boblothrope wrote:
Well, how well does Amtrak's electrification handle snow on the Providence line?
Montreal gets more snow than Boston, and the Deux-Montagnes commuter rail line is electrified.
Chicago, NYC, and Philly also seem to manage.
Then there's all of northern Europe...
Ehhhyeaaaah, I respect Ms. Wood's experience in the commuter railroad industry with her years of service abroad with Veolia, but also realise she's more experienced in management than engineering. I was recently reading
this paper[PDF] on high speed rail operations in winter climates from Sweden, who more than likely receives more average annual snow accumulation than Boston. The document points out several snow condition mitigation efforts that are seen nowhere in the MBTA system, let alone the Providence Line. Considering current Amtrak operations on the corridor and anticipated increased traction power with the new Amtrak locos on order (unless I've read all the numbers wrong - I assume the increase in traction power is from more efficient power and traction technologies), it would appear there's no problem with catenary-powered electric ops in push-pull configuration, as many on here have noted. Quickly going back to the study from Sweden, the document succinctly highlights many regular issues and attempted solutions by Scandinavian railroads, including ice buildup on equipment and snow accumulation on tracks.
To pull out what 3rdrail has said of funding: I'm giving MassDOT and Sec. Mullan another year to see where their priorities lie, what with the new state organisation being many parts road builders, few parts transit/railroad operators. While I mention the availability of federal dollars,
this recent article in The Economist highlights the issue with (or at least the fact that) decreasing share of state and local funding in infrastructure and increase in dependency on federal monies. There's no doubt that a similar $3 billion fast-track (no pun intended) rail investment programme similar to the highway-centric
programme being implemented state-wide right now would return greater benefits to the Commonwealth's GDP, especially if those monies were put towards a Providence Line EMU pilot project. It's just a matter of convincing those who believe that more roads are the answer to road traffic...
We currently live in a time where there are hundreds of proven stock designs that run in similar environmental conditions, many of which could be easily modified to comply with or be petitioned for exception to FRA regulations, so it's not infeasible or financially impossible for any sort of pilot programme to prove the simple viability and efficiency of fast, reliable EMU service in this corridor. At this point, I'm a bit at a loss as far as what else we haven't fleshed out on this topic. How serious are the issues with man-power/expertise to maintain additional electric rollingstock that don't currently exist/need to be reallocated at the MBTA or MBCR?