• lots of delays on south lines/north lines

  • Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.
Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: sery2831, CRail

  by GP40MC 1116
 
I think we all should give MBCR some credit and stop bashing them, i know it's been hard, but I am sure they're doing the best and hardest work to fix the problems. I mean look at just how the month of July has been, if the Big Dig wasn't such a mess, then their wouldn't be an increased ridership level. Not to mention nearly 3 bucks a gallon or over. I tell you what, i would rather ride home in a hot or mild commuter rail car than sit in Boston Traffic wasting gas which i paid probably over 40 bucks to fill my tank. I know it's hard, but at least look at the positive's. I know their are some railroad people on this list, and they can at least respect the fact I am giving them credit. For example, my ride on last nights MBCR 5:15 to Haverhill was FINE. Come on folks, i thnk you know where I am going with the "give them a break" issue here :-D

  by Red Wing
 
I believe most people are not bashing the front line staff but are bashing the owners of MBCR, Veolia Transportation, Bombardier, and Alternate Concepts Inc. I would agree with trainhq, if your looking at the bottom line, what's cheaper fines or personal?

  by octr202
 
I worry that we're into a vicious cycle here. I get the impression that MBCR may have drastically low-balled their bid in the first place. Let's do the math -- they have to set up a whole new company management structure (managers, HR, etc.), while Amtrak was able to piggyback some of this administration on the rest of its corporate structure. They have to honor all the existing labor agreements (meaning labor costs are going to remain where they were under Amtrak). Fuel, materials, etc. obviously aren't going to get cheaper, since they're bought from outside sources. You can't change the number or size of trains operated (at least not officially), so there's no savings there. Your revenue is fixed over the five years (I think its five) of the contract, so there's no way to increase revenue. So where's the only place that cost savings could seem to come from? Looks like the maintenance budget to me....

Of course, then if the T is really enforcing the fines and penalties for late/cancelled trains, breakdowns, etc., then there's a further hit on the revenue side, which, depending on how deep the pockets at MBCR are, and how big the fines are, could lead to more cutbacks, and then more failures, and more penalties. I've personally seen this happen on some very small (peanuts in comparison to MBCR) transportation contracts that I deal with at work. I'm scared to think of this happening on the scale of the commuter rail system.

Thinking back to the last bid process, Guilford was the only other bidder. They were a LOT higher than MBCR. Granted, we all know they're hardly the role model of American railroading, but they did once operate this system. I have to wonder who's bid was a more accurate reflection of what five years of service was likely to cost.

Finally, this is at least the second summer of persistant AC breakdowns. Its not the first time we've been through reports of car shortages. Once or twice is one thing, but this recurring pattern is distressing.

Finally, as others have pointed out, this is a management issue at MBCR and the T. The rank and file employees of MBCR are down in the trenches every day, trying to work with what they're given. I get the feeling a lot of days that the operating department is almost literally trying to cram "ten pounds of passengers into a five pound bag" to borrow a usually crude expression. I've run into a few commuters at work who have talked about how mad they've gotten with conductors, etc. about the situation. Every time I've reminded them that not only do they not maintain the cars, they also have to spend a lot more time each day on hot, dirty, overcrowded coaches than the average passenger. With some people, that seems to come as a surprise.

  by MBTA3247
 
octr202 wrote:Thinking back to the last bid process, Guilford was the only other bidder. They were a LOT higher than MBCR. Granted, we all know they're hardly the role model of American railroading, but they did once operate this system. I have to wonder who's bid was a more accurate reflection of what five years of service was likely to cost.
Actually, that was Boston & Maine that once ran the system, not Guilford. Also, the only reason Guilford submitted a bid was because the T asked them to in order to maintain some sense of propriety in the bidding process. Guilford never had any interest in running Commuter Rail, and no one expected them to get the contract; they deliberately made their bid much higher than necessary so they wouldn't be selected. And from what I've heard of their business practices, they'd probably be doing a much worse job than MBCR.
octr202 wrote:Finally, this is at least the second summer of persistant AC breakdowns. Its not the first time we've been through reports of car shortages. Once or twice is one thing, but this recurring pattern is distressing.
I've compiled data on AC problems as part of my job here at MBCR, and until early July the number of hot cars in service was lower than either of the previous two years. Reports of hot cars are also down by about half. So we're definitely doing better on the AC front.

  by octr202
 
MBTA3247 wrote:Actually, that was Boston & Maine that once ran the system, not Guilford. Also, the only reason Guilford submitted a bid was because the T asked them to in order to maintain some sense of propriety in the bidding process. Guilford never had any interest in running Commuter Rail, and no one expected them to get the contract; they deliberately made their bid much higher than necessary so they wouldn't be selected. And from what I've heard of their business practices, they'd probably be doing a much worse job than MBCR.
Well, that was what I was referring to -- I may have been guilty of assuming too much continiuity between B&M and Guilford. Although, I think it wasn't until 1986 that they lost the last of the service to Amtrak, so that would have been into the Guilford era, even if it was the B&M that got the business in the first place.

I had an interesting conversation once with a former GRS employee who worked on that bid -- at some level there really was a genuine interest in getting it, maybe that didn't flow through all levels of management. However, in the end, his opinion was they were much better off without it.

Also found it interesting that during that bid, the other, probably most qualified bidder, Herzog, got thrown out early in the process.
MBTA3247 wrote: I've compiled data on AC problems as part of my job here at MBCR, and until early July the number of hot cars in service was lower than either of the previous two years. Reports of hot cars are also down by about half. So we're definitely doing better on the AC front.
Interesting -- I must have really bad luck on the days I ride the Fitchburg Line! :-D (Hardly a scientific asessment.) :wink:

  by dbperry
 
GP40MC 1116 wrote:I think we all should give MBCR some credit and stop bashing them,
Agreed, we should not be bashing the conductors / front line staff. But if MBCR is unable to live up to their side of the bargain (90% on time), and if they have fewer locos available than are needed, then shouldn't we be able to 'bash' them?

Here is today's article following up on the meeting yesterday:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articl ... rail_snags

We can diverge into a discussion on CR privitatization, who can run CR better, etc. - but the bottom line today is that MBCR has a contract for the price they agreed to. They are not executing as required.

BTW, P505 this morning was 15 minutes late and then P512 was cancelled.

Dave

  by dbperry
 
MBTA3247 wrote: Reports of hot cars are also down by about half. So we're definitely doing better on the AC front.
Except reports of short trainsets are way up, right? Not to accuse MBCR of intentionally doing this, but you can improve the number of hot car complaints by not putting them on the road! Then the trains are just short, not hot.

Like I said, perhaps not intentional - perhaps an artifact of having lots of coaches out of service for maintenance (AC or otherwise)

  by GrahamP117
 
I didn't mean to engage in MBCR bashing or come across as pointing the blame at the front level staff/conductors. I have no problem with the front level staff at MBCR and I'm sure they're working the best they can with what they are given. It's the management that seems to be lacking, and also the equipment is aging too. The original K cars are now 15 years old, and the last time the MBTA got a brand new loco (not a rebuild) was in 1993, I believe.

  by octr202
 
GrahamP117 wrote:I didn't mean to engage in MBCR bashing or come across as pointing the blame at the front level staff/conductors. I have no problem with the front level staff at MBCR and I'm sure they're working the best they can with what they are given. It's the management that seems to be lacking, and also the equipment is aging too. The original K cars are now 15 years old, and the last time the MBTA got a brand new loco (not a rebuild) was in 1993, I believe.
Well, that's not even MBCR's purview, but MBTA. Equipment purchases are the MBTA's perogative.

  by Robert Paniagua
 
I just saw that article. Forst though when I rode a train from BOS to STG (Stoughton), I was sitting on board Kawasaki bilevel coach 744 which had A/C running, since the car in front of ours had another case of A/C hiccups. Some passengers and I talked about the MBCR/MBTA commuter rail delays and mentioned the A/C failure, OTP and even some windows that you can't see through for scenery. Fortunately the ride was smooth since we all sat on and Air Conditioned Car.

  by dbperry
 
More trouble on the Worcester line: while listening to the scanner this evening, it sounded like there were signal / switch problems near CP28. As a result, it sounded like P563 was running about 2.5 HOURS late.

This is what I pulled from MBTA.com:

- Worcester train #562 (815p ib) running 90-120 min late, due to CSX switch problem in the Ashland area.
We are sorry for the inconvenience.

Yikes! However, another example of MBCR (and even MBTA) having no fault for a delay....

Dave

  by Robert Paniagua
 
Yeah, that's more CSXT's area.

I bet ya this signal problem also delayed Amtrak's EB Late for Sure (Lake Shore) Ltd (P448) out of Albany trying to pass by.

  by octr202
 
Yes, but at least the Worcester folks can expect more heat speed restrictions the next couple of days too. Ugh...

  by railfan101
 
50 minute delays on the Haverhill line this morning. 6:05 out of haverhill apparently had a bad GP. This train eventually left Haverhill at at 6:45 with all of the people waiting for the 6:31 and 6:55. This train was also a 5 car set :( :( :(

  by dbperry
 
The Boston Globe is getting in on the MBCR bashing:

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editor ... ble_rails/

They include the reference to the loss of the British CR contract.....
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7