Hey, there! Log in / Register

Fairmount Line to get hourly weekend service

State officials announced today the start of hourly service on Saturday and Sunday on the Fairmount Line will start Nov. 29 - and that they've made the current fares - the same as a subway line from Fairmount station north - permanent.

MassDOT also said it will solicit bids in December for 30 Diesel Multiple Units - single-car diesel trains that will let the T run Fairmount service on something closer to a subway schedule.

The MBTA will procure an initial DMU fleet of 30 cars at an estimated cost of $240 million. The RFP is scheduled for release in December 2014, with pilot car delivery in 2018, and complete delivery in 2020. DMUs are planned to operate first on the Fairmount Line.

Topics: 
Free tagging: 


Ad:


Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!

Comments

But because of the T's failure to roll out the CharlieCard on the commuter rail, you won't be able to use your CharlieCard pass or get a transfer to the subway. So unless you're going to South Station or nearby, your fare will be at least $4.

up
Voting closed 0

Still no Charlie to Commuter Rail? That's it , not one more expansionist penny until this is fixed! Get over to MIT, they can fix it. RDC cars , like the NHRR had , I can dig it....

up
Voting closed 0

...is plain enough. Both the Fairmount Line (Indigo, go, go, Indigo) as well as commuter rail to the Hyde Park station must be treated in fares and technologies like T stops. They are in the city limits (unlike West Medford) and we need treat them as such.

My understanding is that the T management doesn't want to bother with the technology and that the conductors' union fears job loss. There are unfounded rumors from them about the Charlie Card technology being too difficult and expensive. Yet we can already flash smartphone ride payment proof and a chap handheld scanner could do the rest.

They really need to get with the program, technologically and emotionally. It's only difficult when they make it so.

Of course, when Fairmount, Readville and Hyde Park stations are Charlie enabled, so are transfers at South Station and Back Bay.

up
Voting closed 0

So I am a hyde park resident and would love to see the HP stations on the charlie card system and to tie into the subway system. That being said, being in the Boston City limits shouldnt give our stations special treatment. its not the Boston Transportation administation its the Mass Bay transp admin, which should treat all towns equally, more or less.

up
Voting closed 0

Patrick and Davey emphasized that the Fairmount line fares will be permanenty aligned with rapid transit fares. But unless there are plans to bring the CharlieCard to the line, this is a fat lie, since paying my fare on the four rapid transit lines affords me transfers to other lines and to a bus, which paying my fare on the Fairmount line will not.

up
Voting closed 0

So here's another layer to consider in the debate on fare policies. The Fairmount Line and other lines slated for potential DMU service are all congested to the point where, though DMUs will run on these lines, so will the normal push-pulls of the CR (DMUs for all their benefits, cannot handle the same capacity as the longer CR trains). CR trains are not to be included, to my knowledge, when re-designing DMU fares. So what of the situation where there are people waiting at a platform and a CR push-pull comes before the DMU does? Will people then have to pay more to use that train, than if they waited for the DMU? We do not currently have in place the same pay-before-entering-the-station systems at these new stops so I think it's a valid concern. And this concern will only grow if the T decides to expand DMU service. This is one of those "unsexy" debates, that is arguable more important to longtime viability and ease of use of the T than the expansion of the present network, and it's frustrating to see how it is shrouded in uncertainty.

up
Voting closed 0

The fare to board at a given station does not change based on what vehicle shows up. (And I'm not counting platforms shared between the T and Amtrak.)

So your hypothetical issue is moot.

up
Voting closed 0

The Fairmount Line is congested? Since when?

I admit I don't ride it very much anymore, but I did ride it one recent weekday, regular workday, outbound early rush hour, and it matched my experience from back when I used it almost daily.

They run a five to seven car consist every 40 minutes (used to be every 30 minutes), only unlock two of the cars for passengers, those weren't even half-full. By what stretch of the imagination is that "congested"?

up
Voting closed 0

the horror! They should be paying $5.75 each way to begin with!

up
Voting closed 0

How so?

up
Voting closed 0

distance to S. Station. Every other line of equal distance pay $5.75 per trip.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/07/07/mbta-pilot-program-aims-boos...

"“We have been in talks and negotiations for years,’’ said Mela Bush, a community activist with the Greater Four Corners Action Coalition, who has long advocated for the line. “We wanted fare equity. We wanted more frequent service. We want it to go where we wanted, when we wanted, and at a price we can afford.”

Basically, were a minority neighborhood so we shouldn't have to pay the full fair. Its funny how peoples definition of "Equality" is so scud.

up
Voting closed 0

Its funny how peoples definition of "Equality" is so scud.

Getting the shaft for 50+ years, and now paying the standard T fare is skewed? What exactly was it for the last 50+ years?

up
Voting closed 0

Newton is not a minority neighborhood and way out at Riverside station they only pay the subway fare as well, as does Braintree, which is further out from south station than Fairmount.

up
Voting closed 0

Newmarket, Uphams Corner, Four Corners, and Morton Street (along with the one I missed) are in the 1A zone by distance. The proposed Blue Hill Ave stop might be either 1 or 1A by distance.

Thanks for confirming my suspicions of you, you racist prick.

up
Voting closed 0

(I have a history with this anon.)

I think his take is that the entirety of the Fairmont line, except for Readville which is zone 2, should be zone 1. That's right, riding in from Newmarket or Uphams Corner? Zone 1.

up
Voting closed 0

So which happens first: Blue Line extension to Lynn or the DMU service on the Fairmount Line?

Inquiring intrepid real estate developers want to know.

up
Voting closed 0

better get started coming up with new and fancy fake names for existing neighborhoods then.

up
Voting closed 0

Culinary Crossing
Clapp's Quarter
Little Zurich
Sunset Park
Salt District
Menino Village

up
Voting closed 0

Do I have that correct? What no "Landings" either? I thought that'd be a trend, for sure.

up
Voting closed 0

Make a stop at Kelly's.........

On another thought , make the DMU's over at GE Lynn......

up
Voting closed 0

You do know HP was a predominantly White neighborhood at one point.

up
Voting closed 0

Yes I know that , I meant Kelly's at Revere Beach , not to be confused with Kelly's liquor store on Hyde Park ave....

up
Voting closed 0

Though I would not tie up your resources waiting for this.

The rail line and all but one of the stations are built on Fairmont. Even though they have been studying the Lynn extension ad infinitum, you still have to lay the tracks, build the bridges and stations.

The question is which comes first, Fairmont DMUs or GLX? There's the issue of being able to buy DMUs, but that has been discussed elsewhere.

up
Voting closed 0

Add to that there are no builders of DMUs in the USA at this time, you have to wait for a company to ramp up a manufacture facility, or adapt one somewhere in order to fulfill the requirements of the "Buy America" act which says final assembly has to happen in the USA.

The last builder was Colorado Railcar, and that went under and its resources purchased by US Rail I believe, and they are only a procurement company at this time.

If Bombardier or Alston want in, they will have to ramp up a shop somewhere, as would Seimens.

I don't know if any people have seen what a DMU looks and feels like in Europe. Check this out.

http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df2/df07092007.wmv

up
Voting closed 0

Never heard of Nippon-Sharyo?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Sharyo_DMU

If the T buys DMUs sometime in the next few years and is at all smart about it, they'll probably end up buying these, because there will soon be two North American transit agencies operating them, so if they prove successful the T wouldn't need to take on the risk of buying something never before done.

Although this is the T, so they're not known for being smart. (Or SMART! Heh.)

up
Voting closed 0

Didn't I just read an article about the problems with those DMUs? The one company that building them in the US is under water, and the European versions aren't legal in the US for safety reasons. Basically, they need a brand new company to build them to US spec - and we know how that always works out.

up
Voting closed 0

Time for the regular reminder that so-called "FRA railroad safety regulations" are in fact, unsafe, and unscientific. If the FRA was in charge of automobile safety, then everyone would be required to drive cars with added weight up to 80,000lbs, all the time, just in case.

Now that's out of the way, I'll note that (a) the FRA is slowly reforming, (b) Nippon-Sharyo/Sumitomo is building DMUs that they intend to sell to California for the "SMART" DMU line in Sonoma and Marin counties, and those vehicles will be allowed by the FRA on common carrier railroad lines.

So it is likely that we will end up with something like that.

up
Voting closed 0

Without getting into too much detail, I spoke with some reasonably high-ups in the FRA a couple of months ago and brought this issue up.

The response was that the FRA has heard loud and clear and is acting as quickly as possible to remedy the problem but there are "political hurdles" (I understood these to be particular persons in Congress beholden to something - perhaps freight railroads).

Interestingly, it seemed that the impetus for change hasn't necessarily come from a desire to use DMU units, but rather, from something involving the new Acela trainsets or the proposed California ones (which were first different, then the same, now different again?).

I might have some of this a bit wrong as it was a quick diversion from the real point of my conversation, but that's what I remember hearing/reading between the lines.

Lastly, I'll take the DMUs in the short run, but we all know that we should be talking about a broad-based electrification program.

up
Voting closed 0

Electrification on the busy lines, DMUs on the less-busy ones. The goal: lower the operating costs per train so there can be more frequent trains, and provide faster trips from faster acceleration. Then ridership will increase.

up
Voting closed 0

THAT is the holy grail, and what we should absolutely be aspiring to. Along with capacity improvements and connectivity issues, but electrification is the biggie. And not only because we can then ride emus to work. Good point above to, DMUs can serve well along the less-traveled sections.

up
Voting closed 0

The Acela trainsets were also victims of the FRA obsession with weight. They were bulked up beyond belief in order to fill out the completely insane "buff strength requirement" that says there should be no deformation of the vehicle at up to a million pounds or so of force.

One then has to wonder where all that force gets transmitted in a crash. Perhaps the passenger compartment will not be deformed, but the contents will be shattered into tiny pieces. But that kind of detail is really not important under the long-standing FRA regulations. After all, the regulations were designed for trains carrying coal and other material that doesn't mind getting all shook up a bit. Passengers, on the other hand, might object to being the medium of transmission for shock waves transmitted in a crash.

As a result of the weight added to the Acela,

trainsets suffered excessive wheel wear, cracks in the yaw damper and brake rotors, and other problems which can probably never be completely fixed. Whereas the original contract called for trains to run 400,000 miles between equipment failures, the Acela can barely manage 20,000 miles.

up
Voting closed 0

I knew that you would know!

BTW, I presume that you (and all others interested in developing real high speed intercity rail in the Northeast) are going to the NEC Future Open House at the BPL on 11/13?

up
Voting closed 0

I have it on my schedule, not sure if I can make it yet.

up
Voting closed 0

Acela and CA HSR specs were split and are no longer the same. The idea (at the start) was a combined order that would do both, but in the end Amtrak will have to cut back on their specs because it will be impossible to get the infrastructure upgraded to meet the speeds they would like to travel at. Amtrak only owns a small percentage of the tracks they operate on. The rest are owned by State DOTs and freight companies.

Of note, the segment they own in RI is where the Acela reaches its fastest speed of about 150 mph.

FWIW, the tracks south of Forest Hills are rated at 110 mph. Please stand behind the yellow line - if you know whats good for you. MBTA will only travel at 59-79 mph as local specs dictate.

up
Voting closed 0

More accurately, Amtrak never intended for their new trains to go 220 mph like the CAHSR ones are being spec'd to. The plan was for them to be based on the same design and similar components, just scaled down for the Amtrak trains. Then there ended up being enough minor differences between what the two agencies wanted, and designing them for different speeds became so complicated, that they gave up and went with separate RFPs. Which is what they should have done from the beginning.

Regarding track ownership, Amtrak actually owns the majority of the high-speed Northeast Corridor. Ownership is as follows:
Amtrak from DC to New Rochelle, NY
MTA from New Rochelle to the CT border
ConnDOT from the NY border to New Haven
Amtrak from New Haven to the MA border
MassDOT from the CT border to Boston (though this stretch is still maintained and dispatched by Amtrak, unlike the NY/CT stretch)

Additionally Amtrak owns the higher-speed Keystone Corridor, leases the higher-speed Empire Corridor from CSX between Poughkeepsie and Schenectady, and owns the higher-speed Michigan line, which carries Chicago-Detroit and other corridor trains.

As for speeds, the Acela reaches 150 mph between Kingston, RI, and where the tracks enter urbanized Providence, and then again for an even longer stretch in Massachusetts. Most of the distance from Attleboro to Forest Hills is 150, and from Forest Hills to Back Bay is still 125. The notable thing about it though is not the 150 mph top speed, but the fact it manages 125 mph through much of coastal Connecticut thanks to the tilt system, while Regionals are limited to 90.

I was able to confirm these speeds riding the Acela back from NYC last night.

up
Voting closed 0

The article you read was an editorial, and it was way off. Google Nippon Sharyo Sonoma Marin, Toronto etc.

up
Voting closed 0

The outdated FRC guidelines for DMUs and the paucity of transit systems seriously considering the mode have scared off European and Asian manufacturers - at least they haven't designed anything to meet FRC standards because there's no market. Right now, it is just an RFP: a step in the right direction, but does nothing to guarantee that the T will purchase DMUS nor commit to seriously developing the FR as a rapid transit corridor. Shame too, DMUs aren't our saviors, but they could be very useful - but on;y if we can buy them off the shelf.

up
Voting closed 0

Weekend Service is good news and a RFP for DMU's is positive... this will likely lead to proposals to develop more middle income housing along the Fairmount Line.

up
Voting closed 0

and not that I enjoy being the cynical bastard, but if this is going to happen there needs to be constant pressure/support or the project will die or be executed in a half-assed sort of way à la Silver Line "brt". The T needs to get over there predilection for ordering machinery built to MBTA specs, rather than off the shelf (at least wherever possible). OTS vehicles are cheaper and better designed. So the RFP is good that it exists, but the always-iffy implementationprocess and perhaps the biggest political fights are still ahead of us

up
Voting closed 0

If I'm not mistaken Dallas' new mass transit system is using DMUs from Europe. I recall something saying it was only allowed as freight cars can never use the system. Still, this is promising. (BTW, In Europe they manage to mix freight and DMUs.)

By far the best thing to do is buy the ready-made trams they are using all of Germany and other countries. These have a long track record and stock parts will be available for the foreseeable future. The worst thing to do is mandate that the cars need to adhere to some custom specs and built in-state which ensures the MBTA will be stuck with lemons for the next 40 years of service. In short, go with what works and is standard across many systems even if it isn't the cheapest or local.

up
Voting closed 0

Transit systems in the US have to apply for a waiver from the FRA to use DMUs on freight lines or lines with 'heavier' trains of any type, I believe there's only one currently in the US in NJ, not sure. As far as I know, even then they have to run at such a schedule that freight and DMU never overlap and there's a certain amount of headway separation for sharing the rails with other passenger push-pulls or what-have-you. Again another good example of the FRA getting in its own way, but one of countless issues.

up
Voting closed 0

And the FRA waiver is moot here.

1) Those Dallas and RiverLINE DMU's wouldn't be able to share South Station with conventional commuter rail equipment. A slow-speed bump from a Middleboro train on the approach into South Station or an Acela by the Amtrak yard would dent up one of those RiverLINE DMU's real good.

2) Readville station is right next to the CSX freight yard that's active during the daytime. The freights come in off the Franklin Line then back up a good distance onto the Fairmount to get into the yard. There's no way to time separate anything, so you gotta go with FRA-compliant vehicles across-the-board.

But really...the vehicle doesn't matter for spit until the service is there. It's bunk that they have to buy the DMU's before it's possible to increase the Fairmount schedule from its near-useless current levels. Look at Newburyport/Rockport during tippy-top of rush hour. That's pretty damn close to a train every 10 or 15 minutes. They already run their utilitarian locomotives and coaches that often. And the so-called acceleration penalty with a locomotive is a lot less when you're talking smaller four-car trains that aren't anywhere near full. This isn't the standing-room-only 5:00 to Providence that'll be wheezing its way into Talbot Ave.

So it doesn't really matter what's running there until the schedule's frequent enough that people are actually compelled to use it. AND they fix they fix the Charlie problem that penalizes every Fairmount rider with double-dipping when they go to get on the Red Line at South Station. That's way more important. Buy the DMU's after they fix the schedule and fare system...and don't buy them at all if they can't be held to not weaseling out of a commitment on the schedule and fares/transfers.

The spin on this from the T is exactly like it was with the Silver Line letdown. Dangle newfangled technology and branding in front of the public like it's jiggling car keys in front of an infant, then do almost nothing to build out the service to the levels they promised. Do they really expect with how skeptical people have been conditioned to be at the T's behavior over the years that people in Dorchester and HP are going to take their proclamations at face-value?

up
Voting closed 0

Supposedly the FRA is now open to waivers without a time-separation requirement, as long as there's an adequate signal system.

up
Voting closed 0

Not quite that simple. The signal system inside yard limits doesn't save you from a slow-speed collision even with this newfangled Positive Train Control stuff that Congress is making every railroad install. When the trains are slowing to below 10 MPH on the final approach through the Amtrak yard into South Station there's a minor degree of manual override and human error in play. Manual control is the only way they can shunt stuff in/out/around all the storage tracks. So yards end up being where collisions are most frequent. It happens around South Station with out-of-service trains probably once or twice a year, and once every few years a passenger-carrying train will get a very minor but unpleasant jolt. The difference there is that nobody's going to get seriously hurt at such slow speeds and the trains usually don't sustain much if any damage, so you rarely hear about those fender-benders on the news unless a track gets blocked and FUBAR's rush hour.

Still have to have something FRA-complaint and un-waivered in/out of South Station even if the FRA relaxes things enough that FRA compliance itself becomes a lot less pointlessly rigid than it is now. Those Dallas/New Jersey vehicles that run under time separation today still are too flimsy to make the cut under saner FRA regs.

up
Voting closed 0

Agreed. My late friend was second shift block operator at South Bay Tower. I still am amazed they think they can make Track 61 into a service line. I mean... really?

up
Voting closed 0

Someone who knows what they're talking about. I lurk around the archboston sit and I'm fairly certain I know this anon - was waiting for them to contribute, always an interesting and eminently informed post to read.

up
Voting closed 0

F-line, is that you?

up
Voting closed 0

.... register a nom de forum here. Thanks for the valuable posting.

up
Voting closed 0

Why DMUs?

Electrify the line and do what SSEPTA and the Princeton Dinky do. Just run 2 car electric trains.

http://www.youdontknowjersey.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/dinky-train-...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/SEPTA_R2_Gliding_Alon...

Buy them off the assembly line, or even used. Amtrak California bought like 20 used NJTransit trains for pennies on the dollar.

No waiver needed, No custom order.

up
Voting closed 0

That's not how it works, at all.

Firstly, the point of using DMUs rather than EMUs is to avoid the TREMENDOUS expense of electrifying. Running overhead wires and building the generation, transmission, and distribution infrastructure to support them is very expensive.

NJT runs the Dinky as EMUs because it already had EMUs, and a huge portion of the NJT system is electrified. No one in the US has ever made a successful DMU.

SEPTA's system is 100% electric, and is dependent on the non-ventilated center city tunnel, thus electric ops make sense for all trains so they can have fleet uniformity. And again, when SEPTA decided to dump their diesel ops, there were no modern DMUs in existence.

And furthermore, there is no assembly line to buy EMUs off of, because railcars aren't constantly being made. Every order is essentially custom, and often the entire factory is designed and built just for that one order. Railroads CANNOT buy "off the shelf". There are not currently any manufacturers in the US building EMUs anyway.

There are also no used EMUs available for purchase. 99% of the time, railroads run equipment into the ground, to get as much use out of it as possible, since it was purchased with taxpayer dollars and who knows when they might have money to do another procurement.
The NJT equipment that Amtrak acquired was at the end of its life, and Amtrak could barely keep it running as a stopgap measure until the new California Cars arrive. That was also push-pull equipment, which is much more common and versatile than MU equipment, which brings me to my next point:

The reason agencies cannot buy and sell EMUs to/from each other is that they aren't interchangeable. Every system's requirements are distinct, from loading gauge, to electrical current, to door arrangements.

I'd be happy to explain any of these points further if you'd like, I'm very familiar with the subject.

up
Voting closed 0