by bostontrainguy
Since this is a "TEMPORARY" situation, why not just go to Lakeland station and change ends and take the wye towards Taunton? Most commuters won't mind riding backwards for a bit.
Railroad Forums
Moderators: sery2831, CRail
quad50cal wrote:I don't know anything about Denver, which is probably OT anyway. The MBTA has the number 1 or number 2 highest costs in the country in most categories, and has a history of not being able to innovate and falling behind State of Good Repair and underinvesting in capital equipment and infrastructure so that they can plug operating and deficits and debt. So it's not a surprise if Massachusetts is falling behind, it is our own gosh-darn fault.BandA wrote:What's it take to delete the electric requirement, do double tracking, and terminate in Taunton until demand is proven.The idea of building a half baked line until "demand is proven" is a complete red herring.
The "sparks effect" is real. It's going to be how Denver of all places is going to overtake MBTA commuter rail's place as the 6th most ridden US commuter rail system in a decade. Their first commuter line (a small single tracked line) has been in service for barely a year now, and they've exceeded the ridership of VRE and Miami's commuter rail system. Denver has done this in spite of teething issues as well.
BandA wrote: I don't know anything about Denver, which is probably OT anywayI mentioned Denver since they had a similar choice between scaling back their plans for a new electrified route to a conventional diesel hauled bi level fleet. Denver is also similar to Boston in a good number of ways (population, economy). If Denver had decided to cutback, they would have likely created yet another conventional commuter railroad with anemic ridership.
BandA wrote: People have gone on and on in this thread about how expensive and bloated this project is. How is building a line to Taunton "half-baked"?I'm not disputing the criticisms of the SCR implementation. It's not my state after all. However, I think the consensus is losing sight of the forest for the trees to say that the only solution is to scrap the electrification, expand with more diesel hauled bi levels. Building that half measure expansion will capture a limited amount of ridership at a still relatively high cost per rider without the growth potential of electrification. Even if SCR goes overbudget, when has electrification ever been regretted?
BandA wrote:I'm calling baloney on "sparks effect" whatever that is, placing my bets on pent-up demand needing to be satisfied.The "sparks effect" is just a tongue in cheek reference to the well established correlation of dramatic ridership gains with electrifying passenger rail lines.
quad50cal wrote:...growth potential of electrification.As has been stated previously in this thread, there is no growth potential with electrification here. Electrification is a bald-faced coverup for the fact that the arrangement of passing sidings and double tracks makes it impossible even on paper for diesels to maintain a halfway decent schedule. As it is, electrification would require timekeeping on par with Japan for the proposed schedule to work.
quad50cal wrote:Even if SCR goes overbudget, when has electrification ever been regretted?When it's the odd thing out that requires expensive servicing facilities to handle a small portion of the overall fleet. MARC, IIRC, is abandoning its electric operations in favor of going all-diesel.
quad50cal wrote:The "sparks effect" is just a tongue in cheek reference to the well established correlation of dramatic ridership gains with electrifying passenger rail lines.Did ridership increase because of electrification, or was the line electrified because it already had high ridership and/or was projected to have a significant increase in ridership? I seriously doubt that there's any number of people who decide to switch from driving to taking the train because of a change in motive power, unless it was coupled with a massive increase in service.
quad50cal wrote:Every time they do a project I regret it. Because every project goes way over budget. Because they just add to the debt. Remember, the MBTA is insolvent and should be in bankruptcy receivership.
Even if SCR goes overbudget, when has electrification ever been regretted?
BandA wrote:Remember, the MBTA is insolvent and should be in bankruptcy receivership.Every time you say that you should regret it, because it further drives home the reality that you've got no idea how government authorities work.
CRail wrote:Indeed, plus the mastodon in the room is Charlie Baker's notion under then governor Weld (who has since criticized the move along with Dukakis) to dump autocentric big Dig debt on to the MBTA. Intentional or not this poison pill has rendered an already $$$ burdened agency with increased debt it didn't create.BandA wrote:Remember, the MBTA is insolvent and should be in bankruptcy receivership.Every time you say that you should regret it, because it further drives home the reality that you've got no idea how government authorities work.
The Pioneer Institute, a conservative think tank, backs a debt relief strategy that could relieve the MBTA of debt associated with Big Dig mitigation projects.
MBTA3247 wrote: When it's the odd thing out that requires expensive servicing facilities to handle a small portion of the overall fleet. MARC, IIRC, is abandoning its electric operations in favor of going all-diesel.MARC has yet to commit to abandoning electric operations. It's very likely that they're are simply trying to negotiate better terms with Amtrak who they have to pay a premium for electricity and other infrastructure usage. It also doesn't help that their electric locomotive fleet is unusually unreliable.
MBTA3247 wrote: Did ridership increase because of electrification, or was the line electrified because it already had high ridership and/or was projected to have a significant increase in ridership? I seriously doubt that there's any number of people who decide to switch from driving to taking the train because of a change in motive power, unless it was coupled with a massive increase in service.Frequency is not the only factor that matters, quality of service matters just as much. Unless you're Amtrak making stops at 20 mile intervals, diesel hauled bilevels lose greatly on average speed from station stops. Also, If you're fond of frequency, the reliability of diesel locomotives becomes a major obstacle as they have a very low MDBF relative to electric trains. The M7 EMUs for example have a MDBF that hovers just shy of 1000000 miles while diesel locomotives typically have a MDBF of 10000 to 20000 miles.