Rumor du jour: Electric Engines

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

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Postby Ron Newman » Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:57 pm

Amtrak shares electrification with several other commuter rail systems further south: Metro-North, New Jersey Transit, SEPTA. So they could also share it with the MBTA should that be desired.

However, these other systems all have mutliple electrified lines, making a purchase of electric engines more sensible. The T doesn't.
Ron Newman
 
Posts: 2772
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: Davis Square, Somerville, MA

Postby ckb » Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:23 pm

Ironic, people bash the Commonwealth for wasting billions of dollars on the Big Dig while bashing the MBTA for not wasting of billions of dollars on electrification. Pure hypocracy. Not surprising to see the biggest advocates for electrics and bashers of the MBTA for not buying them as soon as the first wire was strung up are those who will not have to pay a dime for them...


I don't recally anyone really "bashing" either entity in this thread. I certainly understand why the MBTA hasn't bought electric motive power or EMU's. But I think it is something that should be considered to make sure the agency isn't taking a narrow minded "this is the way we've always done it" approach. Or worse, the "this is the big new thing" approach, so we'll do it even if it doesn't quite fit. I don't bash the idea of the Big Dig, either. Lack of management oversight, perhaps, but I actually think the transportation and urban planning initiative are quite enlightened.

I'd like to see the Somerville/Medford Green Line come to fruition first, for sure ...

Ok, enough dreaming....


That's probably the correct attitude -- dreaming about something is definitely not "bashing" anyone for not doing it. But it is both fun to dream, and a good excercise for generating other new (and potentially more feasible) ideas.
ckb
 

Postby octr202 » Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:46 pm

Let's remember...there were no doubt far more people saying that it was total lunacy to think of digging a subway under Boston Common in 1890. We're all glad today that they didn't get shouted down then.

CKB's right...we all know this isn't likely, but heck, let's have some fun with it. All we're doing is thinking about a what-if scenario. After all, what's the worst that could happen -- one of our of the wall, unconventional ideas actually works its way into public policy and gets built? Doesn't sound so bad to me...
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.

Postby efin98 » Fri Jan 21, 2005 2:38 am

ryanov wrote:The use of electrics where the infrastructure is there is good for everyone. Faster trains are good for Boston, less diesel particulate pollution is good for the air...


And yet your state still runs diesel trains under wires on one line while operating diesels on multiple lines yet you are not demanding NJT electrify those lines- oh wait, you would have to foot the bill. Best to tell another state what to do when you don't have to spend a single penny on it...

getting MBTA trains out of Amtrak's way is good for Amtrak.


The T owns the line, it's Amtrak getting out of the T's way.

On a side note, doesn't MARC have only one electrified line that is Amtrak's, just like MBTA?


Think again- Amtrak doesn't own the line north of the Rhode Island border, the state of Massachusetts does. And furthermore, MARC only runs three lines- 1/3 of the commuter rail lines is acceptable, 1/12 of the commuter lines is not.
efin98
 

Postby efin98 » Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:10 pm

apodino wrote:Not to be mean, but can you make one post without a personal attack on someone?



And as is typical of you, you never bothered to read what was being replied to, you just snipe away with no clue about what was being said. Prove the post wrong, don't jump on me because it's not touchy-feely enough for you. If you think that was a personal attack then I don't know how you ever got out of grade school. Pathetic, simply pathetic.
efin98
 

Postby MBTA F40PH-2C 1050 » Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:37 am

efin98 wrote:
ryanov wrote:
getting MBTA trains out of Amtrak's way is good for Amtrak.


"The T owns the line, it's Amtrak getting out of the T's way."



Doesn't Amtrak dispatch the Boston-PVD section, because they always put Amtrak trains in front of T's on the NEC, so really, MBTA trains get out of the way of Amtrak trains, they go first before MBTA trains do
MBTA F40PH-2C 1050
 
Posts: 3498
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 7:57 pm

Postby CSX Conductor » Mon Jan 24, 2005 12:57 pm

MBTA F40PH-2C 1050 wrote:Doesn't Amtrak dispatch the Boston-PVD section, because they always put Amtrak trains in front of T's on the NEC, so really, MBTA trains get out of the way of Amtrak trains, they go first before MBTA trains do


Yes, Amtrak does dispatch the line. As for Amtrak trains, they usually are scheduled to run or are put in front of MBTA trains because: 1st) they are not making local station stops............. & 2nd) they are not limited to 80MPH the whole way.
User avatar
CSX Conductor
 
Posts: 5458
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:04 am
Location: Boston, Mass

Postby ryanov » Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:01 pm

CSX Conductor wrote:
MBTA F40PH-2C 1050 wrote:Doesn't Amtrak dispatch the Boston-PVD section, because they always put Amtrak trains in front of T's on the NEC, so really, MBTA trains get out of the way of Amtrak trains, they go first before MBTA trains do


Yes, Amtrak does dispatch the line. As for Amtrak trains, they usually are scheduled to run or are put in front of MBTA trains because: 1st) they are not making local station stops............. & 2nd) they are not limited to 80MPH the whole way.


That's another curious decision to me. When new coaches are purchased (as, to my knowledge, was done somewhat recently), why not certify them to 100? Perhaps it doesn't make as much difference, being that local trains might not be able to hit 100 anyways, but is there a major cost savings with a lower MAS?
|=| R. Novosielski |=|
User avatar
ryanov
 
Posts: 4568
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:19 am
Location: Newark / Rutherford, NJ

Postby apodino » Mon Jan 24, 2005 4:08 pm

Even if the new coaches were certified to 100 I don't think it would benefit the T a whole lot. Remember the stretch of track through Mansfield is one of the sections of track where Acela Express is certified up to 150 mph. So we would still have the problem of MBTA trains being overtaken by Amtrak, and not only that but Mansfield Station itself is in this stretch. And its only double tracked through here. Even though the line is reverse signaled IIRC you would still have the same problems. Because the T and Amtrak appear to coordinate their schedules on the line well, most of the big problems are avoided. But I have on occasion been held on a Stoughton Train in Canton Junction while an Amtrak train roars by before we get cleared onto the NEC.
Rich "Dino" Martin
A one time happy rider of Arborway and the old Washington St. El.
apodino
 
Posts: 187
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 10:32 pm
Location: Appleton, WI

Postby efin98 » Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:15 pm

Why get coaches rated for 100mph if they will never see 100mph? If there is a valid reason(other than the possibility that they MIGHT be used by Amtrak during the holidays) why purchase them? It's almost as bad as rambling about the T not buying electrics...
efin98
 

Reminder to Mr. ryanov:

Postby Robert Paniagua » Mon Jan 24, 2005 8:46 pm

I would think suggesting that I am merely supporting electric service outside of my state in some sinister "well, I don't have to pay for it, spend away!" plot is pretty close to a personal attack. If you didn't learn that much, perhaps it is you who needs to return to grade school, to learn how to play nice with others.

Mr. ryanov,

Do me a favor, and let's refrain from ridiculing efin98. I know you don't agree with him, but I just want you to be nice, that's all. Thanks for your cooperation!
~Robert Paniagua
Moderator: WMATA :: General Railroad Operations
User avatar
Robert Paniagua
 
Posts: 4418
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:11 am
Location: Weymouth, MA 02188

Postby CSX Conductor » Mon Jan 24, 2005 9:52 pm

ryanov wrote:When new coaches are purchased (as, to my knowledge, was done somewhat recently), why not certify them to 100? Perhaps it doesn't make as much difference, being that local trains might not be able to hit 100 anyways, but is there a major cost savings with a lower MAS?


One reason: The maximum timetable speed on any commuter line except for the Attleboro Line is no more than 70MPH.

Secondly: The likelihood of coaches made for up to 100mph staying together and no being in a consist with the cars limited to 80MPH.
User avatar
CSX Conductor
 
Posts: 5458
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:04 am
Location: Boston, Mass

Postby ST214 » Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:08 pm

the 100 issue is a dead one anyway. Unles you have 7 bathroom cars on one train and you use two loco's.......
Hoping for a rebirth of the Screamer fleet.
User avatar
ST214
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:49 pm
Location: Cleveland Heights, OH

Postby CSX Conductor » Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:09 pm

What does it have to do with bathrooms?
User avatar
CSX Conductor
 
Posts: 5458
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 12:04 am
Location: Boston, Mass

Postby ST214 » Mon Jan 24, 2005 10:13 pm

Brain fart, was referring to the new cars, which are 80. Disregard bathroom comment, but not double engines, unless they got more control cars.
Hoping for a rebirth of the Screamer fleet.
User avatar
ST214
 
Posts: 1472
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:49 pm
Location: Cleveland Heights, OH

PreviousNext

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: canobiecrazy, shawnp, Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests