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 12-29-2018, 02:44 PM   #1421
DominusNovus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 742
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Another thought on NSRL/regional rail, as far as outreach and PR/marketing is concerned:

My wife and I are on a North Shore day trip, and we stopped by the Azorean Restaurant that is literally right nect to the Gloucesterr CR stop. Anyone seriously pushing in favor of regional rail should build some relationships with businesses like that, so close to the rail that they could greatly benefit from greater connections.

For example, this is an Azorean restaurant on the North Shore. There is a sizable Azorean community on the South Shore/Cape. Making it easier for the two to connect is self evidently beneficial.
__________________
The Goal of Mass Transit should be to get you from Bed to Boss to Bar and back again.

Last edited by DominusNovus; 12-29-2018 at 04:23 PM.
DominusNovus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 06:38 AM   #1422
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,748
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

So this may have relevance to the T's quest to get some EMU's. . .

NJ Transit just placed an order with Bombardier for 58 self-powered cars based on the stock Bombardier MultiLevel Coach carbody, which is the current best-selling bi-level coach in North America for high-platform territory and very similar to the T's K-cars (but with 2 x 2 instead of 3 x 2 seating).

It's a somewhat unorthodox EMU arrangement in that the consists are 'hybrid' and lash up power cars to plain vanilla MLV coaches re-wired for either/or MU trainlining or push-pull trainlining. This is different from how most EMU's work, where either all cars in the set are self-powered or the unpowered cars sprinkled in are special-order 'dummy' EMU's (example: Metro North's M8 trailers) that have no propulsion but can only trainline with their own-kind EMU's because of electronic limitations. The advantage is that it lets NJT, which already owns 425+ MLV push-pull coaches, massively consolidate its fleet management on one car make despite having a near-50/50 electric-vs.-diesel system where that would've been previously impossible. Seating capacity in the power cars is near-equivalent to all other cars.

-------------------------

The power cars are mid-set coaches without an operator's cab, and thus have to be sandwiched between stock cab cars. Minimum consist requirements are that the power cars be chunked together in 3's so each power car is bookended by unpowered cars.

3-car minimum:

  • <Unpowered cab car>--<Power car>--<Unpowered cab car>
6-car:
  • <Unpowered cab car>--<Power car>--<Unpowered coach>--<Unpowered coach>--<Power car>--<Unpowered cab car>
9-car (MBTA maximum):
  • <Unpowered cab car>--<Power car>--<Unpowered coach>--<Unpowered coach>--<Power car>--<Unpowered coach>--<Unpowered coach>--<Power car>--<Unpowered cab car>
12-car (NJT maximum):
  • <Unpowered cab car>--<Power car>--<Unpowered coach>--<Unpowered coach>--<Power car>--<Unpowered coach>--<Unpowered coach>--<Power car>--<Unpowered coach>--<Unpowered coach>--<Power car>--<Unpowered cab car>
-------------------------

The propulsion on the power cars is overpowered vs. a normal EMU to compensate for the extra deadweight they have to push, allow for continued operation if one power car in a multi- power car set fails, and be good for 110 MPH vs. the 80 MPH Arrow III's they replace. They can also be run at full speed in traditional push-pull configuration with a loco hauling if a rescue is needed for a wire problem or something (with most other EMU makes you'd be in the dark and running at restricted speed if being pulled by a helper loco).

Supposedly you can "traditionalize" the sets more by swapping in more power cars for unpowered trailers to make them more like a conventional EMU consist where majority of cars are powered. But according to Bombardier that shouldn't be necessary as the contract stipulates they must have equal-or-better acceleration rates as the zippy Arrows in their minimum configurations. That'll be the big thing to watch as they go through development, because the MLV carbody is a very heavy frame. If they score on meeting/beating an Arrow with a hybrid set that can also do 110 on the NEC, it'll be revolutionary.

-------------------------

What's the relevance to the T??? NJT's contract is buffed out with 'slush' options for 636 more cars of their own plus 250 others earmarked for SEPTA, any of which can be sliced/diced into whatever ratio of power cars vs. traditional coaches vs. cab cars is necessary. SEPTA, after the Silverliner V debacle, is opting for this as replacements for the ancient Silverliner IV's rather than go all the way back to the drawing board designing a Silverliner VI from scratch. They don't have full funding earmarked yet so the options are stuffed at the back of an extremely long contract (and obviously "optional"), but by piggybacking on NJT's design decisions they get out of having to do a full-blown procurement process and save some money while having NJT do all the debugging for them.

Where the 'slush' factor comes in is that the MLV coach is a fairly generic item that can be purchased pretty much at-will. A lot of NJT's options are simply for replacing their shot Comet II & IV single-levels in diesel territory. But if they wanted to they could simply sign another contract for straight coaches and launder out some of these options to spread the love on the power cars. Sort of like how they traded MARC 54 of their options on the last MLV coach order. The receiving agency could stack their share of NJT options to power cars then just do their own order of straight MLV coaches. And the extreme length of this contract ensures that these options will be available to potentially barter for another 5 years.

Both the T and MARC (for switching its own Penn Line MLV fleet from loco-haul to self-propelled) are ideal candidates for this. And it fits the T's timeline for first possible Providence Line electrification, since the RER study would have to complete and they'd have to budget for Sharon substation expansion + wire-up storage areas to functionally be able to run.

Advantages:
  • Potentially massive vehicle scale with multi-agency procurements driving down prices, extending maintainability decades out.
  • This is the boldest attempt at a fully standardized FRA-compliant EMU. Bolder still when considering Bombardier likely to offer same propulsion product in BiLevel Coach packaging for 8-inch platform territory (e.g. GO Transit electrification, since they have a fleet of 650+ BLV coaches). Anything else the T looks at, including derived Euro imports, is going to require fresh teething and some greater degree of modding.
  • NJT works out all the bugs. If these end up lemons, don't have to buy.
  • Easier to deal in laundered options than fresh-procure if design is compatible. NJT has flex to deal, and if T expresses initial interest the options can be held for a very long time.
  • T still needs to make another 200+ coach purchase to retire the decaying Bomardier single-levels. FCMB has see-sawed back and forth about considering single-levels or more bi-levels. As of last update, it's swung back to bi-levels (probably because the market for commuter flats is comatose and no one's offering a fair price). Kawasaki's rail division is losing money and Rotem is a dumpster fire, so unclear who would build more K-car clones as CRRC's bi-level design is very different. Making a big order of 2 x 2 seating MLV coaches would settle this dilemma, split some of the dwell time difference between flats and the 3 x 2 seat K-cars, and open the door wide for buying the power cars.
  • Speed: Significant Providence Line schedule gains with an EMU that can top 100 MPH, as station spacing may allow for generous segments of 90+ and momentary triple-digit speeds.
  • Scalability: If southside gets an MLV-heavier fleet and the K-cars start to live north, electrifying additional southside lines gets much easier only requiring small supplemental purchases of power cars.
  • Since Bombardier is likely going to be serving this up in both MLV and BLV packaging, good chances of a single-level variant with same propulsion coming available some years later that we could use for the Urban Rail/intra-128 lines. It's just not a tincan that's readily available today because BBD hasn't produced domestic flats in 20+ years, its last single-level U.S. design was aluminum which has fallen out of favor to stainless steel, and it would have to adapt one of its Euro models for the U.S. in order to plug that gap.

Disadvantages:
  • Don't know if the hybrid setup is going to accelerate its weight as well as a traditional EMU, despite the promises. (Counterpoint: But we don't have to buy if that's the case!)
  • Bi-level. TransitMatters is going to be nonplussed that these aren't flats (and the transpo blogosphere will be in a rage...but that's just another day ending in -y for them. ). Need to consider what the marketplace will bear. Flats are hard to come by without risking design mods and a prolonged procurement. If this is the most readily available and risk-padded buy because of the NJT 'guinea pig' and option laundering, can we make do with it? Does 2 x 2 seating mollify some of the concerns? I don't think flats vs. bi's is necessarily the hill to die on, because if one has a significantly easier procurement path than the other we get >90% what we want having something self-propelled sooner. But this needs a closer look.
  • Fairmount Line. 3-car bi's are an awkward fit...but as above, is that the best we can do now? Do the prospects look better a few years down the road for single-levels in this propulsion package, after we've electrified a few more lines and can shift fleets around to better-differentiate what's assigned to Regional Rail schedules vs. Urban Rail schedules? Can we tolerate bi's on Urban Rail as a bridge era to better things when they still from Day 1 will beat the snot out of any diesel or DMU? Again...needs a closer look.
  • K-cars. Pretty sure MLV's and K-cars don't play particularly nice in practice even though they're supposed to; MARC tends to keep their identical K-car fleet separated from its MLV's. So we'd probably have to adopt MLV's for a substantial portion of the replacement coach fleet and stuff a lot of K's and Rotem's up north. It would definitely be asking too much to try to have any K-cars take up residence in a self-propelled set.

-------------------------
  • NJT marketing video here:
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 08:47 AM   #1423
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 5,157
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

It says 1 powered car can pull 2 cars and no locomotive. I wonder if this would work good if we bought these to have a smaller trainset on fairmount vs dmus. The emu’s should be able to accelerate faster and much better headways.
stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 09:17 AM   #1424
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,748
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stick n move View Post
It says 1 powered car can pull 2 cars and no locomotive. I wonder if this would work good if we bought these to have a smaller trainset on fairmount vs dmus. The emu’s should be able to accelerate faster and much better headways.

Any EMU beats the living snot out of a DMU, for simple reason of not needing to lug around engines and a full tank of fuel. Physics of mass really doesn't allow for closing that gap meaningfully.


DMU's might be a northside consideration where electrification is going to be later-arriving, but no question if you want Fairmount done right you're stringing up wire and not pussyfooting about it.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 11:27 AM   #1425
Riverside
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 259
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Please help with some definitions -- MLV and K-car?
Riverside is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 11:56 AM   #1426
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,748
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverside View Post
Please help with some definitions -- MLV and K-car?

MLV = MultiLevel Coach...Bombardier bi-level coach that NJ Transit and a few others use. Has 2 x 2 seating.



K-car = Kawasaki bi-level...the T's and MARC's bi-levels made by Kawasaki with clones by Rotem. Has 3 x 2 seating.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 12:26 PM   #1427
jass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,269
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

The problem with the current NJT Bombardier rolling stock is that there are long dwell times because of poor customer flow.

Each car has 4 doors on each side, but because of how close one of the doors is to the narrow stairs, the second pair (in the vestibule) is essentially useless.

The most popular door is narrow, only one person in or out at a time.

The stairs are narrow, causing congestion, especially when baggage is involved.

NJT has lost a lot of speed at the expense of capacity. This really bit them in the ass when they foolishly used the bilevels during the superbowl instead of the single levels with 3 useful doors.

However, some of these issues COULD be fixed. Removing ~2 seats at each end would allow the stairs to be wider, improving flow. Moving the door back and making it much wider could then allow for people to get on and off at the same time, and split up into two lines (for up and down).

Hopefully this order addresses some of those issues.
jass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 01:49 PM   #1428
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,748
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Quote:
Originally Posted by jass View Post
The problem with the current NJT Bombardier rolling stock is that there are long dwell times because of poor customer flow.

Each car has 4 doors on each side, but because of how close one of the doors is to the narrow stairs, the second pair (in the vestibule) is essentially useless.

The most popular door is narrow, only one person in or out at a time.

The stairs are narrow, causing congestion, especially when baggage is involved.

NJT has lost a lot of speed at the expense of capacity. This really bit them in the ass when they foolishly used the bilevels during the superbowl instead of the single levels with 3 useful doors.

However, some of these issues COULD be fixed. Removing ~2 seats at each end would allow the stairs to be wider, improving flow. Moving the door back and making it much wider could then allow for people to get on and off at the same time, and split up into two lines (for up and down).

Hopefully this order addresses some of those issues.
New order's supposed to make changes to the vestibule layout and feature wider doors to correct some of those flaws. The linkied video makes brief mention, but it's anybody's guess what that'll mean on the shipping product since it's so early in design. Does appear that complaint isn't falling on deaf ears, FWIW.

Ordering with 2 doors per side instead of 4 has been an order option since Day 1, as Montreal's fleet of MLV coaches is like that. NJT did the extra doors to have one set designated for high-level platforms and one set for lows so traps don't have to be flipped constantly by the conductors. If it created more space for flow ordering the 2-per-side door config with a sufficiently wide door similar to the T's bi's would suffice. After all, if they don't want to keep flipping door traps they should start raising more platforms; NJT seems to use its MLV door config as an agency excuse to let three-quarters of its platforms rot non-accessible.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 02:31 PM   #1429
Joel N. Weber II
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 587
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Quote:
Originally Posted by fattony View Post
Sullivan would be ideal for OL and bus connections. Union might be an acceptable second choice if Sullivan isn't possible for some reason. Both would be great, but maybe a bit much. If it hit both Orange and Green, then the only people who would NEED a NS bound train would be the people who don't make a subway connection there.
In addition to a Sullivan commuter rail platform enabling bus and Orange Line transfers, adding a Green Line branch out to Sullivan and the casino might make sense. Multiple branches past the casino might also make sense, including a branch stopping at all the Chelsea SL3 stops, possibly a branch stopping at the future and former Chelsea commuter rail stop and then continuing to Suffolk Downs, and possibly a branch continuing from the casino to Sweetser Circle and then Revere Beach Parkway and US 1. If there end up being three Green Line branches north of the casino and Sullivan, it might make sense to continue one of those branches to Lechmere, North Station, Park St, etc, a second to the Grand Junction (including Kendall) and BU West, and the third branch to Somerville's Union Sq, Porter Sq, and the Watertown Branch.

If Newburyport / Rockport passengers could transfer to both the Orange Line and Green Line at Sullivan, perhaps continuing those Newburyport / Rockport trains to Porter for Red Line transfers instead of sending them to North Station would make sense.
Joel N. Weber II is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2019, 04:18 PM   #1430
jass
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 4,269
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Quote:
Originally Posted by F-Line to Dudley View Post
New order's supposed to make changes to the vestibule layout and feature wider doors to correct some of those flaws. The linkied video makes brief mention, but it's anybody's guess what that'll mean on the shipping product since it's so early in design. Does appear that complaint isn't falling on deaf ears, FWIW.
Thats very good news.

Quote:
Ordering with 2 doors per side instead of 4 has been an order option since Day 1, as Montreal's fleet of MLV coaches is like that. NJT did the extra doors to have one set designated for high-level platforms and one set for lows so traps don't have to be flipped constantly by the conductors. If it created more space for flow ordering the 2-per-side door config with a sufficiently wide door similar to the T's bi's would suffice. After all, if they don't want to keep flipping door traps they should start raising more platforms; NJT seems to use its MLV door config as an agency excuse to let three-quarters of its platforms rot non-accessible.
Like the MBTA, NJT has no plans to make everything high floor any time soon, so the extra vestibule doors with traps are needed.

I can only think of a couple in the timeline. One of them is Perth Amboy, which was a 4-track station. They plan on making it high floor by permanently blocking the ROW of the 2 outer tracks.

Real long-term thinkers over there.
jass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 01:03 PM   #1431
ceo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 124
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Do the bridge clearances in the system permit running bilevel cars under catenary? Obviously the Providence Line is OK in this regard, but what about the others?
ceo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 03:42 PM   #1432
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,748
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceo View Post
Do the bridge clearances in the system permit running bilevel cars under catenary? Obviously the Providence Line is OK in this regard, but what about the others?
Clearances are pretty well-documented systemwide by what freight car 'plate' size a linear route will accept, including on the lines that carry no freight. 25 kV wire then takes +2.5 ft. of additional electrical clearance above the car roof to safeguard arcing potential.

With those facts in mind, it's verifiable today that all lines are OK as-is for 25 kV wire over a T bi-level except for:
  • (verifiable) Grand Junction Branch, Cambridge. Offending structure: Memorial Dr. overpass.
  • (*maybe*) Worcester Line, Boston. Offending structure: Beacon St. overpass.
Worcester is a "Plate C" restriction east of Beacon Park to SS. But so is the very much wired NEC all points north of Readville. The Beacon overpass is a razor-thin miss...no more than a few inches. Can't undercut because of proximity to Yawkey Station and the Muddy River bridge, but notching the bridge may work because the discrepancy is so slight. This is an extremely minimal concern for RER; the fix should be simple.

Grand Junction is a "Plate B" restriction--tightest on the system--and a big miss. Can't drop the railbed because of close proximity to the Charles bridge, can't raise Memorial Drive because the road's already got a wicked hump in it over that span. Possible solution is to have an unpowered insulated section of wire under the bridge that trains coast through (a sort of last resort for small overpasses like this which have zero give). But that assumes that a potential bi-level EMU has pantographs that could squeeze down far enough to make it through that insulated section. At any rate, northside's going to trail southside electrification by many years so not something to worry about up-front. Grand Junction is completely fine for Urban Ring electrification, because trolleys are obviously shorter and 600 V rapid transit electrification is only 2% as strong as 25 kV.


There's obviously a much more complicated scene for freight clearances under-wire as some lines have federally protected freight height allowances, and that's where all the cost & labor of raising bridges or undercutting track is going to be spent. Vastly bigger $$$ for that on the northside compared to southside, however.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 05:53 PM   #1433
CSTH
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 1,761
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Thanks as always for the high quality info.

Is it fair to say that the whole mem drive overpass there is overdue for a major reconstruction anyway? (Anyone who has driven over or under it in the last 15 or so years will understand...)

And I understand that the boathouse and the adjacent parking lot entrance just to the east are probably constraints on a longer/taller approach, but probably solvable?
CSTH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2019, 10:04 PM   #1434
odurandina
Senior Member
 
odurandina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 4,348
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

F-Line,

Sick info last few weeks, months......

It's a real pleasure to read these incredible posts.
odurandina is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2019, 02:40 PM   #1435
ceo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 124
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Progress?
Panel envisioning range of options to improve commuter rail
ceo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-27-2019, 09:33 AM   #1436
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,748
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceo View Post
Nothing new. They're just doing public meetings on the most recent slate of build Alternatives.

Jan. 22 Rail Advisory Committee presentation: https://cdn.mbta.com/sites/default/f...esentation.pdf
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2019, 10:09 AM   #1437
orulz
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 28
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Quote:
Originally Posted by F-Line to Dudley View Post
Any EMU beats the living snot out of a DMU, for simple reason of not needing to lug around engines and a full tank of fuel. Physics of mass really doesn't allow for closing that gap meaningfully.


DMU's might be a northside consideration where electrification is going to be later-arriving, but no question if you want Fairmount done right you're stringing up wire and not pussyfooting about it.
I recently read that for low-speed, adhesion-limited acceleration (ie up to maybe somewhere in the range of 30mph) DMUs and EMUs are pretty comparable, and far superior to anything hauled by a locomotive, even an electric locomotive. When adhesion limited, the extra weight of the diesel motors is offset by the extra traction that the extra weight provides.

It is for higher-speed acceleration where the greater power-to-weight ratio of EMUs is the biggest benefit. In other words, to take advantage of the better high-speed acceleration of EMUs, station spacing must be more than some minimum. Using lighter, european-style alternative compliance rolling stock would push the transition from adhesion-limited to power-limited acceleration to a faster speed, meaning that ligher vehicles (given the same number of powered axles) cause EMUs to lose more of their advantage in comparison with DMUs.

I don't know what the threshold is in terms of spacing where the EMU advantage disappears, but it does decrease when the stations are very close together. Fairmount does now have pretty closely spaced stations by commuter rail standards (average of about 1 mile) but I suspect the distance where the EMU advantage disappears is probably a good bit shorter than that (Maybe a quarter mile perhaps?)

Given that the EMU advantage decreases with very long station spacing (since most of the time is spent cruising at speed) and very short spacing (because of the traction problem above) it would be an interesting optimization problem to calculate the station spacing where EMUs provide the greatest advantage.

Of course there are other advantages to EMUs as well in terms of noise, pollution, operation in tunnels, maintenance costs, and perhaps fleet uniformity, but it is an interesting question nonetheless.
orulz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-28-2019, 06:26 PM   #1438
F-Line to Dudley
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 4,748
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Quote:
Originally Posted by orulz View Post
I recently read that for low-speed, adhesion-limited acceleration (ie up to maybe somewhere in the range of 30mph) DMUs and EMUs are pretty comparable, and far superior to anything hauled by a locomotive, even an electric locomotive. When adhesion limited, the extra weight of the diesel motors is offset by the extra traction that the extra weight provides.

It is for higher-speed acceleration where the greater power-to-weight ratio of EMUs is the biggest benefit. In other words, to take advantage of the better high-speed acceleration of EMUs, station spacing must be more than some minimum. Using lighter, european-style alternative compliance rolling stock would push the transition from adhesion-limited to power-limited acceleration to a faster speed, meaning that ligher vehicles (given the same number of powered axles) cause EMUs to lose more of their advantage in comparison with DMUs.

I don't know what the threshold is in terms of spacing where the EMU advantage disappears, but it does decrease when the stations are very close together. Fairmount does now have pretty closely spaced stations by commuter rail standards (average of about 1 mile) but I suspect the distance where the EMU advantage disappears is probably a good bit shorter than that (Maybe a quarter mile perhaps?)

Given that the EMU advantage decreases with very long station spacing (since most of the time is spent cruising at speed) and very short spacing (because of the traction problem above) it would be an interesting optimization problem to calculate the station spacing where EMUs provide the greatest advantage.

Of course there are other advantages to EMUs as well in terms of noise, pollution, operation in tunnels, maintenance costs, and perhaps fleet uniformity, but it is an interesting question nonetheless.
Problem is that the DMU buying options the T was previously considering were not at all lightweight. They were evaluating the somewhat porky full FRA-compliant Nippon-Sharyo model adopted by SMART & Union-Pearson Express for the Fairmount Line, because there was no way to sidestep freight track occupancy @ Readville. Ditto on the entire northside where freights live right up the gut of the terminal district moving around Boston Engine Terminal and serving Boston Sand & Gravel.

It's not clear if the revised FRA crashworthiness guidelines would allow for a Stadler GTW, a more appropriate lightweight reference model, to finally be purchased and deployed as-is and not require individual waivers for each line deployment (which we were never able to get because of our pooled terminal districts). It would substantially brighten the chances of DMU deployments if the GTW lineup got that blanket blessing, because it's fairly generic and well-established. But as of 2019 it's still sitting in the land of service waivers and not something the T can buy.


That brings us to the sobering reality the T has to contend with for advancing the RER study recs: the market for DMU's is absolutely wretched right now. Buy America has proven to be a huge limiting factor for that vehicle type taking off because most DMU procurements are extremely small...half-dozen to dozen units on-average. And the manufacturers just aren't making enough money assembling units at pop-up factories when EMU orders past and present can run 40-500 units a pop. Nippon-Sharyo has taken a big step back after it melted down on its Amtrak contract for bi-level coaches and was fired with penalties; it's no longer actively pushing its DMU product as it tries to do damage-control to its corporate rep in the fallout from the Amtrak debacle. And there's been a little bit of a bubble burst in terms of transit proposals utilizing DMU's being mothballed, changing focus, or stalling out from lack of advancement compared to 2012-15 when it was hyped as the "it" mode.

So there's a bit of a logistical conundrum here in that a vehicle market that was supposed to be heating up by 2018-20 has counterintuitively gone ice-cold...due to factors that don't have much at all to do with vehicle tech, but more an unfortunate intersection of business cycles. If the T wants to act, they literally have a better chance of acting by making a go-for-it decision on wiring up Fairmount + Riverside (the most extra service you can chain off a fully-expanded Sharon substation), and playing make-a-deal with NJ Transit for some of those MLV EMU 'slush' options. Then running the two intra-128 services, the Providence Line, and RIDOT intrastate off it. It's somewhat of an incredible turnabout from the Request for Proposals from 3 years ago where we thought we were getting some Nippon-Sharyo DMU's, but change in market conditions and availability of laundered options from somebody else's 800+ unit Bombardier electric contract will do it.

I hold out hope if it gets unshackled from regs that the Stadler DMU's can be a viable northside option for the 128-turning lines, since electrification is later-coming up there. But on the southside I'd rather they not even bother when a substantial pool fleet of EMU's can be amassed faster than it would take to do a comprehensive shopping search for DMU's in a down and Buy America-hostile market for those vehicles.
F-Line to Dudley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2019, 08:33 AM   #1439
stick n move
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Dorchester
Posts: 5,157
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Do you guys think if we were going to “go for it”... blue to riverside would be a better idea? Either by way of the esplanade/storrow or tunnel under Beacon since blue and green both use overhead wires and it would make a ton of sense to connect to red at mgh then continue on to the back bay where no other options have existed yet then under Kenmore and on to Riverside. Eventually the Lynn extension would create a blue line consisting of Lynn to Riverside which seems like the ideal option vs orange to Riverside. Everything has hurdles and the track gauge is one, but I think if were gonna do it do it right. Then the Orange can be extended to Needham heights and Readville to meet up with whatever ends up on the indigo line some day and allow much better headways on the Needham line.
stick n move is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-30-2019, 09:05 AM   #1440
Downburst
Senior Member
 
Downburst's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Boston
Posts: 1,315
Re: Regional Rail (including North-South Rail Link)

Quote:
Originally Posted by stick n move View Post
Do you guys think if we were going to “go for it”... blue to riverside would be a better idea?
My understanding is that it's important to maintain the D for the Green Line because the Riverside yard is absolutely necessary for the entire GL system.

I'm sure F-Line or another of our transit systems experts could speak to it more.
__________________
"Don't ever take a city for granted. After all, it's bigger than you are; it is older; and it has learned how to wait..."
-----
Downburst 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
North-South Rail Link: DOT Public Hearing BostonUrbEx Boston Architecture/Urbanism Related Events 0 11-10-2018 07:46 AM
Amtrak / Regional Rail Discussion Thread F-Line to Dudley Transit and Infrastructure 121 09-05-2018 02:30 PM
TransitMatters Regional Rail Plan shmessy Transit and Infrastructure 134 05-22-2018 12:10 PM
Regional Rail tysmith95 Transit and Infrastructure 1 04-10-2017 10:33 PM
North Station-South Station Rail Link stick n move Design a Better Boston 103 11-03-2014 09:04 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.