Commuter Rail Electrification

I'd rather see realistic, sensible legislation than fantasy talking points. This kind of unserious legislation makes the no-build option look good.

Disney Guy wrote: ↑Sat Jan 28, 2023 3:08 pm A train might have two pantographs on different engines but the circuitry in each could be isolated from the other so both pans can be up without spanning the section break.

I would've thought that's what they would do, which is why I was surprised to learn how big the breaks are. Thanks!

BandA wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:35 pm I'd rather see realistic, sensible legislation than fantasy talking points. This kind of unserious legislation makes the no-build option look good.

Exactly.

Anyone who knows anything about transportation, even the less-intelligent folks who may work at the T, know the timeline isn't realistic.

How about making the proposal a little more realistic?

It's like the Red Sox with Xander Bogaerts or John Lester. They gave low-ball, practically insulting offers to both. The players were like, "forget this, the team is not serious." They both left the team. The T sees this asinine timeline and isn't going to work with the Hill. They figure it's a waste of time.

I think it's good to start with something aggressive, and work back from there. They should be able to get at least one or two Providence trains per day running electric in 23 months even if that's all the current electrical infrastructure can handle. Get the ball rolling, get stuff in the works, and build from there.

Aggressive is good, and then with compromise and setbacks we still have progress. Unrealistic gets the concept laughed out of the room and we end up nowhere.

ElectricTraction wrote: ↑Sun Feb 05, 2023 11:30 am I think it's good to start with something aggressive, and work back from there. They should be able to get at least one or two Providence trains per day running electric in 23 months even if that's all the current electrical infrastructure can handle. Get the ball rolling, get stuff in the works, and build from there.

Aggressive is one thing. Living in fantasy land is another.

ARTICLE: "Goodbye diesel, hello electric. Battery-powered, improved service could be coming to MBTA’s commuter rail in 2027."

Link: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/03/24/ ... l-in-2027/

The MBTA appears to be committed to a date when electric trains will finally carry passengers on its commuter rail system: 2027.

The T’s commuter rail contractor, Keolis Commuter Services, wants to buy and operate battery electric trains on the Fairmount Line with 20-minute weekday and 30-minute weekend frequencies by then, according to a document the transit agency published last week. The document was first reported by StreetsBlog Mass.

Electric trains, common throughout much of the world, can accelerate faster and hit higher maximum speeds, and run quieter and cleaner than diesel.

Currently, the Fairmount Line’s diesel trains run every 45 minutes, at best, on weekdays and every 90 minutes on weekends.

https://mass.streetsblog.org/2024/03/16 ... mount-line is a similar article that is free. Keolis has proposed using battery trains on the Fairmount line for a more frequent service, and MBTA has put that proposal out to bid (probably for legal reasons, but it does mean another contractor could win it, or that the MBTA could decide that all bids are too expensive).

I could win the lottery next week. I could be dating Scarlet Johansson by 2025. “Could” means squat.

Battery electric heavy rail is unproven. The amount of energy required makes it difficult at best. Overhead AC electrification has been around in roughly it's current form since 1914.

The way i see it, BE has 2 use-cases.

1. Shunting locomotives on primarily electric lines, using the batteries for "last-mile" service. This has been proven in the past with NYC's Tri-Power boxcabs, and is currently being evaluated by CRRC for their next generation of shunting locomotives.

2. A bit more hypothetical, but operating EMUs on stretches beyond electrified trackage, without the cost or parts infrastructure a full dual-mode setup. This is still novel, but has been used in Japan and is being introduced in Western Europe - with a failed retrofit plan for LIRR's M7 fleet. Personally, I think this would work best if, say, SEPTA's non-electric routes were to be reintroduced (as faint a hope that may be) - basically just extending the range at the end of a trip.

I personally do not think solutions like Metra's Battery F40s are ideal, or the way forward.

ConstanceR46 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:18 pm The way i see it, BE has 2 use-cases.

1. Shunting locomotives on primarily electric lines, using the batteries for "last-mile" service. This has been proven in the past with NYC's Tri-Power boxcabs, and is currently being evaluated by CRRC for their next generation of shunting locomotives.

Yes. For small shortlines, industrial parks, yard switchers, and other start-stop short-range switching, absolutely.

2. A bit more hypothetical, but operating EMUs on stretches beyond electrified trackage, without the cost or parts infrastructure a full dual-mode setup. This is still novel, but has been used in Japan and is being introduced in Western Europe - with a failed retrofit plan for LIRR's M7 fleet. Personally, I think this would work best if, say, SEPTA's non-electric routes were to be reintroduced (as faint a hope that may be) - basically just extending the range at the end of a trip.

I personally do not think solutions like Metra's Battery F40s are ideal, or the way forward.

Dual-modes of any type just don't make sense for commuter/regional service. Dual-mode AC electric and diesel might make sense for Amtrak to introduce more routes on and off of the NEC. Commuter/regional should electrify out to where it's reasonable, and then make people switch at that point. Poughkeepsie/Albany, New Milford, Patchogue, Springfield, most/all of the MBTA, and other commuter rail systems should just be electrified.

MTA and predecessors have run dual modes for commuter services for 50 years and NJT has since 2010. Wouldn't MTA have replaced them during that time if they didn't make sense?

You're asking the MTA to do what makes sense? That's funny.

Why don't dual modes make sense for commuter operations?

The only advantage of not using them that I can think of is to make commuting by rail more expensive and more complex, or, put another way the only reason to require passengers to change trains midway through a commute is to discourage commuting by rail.