Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

[MBTA3247]

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.

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.

[Red Wing]

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?

[F-line to Dudley via Park]

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.

[The EGE]

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.

[dowlingm]

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

[BostonUrbEx]

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.

[dowlingm]

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.

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.

[wicked]

Could you run Fairmount with 2-car DMU sets? I'd think so.

[The EGE]

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.

[wicked]

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.

[octr202]

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.

[dowlingm]

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.

[Arlington]

Letter from Davey in Commonwealth Magazine touts the DMU pilot on the Fairmount line.

[The EGE]

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).

[Arborwayfan]

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.