Commuter Rail Electrification

Not sure if they're capable of operating up here on the 25 kV section of the NEC, but you'd need something like a Silverliner V to realistically test EMUs on the Providence line right now. Too many low level platforms for M8s to work, and the value of EMUs would be seen more on locals rather than expresses only making a few stops.

Also not sure if the Silverliner V is the best choice to represent a 'modern EMU' but at least it's in the vendor proposals.

BandA wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:03 pm M8's would be excellent for a pilot program. But outside of off-peak/weekend service why would you want to run EMU's on your busiest line instead of less expensive push-pull equipment? Do they plan to couple/uncouple the EMUs at the terminal?

Wouldn't line capacity increase with the faster stop/starts and more frequent trips?

The question is how many stops/starts and how much time you actually gain per stop/start. How much line capacity does that really give you? Is it enough to overcome the inherent seating loss?

A 9-car M8 set (4 pairs and a single) equals 960 seats. An 9-car bi-level MBTA set is 1611 seats and it looks like both are 3x2 seating. I know there are bi-level EMUs, looks like the Bombardier ones are 2x2 seating and a 9-car set with 2 cab cars and 2 restroom cars is 1228 seats.

There are some surplus MR-90s available soon, to add.

MBTA3247 wrote: ↑Mon Jun 22, 2020 4:42 am EMUs usually use specialized couplers that include all the MU connections, and are physically
incompatible with knuckle couplers. They are also typically designed to only operate in a train
with other EMUs of the same model. Both problems can be designed around, but that adds cost to
the project.

Some cases the coupler/trainline can be modified to be retroactive, as with LIRR's postwar MP72/MP75
fully operable with prewar equipment from 1908-1909, and the Silverliner IVs able to run with II and IIIs.
Even NJDOT modified some Arrow Is to be compatible with the newer GEs, but they were sidelined
soon after.

Purchasing the MR-90s from EXO as an interim solution would be great, but haven't they already been mothballed since REM is well underway and the line has been closed? Curious to know the status of those and if they're even under consideration for the pilot program. I've heard some chatter about whether or not they'd be any use in a pilot with respect to their acceleration, but my take from the pilot program isn't that it's about whether we ought to 'prove' that electrification is a thing we can do so much as it's a thing we should do and we need to figure out what pieces need to change along the way.

BandA wrote: ↑Thu Mar 25, 2021 1:03 pm M8's would be excellent for a pilot program. But outside of off-peak/weekend service why would you want to run EMU's on your busiest line instead of less expensive push-pull equipment? Do they plan to couple/uncouple the EMUs at the terminal?

IMHO, I've sent enough T-Alerts to feel that push-pull equipment is really unfair to the crews, especially when you need to engage in a rescue. With EMUs, you do gain the convenience of being able to break apart a train in the terminal, rather than having to pull it into the yard. That's less train to monitor in an incident and with modern couplers, it's easier to get it out of the way. Even with EMUs, you're talking about significantly improved reliability so you have to subject passengers and crews to fewer incidents that require a rescue.

Break apart the EMU set and send the rest to the yard for mid-day layover maintenance - cleaning, inspection, etc. It's less about how expensive the equipment you're running is and more about the operational flexibility you gain by:

• not having to watch fuels and water levels

• not requiring passengers run up and down the platform to the one open door on the train (dwell)

• not having to pay energy/fuel for train you're moving but not using to carry passengers

• having improved reliability

You definitely won't need to break down all sets for off-peak or weekend service (e.g. Newburyport/Rockport weekend trains will likely be at least 6-cars long for the fair weather months of the year). And it'll depend on how many cars will comprise an EMU set. In the UK, many sets are averaging 4 cars long, which is a decent size when you think about being able to scale up/down capacity. Wachusett could probably use 8-car sets for all inner-495 services and then cut to 4-car sets for mid-day and weekend service without significantly impacting frequency.

End of the day, there's a lot operationally that can change with EMUs, including breaking/connecting sets in the terminal and really, that's an opportunity to bring the best operational practices to Boston... the ones that won't get immediately nerfed by antiquated US railroad rules....

The reality is a lot of this is not EMU-specific, it's just wrapped into EMUs as a way to pitch them. If the desire was there to go in that direction it could be done, but no matter what it would break the traditional railroad approach around Boston.

Trainsets could be broken apart in the terminal if every coach was a control coach (that's essentially what EMUs have) and door layouts were reconfigured to not go through the vestibule. Cars could be left on-air in terminal or pulled away/re-spotted by a switch crew. All an EMU gains is not having the need for a switch engine.

Fuel levels maybe, but depending on how the electrical systems are cooled you may still need to watch water levels. At a quick look the ACS-64 is water-cooled, couldn't find info on the M8.

MBTA's choice to use the doors near the engine is based around the mini-high platforms. MBTA could open all doors today if desired, and has trainline door equipment like EMUs on many of their coaches. But it's the platforms that hamper their use. Even with a 4-car EMU set you still need to get in the right car as a passenger requiring level boarding.

While their is some fuel savings in reducing tonnage behind a locomotive, an extra couple of empty cars isn't really going to change the fuel/energy consumption of a locomotive enough to offset the change in maintenance practices required on every EMU set vs. a single locomotive.

Improved reliability is also a misnomer because if the method of power generation goes down it is considered an infrastructure failure - not a vehicle failure like a diesel which carries it's power generation with it. If you factored in every time an electric train lost their power source due to a non-vehicle cause and was either stranded for an extended time or had to be rescued by a diesel I think you'd see MMBF much closer to diesels. They also tend to suffer greatly in leaf season from my understanding in talking directly with some LIRR folks.

Why else move to electrification, MU ops, and high-level platforms if not for some of these benefits? This is a rollingstock and infrastructure move every modern, high-frequency railway does.

I'll grant you the fuel savings argument around loco-hauled diesel. I've heard that one before and I opened myself up for that argument by not checking myself. Regardless, you're moving less train with a smaller EMU set. At the very least, it politically looks less 'wasteful' to run smaller EMUs. The real benefits to crew and passengers are from modern equipment that has a fully integrated coupler and high-level platforms. The latter of which is part of my assumption here because this is stated as part of the MBTA's long-term objective with modernization to electrification and EMUs.

The M7s, M8s, and M9s don't require liquid cooling for electrical systems. If anything, they do require water for restrooms and you can even equip them with tanks for potable water for drinking, as on some EMU sets abroad, but even managing this gets easier with all the other conveniences of truly modern equipment.

Breaking trainsets in the terminal is really a light operational convenience, but you can't dismiss MU operation by suggesting we just buy more control coaches. The advantage isn't simply being able to break the trainsets, but yes, not needing a switcher or a second locomotive to have to come into the terminal to then run that smaller set. That's huge. How often this might actually happen in operations really depends on the future of dispatching the T adopts and the length of the EMU sets they end up buying, but it's a useful advantage nonetheless.

And on your last point...how often does power go down at your house? When I worked at the Commuter Rail, the number of times NEC power went down was maybe once or twice a year and it was noteworthy. That's vs the once a week or multiple times a day that we'd have to push an alert for a mechanically-related delay on the Providence Line alone. If reliable grid power were a problem, I don't think LIRR or any electrified territory in the US would be continuing to do EMU procurement. In also talking directly with LIRR folks, their reliability suffers just as much as ours does in the fall. So do UK rail networks and anywhere else. The key is vegetation management, regardless of whether you're running with electric or diesel, MUs or loco-haul. Pectin resin doesn't care and it will wreck your wheels if you don't blast it off the rails. LIRR has even innovated on this with focused lasers that burn off the pectin resin, which would mean you could put them on revenue cars and not have to run a wash train between revenue runs.

Sorry to raise the discussion on whether EMUs have advantages or not. My point was to address the earlier posts about the MR-90 opportunity and operational flexibility of EMU consists.

Getting back to the main topic - as Caltrain is doing acceptance testing for their Stadler KISS sets, I wonder if the T will try to lease a set or Stadler will lend one for a test tour toward the middle of the production run, which I think might align with the timeline for the actual operation of an EMU pilot. The other challenge will be getting the state building inspector to allow them to construct temporary (wooden) platforms (LIRR did this to facilitate construction of the main line third track expansion) to facilitate an M8 pilot.

Electric locomotives should have lower failure & longer life than diesels. But the failure rates the MBTA was experiencing during it's worst times, >1% per day, was unacceptable in any mode.

To be clear I'm not opposed to EMUs, simply pointing out a full modernization of traditional equipment and adjustment of current operating practices gives most of the benefits you listed.

As for the wire, it goes down more than you saw because sometimes it only impacted the electric service. You wouldn't have seen it from the PIC, or maybe you saw it as Amtrak interference because they had a wire down beyond Wickford. And when it does go down hard you lose every single train out there - not just 1 plus maybe the rescue. So where a few diesel trains die a week (again, modernization would help this with an off-the-shelf product like the Charger) you may lose 30 trains once a month with a power issue somewhere - just so happens that's all at the same time.

Oh, and you still need that switch engine anyway for the inevitable rescue. There will always be a few diesels around regardless.

The M8s have been hitting over 500,000 miles between failures over the pandemic.

daybeers wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:12 pm The M8s have been hitting over 500,000 miles between failures over the pandemic.

We support EMUs but is that figure a MTBF of each car ? If so a 10 car train would have one failure every 50,000 miles. But the failures have to be taken in context. Does that failure stop the train or just a car go out of service by being dark or not just providing propulsion ?. If the car is leading that would say sometimes it might not be able to control the train other times can continue controlling a train. If controlling once reaching end of run then can disconnect the pair and run the train back. .

Another caveat is a conductor if qualified can run train from another control cab with engineer staying in leading cab.

I largely agree with Trinnau's modulation of EMU's benefits, which is also not to say we should not get them, but that a lot of the arguments for them are overstated. I think they have a place on our system but I think push-pull does as well.

Firstly, the concept that train sets can only be altered in maintenance facilities is inside the box thinking based on what the MBTA actually does. Amtrak changes consists mid trip every day. Metra cuts engines off trains to be refueled leaving the set in the station all morning long as the AM rush winds down. I've long professed that all deactivated control cars should be reactivated and placed mid train, allowing a 7 car set to drop the rear 3 in a terminal and run as a 4 car until the afternoon. Better yet, with proper implementation of DMUs (which the FRA won't currently allow) that could go along for the ride in a push pull train or be broken off and fired up as a locomotiveless deuce off peak you get the best of both worlds and without tremendous infrastructure costs.

The first place I see EMUs being the most beneficial is on the South Coast. With all new stations they'll all be complete high level and we already know that'll be electric (and/or on the Dorchester Branch should it be electrified [which it should]). Until then some electric (or DUAL MODE!) engines on current push-pull sets ought to be phased in as low hanging fruit lines get converted. Stoughton, Needham, and (as I said) the Dorchester Branch are no brainers, and finish the provisional substations Amtrak left us so we can put a pan up on the corridor. Then perhaps Franklin and Old Colony.

I don't ever see electrics on the B&A or the north side coming to fruition.

IMO the Fairmount line needs installation of CAT started now. That will give Amtrak an alternate route to BOS in case of blockage on the regular NEC route from Route 128 - BOS south station. As well MBTA can run electric loco pulled trains on the Providence / Wickford Junction route. That would require probably some more CAT on the Providence sidings route. As well probably additional substation capacity will be needed plus new substations on Fairmount line.

Dorchester Branch just makes a ton of sense based on it being bracketed by wire on both ends. Environmental justice corridor, extra route for Amtrak, etc.

The wire on track 4 at Attleboro is already there and the T and Amtrak are already getting track 3 turned on, so that solves any siding issues Boston to Providence. Anything west of PVD is between RIDOT and Amtrak.

"Amtrak changes consists mid trip every day. "

Yes, but it seems to take them an hour or more to do so. I was astonished some years ago to see an old DL&W timetable that had them adding and dropping a car from a train in (Binghamton, I think it was) in four minutes.