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 TrainManTy » Thu Sep 18, 2014 10:52 am

F-line, I agree that the frequent service should be built up and proven with conventional push-pull consists before shelling out for specialized DMUs. Is sufficient equipment available for this at the moment?
Tyler

All posts are my personal opinion. I do not speak for any organizations on this board.
User avatar
TrainManTy
 
Posts: 444
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 1:18 pm
Location: Worcester, MA

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Thu Sep 18, 2014 3:19 pm

TrainManTy wrote:F-line, I agree that the frequent service should be built up and proven with conventional push-pull consists before shelling out for specialized DMUs. Is sufficient equipment available for this at the moment?


They've got more equipment onhand than they've ever had in the past, and once the ongoing transitions are over they'll have fewer vehicles in the shop for old-age aches and pains than they've had in a long time. And...more bi-levels means they can trim some consist lengths systemwide where equal seating capacity is achievable in 1 fewer car than before. So, yes, they've got plenty of flex to put together some more Fairmount trainsets. It is mainly an efficiency thing. Don't put together 5-car sets of mixed singles and bi's when swapping a single for a bi in the set lets you reduce the consist to 4 cars, shed 1 conductor, and free up spares for putting together an extra trainset elsewhere without strain. That part of it is in Keolis' court...and Keolis paying attention to ops efficiency more attentively than don't-give-a-damn MBCR did.

Fairmount's got a very small equipment pool. It never ranges too far from home, so it takes fewer trainsets to run higher frequencies than any other line. With no Fairmount train needing more than 4 cars...singles perfectly fine to for coach capacity...and less need for bathrooms than any other train (if any?)...you can easily redistribute the bi-levels on other lines to pry out a couple more 4-car sets of singles at no loss of capacity to the other lines. And they can arguably help their locomotive uptime and system coverage a lot more by skewing the HSP-46 assignments to the long consists and longer-distance routes and pulling in more F40's and Geeps closer to home on short-turn and shorter-consist duty. Another thing Keolis can do purely on the ops side that MBCR refused to do re: maximizing efficiency. Plus...every piece of equipment is now going to be portable southside and northside to balance it. Recall, the F40PH's don't have cab signals and can't run south at all, while some of the single-level cab cars didn't have ACSES and were sharply limited to what lines they could run south. It's a different world in the post-Screamer/post-MBB era where everything can run on any signal system and a majority bi-level fleet gives them an efficiency of scale on car capacity. They've got systemwide flex for mixing and matching equipment in a way that they didn't before.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7112
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby sery2831 » Fri Sep 19, 2014 11:02 pm

F-line to Dudley via Park wrote: Another thing Keolis can do purely on the ops side that MBCR refused to do re: maximizing efficiency. Plus...every piece of equipment is now going to be portable southside and northside to balance it. Recall, the F40PH's don't have cab signals and can't run south at all, while some of the single-level cab cars didn't have ACSES and were sharply limited to what lines they could run south. It's a different world in the post-Screamer/post-MBB era where everything can run on any signal system and a majority bi-level fleet gives them an efficiency of scale on car capacity. They've got systemwide flex for mixing and matching equipment in a way that they didn't before.


We are WAY off topic... I guess at some point I can split this into a DMU thread.

The Bombardier single level cars do not have cab signals currently, but they have a bid out to install PTC into this fleet. But until that is done, the fleet will still be restricted. There was one Bombardier cab car(#1649) outfitted with ACSES but it has since been removed. The screamers had cab signals, but they have been parted out. Screamers are bad for the South Side due to the fuel limitations.
Moderator: MBTA Rail Operations
User avatar
sery2831
 
Posts: 5127
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Manchester, NH

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby NH2060 » Sun Jan 11, 2015 5:09 am

Interesting quote from the exec. director of the T's advisory board (fair use quote below):
However, Paul Regan, the executive director of the MBTA’s advisory board, said he is wary about funding a new type of technology if the project would compete with funding for a solution to congestion at North and South stations.

“It doesn’t change the two big problems for commuter rail, which is space at South and North stations and the ability to finance these new things without compromising the existing system,” he said.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/0 ... story.html

F-line I await your thoughts...
NH2060
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby dowlingm » Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:45 pm

240 million for 30 units? Are Lockheed Martin in the railroad business now? Surely some depot expenditure is being rolled into that. Metrolinx paid $75m or thereabouts for 18.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/bo ... 182011.pdf
dowlingm
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 12:42 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby NH2060 » Sun Jan 11, 2015 10:06 pm

dowlingm wrote:240 million for 30 units? Are Lockheed Martin in the railroad business now? Surely some depot expenditure is being rolled into that. Metrolinx paid $75m or thereabouts for 18.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/bo ... 182011.pdf

Either that or that figure includes any for-some-reason-undisclosed option cars.
NH2060
 
Posts: 1438
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2010 4:44 pm

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:54 am

NH2060 wrote:Interesting quote from the exec. director of the T's advisory board (fair use quote below):
However, Paul Regan, the executive director of the MBTA’s advisory board, said he is wary about funding a new type of technology if the project would compete with funding for a solution to congestion at North and South stations.

“It doesn’t change the two big problems for commuter rail, which is space at South and North stations and the ability to finance these new things without compromising the existing system,” he said.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/0 ... story.html

F-line I await your thoughts...



"DUH!" :wink:
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7112
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby ohalloranchris » Tue Mar 10, 2015 11:43 am

According to http://www.transithistory.org/roster/, the bid details on new DMU's:

<<The MBTA has requested proposals to purchase 10 three-car sets (30 cars) of DMUs. Trains would be composed of A/C/B cars with A and B cars featuring cabs and C-cars featuring restrooms but no cabs. Cars would be designed to only board from high-level platforms. Cars would be designed to operate in trains up to six cars (two three-car sets).

Proposals are due 06/16/2015. This is a competitive negotiation procurement. The contract will also include options for up to 30 additional three-cars sets (90) cars that can be exercised for up to five years of the initial contract signing, for a grand total of up to 120 cars if all options are exercised.>>

So they appear to be "fixed" three car sets, and compatible with high level platforms only. Both factors strike me as nuts, significantly hindering operational flexibility etc. So much for using the cars in a pinch on another line if needed, and aren't the Track 5 & 7 platforms at Back Bay low level? (So much for service to the proposed new station at Beacon Park.)
ohalloranchris
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:42 am

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby MBTA3247 » Tue Mar 10, 2015 12:04 pm

Multi-car sets of DMUs/EMUs are the norm. It reduces costs and increases capacity because you don't have cabs at either end of each car.

There are mini-highs at Tracks 5 and 7. With freight no longer going through Back Bay, there's no obstacle to putting in full highs there.
"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 jbvb » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:26 pm

NJT routinely uses low-level platforms beyond the ends of their high levels for operational flexibility in 4-track territory. Unless they're sure that this opens the bidding to an overseas vendor who can add enough buff strength to something otherwise off-the-shelf, I can't see it as justified.

But my main problem with this is the MBTA's procurement process vs. what's available (or not) in today's market. Opportunities to get it wrong and/or late beckon at every detail.
jbvb
 
Posts: 1285
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:50 pm
Location: Rockingham Co., NH

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby diburning » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:33 pm

Does the procurement process mean that the MBTA has forgone the add-on option to the SMART order for Nippon-Sharyo DMUs?
User avatar
diburning
 
Posts: 2964
Joined: Sat Feb 09, 2008 7:37 pm
Location: Practicing safe CSX by using Three-Step Protection

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby F-line to Dudley via Park » Tue Mar 10, 2015 5:44 pm

diburning wrote:Does the procurement process mean that the MBTA has forgone the add-on option to the SMART order for Nippon-Sharyo DMUs?


It's not timed anywhere close to where the SMART option can be exercised. They aren't funded for much more than the stacks of paper these RFP bids will be printed on.
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7112
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby The EGE » Sat Jul 11, 2015 6:33 pm

A small sign of progress on Blue Hill Ave - the MBTA is soliciting proposals for public art at the station.
"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 F-line to Dudley via Park » Mon Jul 13, 2015 11:17 am

The EGE wrote:A small sign of progress on Blue Hill Ave - the MBTA is soliciting proposals for public art at the station.


One would hope station groundbreaking comes sometime before the murals. :wink:
F-line to Dudley via Park
 
Posts: 7112
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2005 7:26 pm
Location: North Cambridge

Re: Fairmount Line Discussion (Future Indigo Line)

Postby The EGE » Wed Jul 13, 2016 4:37 pm

The 2017-2021 5-year plan, approved by the MassDOT board last month, allocates full funding for Blue Hill Ave. $3M in FY 2017, then $22M over FY2018-FY2021. That puts the smart money on the opening date being sometime in 2020.
"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

PreviousNext

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: StefanW and 5 guests

cron