emannths wrote:With so many sets essentially AT capacity on AVERAGE, that means that 50% of the time those sets are going to be OVER capacity.
I'm surprised Keolis/MBTA hasn't used this data to make more noise to argue for more capacity. It makes the need very clear...
Bramdeisroberts wrote:emannths wrote:With so many sets essentially AT capacity on AVERAGE, that means that 50% of the time those sets are going to be OVER capacity.
I'm surprised Keolis/MBTA hasn't used this data to make more noise to argue for more capacity. It makes the need very clear...
I was going to say, looking at some of these peak ridership numbers makes me wonder if it wouldn't make sense for the T to look for some extra coaches on the (relative) cheap.
I know bilevels will be next to impossible to find, but might it be possible for the T to get ahold of someone else's old Comet X's and use them to max out consist lengths up north, allowing them to move the much denser southside service to upgrade to longer, 100% bilevel consists that can more adequately handle the peak passenger volumes, improve on-train conditions, and boost ridership??
jaymac wrote:the train sets generally stay intact and are sized for the supposed peak they'll be carrying on their varied runs.
emannths wrote:jaymac wrote:the train sets generally stay intact and are sized for the supposed peak they'll be carrying on their varied runs.
Sorry, let me clarify: it looks like they consider "peak" passenger loads to be the average of the peak loads measured.
I haven't seen the Spring 2015 passenger counts that those loads are based on, but presumably the sample passenger loads for each train a few times. So for 508, for example, maybe (hypothetically) they measured loads of 1100, 1200, and 1300 on the three days they measured. It looks like they then averaged those observations to determine the number of seats needed for 508 (e.g., 1200). The problem with this is that 50% of the time you'll have more than that number of passengers, so you really should be designing for the highest observed load, not the average (e.g., 1300 in this example).
So while it looks like only a handful of trains are over capacity, in reality all those trains with, say, only 5-10% free space are going to be over capacity on a regular basis when ridership exceeds the average. The passenger counts also don't account for the practicalities of seating, where there will inevitably be several seats "out of service" due to spills, bags that don't fit above/under seats, extremely wide passengers, etc.
Given the lack of additional coaches, it's all academic. Though as I said, hopefully it can be used to put numbers supporting the anecdotes that many trains operate over capacity for the sake of demonstrating the need for more equipment.
leviramsey wrote:Not necessarily: I don't see any basis for a claim that passenger loads are normally-ish distributed. Nearly everyone has an above average number of legs....
leviramsey wrote:OTOH, are the passenger counts gross boardings or net boardings? Even if it's only 5% of passengers who are riding interzone, that attenuates the peak passenger load.
Komarovsky wrote:With the new framework for keeping dedicated sets for each line, it will be interesting to see how they change the sets from this. My hope is that the planned 3 coach consist for the Worcester bullet trains pans out and they can free up a lot of coaches from the over capacity off peaks and tack those onto the under or at capacity peak trains. Also I could see some schedule improvements due to lighter overall consists if they go this route.
dbperry wrote:Obtained and posted with permission. Very senior permission.
Complete commuter rail equipment cycles. Includes:
- equipment assignments for all trains
- passenger capacity for each set and each train / trip
- all deadhead moves
- service / maintenance times and locations
- per train/trip passenger counts
- details on double draft moves
- layover assignments and locations
http://dbperry.net/MBTA/articles/North_ ... _06-15.pdf
http://dbperry.net/MBTA/articles/South_ ... _06-15.pdf
The permission came with one request: Don't start e-mailing the MBTA with suggestions on how to make these better. So let's debate / discuss them here.
Also: These are somewhat dated and have NOT been updated for the latest (December) schedule revisions. I was also told that other minor tweaks have been made to these that are not documented. So these DO NOT perfectly reflect what is currently happening. But should be very close.
In addition, it was confirmed that as I speculate on my blog <http://dbperry.weebly.com/turn-table.html>, the mid-day Boston 'turns' are very dynamically managed and there are changes almost daily.
Enjoy.
I'll start with the first few observations (South Side):
- Framingham-Worcester P508 wins as the heaviest load: 1423. But only 30 more passengers than Providence train #819.
- There are a number of trains that are known to have more passengers than seats.
- On everything except the Old Colony, the same train is used for the same trip each day of the week. But on the Old Colony, the sets rotate from day-to-day, so a rider on one particular train will see different equipment each day of the week.
- Huge variation in revenue moves per set: minimum of 2 to maximum of 12.
Dave
Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)
Users browsing this forum: The EGE, Type 7 3684 and 6 guests