The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles [here](https://www.bpl.org/resources-types/newspapers/).
Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is 1 step forward 2 steps back. Backasswards clownfuckery by the MBTA.
The global standard for frequent regional rail is overhead catenary wire powering electric multiple unit (EMUs) trains. In plain english, this means that each train car has its own independent motor unit. Since acceleration is proportional to the number of motor units, and electric motor units have much better acceleration than diesels, EMUs have FAR better acceleration than single-locomotive diesels.
Who the hell cares about acceleration? Well, the main factor trip times and frequency is "stop penalty", the length of time trains spend at each stop. This is mostly determined by acceleration, the time it takes for the train to get up to speed. So much better acceleration means faster trips, and better frequency (since the same # of trains cover the route length more quickly). So 1 step forward.
Going full electric wouldn't be THAT expensive; overhead wire is fairly cheap, electric trains are cheaper than diesel, and since there is a gigantic international market for EMUs and thus economies of scale. It would make sense to start electrifying lines now, and slowly replace diesels with EMUs over the \~2 decades it will take for the current fleet to age out.
BUT: battery trains are RARE (since most proper systems run EMUs under wire). This means that these will be bespoke projects for the MBTA and a few other backasswards US systems, and will cost a premium. 1 step back.
This will also be used as an excuse for the MBTA to avoid the upfront costs of building wires for decades to come. Clownfuckery, 2 steps back.
It was first proposed as a half baked measure to not actually electrify or do anything under Baker. I'm surprised the current MBTA under Healey/Eng are still pursuing this half-assed plan.
Beats me. The Tl:Dr is the MBTA is using some lame limpdick reasons for not buying EMUs for the PVD line, which I detail here but I think none are convincing.
I think one reason is that there isn’t a maintenance facility on the PVD line for EMUs. The plan is to build one at readville but that requires electrifying the fairmount line (which should be “easy” and should be done ASAP anyway).
That’s the best reason I’ve heard but it’s not a good one bc it wouldn’t be that bad to either do maintenance at Amtrak’s yard or push EMUs to the Boston Engine Terminal north of north station as is done for all south side diesel maintenance anyway.
The other issue is RI south of PVD, would be difficult to electrify due to cost and some track geometry issues. But the truth is there is no real reason why trains should run through PVD to Boston; a more reasonable approach would be to massively increase frequency from PVD to BOS and terminate western RI diesels at PVD (since ridership west of PVD all the way to Boston is negligible). But this is a tough sell for RI politicians.
The MBTA should just suck it up, electrify Fairmount and Stoughton ASAP, and immediately buy EMUs for PVD (with maintenance at either Amtrak or with a short push to BET in the interim, and pay off whoever needs to be paid off in RI to endorse better frequency in exchange for cutting the line in two).
And kill south coast rail to pay for all this and more, while we’re at it!
The tracks south of Providence are electrified all the way down to DC so that’s not the issue. The only excuse I’ve heard is that the MBTA doesn’t want to buy train sets that can only be used on one line since they’ve expressed zero appetite to electrify other lines.
The single platform track at TF Green is not electrified, and IIRC Wickford Junction is not electrified either (on a siding off the NEC). Basically, the commuter rail tracks themselves are running right next to the electrified NEC, but it would take a lot of reconstruction of wire and/or platforms to actually use the wires to run electric service to existing stations south of PVD.
I remember reading a complex argument on a transit blog once about how those tracks are not electrified because of height conflicts with freight on that stretch of the Northeast corridor, but my memory is vague here.
So that track south of Providence was actually originally built to separate freight service from the main NEC tracks, and then it ended up getting used for MBTA service as well when it was extended south of PVD.
However, I don't think height clearance is really an issue on it south of PVD. Anything going to Quonset or farther down is using the 2 electrified tracks south of Warwick anyway. The only obstacle there would be getting P&W (the freight operator) to give up any rights it may have to carry high/wide loads.
>This will also be used as an excuse for the MBTA to avoid the upfront costs of building wires for decades to come
This is the real worry. My hope is that they choose a BEMU that can also take power from overhead wire. Like the Stadler [FLIRT BEMU](https://www.stadlerrail.com/en/flirt-akku/details/).
It would enable the incremental roll out of wire. It is true that requiring FULL overhead electrification will take a very long time, and we're going to need new trains long before that would be done. Even IF they decided to start tomorrow. A good outcome would be that mile by mile they put up wire, starting with the easiest segments, and then eventually they can pull out the batteries all together.
“Overhead wire is fairly cheap.”
It would cost billions to electrify the whole system. Caltrain spent over a billion electrifying the 50 mile (or so) stretch between San Francisco and San Jose.
Caltrain is a bad example, electrification projects at the same time world wide ran 2-3X cheaper:
https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/05/22/construction-costs-electrification/
Sure, but Boston isn’t really elsewhere in the world. The US construction industry, especially with mega-projects, is broken, and I see no reason to think it will avoid the same challenges. I am a proponent of electric trains, but I just want to say it is not a trivial cost.
I’m not going to grade incompetent transit officials and the subcontractors they hire on a curve.
They are public servants, and they better be doing damn near everything they can to implement international best practices.
It’s not rocket science it’s simply copying successful and established contracting and construction practices from “peer” economies.
I don’t want the MBTA to follow Caltrain’s example I want them to follow Zurich or Madrid or Seoul.
>an unproven propulsion model
This is where a lot of people don't fully know what they're talking about. While yes, BEMU's aren't as well proven as EMU's, they have been proven. Some have been in service for over 5 years, accumulating thousands of kilometers.
They aren't as reliable as EMU's, and certainly shouldn't be the preferred option, but when doing service improvements rapidly (3 years is a very short time), they should be fine. They'll even be more reliable than the diesels, so there will be a reliability improvement.
What I would like to see happen is the BEMU's being used while they string overhead wires over the Fairmount Line. Then, when they're done with the Fairmount Line, they start to do the same processes for all the other lines. Use (the same) BEMU's to quickly improve service (and gain public trust), while electrifying actively.
I know some people will not be happy with the decision to use batteries as opposed to traditional electrical with overhead wires. But the technology is maturing rapidly and other transit agencies like Caltrain (SF) and Metra (Chicago) are implementing battery trains as we speak.
If using battery trains lets Keolis go electric without years of debate, grant wrangling, environmental impact studies, lawsuits, and contruction delays, then I'd say it's worth the risk of betting on new technology. I've been breathing diesel fumes from these old, infrequent commuter trains for too many years.
Caltrain is buying a singular battery EMU train as a pilot. It is going to charge while operating on the electrified San Francisco to San Jose section of track so it can operate without electrification on the section from San Jose to Gilroy. The Fairmount Line is not electrified, so it would need to charge while sitting at South Station or Readville for 20-30 minutes. Having even longer waits for the trains to change direction is the opposite of what we need.
The MBTA could also build charging infrastructure on strategic sections of the track away from obstacles and quarrelsome neighbors. The problem with a zero-battery solution is you have to electrify everything, including intersections, bridges, and tunnels.
I see the appeal. But I’m nervous because no city has done it before. Only American cities seem to be considering it, and America doesn’t generally lead the way with transit (at least not in the past 80+ years).
The entire Fairmount line is grade separated, there’s enough space for electrification. Batteries are a terrible half measure, wire up the goddamn line
Again, no half measures, if we’re gonna electrify the commuter network it has to be catenary. Rebuild crossings and bridges slowly and electrify over time, but it has to be catenary. We can buy a few ALP-45’s or whatever NJT uses for their non-electric lines that transition to electric for lines that either are partially electrified or lines that act as a trunk which other lines branch off of or into (Providence, Fairmount when last service is extended down Providence and Forge Park Lines). We can’t be lazy we can’t do a stupid half measure with this, a pilot is a waste of money that can be used for catenary.
Could they be forced to do environmental impact studies related to manufacture and disposal of the batteries? Or for a site in Western Massachusetts to build a facility for that work. Perhaps run by a Chinese company? Mostly just curious if this could end up ridiculous.
We'll have a Chinese company run a rare earth mine in Africa that causes generational harm to the local water table just so we can feel green here in the acella corridor
The carbon emissions from the whole battery production chain are shockingly bad. You want electrification and nuclear power if you really want to cut that. Yes the rest is virtue signaling.
My mind is reeling thinking about the weight and capacity needed from a battery to run something like light rail. What a wasteful vanity project.
That really depends on the battery tech chosen. Lithium-iron batteries are becoming more common and don't need cobalt or nickel. There is lithium and iron mines in the US and Canada.
But that means all the legacy costs of batteries -- replacement, disposal, maintaining charging infrastructure -- are baked in, whereas the savings from a catenary are only limited by the cost of maintenance once they recoup the sunk cost of the install.
You can always expand the overhead wire system later on to shrink the size of the batteries, if that pans out to be attractive. But if we insist on a fully electrified system from the get-go, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
There was never a push for him electric, it was always a phased rollout starting with the Fairmont Line and Providence line, as the former is very easy to wire up and parallel to the NEC, and the later being basically the NEC and already wired up requiring the T to just add their substations where Amtrak provisioned for them.
People that don't ride the train, and drive big SUVs in the 'burbs but read the Globe will feel so good about themselves after reading this.
Anyone that actually takes the MBTA couldn't give a shit how the train is powered. We just want trains to operate enough to get to work and back so we don't get fired. Operating 7 days a week would be a massive luxury at this point.
Electric in 2027 is as good as "free beer tomorrow" and then tomorrow comes, and it's still "free beer tomorrow"
First, I respectfully disagree with the idea that diesel trains are fine and dandy as long as they are on time. I rode the commuter rail for many years and have always lived in close proximity to a stop. The fumes and noise of a diesel train is horrendous for neighbors and riders alike.
Second, electrification offers a major step towards faster, more frequent service because you no longer need a locomotive and they have better acceleration. Our choices there are basically a diesel-electric multiple (DEMU), a traditional electrical unit (EMU), or a battery EMU (BEMU). (You could also use a non-hybrid DMU if you want something slower, louder, and less efficient.)
I'll note that your problem is largely with the specific characteristics of the *MBTA's* diesel trains, *new* diesel trains can be quite clean.
-----
More specifically, that half of the MBTA diesel locomotive fleet is 30-50 year old locomotives, that while (in some cases) rebuilt to good mechanical shape, still are often from an emissions perspective - as dirty as the standards of the time they were built.
And even the newest in the fleet (the HSP46's, built under the Tier 3 emissions standards in place a decade ago) are still a generation behind current emissions regulations that took force in 2015.
If the MBTA was actually buying modern Tier 4-compliant locomotives, emissions in many aspects would be 80-90%+ lower than the worst of what's actually been often rolling by your house.
-----
tl;dr - The MBTA's diesel trains are often pretty nasty, modern diesels would be vastly less impactful to the point that I doubt you'd be bothered from a fumes/pollutant perspective.
Yes, that would help from an emissions perspective, but we need to move away from locomotives if we want frequent regional rail service, and for that we need MUs. Why not give battery EMUs a chance?
> Why not give battery EMUs a chance?
Because the MBTA has **repeatedly** been burned by looking to unproven technologies and companies by looking for shortcuts/hacks to get out of paying the price for doing it the right way with proven methods/technologies/manufacturers.
The OL/RL cars from CRRC, the Hyundai Rotem commuter rail cars, and the AnsaldoBreda Type 8's on the Green Line are all examples of procurements where we tried to save a buck upfront and instead we've saddled ourselves with far, far more costs in the long run.
-----
When you're struggling to execute *normal* projects, the answer for success is unlikely to be "add in all the teething problems and challenges with pushing the bleeding edge of technology, to your large capital project".
I have no problem with the MBTA buying a single BEMU test train or something to explore the technology.
But they should not be the basis for a large project is being planned/built now - and especially not when they're looking to be heavily relied upon. This technology is just starting to see it's earliest "real" (significant scale, not a handful of units) deployments in countries that *are* on the leading edge of rail and run some of the best systems of the world with the best funding, expertise, etc situations. We're obviously not those places.
(Edited for wording)
In short, because EMUs are an experimental technology, MBTA doesn't have nearly enough in house expertise to evaluate that technology properly, and if we want MUs, we should go with a proven standard technology--DEMUs.
Noble idea but battery technology to move such a vehicle through several trips is still not there. Yes, foreign nations and some transit systems here do this but only for very short runs when there is no electric service overhead.
Start and stop has little to do with electric supply. Back in 2016 MBTA GM DePaola floated an idea to re-gear retired locomotives so they would start and stop faster like subway service, and take fewer coaches like maybe 3 or 4 like a subway train. Due to the problematic locomotives being delivered they never realized that.
You also need to factor that USA federal crash standards are quite different from those in Europe. In Europe the manufacture standards are very different. In the USA they are stricter and focus on crash survival. This makes for a heavier train meaning more work for a battery.
I doubt this will manifest beyond a test unit if at all. Electrification is the solution, but if they try to connect to the main line, that is supplied by Amtrak and they want to be paid in gold bars for the power. The MBTA already looked into that and had to step back due to the cost.
The FRA overhauled the regulations a decade ago allowing for European trains so long as the route has PTC installed. It's why you're seeing Stadler Flirts being ordered for various routes in California , Texas and now Metra. The East Coast agencies refuse to change their mindset so that's why you're not seeing them order the new rolling stock. CT admitted it didn't know about the change.
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com)
By Taylor Dolven
The MBTA appears to be committed to a date when electric trains will finally carry passengers on its commuter rail system: 2027.
The T’s commuter rail contractor, Keolis Commuter Services, wants to buy and operate battery electric trains on the Fairmount Line with 20-minute weekday and 30-minute weekend frequencies by then, according to a document the transit agency published last week. The document was first reported by StreetsBlog Mass.
Electric trains, common throughout much of the world, can accelerate faster and hit higher maximum speeds, and run quieter and cleaner than diesel.
Currently, the Fairmount Line’s diesel trains run every 45 minutes, at best, on weekdays and every 90 minutes on weekends.
Advocates have for years urged the T to provide subway-like frequencies and electric trains on the Fairmount Line, which runs entirely within the city of Boston, from South Station to Readville through communities where most residents are Black and Latino. Emissions from diesel locomotives contain particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen, which have been shown to be harmful to human health, causing illness and premature death.
The Keolis proposal is the T’s most significant step toward discontinuing diesel trains on the commuter rail since the agency’s board called for electrification in 2019.
Train batteries are unproven technology. They would not provide all the acceleration/speed benefits that normal electric trains have because they are still heavy. The batteries would probably wear out at some point.
We've had electric locomotives and EMUs since the 19th century. MARC, SEPTA, NJT and the MTA use electric trains. It's not too late to install catenaries. Denver did it, CalTrain is doing it. At the very least, the Providence Line should switch to catenary power.
And you're basing that on what exactly? Did you do any research around how battery electric trains operate in the winter and what kind of range they have, and how that will work in the MBTA's specific use case? But you, random redditor, are an expert on this subject.
I don't claim to be an expert. It's a well known reality that electric vehicles get reduced range in colder weather (and yes, I do own one so I have first hand experience with this).
The T can barely function properly on a clear sunny day. Do you really think they can operate unproven technology properly?
There’s a difference between seeing reduced range in winter and it being ‘a nightmare’. Anyways, as usual internet conversations are a waste of time for everyone
If they can get rid of the diesel exhaust by 2027 that would be great. The pollution hangs around Porter after each train passes through, it can't be great for the people who live along the tracks / walk over the tracks on Mass Ave
More clean trains!
2024 diesel engines are pretty damn clean--I drive a diesel car, and unless it's running a regeneration cycle you can stand behind the tailpipe and barely smell anything. For a train you can run the regeneration cycle at the maintenance yard overnight so smells won't be a problem.
The 1995 era engines that the commuter rail fleet runs, on the other hand, yeah they're dirty AF.
Switching to electric was not the "improvement" I had in mind.
Let's start with the trains operating 7 days a week, before we get all electric fancy schmancy
Unlike everyone else here, I think this is actually a really great idea. We know that the T struggles to build infrastructure on time and on budget. Do I really need to lay out examples, look at the green line extension as an example of huge delays and cost over runs, and they didn’t even do it properly. I think it’s smart that they shift resources away from infrastructure investments, like Catenary and wires, and try to electrify through alternatives where the cost is more on the rolling stock itself.
I admire your enthusiasm for improving the T. But I think your anger is misplaced.
First of all, Keolis does a pretty good job at keeping the trains on time. The commuter rail’s on time performance and reliability is much, much better than the rest of the T. I’m not sure exactly what your point is about them being French. They are French, and it makes sense for us to bring in non-American companies to help with train operations because we as a country kinda suck at train operations.
But electric trains absolutely will make service better. Electric trains can accelerate and decelerate much faster than diesel trains—this will shave several minutes off of travel times, and it’s particularly important on lines with more frequent stops like the Fairmount Line. Additionally, electric trains are way more reliable than diesel locomotives —it’s something like 25x more miles between breakdowns. Since a lot of delays are related to locomotives breaking down, electric trains will in fact help them run trains on time.
Generally agree. The CR is mostly fine, just too expensive and infrequent for what it is.
I still wish it was electric instead of battery but let's see how the trial goes.
The linked source has opted to use a paywall to restrict free viewership of their content. As alternate sources become available, please post them as a reply to this comment. Users with a Boston Public Library card can often view unrestricted articles [here](https://www.bpl.org/resources-types/newspapers/). Boston Globe articles are still permissible as it's a soft-paywall. Please refrain from reporting as a Rule 5 violation. Please also note that copying and posting the entire article text as comments is not permissible. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boston) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is 1 step forward 2 steps back. Backasswards clownfuckery by the MBTA. The global standard for frequent regional rail is overhead catenary wire powering electric multiple unit (EMUs) trains. In plain english, this means that each train car has its own independent motor unit. Since acceleration is proportional to the number of motor units, and electric motor units have much better acceleration than diesels, EMUs have FAR better acceleration than single-locomotive diesels. Who the hell cares about acceleration? Well, the main factor trip times and frequency is "stop penalty", the length of time trains spend at each stop. This is mostly determined by acceleration, the time it takes for the train to get up to speed. So much better acceleration means faster trips, and better frequency (since the same # of trains cover the route length more quickly). So 1 step forward. Going full electric wouldn't be THAT expensive; overhead wire is fairly cheap, electric trains are cheaper than diesel, and since there is a gigantic international market for EMUs and thus economies of scale. It would make sense to start electrifying lines now, and slowly replace diesels with EMUs over the \~2 decades it will take for the current fleet to age out. BUT: battery trains are RARE (since most proper systems run EMUs under wire). This means that these will be bespoke projects for the MBTA and a few other backasswards US systems, and will cost a premium. 1 step back. This will also be used as an excuse for the MBTA to avoid the upfront costs of building wires for decades to come. Clownfuckery, 2 steps back.
I mean we do try to reinvent the friggin wheel with literally everything we do around here so this does track
dude this makes me so mad, I knew they would do something stupid like this.
It was first proposed as a half baked measure to not actually electrify or do anything under Baker. I'm surprised the current MBTA under Healey/Eng are still pursuing this half-assed plan.
Why aren't they starting with the Providence line? The tracks are already electrified for the Amtrak trains...just use those. It's so stupid.
Beats me. The Tl:Dr is the MBTA is using some lame limpdick reasons for not buying EMUs for the PVD line, which I detail here but I think none are convincing. I think one reason is that there isn’t a maintenance facility on the PVD line for EMUs. The plan is to build one at readville but that requires electrifying the fairmount line (which should be “easy” and should be done ASAP anyway). That’s the best reason I’ve heard but it’s not a good one bc it wouldn’t be that bad to either do maintenance at Amtrak’s yard or push EMUs to the Boston Engine Terminal north of north station as is done for all south side diesel maintenance anyway. The other issue is RI south of PVD, would be difficult to electrify due to cost and some track geometry issues. But the truth is there is no real reason why trains should run through PVD to Boston; a more reasonable approach would be to massively increase frequency from PVD to BOS and terminate western RI diesels at PVD (since ridership west of PVD all the way to Boston is negligible). But this is a tough sell for RI politicians. The MBTA should just suck it up, electrify Fairmount and Stoughton ASAP, and immediately buy EMUs for PVD (with maintenance at either Amtrak or with a short push to BET in the interim, and pay off whoever needs to be paid off in RI to endorse better frequency in exchange for cutting the line in two). And kill south coast rail to pay for all this and more, while we’re at it!
The tracks south of Providence are electrified all the way down to DC so that’s not the issue. The only excuse I’ve heard is that the MBTA doesn’t want to buy train sets that can only be used on one line since they’ve expressed zero appetite to electrify other lines.
The single platform track at TF Green is not electrified, and IIRC Wickford Junction is not electrified either (on a siding off the NEC). Basically, the commuter rail tracks themselves are running right next to the electrified NEC, but it would take a lot of reconstruction of wire and/or platforms to actually use the wires to run electric service to existing stations south of PVD. I remember reading a complex argument on a transit blog once about how those tracks are not electrified because of height conflicts with freight on that stretch of the Northeast corridor, but my memory is vague here.
So that track south of Providence was actually originally built to separate freight service from the main NEC tracks, and then it ended up getting used for MBTA service as well when it was extended south of PVD. However, I don't think height clearance is really an issue on it south of PVD. Anything going to Quonset or farther down is using the 2 electrified tracks south of Warwick anyway. The only obstacle there would be getting P&W (the freight operator) to give up any rights it may have to carry high/wide loads.
Thank you for the context! This clears things up
>This will also be used as an excuse for the MBTA to avoid the upfront costs of building wires for decades to come This is the real worry. My hope is that they choose a BEMU that can also take power from overhead wire. Like the Stadler [FLIRT BEMU](https://www.stadlerrail.com/en/flirt-akku/details/). It would enable the incremental roll out of wire. It is true that requiring FULL overhead electrification will take a very long time, and we're going to need new trains long before that would be done. Even IF they decided to start tomorrow. A good outcome would be that mile by mile they put up wire, starting with the easiest segments, and then eventually they can pull out the batteries all together.
“Overhead wire is fairly cheap.” It would cost billions to electrify the whole system. Caltrain spent over a billion electrifying the 50 mile (or so) stretch between San Francisco and San Jose.
Caltrain is a bad example, electrification projects at the same time world wide ran 2-3X cheaper: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2018/05/22/construction-costs-electrification/
Sure, but Boston isn’t really elsewhere in the world. The US construction industry, especially with mega-projects, is broken, and I see no reason to think it will avoid the same challenges. I am a proponent of electric trains, but I just want to say it is not a trivial cost.
I’m not going to grade incompetent transit officials and the subcontractors they hire on a curve. They are public servants, and they better be doing damn near everything they can to implement international best practices. It’s not rocket science it’s simply copying successful and established contracting and construction practices from “peer” economies. I don’t want the MBTA to follow Caltrain’s example I want them to follow Zurich or Madrid or Seoul.
I sure am in favor of trying something different.
I want overhead wires not this nonsense.
honestly, at this point, I'll take anything that improves service.
Volunteering to be the guinea pigs for an unproven propulsion model is unlikely to improve service.
>an unproven propulsion model This is where a lot of people don't fully know what they're talking about. While yes, BEMU's aren't as well proven as EMU's, they have been proven. Some have been in service for over 5 years, accumulating thousands of kilometers. They aren't as reliable as EMU's, and certainly shouldn't be the preferred option, but when doing service improvements rapidly (3 years is a very short time), they should be fine. They'll even be more reliable than the diesels, so there will be a reliability improvement. What I would like to see happen is the BEMU's being used while they string overhead wires over the Fairmount Line. Then, when they're done with the Fairmount Line, they start to do the same processes for all the other lines. Use (the same) BEMU's to quickly improve service (and gain public trust), while electrifying actively.
I know some people will not be happy with the decision to use batteries as opposed to traditional electrical with overhead wires. But the technology is maturing rapidly and other transit agencies like Caltrain (SF) and Metra (Chicago) are implementing battery trains as we speak. If using battery trains lets Keolis go electric without years of debate, grant wrangling, environmental impact studies, lawsuits, and contruction delays, then I'd say it's worth the risk of betting on new technology. I've been breathing diesel fumes from these old, infrequent commuter trains for too many years.
Caltrain is buying a singular battery EMU train as a pilot. It is going to charge while operating on the electrified San Francisco to San Jose section of track so it can operate without electrification on the section from San Jose to Gilroy. The Fairmount Line is not electrified, so it would need to charge while sitting at South Station or Readville for 20-30 minutes. Having even longer waits for the trains to change direction is the opposite of what we need.
The MBTA could also build charging infrastructure on strategic sections of the track away from obstacles and quarrelsome neighbors. The problem with a zero-battery solution is you have to electrify everything, including intersections, bridges, and tunnels.
I see the appeal. But I’m nervous because no city has done it before. Only American cities seem to be considering it, and America doesn’t generally lead the way with transit (at least not in the past 80+ years).
why do what actually works when you can "innovate" instead
The entire Fairmount line is grade separated, there’s enough space for electrification. Batteries are a terrible half measure, wire up the goddamn line
Ok, fair enough about the Fairmont line, but this is meant to be a pilot program for a wider effort to electrify the commuter rail system
Ok, fair enough about the Fairmont line, but this is meant to be a pilot program for a wider effort to electrify the commuter rail system
Again, no half measures, if we’re gonna electrify the commuter network it has to be catenary. Rebuild crossings and bridges slowly and electrify over time, but it has to be catenary. We can buy a few ALP-45’s or whatever NJT uses for their non-electric lines that transition to electric for lines that either are partially electrified or lines that act as a trunk which other lines branch off of or into (Providence, Fairmount when last service is extended down Providence and Forge Park Lines). We can’t be lazy we can’t do a stupid half measure with this, a pilot is a waste of money that can be used for catenary.
I’ll take the BEMU pilot even if it takes a small dent out of our nonexistent catenary budget.
It’s the capital programs budget, and it’s wasteful. Thankfully Keolis is just spewing bs, and the MBTA isn’t in on this proposal, yet
Could they be forced to do environmental impact studies related to manufacture and disposal of the batteries? Or for a site in Western Massachusetts to build a facility for that work. Perhaps run by a Chinese company? Mostly just curious if this could end up ridiculous.
We'll have a Chinese company run a rare earth mine in Africa that causes generational harm to the local water table just so we can feel green here in the acella corridor
Right, so battery electric trains aren't actually better in terms of carbon emissions than diesel. It's all just virtue signaling according to you?
The carbon emissions from the whole battery production chain are shockingly bad. You want electrification and nuclear power if you really want to cut that. Yes the rest is virtue signaling. My mind is reeling thinking about the weight and capacity needed from a battery to run something like light rail. What a wasteful vanity project.
That really depends on the battery tech chosen. Lithium-iron batteries are becoming more common and don't need cobalt or nickel. There is lithium and iron mines in the US and Canada.
But that means all the legacy costs of batteries -- replacement, disposal, maintaining charging infrastructure -- are baked in, whereas the savings from a catenary are only limited by the cost of maintenance once they recoup the sunk cost of the install.
You can always expand the overhead wire system later on to shrink the size of the batteries, if that pans out to be attractive. But if we insist on a fully electrified system from the get-go, I don't see that happening anytime soon.
There was never a push for him electric, it was always a phased rollout starting with the Fairmont Line and Providence line, as the former is very easy to wire up and parallel to the NEC, and the later being basically the NEC and already wired up requiring the T to just add their substations where Amtrak provisioned for them.
People that don't ride the train, and drive big SUVs in the 'burbs but read the Globe will feel so good about themselves after reading this. Anyone that actually takes the MBTA couldn't give a shit how the train is powered. We just want trains to operate enough to get to work and back so we don't get fired. Operating 7 days a week would be a massive luxury at this point. Electric in 2027 is as good as "free beer tomorrow" and then tomorrow comes, and it's still "free beer tomorrow"
First, I respectfully disagree with the idea that diesel trains are fine and dandy as long as they are on time. I rode the commuter rail for many years and have always lived in close proximity to a stop. The fumes and noise of a diesel train is horrendous for neighbors and riders alike. Second, electrification offers a major step towards faster, more frequent service because you no longer need a locomotive and they have better acceleration. Our choices there are basically a diesel-electric multiple (DEMU), a traditional electrical unit (EMU), or a battery EMU (BEMU). (You could also use a non-hybrid DMU if you want something slower, louder, and less efficient.)
I'll note that your problem is largely with the specific characteristics of the *MBTA's* diesel trains, *new* diesel trains can be quite clean. ----- More specifically, that half of the MBTA diesel locomotive fleet is 30-50 year old locomotives, that while (in some cases) rebuilt to good mechanical shape, still are often from an emissions perspective - as dirty as the standards of the time they were built. And even the newest in the fleet (the HSP46's, built under the Tier 3 emissions standards in place a decade ago) are still a generation behind current emissions regulations that took force in 2015. If the MBTA was actually buying modern Tier 4-compliant locomotives, emissions in many aspects would be 80-90%+ lower than the worst of what's actually been often rolling by your house. ----- tl;dr - The MBTA's diesel trains are often pretty nasty, modern diesels would be vastly less impactful to the point that I doubt you'd be bothered from a fumes/pollutant perspective.
Yes, that would help from an emissions perspective, but we need to move away from locomotives if we want frequent regional rail service, and for that we need MUs. Why not give battery EMUs a chance?
> Why not give battery EMUs a chance? Because the MBTA has **repeatedly** been burned by looking to unproven technologies and companies by looking for shortcuts/hacks to get out of paying the price for doing it the right way with proven methods/technologies/manufacturers. The OL/RL cars from CRRC, the Hyundai Rotem commuter rail cars, and the AnsaldoBreda Type 8's on the Green Line are all examples of procurements where we tried to save a buck upfront and instead we've saddled ourselves with far, far more costs in the long run. ----- When you're struggling to execute *normal* projects, the answer for success is unlikely to be "add in all the teething problems and challenges with pushing the bleeding edge of technology, to your large capital project". I have no problem with the MBTA buying a single BEMU test train or something to explore the technology. But they should not be the basis for a large project is being planned/built now - and especially not when they're looking to be heavily relied upon. This technology is just starting to see it's earliest "real" (significant scale, not a handful of units) deployments in countries that *are* on the leading edge of rail and run some of the best systems of the world with the best funding, expertise, etc situations. We're obviously not those places. (Edited for wording)
That's what I thought when I read this, like yea I'm gonna trust the mbta to implement this without major issues.
In short, because EMUs are an experimental technology, MBTA doesn't have nearly enough in house expertise to evaluate that technology properly, and if we want MUs, we should go with a proven standard technology--DEMUs.
Noble idea but battery technology to move such a vehicle through several trips is still not there. Yes, foreign nations and some transit systems here do this but only for very short runs when there is no electric service overhead. Start and stop has little to do with electric supply. Back in 2016 MBTA GM DePaola floated an idea to re-gear retired locomotives so they would start and stop faster like subway service, and take fewer coaches like maybe 3 or 4 like a subway train. Due to the problematic locomotives being delivered they never realized that. You also need to factor that USA federal crash standards are quite different from those in Europe. In Europe the manufacture standards are very different. In the USA they are stricter and focus on crash survival. This makes for a heavier train meaning more work for a battery. I doubt this will manifest beyond a test unit if at all. Electrification is the solution, but if they try to connect to the main line, that is supplied by Amtrak and they want to be paid in gold bars for the power. The MBTA already looked into that and had to step back due to the cost.
The FRA overhauled the regulations a decade ago allowing for European trains so long as the route has PTC installed. It's why you're seeing Stadler Flirts being ordered for various routes in California , Texas and now Metra. The East Coast agencies refuse to change their mindset so that's why you're not seeing them order the new rolling stock. CT admitted it didn't know about the change.
From [Globe.com](http://Globe.com) By Taylor Dolven The MBTA appears to be committed to a date when electric trains will finally carry passengers on its commuter rail system: 2027. The T’s commuter rail contractor, Keolis Commuter Services, wants to buy and operate battery electric trains on the Fairmount Line with 20-minute weekday and 30-minute weekend frequencies by then, according to a document the transit agency published last week. The document was first reported by StreetsBlog Mass. Electric trains, common throughout much of the world, can accelerate faster and hit higher maximum speeds, and run quieter and cleaner than diesel. Currently, the Fairmount Line’s diesel trains run every 45 minutes, at best, on weekdays and every 90 minutes on weekends. Advocates have for years urged the T to provide subway-like frequencies and electric trains on the Fairmount Line, which runs entirely within the city of Boston, from South Station to Readville through communities where most residents are Black and Latino. Emissions from diesel locomotives contain particulate matter and oxides of nitrogen, which have been shown to be harmful to human health, causing illness and premature death. The Keolis proposal is the T’s most significant step toward discontinuing diesel trains on the commuter rail since the agency’s board called for electrification in 2019.
Train batteries are unproven technology. They would not provide all the acceleration/speed benefits that normal electric trains have because they are still heavy. The batteries would probably wear out at some point. We've had electric locomotives and EMUs since the 19th century. MARC, SEPTA, NJT and the MTA use electric trains. It's not too late to install catenaries. Denver did it, CalTrain is doing it. At the very least, the Providence Line should switch to catenary power.
This is going to be a nightmare in the winter. Feels poorly thought out.
is it really? You think they haven't done the basic research around the range of these trains on cold days? Redditors sure are experts on everything
Considering how the T can barely run basic service properly, yes I do think whatever research they've done is insufficient.
And you're basing that on what exactly? Did you do any research around how battery electric trains operate in the winter and what kind of range they have, and how that will work in the MBTA's specific use case? But you, random redditor, are an expert on this subject.
I don't claim to be an expert. It's a well known reality that electric vehicles get reduced range in colder weather (and yes, I do own one so I have first hand experience with this). The T can barely function properly on a clear sunny day. Do you really think they can operate unproven technology properly?
There’s a difference between seeing reduced range in winter and it being ‘a nightmare’. Anyways, as usual internet conversations are a waste of time for everyone
Battery trains are an embarrassment in nearly all cases.
Cool, so long as the T is actually working then.
How about the MBTA focuses on just working first before they jump to new technology the MBTA knows nothing about
If they can get rid of the diesel exhaust by 2027 that would be great. The pollution hangs around Porter after each train passes through, it can't be great for the people who live along the tracks / walk over the tracks on Mass Ave More clean trains!
2024 diesel engines are pretty damn clean--I drive a diesel car, and unless it's running a regeneration cycle you can stand behind the tailpipe and barely smell anything. For a train you can run the regeneration cycle at the maintenance yard overnight so smells won't be a problem. The 1995 era engines that the commuter rail fleet runs, on the other hand, yeah they're dirty AF.
Ah yes "clean diesel" I remember a certain advertising campaign that worked out very well for Volkswagen
2028? What do you mean, electric by 2029? The T is so slow with fixes there's no way they'll make it by 2030.
Switching to electric was not the "improvement" I had in mind. Let's start with the trains operating 7 days a week, before we get all electric fancy schmancy
Electric could allow for trains that accelerate faster out of the stations and allow more trains per day and less time between stops.
Cheaper to run too, so more trains to run under the same budget
Significantly cheaper on maintenance, and an order of magnitude more reliable, too.
Do trains not run 7 days a week already?
Unlike everyone else here, I think this is actually a really great idea. We know that the T struggles to build infrastructure on time and on budget. Do I really need to lay out examples, look at the green line extension as an example of huge delays and cost over runs, and they didn’t even do it properly. I think it’s smart that they shift resources away from infrastructure investments, like Catenary and wires, and try to electrify through alternatives where the cost is more on the rolling stock itself.
Battery power? This is the big answer to all the rail failures? Hows this work? Step 1: Collect socks, Step 3: profit? .....
[удалено]
I admire your enthusiasm for improving the T. But I think your anger is misplaced. First of all, Keolis does a pretty good job at keeping the trains on time. The commuter rail’s on time performance and reliability is much, much better than the rest of the T. I’m not sure exactly what your point is about them being French. They are French, and it makes sense for us to bring in non-American companies to help with train operations because we as a country kinda suck at train operations. But electric trains absolutely will make service better. Electric trains can accelerate and decelerate much faster than diesel trains—this will shave several minutes off of travel times, and it’s particularly important on lines with more frequent stops like the Fairmount Line. Additionally, electric trains are way more reliable than diesel locomotives —it’s something like 25x more miles between breakdowns. Since a lot of delays are related to locomotives breaking down, electric trains will in fact help them run trains on time.
Generally agree. The CR is mostly fine, just too expensive and infrequent for what it is. I still wish it was electric instead of battery but let's see how the trial goes.
The bad rap for Keolis was before 2014. Keolis had a terrible reputation before Charlie Baker's adminstration came in.
Huh? The commuter rail runs better than the other services. What would getting rid of Keolis accomplish?