Boston Surface Railroad: Worcester-Providence Commuter Rail

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Also looks like everyone is getting a pass on PTC:

http://wshu.org/post/us-senate-passes-b ... l-deadline" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I understand it, the PTC mandate isn't what we're talking about here: the likelihood of Amtrak letting BSRC access the platforms at Providence station without PTC (ACSES) is, at most, vanishingly small.

0% small. The P&W main would be PTC-exempt. Entering a platform at Providence station (which the P&W FRIP track bypasses, and has no potential to tie into) requires switching onto an NEC track. Run on any PTC-enabled track, you must have PTC. P&W has had ACSES on its locomotives for 14 years now in order to run all of its NEC locals, and the MBTA has to equip one gnat-sized shortline with PTC on its measly 5-loco fleet because of freights that intersect exactly 1/2 mile and 1 station of to-be-PTC'd territory.

$3M - [(3 locos X going rate for an ACSES installation) + (3 cab cars X going rate for an ACSES installation)] - testing and compliance = $2.?M



Now, about those insurance rates. . .

[lakest101]

The Regs as I read them state that with fewer than 4 trips a day no PTC solution is needed for the P&W mainline.

However it is a fact that to use PVD platforms all trains MUST have ACSES ADUs and transponders.

P&W trains begin picking up ACSES wayside carrier just south of the Boston Switch right before the Amtrak maintenance of way yard.

Handshakes start just around Orms. Moving from track 7 to 3 to use platform 5 at MP 185.19 requires interaction with the Interlocking at ORMS and at Brayton since exception occurs when the head changes orientation for the move back into the station. If there is a CAB car the engineer would need to lock down, walk to the other end of the train, brake test and proceed. IF no CAB car a brakeman would need to be at the "formerly" rear end with an estop and radio same way P&W does for their excursions.

ACSES components on any trainset runs just about $100K for the gateway, an additional 15K for a Mid Train Transponder for consists over 8 cars in length from head end to end of train device and about $15K for the additional annunciator ADU if their is a CAB car. ~130K from Siemens new rev 10 (forthcoming) although there is a lively business in buying older components for trade in (prev rev 8).

Aside from materials P&W could do installation and testing same as they did for the MBTA with those new POS MPI locos. They charged the T ~10K per loco.

All in call it 150K for short consist with a CAB end. x 3 = 450K? Not cheap but not 2M.

[ExCon90]

Even if all this were to happen, taking the first sentence together with the last, what would be the justification for spending 450K to achieve access to Providence for a "commuter line" making less than 4 trips a day? Skepticism appears justified.

[lakest101]

It's someone else's business plan but their FAQ states two round trips per day. I'm not validating it, just noting that there aren't nearly as many regulatory hurdles or costs associated with this as say the T usually incurs. Just the fact that there is no community process required to determine if there should be a stop in every town along the way saves a significant amount time and money. Maybe this isn't a 3 million dollar project but from the point of view of a narrowly focused trial project it's not a 30 million one either. I for one am tired of watching government spending millions on studies to determine if there is a need for another study.

I've got a google alert set to watch the FRA filing site for a PTCIP involving either the P&W or BSRC because that should show service times and consist lengths if it's written correctly.

[BandA]

The Worcester Redevelopment Authority wouldn't care if a new railroad wasn't a government agency or whether it is aligned with MassDOT strategy. More trains = higher tenant interest + more parking revenue. And P&W would be happy to collect trackage fees, provide engineers & conductors under contract I imagine.

Platforms: At Worcester, use the existing P&W platform initially. Fix the canopy. Is this a high level platform? At Providence, looks like plenty of room to build a high platform on the P&W track alongside Gaspee St between the train station & Smith St. Platform, canopy, windbreak, signage, lights, gate to lock it at night. No paying for Amtrak station amenities, bathrooms, dispatching or PTC.

Equipment: Really the least of the worries. Engines need to be reliable though. Eastern Maine equipment will be available next month, hopefully Catskill Mountain is allowed to continue past mid-year but if not theirs might be available. Iowa Pacific. T's MBB coaches for now. They could arrange for P&W's excursion train to be protect equipment. Some of the lease engines the T is using should free up eventually. Use a freight engine on one end & an old T engine for HEP on the other. Acquire the Flying Yankee . Freight engine + HEP generator lashed to a flat car, cab car on other end. Hire Montgomery Scott & Joe Patrone as co-chief engineers and the train is guaranteed to run in any snowstorm!

Insurance: Need MA & RI legislation capping P&W's liability at a reasonable level, and requiring BSR to carry good insurance.

Here's where the conspiracy theories come in; BSR manages to cobble together some half-baked money losing service, or just bite on their proposal. They get P&W to assign them exclusive passenger rights for X years. Then MassDOT/RIDOT have to buy them out or subsidize them. Instead, just give them six months exclusivity, after they are up for a year give them a year or two exclusivity - i.e. states decide they want Keolis instead, have to give them a year's notice.

[Scalziand]

There is no P&W platform at Worcester Union, just the MBTA one on the other side of the station. The tracks are fenced off from the station, and that area was taken over by one of the restaurants in the station. The stairwells leading to the island platforms are long gone. The originals were all low platforms.

Here's a photo I took from 2012 showing the west side of the station. The tracks closest to the station don't exist anymore either, and the fence that would have to be torn down is in the foreground. The metal plate on the old island platform covers one of the openings for the stairs.

[lakest101]

There is no P&W platform at Worcester Union, just the MBTA one on the other side of the station. The tracks are fenced off from the station, and that area was taken over by one of the restaurants in the station. The stairwells leading to the island platforms are long gone. The originals were all low platforms.

<snip> The tracks closest to the station don't exist anymore either, and the fence that would have to be torn down is in the foreground. The metal plate on the old island platform covers one of the openings for the stairs.

<snip>

There is no *high level* platform on that side and there never was - historically they were all low level on that side. Correct that there are no more stairwells down to the street / underpass from that side but there is easy access directly from the station via a well maintained staircase. I ate at Luciano's any number of times over the summer and their table area ends to right of those stairs that come down to that platform. The bicycle condos start to the left of the stairs. Also your picture doesn't show the gate in the fence there which is where passengers taking P&W excursions currently board. I'll try and take some shots on my way home from work today.

Here is a concept picture from the BSRC FAQ which is the same one I believe was circulated at the WRA meeting a month ago for where a high level platform would be built.

http://www.bsrc.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... cester.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I can tell you that the stairway and sets of doors in the rendering of the station look accurate to me.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

That's a lot of glass on the platform canopy for a $3M cumulative capital budget that does everything end-to-end without taking a cent of public money.


Now, about that Providence platform. . .

[lakest101]

That's a lot of glass on the platform canopy for a $3M cumulative capital budget that does everything end-to-end without taking a cent of public money.

Now, about that Providence platform. . .

It IS kind of glassy. Union Local 666 window washer costs - annual 150K - HAHA.

Seriously though looking at stuff like this:

http://www.poligon.com/facSpecials.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They could do that platform no glass for 70K easy. Even the T was able to do Buzzards Bay station for under 200k. Even. The. T. LOL

Providence again the P&W goes in there all the time with excursions I'm willing to bet it's an insurance issues not a fee for use issue.

I'm googling hard but I swear Amtrak had a tariff for station use published.

I'm still betting a trial could be done for under 10mil. Maybe not 3... But under 10. Fantasy railroad website anyone? For our State to regulate when it starts making money?

Ok about to be on the boss' time so off I go.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

That's a lot of glass on the platform canopy for a $3M cumulative capital budget that does everything end-to-end without taking a cent of public money.

Now, about that Providence platform. . .

It IS kind of glassy. Union Local 666 window washer costs - annual 150K - HAHA.

Seriously though looking at stuff like this:

http://www.poligon.com/facSpecials.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

They could do that platform no glass for 70K easy. Even the T was able to do Buzzards Bay station for under 200k. Even. The. T. LOL

This isn't the T. It's a private company with a $3M pot to spend before the "¡no public funding!" mystique is shattered. Every couple dozen $K in frills added to the total cost is something they have to rationalize. An operation this small with so many chores (acquiring rolling stock???) to settle up probably isn't going to be floating the cost of a full-high, multi-car platform with continuous canopy built to code. It probably can't afford to do any canopy. It probably has to rationalize whether a one-car mini-high can do the job well enough. There's nothing easy about a few grand in frills when $3M has to pay for everything lock, stock Worcester to Providence.

Providence again the P&W goes in there all the time with excursions I'm willing to bet it's an insurance issues not a fee for use issue.

No, it doesn't. Page 12 of this PDF outlines what RIDOT's insurance coverage is for its cross-operating agreement with the MBTA to run trains on Amtrak's track. It's a $200M liability cap for any one incident, and $7.5M in self-insurance, no-fault with parties splitting payments as necessary. This is the liability RIDOT took on in its trackage rights agreement with Amtrak for use of Providence station and the NEC. RIDOT pays the insurance rates, and the parties named on Page 3 of this document detail how the T, its contracted operators, and its independent contractors (e.g. third-party construction workers and anyone not- MBTA or Keolis contracted to do work on their behalf) branches off of RIDOT's payments in the RIDOT-Amtrak agreement.

P&W has its own insurance rates paid to Amtrak in its freight trackage right agreement covering Central Falls, RI to New Haven, CT. Their one-off excursions--the few that actually do touch someone else's passenger track--are covered in their freight insurance package.

Boston Surface Railroad's proposed passenger service is not covered by anyone else's insurance. They can't hide behind P&W's and get into Providence Station. They have to get cut in as an official tenant carrier just like the T was cut into the RIDOT-Amtrak trackage rights agreement. If they just happen to hire P&W to be their train operator...still the same. Then P&W is in Keolis' position as a passenger operator covered under a BSR-Amtrak liability agreement at the standard rates. I am sure due to lower mileage (but not necessarily # of trains) overlap that their premiums will be less, but it's $200M/$7.5M per incident all the same. And a fresh agreement inked with Amtrak all the same. And note: they pay for coverage within 50 feet of operations with Amtrak, so they do not skirt the boundaries staying on the P&W-dispatched FRIP track and letting people off by the side of Harris Ave.

That may not be a crippling burden, but it's a not-negligible chunk of that magic $3M startup. And it would have to be paid out every year for new premiums.

Oh...and they have to take out railroad insurance on P&W-proper, too. Factor that in.

I'm googling hard but I swear Amtrak had a tariff for station use published.

I'm still betting a trial could be done for under 10mil. Maybe not 3... But under 10. Fantasy railroad website anyone? For our State to regulate when it starts making money?

Ok about to be on the boss' time so off I go.

$10M is more than three times $3M. If $3M was what BSR saw as its target for cost recovery without public subsidy, they've now missed that by a factor of two. That's not a small whiff. That's a gigantic miss that completely changes the value proposition of what the company is pitching.

[lakest101]

This isn't the T. It's a private company with a $3M pot to spend before the "¡no public funding!" mystique is shattered. Every couple dozen $K in frills added to the total cost is something they have to rationalize.

I was referencing the T just pointing out that if they can build less than million dollar platforms then certainly a private entity could. But agreed they need to be watching every penny and your point to a mini-high is cogent.

No, it doesn't. Page 12 of this PDF <snip>

I was saying that I don't think that Amtrak requires huge fees to use the station (I still think I saw a tariff) more that as long as someone meets the insurance requirements that they have that there is not a huge barrier to entry. Railroad liability is limited by federal and state statute where passengers are concerned and I have it from a very reliable source at a railroad that the premiums are not insurmountable and that Amtrak actually offers coverage themselves to other roads (that wowed me).

Boston Surface Railroad's proposed passenger service is not covered by anyone else's insurance. They can't hide behind P&W's and get into Providence Station.

Agreed but they have to have a 200M policy anyway to comply with federal law so this has to be baked in.

That may not be a crippling burden, but it's a not-negligible chunk of that magic $3M startup. And it would have to be paid out every year for new premiums.

<snip>

$10M is more than three times $3M. If $3M was what BSR saw as its target for cost recovery without public subsidy, they've now missed that by a factor of two. That's not a small whiff. That's a gigantic miss that completely changes the value proposition of what the company is pitching.

Things go over budget all the time, a factor of 3.3 isn't good but I've seen the numbers of 30M and up thrown around this thread and I definitely don't see that as being required. The problem is that BSR is a private entity, technically speaking so is Amtrak and the P&W certainly is, which means we don't get a whole lot of visibility into the process that's going on. As I said before they are going to have to file a PTCIP at some point with the FRA - but that's only 180 days prior to service start - so until then we have very little to go on but conjecture and the little bit they release to the media. I will say that the folks I know at a local RR are taking it very seriously even if they don't say so in the press.

And through the magic of google alerts this popped up last night:

http://sos.ri.gov/documents/publicinfo/ ... 188606.pdf

ITEM H – Department of Transportation – A request for the approval and execution
of a Lease Agreement between the Department of Transportation and the Boston Surface
Railroad Company (BSRC) for the Woonsocket Depot located at One Depot Square in
Woonsocket.
Presenter: Daniel Clarke

[mtuandrew]

Above and beyond the $3m capital costs (which is slim, even if BSRY gets free platforms at WOR, Woonsocket and PVD and buys/leases the cheapest of cheap equipment) I think BSRY will have to barter with the states for them to cover liability insurance. I can't see any way for the service itself to fund its own liability insurance and still operate.

[cloudship]

It sounds to me that many people are making a lot of assumptions and cost analysis without knowing anything about the details of the plans. But that is how the game works - destroy the idea before anyone can present valid plans.

WBDC is more than happy to support things like this. That is what they are all about. Both Providence and Worcester know they have to step up their game to survive in this region, and transportation connections are what is going to make that happen. Downtown Worcester is finally getting moving again, and it desperately needs to get people right there. Likewise from Providence to get out from Boston's shadow, it has to become a real city, and that means - transportation. So the political will is there to make this happen. It won't be easy, and there will be a lot of back and forth and working with Amtrak. But in the long run it will be made in both parties best interest to happen. Having someone who does not have any railroad experience and who is a tech entrepreneur is not a bad thing in this case. People see the conventional railroad business as stagnant, backwards, and lacking innovation. Someone willing to try and new approach is exactly what they they are looking for, thus why they are branding it as a the "JetBlue of commuter Railroading".

The big problem is that the plan is all together wrong. Yeah, downtown Worcester and Providence are important. But the real market is in between. There are a ton f people who commute from southern Mass/Northern RI to both Worcester and RI - these are the people you need to attract. Likewise, you have a huge market sitting just south of the city - TF-Green. Yes, there are agreement and technical issues to overcome, but with BOS at its breaking point, an easier to access PVD would be a huge economic stimulus for the region, which is what would be the driving force to get those agreements and changes to happen.

They don't need these 6 car long morning and evening trains. They need trains like the Up express - 2 or 3 cars long, but to run then every hour, from 6 until 11. Yes, that means some individual trips are unprofitable. But without that full service, you are not going to get the passengers to make the rest of the journeys profitable. That is why the PVD train doesn't work now. People won't arrange their flights to match a train that only makes a few hours apart stops on weekdays only. The train has to meet their flight schedules.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

Why shouldn't we be doing a cost analysis? Boston Surface Railroad is sticking resolute to its story that it can do this at a sum of $3M without public investment. Itemized costs involve rolling stock acquisition, signal equipment acquisition, railroad insurance, capital improvements to track structures such as grade crossings that currently prevent the schedule times being quoted, construction of ADA-accessible platforms, Amtrak permissions fees (which won't be free), and so on. All of which total up to (at least) 3-5x as much as the quoted figure, and probably much more.

What assumptions is Boston Surface Railroad making to account for that degree of shortfall somehow not needing public money? It's been a year. They have provided no answers about their business plan for covering those costs. There is nothing possibly more relevant to the discussion than their wherewithal to deliver on their claims, and schedule for doing so. This needs explanation. It needs those very details you say we have too little faith in. This isn't a leap of faith. It is a business claim not supported by the numbers. It is their responsibility to present their supporting evidence of valid plans, not ours. And if they expect business and political leaders in the public sphere in Worcester and Providence to get behind them with "political will", it needs to be done a little more publicly than going totally radio-silent for a full quarter.

If you do a Google search, there is not a single hit for BSRC since the Sept. 18 Telegram article. Their website hasn't been updated...still says "Q1/Q2 2017" start, now 1 year away. Their web forums (the ones with all the boner pills spam) have been taken down and just show an error message. Where has Boston Surface Railroad Company gone? Is skepticism not warranted if they staked themselves to a very specific cost figure and a schedule and have said nothing about the Point A-to-Point B of executing on either? And gone completely dark in crunch time?

[cloudship]

Well, for one, as a private company they should not be just sharing their business plan with you. I don't get why everyone feels that they are entitled to both see and dispute any companies financial figures nor planning. If you are an investor, yes. If you just want to second guess them, really, no. And, no they are not claiming to do this all on $3mil. They are saying that is what will get them started. Big difference there.