Thoughts on converting the Commuter Rail out of the National Rail Network

Also, if you are going to go to the bother to eLECTRIFY!! the lines, might as well convert them to Red Line compatible subway cars (except for the NEC). Would save a boatload of money I think, compared to running electric locomotives or EMUs. Would need cars with pass-thru doors and better fare collection systems.

Wouldn't that run into issues with FTA traffic separation requirements, as iirc, there are still active freight customers on all those lines?

Yes, some separation issues that would have to be taken into account. But places like the Worcester Line they would use time separation between Boston and Framingham including the Grand Junction. Commuter Rail & Amtrak would change trains at Framingham, (or perhaps the subway train splits and some cars drive onto special flat/well cars) Business Class subway cars would be added to some trains with swipe card access, attendants, baggage service and bicycle racks (which would be available to coach passengers too).

And you guys say traditional electrification is a waste of money! How do you do separation in Ayer where they use the mainline to help build trains?

Regardless of what your thoughts are on electrification, I think we can all agree that the 2035 date fixed for full CR electrification in both H.3559 and S.2292 is a complete fever dream that was written and approved by a bunch of legislators who have no idea how transportation works.

BandA wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:57 pm Also, if you are going to go to the bother to eLECTRIFY!! the lines, might as well convert them to Red Line compatible subway cars (except for the NEC). Would save a boatload of money I think, compared to running electric locomotives or EMUs. Would need cars with pass-thru doors and better fare collection systems.

So you propose that MBTA should have one electric fleet for the Providence Line, and then build a completely separate 3rd rail system, and have a completely different fleet, which cannot run on the NEC at all, for the rest of the network. How would this possibly save any money?

No, 3rd rail electrification is never happening ever! I don’t see catenary happening anytime soon unless the state and fed officials push for it to happen sooner. I understand that Biden is pushing for clean energy for transportation and electricity, but that’s going to take years to build. All of this stuff should have been started a lot sooner to get the commuter rail network to the Amtrak electrification point today if it were to have happened. However, I could see them buying hybrid engines which are gas and electric power combo. That would go well for the southside since the nec is electric while everything else isn’t. I could also see them buy dmu engines as long as they have both high and low platform capability. Who knows what will happen as time moves on.

chrisf wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 9:28 pm

BandA wrote: ↑Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:57 pm Also, if you are going to go to the bother to eLECTRIFY!! the lines, might as well convert them to Red Line compatible subway cars (except for the NEC). Would save a boatload of money I think, compared to running electric locomotives or EMUs. Would need cars with pass-thru doors and better fare collection systems.

So you propose that MBTA should have one electric fleet for the Providence Line, and then build a completely separate 3rd rail system, and have a completely different fleet, which cannot run on the NEC at all, for the rest of the network. How would this possibly save any money?

Overhead catenary or trolley wire would be cheaper than third rail. The Blue Line switches between the two, or did in the past. Red Line cars are bigger than Orange Line or Blue Line cars. Could standardize on Orange Line size. Could use AC power, which would make the cars physically compatible but not electrically. The precedent is that most of the present "subway" lines are converted from railroad row, so it must have been cheaper than FRA compliant equipment. Their is so little freight left in Greater Boston, although perhaps this may change if freight becomes robotized...

Yes, completely different fleet for the NEC and whatever part of the Commuter Rail system that cannot be converted due to freight needs.

Therefore, the Green Line Extension must be a failure, because that was conversion of Commuter Rail row with electrification, to "LRV", where Light Rail Vehicles are the most customized and expensive vehicles that the T has been buying (IIRC)

Speaking of not paying attention to costs, the legislation is absolute, you must do "X" by "Y" regardless of how much it costs, regardless of supply-chain problems or chip shortages, regardless of passenger volumes and trains-per-hour.

Guess I have another question for you. Who is going to pay to have CSX engines modified to run with 3rd rail such as around NYC? Also why are you against overhead. In the long run it's cheaper since you need less substations and your also running AC so you wouldn't have to convert AC to DC?

BandA wrote: ↑Sun Jun 12, 2022 4:20 pm Therefore, the Green Line Extension must be a failure, because that was conversion of Commuter Rail row with electrification, to "LRV", where Light Rail Vehicles are the most customized and expensive vehicles that the T has been buying (IIRC)

That comparison is irrelevant. The GLX was not an active commuter line any time in recent history, and the GL equipment is a small fleet.
To do what you propose, MBTA would have to shut down every commuter line for conversion for a lengthy period of time, and replace every single piece of commuter rail equipment they have. It will not happen, and it's not part of the proposed legislation.
Furthermore, people just won't want to ride subway cars for as much as 50 miles.

the model already failed in the '70s and there is no existing proposal or push for such.

I don't know about what the MBTA's vision is (I think its Electric Locomotives), but I do know that transit advocates (TransitMatters, this legislation etc.) do want EMUs to be utilized if the Commuter Rail were to be electrified, not only are these practically just larger and heavier subway cars that are capable of running main line service, but the advocates themselves voice for the Commuter Rail to become more like rapid transit if electrification happens. If this model has already failed, then why some want to try it again?

Furthermore, people just won't want to ride subway cars for as much as 50 miles.

I know I sure don't!

People don't want to ride subway cars for ... 50 miles

Well, people were expected to and are now riding subway cars (BART) from San Francisco to San Jose, a distance of 40 odd miles which incidentally is about the same distance as Boston to Nashua.

Aren't all "diesel locomotives" actually electric traction at the wheels and with a few add ons, could run off catenary?

Well, people were expected to and are now riding subway cars (BART) from San Francisco to San Jose, a distance of 40 odd miles which incidentally is about the same distance as Boston to Nashua.

Not sure why they ever even think of building this, especially when there is already a Commuter Rail link between the two cities, sounds pretty ridiculous to me.

Aren't all "diesel locomotives" actually electric traction at the wheels and with a few add ons, could run off catenary?

Technically, yes, but you would likely need a lot more than "a few add-ons" to transform them into pure Catenary-Electric Locomotives, and all that comes at a price that would probably be so high that it would just do better to buy brand new catenary-electrics off the market.

Running EMUs on an electrified commuter rail network would look nothing like subway cars. You're almost certainly looking at something like the Caltrain Stadler fleet or the Crossrail Class 345 units, or even NJT's Bombardier multi-levels. There's no "might as well convert it to subway standards" about commuter rail electrification. To suggest as such is to not take this conversation seriously (which may be the intent of some posters here, who are rather pessimistic about the idea of improving rail service for people actively choosing to spend their time on a railroad forum).