Winter 2015 and Impact on MBTA

Red Wing wrote:Is it time for the T to reassess their snow equipment needs? Sure the commuter rail is probably fine, but running trains back and forth on the subways doesn't seem to be cutting it. Other than a jet blower and and the sleds on the Green Line what do they have?

They don't need a whole lot because train-pushed plows usually do the job. It's the X many light/fluffy snow events in a row with serious drifting that's the difference. If we had just ONE storm with heavier/wetter stuff or a period of sleet all those trackside snowbanks would be weighted down just enough to not blow back onto the tracks and gum up the motors for days on end after the snow stops. Even when there's 3+ feet on the ground overall. Nor'easters--the worst weather rapid transit territory gets--are usually wetter inside Route 128 than this. No other transit agency in the country is experiencing systemwide conditions as unprecedented with such long-lasting attrition rates on the infrastructure as this sequence of fluffy storms. I can't remember anything like this in my 3-1/2 decades on this planet as born/bred New Englander.


What we're getting right now is simply beyond the statistical scope of something you can plausibly plan an equipment order around. Because a piece of snowfighting equipment will go 20 years or half its rated lifespan before seeing another sequence of storms exactly like this. They need much better and faster-arriving lend/lease options for 20-year unusual snow event sequences like this, but I'm not sure a bigger homegrown fleet is the answer. To some degree you have to plan capital purchases like that around a normal statistical spread of storms--which usually have at least one drift-stopper wet one even when it piles 3 feet high (which has happened a few times in the last decade). Hindsight causes a little distortion here; the last 3 weeks have simply been way way too far off-scale to factor these specific conditions into any sort of rational budgeting process.

They've just announced they've killed the Braintree branch for the rest of the day Monday:

Buses replacing Red Line (Braintree branch) service between Braintree and JFK/UMass Stations through the end of service on Monday, February 9, 2015.

Due to snow removal operations and to allow MBTA crews to perform track maintenance, buses will replace Red Line trains between JFK/UMass and Braintree Stations in both directions through the end of service on Monday, February 9, 2015. Customers are encouraged to utilize the Commuter Rail Old Colony Line at Braintree, Quincy Center, and JFK/UMass Stations if possible.

Please be advised that these pieces of equipment are powered by jet engines, which produce elevated levels of noise. The MBTA apologizes for any disturbance or inconvenience caused by this work that is necessary to make subway service more reliable.

Shuttling the following stops:
JFK/Umass
North Quincy
Wollaston
Quincy Center
Quincy Adams
Braintree

And just saw that that goes for the north end of the Orange Line as well (north of Sullivan). The planned midday shutdown will go through end of service tonight.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

Gerry6309 wrote:

Red Wing wrote:Sullivan and JFK have island platforms, making it easier for the average commuter.

Why do they use JFK when they don't have to?

It's protected better than most from snow drifts by the I-93 and Columbia Rd. overpasses, and the east-side embankment for the nearby Morrissey Blvd. overpass. West-side entrance to the side streets is completely under 93 for walkers, and the 93 exit makes vehicular access easier than most. Since they have to keep Columbia Jct. dug out all day for Cabot access, it makes sense to stop here at the surface stop that's one of the half-dozen easier ones on the system to keep clear.

Those bridges and embankments serve to funnel the wind through the open passageways. Since in these situations one of the two branches runs, JFK would be open anyway, so local access makes no difference. Andrew has easier access from Dorchester Av, and good access to and from I-93 for Quincy-Braintree shuttles. JFK offers zero advantage other than a small saving in bus mileage. I had to take a taxi to Andrew on Saturday morning to avoid going through JFK. Had no choice at 10:30 PM, then had to walk 500 feet at Ashmont to get a Taxi home. The best thing they could do at JFK would be to bulldoze the busway!

Gerry6309 wrote:

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:

Gerry6309 wrote:

Red Wing wrote:Sullivan and JFK have island platforms, making it easier for the average commuter.

Why do they use JFK when they don't have to?

It's protected better than most from snow drifts by the I-93 and Columbia Rd. overpasses, and the east-side embankment for the nearby Morrissey Blvd. overpass. West-side entrance to the side streets is completely under 93 for walkers, and the 93 exit makes vehicular access easier than most. Since they have to keep Columbia Jct. dug out all day for Cabot access, it makes sense to stop here at the surface stop that's one of the half-dozen easier ones on the system to keep clear.

Those bridges and embankments serve to funnel the wind through the open passageways. Since in these situations one of the two branches runs, JFK would be open anyway, so local access makes no difference. Andrew has easier access from Dorchester Av, and good access to and from I-93 for Quincy-Braintree shuttles. JFK offers zero advantage other than a small saving in bus mileage. I had to take a taxi to Andrew on Saturday morning to avoid going through JFK. Had no choice at 10:30 PM, then had to walk 500 feet at Ashmont to get a Taxi home. The best thing they could do at JFK would be to bulldoze the busway!

They'll have to if/when they double-track the commuter rail platform. Platform was built at the 12' regulation width for an island platform, provisioned for the extra track to be dropped on the busway side...which will blow that sucker up. Kind of surprised they haven't done this already since there's room for a turnout right at the platform-proper and it would allow Middleboro and Plymouth trains to bypass a stopped Greenbush for tighter schedule-packing.

All MBTA rail services will be suspended at 7:00 p.m. This means no Subway, Trolleys or Commuter Rail trains will depart Boston after 7:00 p.m.

All MBTA rail services will be suspended at 7:00 p.m. This means no subway, trolleys or Commuter Rail trains will depart Boston after 7:00 p.m. Limited MBTA bus service will continue until the end of regular service hours, but customers are advised that connections to subway and Commuter Rail lines will not be available.

Last Updated: 2/9/2015 4:01:07 PM

Ps. to get the attention to a name change ... write a post, then "report" it so the Mod & Site admins see it quicker.

The entire CR schedule is out the window for the rest of the night...

MBTA Commuter Rail ‏@MBTA_CR 7m minutes ago
MBTA Commuter Rail Passengers: The regular schedule is not being followed tonight. We will post line departure updates here when available

Wish we could get some inside info. Just how bad is it equipment wise is it for the T. Is it just rail equipment, or is it also trackside stuff as well. Saw one post said something about computer problems south side CR. How much is totally offline for the T now. 20%, 50%, 75% broken? I know no one would have said shut'er down if it was not bad. Just look how hard they tied to limp though the day today.

CRail wrote:

Bramdeisroberts wrote:Then where is the T "leadership" speaking up about how things really are and wheeling and dealing for more/better funding? The silence is (and has been for the last generation or two) deafening.

If only you became better friends with Charlie Baker, then you'd be the Transportation Secretary and the world would be fixed.

I'm sorry that given the recent state of affairs I can't give the unadulterated praise for the T's world-class upper management and legendarily effective maintenance staff that you so plainly want to hear.

Take a look to our neighbors up north. Toronto deals with snowfall like this on a yearly basis, and much of TTV's service is dependent on aboveground routes just like the It's. They even run a streetcar network! And all with rolling stock that's shockingly close to what the T runs, both on the heavy rail and light rail sides of things. Even Chicago's commuter systems are inundated with the same conditions we've had these past couple weeks, and they're even more dependent on above-ground running than we are.

The last I checked, neither of them seem to have these kinds of system-wide meltdowns, likely because they're properly run agencies and not glorified make-work programs like much of the MBTA is and has been for decades. The truth hurts sometimes.

The MBTA's chickens of mediocrity have finally come home to roost and let's hope that there's a silver lining to this latest of far too many failures and screwups and the state house takes the opportunity to do some housecleaning and get us the agency management that this city deserves.

Bramdeisroberts wrote:Take a look to our neighbors up north. Toronto deals with snowfall like this on a yearly basis, and much of TTV's service is dependent on aboveground routes just like the It's.

Is that the case?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/28 ... e-numbers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

130: The average, in centimetres, for Toronto snowfall each year. (51 inches. For a whole winter.)
118.4: The amount of snow that fell in two weeks back in January of 1999. (A mere 46 inches.)

saulblum wrote:

Bramdeisroberts wrote:Take a look to our neighbors up north. Toronto deals with snowfall like this on a yearly basis, and much of TTV's service is dependent on aboveground routes just like the It's.

Is that the case?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/28 ... e-numbers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

130: The average, in centimetres, for Toronto snowfall each year. (51 inches. For a whole winter.)
118.4: The amount of snow that fell in two weeks back in January of 1999. (A mere 46 inches.)

FWIW, so far this year, Beantown's total is 187.7 cm. (73.9 in.).

I always got the sense that their winters were closer on average to this winter than ours have been, and if you look at the average temps, esp for Chicago, you'll see that this kind of cold, powdery snowfall is much more common in the two Great Lakes cities than it is here.

For that matter, I wonder how Cleveland's system fares with all that lake effect snow (though I'd bet that when service goes down there, nobody notices or cares).

In geographic areas subject to lake effect snowfall do rail operations have similar problems to MBTA's recent one's?

papabarn wrote:

saulblum wrote:

Bramdeisroberts wrote:Take a look to our neighbors up north. Toronto deals with snowfall like this on a yearly basis, and much of TTV's service is dependent on aboveground routes just like the It's.

Is that the case?

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/28 ... e-numbers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

130: The average, in centimetres, for Toronto snowfall each year. (51 inches. For a whole winter.)
118.4: The amount of snow that fell in two weeks back in January of 1999. (A mere 46 inches.)

FWIW, so far this year, Beantown's total is 187.7 cm. (73.9 in.).

Toronto is normally upwind of the lake, so it doesn't get lake effect snow. The same wind that is dry in Toronto dumps feet of snow in Syracuse.

But I'd bet that they get a lot more of the dry, blowy powdery stuff than we do, and on a system that's practically our rolling stock doppelganger(the 1500/1600/1700s are shockingly similar to their subway cars, and I'm sure our Hawker Siddeley OL cars shared a ton of DNA with their all-UTDC/HS fleet. Even the CLRVs are just about the closest things out there to the Type 7s).

It'd be interesting to see how they fare vs the T with nasty snow years.