Fairmount Line Discussion

F-line, I agree that the frequent service should be built up and proven with conventional push-pull consists before shelling out for specialized DMUs. Is sufficient equipment available for this at the moment?

TrainManTy wrote:F-line, I agree that the frequent service should be built up and proven with conventional push-pull consists before shelling out for specialized DMUs. Is sufficient equipment available for this at the moment?

They've got more equipment onhand than they've ever had in the past, and once the ongoing transitions are over they'll have fewer vehicles in the shop for old-age aches and pains than they've had in a long time. And...more bi-levels means they can trim some consist lengths systemwide where equal seating capacity is achievable in 1 fewer car than before. So, yes, they've got plenty of flex to put together some more Fairmount trainsets. It is mainly an efficiency thing. Don't put together 5-car sets of mixed singles and bi's when swapping a single for a bi in the set lets you reduce the consist to 4 cars, shed 1 conductor, and free up spares for putting together an extra trainset elsewhere without strain. That part of it is in Keolis' court...and Keolis paying attention to ops efficiency more attentively than don't-give-a-damn MBCR did.

Fairmount's got a very small equipment pool. It never ranges too far from home, so it takes fewer trainsets to run higher frequencies than any other line. With no Fairmount train needing more than 4 cars...singles perfectly fine to for coach capacity...and less need for bathrooms than any other train (if any?)...you can easily redistribute the bi-levels on other lines to pry out a couple more 4-car sets of singles at no loss of capacity to the other lines. And they can arguably help their locomotive uptime and system coverage a lot more by skewing the HSP-46 assignments to the long consists and longer-distance routes and pulling in more F40's and Geeps closer to home on short-turn and shorter-consist duty. Another thing Keolis can do purely on the ops side that MBCR refused to do re: maximizing efficiency. Plus...every piece of equipment is now going to be portable southside and northside to balance it. Recall, the F40PH's don't have cab signals and can't run south at all, while some of the single-level cab cars didn't have ACSES and were sharply limited to what lines they could run south. It's a different world in the post-Screamer/post-MBB era where everything can run on any signal system and a majority bi-level fleet gives them an efficiency of scale on car capacity. They've got systemwide flex for mixing and matching equipment in a way that they didn't before.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote: Another thing Keolis can do purely on the ops side that MBCR refused to do re: maximizing efficiency. Plus...every piece of equipment is now going to be portable southside and northside to balance it. Recall, the F40PH's don't have cab signals and can't run south at all, while some of the single-level cab cars didn't have ACSES and were sharply limited to what lines they could run south. It's a different world in the post-Screamer/post-MBB era where everything can run on any signal system and a majority bi-level fleet gives them an efficiency of scale on car capacity. They've got systemwide flex for mixing and matching equipment in a way that they didn't before.

We are WAY off topic... I guess at some point I can split this into a DMU thread.

The Bombardier single level cars do not have cab signals currently, but they have a bid out to install PTC into this fleet. But until that is done, the fleet will still be restricted. There was one Bombardier cab car(#1649) outfitted with ACSES but it has since been removed. The screamers had cab signals, but they have been parted out. Screamers are bad for the South Side due to the fuel limitations.

Interesting quote from the exec. director of the T's advisory board (fair use quote below):

However, Paul Regan, the executive director of the MBTA’s advisory board, said he is wary about funding a new type of technology if the project would compete with funding for a solution to congestion at North and South stations.

“It doesn’t change the two big problems for commuter rail, which is space at South and North stations and the ability to finance these new things without compromising the existing system,” he said.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/0 ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

F-line I await your thoughts...

240 million for 30 units? Are Lockheed Martin in the railroad business now? Surely some depot expenditure is being rolled into that. Metrolinx paid $75m or thereabouts for 18.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/bo ... 182011.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

dowlingm wrote:240 million for 30 units? Are Lockheed Martin in the railroad business now? Surely some depot expenditure is being rolled into that. Metrolinx paid $75m or thereabouts for 18.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/bo ... 182011.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Either that or that figure includes any for-some-reason-undisclosed option cars.

NH2060 wrote:Interesting quote from the exec. director of the T's advisory board (fair use quote below):

However, Paul Regan, the executive director of the MBTA’s advisory board, said he is wary about funding a new type of technology if the project would compete with funding for a solution to congestion at North and South stations.

“It doesn’t change the two big problems for commuter rail, which is space at South and North stations and the ability to finance these new things without compromising the existing system,” he said.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/0 ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

F-line I await your thoughts...

"DUH!"

According to http://www.transithistory.org/roster/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, the bid details on new DMU's:

<<The MBTA has requested proposals to purchase 10 three-car sets (30 cars) of DMUs. Trains would be composed of A/C/B cars with A and B cars featuring cabs and C-cars featuring restrooms but no cabs. Cars would be designed to only board from high-level platforms. Cars would be designed to operate in trains up to six cars (two three-car sets).

Proposals are due 06/16/2015. This is a competitive negotiation procurement. The contract will also include options for up to 30 additional three-cars sets (90) cars that can be exercised for up to five years of the initial contract signing, for a grand total of up to 120 cars if all options are exercised.>>

So they appear to be "fixed" three car sets, and compatible with high level platforms only. Both factors strike me as nuts, significantly hindering operational flexibility etc. So much for using the cars in a pinch on another line if needed, and aren't the Track 5 & 7 platforms at Back Bay low level? (So much for service to the proposed new station at Beacon Park.)

Multi-car sets of DMUs/EMUs are the norm. It reduces costs and increases capacity because you don't have cabs at either end of each car.

There are mini-highs at Tracks 5 and 7. With freight no longer going through Back Bay, there's no obstacle to putting in full highs there.

NJT routinely uses low-level platforms beyond the ends of their high levels for operational flexibility in 4-track territory. Unless they're sure that this opens the bidding to an overseas vendor who can add enough buff strength to something otherwise off-the-shelf, I can't see it as justified.

But my main problem with this is the MBTA's procurement process vs. what's available (or not) in today's market. Opportunities to get it wrong and/or late beckon at every detail.

Does the procurement process mean that the MBTA has forgone the add-on option to the SMART order for Nippon-Sharyo DMUs?

diburning wrote:Does the procurement process mean that the MBTA has forgone the add-on option to the SMART order for Nippon-Sharyo DMUs?

It's not timed anywhere close to where the SMART option can be exercised. They aren't funded for much more than the stacks of paper these RFP bids will be printed on.

A small sign of progress on Blue Hill Ave - the MBTA is soliciting proposals for public art at the station.

The EGE wrote:A small sign of progress on Blue Hill Ave - the MBTA is soliciting proposals for public art at the station.

One would hope station groundbreaking comes sometime before the murals.

The 2017-2021 5-year plan, approved by the MassDOT board last month, allocates full funding for Blue Hill Ave. $3M in FY 2017, then $22M over FY2018-FY2021. That puts the smart money on the opening date being sometime in 2020.