Providence Line Electrification

Everyone keeps saying it would be so easy to electrify Stoughton... with this massive, bogus Southcoast Fail Project looming, just imagine the complications that would arise! Suddenly we'll be doubling the funds we pour into "research" and "studies" and then, next thing you know, they'll be ramming the project through at triple whatever the current estimate is. *throws arms up in the air*

There's no one trigger that would get them buying electrics, just nothing yet big enough yet to be that trigger. But I'd look to Rhode Island's ambitions as a possible sign.

It's entirely possible that MBTA CR could get reorganized, or divisionally separated from inside-128 subway/bus/boat/Ride operations, and become a Metro North-style true multi-state operation in the next 20 years. Rhode Island is already betting big on doing local CR to Westerly on the NEC. Well, the Providence Line is not going all the way to Westerly...but it is going to T.F. Green/Wickford as an MBTA service, well out-of-district. Where exactly do you draw the line on where they should run in purple colors vs. what they need to create a whole CR entity of their own...with their own equipment, with their own separate-trained staff, with their own payment system. Maybe you don't. Maybe you look to the CDOT model of pooling all your equipment and ops with Metro North to save redundancy, but pay by whose territory you run in (e.g. Shore Line East vs. New Haven Line). Meaning, it's all a contiguous setup but Westerly-Providence doesn't cost MA a dime, the MBTA is reimbursed for all out-of-state miles on shared equipment's odometers, and they pay for Providence-hub staffing/yards/maintenance for north and south service a la CDOT in New Haven. Maybe with their own "mostly RI" fleet they maintain in their own yards if number of total number of CR trains on the NEC grows to merit that.

RI is going to be game for this. Wickford's getting built because they haven't shied away from paying their share for extra staff and trainsets. It's win-win for the T...somebody else is paying the operating costs, they're getting more ticket revenue at South Station the more ridership grows, and they get more subsidized new equipment and staff to run on a mostly in-state line the more RI foots the bill for that growth. Even politics being politics in MA, they'll play ball with that. Incrementally on the current trajectory, then maybe with 'mercenary' MBCR Providence-Westerly service, and then maybe the day comes that it hits critical mass and some more substantial agency buy-in across state lines becomes logical.

...and possibly contingent on: New Hampshire. We know with the budget and political situation up there that NH commuter rail progress moves molasses-slow and that we're not holding our breaths on Capitol Corridor service soon (Plaistow is different...that's all about moving a layover yard and getting a bonus stop for some Wachusett-style stimulus spare change). But the T's attitude is all the same...you wanna pay for it, we'll go wherever you want to go. The ridership projections to Manchester and Concord are slam-dunk (enough to make upgrading a few miles of track North Chelmsford to state line a fairly straightforward expense), and they'll likewise get subsidy for staff and equipment the more it grows. Now you've really got something interesting cooking if you're going intercity to NH and RI. That screams for rethinking the agency's setup and re-chartering it to where the satellite states have a more official stake (limited to their interstate services) than just leeching off pay-as-you-go.


Now, you're not going to be running electrics on the NH Main unless the N-S link gets built and it gets assimilated into the NEC. But the whole thinking is very different if you're a pan-state agency because significant number of your trains are going to have a subsidy line item on the books paid out by one of the other states. Meaning equipment's going to get stratified a little bit more than just all-northside or all-southside, and you'll likely see equipment organized more by interstate mains + branches. Maybe not with the same diesel/3rd rail/overhead segmentation as Metro North has to operationally do, but more on standardizing what makes the other states can service in their own yards vs. having everything monolithically under BET's roof. Maybe that means NH only gets a majority of 1 type of loco run its way and a couple series of coaches so they don't have to be all things to all northside equipment to pull their maintenance weight. And maybe that gets RI thinking about pushing for some electrics since that's all they see on their tracks anyway with Amtrak and likely CDOT someday poking some extended SLE variation into their territory.

GP40 6694 wrote:I can't quite get behind the EMU thing.
...
EMU's are way more expensive than loco-hauled, and would be a maintenance nightmare, since they can't get to BET.

Performance. EMUs blow electric-loco-hauled coaches out of the water on acceleration (not to mention diesel-hauled coaches). Faster run times not only are better for passengers, they also mean lower operating costs and/or higher frequencies.

They also make much better use of limited platform space, but I don't think that's a problem on the Providence line.

If EMUs had the right couplers and brake connections, they could be hauled to BET by a diesel locomotive for maintenance. The LIRR and Metro North have done this during emergencies.

jamesinclair wrote:

sery2831 wrote:Right now it's not economical to purchase electric trains to use only on one line. The T has no way of maintaining the equipment or a place to do it. But a good example of expansion of electrification is Montreal. They are buying dual mode locomotives that run off of overhead. They plan to electrify the entire system there in sections over a long period of time. That is a smart plan! But we are not going to discuss Montreal here... Just pointing it out

Thats a good idea. The T even has experience with dual-mode bus vehicles. Unless of course it costs too much. Perhaps a better way would be to start by purchasing just 2 used electric locos for the providence line while they get the indigo line wired up.

While one line may not be enough, the indigo line really should be electrified. As should stoughton. Worcester would also be good, but that's a long line, so maybe Needham.

Oil is nearing $90 again, and as projects like these take 3+ years to complete, I worry that the MBTA has been putting it off for way too long. Trains are more efficient than cars of course, but a 50% jump in fuel prices, like 2008 could mean chaos.

Dual-modes are really, really expensive, and don't make a lot of sense unless you absolutely have to use them. Those NJT units are in the range of $10M each. On electrification, however, yes they should go ahead and electrify some lines. That would cause Choas. What are the largest diesel commuter rail operations? Is MBTA up there? LIRR, NJT, and MNCR are largely electric, even though they are the largest...

Gotta assume (without looking) that METRA is probably the largest diesel operator, since all but one line is diesel.

The EMU advantage is likely most seen on short branches with lighter passenger loads and frequent close stops. On the southside, Fairmont, Greenbush, Stoughton and Needham all would be good places to boost frequency with short trains of EMUs...might even be able to justify some Sunday service on two of those if you could just run a 2 or 3 car train.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:There's no one trigger that would get them buying electrics, just nothing yet big enough yet to be that trigger. But I'd look to Rhode Island's ambitions as a possible sign.

It's entirely possible that MBTA CR could get reorganized, or divisionally separated from inside-128 subway/bus/boat/Ride operations, and become a Metro North-style true multi-state operation in the next 20 years. Rhode Island is already betting big on doing local CR to Westerly on the NEC. Well, the Providence Line is not going all the way to Westerly...but it is going to T.F. Green/Wickford as an MBTA service, well out-of-district. Where exactly do you draw the line on where they should run in purple colors vs. what they need to create a whole CR entity of their own...with their own equipment, with their own separate-trained staff, with their own payment system. Maybe you don't. Maybe you look to the CDOT model of pooling all your equipment and ops with Metro North to save redundancy, but pay by whose territory you run in (e.g. Shore Line East vs. New Haven Line). Meaning, it's all a contiguous setup but Westerly-Providence doesn't cost MA a dime, the MBTA is reimbursed for all out-of-state miles on shared equipment's odometers, and they pay for Providence-hub staffing/yards/maintenance for north and south service a la CDOT in New Haven. Maybe with their own "mostly RI" fleet they maintain in their own yards if number of total number of CR trains on the NEC grows to merit that.

RI is going to be game for this. Wickford's getting built because they haven't shied away from paying their share for extra staff and trainsets. It's win-win for the T...somebody else is paying the operating costs, they're getting more ticket revenue at South Station the more ridership grows, and they get more subsidized new equipment and staff to run on a mostly in-state line the more RI foots the bill for that growth. Even politics being politics in MA, they'll play ball with that. Incrementally on the current trajectory, then maybe with 'mercenary' MBCR Providence-Westerly service, and then maybe the day comes that it hits critical mass and some more substantial agency buy-in across state lines becomes logical.

...and possibly contingent on: New Hampshire. We know with the budget and political situation up there that NH commuter rail progress moves molasses-slow and that we're not holding our breaths on Capitol Corridor service soon (Plaistow is different...that's all about moving a layover yard and getting a bonus stop for some Wachusett-style stimulus spare change). But the T's attitude is all the same...you wanna pay for it, we'll go wherever you want to go. The ridership projections to Manchester and Concord are slam-dunk (enough to make upgrading a few miles of track North Chelmsford to state line a fairly straightforward expense), and they'll likewise get subsidy for staff and equipment the more it grows. Now you've really got something interesting cooking if you're going intercity to NH and RI. That screams for rethinking the agency's setup and re-chartering it to where the satellite states have a more official stake (limited to their interstate services) than just leeching off pay-as-you-go.


Now, you're not going to be running electrics on the NH Main unless the N-S link gets built and it gets assimilated into the NEC. But the whole thinking is very different if you're a pan-state agency because significant number of your trains are going to have a subsidy line item on the books paid out by one of the other states. Meaning equipment's going to get stratified a little bit more than just all-northside or all-southside, and you'll likely see equipment organized more by interstate mains + branches. Maybe not with the same diesel/3rd rail/overhead segmentation as Metro North has to operationally do, but more on standardizing what makes the other states can service in their own yards vs. having everything monolithically under BET's roof. Maybe that means NH only gets a majority of 1 type of loco run its way and a couple series of coaches so they don't have to be all things to all northside equipment to pull their maintenance weight. And maybe that gets RI thinking about pushing for some electrics since that's all they see on their tracks anyway with Amtrak and likely CDOT someday poking some extended SLE variation into their territory.

Sorry I missed your post before, didn't realize it went on the next page...

I'm not so sure that a true multi-state agency really makes that much sense for a CR operation that is largely based on Boston as a hub, and most lines and operations are in the state of Massachusetts. The only interstate agency I could see would be one to run the NEC commuter operations in contract with Amtrak from NHV to BOS. This would be an interesting proposition, but the big downside is that it would totally pull the gear out of both CDOT and MBTA operation pools, which would be operationally disadvantageous both for MBTA and for CDOT's current branch service with MN, the NHHS service, and any other future service, since loco-hauled electric trains could easily be switched over to diesel in New Haven.

The biggest hurdle I see to extending MBTA service any farther than Wickford is that Westerly, while it does have a CR demand, doesn't need to be running 8-car sets with some double deckers. If the Providence Line is electrified, and ridership continues to be strong on CR, it's not unfathomable to see 10-car double decker sets, a la NJT. This is ridiculous equipment to run south through Westerly.

The other big issue is where do you draw the dividing line between the two services? There is no logical place to draw it between Kingston and New Haven, as there would be a good number of people riding from various points along the line, including Westerly, Groton, New London, and New Haven. To me, it looks like Wickford or maybe a stop north would be a logical place to have the two service meet and build a transfer terminal with at least four platform tracks. Although Kingston might work on a map, having a bunch of interlockings in the middle of a stretch of track that trains run 150mph on would be a nightmare, and also would limit it's flexibility, since Acela wouldn't be able to cross over there.

With all that being said, the logical partner for Rhode Island is to work with CDOT, running trains through from NHV to around the Wickford area and connecting with MBTA.

That leaves a question of equipment. CDOT wants to get M8 cars, but I can't see those as making any sense east of NHV. They are something like $1.8M a piece, and a chunk of their cost is their dual mode operation, which is totally irrelevant to RIDOT and SLE. It seems to me that used AEM-7's or ALP-44's with used Comet cars or similar would make better and more cost effective trains for this service.

diburning wrote:Unless Amtrak gets rid of their current electric fleet dirt cheap, there won't even be a remote chance of this happening due to the extra costs involved. However, it is very possible that Amtrak will get rid of their current fleet because they just announced an order for ACS-64s from Siemens (Amtrak City Sprinter - 6400HP)

There's been some talk about the meatballs being converted into cabbage cars. Nothing official yet.

octr202 wrote:The EMU advantage is likely most seen on short branches with lighter passenger loads and frequent close stops. On the southside, Fairmont, Greenbush, Stoughton and Needham all would be good places to boost frequency with short trains of EMUs...might even be able to justify some Sunday service on two of those if you could just run a 2 or 3 car train.

Frankly Needham would be better as light rail than as CR. Fairmount would be better as true urban rapid transit. Greenbush might well work better with MU operation (as that would alow for lower capacity trains running more frequently, which would be more convenient that the current solution of a tiny number of hugely over-sized trains and would almost certainly boost ridership) and I've no idea about Stoughton. Still, long MU trains are common for commuter service in Japan and Europe (and Chicago and New York both have lines like that as well) and do have benefits. I'm just not sure that those benefits would justify the costs. Compared to some of the other projects mentioned (such as light rail to Needham and RT on the Faimount line)

I like this idea, but I don't see it happening yet.

1) Its just one line. Its a lot of investment to buy a handful of electric locomotives just to run to Providence. Add maintenance costs, etc,etc.
2) Amtrak charges a lot for electricity, so the cost savings might not be that great.
3) I know the T runs a good deal of trains to Providence, but I don't know that shaving a few minutes from the commute would really do that much for ridership.
4) The new diesel locomotives should improve train handling and performance.


Some things to consider for the future :

-Who rides the CR to Providence? Are people going TO Providence, or to Boston? What would happen if RI purchased the locomotives and some cars to improve the service (much like Amtrak has done in California?)
-A deal between the MBTA and Amtrak could happen in the future, for maintenance of electric locomotives, which might sweeten the deal for electric power. (Yeah, its a BIG stretch.)

Stmtrolleyguy wrote:What would happen if RI purchased the locomotives and some cars to improve the service (much like Amtrak has done in California?)

RI already has done so, they're just mixed in with the regular fleet.

Just stick a pantograph on an F40. I don't see what you're all bellyaching about!

Stmtrolleyguy wrote:I like this idea, but I don't see it happening yet.


Some things to consider for the future :

-Who rides the CR to Providence? Are people going TO Providence, or to Boston? What would happen if RI purchased the locomotives and some cars to improve the service (much like Amtrak has done in California?)
-A deal between the MBTA and Amtrak could happen in the future, for maintenance of electric locomotives, which might sweeten the deal for electric power. (Yeah, its a BIG stretch.)

I don't see why Amtrak couldn't maintain the electrics. Heck, then they have no one to blame but themselves if a train breaks down and blocks up the corridor!

GP40 6694 wrote:I don't see why Amtrak couldn't maintain the electrics. Heck, then they have no one to blame but themselves if a train breaks down and blocks up the corridor!

The unions would have an issue with that idea.

octr202 wrote:The EMU advantage is likely most seen on short branches with lighter passenger loads and frequent close stops. On the southside, Fairmont, Greenbush, Stoughton and Needham all would be good places to boost frequency with short trains of EMUs...might even be able to justify some Sunday service on two of those if you could just run a 2 or 3 car train.

Which is pretty much how it went through most of the Budd MU era on the CR.

The easiest new line to electrify would be the Midland because it connects at both ends to the NEC electrification, is short, would have the service levels to support it if the T is faithful on fulfilling its Fairmount rapid-transit level improvements, would serve Amtrak as a bypass during the absolute worst-congestion choke points on the NEC schedule, and there's no double-stack freight potential into Boston that would have catenary clearance issues for CSX if, say, Conley terminal got upgraded to resume rail transloading. I would almost prefer that the T buy electric locos for that service and the NEC rather than the promised DMU's or the likely diesels they'll make do with. The start/stop performance on an electric loco consist is still worlds better than diesel for a dense-stop line with frequent service, you can still use the same coaches, it'll feel a lot more like a rapid-transit service for the neighborhood instead of something that's still perceived as some degree of sloppy seconds from the subway, and if the line does reach its true service potential there is an environmental justice issue with the diesel loco fumes in a dense lower-income corridor. Get two heavy-use lines' worth of electric service operating and it's a bit more operationally cost-effective. At that point it becomes trivial to electrify 2-1/2 miles of Stoughton track and run close a solid third or more of the total MBCR southside service under the wires. There's also an experienced maintenance facility for electrics at Southampton whereas there's no such thing in New England for DMU's and no such thing north/east of New Haven for EMU's. The T would probably use Readville for that because Southampton's capacity is tapped and it's an Amtrak facility, but Amtrak is also looking at a secondary facility because of the Southampton space crunch and Readville's the most attractive area location for that because of the amount of vacated yard space. Pool the resources of the 2 RR's into an electric facility at Readville with MBCR having priority at that location, and you'd be off and running leeching off the regional labor pool and expertise on maintaining those types of locos.


I agree that the Needham line is better-served on the Needham branch by LRV's on the decades-proposed Green Line branch rather than MU's, and on the main by the decades-proposed Orange Line extension to West Roxbury. Only scenario I could see that would be different is if you refurbished the Needham branch to the former Highland Branch junction, dropped a single CR track along the D line expressing from there to Riverside, and restored the historical 'circuit' service that went on that route...turning Forest Hills-Riverside and Allston-Riverside into their own 2 branches of Fairmount/Indigo rapid-transit level service. Ultimately, though, I think doing that and electrifying the whole works including Worcester line from Riverside in would be less cost-effective than building the (not horribly expensive) Green Line branch and bringing the Orange Line out where it was originally supposed to before they cheaped out on the SW Corridor.