MBTA Commuter Rail (Operations, Keolis, & Short Term)

That's complete gobbledygook. They haven't fully committed to implementing the Rail Vision yet or given a timetable for implementation, so this has to fit existing service if it's to be a sooner-rather-than-later build. And these stops are currently on Worcester off-peak schedules that run 5+ cars, and Framingham peak schedules that always run 5+ cars. No decision has been made on whether to shear off the Newton stops from all suburban service in favor of exclusive intra-128 service; I would think that would be opposed by the city who likes the idea of some service variety continuing to serve the stops, even if it's a minority pattern. In fact, I'd find it highly unlikely that they would be punted to exclusive Riverside/128 turns given how the TPH would have to be structured to be load-bearing for at least the Framingham turns. Plus, what I said above about the EMU RFP's netting married-triplet makes that may have to chunk out to 6 cars if the loading proves too much for minimum 3-car sets (which it will if anything traveling beyond 128 during the peak stops here).

Bad, bad omen for community outreach on these critical rebuilds if they're just nakedly bullshitting on stuff like this. Both this meeting and the South Coast Rail one last night were not good outcomes for transparency.
That doesn't let you do auto doors, so you're limited to doors with a conductor, which kills your dwell times. To do auto doors with a 6-car set, you need 510 feet (plus 20 or so extra for margin of error). Platforms really are not the expensive part of building stations - it's just footings with prefab panels on top - so cheaping out by shortening platforms smells particularly fishy.
I just revisited the discussion of Newtonville's proposed 400' platforms, as part of building an index of the excellent discussions on the forum on my website. I decided to write to MBTA Public Engagement to voice out the disagreements with 400' platforms, and I've quoted my email below. While I did not mention this forum or specific comments here, most of my reply was based on highly informative comments like the above, which I acknowledge and appreciate here.
I have recently watched the public recordings of the Newton stations accessibility project, and I appreciate the work for the project and its outreach. I would like to raise a concern regarding the current concepts of Newtonville station: in particular, I think the decision to shorten the platforms to 400 ft from the full 800 ft warrants a closer examination or at least a stronger justification.

I believe 400 ft platforms will create serious issues for both current and future operations. Today, the diesel trains running on the Framingham/Worcester line typically run sets with at least 5 cars (often much more), which means not all doors can open at the redesigned 400' Newtonville platform. This worsens passenger experience significantly as they rush to find cars with open doors - often limited to those with a conductor - when alighting. More crucially, this also increases dwell times at the station substantially, reducing speed and reliability of trains, and may even negate the time savings from high-level platforms.

It was mentioned during the meeting that regional rail and electrification were part of the consideration, assuming trains are run more frequently with shorter sets. However, I think there are two major flaws with this justification. For one, there has been no official commitment to implement Rail Vision by the MBTA, no concrete timeline for implementation, and especially no timeline for electrifying the Framingham/Worcester Line. Even the most aggressive official proposals to date only expect EMUs to start running by 2027 and only on the Fairmount Line, and since the other high-priority targets are the Providence/Stoughton Line and Newburyport/Rockport Line, there is nowhere near enough time to procure enough fleet for the Framingham/Worcester Line and electrify the ROW. Given that a rough preliminary estimate of 3 years for Newtonville station's planning and construction was mentioned during the meeting, current operations with diesel trains should play a big part in station design, with the expectation that the rebuilt station will probably not be electrified by the time it opens in around 2027 (and the timeline for electrification is highly uncertain).

For another, 400' platforms may still be insufficient even in the long term, under regional rail and EMU operations. Most bids to the MBTA's previous Request for Proposal (RFP) for EMUs were for 3-car trains and 6-car trains. Given that the Framingham/Worcester Line is one of the most heavily utilized lines in the system, it appears very unlikely that the line will be dominated with 3-car trains; in fact, 6-car and even 9-car trains will likely be the majority. However, 400' platforms cannot accommodate 6-car EMU trains. Thus, if the plan is to have trainsets that are longer than 400' skip the station (as mentioned during the meeting), it will result in very little service at Newtonville, which massively undermines the improvements with bidirectional platforms and is undesirable for an urban station.

I understand that the primary reason given for shortening the platforms is to reduce construction costs. However, based on what I have been told, including from professional transit planners, the cost difference between 400' and 800' platforms is insignificant and not a major part of the costs, especially in comparison to station accessibility and hiring consultants. The concept with a center island platform appears especially short-sighted, as it precludes extension of the platform to full 800' without even more track shifts in the future.

Overall, I believe the decision to shorten the new platforms to 400' is unwise in both the short and long terms for marginal immediate gains. Any minor cost savings from the shortened platforms will likely be negated in the future when the need to lengthen the platforms inevitably arises, incurring much greater future costs. If the station absolutely needs to be built with 400' platforms for any reason, I would encourage the MBTA to provide a more detailed justification; moreover, I strongly recommend being in favor of the concept with side platforms in this scenario, such that they can be extended to full-length platforms in the future much more easily.
 
Upon further contemplation, I feel that they want to keep the platform short enough to have plausible arguments to avoid building accessible entrances at both Harvard and Walnut. Post-BCIL settlement, the T seems to prefer redundant elevators to be proximate. I can see them worrying that a single elevator per entrance will yield a lawsuit when someone needs to navigate Washington St to get to the distant entry.
 
Actually, if done properly, a 6 car consist could do rear door first car, front door rear car.
So, I guess that, in 2024, the only choices we have are manually opening each door or opening all doors. On both sides, no doubt.
 
So, I guess that, in 2024, the only choices we have are manually opening each door or opening all doors. On both sides, no doubt.
The way the automatic doors work is via a conductor pressing buttons for "this door, left, right." That's why the trains have 3 conductors during peak. They can open any combination of doors up to the full train except the locomotive adjacent one and the cab door which are both always kept closed. The most that a single conductor can open from a vestibule area are 4 doors or 2 complete cars. Where there aren't full high platforms, each conductor can be in the middle of 2 cars and open just one door at the end of each car and call passengers to that exit. This is why dwell times are so bad outside of the Old Colony Lines. Having to lift and drop the panel for the stairs is a completely manual process so conductors only open one set per boarding doors set rather than two limiting boarding and alighting to one at a time. Theoretically, a 4 car train with automatic doors can be completely served by a single conductor if you don't care about ensuring fare collection.
 
The way the automatic doors work is via a conductor pressing buttons for "this door, left, right." That's why the trains have 3 conductors during peak. They can open any combination of doors up to the full train except the locomotive adjacent one and the cab door which are both always kept closed. The most that a single conductor can open from a vestibule area are 4 doors or 2 complete cars. Where there aren't full high platforms, each conductor can be in the middle of 2 cars and open just one door at the end of each car and call passengers to that exit. This is why dwell times are so bad outside of the Old Colony Lines. Having to lift and drop the panel for the stairs is a completely manual process so conductors only open one set per boarding doors set rather than two limiting boarding and alighting to one at a time. Theoretically, a 4 car train with automatic doors can be completely served by a single conductor if you don't care about ensuring fare collection.
So, my $15 Walmart space heater has a kill switch that turns off if the switch is not depressed. Having a hard time understanding why the cars could not have a simular switch to keep a door closed if the platform is not adjacent to it
 
So, my $15 Walmart space heater has a kill switch that turns off if the switch is not depressed. Having a hard time understanding why the cars could not have a simular switch to keep a door closed if the platform is not adjacent to it
I just described how it's not "manually opening each door or opening all doors" I'm not following the issue here. The conductors can only open up to a combination of 3 doors from a single panel using 3 separate buttons which includes a door 85' away at the opposite end of the car the panel is in. They can open a 4th door 85' away in the opposite direction on the adjacent car by taking a few steps into that car's vestibule to press a button on its panel. If the specific singular button for the specific door is not pressed the door does not open and remains closed.
 
How does this section preclude a safety override switch for auto door systems?

Only a crewmember can exert direct control over which doors are bypassed in a normal opening sequence. It can't be an auto-sensor thing.
§ 238.133

Exterior side door safety systems—all passenger cars and locomotives used in a passenger service.

(a) By-pass device verification—(1) Visual inspection. Except as provided in paragraphs (a)(2) and (3) of this section, a member of the crew of each passenger train must verify by observation that all door by-pass devices that can affect the safe operation of the train are sealed in the normal (non-by-pass) position when taking control of the train.

(
2) Functional test. Instead of a visual inspection of the door by-pass devices, the railroad may develop a plan to perform a functional test to determine that the door summary status indicator is functioning as intended. The functional test plan shall be made available for inspection by FRA.

(3) Face-to-face relief. Crewmembers taking control of a train do not need to perform either a visual inspection or a functional test of the door by-pass devices in cases of face-to-face relief of another train crew and notification by that crew as to the functioning of the door by-pass devices.
 

TL;DR: The former Worcester H2H train doubled in ridership since it was converted to the typical "local till West Natick" trip, but Worcester complains about 20 extra minutes one-way.
 
The has been a lot of Keolis activity going on at Norwood Central this past week. They've been stationing heavy equipment like a front loader and small truck crane there as well as having teams of hi-vis wearing personnel inspecting things and surveying. Potentially preliminary work towards resuming the Franklin Line double tracking?
 
The has been a lot of Keolis activity going on at Norwood Central this past week. They've been stationing heavy equipment like a front loader and small truck crane there as well as having teams of hi-vis wearing personnel inspecting things and surveying. Potentially preliminary work towards resuming the Franklin Line double tracking?

Double track project has started up again. Ballast trains are staged on The Franklin Industrial Track (junction with the mainline west of Franklin station at Union Street). There has already been two stone trains this week. Using six of the MDOT ballast hoppers.
 
Beginning this summer, a bridge replacement project will surprisingly and inexplicably close the downtown Haverhill station to commuter rail passengers, yet leaving it open for Amtrak Downeaster passengers.
Starting “tentatively” in mid-July and continuing for 10 to 12 months, those who usually board the commuter rail in Haverhill must get on at the Bradford station instead, according to a letter from the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority—or MBTA—to the city. The letter explains, as WHAV reported first in 2022, the diversion is due to the replacement of the South Elm Street bridge originally built in 1906. The downtown parking lot will remain open.
 
10-12 months??? That's an insanely long disruption for a bridge as small and cookie-cutter as that. I get that the only freight route to Maine doesn't allow for a weekend-shutdown rapid replacement, but it shouldn't take so freaking long to replace it one track at a time.

That's also the bridge that goes over the road to Bradford's parking lot, so it's going to royally screw up access to the city's second station as well (mainly for the neighborhood of Bradford east of the bridge) for the duration.
 
30-minute headways coming to the Fairmount Line, 7 days a week, starting later this spring:

 
30-minute headways coming to the Fairmount Line, 7 days a week, starting later this spring:

Halfway to the point where I think we could reasonably give it a color.
 
In some surprising unexpected news today, MBTA General Manager Phillip Eng announced the South Attleboro Commuter Rail Station will be back in service starting May 20, with three inbound trips each morning and three outbound trips every evening. Boardings and departures will only use the west bound platform closest to the parking lots as there is presently no access to the east tracks of the Amtrak Corridor which the MBTA uses for this line (2 separate north and south electrified tracks at this station).

The station has been closed since early 2021 after its pedestrian bridge overpasses was found to be structurally unsafe. Plans had already been underway for a station rebuild and it was thought it would reopen after it had occurred. The lack of any visible action (apart from the very recent removal of the badly deteriorated overhead bridge) for three years along with reduced rail ridership due to WFH models due to Covid and the opening of the new downtown Pawtucket station just two miles south had many wondering if it would ever reopen.

This station right off the exit ramp of Rte 95 in South Attleboro, just tens of feet from the Pawtucket border, was previously in the top 10 busiest commuter rail stations. It has 579 parking spaces and is part of the large Bristol Place Shopping Center anchored by a Home Depot and Market Basket visible from the highway.


 
Last edited:
30-minute headways coming to the Fairmount Line, 7 days a week, starting later this spring:

Happy that the H2H express is back, albeit only in the morning.
 
Gonna reply to @The EGE in this thread:
I suspect South Attleboro is going to see extremely limited ridership with this service. While it's a bit more convenient to I-95 and US 1A, P/CF has more trains, bus connections, and more surrounding density. Cynically, I wonder if this is an attempt to say "look, no one's using South Attleboro now that P/CF is open. We can just close it and not spend the money to rebuilt."

While it lacks the city-center location and bus hub of P/CF, South Attleboro isn't a terrible location. It's a good spot to have park-and-ride spots (especially as Attleboro looks at redeveloping some of its parking lots), and the whole MA side of the tracks is ripe for TOD. The RI side has decent enough housing density (~5 units/acre) that with walkability improvements and bus connections timed to trains, it could generate decent ridership - especially with enough reverse-peak trains to serve Providence commuters.
I actually am less cynical in this case. This seems related to the decision to have Providence trains start stopping at Readville again. In both cases, this sounds to me like Eng did a tour of the commuter rail and said, “So we’ve got these perfectly usable platforms at Readville and South Attleboro, and we’re running trains past them everyday, but we’re not actually stopping at them?”

I also wonder if Eng is perhaps more aware (as someone coming from outside the system) how utterly obscene it is that multiple stations (including Lynn) were allowed to fall into such disrepair as to be closed on an emergency basis, and is pushing for ways to create temporary solutions as conciliatory compromises in the mean time. The speed with which the new Lynn platform was built would be another example.
 
1714390639213.png

Another attempt at Readville. Now to try and make the fare zones work after moving the Franklin Line around. Remaining to-do list for the next CR schedule:
  • Finish tidying up north shore fare zones
  • Fix up the Middleborough/Lakeville terminus w/ Capeflyer routing since it seems to have another season in it.
  • Redo all the Franklin Line and Providence/Stoughton fare zones now that I've moved everything around :(
 
Last edited:

Back
Top