Fairmount Line Discussion

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

I know it's a separate funding appropriation, but I've seen absolutely nothing about them seeking money or schedule to raise the platforms at Fairmount and Readville (or do their preferred move of shifting Readville onto a separate 2-track island so Franklin express slots can use the existing platform without being constrained by turning trains). I would think having full level boarding and being able to use the automatic door coaches is a significant enough part of the "rapidness" of the transit that there'd be a little more urgency to finish that job at the 2 outer stations. But I've seen nothing for plans outside of some nebulous desire to eventually get around to it.

Where would that Readville 2 track island be built?

Jon

Shifted north a few feet towards the other end of the parking lot, with crossovers moved so trains can peel off to Franklin or NEC/Route 128 as they please and CSX can avoid the high platforms for the reverse move into Readville (Walpole-Readville is a wide clearance route). Current platform's only 4 cars long, which won't cut it for future service levels so some work and shifting of the crossovers is required for any upgraded station they choose to do on that side. Even if they opt to keep the current one.

It looks like there's enough space to demolish the current platform, put in an island starting at the tip of the Hyde Park Ave. underpass and going north at full 800 ft, length, and stick the crossover just south of the platform for splitting off on the NEC or Franklin and for peeling freights out onto yard track so they don't abut the high platform.

[Charliemta]

I'm in Austin TX this week, and they have a great looking DMU line:

Funky looking trestle ! How many of those DMU's do they run in a train?

I've only see two cars to a train. They run in the street downtown, then on a railroad ROW to the suburbs: http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=30 ... 2,,0,18.71

The car specs are in this link:http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_aus_2010-04a.htm

From the link:
"Despite the disdain for electric light rail, the core planning team desired to keep options open for some type of rolling stock suited to negotiating city streets. The result was to embrace a self-propelled diesel multiple unit (DMU) railcar such as those widely deployed in European Schnellbahn (regional "fast rail") operations, with the capability of operating in powered trains ("multiple units") as desired.

In addition, Capital Metro's rail project designers opted for a "light" car – i.e., slightly smaller and lighter than common US "heavy" railroad rolling stock, and non-compliant with the buff strength requirements set by the FRA to meet its stringent crash-worthiness benchmarks.

A major aim in the selection of such a "light" vehicle apparently was to try to replicate some of the versatility of true (electric) light railcars, as equally comfortable on urban streets as on higher-speed, exclusive railway alignments. Unfortunately the FRA was not consulted on car selection – a mis-step that would lead to later problems.

The rolling stock ultimately chosen for MetroRail has been a Swiss-made Stadler GTW-2. Some of its major specifications are listed below.

• Length 134 ft. (40.8 m)
• Width 9 ft. 8 in. (2.6 m)
• Floor height 23 in. (585 mm)
• Double-articulated
• Diesel engines (center unit)
• Traction motors (center truck), outer trucks non-powered
• Maximum speed capability: 75 mph (120 km/hr)
• Service speed 60 mph (97 km/hr)
• Seating capacity: 96 seats, 12 jumpseats, bike racks
• Passenger capacity: 230 total seated + standing passengers "

[Mcoov]

Any reason why they didn't want EMUs?

[Arlington]

Any reason why they didn't want EMUs?

I think that question, if it pertains to Austin TX, is better posed in another forum (but the cost of 32 miles of catenary on a "starter" system is a big part).

As for Fairmont, with no catenary, you can't have "E", and the desire to control costs by sharing procurement, parts inventory, training, crew rotations, equipment rotation, and everything else at South Station, you're gonna get plain old CR equipment.

[The EGE]

There's a breakover point for when switching some of your service to electric becomes worthwhile. For the T it's not just Providence service (although MARC runs electrics on only the Penn Line), and maybe even adding Fairmount as an electric line would not be worth it. But if SC Snail ever does happen it's required to be electric, and if Amtrak electrifies the Inland Route then having two of their high-ridership lines as electrics makes sense. Either way, Fairmount would hopefully get thrown in as a side deal.

As for EMUs versus loco-hauled, I defer to the wisdom of others, but I will say that EMUs would be a problem if they don't raise the remaining low platforms.

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

There's a breakover point for when switching some of your service to electric becomes worthwhile. For the T it's not just Providence service (although MARC runs electrics on only the Penn Line), and maybe even adding Fairmount as an electric line would not be worth it. But if SC Snail ever does happen it's required to be electric, and if Amtrak electrifies the Inland Route then having two of their high-ridership lines as electrics makes sense. Either way, Fairmount would hopefully get thrown in as a side deal.

As for EMUs versus loco-hauled, I defer to the wisdom of others, but I will say that EMUs would be a problem if they don't raise the remaining low platforms.

Very few bi-level EMU's available that wouldn't be Euro models Frankenstein-customized into FRA compliance, so the T would also be losing a lot of seating capacity to Providence and have to offset by running extremely more frequent service. When the full Rotem order + escalator clause is fulfilled (150 total cars), bi-levels are all you're gonna get on Providence. So the seating capacity loss is an issue with any proven FRA-compliant EMU makes. Plus Amtrak's requirement for a new full-size Boston service facility is something the T could--and very easily may--partner with at Readville to solve its storage crunch and lack of adequate maint facilities on the southside. Amtrak's push-pull only, however, not EMU. So the T will not get the economy of scale from partnering on that maint facility build that they would by sticking with push-pull and a facility that can service both theirs and Amtrak's equipment the same way.

EMU's are the ideal one for performance, but waiting for a way in to adopt that mode is so expensive they're better off waiting 1 more generation of equipment before considering that plunge. They can get electrics and faster running speeds on the NEC much sooner and more economically by using their existing coaches with electric locos pooled with RIDOT's 2020 equipment order for South County CR. Amtrak's new Sprinter electrics should be mature tech by then at more appropriate price point for the T. For one, ours would only have to run on 1 voltage type whereas theirs have to do the 3 phase changes for PRR 25 Hz, MNRR 60 Hz, and Shoreline-Boston's different 60 Hz draw. Less complexity and weight. As for Fairmount, Amtrak must build a new substation at Southampton by 2025 to boost its power draw in support of expected service levels at expanded South Station and to provision the Providence Line for running electric CR trains. That is the T's way in to electrifying the Fairmount, since they can get the necessary feed capacity mostly on Amtrak's dime. It is not very expensive to erect cat towers and string wire over 10 miles when the power draw is already in place, and Amtrak would see use in the Fairmount for shuttling equipment between Southampton and Readville without tying up the NEC. They'll have a pretty low barrier of entry for wiring the line up, lower probably than taking the DMU plunge when all is said and done.

Electric push-pull isn't t EMU-perfect at start-stop performance, but they're worlds better than diesels and close enough to DMU's to win out as better overall value for an equipment purchase. Can use the same coaches, and no need to invest in maintenance and facilities for an oddball new mode. Performance boost in electric push-pull over diesel is big enough to meet the T's service goals for rapid transit-like dwell times on the Fairmount.

[Komarovsky]

If NJ transit decides to replace their Arrow IIIs with a new EMU, maybe the MBTA could piggyback onto the order if the timing was right?

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

If NJ transit decides to replace their Arrow IIIs with a new EMU, maybe the MBTA could piggyback onto the order if the timing was right?

Still the problem of maintaining the buggers. CDOT's spending $1B to maintain the 400+ M8 cars for MNRR and SLE, just for the New Haven facility expansion and all the modern requirements of the new cars vs. old. If the choice we're facing is electric locos pulling Rotem bi-levels 110 MPH on the Providence Line in 2022 vs. 79 MPH diesels till 2035 because it's too damn expensive to build the support structures for an all-new EMU mode...that is a pretty damn easy choice. It would be a lot better if Amtrak weren't married to push-pull like it is and went for EMU's on its next-gen Regionals power order, but that's what we're faced with: few regional economies of scale to lower the barrier of entry for that mode.

[MBTA3247]

So the seating capacity loss is an issue with any proven FRA-compliant EMU makes.

New York's M7s seem to work just fine with only one door near each end. Doesn't seem like much of a stretch to move the doors all the way to the ends (or not, like on NJTs bilevels) and make a bilevel version. You'd probably still lose some seating vs a K-car due to the need to house all the underbody equipment inside the car, but nowhere near as much as going from a K-car to a flat.

[The EGE]

Newmarket is coming along. Platforms are up, though no canopies or ramps yet.

Loco behind inbound platform:


Outbound platform:


Larger versions here.

[wicked]

Was going to mention this. Was driving behind the Target and Home Depot at South Bay today, and noticed the progress.

[The EGE]

Four Corners/Geneva has the inbound platform more or less done, and the outbound platform has the foundations in place. Talbot Avenue looks nearly complete - both platforms and ramps are in place. I wonder if they could open some of these before the current 2013 estimated dates. Pictures coming later.

[The EGE]

Found a SIP update from April 2012.

Newmarket was 49% complete. Substantial completion in June 2013; final work into August 2013. The delay is due to a power bank for the shopping center that was missing on existing plans.

Four Corners/Geneva was 75% complete. Substantial completion in March 2013 and final in May 2013. Delays due to a rock vein that didn't show up in test borings. My picture from May:



Talbot Avenue was 80% complete. Substantial completion in October 2012; final in January 2013. Everything has been going right; I'm hoping they'll open it before the end of the year. My picture from May:



Blue Hill Aveue is long delayed due to abutter concerns (which are, honestly, frivolous). They want to put it to bid this fall, wtih construction beginning early in 2013 and finished sometime in 2015.

[boblothrope]

Very few bi-level EMU's available that wouldn't be Euro models Frankenstein-customized into FRA compliance, so the T would also be losing a lot of seating capacity to Providence and have to offset by running extremely more frequent service.

Is platform length a capacity constraint on the Providence line? What's the shortest platform, and the longest train today?

I'd have no objection to more frequent service with shorter trains.

[The EGE]

Getting a hair off topic; mods, feel free to spin this into its own topic if you want.

According to the 2010 Bluebook, the longest trains that run in Providence service are 7 bilevels, equal to approximately 595 feet. (All current MBTA cars are 85' long; the only 8-car set is one in Worcester service). A standard 800-foot high-level can fully platform 9 cars (765') but with proper positioning you could get the end doors of two more cars as well. With 1050' platforms (what seems to be Amtrak's standard) you can fully platform 12 cars.

South Station, Back Bay, Route 128, and Providence (not 100% on Providence) have 1050-foot high level platforms. T.F. Green and Wickford have 800-foot platforms. They're set. Ruggles has a 1050-foot platform, though it's limited to about 500 feet until it's repaired. The planned second platform there will be 800 feet, high level.

Hyde Park, Sharon, Attleboro, and South Attleboro have 800 to 900-foot platforms - but they're low with some mini-highs. If you start running longer trains, you have to raise them (preferrably on passing tracks).

Mansfield has an 800-foot outbound but a 500-foot inbound platform. Lengthening the inbound platform to 800 feet will be tricky - the whole package may require bridge reconstruction to fit high-levels on passing tracks (to allow freight to reach the Foxboro secondary).

Canton Junction, too, has a 500-foot inbound platform. The whole station is a nightmare - it needs an intelligent redesign with high-level platforms, modern bridges with elevators instead of ugly ramps, and three NEC tracks through the station.

(From my map of platform lengths)

More frequent service leads to capacity problems. The three-track ROW from Readville to South Station is already effectively at capacity, and South Station doesn't have a hell of a lot more slots either. Future projects will help - the new Ruggles platform will reduce the number of crossover moves needed, and South Station expansion will give a few decades of breathing room.

The Franklin Line doesn't have a huge amount of expansion room - headways are already pretty good at rush hour. Until the bottlenecks clear up, though, any rush-hour Franklin additions will run via the Fairmount.