|
|
|
GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
Long Island Mike
Senior Member
GO Electrification: Comparing overhead catenary with third rail...
Everyone: I have been following the developments of the proposed GO Transit Electrification and noting the mention of DC third rail here that the LIRR
(and MNCR) in the New York City area are both "legacy" inherited third rail electrifications and in both cases have been expanded - two examples built
during the 1980s were MNCR's Upper Harlem Line from North White Plains to Brewster North (Town of Southeast-Putnam County,NY) and the LIRR's
Hicksville-Ronkonkoma Electrification...With lower-voltage DC third rail you need substations every 2-3 miles and most importantly a substation at each
station so trains leaving a station can accelerate-at that time they are drawing their highest amperage...During the winter season the third rail needs
to be kept clean from ice buildup and from snow especially when it reaches the height of the third rail itself and more...At grade crossings the third rail
"gaps" on each side of a road usually are not wide enough to cause problems for married-pair MU cars which are 170 feet long (85 feet times two)
and that long switch gaps near major stations can be more of a problem for these MU cars...
I now note that GO is looking to construct a 25KV (thousand) volt AC system which would match what Amtrak (New Haven-Boston) and New Jersey
Transit (The Hoboken Division Morris-Essex Lines and the North Jersey Coast line between Matawan and Long Branch) currently use along with 11KV
on other parts of their systems and all of SEPTA's (Philadelphia) Regional Rail system...Both Amtrak and NJT use locomotives that can change voltages
"on the fly" which is something that MU cars on these systems can not do - but MNCR's new M8 cars are going to be equipped for both AC voltage
levels (for the Shore Line East service east of New Haven,CT) and third rail for the lines into NYC's Grand Central Terminal...
I believe that GO will eventually have a substantial EMU fleet serving the Lakeshore Lines primarily and use both straight electric locomotives and
Bombardier's diesel-AC electric ALP45DP (example) which are currently used by NJT and Montreal's AMT from other GO routes allowing that option...
GO Transit Electrification will be a significant-and expensive-improvement for the GO Rail system that could very well turn out to be one of the most
pivotal moves that GO has ever made - right up there with the GO bilevel car design...
LI MIKE
Everyone: I have been following the developments of the proposed GO Transit Electrification and noting the mention of DC third rail here that the LIRR
(and MNCR) in the New York City area are both "legacy" inherited third rail electrifications and in both cases have been expanded - two examples built
during the 1980s were MNCR's Upper Harlem Line from North White Plains to Brewster North (Town of Southeast-Putnam County,NY) and the LIRR's
Hicksville-Ronkonkoma Electrification...With lower-voltage DC third rail you need substations every 2-3 miles and most importantly a substation at each
station so trains leaving a station can accelerate-at that time they are drawing their highest amperage...During the winter season the third rail needs
to be kept clean from ice buildup and from snow especially when it reaches the height of the third rail itself and more...At grade crossings the third rail
"gaps" on each side of a road usually are not wide enough to cause problems for married-pair MU cars which are 170 feet long (85 feet times two)
and that long switch gaps near major stations can be more of a problem for these MU cars...
I now note that GO is looking to construct a 25KV (thousand) volt AC system which would match what Amtrak (New Haven-Boston) and New Jersey
Transit (The Hoboken Division Morris-Essex Lines and the North Jersey Coast line between Matawan and Long Branch) currently use along with 11KV
on other parts of their systems and all of SEPTA's (Philadelphia) Regional Rail system...Both Amtrak and NJT use locomotives that can change voltages
"on the fly" which is something that MU cars on these systems can not do - but MNCR's new M8 cars are going to be equipped for both AC voltage
levels (for the Shore Line East service east of New Haven,CT) and third rail for the lines into NYC's Grand Central Terminal...
I believe that GO will eventually have a substantial EMU fleet serving the Lakeshore Lines primarily and use both straight electric locomotives and
Bombardier's diesel-AC electric ALP45DP (example) which are currently used by NJT and Montreal's AMT from other GO routes allowing that option...
GO Transit Electrification will be a significant-and expensive-improvement for the GO Rail system that could very well turn out to be one of the most
pivotal moves that GO has ever made - right up there with the GO bilevel car design...
LI MIKE
Edward
Senior Member
I can't believe it would take 10 years to do this. Major World Wars have been fought in shorter time frames.
muller877
Senior Member
In the UK, SW Rail has a lot of 3rd Rail and it is horrible. The problem there is ice. When ice gets on the 3rd rail there are sparks. And for some reason, the rail companies never contemplated sparks and the bottom of railcars are combustable!
There is always smoke and the rail system grinds to a halt with 1 inch of snow (the 2 days it snows a year there).
This may be a bit bigger of a problem in Ontario expecially with the expansion of the system beyond the GTA into the snowbelt (Barrie and Stratford areas)
andrewpmk
Senior Member
Overhead wires are much better on mainline systems because they tend to be more reliable, and you avoid safety issues at level crossings. Also if high speed rail is ever built, it makes sense to use the same 25000V electrification as modern high speed rail systems use, so that rolling stock only needs to be compatible with 1 type of electrification. No new mainline rail system that I know of is installing third rail, and 25000V is standard on new systems.
Most underground systems use third rail because it reduces tunnel diameter. This is of course one of the big disadvantages of the Eglinton LRT, as building larger diameter tunnels for overhead wires costs money. The underground sections of the line would cost less if we had built a conventional subway that ends at Don Mills (using third rail, high floor rolling stock is less expensive, automation reduces labour costs, etc.) Of course, a Union Station tunnel will have to use overhead wires, but it makes no sense to use overhead wires on an underground line unless you are building an underground commuter rail system like the RER/Crossrail.
ehlow
Senior Member
Hopefully certain lines will come online sooner. They're starting with lakeshore right?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Can we cut this nonsense please? You've already posted on this matter once just a few days ago in this very thread hat's really not about it:
Any further attempts to work that into the discussion will be deleted. And for the record, Hong Kong metro (subway) uses overhead wire for what is a predominantly underground system.
AoD
Last edited:
Earlscourt_Lad
Active Member
Thanks everyone for the replies in regards to third rail.
diminutive
Active Member
I don't think such a tunnel would really be needed for a RER network. Union should have plenty of physical room to accommodate new services. The assumptions which lead to USRC Capacity Study to suggest a new tunnel or terminal station seem questionable and in any case undermine the entire point of RER networks (high frequency 'through' routes).
Paradoxically, we may need to reduce the total number of platforms at Union to create wider RER platforms with better vertical passenger circulation.
Part of the issue may be the sudden explosion of new rail services proposed in Ontario. Between UPX, HSR, GO Regional Rail, RER proposals and VIA there's clearly a lot of overlap which would have to be collapsed. There's no way Kitchener-Toronto will justify VIA, GO and HSR service, for instance.
Let's make 3 general categories of rail service. Local (a la S-Bahn) lines with frequent, metro-like operations serving the 416 and inner 905. Regional lines focused on the outer 905 (e.g. Barrie, Oshawa, Hamilton) markets with low commuter shares to Toronto as well as places like St. Catharines and London. Finally, you'd have Intercity rail focused on long haul, >200km trips (Montreal, Windsor).
Operationally, within the most of Toronto, you could probably merge the 'Intercity' and 'Regional' routes since they'd both operate more or less express.
Basically, the cost to add a tunnel under Union would start at 1 to 1.5 billion and go up from there. It's really quite a lot of money to double down on a corridor which is quite wide as it is. If there ever was an unavoidable capacity constraint (which I don't believe will happen in our lifetimes), the solution would be to start offloading the Intercity and Regional trains somewhere else (a new North Toronto Station?) where they could sit for longer without displacing trains serving much busier local routes. If space really is at such a premium at Union, then it should be catered to routes with the greatest ridership potential which means 'local' routes.
robmausser
Senior Member
Another two issues with Third Rail is speed limitations and level crossings.
Third Rail has a speed limit of around 99mph. Express GO trains on the Lakeshore Line already go much faster than this, around 95mph.
So we do not want a slower system, the point of electrification was to speed the train service up even faster than 99mph.
Also what do you do at level crossings with cars? Third rail means the entire system must be grade separated.
Finally, the biggest issue that was mentioned above is snow and ice. They cause tons of issues on third rail, and thats the last thing we want in Toronto.
More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Benefits_and_disadvantages
Third Rail has a speed limit of around 99mph. Express GO trains on the Lakeshore Line already go much faster than this, around 95mph.
So we do not want a slower system, the point of electrification was to speed the train service up even faster than 99mph.
Also what do you do at level crossings with cars? Third rail means the entire system must be grade separated.
Finally, the biggest issue that was mentioned above is snow and ice. They cause tons of issues on third rail, and thats the last thing we want in Toronto.
More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Benefits_and_disadvantages
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I don't think third rail is even on the table so let's move on.
The thing that GO and Metrolinx should determine FIRST before doing anything is fare integration. If there is not, at the very least, a 100% deduction of commuter rail fare from local transit fare such as West Coast Express in Vancouver, then this idea won't mean a hoot to Torontonians. GO is too expensive and until fare integration is brought in, at a minimum, then GO will still be too costly for the masses.
The thing that GO and Metrolinx should determine FIRST before doing anything is fare integration. If there is not, at the very least, a 100% deduction of commuter rail fare from local transit fare such as West Coast Express in Vancouver, then this idea won't mean a hoot to Torontonians. GO is too expensive and until fare integration is brought in, at a minimum, then GO will still be too costly for the masses.
rbt
Senior Member
I assume VIA would cut the Toronto/Kitchener/London route entirely and instead run some adjusted service via Hamilton/London to Windsor/Sarnia. In fact, some passengers going further down the line might take the HSR for part of the trip and transfer to VIA in London; VIA might even prefer this as it would better fill their train for the entire trip and they could run fewer of them at higher cost recovery.
An extremely common pattern on HSR lines is to have a parallel/feeder local service and GO + HSR fits this.
It'll be interesting to see how quickly, if at all, the feds/Quebec jump on board after HSR construction starts. I don't think we'll see anything from them until construction starts. It'll be the Toronto versus Montreal subway competition all over again.
Last edited:
salsa
Senior Member
dunkalunk
Senior Member
Didn't the complicated nature of the pilings below the rail corridor through Union pretty much make relocating of tracks in the shed an impossibility? Someone is going to have to elaborate here, since I'm not exactly sure where this came from.
I actually agree with most of your analysis here. Once HSR gets underway, VIA's days on the north mainline are numbered.
I'd actually envisioned 4 tiers:
Metro-Rail: Suburban Subway-Type Spacing between 1-3km with frequencies as low as 5 minutes. Combination of Metro and Subway (I think what John Tory's SmartTrack is supposed to be getting at) and the type of spacing I was going for in my earlier post (didn't quite have the words for it yet).
Regional: All-Stop, bi-directional GO DMU/EMU service with stops every 3-10km running every 15 minutes to half hour.
Express: Similar to VIA's current intercity service with a few added stops to provide better GO connections (Bramalea, Pickering, James North etc.)
Limited: High Speed Rail service.
This depends on your definition of regional. This is essentially true for what I'm calling Express and Limited services.
I know throwing all of your trains in one corridor may not be the most ideal, however, I really don't think a North Toronto station is possible. Even if it were possible, diverting trains to the North Toronto Sub would not connect well with the existing/planned Subway network. At least by having Union it would be possible to have metro-rail stops on the fringes of downtown to intersect with the DRL and Streetcar/LRT network, as well as provide frequent service on the same corridor where lines overlap.
It would be wonderful if Metrolinx is able to get electrification and PTC figured out well enough to not need require constructing a tunnel or building a second station in the Bathurst yards. We'll have to see where system upgrades go in the next 10 years to find out.
jamincan
Active Member
Wasn't one of the major capacity constraints of Union the fact that all the lines are basically operated as terminating lines, requiring significant time for them to reverse directions? If they switch to through service, this should allow much shorter dwell times at Union, and for service that does terminate there, shorter trains (presumably the outcome of more frequent electric service) wouldn't take as long to inspect when reversing directions.