Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

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

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby MBTA3247 » Sat Jan 18, 2014 7:01 pm

Red Wing wrote:So quick question about Readville. Was there ever a track connection from the Franklin line to the NEC on the Wolcott square side of the NEC going inbound towards South Station?

No.

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote:The loop at unused Yard 5 used to let you be able to go (non-revenue only). . .
NEC/Franklin southbound->NEC/Franklin northbound
NEC/Franklin southbound->Fairmount northbound // Fairmount southbound->NEC/Franklin northbound

AFAIK the Franklin Line never had a direct connection into the facilities on that side of the NEC, so the second scenario you describe would require two changes of direction and a reverse move up the lead between the NEC and the Franklin Line.
"The destination of this train is [BEEP BEEP]" -announcement on an Ashmont train.
User avatar
MBTA3247
 
Posts: 2594
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:01 pm
Location: Milton

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby Red Wing » Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:17 am

Thanks for the answer guys.

Makes me wonder two things. If you move the Fairmount lines platforms to the other side of the bridge how far would it have to be moved to include Franklin trains to consolidate most of the platforms for the station. I would suspect an island platform would be best for less confusion for passengers and Fairmount trains laying over in the station. Would this be worth it? Also adding track to the NEC from the other side of the bridge towards South Station if possible. Would this reduce congestion on the NEC?
Red Wing
 
Posts: 304
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2005 12:55 pm
Location: On the B&B

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Mon Jan 20, 2014 11:57 am

Red Wing wrote:Thanks for the answer guys.

Makes me wonder two things. If you move the Fairmount lines platforms to the other side of the bridge how far would it have to be moved to include Franklin trains to consolidate most of the platforms for the station. I would suspect an island platform would be best for less confusion for passengers and Fairmount trains laying over in the station. Would this be worth it? Also adding track to the NEC from the other side of the bridge towards South Station if possible. Would this reduce congestion on the NEC?



Why are we so hot to consolidate platforms? That introduces congestion if you make every Franklin train take up a platform slot used by a short-turning DMU. They should never co-mingle unless a Franklin train is explicitly routing via Fairmount and has a reserved slot in between the DMU's. There'll be conflicts galore and a severe capacity reduction if diverging traffic all gets mashed together on one platform. There's very very good reason why the platforms and the traffic are segregated. Nothing blocks the NEC with Franklin having its own platforms, and nothing blocks Fairmount unless it's explicitly using Fairmount.

Also, it can't be done without warping and deforming Readville station further south spread across >2 city blocks. There's a grade difference between the Franklin-Fairmount connector and the Franklin-to-NEC platforms. You would have to move the whole works 600 ft. south to get at-grade on a combo platform, which would put it next to Yard 5 underneath the dank Sprague St. overpass a very long walk from the station parking and bus connections. That's the only place it can go because the grades aren't modifiable.


The best layout is more or less the current one, with all platforms spread across the narrowest pinch of the Sprague-Hyde Park Ave. block. Moving the Fairmount one to an island couple hundred feet north for all-direction access is consistent with that. If there needs to be new secondary egresses facilitating better pedestrian traffic around the station, then ramps off Milton St. are where to add it. Also...if the Franklin platforms get their double-track reinstated they'll creep north a few feet and introduce a little bit of platform (but not traffic) consolidation. You can see from Google overhead that the unused NEC outbound platform used to be an island shared with the ripped-out Franklin inbound track. Re-adding that track would demolish the Franklin mini-high, pull the new track entirely alongside the NEC outbound platform north of the ped overpass, and extend that platform 150 ft. north to round it up to an 800 ft. full-high. Giving Franklin a full 2 tracks, but not requiring a new platform to be built. The current outbound-side Franklin platform would then get raised in-place, extended the same distance about +150 ft. north, and probably have its south tip on the curve demolished. The entire station ends up shifting just a few feet north, which supports the relocation of the Fairmount platform a few feet north for 2 tracks and all-direction running. The whole complex ends up being centered a little more towards Milton St. and less spread-out overall.


So think north for likely station mods, not south. And while thinking north, understand that there are no opportunities for consolidating platforms because the lines haven't quite converged all the way. But that's not a bad thing because the traffic separation is the only way everything can work at top capacity without conflicts.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7109
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby The EGE » Sun Apr 13, 2014 7:23 pm

The locals are still unhappy about Blue Hill Avenue. It sounds from the article like the public meeting became a air-all-your-complaints-about-the-T session, with a terrifying amount of vitriol.
"Give me an unobstructed right-of-way and I'll show them how to move the earth!"
User avatar
The EGE
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: Waiting for the C Branch

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby dowlingm » Wed Apr 23, 2014 9:55 pm

According to Trimet, MBTA holds 18 options on Nippon Sharyo DMUs. Mind you, it's on a fairly poorly proofread presentation...

http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/meetings/boa ... 4-9-14.pdf
dowlingm
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:42 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby BostonUrbEx » Thu Apr 24, 2014 8:07 am

dowlingm wrote:According to Trimet, MBTA holds 18 options on Nippon Sharyo DMUs. Mind you, it's on a fairly poorly proofread presentation...

http://www.trimet.org/pdfs/meetings/boa ... 4-9-14.pdf


All I got out of that is that the MBTA is looking to purchase 18 DMU's -- don't see anything about Nippon Sharyo and the MBTA, or having 18 different options to chose from.

I wonder how many cars the MBTA would run together if they're after just 18. If 3 per train, then you have 6 trains, and that sounds like just barely enough to maintain 15 minute headways, contained to the Fairmount Line only.
User avatar
BostonUrbEx
 
Posts: 3587
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2009 9:55 pm
Location: Winn to MPT 8, Boston to MPN 38, and Hat to Bank

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby dowlingm » Thu Apr 24, 2014 9:20 am

BostonUrbEx wrote:
dowlingm wrote:All I got out of that is that the MBTA is looking to purchase 18 DMU's -- don't see anything about Nippon Sharyo and the MBTA, or having 18 different options to chose from.
"Options" are purchase rights at a contracted price.

Trimet wrote:Only two additional procurements, both as Option Orders on SMART Contract
• SMART Order: 7 DMUs (14 cars)
• Metrolinx Option: 18 cars
• MBTA Option: 18 cars


Seems clear enough to me. It does present Metrolinx and MBTA as similar whereas Metrolinx have actually proceeded to exercise those options. But this is the same presentation that forgot to deal with placeholder text in its ridership projection.
dowlingm
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:42 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby wicked » Fri Apr 25, 2014 3:59 am

Could you run Fairmount with 2-car DMU sets? I'd think so.
wicked
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: MBTA Red Line, formerly WMATA Blue/Yellow

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby The EGE » Fri Apr 25, 2014 2:27 pm

Yes and no. The average passenger load is below 100 per train currently, though there are a couple trains with more than twice that. See page 15.
"Give me an unobstructed right-of-way and I'll show them how to move the earth!"
User avatar
The EGE
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: Waiting for the C Branch

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby wicked » Sat Apr 26, 2014 4:52 am

I'm guessing potential patrons would prefer to have more frequent service with some standing room than less frequent service and seats for everyone. Passengers on buses in that corridor are used to standing, as the routes are often packed anyway.
wicked
 
Posts: 440
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2012 1:17 pm
Location: MBTA Red Line, formerly WMATA Blue/Yellow

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby octr202 » Sat Apr 26, 2014 11:56 am

Also no reason selected heavy trips can't be operated with a push-pull set or or 4 or 6 car DMU set (assuming they're built in married pairs).

Some time ago, the SMART DMU proposal by Nippon Shayro included a "C" car (I think that's what they called it) that was set up with a conventional MU cab/nose, versus the streamlined nose cones often depicted on some of these designs. Think of a Silverliner V or a New York M-7 or 8, but cordless.
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: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby dowlingm » Sat Apr 26, 2014 7:22 pm

octr202 wrote:Some time ago, the SMART DMU proposal by Nippon Shayro included a "C" car (I think that's what they called it) that was set up with a conventional MU cab/nose, versus the streamlined nose cones often depicted on some of these designs. Think of a Silverliner V or a New York M-7 or 8, but cordless.

http://www.nipponsharyousa.com/tp1112021.htm
There's a description of the A and B configs here
http://trbsprc.blogspot.ca/2011/01/smar ... -self.html

Perhaps in time orders will flow sufficient to justify a D (flat end no cab) config for higher density applications where 3 car would be the minimum consist.
dowlingm
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:42 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby Arlington » Thu May 22, 2014 11:33 am

Letter from Davey in Commonwealth Magazine touts the DMU pilot on the Fairmount line.
"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn
Arlington
 
Posts: 3205
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 7:51 am
Location: Medford MA (was Arlington MA and Arlington VA)

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby The EGE » Mon May 26, 2014 2:31 am

The MBTA seems to be quietly backpedaling on Blue Hill Avenue station. It's disappeared from the newest commuter rail maps (May, April whereas it was previously shown.

This is very sad to see - it's a perfect location for a stop. Wide ROW, straight track, good rapid transit and bus connection, and less than a dozen actual abutters. But the loud angry people seem to be out-louding the civilized folks (i.e, those willing to work with the MBTA to minimize impacts).
"Give me an unobstructed right-of-way and I'll show them how to move the earth!"
User avatar
The EGE
 
Posts: 2453
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: Waiting for the C Branch

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby Arborwayfan » Mon May 26, 2014 10:16 pm

It does seem like a good place for a stop, and a stop that would be good for the neighborhood (though it is quite close to Mattapan station, and I can see neighbors worrying about long platforms that in the nature of CR stations would be open all the time, scary spots for crime just loud loitering than a fenced ROW; since the complaints in the blog were about security phones etc I bet that's the aspect of the station that's bothering the abutters). Asking for another station between there and Fairmount makes sense, too, if the line is inching towards RT. Why not a station at Lower Mills, running right across the bridge with access from both sides of the Neponset River? There seems to be a fair amount of vacant land on River street by the mill itself, maybe suitable for parking. And the Milton-side access might draw off some of those "outsiders" someone mentioned.
Arborwayfan
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 11:27 am
Location: Terre Haute, Indiana

PreviousNext

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], johnpbarlow and 8 guests