Fewer Stops on Commuter Rail Lines?

Transit Matters claims that high-level boarding and electric multiple unit cars could slash station dwell time making the impact of stops much less.

But to me, the real reason to create outer suburban express trains is better use of equipment. (Note that this line of thinking is from before CoVid and we shall see how things shake out now).

And not that purchase and maintenance of equipment is the largest cost of providing the service (roughly 40% of Amtrak's costs when I last paid attention and a great deal more than that on some commuter systems).

If you have an 8 car train stopping at every stop going an hour or so to the end of the line if it leaves Boston fully loaded, the load factor will only be roughly 50%. That is, half the seats will be empty on average (over time) even though they are all full at Boston they will empty out over the course of the trip. This is not good use of resources.

Suppose you take that 8 car train and create two 4 car trains: one outer suburban service runs express, now taking only 50 minutes or whatever and the other train turns back and serves the inner stops twice as often or with half the equipment.

Downside: you need more locomotives and crew. The crew, however is a much smaller cost than the maintenance of the equipment, so you still come out ahead. The extra locomotives will cost more, but perhaps this can be at least partially made up by the savings in coaches and extra revenue from a faster product.

And note that purchase and maintenance of equipment is the largest cost of providing the service ...

conductorchris wrote: ↑Thu Sep 08, 2022 6:38 pm Transit Matters claims that high-level boarding and electric multiple unit cars could slash station dwell time making the impact of stops much less.

Downside: you need more locomotives and crew. The crew, however is a much smaller cost than the maintenance of the equipment, so you still come out ahead. The extra locomotives will cost more, but perhaps this can be at least partially made up by the savings in coaches and extra revenue from a faster product.

You are making a good cause for EMUs. That way an 8 car might require 2 conductors and a 4 car just one conductor. Just one more engineer. so for a 4 car + 4 car = 2 extra engineers costing about $200k? So 4+4 equals probably faster and more revenue making up some of the extra costs.

What are the union workrules on minimum crew staffing? The contract might still require the same crew regardless of length.

Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk

https://www.mbta.com/schedules/CR-Haverhill/timetable

Effective Monday, September 19th, Haverhill Line trains will continue to stop at Oak Grove station as it is now becoming a permanent stop on the line. Check the adjusted schedule online.

How ironic, just after I suggested that less stops be put on Commuter Rail lines, Oak Grove is added as a permanent stop on the Haverhill Line.
My question though, is why? I can understand why the Haverhill Line stops three times in Melrose (though I don't think it should). But Malden is already served by the Orange Line and the Haverhill Line already stops at Malden Center, any hypothetical resident near Oak Grove who is going to get on the Haverhill Line could just go one stop on the Orange Line and transfer over. Was the stop popular with Commuter Rail riders?

Maybe for people who work near Oak Grove itself, so they don't have to change at Malden and ride back?
Maybe there's a small market in reverse commuting from near Oak Grove (seems unlikely but...). Maybe for symmetry with Forest Hills?

I'm guessing there is not much extra time added to schedules. How fast were trains going between Wyoming Hill and Malden Center?

I haven't been near Oak Grove in years. When I was it was entirely residential/parks. It's probably a quarter-mile walk from the station building to the main drag.

The other thing about EMUs and a frequent/regional rail service model is that you tend to have better equipment utilization than traditional commuter rail services, which helps offset some of the labor costs.

A big advantage to EMUs and to a lesser extent DMUs is the failure of one car's propulsion system does not stop the whole train NOw cab failures will stop the train especially PTC failures. However engineer may be able to go to other end to remove train from blocking traffic.

Think back decades to the RDCs. They increased utilization, decreased schedule times, and reduced reduced labor costs. They were miraculous until they got run too hard and put away wet.
If the T opts for MUs -- E, D, or DM -- there will come a time when maintenance becomes increasingly costly, and if there hasn't been significant investment in facilities and personnel for maintenance plus running spares, then a future governor gets to play that blood sport of Massachusetts politicians, the blame game.

RDCs were also very unpopular because they were very noisy to ride in and rode very rough. They also (like any other MU or Railcar) had poor crash management and it wasn't uncommon for them to be derailed or even totaled from a measly grade crossing accident that the F and E units of the era would have gotten out of easily.

But anyways, back to Oak Grove, according to this Patch article (https://patch.com/massachusetts/malden/ ... -stop-mbta), one of the main reasons Oak Grove was kept open as a stop was because it has a parking lot larger than both Wyoming Hill and Malden Center, as well as good pedestrian access to the surrounding neighborhoods. The new stop also adds about 2 minutes to the schedule.

Though close to other transit options, Oak Grove boasts a larger parking area than either Wyoming Hill or Malden Center. Its use also puts more area riders within easier walking distance of a stop without needing to travel into downtown Malden or portions of Melrose around the Wyoming Hill stop.

Also, this reminds me, how come the platform at Malden Center has been kept so short? its only as long as a Subway platform (because it was originally meant for Orange Line Express service) but how come it hasn't been rebuilt to the 800 foot standard yet? Most of the trains I see there can't even fit on the platform properly. Are there any plans for this to happen, as well as with Oak Grove? With all the station rebuilds on the Commuter Rail going on now this would be a concept to look at.

To me, the RDCs rode smoothly except at low speeds thru switches where they would roll like they were drunk and noise was moderate. The de-engined RDCs made into regular coaches were said to be rough riders despite compensating for the weight reduction with new springs.

Perhaps the continued reduced service levels on the Orange Line are a reason for keeping Oak Grove open for Haverhill Line trains as well. Since it's unlikely that issue will go away any time soon, this is a way to try to divert some riders to CR and CR-to-Green Line to relieve pressure on the Orange Line.

Lengthening Oak Grove may not be that hard, as the CR platform is at ground level (track is actually below parking lot level), but the station was likely never addressed since it wasn't a regular stop.

Malden Center will be much harder, as the station structure is very much elevated, and you'd need to continue the platform structure north and/or south of the current structure, along the bridge structure, and in both cases you'd be extending over a street.

In the recent past, the Haverhill Line has rarely needed anything more than a six-car set, and many trains operated with five-car sets. The first and last double doors (doors between first and second car, and between fifth and sixth car) easily fit on the platform so it's not a big issue unless there's a need to run 7 or 8 car sets.

Fewer.

Sorry.

Signed,

the Pedantic Traveler

Dammit now I have to do something!