Fairmount Line Discussion

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

Moderators: CRail, sery2831

Post Reply
Charliemta
Posts: 337
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 7:51 pm

Post by Charliemta » Thu Jan 04, 2007 1:17 am

If freight deisels cannot co-exist with a third rail, then how about overhead electric instead of a third rail for the transit cars? The transit cars could be powered by a pantograph, so the diesel engines for the freight trains could operate on the same tracks.
"The penny candy store beyond the El
is where i first fell in love
with unreality.....
Outside the leaves were falling as they died.
A wind had blown away the sun."
----Lawrence Ferlinghetti

octr202
Posts: 4147
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:13 am
Location: In the land of the once and future 73 trackless trolley.

Post by octr202 » Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:37 am

Charliemta wrote:If freight deisels cannot co-exist with a third rail, then how about overhead electric instead of a third rail for the transit cars? The transit cars could be powered by a pantograph, so the diesel engines for the freight trains could operate on the same tracks.


That's what I was suggesting above -- would simply involve an expansion of the 25kV AC catenary that is already in place over the NEC/Providence Line. A new FRA-compatible EMU is even in development for SEPTA, the Silverliner V.

The primary problem with the New York area third rail is that a lot of snowplows and pilots on freight engines don't clear the third rail. Conrail/CSXT, CP, and NY&A all have units with pilots "notched" to clear Metro North and LIRR third rail. I believe on CSXT units (mostly SD-40-2s based out of Selkirk, IIRC) you'll see yellow paint on the plows.
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

Nasadowsk
Posts: 3979
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:45 pm

Post by Nasadowsk » Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:32 pm

I'd wait on the S V, since:

A) Rotem's building them.
B) They're likely to be overweight like every other SEPTA railcar, and the spec weight is insane as it is.
C) NJT's specing out new Arrows.
D) Did I mention they're the first railcars being built by Rotem for the US?
E) Ever drive a Korean car?

The MBTA could go out and buy ALP-46s for the Providence line, if they wanted to. They're an excellent unit (proven to be better than the HHP-8s, by far), they could work up there (I don't know if Amtrak's signed off on them though), and they've got punch - 7100HP and traction control that's good. They'll actually do freight loco like creeping as they pull out of a station - noisy as heck.

And they can do 100.

I'm kinda surprised given the decent ridership, air quality concerns, and potential, that the MBTA hasn't looked into electrics....

Epsilon

Post by Epsilon » Thu Jan 04, 2007 9:40 pm

octr202 wrote:If there was catenary on the Fairmont Line, it'd be a good use for electric MUs. The Fairmont line, and also the Needham and soon to be Greenbush lines look like the type that would be a lot more cost effective today if Boston had been lucky to see the type of electrification that the NYC and Philly areas did many years ago. Two to four cars sets of MUs seem a lot more appropriate for these lines...

On the subject of Greenbush electrification, according to the project website it was considered but dropped because it wouldn't increase ridership proportionate to the cost. However, the tunnels and bridges were made to be compatible with any future electric wire operation, so maybe it could be converted if the T ever decides to go down an electric route.

Robert Paniagua
Posts: 4428
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:11 am
Location: Weymouth, MA 02188
Contact:

Post by Robert Paniagua » Fri Jan 05, 2007 7:38 am

That's a good idea for Greenbush Electrification if it ever got off the ground, that could create benefits for that route, and of course the Fairmount Line as well, although Im n ot too positive if FTA-type Red Line Cars and MBCR equip can share trackage, the Red Line Fleet would have to be modified to FRA standards like the SIRTOA in New York Staten Island to run on the Fairmount.
~Robert Paniagua
Moderator: WMATA :: General Railroad Operations

cpontani
Posts: 1576
Joined: Wed Oct 11, 2006 11:10 am
Location: Claymont, DE

Post by cpontani » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:07 pm

Why would the T entertain DMU's, as it would be another type of equipment to maintain. And they won't even pick up an ALP-46 for the Providence line...it's compatible with the push/pull equipment, it's a no-brainer. Oh, wait.

I thought the plan for the Fairmont line was something like 15 minute headways when it was all said and done. There's no reason to consider anything other than existing commuter rail equipment for that.

I've never seen anything where the T would lean toward electrifying the commuter rail lines. One reason could be the harsh winters.

Ron Newman
Posts: 2772
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: Davis Square, Somerville, MA

Post by Ron Newman » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:55 pm

Chicago has a few electric commuter rail lines, and their winters are harsher than ours.

octr202
Posts: 4147
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 8:13 am
Location: In the land of the once and future 73 trackless trolley.

Post by octr202 » Fri Jan 05, 2007 1:58 pm

The reason the T doesn't have any plans for electrification is cost. Amtrak, the Green Line, and the Blue Line (and many other places in the world) have proven that New England winters do not prohibit electric operations.

As it stands now, we're unlikely to see any real motivation until there is some other driving force behind electrification -- either through the need to provide frequent, fast service to a lot of closely placed urban stations (not happening), or North South Rail Link tunnels that require electric operation (even more not happening).
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

midnight_ride
Posts: 179
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:28 pm

Post by midnight_ride » Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:07 pm

Have there been any ridership projections for the new and improved Fairmount line? Those neighborhoods of Dorchester are woefully underserved by rail transit-- if you take any bus to Ashmont or Forest Hills from that area they are packed to the gills. My sense is once it re-opens, the line will see a huge spike in ridership-- but I think that spike is a prerequisite before the T starts talking electrification or conversion to rapid transit (though I'll admit, with a little tunneling under South Bay, it would make a perfect third branch of the Red Line, IMHO). :P
A phantom ship, with each mast and spar
Across the moon like a prison bar...

redline43
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Dec 01, 2006 6:35 pm
Contact:

Post by redline43 » Fri Jan 05, 2007 3:40 pm

The MBTA could go out and buy ALP-46s for the Providence line, if they wanted to. They're an excellent unit (proven to be better than the HHP-8s, by far), they could work up there (I don't know if Amtrak's signed off on them though), and they've got punch - 7100HP and traction control that's good.


Any pictures?


Choo Choo Coleman
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:12 pm

Post by Choo Choo Coleman » Tue Mar 18, 2008 8:36 am

Does the Fairmount Line dead end at Readville or does it connect to the other lines heading south? I was curious to know if any trains from the south ever use the Fairmount to get to South Station.

Ron Newman
Posts: 2772
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2004 7:04 pm
Location: Davis Square, Somerville, MA

Post by Ron Newman » Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:03 am

Yes, look at the Franklin Line schedule and you'll see several weekday trips in both directions labelled VIA FAIR. Or look at the Fairmount Line schedule where they are labelled VIA F'LIN.

I assume that Providence Line trips could also do this, but none are currently scheduled.

When the Southwest Corridor was closed for reconstruction, and later again when it was closed for electrification, all Franklin and Attleboro trips used the Fairmount line.

Choo Choo Coleman
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 1:12 pm

Post by Choo Choo Coleman » Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:22 am

Thanks for the info...

I rode the Fairmount Line not too long ago, and to me, there looks to be room to run an additional track on either side of the exisiting tracks. There would have to be some blasting in some spots and perhaps a little buying of land, but it looked like they could squeeze a subway line in there and have frequent service along Fairmount with more stops and lots of room for economic growth.

MBTA3247
Posts: 2709
Joined: Tue Jul 11, 2006 6:01 pm
Location: Milton
Contact:

Post by MBTA3247 » Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:18 pm

It is possible for trains coming up from Rt 128 to take the Fairmount line, but they either have to skip stopping at Readville or make a reverse move to reach the platform.

While one stretch was once triple-tracked, the rest of the line is only wide enough for the current two tracks.
"The destination of this train is [BEEP BEEP]" -announcement on an Ashmont train.

Post Reply

Return to “Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA)”