Seaport District to Back Bay DMU Plan

I made this image, denouncing the BCEC shuttle, a short while back: http://i.imgur.com/HeXgQYQ.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I only posted it on Reddit, so most/all of you probably haven't seen it.

BostonUrbEx wrote:I made this image, denouncing the BCEC shuttle, a short while back: http://i.imgur.com/HeXgQYQ.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's a beautiful diagram of an ugly operation.
If it ran from its own siding/platform at West Station (at the rate we're going, it seems likely that West Station and the DMUs will be ready at the same time) and then used street running from Harrison Ave to/from the Industrial track, all those conflicts would go away.

Well, they'll be blowing up the whole area for the Olympic stadium anyway. So maybe they can build in a direct connection.

Arlington wrote:

BostonUrbEx wrote:I made this image, denouncing the BCEC shuttle, a short while back: http://i.imgur.com/HeXgQYQ.png" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That's a beautiful diagram of an ugly operation.
If it ran from its own siding/platform at West Station (at the rate we're going, it seems likely that West Station and the DMUs will be ready at the same time) and then used street running from Harrison Ave to/from the Industrial track, all those conflicts would go away.

Wow, great, great diagram. It really illustrates how convoluted this is. Perhaps it can run through the Amtrak train wash on the loop. They will be the cleanest cars in town...

I have a hard time the T would end up creating more streetrunning operations, considering of what happened to the Heath Street - Forest Hills/Arborway segment of the Green's E branch. They need to rebuild the entire area before they try this kind of stuff. This only exacerbates the problems with the area in general, which is having a hard enough time keeping up with current service and its projected growth, let alone more services. Maybe when South Station gets its expansion, it could be merited to run it into there... maybe.

There's already a connection between South Station and the Seaport. No need for another.

According to http://www.transithistory.org/roster/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, 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 wrote:According to http://www.transithistory.org/roster/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;, 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.)

1. They plan to raise the remaining lows. Back Bay and Fairmount get raised in-place. Readville gets relocated a couple hundred feet north off the Franklin connector onto a double-track island that the freights turn out from to avoid. And all 3 Newton stops would be rebuilt before the Riverside route is built. Likewise, any new stations get built as full-highs. CSX gave up its rights to keep the Worcester Line a clearance route as part of the deal to move west, so stations on the inner Worcester Line and Grand Junction are fair-game for it. The daily produce train to Everett does not use wide freight cars. The only line this poses a serious question for is the Lowell Line, which is still very much a wide clearance route. Theoretically you could widen out West Medford to drop a center passing track and raise those platforms, but Wedgemere and Winchester Ctr. are no-go because they're up on bridges/viaducts. Only the front door (or 2 doors) would be able to open at the mini-high, which seriously hampers that route's overall viability.

All of this is pretty much necessary busywork. CSX hasn't run freight from Beacon Park to Southie past Back Bay in many years, so those platforms are long overdue for a raising. It was always the plan to do Fairmount and relocated Readville; the only reason those weren't funded in the big upgrade project is because they were pre-existing ADA mini-highs and thus not as urgent as getting non-ADA Morton St. and Uphams Corner renovated. And save for Swampscott and privately-owned (i.e. GE's $$$) Riverworks the entire Eastern Route main out to Beverly Depot will be full-high, since the Chelsea station relocation is funded and approved.


2. It's easier to get DMU's with high-level boarding. Lots more gets stuffed underneath like fuel tanks and whatnot, so it's an easier design to compromise out the low boarding. If some vendor submits an either/or configuration that doesn't cost extra (entirely possible), then yes...they can absolutely make the purchase with full systemwide compatibility, and would be well-advised to do so. Just for purposes casting the widest net on the RFP on a vehicle type that does not have many FRA-compliant models to choose from, it's a little wiser to not spec that right off the bat.


3. DMU's in "pinch-hit" duty on the 495-oriented lines is a bad idea that (if the ops people have any input) would not happen in-practice.
-- They are not crowd-swallowers...the interior layout is optimized for quick boarding/alighting where people are getting on/off at intermediate stops and not just sitting in-place to the terminal. That layout is completely wasted on the 'burbs-to-central business district demographic that is conventional commuter rail. Those routes need the bi-levels in push-pull. It's sharply different seating needs, which is the whole point of having separate fleets for inside-128 short-turns and outside-128 "conventional" service.
-- They make up their cost savings over push-pull on frequency, which is an entirely inside-128/Indigo phenomenon. They are more expensive to run on longer-haul conventional schedules because the fuel efficiency isn't as good, and the fuel tanks are smaller so going to I-495 puts each car out-of-service in the fueling line for more hours per week than an equivalent locomotive. So no...they are not more efficient to run off-peak and weekends everywhere. A push-pull with the rear cars closed off is...if they are more careful (MBCR wasn't...hopefully Keolis is) about conductor staffing levels. Only on the lines that retain robust off-peak schedules in close roaming distance to home base...which are the Indigos-only. Faulty reasoning that lower capacity = savings.
-- The outer layover yards are not equipped to store them. Their plug-in pads that allow the HEP engine to shut off but keep the electricity and climate control on for the passenger cars are designed for locomotives-only. A DMU would not be able to idle there engine-off...it would have to return to Boston. That means more deadhead moves...which wastes money. Another reason why inside-128 and Indigo is the sweet spot for them...no need for outer layovers when BET, Readville, Widett Circle, etc. are all less than 10 miles away and the schedules are clock-facing instead of peak/off-peak oriented with many slots needing to use the layovers.

Again...vehicle segregation by-purpose so each type is hitting its max operating efficiency. Start conflating the assignments and the commuter rail bleeds MORE operating cost than before. This is why the idea of running a Foxboro express with DMU's is bonkers, and why the idle chatter of building a DMU servicing facility in Foxboro is bonkers...it's virtually guaranteeing they're going to accelerate the waste and make this purchase a bad idea (not to mention the Franklin Line is a freight clearance route with F'boro-proper the only planned full-high, so it wouldn't be able to stop at any of the Franklin Line intermediates). The RDC era in commuter rail history was the exception, not the rule. B&M was the only railroad that went 100% DMU, and NYNH&H was the only other that assigned a ton of them without regard to purpose. Nearly all other commuter rail-providing private RR's invested in going push-pull after the steam and pull-only eras ended...and the other RDC's (like NY Central's outer shuttle routes that survived to today on Metro North) were specialty. New England in the RDC era was the oddball that got its roles mixed up, and it can be argued that B&M and NYNH&H chose the less-efficient path than if they'd gone 100% push-pull. B&M at least standardized on one vehicle only and got those efficiency gains, but the gains were in the standardization not the vehicle choice. Spurious logic to assume just because it was done before that was automatically the best way to do it. It probably wasn't.


As for 3-car sets...I wonder how that's going to work with the rules about 1 conductor per every 2 cars.


Frankly...I'd be surprised if the RFP gets acted on when it's due given the system's got way bigger budgeting things to worry about, and they had already been backpedalling bigtime on the Indigo frequencies to the point where it looks like we're barely getting a different Fairmount schedule than now. DMU's are useless and a waste if they don't implement the service plan. Also...they'd probably get a cheaper unit cost 3-5 years from now after the FRA releases its new crashworthiness guidelines that loosen up the rigid buff strength regs to a (saner) aggregate crashworthiness metric that allows more in the way of Euro rolling stock imports with less customization (not totally off-shelf, but way less than today). An RFP issued before those recommendations are even known is kind of pointless, because they'd be locking themselves into a likely much more expensive design based on pre-reform FRA compliance. So it's a useful process for scoping out the market as that'll help future planning, but arguably they'd just want to pocket the proposals and re-RFP it in 3 years when the budget picture is a little more settled (or simply declared dead) and the shopping options a little more diverse.

It also makes sense to me that conventioneer-oriented trains would be level-boarding (assuming all highs at BBY by then)

While I hate to exclude Wedgemere and Winchester Center, DMUs on the Lowell Line that'd hit Anderson, W. Medford (assuming a center passing track, or maybe the DMU turns at high on a siding) and some station along the GLX (maybe Gilman?) would still be a pretty sweet system

Thanks F Line, very informative as always!

Arlington wrote:It also makes sense to me that conventioneer-oriented trains would be level-boarding (assuming all highs at BBY by then)

While I hate to exclude Wedgemere and Winchester Center, DMUs on the Lowell Line that'd hit Anderson, W. Medford (assuming a center passing track, or maybe the DMU turns at high on a siding) and some station along the GLX (maybe Gilman?) would still be a pretty sweet system

Winch Ctr. is non-negotiable. If you assume that were it not for Wedgemere dividing the ridership without contributing enough 'native' ridership of its own that nearly all boardings would revert to Winchester if Wedgemere were eliminated...then at nearly 1300 likely daily boardings on today's schedule it's #3 on the Lowell Line behind Lowell and (not by much) behind Anderson and cracks the Top 10 systemwide. The entire concept of running Indigo to Woburn doesn't work if Winchester is a skip. And you're not getting a gauntlet track installed high up on the viaduct between two side platforms with the kind of rolling ruins Pan Am runs on flat wheels through that station during service hours.


Honestly, what they should do is just get it over with and shear the Haverhill Line back off from the Reading Line and put it permanently back on the NH Main like it was pre-1979. Give Reading the platform raisings and dense short-turn service it needs, give locals to Wilmington 2x the service density on conventional schedules, use that as the excuse to whack Wedgemere and Mishawum and finally get a proper downtown-accessible Woburn stop, and get those Haverhill trip times down close to a tolerable hour with fewer, faster-served intermediates on the inner half. That's the most equitable all-around solution. "Near"-Indigo frequencies on branched push-pull on a line that's way, way under-capacity is plenty spiffy if it lets others (i.e. Reading) share in the Indigo/Indigo-like spoils.

Do DMU train sets really need a restroom? It's only 25 minutes from South Station to Readville. Add 5 minutes if they decided to extend service to 128 (or maybe Dedham Corporate)

merrick1 wrote:Do DMU train sets really need a restroom? It's only 25 minutes from South Station to Readville. Add 5 minutes if they decided to extend service to 128 (or maybe Dedham Corporate)

Not unless it's a state law that all CR trains regardless of route characteristics have one. Which could be possible, though you'd think an exception could/should be granted for service 10 miles/half-hour and under from the terminal. These routes certainly don't need them, and as noted previously it would be insane to run these things on the conventional 495-oriented routes because they're such pigs on operating cost vs. push-pull for that purpose and have a paydirt that is inside-128 and high-frequency only.

Rather than rebuild both Wedgmere & Winchester, could they widen the embankment in between to 3 tracks (clearance track in the middle) and put a single high level DMU station in between? Picture highs outboard but closer to Winch center(and connected by walks back to both stations platforms which would remain as lows/clearance capable.

The thing about Wedgemere is that it does not have all day demand--it effectively closes when its nearby parking maxes. Maybe only Winch Center needs DMUs

Arlington wrote:Rather than rebuild both Wedgmere & Winchester, could they widen the embankment in between to 3 tracks (clearce trract in the middle) and put a single DMU station in between? Picture highs outboard (and connected by walks back to both stations platforms which would remain as lows/clearance capable.

The Wedgemere platform sits smack on top of not one but two separate bridges: Bacon St. and the Aberjona River. There's no moving anything there: it either stays as-is with 2 tracks and 2 mini-highs, or it goes entirely and you can claim the platform decks over the bridges for 3rd track space. Winchester can't get a second platform downstream because the incline onto the viaduct extends a full 900 ft. south to the halfway point to Wedgemere, and the river prevents pedestrian access from Mystic Valley Pkwy at that location. It's either Bacon St. @ Wedgemere or Waterfield Rd. @ Winch Ctr. for bridging the river with equal east-west access to the tracks...current stops or bust.

So, basically...there is zero give here because anything relocated on a mid-block would be a significant transit loss for someone and throw a wet blanket on the potential ridership. If you count Wedgemere and Winchester as two stations splitting one station's catchment, then the all-day demand probably hits par or slightly exceeds Anderson from much more robust off-peak ridership...because there's actually some there there outside of primary commute hours. There is no way messing with that for a far more inconvenient half-and-half is going to work. It depresses the likely numbers enough that it no longer looks worth it to have the Lowell Line on the Indigo map.