North-South Rail Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDowntown View Post
^ Besides, maintaining separate yards and maintenance facilities for the HRT lines ensures lots of bloated T Jobs.
Right...because as we learned in Winter 2015, they have far too many yards on Red, Orange, and Blue for feeding necessary frequencies, such a surplus-to-requirement excess of maintenance equipment, and far too many cushy shop jobs than necessary for keeping the system running upright.

Have you seen how many yards very very much-interlining NYC Subway has? HRT ≠ commuter rail radiating from a singular Union station. Every service pattern needs a big ol' car supply, including the interlining ones. Aren't we coming to grips with that right now with GLX's yard needs on our very-much-interlining color line?

Quote:
I would guess that we are the only major transit system system in the world with ZERO commonality in rolling stock across lines.
You mean, other than SEPTA which has non-interlining Subway-Surface and Suburban Trolley systems with separate rolling stock, two separate non-interlining HRT lines that run on totally different track gauges, and the completely bugfuck Norristown High Speed Line that's technologically the only one of its kind. Oh, yeah, and then a third completely different-tech HRT line in PATCO run in the same service area by a totally different agency.

Philly doesn't order the same cars in different-size tincans at $0 difference in unit cost. But even though we can't think of a plausible reason why our HRT lines should interline the way they're arranged as spokes, clearly Boston is in the wrong because T is T, Carmen's Union, and stuff. Even though this was how it was set up 100 years ago before any of those entities existed.



What is the point of this? There's no demonstrable cost savings to standardizing the tincan sizes when every single other thing is already standardized. We're on our second consecutive Orange car tag-teamed with exactly the same car ordered for another color line. And we're at a loss of any compelling interline connections that actually serve enough need to justify spending upper 9 figures modifying the dimensions before spending the additional 10 figures building the new interline connector.

Is all spending bad except for when it enables the OCD to arrange one's sock drawer *just so*...and then it's all good? Some actual empirical evidence that different tincan sizes constitutes actual waste justifying a totally-not-waste cosmetic surgery megaproject would be very helpful here.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2016, 09:23 AM   #568
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 4,170
Re: North-South Rail Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by citylover94 View Post
I think on the current NSRL website the images of the route show the station positioned exactly as you describe it.


http://www.northsouthraillink.org/alignment/

The red boxes are the stations and the red lines is the route the tunnel takes.

Profile drawing:


http://www.northsouthraillink.org/alignment/
This also shows how the james hook site has been stated to be an impediment to the nsrl happening. The pilings would make this plan near impossible which is probably why we have not heard much about it in a while. The link is much more important that another 30 story tower, it can wait. Its also good to see that the north station portion would connect the commuter rail to orange/green. It will connect to red/silver at south station and blue at central. This would be huge to give riders on all lines access to the commuter rail and also give commuter rail riders easy transfers to every subway line the same. This is very much needed and is the type of infrastructure we need to be investing in for the future.
stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2016, 09:38 AM   #569
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,367
Re: North-South Rail Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by stick n move View Post
This also shows how the james hook site has been stated to be an impediment to the nsrl happening. The pilings would make this plan near impossible which is probably why we have not heard much about it in a while. The link is much more important that another 30 story tower, it can wait.
I'm wondering how deep the building pilings could ever be at the Hook site. Take away the rickety old wooden wharf and the part of the parcel that rests on terra firma is pretty small. That might be why the talk has gone quiet. It would take a lot of expensive re-landfilling work to net a buildable slab that could support anything tall. The other adjacent wharves didn't require nearly as much work to build their tall structures.

Anyway...doubt that's going to be a blocker. Look on the depth diagram how many times farther below ground it is than even the Harbor Plaza pilings. If that doesn't block it and odds of a supertall @ Hook are low, then they pretty much have an 800 ft. wide path between Independence and Rowes to insert the tunnel. That's downright luxurious fudge factor.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2016, 12:48 PM   #570
Charlie_mta
Senior Member
 
Charlie_mta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,147
Re: North-South Rail Link

Why is the NSRL North Station next to the Congress Street garage, and not closer to the existing north Station? The proposed central and North Stations on the NSRL are very close to each other, and the connection between the proposed NSRL North Station and the existing one is far.
Charlie_mta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2016, 03:16 PM   #571
citylover94
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: White River Jct.
Posts: 1,067
Re: North-South Rail Link

The surface image is slightly off on the placement the back of the station is actually going to be at Causeway just the very end of the platforms will reach the Government Center Garage.
citylover94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-11-2016, 06:11 PM   #572
CSTH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,521
Re: North-South Rail Link

The ns platforms have to end before the long portal incline starts

Last edited by CSTH; 06-11-2016 at 06:27 PM.
CSTH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 05:14 AM   #573
JeffDowntown
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: South Cove
Posts: 2,506
Re: North-South Rail Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by F-Line to Dudley View Post
Right...because as we learned in Winter 2015, they have far too many yards on Red, Orange, and Blue for feeding necessary frequencies, such a surplus-to-requirement excess of maintenance equipment, and far too many cushy shop jobs than necessary for keeping the system running upright.

Have you seen how many yards very very much-interlining NYC Subway has? HRT ≠ commuter rail radiating from a singular Union station. Every service pattern needs a big ol' car supply, including the interlining ones. Aren't we coming to grips with that right now with GLX's yard needs on our very-much-interlining color line?
Of course every service pattern requires a minimum amount of yard and fleet for headway staging. DUH!

BUT, from a maintenance standpoint, basic LOGISTICS 101 says that you need a smaller total fleet to properly rotate out cars for Preventative Maintenance, if the fleet is totally interchangeable, and not locked into a particular line (assuming you have some means of transferring cars between lines -- kind of an important system design parameter). Of course the T does not properly perform preventative maintenance ($7 Billion backlog), so the winter debacle a year ago has nothing to do with this point.
__________________
Jeff H.
Downtown, South Cove
JeffDowntown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 08:16 AM   #574
whighlander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lexington
Posts: 6,519
Re: North-South Rail Link

Can't we move this discussion to Crazy Transit Pitches

No-one of voting age or older will be under the age of Social Security before this one comes to fruition

Dukakis is just reliving his childhood in his old-age
whighlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 11:13 AM   #575
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,367
Re: North-South Rail Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by whighlander View Post
Can't we move this discussion to Crazy Transit Pitches

No-one of voting age or older will be under the age of Social Security before this one comes to fruition

Dukakis is just reliving his childhood in his old-age
Does it make you feel old that there are voters about to vote in their fifth statewide election who weren't born when a hackneyed drive-time radio Duke joke was last topically relevant?
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 01:28 PM   #576
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,367
Re: North-South Rail Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDowntown View Post
Of course every service pattern requires a minimum amount of yard and fleet for headway staging. DUH!

BUT, from a maintenance standpoint, basic LOGISTICS 101 says that you need a smaller total fleet to properly rotate out cars for Preventative Maintenance, if the fleet is totally interchangeable, and not locked into a particular line (assuming you have some means of transferring cars between lines -- kind of an important system design parameter).
No, that "Logistics 101" spiel is an oft-repeated talking point contradicted by actual math while offering none of its own to back up the indictment.

On all 3 HRT lines, 75-80% of the active fleet is out there in-service each rush hour shift. 10% is sitting on standby for run-as-directeds. The rest...they're either missing several runs on a shift for their turn getting cleaned before going back in, missing several hours or more for their periodic mandatory inspections, missing most or all of the day for cycled changeouts of 'consumable' parts (pantograph surfaces which have a rated lifespan of weeks before friction erodes them, wheels that need changeouts for re-grinding, etc.). And then the rest are the bona fide casualties with anything from malingering aches to major repairs. Whether you apply those percentages to individual lines or lump-sum, the same exact percentages are in-play netting same exact car availability. Short the supply, short the service. This isn't a hard concept to comprehend. The very-much-interlining Green Line has gone through some infamous periods of car shortages when its margins have gone out-of-whack. So has very-very-much-interlining NYC Subway the times they're been overreliant on way too much unreliable old crap and depleted reserves. Under-order, and you get exactly what you pay for whether it's an interconnected system or not. How's supply vs. demand working out right about now for commuter rail?

Secondly...did you not get the explanation in the previous post that distributed rapid transit service patterns do...not...work...like commuter rail radiating from a singular Union Station. You can't feed any service pattern without a car supply on or very nearly on said service pattern. Every Green Line branch has its own yard. Both Red Line branches do. NYC Subway has 24 yards and 14 shops. By "Holiday Inn Express Logistics 101" standards MTA maintenance practices are comparably as morbidly obese as Fat Bastard eating a baby. They're not...New York is stretched as chronically thin and underfunded as T maint ops projected over a vastly bigger and more dire scale, but logical fallacies work like that.

Third...what part of same exact cars, different tincan shape, no unit cost difference is so hard to understand here? The T stocks whole warehouses full of generic parts for all 3 HRT lines. They all use exactly the same third rail, running rail, etc. Green and Blue use exactly the same overhead. Both third rail, overhead, the Silver Line, and the Cambridge trackless trolleys use exactly the same DC voltage. Orange and Red use exactly the same signaling. Everett Shops (not: NOT connected to any rapid transit line) does component heavy repair for all 4 color lines. They have fleets of hi-rail trucks that can drive themselves to any line. They have big mechanical tie changers, track tampers, beastly snowblowers, a work locomotive, and other crap that have spent time on all 4 lines and load in one piece onto a flatbed truck when they switch around.

Fourth...it does take a billion dollars to carve out interconnections. And we can't seem to find a compelling service reason to do that when the non-interlining lines are load-bearing end-to-end spokes whose service patterns are unlikely to change even if they did interline. And would arguably serve the city worse if headways were diffused by too much branching. So how does 'Logistics 101' justify $1B in concrete and almost as much in dimensional modifications when we're not even sure what revenue benefit that serves.

There is no alternative in shuttling cars between lines on commuter rail. You can't take a Red car from Cabot Yard, haul it over the Grand Junction, and shove it into Wellington. Rapid transit wheels are ground differently and will derail on a mainline RR. They have to be loaded onto flatbeds...which then makes the load too tall for a freight train to move them under the bridges around Greater Boston. You'd have to do a 100-mile detour around Norfolk, Worcester, and Middlesex Counties to make that move...assuming you can even clear enough bridges to reach one of the tall freight routes in the first place. You'd also have to painstakingly separate each married-pair car, load them individually onto flatcars, then re-mate them in the shop. So much for efficiency; the shop can't tend to the cars it already has because it has to waste days stitching together enough individual cars to net a spare trainset.

So, this pretty much does call for setting aside a couple transit projects we actually do need because some subjective aesthetic notion of 'Logistics 101' says interlining has more personally satisfying integrity-of-concept. It certainly isn't because the real math washes. For real math to wash there has to be a slam-dunk ridership reason to build an interline connection...not the Grand Junction Branch of subways.

Quote:
Of course the T does not properly perform preventative maintenance ($7 Billion backlog), so the winter debacle a year ago has nothing to do with this point.
This I'm with you on. But not for the reason you cited of "bloated T jobs". The maintenance ranks are the most chronically understaffed class of jobs on the system. And their labor costs are presently inefficient only because of that manufactured crisis. The only way to give the to-do list threadbare coverage is to suck up more OT on any biggish jobs to band-aid over all the years of hiring way below replacement-level in the name of "cost savings". These aren't do-nothing desk jockeys; they're the highest-skill craft labor the agency employs, in a competitive job market. Who knew stripping their ranks to the bone would leave the system chronically extra-vulnerable?

And yes, they do need more work equipment. Up until a few years ago they were still hanging onto chopped-up old BERy cars from the 1920's repurposed for plows, crane cars, flatcars...until they literally disintegrated to powdered piles of rust in their 8th decade of continuous use. There should be a second or third work locomotive, instead of just one that was broken for years on end until Winter '15 embarrassed them into expediting a rehab. They should be running dedicated work trains instead of making a royal mess out of a revenue set carrying dirty supplies and trash on the overnight shift. They should be more concerned that the special car that re-rails Green Line derailments has shot propulsion and has to be cumbersomely pushed around so minor derailment service outages last hours longer. But, you know...the FCMB has to shell out funds ASAP to actually buy this stuff and upgrade the shops to put it to good use. Not jump down a "ZOMG! Fare leakage" wormhole and cop to not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time.

But that's a straightforward numbers problem of too little for too much, not an eye-of-beholder case for counterintuitive further consolidation. Have track miles to maintain, need staff commensurate staff and equipment for scalable to that number of track miles. Wherever that track may be. Track gangs can work pretty much anywhere, because the stuff they work with is pretty much generic everywhere. Work equipment is easily tradeable between lines during the 18 daytime revenue service hours it's not in use...unlike a de-mated revenue car being painstakingly moved instead of carrying passengers. They just don't have enough of 'em, and don't have as much as they had 10 years ago when the pre-MBTA era ancient artifacts were still creaking along on the work fleet.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 01:42 PM   #577
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,367
Re: North-South Rail Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSTH View Post
The ns platforms have to end before the long portal incline starts
They're also Amtrak-spec thousand footers capable of taking a max-length Northeast Regional, so placement is extremely limited by how few and short the level spots are in the tunnel between inclines. The FEIR is going to have to refine the exact placement of the SS and NS platforms to better accuracy because these renders are probably only near-approximate. That deeper engineering analysis will in turn lead the feasible egress Alternatives by the nose.


Another strike against Central Station is that the platforms are much shorter. I think slightly less than T-spec 800 footers, which means you're going to have an extended dwell if a monster eight-pack Providence or Worcester rush hour train can't open all doors because it spills over. Definitely an insta-skip for Amtrak since it's not worth the trouble for them to take on that oversize a dwell penalty.

Last edited by F-Line to Dudley; 06-12-2016 at 02:28 PM.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 04:06 PM   #578
Arlington
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: West Medford, MA
Posts: 3,267
Re: North-South Rail Link

As time goes by, I'm persuaded that we should have a 2- track CR tube with stops only at NS & SS and try to get a second Red Line subway tube on the other (which could have a Central Station.
__________________
"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn
Arlington is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 06:20 PM   #579
whighlander
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lexington
Posts: 6,519
Re: North-South Rail Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by F-Line to Dudley View Post
Does it make you feel old that there are voters about to vote in their fifth statewide election who weren't born when a hackneyed drive-time radio Duke joke was last topically relevant?
F-Line -- No -- that wasn't a Duke joke -- the post referring to his comments made reference to his stating that Central Station was relevant to the Seaport -- How? by Osmosis? or would that be Einstein Poldolsky and Rosen
whighlander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-12-2016, 07:13 PM   #580
Matthew
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Cambridge, UK
Posts: 3,585
Re: North-South Rail Link

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arlington View Post
As time goes by, I'm persuaded that we should have a 2- track CR tube with stops only at NS & SS and try to get a second Red Line subway tube on the other (which could have a Central Station.
My friend in Munich has told me that the transit authorities have been regretting the decision to only build 2 tracks for the S-bahn tunnel. Seems like S-bahnification of the MBTA commuter rail could put 4 tracks to use. Plus, a second Red Line subway tube implies reverse branching, which means that stations in Cambridge would have twice the frequency of core stations in Boston!
Matthew is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
3rd Suffolk State Rep (Waterfront, South End, North End, Chinatown) JohnAKeith General 46 06-17-2009 12:37 PM
Newton North HS Suffolk 83 General 8 01-07-2009 04:38 PM
North Station Expansion Project Ron Newman Transit and Infrastructure 40 08-25-2008 08:01 PM
30 North Margin Street - North End caravaggiste Development Projects 86 07-28-2008 07:56 PM
State Agrees to Design Link between Red and Blue lines kz1000ps Transit and Infrastructure 17 12-03-2006 07:02 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:57 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.