Hey, there! Log in / Register
T to triple three-car trolleys; Even on the E
By adamg on Wed, 03/16/2011 - 8:57am
The MBTA will expand the number of three-car trolleys on the Green Line on Monday - and will start running them on the E branch for the first time, which also means the return of triple-trolley service to Lechmere.
The T restored some three-car service on non-E lines last year. The expansion means the number of tripled-up trains will increase from 13 to 32 on weekdays.
In a statement, T General Manager Richard Davey said:
As I've talked with Green Line customers over the past year, train capacity is an issue that is frequently raised. We have received that message loud and clear, and the MBTA is responding.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Even on the Riverside line?
Even on the Riverside line? I know the 3 car train was originally tested on the D line but I have yet to see one since.
Also, will the 3 car trains run throughout the day? Or only during rush hour?
Rush hour only and, yes, on the D
According to Joe Pesaturo at the T.
The 3 car trains have been
The 3 car trains have been running from riverside during rush hour, but they are hard to catch due to their infrequency.
They are running only four three car sets
Two on the D line, two on the B line. And these sets run only during rush hour.
Now, if the T was really serious about improving capacity, they would run ALL lines to Lechmere, not just the E. At the very least, they also abandon the silly practice of short turning trains at Park Street and Government Center.
I don't understand why
I don't understand why running all lines to Lechmere would help.
They still aren't running
They still aren't running them on the C line! They need to. It's always packed.
Why the C is being left out
Pesaturo says there are some platforms on Beacon Street that aren't long enough for the three-car trains.
Solution
They should just let people use the pass-through then...oh wait.
Well, people should be informed before getting on the 3rd car that it only services limited stops (and might even be considered a bonus experience for those going all the way downtown, etc). I'm sure the public would be smart enough to get on the 3rd car only if they were going to one of its accomodated stops....oh wait.
Damn.
I think there's places on
I think there's places on Beacon St where the third car would block an intersection as the other two cars unload.
So you make the front car the
"limited stops" car. Problem solved.
Doesn't solve the problem
if the stop is before the intersection (e.g. Coolidge Corner).
My unofficial survey of "C" line says...
The Cleveland Circle platform is too short for 3 cars and it is constricted by roadways at either end.
Washington Sq inbound also appears to be slightly too small, but it might be possible to squeeze the third car in, if every inch is used.
There might also be some need to slightly extend the platforms at other stations, though they seem to be large enough at the moment.
So, Cleveland Circle is the major barrier, and if that is reconfigured then the other expenses should be relatively small.
You could also do something like "Take the front car out of service at Englewood" I suppose. That might require more flexibility than the T currently has.
Yeah, if it's just Cleveland
Yeah, if it's just Cleveland Cir. that is the issue (though I wonder about Coolidge Corner outbound), just remove the road where Ayr Rd. crosses Beacon St. Then allow left and U turns at Strathmore Rd. or just make them do a U at Englewood Av. It's not like this sort of thing doesn't already happen on Beacon St. Look at how far you have to go west on Beacon St. to turn left or U after Coolidge Corner.
Why not run them all day?
The T used to run 6-car trains on the Red and Orange Lines only during heavy use times, but now they are pretty much standard, and you rarely see a 4-car train anymore.
Because it only takes one
Because it only takes one person to drive a 4 or 6 car train. When they run 3 car green line trains there is someone in each train. It's the reason they run 1 car trains on "non-peak" hours; to reduce man hours. Of course non-peak shouldnt include Friday and Saturday nights on the B line but it does.
The Red Line only has one
The Red Line only has one employe running the 6-car train, the labor cost is the same on the Red Line to run a 2-car, 4-car, or 6-car train.
The Green Line needs an employee on each car to operate the doors. There would be a huge cost increase to pay for running 3-car trains all day.
mixed bag
Well, they're taking three 2-car trains and making two 3-car trains - so you increase capacity but take a hit on frequency. So the Lechmere trains may not be packed, but you'll wait longer for one....
(2 x 3) = (3 x 2)
Does the T really expect this smoke-and-mirrors trick to fool us?
Unless they're putting extra trolleys into service during peak times, any 9-year-old can tell you this won't make any difference in capacity...
...unless some passengers get so fed up with waiting 20 minutes for service that's supposed to run every 6 minutes that they end up walking, taking a bus or catching a cab.
In reality, afternoon trips will be every bit as jam-packed as they were before. The only difference will be that passengers will be even more pissed off and pushy because they'll be forced to wait even longer.
Your math is correct, as far as it goes
but here's another formula to ponder:
2 trains/6 minutes > 3 trains/6 minutes > 6 trains/6 minutes
It's about tunnel congestion and how to avoid schedule busting car bunching. Bigger trains mean greater headways between trains, less opportunity for the schedule to go haywire. The other thing this does, is it allows for eventual increases in capacity by adding trains into the newly less crowded schedule.
But fundamentally, I suspect you are right regarding crowding. Nothing in what I've read suggests more cars, just a different configuration.
The real problem is NOT car bunching
It's the MBTA's idiotic "out and back" scheduling scheme for the Green Line trains, whereby (for example) a train that starts at Riverside has to go back to Riverside.
As I've indicated in past posts, there's a very easy way for MBTA management to both improve capacity and provide consistent frequency for all Green Line users.
Send all eastbound trains to Lechmere, which has more than adequate storage space in its two loops to handle the additional traffic. When a train comes in, you then send it out to the next destination that comes up on the schedule instead of automatically routing it back to where it came from.
For example, say an eastbound train from Riverside comes into Lechmere at 9:05 am. Per the schedule, the next westbound train out of Lechmere is supposed to go to BC at 9:10. Instead of waiting for a train that came in from BC to fill this need (as is the scheduling practice now), re-route the Riverside train out to BC instead. This makes the bunching of eastbound trains an irrelevant factor in keeping schedule, and will all but eliminate the bunching of trains westbound in the subway. Why, because such a "send a train where it's needed" system is self-correcting.
In addition, this will also eliminate the need to a) short-turn eastbound trains at Park Street or Government Center to fill westbound schedule gaps and b) to hold westbound trains for "schedule" adjustments. It will also improve train frequency for passengers boarding between Lechmere and Government Center, and eliminate the need for most Green Line passengers to transfer between trains en-route.
You should change your handle
You should change your handle from roadman to Tman because you just nailed! If they did this it would dramatically improve westbound service
I read somewhere that the
I read somewhere that the Viaduct has a weight limitation on the number of trains that can use it at a time. That would reduce throughput.
Also, after the GL extension is completed, the new Lechmere won't have a loop, and the new terminus will be a turn-back. Not sure if that will be suitable for temporary storage.
You may be right about standard practice with the trains at Gov't Center, but I've seen them pull up and change their sign from Riverside to BC. That may indicate that the operator thought it was a "D" but the dispatcher changed them to a "B".
The viaduct is a bridge comprised of
separate arches. So, while there may be some loading limitations, the T's current position that the viaduct can safely hold only one train at a time in each direction between North Station and Lechmere is nonsense.
The real issue here is not bridge loading limitations, but the fact that the T never bothered to reconnect the signal system after completing the last bridge rehab. As many on this list may recall, Grabaskus tried to extort money for the signal improvements from the original Northpoint developer. When that scheme fell through, the T decided they could wait until the completion of GLX to replace the signals.
Your comment about the new terminus of the Green Line is noted. But there's no practical reason not to make the turnback tracks long enough to accommodate a pair of two-car trains each. That will equal the present capacity in the Lechmere loops.
Regarding operators changing routes at Government Center, you are correct - as I've seen this myself. Trains within the system will be ocassionally re-routed to different lines, especially if the operator is a "run as directed" employee. However, this type of re-routing is usually done due to mechanical issues - for example, rerouting a BC train with bypassed doors or other intermittent problems to Riverside so it can be taken out of service at the end of the run.
Really? So the Lechmere
Really? So the Lechmere Viaduct has no signals right now?
What procedures do they use to separate trains?
Do they even need signals? The trolleys don't need them on the surface portions of the B, C, and E, since they can stop quickly and sight lines are good. Wouldn't the same apply to the viaduct?
As I understand it, the procedure currently in place
on the Lechmere Viaduct is that between the eastbound and westbound signals controlling the North Station turnback and the eastbound signal at the botton of the incline into Lechmere is considered to be a single "track block" for each direction. Right now, this works pretty well because the E trains run infrequently enough so bunching is normally not a problem. However, the dispatcher will ocassionally turnback a Lechmere train at North Station for this reason.
You don't need separate block signals on the B, C, and E surface lines because the at-grade intersections (even those without traffic signals) are fairly effective at keeping the trains separated. If you were running trains at 2 or 3 minute headways on those surface lines, that would be a different story.
And you could probably implement some sort of "minimal VFR" operation on the Lechmere Viaduct, although it's slightly more complicated because of the lack of at-grade intersections. But remember you're dealing with a management that insists on requiring trains to completely stop at block signals even when the track ahead is perfectly clear (Green Line westbound between Science Park and Haymarket comes to mind), and - with the exception of Park Street westbound, does not want more than one train occupying platforms designed to hold two trains at a time.
Hehehe
You should check out the B Line in the evening between say 6p-9p sometime. Train back-to-back with train (sometimes even a third train)...followed by 15-25 minutes of headway. At some point, the first train is past crush capacity (even though you can see the next train back visually from the stations people still get on) and it expresses to Washington St or all the way to BC (which is why people cram on...because they know they're going at least that far).
But even without signals, they manage not to ever slam into each other. You can literally see 2 stops ahead for most of the track and the stops are so frequent the trains never get up to any kind of speed that would even cause a twisted knee if the back one hit the front one anyways. So they stay in easy control even when they're running with under 3 minutes of headway on the B Line anyways.
Perfect example tonight: a
Perfect example tonight: a two-car arrives beyond crush capacity, people almost falling out. I can see another two-car train behind it, so I wait. Well this one was nearly full, I was the last person to fit behind the white line. Didn't wait to see if another one would show up, who knows when it would?
It's Spring Break too, I wonder where all the traffic is coming from?
E-line issues
Trains still end up on top of each other on the E-line quite often. This is going to infuriate many people, but I think ultimately the best way to improve headways on the E-line is to eliminate Heath St to Brigham Circle. Even though the MBTA is legally bound to restoring Arborway service, they paved over the tracks and service will never be restored. The majority of delays on the E-line are trains stuck in traffic/accidents past Brigham Circle. The #39 can handle the volume of riders that the trolley currently serves. The new end of the E-line would become Brigham Circle, which is fine because the track crossing already exists and is actually used quite often. From Brigham Circle to Symphony, the T is in its own ROW and functions pretty well. The street trolley stretch is what is responsible for the lost headways.
The viaduct has signals, just
The viaduct has signals, just look out the window at the front of the train and you can see them. I have been at Science Park when one train leaves and another arrives right behind if there has been a delay. They are not restricted to just one train between Noeth Station and Lechmere.
I had to go to Sceince Park
I had to go to Sceince Park and after reading this, paid attention to the signals after I got off the train. There are signals on the viaduct between Science Park and Lechmere, but it looks to be just two long blocks were some years ago it was split into four short blocks.
You would have a large
You would have a large increase in expenses, vehicle requiremnts, and crew requirements to send everything to Lechmere while maintaining the same frequency on each individual line, because the round-trip travel times for 3 of the 4 lines would increase by 15-20 minutes vs. terminating at Government Center or North Station. If a line that runs every 5 minutes and is given 90 minutes to make a round-trip is now going to take 20 more minutes to make a round-trip all the way to Lechmere, that's going to take four more two-car trains (20/5) and 8 more crew members to cover the added travel time. Multiply that by three lines, and that's a lot of money.
Diverting crews and trains from one line to another just shifts the delay and gap in service from one line to another. Right now, if a crew reports to Riverside and is leaving Riverside at 6:00 a.m., they are due back there to do another trip from Riverside at around 7:30. What happens to the 7:30 trip from Riverside if an inbound train from Boston College has broken down and the Riverside crew train has now been diverted at Lechmere to go to Boston Collge to replace the disabled train? That diversion fills the gap on the BC line, but creates a new gap on the Riverside line at 7:30 inbound. They do not have an infinte supply of trains and crews at each end of the line to fill in if the assigned crews are diverted from their next run to cover work on another line. If they had enough money, they could maintain stand-by crews and equipment at multiple places, just waiting to fill in if there was a gap. But they don't.
I'm not insisting that every Green Line passenger
be granted immediate access to a train when they step into a station, nor am I insisting that my proposal be immediately adopted. But I feel this is an idea that can be easily implemented, and the cost to the T would be minimal compared to the benefits gained from such changes.
The benefits to the passengers and the throughput for the system alone would easily outweigh any additional costs for the extra trains and crews. The T has extra equipment they can press into service to cover some of the additional trips required- they just choose not to use it because of their "labor costs are evil and should be avoided" mentality. Plus, they're ordering additional train for the GLX, which would be a perfect opportunity to buy additional equipment for both the extra GLX service and to replace some of the more unreliable current Green Line cars as well.
Unless you somehow think that looping D trains at Government Center and then holding them for ten minutes at Park Street westbound - which happens nearly every morning rush hour at about 8:45 - is a more efficient way to move people through the system.
And, with respect, I'm getting sick and tired of T management and others (like you just did) "pleading poverty" as an excuse not to implement logical and practical operational changes that would really help the passengers get from Point A to Point B in a timely manner.
For example, nobody ever seems to question the costs of the "necessary" and endless studies and "civic engagement" efforts that always seem to accompany anything more complicated that refilling the CharlieTicket machines. Like that silly, wasteful, and unnecessary exercise to relocate the proposed GLX maintenance facility from an abandonded railroad yard to another neighborhood in Somerville for example. Especially as the people who insisted on these studies, efforts, and design changes aren't footing the bill for the costs associated with this "work".
But I guess it's unreasonable for people who oppose a project that's for the public good to be expected to shoulder the burden of proof for their arguments.
It's time for the current management to unleash their grip from the "maximum people on minimum vehicles" and "save every penny we can" thinking, and look for real and creative solutions to provide the transportation service that the T is supposed to provide and that the passengers are paying their fares for.
And, as I've also stated in other posts, that includes taking the necessary measures to eliminate the "earmark funding" divide between capital and operating expenses, and allow the MBTA greater flexibility to spend their money on services like extra trains and buses that will actully benefit the riding public.
But as long as management continues to waste time and effort on diversionary "feel good" programs and tactics (like giant backpacks and cardboard boxes) instead of looking at real solutions to move people, it's unlikely the current situation will change soon.
If it takes 90 minutes to
If it takes 90 minutes to make a round-trip from Riverside to Government Center, and it takes 115 minutes to make a round-trip from Riverside to Lechmere, it is going to cost more to extend the line if the trains are going to run at the same frequency, that's simple math. In the long run, they are committed to extending another branch to Lechmere and beyond as part of the Somerville extension, but you are proposing all four branches go there.
I don't know why you think the MBTA has plenty of spare Green Line cars and operators hanging around. If a single car shows up during hours when its supposed to be 2-car trains, that usually means they are short of cars or crew or both. There are days when they have trouble making the schedule requirement with the existing fleet. Remember that several cars were wrecked beyond repair in the infamous collisions of the last few years, the midlife overhaul of the older Type 7s has been put off repeatedly because of lack of funds, and the newer low-floor Type 8s have been failure prone (but at least they now stay on the tracks, unlike when they were new). All of this reduces that number of cars that are actually ready to put on the line. Are you suggesting the MBTA has all sorts of extra cash, extra equipment, and extra crews that could be deployed on the Green Line but aren't just because they don't feel like it? There have been many press stories about the MBTA's debt and the possibility of future fare hikes or service cutbacks down the road if funding sources are not expanded.
The federal government hands out money for capital projects, and in recent years, for security projects, to large transit operators.They hand out hardly anything for operating assistance. The MBTA just can't dictate to the feds that they be allowed to spend federal capital money or federal security money on operating costs instead.
I think it will help
I think it will help. I can't tell you how often I'm left waiting because the train literally cannot fit one more person. Living in Cleveland Circle, I'll take the C or D. Sometimes I have to wait for 3 or 4 trains to come through before I can even get on. If the capacity is reasonably increased, I don't think it will add to the rush hour wait time at all.
Green Line 3 car trains
Can anyone tell me when the Green Line 3-car trains are scheduled to leave downtown on each line in the evening rush? Need this both for this week & for after the service expands next week.
Many thanks - Tom
Here you go, Tom: Currently
Here you go, Tom:
Currently the 3-car trains (triplets?) are scheduled as followed:
B Branch - Depart Government Center @ 5:30p and 5:57p
D Branch - Depart Government Center @ 4:39p, 5:18p, 6:37p, and 7:16p
And starting on Monday...
Spring 2011 Green Line Timetable (In Effect Until 4/30/11):
B Branch - Depart Government Center @ 5:30p , 5:57p, 6:24p, 6:45p, and 7:18p
D Branch - Depart Government Center @ 3:47p, 4:08p, 4:35p, 5:14p, 5:41p, 6:02p, 6:30p, and 7:09p
E Branch - Depart Lechmere @ 5:10p and 6:20p
NOTE: The two E Branch trips will only operate as far as Brigham Circle. Hopefully, the cars will be properly signed up.
Hope this was helpful.
Express Trains
This will probably mean less (or the end of) express trains on the E-line now because they won't be ending up on top of each other as often anymore. I love catching an express from Brigham Circle to Symphony. This said, they only express when the situation is really bad (delayed), so it'll probably just even itself out in terms of time.
What I wanna know
What would be the expense of running "express buses" that mirror the B Line (and the C or E too) during rush hour only?
Imagine a rush-hour bus route that went from BC to Kenmore down Comm Ave and made the following B Line stops between 7a-9a and 4:30p-6:30p:
BC
Chestnut Hill Ave
Washington St
Harvard St
BU Central
Kenmore Bus Terminal
Imagine how much load that would take off of the B Line and even some of the 57. People could get to Kenmore quicker and then jump on any one of the 3 trains that get there.
They actually did used to
They actually did used to operate a bus in the rush-hour from Boston College to Kenmore in the 1960s and 1970s to supplement the streetcars (Route 58). It was the opposite of what you are proposing though, the 1960s bus was for local riders whose entire trip was in the segment between Boston Collge and Kenmore, while the streetcar remained for those traveling through from the surface stops into the subway.
I'm imagining buses that
I'm imagining buses that constantly get stuck in rush-hour traffic on Comm, Beacon, or Huntington.
Rush hour
The only real problem with traffic on Comm Ave at rush hour is primarily in the evening outbound at the BU Bridge. Most of that is due to the BU Bridge construction more than Comm Ave itself. Not stopping every two blocks like the 57 means the bus could also use the left lane through there which always moves faster.
Why not instead widen the
Why not instead widen the trolley reservation, at least between Packard's Corner and the portal at Blandford Street, so that we can have a third track. Use it for express service inbound in the morning, express service outbound in the afternoon, and for storage or detours around disabled trolleys as needed. Surely Comm. Av. is wide enough that it could survive losing a lane or some parallel parking.
Does the T operate scheduled
Does the T operate scheduled express service of a local route ANYWHERE in the system? (Im not talking about the highway express buses that are ONLY express).
I mean, we have a good amount of xxA's which are short turns (77a, 57a etc) but I cant think of any express service.
Infact, the 57 used to sort of be express because it was drop-off only inbound after packards and pick-up only outbound until packards.
And seriously, if you want express service to BC....thats what the D line is for. Remember, they used to charge more to get in from resevoir because it was an express train, in comparison to the b and c.
The CT1 is sort of a limited
The CT1 is sort of a limited stop version of the 1
In the PM peak, outbound buses on the 34E to Walpole don't carry local riders getting off between Forest Hills and the Dedham Line (note b in the link below):
http://www.mbta.com/uploadedFiles/Documents/Schedu...
CT1, good point. I'd
CT1, good point. I'd personally love it if it truly followed the 1 to Harvard.
Not just for BC
The D Line doesn't really help getting to Washington St or Harvard St. An average B Line ride from Park St to Washington St takes about 40-45 minutes (once you even get a train). About 30 minutes of that is just the crawl down Comm Ave from Kenmore to Washington St. There's definitely a few stops (pretty much the ones I listed) that receive the bulk of the riders no matter what the hour. The suggested bus route would chop the top off of these peaks when ridership is at its highest AND provide a way to get to the rest of the system in far less time (it won't take a bus 30 minutes to drive to Kenmore).
The B Line suffers from about 3-4 really time-consuming crossovers with the roadway where the train somewhat inexplicably goes from between the lanes to beside them both (BC, Warren, Packard's Corner) as well as some seriously poorly timed lights down Comm Ave combined with "stations" that aren't split to have both inbound and outbound be after the traffic signal respectively...so you can end up stopping on a green to pick up passengers and then being able to go on the red and waiting longer (and Warren St is a great example of both having to wait for the entire light cycle for the crossover green light AND stopping during that green light on the approach side of the intersection to drop off passengers! Warren alone can sometimes add about 3-5 minutes to a B Line commute).
Works both ways
On the other hand, platform-before-light lets you pick up passengers and wait for the red light at the same time. I'm not really sure which arrangement proves more advantageous over time, and if there is a difference, it probably depends upon the specific characteristics of the intersection.
I've heard of long term plans to move the entire Packard's-to-Warren reservation back to the center of the road, but who knows if and when that will ever happen.
The other night I was on an outbound "B" train waiting to proceed at Packard's corner. I noticed the inbound 57 bus go by, then suddenly we were turning. I know the timing of that intersection could not have put a green signal for the trolley immediately after the 57 bus passed. The operator must have just gone through the red. But thinking about it, it's completely safe if there are no inbound cars or crossing pedestrians, both of which are in clear visual range. The cars going outbound on Comm Ave are still waiting for their light. There's no other conflicts. So maybe some better planning could speed up those intersections.
Not likely any time soon
The trolleys should have 2 periods per light cycle (right after one street gets the red light...and right after the other does) when it can cut across traffic lanes. Essentially, the lights should be emptying the intersection completely before allowing the cross street to go, so there's time there to extend both reds a bit and let a train go by. Of course, it'd be nice if it only did that when a train was waiting, by sensor, but in the absence of that expenditure it would be possible to simply add in the extra green cycle for the trains to speed up their crossing wait time (I think I've posted about this before).
Unfortunately, I'm sure we'd require some kind of 6 month study from the traffic department to see if the marginally extended red lights didn't end up causing the entire city to seize, sputter, and die if we did it (as opposed to just doing it and making people deal with longer reds because public transportation should ALWAYS take priority in a city). The MBTA is also refusing to do anything like this on the C Line unless the City of Brookline picks up the tab (a whole different cock-up since they could have done it during Brookline's recent traffic remodeling but refused without a study so now it has to be a retro-fit job), so we know they don't have the cash to do anything fancy on the B Line to effect this change either.
Far side stops work best when
Far side stops work best when the trains have signal priority. Something I could personally hook up for $5,000.
Until recently, there was one
Until recently, there was one PM trip on the 62 that ran express to Park Ave. It looks like they got rid of it, and replaced it with several short-turns to Lexington Center.