Lynn MBTA parking garage -- anyone use it?
Ron Newman
There's a gigantic MBTA parking garage next to the commuter rail
station in Lynn, Massachusetts. To my eye it looks as big as the
Alewife Red Line parking garage.
When I used the Lynn station last night at 7:03 pm, the garage
appeared to be nearly empty. (You can see inside all levels
of the garage from the elevated train tracks.)
Why did the MBTA build such a massive garage? How much of it
is *ever* used?
--
--
Ron Newman
NEW EMAIL ADDRESS ----> rne...@theCIA.net
NEW URL ---> http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
John Polcari
On 17 Jun 1997 19:45:08 GMT, rne...@shell.thecia.net (Ron Newman)
wrote:
>There's a gigantic MBTA parking garage next to the commuter rail
>station in Lynn, Massachusetts. To my eye it looks as big as the
>Alewife Red Line parking garage.
>
>When I used the Lynn station last night at 7:03 pm, the garage
>appeared to be nearly empty. (You can see inside all levels
>of the garage from the elevated train tracks.)
>
>Why did the MBTA build such a massive garage? How much of it
>is *ever* used?
>
Your tax dollars at work, I guess.
There's one in Malden that has similar useage.
I'm told that the Lynn garage is so little used that there's no point
to charging a fee. Can you confirm this?
JP3 John Polcari jpol...@bstone.com meat...@tiac.net
--
"I hate quotations" -Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Non Accendo Gravis" -Howius Carrus
James VanBokkelen
In article <33a74ee7...@news.tiac.net> jpol...@bstone.com (John Polcari) writes:
>There's one in Malden that has similar useage.
>
>I'm told that the Lynn garage is so little used that there's no point
>to charging a fee. Can you confirm this?
I'd appreciate it if someone could check the usage level of the Lynn
and Malden Garages at about 0900, and post what they charge to park
to the newsgroup. You see, AFAIK, the only place on either the north
side rapid transit or the commuter rail where there is parking
(either free or inexpensive) available at that time in the morning is
the Lawrence station. Bradford is full, Ipswitch is full, Wakefield
is full, Oak Grove and Wellington are full, etc. etc. I'd be really
happy to park outside Boston at some place that had a better choice
of trains than Lawrence. I expect it will even be worth the effort
to get from Rt. 1 to downtown Lynn or Malden (there are relatively
efficient ways of doing either),
FYI, the Newburyport park-and-ride was recently enlarged, and has
space every time I've been by, but not only is the C&J bus expensive,
I don't fit in the seats (and neither will anyone else who wears a
size 16 shirt).
jbvb
John Arico
Parking at the Lynn garage is free, but you still have to take a
ticket(?).
John Arico
----------
http://pw2.netcom.com/~sery2831/index.html
John Polcari wrote:
> I'm told that the Lynn garage is so little used that there's no point
> to charging a fee. Can you confirm this?
>
Sheldon Kovitz
>wrote:
>
>>There's a gigantic MBTA parking garage next to the commuter rail
>>station in Lynn, Massachusetts. To my eye it looks as big as the
>>Alewife Red Line parking garage.
>>
>>When I used the Lynn station last night at 7:03 pm, the garage
>>appeared to be nearly empty. (You can see inside all levels
>>of the garage from the elevated train tracks.)
>>
>>Why did the MBTA build such a massive garage? How much of it
>>is *ever* used?
>>
>
>Your tax dollars at work, I guess.
>
>
>to charging a fee. Can you confirm this?
>
The Lynn Parking garage was built when Thomas McGee of Lynn was Speaker
of the Mass. House of Representatives at a cost of many millions of dollars.
It is not used because it only serves commuter rail and buses. Commuter
rail from there is silly because from Wonderland 4.7 miles down the road
one can get a subway with far more frequent and far cheaper service.
The cost per user might be as high as $250,000. That is a boondoggle.
The last time I checked the garage was free. Mind you, it still had
garage employees and tickets, you just did not pay anything. Explain
that!
It is used by an adjacent community college for parking and classrooms, also.
There is some impetus by the Lynn Business Partnership to extend the
Blue Line or some other form of rapid transit to that site and
beyond. However, that proposal is going nowhere for two reasons:
1) The City of Lynn since 1947 has opposed the extension of the Blue
Line to Lynn for fear that their assessment would rise and other
unknown reasons.
2) The Secretary of Transportation, James Kerasiotes (outgoing) has
refused to order the removal of a building in Revere that was built
illegally on a former right-of-way without his consent. That building
is the critical link in stopping the Blue Line, and despite repeated
calls from residents and public officials in Revere, Mass., the
MBTA and Department of Transportation seem content to allow the
building to stand. For what reason (we do not know)?
The City of Revere would love for the Blue Line to be extended
to Lynn and beyond to alleviate the commuter traffic burden
on that idyllic beach community.
Actually, I personally think that simple extension might not
work, more creative solutions are needed. But let's get going
on it -- enough stonewalling.
RTSPCC
From: jb...@satisfied.apocalypse.org (James VanBokkelen)
>You see, AFAIK, the only place on either the north
>side rapid transit or the commuter rail where there is parking
>(either free or inexpensive) available at that time in the morning is
>the Lawrence station. Bradford is full, Ipswitch is full, Wakefield
>is full, Oak Grove and Wellington are full, etc. etc. I'd be really
>happy to park outside Boston at some place that had a better choice
>of trains than Lawrence.
The new parking garage at Wellington which is connected to the existing
station by an Otis people mover is to open this summer. I think this will
have
900+ spaces.
Robert Coe
On 19 Jun 1997 00:03:13 GMT, rts...@aol.com (RTSPCC) wrote:
: The running times for Boston-Lynn Blue Line service would be slower
: than existing Boston-Lynn commuter rail service (all those local
: stops in Revere and East Boston aren't going to go away).
I'm not so sure. The commuter rail route to Lynn is circuitous, and
service is slow. (At least it was when I've ridden the line, which is
only once or twice.)
--
___ _ - Bob
/__) _ / / ) _ _
(_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_____________________________________ b...@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, MA 01776-2120 USA ** 508-443-3265
rts...@aol.com
In article <33b338b2...@News.TIAC.NET>,
b...@1776.COM (Robert Coe) wrote:
>
> On 19 Jun 1997 00:03:13 GMT, rts...@aol.com (RTSPCC) wrote:
> : The running times for Boston-Lynn Blue Line service would be slower
> : than existing Boston-Lynn commuter rail service (all those local
> : stops in Revere and East Boston aren't going to go away).
>
> I'm not so sure. The commuter rail route to Lynn is circuitous, and
> service is slow. (At least it was when I've ridden the line, which is
> only once or twice.)
> --
Chelsea and at GE is 23 minutes, trains running express cover it in
19 minutes (Timetable May 12, 1997)
The last Blue Line run-time audit (November 96) showed Wonderland-
Government Center trips taking 19.67 minutes inbound and 21.54
minutes outbound.
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet
James VanBokkelen
In article <5oor5c$m09$1...@news.cs.umb.edu> sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu (Sheldon Kovitz) writes:
>That is true if we extend the Blue Line. What needs to be done is an
>express branch from Wonderland to Wood Island on a little-used East
>Boston Secondary track. That would get the running time to Boston from
>Lynn down to 18 to 20 minutes, I think.
There once was a spur from the B&M's old Eastern RR main towards the
Wonderland dog track - you can see the old roadbed. But otherwise,
the RoW from there to the Revere Beach Parkway underpass is only two
tracks wide, and you'd need to fill marshes and take high-value
commercial land to widen it. You'd probably also get a lot of
pressure to add a new station somewhere in the C1 - 16 interchange
area. I'd rather spend the money on grade crossing elimination in
Chelsea...
>Even peak commuter rail headways are too far apart for the business
>commuter. It's not the fare - to park in Wonderland costs more than
>to park in Lynn considering the cost of parking, gas, and subway token,
>yet 98% of rail riders to Boston do it.
I think you've got a definition problem there; many places in the
world run heavy-rail trains on 10 or 15 minute headways (the JNR belt
around Tokyo had 10-car trains running within sight of each other on
the straightaways). As of 1966, the signalling of the line was such
that trains were routinely scheduled to run 2 to 5 minutes apart, and
there were 5 departures from Lynn for Boston between 0800 and 0900
(during the same hour, 7 trains arrived at Boston - two were
expresses that skipped Lynn).
I don't have any hard data to back this up, but I suspect that most
of the non-Revere commuters who use Wonderland do so because it is
easier to drive to than Lynn; another incentive is the one seat ride,
if your destination is downtown (and the right way to fix this is to
build the North-South rail connector, with an intermediate station
like Philadelphia did).
jbvb
Sheldon Kovitz
In article <8671520...@dejanews.com> rts...@aol.com writes:
>
>The last Blue Line run-time audit (November 96) showed Wonderland-
>Government Center trips taking 19.67 minutes inbound and 21.54
>minutes outbound.
>
Note that this is slower than before the Blue Line "improvements."
Sheldon Kovitz
>There once was a spur from the B&M's old Eastern RR main towards the
>Wonderland dog track - you can see the old roadbed. But otherwise,
>the RoW from there to the Revere Beach Parkway underpass is only two
>tracks wide, and you'd need to fill marshes and take high-value
>commercial land to widen it. You'd probably also get a lot of
>
The commercial land there is not valuable. Most businesses are
currently closed and the residential properties are greatly
depressed: you can buy a three-family house for under $50,000.
There is a planned rebuiding of Bell (mahoney) circle in a few years.
It would be easy to fix the rail line at the same time.
My suggestion is for the light rail to come into Wonderland from Lynn
on the Narrow Gauge and swing across North Shore Road to the commutet
rail line and get over to the East Boston Secondary Track. It should
be a light-rail that could cross a highway at grade such as at
Central avenue in Milton.
>>Even peak commuter rail headways are too far apart for the business
>>commuter. It's not the fare - to park in Wonderland costs more than
>>to park in Lynn considering the cost of parking, gas, and subway token,
>>yet 98% of rail riders to Boston do it.
>
>I think you've got a definition problem there; many places in the
>world run heavy-rail trains on 10 or 15 minute headways (the JNR belt
>around Tokyo had 10-car trains running within sight of each other on
>the straightaways). As of 1966, the signalling of the line was such
>that trains were routinely scheduled to run 2 to 5 minutes apart, and
>there were 5 departures from Lynn for Boston between 0800 and 0900
>(during the same hour, 7 trains arrived at Boston - two were
>expresses that skipped Lynn).
The Blue Line runs on three-minute headways. 15-minute headways are
not attractive for the rush hours. I don't think the draw at North
Station could handle that many trains at this time.
>I don't have any hard data to back this up, but I suspect that most
>of the non-Revere commuters who use Wonderland do so because it is
>easier to drive to than Lynn; another incentive is the one seat ride,
>if your destination is downtown (and the right way to fix this is to
>build the North-South rail connector, with an intermediate station
>like Philadelphia did).
>
>
It is not easier to drive to Wonderland; it is a 4.7 mile drive very
badly backed up on North Shore Road during the AM and PM rush.
Michael J. Saletnik
On 26 Jun 1997 18:36:36 GMT, sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu (Sheldon
Kovitz) wrote:
>Note that this is slower than before the Blue Line "improvements."
One of the largest slow spots will be removed sometime in the next
five years - the T will be straightening the track between Airport
Station and the tunnel under Neptune Place. If you've ever seen it on
a map, the tracks curve out of the way of a Logan parking lot. When
the tunnel was built many years ago, one side was built straight to
allow for the eventual straightening of the tracks through that lot;
this project is currently in the design stage.
Michael
---
Michael J. Saletnik Tufts University E'91 G'93
Structural Engineer, Bryant Associates Inc., Boston
Lecturer, Dept of Civil & Environ. Engin., Tufts University
mic...@ties.org --> http://www.tiac.net/users/icarus
rts...@aol.com
In article <5oucrk$ba8$1...@news.cs.umb.edu>,
sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu (Sheldon Kovitz) wrote:
>
> In article <8671520...@dejanews.com> rts...@aol.com writes:
> >
> >The last Blue Line run-time audit (November 96) showed Wonderland-
> >Government Center trips taking 19.67 minutes inbound and 21.54
> >minutes outbound.
> >
>
The running time used to be close to 18 minutes before the guards
were eliminated.
Sheldon Kovitz
In article <33b2e15...@news.tiac.net> mic...@ties.org writes:
>On 26 Jun 1997 18:36:36 GMT, sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu (Sheldon
>Kovitz) wrote:
>
>
>five years - the T will be straightening the track between Airport
>Station and the tunnel under Neptune Place. If you've ever seen it on
>a map, the tracks curve out of the way of a Logan parking lot. When
>the tunnel was built many years ago, one side was built straight to
>allow for the eventual straightening of the tracks through that lot;
>this project is currently in the design stage.
>
This is good. However, the line runs slower because of noise reduction
in East Boston and Revere.
Sheldon Kovitz
In article <8673722...@dejanews.com> rts...@aol.com writes:
>In article <5oucrk$ba8$1...@news.cs.umb.edu>,
> sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu (Sheldon Kovitz) wrote:
>>
>> In article <8671520...@dejanews.com> rts...@aol.com writes:
>> >
>> >The last Blue Line run-time audit (November 96) showed Wonderland-
>> >Government Center trips taking 19.67 minutes inbound and 21.54
>> >minutes outbound.
>> >
>>
>
>were eliminated.
>
As I remember the line always ran 17 minutes to State, 18 minutes
to Govt. Center from Wonderland.
Does it really take that much longer for the operator to open the
doors and close them? 10 seconds longer at the center entrance
stations, maybe.
ore...@freud.mec.edu
In article <5p8i3g$f71$1...@news.cs.umb.edu>,
sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu (Sheldon Kovitz) wrote:
>
> In article <8673722...@dejanews.com> rts...@aol.com writes:
> >In article <5oucrk$ba8$1...@news.cs.umb.edu>,
> > sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu (Sheldon Kovitz) wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <8671520...@dejanews.com> rts...@aol.com writes:
> >> >
> >> >The last Blue Line run-time audit (November 96) showed Wonderland-
> >> >Government Center trips taking 19.67 minutes inbound and 21.54
> >> >minutes outbound.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Note that this is slower than before the Blue Line "improvements."
> >
> >The running time used to be close to 18 minutes before the guards
> >were eliminated.
> >
>
> As I remember the line always ran 17 minutes to State, 18 minutes
> to Govt. Center from Wonderland.
>
> Does it really take that much longer for the operator to open the
> doors and close them? 10 seconds longer at the center entrance
> stations, maybe.
When they rebuilt the Blue Line they put in a lot more time signals,
making motormen slow down in places where they didn't have to before.
This made operations on that line almost as bad as the cab signal lines,
but at least the operator still can see what's coming and react before he
is forced to.
A good example is the approach to Maverick eastbound. Way back when, you
could hold back on the last time signal on the downgrade, get the green
early and put the train on the peg, getting up speed to assault the
upgrade, and coasting the curves into the station. Now a time signal on
the upgrade negates this, forcing a slow ascent, and maximizing power
used. Admittedly the older cars had less horsepower, but the curve
entering the station doesn't justify such a slowdown.
The approaches to Orient and Wonderland are also problematic. A double
red at the end of the platform justifies a yellow entering, not a double
red with several time signals approaching. This should be no different to
any other station when the platform is unoccupied - 25mph.
Gerry
Robert Coe
On 26 Jun 1997 18:44:04 GMT, sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu (Sheldon
Kovitz) wrote:
: My suggestion is for the light rail to come into Wonderland from Lynn
: on the Narrow Gauge and swing across North Shore Road to the commutet
: rail line and get over to the East Boston Secondary Track. It should
: be a light-rail that could cross a highway at grade such as at
: Central avenue in Milton.
Even a standard Blue Line extension could cross highways at grade
(although it might disrupt automobile traffic if headways were short
enough). Remember that Blue Line cars are equipped with pantographs and
run under wire north of Airport Station.
Sheldon Kovitz
In article <8677051...@dejanews.com> ore...@freud.mec.edu writes:
>In article <5p8i3g$f71$1...@news.cs.umb.edu>,
> sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu (Sheldon Kovitz) wrote:
>> As I remember the line always ran 17 minutes to State, 18 minutes
>> to Govt. Center from Wonderland.
>>
>> Does it really take that much longer for the operator to open the
>> doors and close them? 10 seconds longer at the center entrance
>> stations, maybe.
>
>When they rebuilt the Blue Line they put in a lot more time signals,
>making motormen slow down in places where they didn't have to before.
>This made operations on that line almost as bad as the cab signal lines,
>but at least the operator still can see what's coming and react before he
>is forced to.
>
>red at the end of the platform justifies a yellow entering, not a double
>red with several time signals approaching. This should be no different to
>any other station when the platform is unoccupied - 25mph.
>
regressive changes were made?
.
.
.
.
Ron Newman
In article <5pdriv$3h2$1...@news.cs.umb.edu>, sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu
(Sheldon Kovitz) wrote:
>
> One way to make a really reasonably-priced extension to Lynn would
> be to have vehicles that could use the existing General Edwards
> bridge, either under wire or as a dual-powered backup. Obviously
> the current Blue Line cars could not do that.
Why not?
--
Ron Newman rne...@thecia.net
http://www2.thecia.net/users/rnewman/
James VanBokkelen
In article <33b71883....@News.TIAC.NET> b...@1776.COM (Robert Coe) writes:
>Even a standard Blue Line extension could cross highways at grade
>(although it might disrupt automobile traffic if headways were short
>enough). Remember that Blue Line cars are equipped with pantographs and
>run under wire north of Airport Station.
Aside from collision protection, RoW access control and so forth, a
big question is how high can a Blue Line pantograph reach? They have
a really low minimum operating height for the tunnel, and I wonder
how much range you can have - wire height at a grade crossing is
probably going to be at least 18 feet to make the highway people
happy.
jbvb
Sheldon Kovitz
>Kovitz) wrote:
>: My suggestion is for the light rail to come into Wonderland from Lynn
>: on the Narrow Gauge and swing across North Shore Road to the commutet
>: rail line and get over to the East Boston Secondary Track. It should
>: be a light-rail that could cross a highway at grade such as at
>: Central avenue in Milton.
>
>(although it might disrupt automobile traffic if headways were short
>enough). Remember that Blue Line cars are equipped with pantographs and
>run under wire north of Airport Station.
I think that current thinking at the MBTA is that the current Blue Line
could not cross a highway at grade.
If standard cars were used the shortcomings might be the maximum speed
and the incapablility of having on-board collection of fares at the
less-used stops. Also, if standard cars were used there would be a
cost-benefit analysis that could doom the express tracks from
Wonderland to Airport that really make the difference between an
unnecessary and a viable extension.
One way to make a really reasonably-priced extension to Lynn would
be to have vehicles that could use the existing General Edwards
bridge, either under wire or as a dual-powered backup. Obviously
the current Blue Line cars could not do that. The cost for the
entire extension would drop from $175 million to about $120 million,
under that plan.
Scott Moore
Sheldon Kovitz wrote:
> I think that current thinking at the MBTA is that the current Blue Line
> could not cross a highway at grade.
This I would agree with - but a crossing at grade would not be
impossible to arrange; they do it in Chicago with third-rail equipped L
cars every day.
>
> If standard cars were used the shortcomings might be the maximum speed
> and the incapablility of having on-board collection of fares at the
> less-used stops.
Huh? Top speed of a Blue Line car is about 50mph - same as an LRV and
Type 7...
The Blue Line cars could also be modified for on-board fare collection,
like in Cleveland and like the 01400s were designed (but were never
used). All you need is a farebox, a sliding window behind the motorman,
and a seperate control for the front doors...
> Also, if standard cars were used there would be a
> cost-benefit analysis that could doom the express tracks from
> Wonderland to Airport that really make the difference between an
> unnecessary and a viable extension.
Huh? Apparently I'm missing something here...
>
> One way to make a really reasonably-priced extension to Lynn would
> be to have vehicles that could use the existing General Edwards
> bridge, either under wire or as a dual-powered backup. Obviously
> the current Blue Line cars could not do that. The cost for the
> entire extension would drop from $175 million to about $120 million,
> under that plan.
Considering the weight of a Type 7 is 98,000lbs, and a Blue Line car
weighs considerably less, (approximately 2/3 the weight, though I'd bet
the axle-load for both cars is similar - the Type 7 probably a bit
higher) I don't believe that LRVs going over the GE bridge would be
practical either - from a structural standpoint.
Operationally, the LRVs would be preferred in mixed traffic.
- Scott
Scott Moore
Sheldon Kovitz wrote:
> The trains are not meant to be in mixed traffic. They do not have collision protection
> for a crash with an auto. The car would be crushed under the wheels.
This could be worked around, but I doubt it's worth it.
> There is no way
> for the passengers to get out easily should the bridge get stuck, as happened at least
> twice this year.
All Blue Line trains are equipped with ladders for emergency exiting of
trains. While inconvenient, they do allow for somewhat easy egress from
a train that will not be moving for an extended period of time...
> They seem to be too wide for a normal traffic lane.
The width of a Blue Line car is approximately 9 feet, much narrower than
the standard 12 foot highway lane.
> They are too heavy
> for the current bridge capacity.
So are LRVs...
- Scott
Scott Moore
Ron Newman
In article <33c21377....@News.TIAC.NET>, b...@1776.COM (Robert Coe) wrote:
> What does on-board fare collection have to do with grade crossings? The Blue
> Line's current grade-level stations don't use on-board fare collection.
The Blue Line doesn't have grade crossings. If it did, someone could
walk from a grade crossing, down the tracks, and directly onto a
platform without paying. Unless, of course, there was on-board
fare collection.
Robert Coe
On 7 Jul 1997 15:58:50 GMT, sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu (Sheldon Kovitz)
wrote:
: In article <33c21377....@News.TIAC.NET> b...@1776.COM (Robert Coe) writes:
: >What does on-board fare collection have to do with grade crossings? The
: >Blue Line's current grade-level stations don't use on-board fare collection.
: An extension to Lynn and beyond might have to serve stations that will not
: have the ridership to warrant pre-paid boarding.
Something you can bet on: If the projected ridership of the proposed
extension doesn't justify prepayment stations, the extension will not be
built.
Scott Moore
Sheldon Kovitz wrote:
>
> In article <33BB73...@lynx.neu.edu> scm...@lynx.neu.edu writes:
> >Sheldon Kovitz wrote:
> >
> >> If standard cars were used the shortcomings might be the maximum speed
> >> and the incapablility of having on-board collection of fares at the
> >> less-used stops.
> >
> >Huh? Top speed of a Blue Line car is about 50mph - same as an LRV and
> >Type 7...
> >
>
> here. The narrow gauge right-of-way in Revere is so isolated north of
> Oak Island that a 90 mph speed would be safe.
The fastest rapid transit cars owned and operated on the MBTA are the
01500 and 01600-series Red Line cars (formerly known as the
"Silverbirds"). These cars were designed for the South Shore line
(opened to Quincy in 1971, and to Braintree in 1980, with proposals for
service to Brockton and Weymouth).
The Silverbirds were designed with a top speed of 70-mph, and actually
achieved that speed in a few test runs back in the late 1960s / early
1970s. The Silverbirds have effectively been governed to 50-mph since
they went into service.
Since electric motors work most efficiently at top speed, and since the
opportunities to safely attain such a speed are so limited, the rapid
transit industry has settled (for the most part) on cars which operate
at a top speed of around 50-mph.
The amount of energy that is needed to accelerate a subway train or an
LRV to a speed of 70-mph (let alone 90-mph) is quite excessive, and the
benefits of such a speed are extremely limited. As was found to be the
case on the South Shore line, the time that it took to accellerate a Red
Line train to 70-mph, the train would be able to maintain that speed for
only a short time before having to slow down for the next station. The
time savings of a minute or two was offset by the risks for operating at
higher speeds, the greater need for increased maintenance, and the power
consumed by the train. Therefore it was deemed unnecessary.
By the way, both the Boeing LRVs and the Type 7s are designed to exceed
the 50-mph standard, but only slightly. And incidentally, the Type 7s
were slowed down to 42-mph to reduce rail wear on the Riverside Line,
and to minimize the pounding that the cars were taking at 50-mph.
>
> >> Also, if standard cars were used there would be a
> >> cost-benefit analysis that could doom the express tracks from
> >> Wonderland to Airport that really make the difference between an
> >> unnecessary and a viable extension.
> >
> >Huh? Apparently I'm missing something here...
> >
> The reason that the extension is getting nowhere is that the cost
> per new rider is high. If standard Blue Line cars were used the
> time from Lynn to Boston would be so slow that new riders would
> not be attracted, thus dooming the extension. Especially if the
> line were just extended beyond Wonderland without Lynn express
> tracks, but possibly even with the East Boston cutoff.
LRVs would suffer from the same shortfalls regardless of the routes
employed. LRVs also cost more to build on a per-car basis, and are much
more difficult (and costly) to make compliant with ADA.
And, since you're concerned with speed, the routing that should be
chosen should minimize (if not exclude) any crossings or interaction
with automobile traffic. If you are going to run a grade separated
line, then why go LRVs?
LRVs are at a disadvantage to a heavy-rail rapid transit car on a grade
separated ROW. They do not offer any speed advantage (especially since
LRVs and rapid transit trains run in multiple-unit), and are actually at
a disadvantage at busy stops (high-platform rapid transit cars have a
shorter dwell time at stations than LRVs do).
Unless you're going to run in the street, there is no advantage to
operating LRVs. If you are going to operate in the street, then kiss
your time advantage good-bye... :(
>
> >>
> >> One way to make a really reasonably-priced extension to Lynn would
> >> be to have vehicles that could use the existing General Edwards
> >> bridge, either under wire or as a dual-powered backup. Obviously
> >> the current Blue Line cars could not do that. The cost for the
> >> entire extension would drop from $175 million to about $120 million,
> >> under that plan.
> >
> >Considering the weight of a Type 7 is 98,000lbs, and a Blue Line car
> >weighs considerably less, (approximately 2/3 the weight, though I'd bet
> >the axle-load for both cars is similar - the Type 7 probably a bit
> >higher) I don't believe that LRVs going over the GE bridge would be
> >practical either - from a structural standpoint.
> >
>
> Scott, you are right. The GE bridge was reconstructed a few years ago.
> Alas, we did not think of building it to specifications that would
> allow rail transit to use it.
I don't know who came up with the proposal for LRVs vs. heavy rail to
Lynn, but the heavy-rail option would likely cost as much as the LRV
option regardless of what the proponents for Light-Rail say. The
equipment necessary to construct the line is the same. The engineering
is the same. The performance of the vehicles is the same. I'm not sold
on the idea of Light-Rail to Lynn as being the savior, especially since
it would require extensive revamping of the existing Blue Line (VERY
costly) or it would not provide a one-seat ride into Boston (thereby
killing yet another time advantage for any proposed route to Lynn).
- Scott
Ron Newman
> : An extension to Lynn and beyond might have to serve stations that will not
> : have the ridership to warrant pre-paid boarding.
>
> Something you can bet on: If the projected ridership of the proposed
> extension doesn't justify prepayment stations, the extension will not be
> built.
It is possible that projected ridership from Lynn might support a
prepayment station there, but that few people would get off or on
the line at stations between Wonderland and Lynn. (Not many people
live between the two)
nit...@worldnet.att.net
Ibet you could have pre-payment all the way toSalem. I think that many
Cars who hang up the Lynnway in the Morning trying to get to Wonderland
would be left at the other North Shore locations. It takes incredible
patience to ride the Bus to Haymarket from the North Shore, Lord knows I
used to do it big time. Of course it goes with out saying a "T" Rapid
Transit fare would have to be just that.. not the curent expensive Rail
Commute Fares.
Robert Coe
On Tue, 08 Jul 1997 08:23:51 -0400, rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
: In article <33c18b63...@News.TIAC.NET>, b...@1776.COM (Robert Coe) wrote:
: > Something you can bet on: If the projected ridership of the proposed
: > extension doesn't justify prepayment stations, the extension will not be
: > built.
:
: It is possible that projected ridership from Lynn might support a
: prepayment station there, but that few people would get off or on
: the line at stations between Wonderland and Lynn. (Not many people
: live between the two)
Maybe no stations are needed between Wonderland and Lynn.
James VanBokkelen
In article <33C1B3...@lynx.neu.edu> Scott Moore <scm...@lynx.neu.edu> writes:
>The Silverbirds were designed with a top speed of 70-mph, and actually
>achieved that speed in a few test runs back in the late 1960s / early
>1970s. The Silverbirds have effectively been governed to 50-mph since
>they went into service.
Before the cab signals were installed on the Red Line, I often saw
speedometers on both the Sliverbirds and the Bluebirds (01400
Pullman-Standard cars dating from the early 1960s) sustain 55 MPH in
the straight tunnel under Main St. from Kendall Sq. to Mass Ave.
I think some kind of overspeed widget was installed with the digital
speedos, since the motormen were really careful not to exceed 55.
Earlier, with the dial speedos, I think things were more relaxed...
jbvb
Scott Moore
Sheldon Kovitz wrote:
> >By the way, both the Boeing LRVs and the Type 7s are designed to exceed
> >the 50-mph standard, but only slightly. And incidentally, the Type 7s
> >were slowed down to 42-mph to reduce rail wear on the Riverside Line,
> >and to minimize the pounding that the cars were taking at 50-mph.
> >
> We need a vehicle with a higher maximum speed, not one of these
> vehicles mentioned.
Maybe you didn't get this part of my previous posting on my most recent
reply to you on the subject of 90-mph transit vehicles...
I'll repost it for you review, please let me know if you did not get
it...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Silverbirds were designed with a top speed of 70-mph, and actually
achieved that speed in a few test runs back in the late 1960s / early
1970s. The Silverbirds have effectively been governed to 50-mph since
they went into service.
Since electric motors work most efficiently at top speed, and since the
opportunities to safely attain such a speed are so limited, the rapid
transit industry has settled (for the most part) on cars which operate
at a top speed of around 50-mph.
The amount of energy that is needed to accelerate a subway train or an
LRV to a speed of 70-mph (let alone 90-mph) is quite excessive, and the
benefits of such a speed are extremely limited. As was found to be the
case on the South Shore line, the time that it took to accellerate a Red
Line train to 70-mph, the train would be able to maintain that speed for
only a short time before having to slow down for the next station. The
time savings of a minute or two was offset by the risks for operating at
higher speeds, the greater need for increased maintenance, and the power
consumed by the train. Therefore it was deemed unnecessary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Simply put, it costs too much to operate a rapid transit train at speeds
of higher than 50-mph, in comparison to the few minutes that you might
save on the schedule...
Mathematically speaking...if you were to plot the costs of operating a
train at a given speed vs. the time needed to go between two points, you
would find that costs will rise more and more dramatically as you exceed
50-mph.
> >Unless you're going to run in the street, there is no advantage to
> >operating LRVs. If you are going to operate in the street, then kiss
> >your time advantage good-bye... :(
> >
> LRV's are better because they can run as a single car during less
> travelled times and they can assume on-board fare collection at
> certain stops and times. They can cross at grade.
In a previous posting (which you responded to) I noted that the
01400-series Red Line trains were originally designed for "on-board fare
collection". While the provisions were put in place, the actual
collection of fares (and the installation of fareboxes) was never done.
Also done (but not mentioned in the previous posting) was the
modification for several PCC-type Blue Line cars for on-board fare
collection in the 1960s. Again provisions were made, but no fareboxes
were installed. Both Chicago (Skokie-Swift) and Cleveland operate
heavy-rail rapid transit trains in daily passenger service WITH on-board
fare collection (though both systems use two-car trains today instead of
the "singles" used in previous years).
In a previous posting (which was also part of the same posting noting
the 01400s' ability for on-board fare collection) I noted that for
several years, the Chicago Transit Authority has been operating heavy
rail rapid transit trains (operating on 100% third-rail) which cross
roads at grade! Now I also said that the MBTA would never do such a
thing, but this method of operation IS possible, and IS safe (at least
to the point that no major incidents have happened to date). Amazingly
enough, they use a simple railroad crossing gate to stop the flow of
automobile traffic as the subway train approaches the crossing (my those
people from Chicago are ingenius! :)
Oh, and something that I didn't mention before (as it was not part of a
previous discussion) is that many american cities operate rapid transit
equipment that can run as a single unit. Even Boston owns and operates
high-platform heavy-rail rapid transit cars which are capable of being
operated as a single unit. The 01500-series Red Line cars can operate
in a "one-car train" configuration, and used to have a motorman's cab at
each end of the car (they are still single-unit cars but had the "B" cab
removed when rebuilt). The majority of heavy-rail equipment is built as
married-pairs, as both cars can share certain components, saving weight,
power, and money, while still providing effective and efficient transit
service.
So what you want (single-unit car, on-board fare collection, and
crossings at grade) IS possible with conventional heavy-rail
rapid-transit equipment that could be used WITH the remainder of the
Blue Line fleet, and without any expensive modifications - though I will
discuss the problems with running a single-unit train later in this
posting...
> I wonder if
> the right-of-way requirements for an LRV line are narrower than
> for a heavy-rail line such as the current Blue Line?
No. Both the existing LRVs and the existing Blue Line cars are about
the same width. Don't forget, the Blue Line's tunnels were originally
occupied by trolley cars - the same makes and models that were operating
in the Green Line's tunnels between 1904 and 1924...the size of the cars
today are governed by the confines of the tunnels.
> It still could provide a one-seat ride into Boston if it used the
> East Boston Blue Line Tunnel. Also it is possible to have the LRV
> stop at Bowdoin station, for example, which is now being closed
> because it cannot accomodate six-car trains.
The Blue Line is presently having trouble maintaining a three-minute
headway with four-car trains during rush-hours (with little or no room
to squeeze another train into the system). The Blue Line is currently
at the saturation point and therefore requires modifications to make the
system work with six-car trains. I don't believe that it is in ANYONE's
best interest to try to squeeze in a SINGLE car in between six-car
trains - especially since the signal system would be modified for
six-car trains - and a single car would essentially take up the space of
a six-car train (while not providing the capacity).
Besides, on the subject of Bowdoin station, as much as the historian in
me does not want to see it destroyed, the transit manager in me says
that it takes up too much time, and serves too few people. The rail
wear around the loop is incredible, and the loop itself is one of the
reasons why the Blue Line cars are limited to 48 feet long - the
shortest (if not, one of the shortest) rapid transit cars in the
country!
Besides, when Government Center is extended to accommodate six-car
trains, the entrance at the far end of the station will only be about a
block or so from the Bowdoin Station entrance AND the new Government
Center entrance will be ADA compliant - a far cheaper proposition than
modifying Bowdion under service conditions!
>
> Heavy rail to Lynn would require only one crossing or road closing
> at Oak Island Street near Kelly's Roast Beef. The other places
> would be tunnels or bridges. (This is assuming the far cheaper
> narrow gauge right-of-way.)
Again, see the discussion (above) about grade crossings with heavy-rail
rapid transit cars in Chicago...
By the way, the Narrow Guage ROW is not available for building - at
least that was the last I had heard.
>
> All this being said, the current administration is dead set against
> a extension to Lynn, now or in the future. Realistically, it will
> take a Democratic administration to even get a fair look at the
> proposals of the North Shore Transportation Study.
I'd like to see this study - as a transit manager. I don't see the
logic in a dual-mode transit line, and if the ideas that you have been
giving are part of this proposal, then I too would like to meet with the
consultant who has signed his or her name to this type of proposal
saying:
"I think this would be a good thing!".
(Note to RTSPCC: Does the above quote sound like someone we know? ;)
If you want rail transportation to Lynn, then the proposal MUST be
do-able and realistic - with no holes in the logic for people to pick
apart. A solid proposal has very few (if any) areas that can be picked
apart.
> A people
> mover at Wonderland Station to connect the commuter rail and
> the Blue Line have very little impact in solving the problem
> of the under bulding of rail transportation for the North Shore.
I think that geography has more to do with the underbuilding of rail
transportation on the North Shore than anything else. Remember that
before the East Boston Tunnel was opened in 1904, the only way to get
from Eastie to Downtown was by boat - unless you wanted to go through
Chelsea...
I agree with you, that the people mover won't solve much. But I still
think that the only solution for this problem is a solution that can
easily integrate with the existing infrastructure AND must be coupled
with a DRAMATIC cut-back in Boston to Lynn bus service - so that the
MBTA is not competing with itself (i.e. all bus routes would be
redesigned to feed to the new rail line and not into Downtown Boston).
The answer (with a rail solution) lies either with an extension of the
existing Blue Line, or with a beefed-up commuter rail service from
Central Square Lynn (say, every 15 minutes during peak and every 20 to
30 minutes during the off-peak) with a fare that is more in line with
the rest of the rapid transit system (both would need the feeder buses
to survive). Anything else will either not be cost effective, or will
not use rails...
- Scott
Scott Moore
James VanBokkelen wrote:
> Before the cab signals were installed on the Red Line, I often saw
> speedometers on both the Sliverbirds and the Bluebirds (01400
> Pullman-Standard cars dating from the early 1960s) sustain 55 MPH in
> the straight tunnel under Main St. from Kendall Sq. to Mass Ave.
> I think some kind of overspeed widget was installed with the digital
> speedos, since the motormen were really careful not to exceed 55.
> Earlier, with the dial speedos, I think things were more relaxed...
The cars were mechanically governed to about 50-mph after the decision
was made to eliminate the idea of a 70-mph car. The 01400s were good
for about 50 - 55 mph from the get-go, but not much more.
Today, everything is controlled by the ATO system... :(
- Scott
Carl R. Friend
Scott Moore, in article nr. <33C548...@lynx.neu.edu> wrote:
>
> The [Red Line] cars were mechanically governed to about 50-mph after
> the decision was made to eliminate the idea of a 70-mph car. The
> 01400s were good for about 50 - 55 mph from the get-go, but not much
> more.
Gee, I seem to remember that they felt like they were going 50 - 55
mph when they, in fact, were going (maybe) 30. <grin>
> Today, everything is controlled by the ATO system... :(
Please explain, then, why trains so frequently go into emergency
(or penalty) braking. I'd always assumed it was caused by the carbon-
based life form in the cab exceeding the speed limit, or too closely
approaching the rear of a preceeding train. Computers don't make such
mistakes (or shouldn't).
--
Carl Richard Friend
Sheldon Kovitz
>> vehicles mentioned.
>
>Maybe you didn't get this part of my previous posting on my most recent
>reply to you on the subject of 90-mph transit vehicles...
>
>I'll repost it for you review, please let me know if you did not get
>it...
>
>The amount of energy that is needed to accelerate a subway train or an
>LRV to a speed of 70-mph (let alone 90-mph) is quite excessive, and the
>benefits of such a speed are extremely limited. As was found to be the
>case on the South Shore line, the time that it took to accellerate a Red
>Line train to 70-mph, the train would be able to maintain that speed for
>only a short time before having to slow down for the next station. The
>time savings of a minute or two was offset by the risks for operating at
>higher speeds, the greater need for increased maintenance, and the power
>consumed by the train. Therefore it was deemed unnecessary.
We need vision. What happened in Chicago in the 1960's may or may not
be pertinent to a new LRV vehicle for service in Lynn. I stand by my
suggestion that 70 mph operation is important here.
Scott's comments sound like a warmed-over MBTA press release.
>
>
>So what you want (single-unit car, on-board fare collection, and
>crossings at grade) IS possible with conventional heavy-rail
>rapid-transit equipment that could be used WITH the remainder of the
>Blue Line fleet, and without any expensive modifications - though I will
>discuss the problems with running a single-unit train later in this
>posting...
Not in a million years would the MBTA allow a Blue Line car to cross
at grade, and I bascially agree with that line of thought.
>
>> I wonder if
>> the right-of-way requirements for an LRV line are narrower than
>> for a heavy-rail line such as the current Blue Line?
>
>No. Both the existing LRVs and the existing Blue Line cars are about
>the same width. Don't forget, the Blue Line's tunnels were originally
>occupied by trolley cars - the same makes and models that were operating
>in the Green Line's tunnels between 1904 and 1924...the size of the cars
>today are governed by the confines of the tunnels.
Even though the Blue Line Cars and the LRVs are about the same width
I have a feeling that the Blue Line car needs more space around it
because it is higher off the ground and does not have the collision
protection that an LRV has.
>
>> It still could provide a one-seat ride into Boston if it used the
>> East Boston Blue Line Tunnel. Also it is possible to have the LRV
>> stop at Bowdoin station, for example, which is now being closed
>> because it cannot accomodate six-car trains.
>
>The Blue Line is presently having trouble maintaining a three-minute
>headway with four-car trains during rush-hours (with little or no room
>to squeeze another train into the system). The Blue Line is currently
>at the saturation point and therefore requires modifications to make the
>system work with six-car trains. I don't believe that it is in ANYONE's
>best interest to try to squeeze in a SINGLE car in between six-car
>trains - especially since the signal system would be modified for
>six-car trains - and a single car would essentially take up the space of
>a six-car train (while not providing the capacity).
>
Agreed.
>> Heavy rail to Lynn would require only one crossing or road closing
>> at Oak Island Street near Kelly's Roast Beef. The other places
>> would be tunnels or bridges. (This is assuming the far cheaper
>> narrow gauge right-of-way.)
>
>Again, see the discussion (above) about grade crossings with heavy-rail
>rapid transit cars in Chicago...
>
>By the way, the Narrow Guage ROW is not available for building - at
>least that was the last I had heard.
What you have heard is a self-serving position of the MBTA. However,
the North Shore Transportation document has estimated the cost of
the extension to Lynn via the Narrow Gauge ROW and does not state
that the ROW is not available for building.
>I'd like to see this study - as a transit manager. I don't see the
>logic in a dual-mode transit line, and if the ideas that you have been
>giving are part of this proposal, then I too would like to meet with the
>consultant who has signed his or her name to this type of proposal
>saying:
> "I think this would be a good thing!".
>
>(Note to RTSPCC: Does the above quote sound like someone we know? ;)
>
>If you want rail transportation to Lynn, then the proposal MUST be
>do-able and realistic - with no holes in the logic for people to pick
>apart. A solid proposal has very few (if any) areas that can be picked
>apart.
>
>
>The answer (with a rail solution) lies either with an extension of the
>existing Blue Line, or with a beefed-up commuter rail service from
>Central Square Lynn (say, every 15 minutes during peak and every 20 to
>30 minutes during the off-peak) with a fare that is more in line with
>the rest of the rapid transit system (both would need the feeder buses
>to survive). Anything else will either not be cost effective, or will
>not use rails...
>
>- Scott
This seems reasonable. But the extension of the Blue Line would probably
not be cost effective, once the study is done.
Pudgyv
In article <5q4kro$k...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>, dhei...@mit.edu (Doug
Heimburger) writes:
>
>In article <33C5868E...@stoneweb.com>, "Carl R. Friend"
>The ATO system on the Red Line, unlike that on the Washington DC
>or Atlanta system, is completely advisory (indeed, it's more an ATC
>system than an ATO system in that the system is controlling speeds
>only, not actually operating the trains).
>
>Drivers are free to set their speed, but if they exceed the coded speed
>for more than a certain response time (~3.5 seconds) the train will
>automatically go into emergency and stop. Other than that, though, the
driver
>is still in complete control of the train, even on the new "Type 3" 1800
>series cars (where the control is a side joystick, making it less
obvious)
>
>--Doug Heimburger
>
>
The last time I jumped into a discussion of ATO I stuck my foot in it, but
I'm a glutton for punishment. Actually, on the Red Line the ATO (ATC)
does provide overspeed protection. At 3 mph below the speed limit the ATO
will drop trainlines and go into coast. Should the train continue to
accelerate (like on a downgrade) the brakes will begin to pulse. At 2 mph
over the speed limit the brakes come on and stay on until the train is
underspeed. It is all automatic. The operator does not have to respond
to an overspeed condition unless the ATO is in manual mode.
There are two major reasons why trains (on the Red Line) dump. First,
dirty/poor connections at the speed sensors. The original cable heads on
rebuilt 1500/1600 cars and new 1700s were mounted on a bracket extending
out from the axle about 8 inches. These brackets tend to vibrate wildly
at speed causing the female pins to loosen. A high resistance problem
would then develop. A major retrofit project was undertaken, and is still
in progress, where the speed sensors are hard wired in and the plug
assembly connects at the car body. This is proving to be considerably
more reliable. Second, and this happens more often on the Braintree line,
if a train should catch up to his leader the situation develops where one
train enters a more restrictive block just as the first train leaves.
Exactly what happens is this. The second train is cruising along with a
50 code and enters a more restrictive block. The speed limit changes to
40. Meanwhile, the first train, a couple of block ahead passes into
another block. The second train immediately gets another 50 code. This
sets up a violation of the OOOK circuit (One and Only One code) lasting
longer than the allowed 2.5 seconds causing the train to dump. Easy eh!
It's fun to be in the cab watching all the little blinking lights in the
ATO case when this happens. There are other sundry reasons for dumping as
well.
1800s are another story. More often than not there is no discernable
reason for it. If no obvious problem jumps out and grabs me I simple
cycle the circuit breakers and send it out to see if it happens again. I
have not had one come back yet. The thing is with those there are too
many darned computers that all have to agree with each other. Well, they
crash just like our home machines!
Hope this clears up a few things.
Cheers,
scott.r...@channel1.com
pud...@aol.com
member Boston Carman's Union, Local 589 ATU; Engineers, Local 105
PRIVATIZATION IS A WELD SCAM.
Michael J. Saletnik
On Sat, 12 Jul 1997 10:22:55 -0400, rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman)
wrote:
>> The rail wear around the loop is incredible, and the loop itself is one of the
>> reasons why the Blue Line cars are limited to 48 feet long - the
>> shortest (if not, one of the shortest) rapid transit cars in the
>> country!
>
>I can imagine that, but unless the MBTA plans to convert the loop
>to a stub-end terminal, just eliminating the station stop at Bowdoin
>won't solve these problems.
The problem with Bowdoin is that the presence of the loop would mean
that extending the platforms for six line trains would have to be done
towards Government Center. At the same time, Government Center
platforms will also be extended. This will make the platforms
practically meet.
Therefore, the old Hanover Street mezzanine (now under the brick of
City Hall Plaza) will be reopened, providing an exit/entrance to the
Blue Line (and through-pedestrian-traffic to the Green Line) at
practically the JFK building. This is close enough to allow Bowdoin
station to be abandoned as a station.
Note that the only real thing the loop limits is the length of a Blue
Line *car*. You could put a six-car train through Bowdoin and the loop
easily - you just couldn't have all six cars on the platform. That is
why the loop and station will remain in non-revenue service as a
turnaround point.
Pudgyv
In article <33C9FD...@lynx.neu.edu>, Scott Moore <scm...@lynx.neu.edu>
writes:
>
>Does the DPU still require that the trains brake at maximum, or with the
>new ATO boxes (and 20-odd years of experience) or are they allowed to
>function normally?
I don't know what the DPU requires but when the ATO calls for brakes it's
max brake or nothing (#1 & #2 cars). After over 2 years dealing with
1800s I am still clueless. Is that a startling admission? I have no idea
how they work and I don't pretend to know!
Kurt Hackenberg
pud...@aol.com (Pudgyv) writes:
>In article <33C8DC69...@stoneweb.com>, "Carl R. Friend"
><carl....@stoneweb.com> writes:
. . .
>> At one point in time, I looked into a cab on an 01800-series train-
>>set and saw that the left-hand screen was displaying an "F>" prompt.
>>Those machines don't run some form of (shudder) DOS, do they?
>>
>Yes! I do not know what version but it is MSDOS in ROM! Sometimes, when
>things go wrong, we get the stupid request "Insert valid floppy disk" when
>there is no floppy drive! Most of the time you can clear any problem by
>going through a complete shutdown of the car but you can't do that in the
>subway. This is why 1800s immediately come out of service whenever there
>is a problem.
Good lord! I don't know whether to laugh or cry.
I don't know anything about subway trains, but do know some things
about computers (I'm a software engineer). The operating system
MS-DOS is just totally wrong for this application.
You say it's unreliable? And when something goes wrong, you have to,
what, reboot the damn thing? Turn the computer's power off and back
on? Well, that's exactly what I would expect.
There are MUCH better ways to organize software for this purpose, and
you can buy commercial software organized in those ways (those
products are called "real-time operating systems"). This train
computer could be made reliable.
Keep in mind that modern car (automobile) engines are more or less
controlled by computers, and many automatic transmissions are, too.
Those computers are pretty reliable, so there's an example that it can
be done, and done for a reasonable cost. Car antilock braking systems
are also controlled by computers, and those computers have to be very
reliable.
Not knowing anything about the trains, I don't quite understand what
the computer is doing. Is it the MS-DOS computer that automatically
applies the brakes when the train's speed gets too high, or when it
gets too close to the train in front? What else does that computer
do? What do you mean when you say it "dumps"? What happens to the
train when the computer gets confused?
So, if I understand you, whenever the stupid little MS-DOS computer
crashes -- gets confused and stops working -- the MBTA hauls that car
out of the subway and into the shop, where you then do some elaborate
shutdown of the whole car, all just to remove power from the computer
for a few seconds, just to make MS-DOS reboot? Incredible. Just
incredible.
Understand, I'm not slamming you or MBTA operations. Given those cars
to run, that's what you have to do. I'm saying that using MS-DOS on a
computer that controls a subway car is terrible design -- really,
deeply boneheaded.
Ron Newman
In article <5qdieh$6bi$1...@news.cs.umb.edu>, sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu
(Sheldon Kovitz) wrote:
> I disagree because the ridership for a 16-minute ride to Lynn would
> be far, far greater than for the 30-minute ride that a Blue Line
> extension would lead to.
Of course, there remains the problem of giving people a reason to
want to go to Lynn in the first place.
Sheldon Kovitz
In article <rnewman-ya0240800...@snews2.zippo.com> rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) writes:
>In article <5qdieh$6bi$1...@news.cs.umb.edu>, sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu
>(Sheldon Kovitz) wrote:
>
>
>> I disagree because the ridership for a 16-minute ride to Lynn would
>> be far, far greater than for the 30-minute ride that a Blue Line
>> extension would lead to.
>
>Of course, there remains the problem of giving people a reason to
>want to go to Lynn in the first place.
>
>--
They will want to leave Lynn. The 16-minutes should automatically
apply in the other direction also.
Pudgyv
In article <33cadc77...@news.shore.net>, dmo...@shore.net (David
Moisan) writes:
>
>You can't shut down the train while it's at a stop, like Green Line
>operators have to do?
>
>At least it isn't running Windows! "This program has performed an
>illegal operation and will be shut down" (as lights go out on the
>train....)
>
>
In my mind there is no reason but Transportation Dept. does not want to.
It may have something to do with the lack of marker lights when you're
shut down or panicking the passengers.
Sheldon Kovitz
>> Beach Branch of the Eastern Railroad, but it is not on the narrow
>> gauge ROW. This is just south of the Point of Pines station.
>
>If this IS the case, then why ANY street running???
>
An LRV level 1 with street running might be practical beyond Lynn but
would probably not be needed until Lynn. A bridge crossing in the
abstract could not be ruled out. Even a strengthening of the General
Edwards Bridge to allow LRV's has not been ruled out.
>
>> I disagree because the ridership for a 16-minute ride to Lynn would
>> be far, far greater than for the 30-minute ride that a Blue Line
>> extension would lead to.
>
>You still have yet to explain how an LRV could get to Lynn in
>16-minutes, versus a Blue Line train in 30-minutes...
>
>- Scott
The LRV that could cross North Shore Road at grade would run
Lynn to Wonderland 5 minutes
Wonderland to Airport or Wood Island via East Boston Secondary
Track and express 4.5 minutes
Airport to Govt. Center (possibly via transfer to Blue Line car)
6.5 to 7 minutes
Conventional Blue Line Trains don't get from Govt. Center to
Wonderland in much under 19-21 minutes in evening rush
because of the signal blocking that slows things down to
a miserable crawl (thanks to the Blue Line "modernization").
We woud have to add 7.5 minutes to get to 26.5 to 28.5 minutes.
For that slow schedule, let's keep the express buses that beat
it except for some rush hours.
Sheldon Kovitz
In article <5qgnm8$n...@northshore.shore.net> a...@shore.net (Ben Bishop) writes:
>However, I really don't see the MBTA doing _any_ Blue Line extension. Until
>an MBTA director is living on the North Shore there isn't going to be any
>real incentive (or political pressure) for them to do it.
>
Agreed. The political pressure might have ended with Peter Torkildson's defeat.
Scott Moore
Ron Newman wrote:
>
> In article <33CED3...@lynx.neu.edu>, scm...@lynx.neu.edu wrote:
>
> > Since the MBTA has worked very hard over the last 20 or so years to
> > eliminate drawbridges along its rail routes,
>
> They have? They replaced both the Beverly-Salem bridge and the
> North Station bridge with new drawbridges.
As James stated, the North Station bridge is NOT new.
And there are locations (like North Station) where a drawbridge MUST
exist due to space restrictions, etc.
Both of the drawbridges over the Mystic River were replaced with
stationary bridges for the Orange Line and the Commuter Rail to Chelsea
and Lynn.
And don't forget, the Orange Line north of North Station had TWO
drawbridges - which with the frequency of rapid transit service were
nothing but a headache (and helped to force the cut-back of all Sunday
service on the Orange Line to Sullivan Square).
>
> > AND, has MassHighway said that they'd even consider placing rails in the
> > center of Route 1A?
>
> Presumably they'd have to if the state legislature ordered them to.
> Anyone in the North Shore delegation want to try this?
Ron, the state legislature has said that the Arborway line MUST be
reopened to the Arborway carhouse by December 31, 1997. Now tell me
that this WILL happen by that deadline (if at all)...
- Scott
Sheldon Kovitz
In article <33CED3...@lynx.neu.edu> scm...@lynx.neu.edu writes:
>Sheldon Kovitz wrote:
>
>> >If this IS the case, then why ANY street running???
>> >
>> An LRV level 1
>
>in the business for fifteen years, and have yet to hear such a term...
The report to the Urban Ring participants identified two types of LRV,
the level 1 being with some street running and fewer tunnels.
>
>
>> with street running might be practical beyond Lynn but
>> would probably not be needed until Lynn.
>
>I believe that you will find that the capital costs involved in running
>a light-rail line, plus the cost of vehicles and operations, etc. would
>preclude any rail extensions beyond Lynn (unless they were to replace
>the commuter rail service between Lynn and wherever, but the MBTA is not
>inclined to do such a thing).
>
I suppose an LRV to Marblehead cannot be ruled out, though the residents
there might not want one.
>
>> A bridge crossing in the
>> abstract could not be ruled out.
>
>I'm guessing that this statement refers to the idea of building a
>seperate bridge for the LRVs. If this is the case, what makes you think
>that a bridge designed for LRVs would be any cheaper to build than a
>bridge for Blue Line-type trains?
>
No. The MBTA in its own Urban Ring considers an LRV that could run
in mixed traffic, even over bridges, though not drawbridges (I think).
>
>> Even a strengthening of the General
>> Edwards Bridge to allow LRV's has not been ruled out.
>
>Since the MBTA has worked very hard over the last 20 or so years to
>eliminate drawbridges along its rail routes, what makes you (or anyone
>for that matter) think that they would be warm and cuddly with the idea
>of running ANY rail over the GE Bridge???
>
To save $54 million of the $175 million cost of the extension, one
could get it to run over the GE Bridge, if possible.
>AND, has MassHighway said that they'd even consider placing rails in the
>center of Route 1A? This is a discussion that MUST take place before
>anyone can even talk about strengthening the bridge...
Good question. But the bridge has not at this time a near-capacity
flow, even in rush hours.
>
>
>> >You still have yet to explain how an LRV could get to Lynn in
>> >16-minutes, versus a Blue Line train in 30-minutes...
>> >
>>
>> The LRV that could cross North Shore Road at grade would run
>> Lynn to Wonderland 5 minutes
>> Wonderland to Airport or Wood Island via East Boston Secondary
>> Track and express 4.5 minutes
>
>Express track??? Where's this supposed to go???
Wonderland to Airport via the little-used East Boston Secondary
track.
>> Airport to Govt. Center (possibly via transfer to Blue Line car)
>> 6.5 to 7 minutes
>
>A two-seat ride into Boston via the Blue Line? What a novel idea!
>Whoops, we already have that, except the transfer is at Wonderland.
>
The LRV could run to Boston when capacity permits, and terminate
at Wood Island or Airport during rush hours.
>No one's going to authorize expendatures on a solution that is not
>significantly better than what exists today...
>
Even a transfer would speed up the time for the express bus riders.
>
>>
>> For that slow schedule, let's keep the express buses that beat
>> it except for some rush hours.
>
>With a plan that does not provide a solution using conventional
>equipment already in use in the area (Blue Line or Commuter Rail), then
>this is likely what you'll be riding on...
>
>- Scott
I think that will be the ultimate determination. It shortchanges the
North Shore quite a bit. Is Braintree nearer to Downtown than
Lynn? But the MBTA under Weld does not favor light rail and we will
need to wait for another Democrat in the Governor's mansion until
a fair study can be made. Look at Vancouver and what they are doing
with light rail.
Sheldon
James VanBokkelen
I've read a lot here over the past few months about extending the
Blue Line to Lynn via the BRB&L RoW, and the scheme to build express
tracks on the old Eastern RR to speed it up to the point where it can
match current commuter rail times to Boston. It would be neat, and I
might even use it once in a blue moon. However, it has even less
chance of happening than construction of a light rail line on the
Saugus or Watertown branches. About the only restoration of service
I can think of that is less likely is Boston - Montreal passenger
service (all the routes in service as of 1950 now have at least 50
miles of abandoned and removed track).
I may be wasting my breath, but I think that the energy spent
promoting the Lynn Blue Line extension would be better spent on
asking for 1) more frequent commuter rail, 2) lower fares on the
commuter rail, and 3) grade crossing eliminations in Chelsea to
reduce travel time. Here, at least, you'll be working on something
that you can build a coalition with other North Shore towns on, and
low-budget incremental improvements are possible, rather than a NIMBY
fight, followed by a big $200M construction project taking several
years before anyone other than the contractors and consultants
benefits at all.
Walking from North Station to the vicinity of Government Center or
Aquarium is trivial, my father did it almost every day for years.
The actual distance from Causeway St. to City Hall Plaza is only four
blocks. North Station access to the Green and Orange lines will be
much better when current construction ends. Nobody has any budget to
extend the downtown end of the Blue Line. So, for the forseeable
future all the Lynn Blue Line really buys you is better access to
Logan, and unless you get back to the old days of McGee as Speaker,
it will never get beyond the initial cost-benefit analysis.
jbvb
Ron Newman
In article <970722...@far-acres.farm.net>, jb...@satisfied.apocalypse.org
says...
>I may be wasting my breath, but I think that the energy spent
>promoting the Lynn Blue Line extension would be better spent on
>asking for 1) more frequent commuter rail, 2) lower fares on the
>commuter rail, and 3) grade crossing eliminations in Chelsea to
>reduce travel time.
Why eliminate grade crossings? These crossings are all protected by
gates, and I see no reason that a commuter train can't cross them
at 60 mph or even 79 mph. Eliminating grade crossings may help car
traffic but it does nothing at all for the trains.
Also, nearly all trains now stop at Chelsea. If you want to really
speed up Lynn-Boston times, you'll have to bypass that stop.
Sheldon Kovitz
In article <5r3jcs$9...@drn.zippo.com> Ron Newman <rne...@thecia.net> writes:
>In article <970722...@far-acres.farm.net>, jb...@satisfied.apocalypse.org
>says...
>
>>I may be wasting my breath, but I think that the energy spent
>>promoting the Lynn Blue Line extension would be better spent on
>>asking for 1) more frequent commuter rail, 2) lower fares on the
>>commuter rail, and 3) grade crossing eliminations in Chelsea to
>>reduce travel time.
How frequent does the commuter rail through Lynn have to be for it
to be more useful than Wonderland service? Would every 30 minutes
all day be enough? Is that possible with such a long train? Wouldn't
it waste fuel and personnel?
What is the lower fare you seek? Now $2.25 is the fare from North
Station to Boston? Does it require a $1.50 fare to be used? Is that
really the reason for the miniscule boardings inbound from Lynn?
Are passengers riding the 441/442 bus to Wonderland to beat the T
out of $0.80? (Maybe.)
>
>Why eliminate grade crossings? These crossings are all protected by
>gates, and I see no reason that a commuter train can't cross them
>at 60 mph or even 79 mph. Eliminating grade crossings may help car
>traffic but it does nothing at all for the trains.
There is a grade crossing in Revere with a fast run through - at least
60 mph.
>
>Also, nearly all trains now stop at Chelsea. If you want to really
>speed up Lynn-Boston times, you'll have to bypass that stop.
Right: does 48 persons a day make for a useful stop. How many would
use a stop at Wonderland if it were offered? I think far more than 48.
(Sorry I meant $2.25 from Lynn to Boston)
RTSPCC
>From: sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu (Sheldon Kovitz)
>How frequent does the commuter rail through Lynn have to be for it
>to be more useful than Wonderland service? Would every 30 minutes
>all day be enough? Is that possible with such a long train? Wouldn't
>it waste fuel and personnel?
Who says they have to run long trains?
Short trains with existing equipment or even
1-2 car Diesel Multiple Unit trains could run on
Boston-Beverly shuttles. The MBTA will be
testing the Adtranz IC3 Flexliner DMU this
August on the Eastern route. A small fleet
of DMUs running frequent service would be
a miniscule capital investment compared to
the hundreds of millions needed for a
Blue Line extension. And the commuter rail
shuttle service could already make the Lynn-Boston trip in
19-20 minutes, even faster if speeds are raised in Chelsea, the Blue Line
could not meet that.
When the North Station s"superstation" is completed, commuter rail
passengers will
have an easier transfer to the Green and Orange lines.
>
>What is the lower fare you seek? Now $2.25 is the fare from North
>Station to Boston? Does it require a $1.50 fare to be used? Is that
>really the reason for the miniscule boardings inbound from Lynn?
>Are passengers riding the 441/442 bus to Wonderland to beat the T
>out of $0.80? (Maybe.)
The fare should be in line with the rapid transit system.
It should be the same as service from Braintree, and a
free transfer should be offered at North Station to the Green
And Orange Line. There is no reason a free transfer, even using paper
transfers (like those used on the 39 and 49 buses) if necessary couldn't
be offered.
Garrett Wollman
In article <5r5i3b$qn7$1...@news.cs.umb.edu>,
Sheldon Kovitz <sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu> wrote:
>Station to Boston? Does it require a $1.50 fare to be used? Is that
>really the reason for the miniscule boardings inbound from Lynn?
>Are passengers riding the 441/442 bus to Wonderland to beat the T
>out of $0.80? (Maybe.)
It seems a lot more significant a sum when expressed in monthly pass
rates. Most people don't do a particularly good job at accounting for
the cost of their commuting...
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | O Siem / We are all family / O Siem / We're all the same
wol...@lcs.mit.edu | O Siem / The fires of freedom
Opinions not those of| Dance in the burning flame
MIT, LCS, CRS, or NSA| - Susan Aglukark and Chad Irschick
Ron Newman
In article <5r2nas$gt4$1...@news.cs.umb.edu>, sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu
(Sheldon Kovitz) wrote:
> I suppose an LRV to Marblehead cannot be ruled out, though the residents
> there might not want one.
Does Marblehead want an LRV? They'd have to convert a bicycle trail
back to a rail line, no?
Sheldon Kovitz
>The fare should be in line with the rapid transit system.
>It should be the same as service from Braintree, and a
>free transfer should be offered at North Station to the Green
>And Orange Line. There is no reason a free transfer, even using paper
>transfers (like those used on the 39 and 49 buses) if necessary couldn't
>be offered.
>
A free transfer is automatic for monthly pass holders. But the pass for zone 2
is way higher than the pass for Braintree. Knowledgeable riders of the bus
buy a combo plus pass and supplement the bus fare in cash to save money.
Sheldon Kovitz
>
>Who says they have to run long trains?
>Short trains with existing equipment or even
>1-2 car Diesel Multiple Unit trains could run on
Even short trains run on railroad rules and seem to be more
expensive to run than the blue line. (Am I wrong?)
>Blue Line extension. And the commuter rail
>shuttle service could already make the Lynn-Boston trip in
>19-20 minutes, even faster if speeds are raised in Chelsea, the Blue Line
>could not meet that.
The current Blue Line without express service is not a good idea.
I agree.
>>What is the lower fare you seek? Now $2.25 is the fare from North
>>Station to Boston? Does it require a $1.50 fare to be used? Is that
>>really the reason for the miniscule boardings inbound from Lynn?
>>Are passengers riding the 441/442 bus to Wonderland to beat the T
>>out of $0.80? (Maybe.)
>
>The fare should be in line with the rapid transit system.
>It should be the same as service from Braintree, and a
>free transfer should be offered at North Station to the Green
>And Orange Line. There is no reason a free transfer, even using paper
>transfers (like those used on the 39 and 49 buses) if necessary couldn't
>be offered.
>
If you do this for Lynn, will you do this for Greenwood, for Route 128,
for Newtonville? This would be a major policy change for commuter rail.
Other areas would be up in arms if an exception were made. Note from
the T's point of view that commuter rail ridership is growing rapidly,
even without such concessions.
Note further that this DMU service only serves selected stations, versus
the bus's stop at every corner. The ridership from the North Shore
would need a two-segment commute to replace a one-seat ride. And the
running time from Lynn to Boston is only about 5 minutes less with the
train. It doesn't make sense given the ridership that it is seeking
to attract.
Fix up the commuter rail, but look into LRV service for the real solution
for Lynn, Salem, and Swampscott - both Boston-Lynn and local.
Ron Newman
In article <5r7vjm$50n$1...@news.cs.umb.edu>, sko...@terminus.cs.umb.edu says...
>>The fare should be in line with the rapid transit system.
>>It should be the same as service from Braintree, and a
>>free transfer should be offered at North Station to the Green
>>And Orange Line. There is no reason a free transfer, even using paper
>>transfers (like those used on the 39 and 49 buses) if necessary couldn't
>>be offered.
>If you do this for Lynn, will you do this for Greenwood, for Route 128,
>for Newtonville? This would be a major policy change for commuter rail.
>Other areas would be up in arms if an exception were made.
The Red Line fare from Braintree is $1.70; the commuter rail fare
from Lynn is $2.25. Maybe the MBTA should consider moving
Lynn from the current Zone 2 to Zone 1B which has a fare of $1.25.
It's true that most of the Zone 1B stations are close in, but
West Medford is pretty far from Boston and is in that zone.
Ron Newman
In article <970725...@far-acres.farm.net>, jb...@farm.net wrote:
> Long ago, the B&M allowed 60MPH through Eastern Ave. and the series
> of crossings from the Tobin Bridge approach to Second St. About the
> time the Chelsea fire area grew its mall, the speed limit was reduced
> to maybe 40 over the crossings near it. Then, later, the speed on
> the Eastern Ave. crossing was reduced to about 30.
Why were these speeds reduced? I'd think that the city of Chelsea
would want the trains to go as fast as possible through all these
crossings, in order to minimize the amount of time that they
are blocked.
Stuart R Salzer
> The Red Line fare from Braintree is $1.70; the commuter rail fare
> from Lynn is $2.25. Maybe the MBTA should consider moving
> Lynn from the current Zone 2 to Zone 1B which has a fare of $1.25.
The Last I saw when the New Old Colony Lines open Braintree will be in zone
2 for commuter rail, and Quincy Center in Zone 1. So it will be cheaper to
use the Red line.
____________ ____________________________________________
(__ | _) (__
___)tuart | \_____)alzer s...@tiac.net
Steve Deveau
rne...@thecia.net (Ron Newman) wrote:
>Why were these speeds reduced? I'd think that the city of Chelsea
>would want the trains to go as fast as possible through all these
>crossings, in order to minimize the amount of time that they
>are blocked.
Except for Eastern Avenue, the speed limit was reduced in the late
60's in reaction to a string of fatal grade corssing accidents in that
area, one of which killed over 10 train passengers.
As for speeds between Boston and Lynn (which I think I saw discussed
in this thread - sorry if it wasn't), I rode with one cowboy on a
Saturday with a one car Budd who did the trip in 14 minutes.
Steve Deveau
Carl R. Friend
Robert Coe, in article nr. <3465aae8...@News.TIAC.NET>, wrote:
>
> To "dump the air" is to deliberately cause a total loss of pressure
> in the air line that maintains pressure against the brakes.
Sometimes deliberately, sometimes not - usually not. The vast
bulk of either emergency or penalty stops on the "T" are caused by
the drivers not paying close attention to the displayed signal
aspects. Run past a red (cab) signal for more than a few seconds
and _bang_ - "big hole".
> Once this has been done, you can't restart the train until you have
> repressurized both the air tanks that apply the brakes and the air
> line that keeps them from being applied. That can take several
> minutes.
Thirty-five to forty seconds is typical for a Red Line train.
They dump the air with disgusting frequency (though they have been
getting better as of late).
--
______________________________________________________________________
| | |
| Carl Richard Friend (UNIX Sysadmin) | West Boylston |
| Minicomputer Collector / Enthusiast | Massachusetts, USA |
| mailto:carl....@stoneweb.com | |
| http://www.ultranet.com/~engelbrt/carl/museum | ICBM: N42:22 W71:47 |
|________________________________________________|_____________________|
Robert Coe
On Tue, 15 Jul 1997 03:38:34 GMT, k...@world.std.com (Kurt Hackenberg) wrote:
: I don't know anything about subway trains, but do know some things
: about computers (I'm a software engineer). ...
:
: Not knowing anything about the trains, I don't quite understand what
: the computer is doing. Is it the MS-DOS computer that automatically
: applies the brakes when the train's speed gets too high, or when it
: gets too close to the train in front? What else does that computer
: do? What do you mean when you say it "dumps"?
If you're in software engineer mode, it's not what you think. ;^) To "dump
the air" is to deliberately cause a total loss of pressure in the air line
that maintains pressure against the brakes. This, in turn, causes the brakes
to be applied (by the pressurized air maintained in a tank near each wheel)
with all available force. Once this has been done, you can't restart the
train until you have repressurized both the air tanks that apply the brakes
and the air line that keeps them from being applied. That can take several
minutes.
--
___ _ - Bob
/__) _ / / ) _ _
(_/__) (_)_(_) (___(_)_(/_____________________________________ b...@1776.COM
Robert K. Coe ** 14 Churchill St, Sudbury, MA 01776-2120 USA ** 978-443-3265
John Arico
> > in the air line that maintains pressure against the brakes.
>
> bulk of either emergency or penalty stops on the "T" are caused by
> the drivers not paying close attention to the displayed signal
> aspects. Run past a red (cab) signal for more than a few seconds
> and _bang_ - "big hole".
>
The Blue Line does not have cab signals(ATO)... The line has timed
signals with trips.
> > Once this has been done, you can't restart the train until you have
> > repressurized both the air tanks that apply the brakes and the air
> > line that keeps them from being applied. That can take several
> > minutes.
>
ore...@freud.mec.edu
In article <346610...@ix.netcom.com>,
John Arico <sery...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Carl R. Friend wrote:
> >
> > Robert Coe, in article nr. <3465aae8...@News.TIAC.NET>, wrote:
> > >
> > > To "dump the air" is to deliberately cause a total loss of pressure
> > > in the air line that maintains pressure against the brakes.
> >
Dumping the air, hitting the big hole, tripping or getting nailed all
refer to losing the pressure in the emergency pipe (EP), a large (1" or
more) air line which runs the length of the train. When the EP is
pressurized, the brakes in each car respond to the pressure in the
Straight Air Pipe, the load on the car and other factors. When the EP
pressure is lost, the Emergency Valve in each car isolates that car from
the rest of the train and applies the brakes at maximum pressure.
To release the brakes after an emergency application, the operator has to
eliminate the cause of the emergency application and place the controller
in full service position. The emergency pipe then charges through a
restricted passage, which prevents an immediate release. When the proper
pressure is reached, the Emergency Valves return control of the brakes to
the operator. This process, unlike that of a railroad train, does not
involve charging any tanks.
Trips and Cab Signal induced emergency applications reset automatically.
Other causes, such as passenger emergency valves must be reset manually.
Some causes, like a blown hose, will disable the train.
Gerry
-------------------==== Posted via Deja News ====-----------------------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Post to Usenet