Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

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

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby Diverging Route » Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:59 pm

Click here and scroll down past the agendas for the proposed schedules and comparisons to current schedules.
User avatar
Diverging Route
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 3:35 pm

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby Diverging Route » Tue Jan 05, 2016 8:21 am

A few thoughts:

Lowell:
    Good to see the 221 West Medford-Via Wildcat-Haverhill at 6:55pm retained, closing the gap in late PM rush hour
    AM inbound service looks reasonable, even with all but one Anderson short-turn eliminated
    The 4:10pm outbound 327 is now express to Anderson, with 359 at 4:20pm just ten minutes later retained as a local Anderson short-turn -- this should work well

Providence:
    808 that currently runs express Mansfield to BBY now makes Sharon, RTE and Hyde Park, to make up for the removal of the local Mansfield short-turn 842
    None of the rush hour PVD trains, in or out, will stop at Ruggles -- I'll be this gets a lot of negative comments during the hearings
    All PM outbound PVD trains now make RTE, instead of going express to Sharon
User avatar
Diverging Route
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 3:35 pm

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby deathtopumpkins » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:24 am

So these are improved from the poorly-received schedules they tried in December?
Call me Connor or DTP

Railfan & Roadgeek from the North Shore of Mass.
deathtopumpkins
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:56 am
Location: Somerville, MA

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby The EGE » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:25 am

Not stopping at Ruggles is a terrible idea - it's by far the most convenient way to reach Northeastern University and the Longwood Medical Area from the south. Both of those are high-demand areas with substantial peak and all-day ridership - Northeastern still has a number of students (especially grad students) who liver closer to Providence and commute in. 2012 CTPS count showed 1,690 people a day using commuter rail to reach Ruggles - that's nothing to scoff at.
User avatar
The EGE
 
Posts: 2460
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: Waiting for the N Judah

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby Diverging Route » Tue Jan 05, 2016 10:30 am

The EGE wrote:Not stopping at Ruggles is a terrible idea - it's by far the most convenient way to reach Northeastern University and the Longwood Medical Area from the south. Both of those are high-demand areas with substantial peak and all-day ridership - Northeastern still has a number of students (especially grad students) who liver closer to Providence and commute in. 2012 CTPS count showed 1,690 people a day using commuter rail to reach Ruggles - that's nothing to scoff at.


My guess is that they saw eliminating Ruggles on the PVD inbounds would save the need to do the time-consuming T2 to T3 crossover. But outbound with both T1 and T3 able to make the platform at Ruggles without a diverging move, the saving is only for the station stop.

Is the new inbound platform for T2 still in the capital plan?
User avatar
Diverging Route
 
Posts: 1564
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2004 3:35 pm

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby eustis22 » Tue Jan 05, 2016 12:44 pm

Personally, the proposed Haverhill changes still suck.
eustis22
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:23 am

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby leviramsey » Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:23 pm

eustis22 wrote:Personally, the proposed Haverhill changes still suck.


Until such time as Haverhill is mostly double tracked, just about any schedule change which improves service on the other Northside lines will damage Haverhill schedules.
leviramsey
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:12 pm

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby Frode » Tue Jan 05, 2016 1:41 pm

Not happy to lose the non-stop #808 (7:44 am) from Mansfield. That will add at least 15 minutes to my commute. I'm also not happy to lose the 8:15 pm departure from South Station which is now an 8:40. If I had to work late, the 8:15 still got me home at a fairly reasonable time.
Frode
 
Posts: 51
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 10:10 am

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby eustis22 » Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:40 pm

>Until such time as Haverhill is mostly double tracked, just about any schedule change which improves service on the other Northside lines will damage Haverhill schedules.

Why? Because there are only 10 platforms at North Station?
eustis22
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2014 11:23 am

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby ohalloranchris » Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:40 pm

Diverging Route wrote:
The EGE wrote:Not stopping at Ruggles is a terrible idea - it's by far the most convenient way to reach Northeastern University and the Longwood Medical Area from the south. Both of those are high-demand areas with substantial peak and all-day ridership - Northeastern still has a number of students (especially grad students) who liver closer to Providence and commute in. 2012 CTPS count showed 1,690 people a day using commuter rail to reach Ruggles - that's nothing to scoff at.


My guess is that they saw eliminating Ruggles on the PVD inbounds would save the need to do the time-consuming T2 to T3 crossover. But outbound with both T1 and T3 able to make the platform at Ruggles without a diverging move, the saving is only for the station stop.

Is the new inbound platform for T2 still in the capital plan?


I echo the sentiment. I understand the need for tight headways and the slow acceleration of diesel hauled seven car bi-level trains, but eliminating all OUTBOUND stops at Ruggles for Providence peak trains is ludicrous. And now every inbound AM Stoughton train is proposed to stop at Ruggles creating multiple dreaded crossovers from Track 2 to Track 3 at rush hour. Anyone have any idea if/when the Track 2 platform at Ruggles will be built?
ohalloranchris
 
Posts: 156
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 8:42 am

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby leviramsey » Thu Jan 07, 2016 1:57 pm

eustis22 wrote:>Until such time as Haverhill is mostly double tracked, just about any schedule change which improves service on the other Northside lines will damage Haverhill schedules.

Why? Because there are only 10 platforms at North Station?


In order to prevent disruptions on one line from taking the others down, the new schedules dramatically reduce interlining trainsets: Haverhill sets will be Haverhill sets, Lowell sets will be Lowell sets, etc. This in turn means that, except for at the beginning of PM peak (when you can use sets laying over near Boston), an outbound requires an inbound arriving around 15 minutes earlier. The level of singletracking in turn constrains the frequency with which inbound trains can come into BON when there are more than four outbounds in a roughly 2.5-hour period (basically, if a Haverhill line outbound departs, there's a 30 minute or so window starting 5 minutes later where no inbound can arrive, so any outbound scheduled to depart within 50 or so minutes of the previous departure has to use a layover set; the interlining limit implies 4 Haverhill sets available for layover).

(I'm focusing on that aspect because, looking at the comparison, the main changes are to make PM more peaky compared to the shoulders).

While not a scheduling proposal per se, one way to improve overall service on the Haverhill line could involve moving Malden Ctr to zone 1 from 1A, and having about half of the trains terminate/originate at Malden Ctr (there appear to be enough sidings south of there where a train could change ends). Making those trains all-Interzone would save passengers money by reducing their fares by more than a subway fare (as nearly everyone would transfer) while allowing for more bidirectional service and better equipment utilization.
leviramsey
 
Posts: 325
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 12:12 pm

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby deathtopumpkins » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:11 pm

leviramsey wrote:
While not a scheduling proposal per se, one way to improve overall service on the Haverhill line could involve moving Malden Ctr to zone 1 from 1A, and having about half of the trains terminate/originate at Malden Ctr (there appear to be enough sidings south of there where a train could change ends). Making those trains all-Interzone would save passengers money by reducing their fares by more than a subway fare (as nearly everyone would transfer) while allowing for more bidirectional service and better equipment utilization.


Because the Orange Line Haymarket-North totally has an abundance of excess peak hour capacity available.
Call me Connor or DTP

Railfan & Roadgeek from the North Shore of Mass.
deathtopumpkins
 
Posts: 980
Joined: Tue Aug 27, 2013 8:56 am
Location: Somerville, MA

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby dbperry » Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:48 pm

Public comment period announced for schedules proposed to go into effect on May 23, 2016

http://www.mbta.com/about_the_mbta/MBTA ... 6442455610

We also invite you to attend a public meeting to participate in a discussion of the Commuter Rail schedule changes. You can also provide us your comments by mail to: MBTA, 10 Park Plaza, Boston, MA 02116, Attention: Commute Rail Schedule Committee; by phone at (617) 222-3200 or TTY (617) 222.5146 or email at crschedules@mbta.com.

The deadline for public comments is Friday, February 12, 2016.
We value your input and thank you for your participation!


Complete public meeting schedule: http://www.mbta.com/uploadedfiles/About ... lendar.pdf
Known to Keolis and the MBTA as "Twitter Dave"
Frequently posting about the MBTA Framingham-Worcester line on Twitter: https://twitter.com/FramWorMBTA
Owner of Framingham-Worcester Blog: http://FramWorMBTA.weebly.com/
Maintainer of MBTA schedule archive: http://www.dbperry.net/MBTA/
User avatar
dbperry
 
Posts: 793
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 9:28 pm
Location: Suburbs of Boston

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby The EGE » Fri Jan 08, 2016 3:26 pm

The Globe now has it buried in a fare hikes story:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/0 ... story.html

In addition, the MBTA will hold meetings on commuter rail schedule changes and the likely cancellation of late-night service, other heated subjects that the agency is taking on at the same time.

Commuter rail schedules meetings:

Monday, Jan. 25

6 to 8 p.m.

Breed Middle School

90 O’Callaghan Way

Lynn

Wednesday, Jan. 27

6 to 8 p.m.

Malden High School Auditorium

77 Salem St.

Malden

Thursday, Jan. 28

6 to 8 p.m.

Concord Town Hall

Hearing Room, 2nd Floor

22 Monument Square

Concord

Monday, Feb. 1

6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m.

Union Station

2 Washington Square

Worcester

Wednesday, Feb. 3

6 to 8 p.m.

Mansfield High School Auditorium

250 East St.

Mansfield

Wednesday, Feb. 3

6 to 8 p.m.

Walnut Hill School

12 Highland St.

Natick

Monday, Feb. 8

6 to 8 p.m.

Coakley Middle School

1315 Washington St.

Norwood

Monday, February 8

6 to 8 p.m.

Woburn City Hall Council Room

10 Common St.

Woburn
User avatar
The EGE
 
Posts: 2460
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:16 pm
Location: Waiting for the N Judah

Re: Proposed Revised CR Schedules for 2016

Postby sery2831 » Fri Jan 08, 2016 8:52 pm

Diverging Route wrote:A few thoughts:

Lowell:
    The 4:10pm outbound 327 is now express to Anderson, with 359 at 4:20pm just ten minutes later retained as a local Anderson short-turn -- this should work well



I don't like this. Total disregard for intermediate ridership. No way for people from Medford or Winchester to go beyond Anderson. The 4:10p train has a decent amount of local inter zone ridership for the Lowell line. I have always suggested from the start the 4:10p should skip Wedgemere but make all other local stops.
Moderator: MBTA Rail Operations
User avatar
sery2831
 
Posts: 5136
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Manchester, NH

Next

Return to Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests