Green Line Changing Destinations Middle of Trip

[TrainManTy]

Tyler,

Thank you for your insight! These are some really interesting points that I hadn't considered, or frankly, didn't have the knowledge to consider. Let me respond to a couple and perhaps yourself, or others might be able to provide thoughts, if so inclined?

Thanks, Jason. I must admit that my first-hand knowledge of the Green Line is quite low as when I used to work in Boston, I avoided the line and preferred the Red or Orange Lines to cross the city and catch my train home to Worcester. I hated riding the Green Line. But I'll give it a go.

I'm somewhat at a loss as to why this commenter would think the T is trying to hide the fact there are 4 separate branches operating on shared track downtown. I'm pretty sure the MBTA's own maps pretty much confirm it.

Many of the newer maps at Green Line stations show the branches through the Central Subway as parallel green lines, plus of course there are the rollsigns/LCD destination signs and schedule adjustments and short turns...you're correct. They're not trying to hide it.

I would argue that if my hypothesis of keeping the branches running smoothly at the expense of the Central Subway is true, it would be in their best interest to not admit that. Then you'd get people arguing that the Central Subway has so many more passengers than any of the individual branches, and it's unfair, and yadda yadda yadda. A political mess. It's true, of course, but I think to reverse the focus would have negative impacts on the branches that are far worse than what is currently inflicted on the Central Subway.

The reality is a lot of riders in the central subway are using the green line to get to another stop in the Central Subway. (Copley to Park, etc. I'd be really interested in seeing percentages of these types of users if the T has that data)

I'd also love to see that data. But I'm not sure how it could be collected. Currently the Blue Book only has station boardings available.

How do you feel about the suggestion of running every train to Lechmere and then assigning it a rotating branch assignment as it turns back west. i.e. B, C, D, E, B, C, D, E etc.?

This is one of those areas that I can't claim enough knowledge to offer an opinion. Maybe in a perfect world with no delays it would work, but I can imagine it breaking down as soon as any delays spring up.

I'd be interested to hear from those with the knowledge to weigh in.

[MBTA3247]

[quote="TrainManTy"

The reality is a lot of riders in the central subway are using the green line to get to another stop in the Central Subway. (Copley to Park, etc. I'd be really interested in seeing percentages of these types of users if the T has that data)

I'd also love to see that data. But I'm not sure how it could be collected. Currently the Blue Book only has station boardings available.[/quote]
Every so often tabulators visit all the stations and ask passengers about the route they are taking. Presumably there are reports somewhere compiling that data and extrapolating it beyond the handful of passengers interviewed.

[StevieC48]

Let's not forget about the all exciting for the operator is the RAD spot. My friend would take the job when he first was on nights and enjoyed it. The term RAD means Run As Directed. What happens is they work as an extra train on the line at the dispatchers assignment. These cars are seen usually the cars parked at Kenmore, Reservoir and The Blanford St siding waiting for the event to finish at Fenway Park. Or on the other end cars waiting in the Government Loop for a break at the Garden and after picking up the passengers they will be sent on any line and continues filling in trips on lines and can change route at any time. Ah the good ol days

[CircusFreakGRITZ]

How do you feel about the suggestion of running every train to Lechmere and then assigning it a rotating branch assignment as it turns back west. i.e. B, C, D, E, B, C, D, E etc.?

There are several reasons why this will not work. First on the basic level, the system could not support all the service running through to Lechemere. You would create a massive traffic jam. Second, if you turn everything in some sort of order you will lose cars to the longer lines and would not be able to get them back in time fast enough to create a reliable schedule.

What you don't see. Every train and operator is assigned a schedule. While the schedules are not published, the system runs on one. If you did the first in, first out, you would be forced to change how operators are paid and scheduled. Also the equipment is assigned to car houses, the equipment does not simply go anywhere at any time. Lechemere is a operator break area for the E Line, where the outside points are the break area for the other lines. So Lechmere cannot support a lot of pass through traffic as cars layover there.

Lechmere is being rebuilt in a few years for the GLX. If they wanted to they could build 2-3 loops for layovers (if Lechmere will still be endpoint). Problem solved.

[The EGE]

Lechmere station as we currently know it will be permanently removed from service in the first half of 2017. The new Lechmere station will be elevated, across the street over East Street; it will obviously not include a turnback loop. The current Lechmere station/yard/loop property has been sold to Pan Am and will be developed on.

[Patrick Boylan]

Why do they need loops? How soon are they planning to procure single ended equipment?

[MBTA3247]

Why do they need loops? How soon are they planning to procure single ended equipment?

Loops are faster. Otherwise a train would have to occupy the main for several minutes while the crew changes ends.

[Patrick Boylan]

They don't necessarily have to occupy the main. Is there room for a turnback siding instead of a loop, at Lechmere, or any of the other spots folks might imagine needing trains to change ends?
It doesn't necessarily have to be for several minutes. Although probably not feasible for impromptu short turns, they could pick up and drop off an extra operator for certain scheduled short turns.

[CRail]

Loops are faster. Otherwise a train would have to occupy the main for several minutes while the crew changes ends.

It's unarguably true that loops are faster, but it does not take several minutes to change ends in a streetcar. There will likely be the ability to turn back somewhere east of Lechmere since that's likely where the controversial maintenance facility will end up.

Remember, though, that Lechmere will become just another stop along the way. Union Square will replace Lechmere as the eastern terminus. Even once College Ave./West Medford is completed, Union Square will be the Lechmere equivalent.

[nomis]

CRail, I will respectfully disagree that it does not take several minutes to change ends in a streetcar. Over the past 5 months I've become nearly an expert on the Brigham short turn & headway adjustments. Even more time overall is consumed if an inspector has to be out throwing switches for the move.

[CRail]

Trains will hold time at Brigham in order to maintain a proper headway. I'm willing to bet, in most cases, running the train around the Heath St. loop would make the trip late but crossing back at Brigham makes it early. Crossing back at Brigham also includes passenger dwell time which a turn-back tail track would not involve. There's a lot more going on at Brigham Circle than changing ends. If you want to see how long it takes to change ends, go to Lechmere at the end of the rush and watch them put cars up in the yard. Granted, there's a touch more involved than what you'll see mostly because the god awful fareboxes take longer to start up than a 1995 era DOS based computer. Crossbacks at Cleveland Circle are another good example. There they even have a loop available to them, yet the quite often elect to cross trains back instead.

A couple minutes to turn; maybe. Several, no. This may seem like a nit-pick, but when it comes to scheduling, a couple of minutes is a big deal.