Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Discussion relating to commuter rail, light rail, and subway operations of the MBTA.

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby leviramsey » Thu Feb 04, 2016 5:28 pm

Frode wrote:If it's switching moves, though, why are almost all Stoughton trains stopping at Ruggles and almost no Providence trains? It seems that they could do some of each with the same number of switching moves.


It's not the number of switching moves, but their timing. The Corridor tends to be less crowded with trains when Stoughton trains go through, so the move doesn't affect other trains as much.
leviramsey
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:12 pm

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby leviramsey » Fri Feb 05, 2016 5:26 pm

As I understand it, after the destressing is finished, Framingham to Worcester will at some point qualify as 79 mph track instead of its current 59. That would remove about 4 minutes from the "bullets" and increase their advantage over locals from Framingham to Worcester by about 2 or 3 minutes (locals would spend a lot less time at 79). The extra time savings would then allow for a Framingham stop on the "bullets" (which would make them "limiteds" I suppose) while preserving "Worcester-South Station in 1:00".

I still view the bullets/limiteds as more of an intercity service, as competition for Peter Pan (and an hour downtown-to-downtown is highly competitive with Peter Pan). Ideally, they'd go all the way with that: cafe car, reserved seating, and yield managed fares, but that likely requires contracting with Amtrak, and PRIIA probably inhibits such experimentation, so they're using CR equipment right on the very edge of rush hour. The intercity demand pattern is much less peak-focused: if the 5001/5002 experiment delivers acceptable ridership, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see a new off-peak service pattern to Worcester of a local every 2 hours (doable with 2 sets) and a limited every 2.5 hours (doable with 1 set).
leviramsey
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:12 pm

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby Rockingham Racer » Sat Feb 06, 2016 8:40 am

I think your idea in your last paragraph is more of an Amtrak venture than it is a commuter rail venture. There is no commuter rail system in the country that I know of that offers reserved seating with food service cars. There is a club, however, out of the north side of Chicago that still has the last "private car" in commuter service.
User avatar
Rockingham Racer
 
Posts: 2911
Joined: Wed Mar 17, 2004 9:25 pm

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby leviramsey » Sat Feb 06, 2016 10:59 am

Rockingham Racer wrote:I think your idea in your last paragraph is more of an Amtrak venture than it is a commuter rail venture. There is no commuter rail system in the country that I know of that offers reserved seating with food service cars. There is a club, however, out of the north side of Chicago that still has the last "private car" in commuter service.


That's exactly what I said. Even if it were Amtrak operating it, it would be with Massachusetts subsidy, probably with a requirement for a multi-year commitment. Running it as a CR operation, without the intercity frills, gauges some of the demand, though at the expense of taking coaches out of normal service. It'll be competitive with Peter Pan (whose fares for a 1 hour off-peak Worcester-Boston are about $10-12) in a way that current CR service isn't.
leviramsey
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:12 pm

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby ohalloranchris » Tue Feb 09, 2016 1:47 pm

Frode wrote:If it's switching moves, though, why are almost all Stoughton trains stopping at Ruggles and almost no Providence trains? It seems that they could do some of each with the same number of switching moves.


Two comments to add to this topic:
1. The switching moves would not affect outbound trains, and the proposed schedules eliminate ALL outbound Ruggles stops for peak Providence trains, so that is a real head scratcher.
2. Seems wise to delay adding some of the inbound Stoughton Ruggles station stops until that new platform is built on track 2 at Ruggles (which seems to be at least 1-2 years away).
ohalloranchris
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:42 am

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby dbperry » Tue Feb 09, 2016 9:27 pm

With regards to the Worcester-Framingham bullet train, senior MBTA management told me that it is purposefully skewed later in the commute to appeal to the 'millennial' workforce with their shifted workday - start later, work later. At least that's what their demographic research pointed them to. My impression is that it seems to be convenient that doing that also places the bullet train outside the height of the rush hours, where it would interfere with other trains on the line. They sounded pretty committed to trying the bullet train, at least on a 'pilot' basis. I didn't ask them about political pressure - but given the October Lt. Governor press conference about the bullet train, I would be surprised to see them yank it.

I've just added my report from the Natick schedule change public hearing to my blog:
http://dbperry.weebly.com
Known to Keolis and the MBTA as "Twitter Dave"
Frequently posting about the MBTA Framingham-Worcester line on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FramWorMBTA
Owner of Framingham-Worcester Blog: http://FramWorMBTA.weebly.com/
Maintainer of MBTA schedule archive: http://www.dbperry.net/MBTA/
User avatar
dbperry
 
Posts: 793
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:28 pm
Location: Suburbs of Boston

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby Bramdeisroberts » Tue Feb 09, 2016 10:27 pm

Now the REAL question is whether or not they'll permanently assign 010 or 011 to the dedicated consist to really play up the"bullet train" angle...
Bramdeisroberts
 
Posts: 315
Joined: Sat Feb 15, 2014 2:45 pm

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby Komarovsky » Wed Feb 10, 2016 7:26 am

Bramdeisroberts wrote:Now the REAL question is whether or not they'll permanently assign 010 or 011 to the dedicated consist to really play up the"bullet train" angle...


I'm hoping they stick a 46 on the 3 car set they're proposing for that, the acceleration would be insane. Of course you could stick the tiredest of the F40s on a set that small and it would still be pretty quick.

It's all academic though given the Worcester line's class 3 speeds(Dave, and word on the west of Framingham lass 4 upgrade?).
Komarovsky
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2011 10:11 pm

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby dbperry » Wed Feb 10, 2016 10:13 am

Komarovsky wrote:(Dave, and word on the west of Framingham class 4 upgrade?).


I posted my reply over in the Fram-Wor track work thread, just to keep us better organized...

viewtopic.php?f=65&t=159622
Known to Keolis and the MBTA as "Twitter Dave"
Frequently posting about the MBTA Framingham-Worcester line on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FramWorMBTA
Owner of Framingham-Worcester Blog: http://FramWorMBTA.weebly.com/
Maintainer of MBTA schedule archive: http://www.dbperry.net/MBTA/
User avatar
dbperry
 
Posts: 793
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:28 pm
Location: Suburbs of Boston

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby octr202 » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:29 pm

Komarovsky wrote:
Bramdeisroberts wrote:Now the REAL question is whether or not they'll permanently assign 010 or 011 to the dedicated consist to really play up the"bullet train" angle...


I'm hoping they stick a 46 on the 3 car set they're proposing for that, the acceleration would be insane. Of course you could stick the tiredest of the F40s on a set that small and it would still be pretty quick.

It's all academic though given the Worcester line's class 3 speeds(Dave, and word on the west of Framingham lass 4 upgrade?).


You could get one of MARC's GP39's for this, no need for insane amounts of HP just to plod along at 60 for an hour with three cars. ;-)
Wondering if I'll see the Haverhill double-tracking finished before I retire...
Photo: Melbourne W7 No. 1019 on Route 78, Bridge & Church Streets, Richmond, Victoria. 10/21/2010
User avatar
octr202
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:13 am
Location: In the land of the once and future 73 trackless trolley.

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby octr202 » Wed Feb 10, 2016 2:45 pm

dbperry wrote:With regards to the Worcester-Framingham bullet train, senior MBTA management told me that it is purposefully skewed later in the commute to appeal to the 'millennial' workforce with their shifted workday - start later, work later. At least that's what their demographic research pointed them to. My impression is that it seems to be convenient that doing that also places the bullet train outside the height of the rush hours, where it would interfere with other trains on the line. They sounded pretty committed to trying the bullet train, at least on a 'pilot' basis. I didn't ask them about political pressure - but given the October Lt. Governor press conference about the bullet train, I would be surprised to see them yank it.

I've just added my report from the Natick schedule change public hearing to my blog:
http://dbperry.weebly.com


Are there really enough millennials living in Worcester to fill a whole train? Even a short one?
Wondering if I'll see the Haverhill double-tracking finished before I retire...
Photo: Melbourne W7 No. 1019 on Route 78, Bridge & Church Streets, Richmond, Victoria. 10/21/2010
User avatar
octr202
 
Posts: 4142
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:13 am
Location: In the land of the once and future 73 trackless trolley.

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby leviramsey » Wed Feb 10, 2016 3:51 pm

octr202 wrote:
dbperry wrote:With regards to the Worcester-Framingham bullet train, senior MBTA management told me that it is purposefully skewed later in the commute to appeal to the 'millennial' workforce with their shifted workday - start later, work later. At least that's what their demographic research pointed them to. My impression is that it seems to be convenient that doing that also places the bullet train outside the height of the rush hours, where it would interfere with other trains on the line. They sounded pretty committed to trying the bullet train, at least on a 'pilot' basis. I didn't ask them about political pressure - but given the October Lt. Governor press conference about the bullet train, I would be surprised to see them yank it.

I've just added my report from the Natick schedule change public hearing to my blog:
http://dbperry.weebly.com


Are there really enough millennials living in Worcester to fill a whole train? Even a short one?


Over a quarter of the population (so about 50,000) of Worcester in 2010 was between 18 and 33.

Lots of colleges: Clark (3,400 students), Holy Cross (2,900), WPI (4,100), and Worcester State (5,600), and UMass Medical (1,000) are within reasonable transit time from Union Station. MCPHS has an operation downtown (don't know the student count for Worcester vs. elsewhere). There are another 5,000 or so students between Anna Maria, Assumption, and Becker (though those are further out). The first three especially do a reasonably good job of producing graduates for tech/finance/law school. Definitely more than 100 millennials living in Worcester commuting to Boston; probably less than 2,000. 500 daily one-way trips seems like a good bet for the bullets.
leviramsey
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:12 pm

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby rethcir » Thu Feb 11, 2016 8:50 am

I in fact work with a lot of young WPI grads at a tech company downtown.

Problem with Worcester for them is that it's $330 a month for a zone 8 pass, PLUS the cost of owning a car to get around Worcester. They all would rather move into the city and pay a cheaper fare plus not necessarily need a to pay for a car. It's a much better value prop to today's young professional.
rethcir
 
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Nov 30, 2007 9:51 am

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby Scalziand » Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:58 pm

Becker is right next to WPI actually, but they're are still small.
Scalziand
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: Naugatuck

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby BandA » Thu Feb 11, 2016 2:19 pm

rethcir wrote:I in fact work with a lot of young WPI grads at a tech company downtown.

Problem with Worcester for them is that it's $330 a month for a zone 8 pass, PLUS the cost of owning a car to get around Worcester. They all would rather move into the city and pay a cheaper fare plus not necessarily need a to pay for a car. It's a much better value prop to today's young professional.
So, if the fare was cheaper, you are saying the students would move to Boston & commute to Worcester? Or they already live in Worcester & would commute to Boston for jobs & nightlife? At 49 miles, the all-in cost the $330/month is cheaper than driving. If you already have a depreciated car, at $1.75/gal it's about 9c/mile for gas + 20c/mile depreciation&maintenance + $3.20 toll = about $17 for the trip.... roughly comparable to the cost of the "T".
User avatar
BandA
 
Posts: 1899
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:47 am

PreviousNext

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: andrewjw and 6 guests