Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

[smallspy]

Where did they say that they were considering single-car operation? I was under the impression that there was only a cab at one end of each car, meaning that a single unit would get to the end of the line and need to turn around or drive in reverse.

Much like many other things with this project, there has never been a public acknowledgement about what form the service will take. But from what I've heard from the ivory tower, there is some concern that ridership will be light very early in the day and very late at night, and thus it may make more sense to run a single-car train.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Much like many other things with this project, there has never been a public acknowledgement about what form the service will take. But from what I've heard from the ivory tower, there is some concern that ridership will be light very early in the day and very late at night, and thus it may make more sense to run a single-car train.

Where did they say that they were considering single-car operation? I was under the impression that there was only a cab at one end of each car, meaning that a single unit would get to the end of the line and need to turn around or drive in reverse.

I share reaperexpress' question. Why bother with a single-car operation and separating units, especially if you don't have a cab at both ends? Wouldn't that be a strict no-no after the GO train collision at Union in 1997 and the TSB's report?

 

[smallspy]

I share reaperexpress' question. Why bother with a single-car operation and separating units, especially if you don't have a cab at both ends? Wouldn't that be a strict no-no after the GO train collision at Union in 1997 and the TSB's report?

I'm not sure how you can link up a lack of a cab at one end with the GO collision at Union, since neither have anything to do with the other whatsoever. Trains regularly operate without a cab leading every day, even at Union Station.

In any case, the C cars are supposed to have a small cab at each end.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

I'm not sure how you can link up a lack of a cab at one end with the GO collision at Union, since neither have anything to do with the other whatsoever. Trains regularly operate without a cab leading every day, even at Union Station.

In any case, the C cars are supposed to have a small cab at each end.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I guess I should have provided additional detail.

The TSB report can be found here. Basically, a collision happened because a GO train was backing into Union, controlled by the locomotive at the tail end. The track it was backing into was unknowingly occupied, and the conductor at the leading end failed to communicate or stop the situation. Crash, 56 people injured. The TSB issued a formal recommendation that the locomotive engineer must always control the train from the leading end in the Union Station Rail Corridor.

All that to say that from a safety perspective, it would be frowned upon to have a 1-car operation if there wasn't a cab at both ends. But if the C cars have a cab at each end like you say, then it's a non-issue.

 

[mdrejhon]

All that to say that from a safety perspective, it would be frowned upon to have a 1-car operation if there wasn't a cab at both ends. But if the C cars have a cab at each end like you say, then it's a non-issue.

The time it takes to detach A cars from C cars, so that C cars can run as a single train (tram-style), could outweigh simply just running the A-A trains (two cars) late at night. The train is much nicer looking. That said, operations using single C cars is probably doable as a service frequency fill, during times when other cars or trainsets are out of service (splitting an A-C-A trainset into an A-A trainset and a single C car)

 

[AlbertHWagstaff]

The time it takes to detach A cars from C cars, so that C cars can run as a single train (tram-style), could outweigh simply just running the A-A trains (two cars) late at night. The train is much nicer looking. That said, operations using single C cars is probably doable as a service frequency fill, during times when other cars or trainsets are out of service (splitting an A-C-A trainset into an A-A trainset and a single C car)

Or they could simply have an A-A set and single C car not coupled up and available to run at the lower frequencies without having to uncouple sets, depending on service needs. As sets are coupled and uncoupled, one set could always be set up as an A-A with a single C car not coupled in. Not suggesting that this is the best way to run this, but could be done.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

The time it takes to detach A cars from C cars, so that C cars can run as a single train (tram-style), could outweigh simply just running the A-A trains (two cars) late at night. The train is much nicer looking. That said, operations using single C cars is probably doable as a service frequency fill, during times when other cars or trainsets are out of service (splitting an A-C-A trainset into an A-A trainset and a single C car)

Or they could simply have an A-A set and single C car not coupled up and available to run at the lower frequencies without having to uncouple sets, depending on service needs. As sets are coupled and uncoupled, one set could always be set up as an A-A with a single C car not coupled in. Not suggesting that this is the best way to run this, but could be done.

I also agree and was implying this: why bother uncoupling/recoupling consists? The order provides for A-A or A-C-A consists. GO doesn't practice this either, they have their 10- or 12-packs and leave them together unless a coach or loco has issues requiring it to be split off.

 

[AlbertHWagstaff]

I also agree and was implying this: why bother uncoupling/recoupling consists? The order provides for A-A or A-C-A consists. GO doesn't practice this either, they have their 10- or 12-packs and leave them together unless a coach or loco has issues requiring it to be split off.

Just to clarify, where I mentioned sets being coupled and uncoupled, this would be in the normal course of maintenance or otherwise changing out cars, not specifically to create an A-A set with a single C car. At any one time, one set could be sitting in the yard as an A-A and a C. If in a few days the C car from another set needs to be changed out, the available single C car would be inserted and the one removed would become the single C. C cars would not need to be dedicated to a specific A-A set.

 

[smallspy]

I guess I should have provided additional detail.

The TSB report can be found here. Basically, a collision happened because a GO train was backing into Union, controlled by the locomotive at the tail end. The track it was backing into was unknowingly occupied, and the conductor at the leading end failed to communicate or stop the situation. Crash, 56 people injured. The TSB issued a formal recommendation that the locomotive engineer must always control the train from the leading end in the Union Station Rail Corridor.

I'm well aware of the accident, and the TSB report and its implications. Doesn't change the fact that on a daily basis, 20 VIA trains or more are backed into and out of Union Station.

It also doesn't change the fact that there have been times when a train, by necessity of timing, is still backed into Union while under control at the opposite end. GO has changed their procedures to help prevent the situation that resulted in the accident, however, and may in fact no longer operate the trains that way.

I also agree and was implying this: why bother uncoupling/recoupling consists? The order provides for A-A or A-C-A consists. GO doesn't practice this either, they have their 10- or 12-packs and leave them together unless a coach or loco has issues requiring it to be split off.

If you uncouple cars from an L10, where do you leave the other cars? You can't just leave them anyplace. There also needs to be a cab car where the train would be cut.

It's different with the UPX equipment, as each unit is self-contained. And there is more than enough time in the expected schedules to allow for it to be done at Pearson.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[crs1026]

I'm guessing that rather than cutting in and out at Pearson, equipment would likely be deadheaded to and from the maintenance base and/or marshalled at Union, where there are people available to help with cables, brake tests, etc. It does seem more costly all told than just running the standard 2-car sets. I suppose it gives some flexibility to cut out a single car if one failed, or to increase the number of 2-car trainsets beyond the original plan.

To be a bit caustic, all this expense for a very minimal ridership? I know what I call a single-unit DMU that hauls a very small number of passengers.

"A Bus"

- Paul

 

[drum118]

Feb 11
The Ivory Tower has some real nice rosy glasses to come up with this new C car. At no time was this said or raise at Metrolinx meetings or EA's. I guess its OK to breakdown the UPX train and not worry about cost compare to the L10-12 trains cost.

That single DMU is a bus as noted above. This is supposed to be a "World Class System" and you going to run 1 car, "NOT WORLD CLASS", but a joke.

Anyway, I happen to be up on Torbram Rd road to day and had a quick look at the work for the grade separation. Track 1 is missing with signal masts in place for it as well the current 3 tracks. Utilities work taking place at this time. No idea what they plan for the business driveways as well the street that are just south of the crossing as they will be cut off from Torbram due to grade.

Looks like they were doing track work up at Malton Station, but no time to stop off and have a look.

Stop off at the airport for a look see of the new UPX terminal and work was taking place on the rails east of the crossover. From what I could see inside of the terminal, finish coat of paint and carpet? still to be done. Some wood benches in place as well 1 TVM that I could see.

More up on site
http://youtu.be/DGs48IPkIGo
http://youtu.be/5VIm5XIyaBk

[video=youtube_share;sjiOXMw9Iwg]http://youtu.be/sjiOXMw9Iwg[/video]

 

[crs1026]

I took a "shareholder's tour" this week myself and noted a great deal of new track laid, but not necessarily destressed or ballasted. The only gaps I noted were a short one at Weston Station, where the gap appeared to be intended to let vehicles reach construction on the platforms; a short stretch south of Black Creek; and at Bloor station where again there was a lot of construction equipment working. There are now four tracks laid through the West Toronto underpass, although one will be unused until all the further construction for the fourth track is completed. They are still pouring concrete at Bloor, which says to me that the station is further away from completion.

East of Bloor, there is generally at least 2 tracks in place although it's hard to tell how what has been laid will be stitched together. I didn't see the north side from my GO Train, so I don't know if the additional track for the Newmarket Sub is near completion. At some point they will have to decommission the Parkdale interlocking as the plant and switch heaters are in its path. The Lansdowne bridgework is still progressing so no new track in place there.

As I have commented all along, it's puzzling how the alignment for the fourth track appears to have been roughed in in some aspects, but completely ignored in the design in other spots. The signalling clearly has all the masts and lights for the extra track (and I understand the underlying control circuitry already has it designed in) but at Etobicoke North there is a whole new sewer drain and ditching on the north side where the fourth track will go. I wonder how much of the new infrastructure will have to be torn out when the fourth track goes in. For that matter, the temporary setup at Etobicoke North will all have to go - is there a secret plan to relocate that station in total?

Just some armchair superintendent comments from the 500 level bleachers. Overall, it's coming together nicely, but a startup date in April sure seems unrealistic.

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

It's great to have you here on Urban Toronto, Paul. We've met a few times, I really value your informed opinions on transit issues.

- Sean

 

[DKsan]

UP EXPRESS AND CIBC ANNOUNCE INNOVATIVE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

February 13, 2015
Multi-year agreement will see CIBC help improve traveller experience on new train link
Union Pearson Express (UP Express) and CIBC (TSX: CM) (NYSE: CM) today announced a strategic partnership that will see the bank provide innovative services that will enhance the travel experience for riders of the new express rail service between Union Station and Toronto Pearson International Airport, opening this spring.

"We are proud to be a Founding Partner in this legacy project that will greatly improve Toronto’s transit service and provide an important train link from the city core to the airport," said Stephen Forbes, CIBC’s Executive Vice-President of Brand, Corporate and Client Relationships.

"With more than 2.5 million people expected to use UP Express annually, we see this strategic partnership as an extension of our collaboration with the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and a further opportunity to bring value to our clients and travellers by enhancing their banking and air travel experience."

"CIBC brings its significant knowledge of what travellers need and want, as well as a history of innovation, to our partnership," noted Kathy Haley, President of UP Express. "This is more than just financial support – it is a strategic partnership based on mutual benefits and a shared vision of contributing to the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area."

"As a division of Metrolinx, our goal is to improve the transportation and transit network in our region, specifically by creating a faster, more convenient and reliable choice for getting to the airport from downtown. This partnership strengthens our ability to achieve that aim."

Under the innovative agreement, CIBC will have exclusivity in offering and marketing its financial services directly to air travellers, as part of an overall focus to enable its clients to bank when, where and how they want.

In return, UP Express will be able to offer improved services and amenities that will enhance the traveller experience:

CIBC will provide travellers with access to Canadian and foreign cash through multi-currency ATMs at UP’s stations at Union and Pearson.
The "CIBC UPstairs" lounge at Union Station will provide travellers with a chance to meet colleagues and friends, and to relax or recharge before or after their trip.
CIBC will sponsor the Wi-Fi service aboard UP Express trains and at its stations, helping travellers stay connected while they travel.
"CIBC is thrilled to be part of a world class option for passengers travelling between Canada’s two busiest transportation hubs," stated Forbes.

"CIBC’s involvement is a major vote of confidence from the business community, and a reflection of their high interest in UP Express," said Haley. "This is the first of several partnerships we will be announcing with national and local companies to help us offer more services and amenities for air travellers."

 

[vegeta_skyline]

I share reaperexpress' question. Why bother with a single-car operation and separating units, especially if you don't have a cab at both ends? Wouldn't that be a strict no-no after the GO train collision at Union in 1997 and the TSB's report?

I guess I should have provided additional detail.

The TSB report can be found here. Basically, a collision happened because a GO train was backing into Union, controlled by the locomotive at the tail end. The track it was backing into was unknowingly occupied, and the conductor at the leading end failed to communicate or stop the situation. Crash, 56 people injured. The TSB issued a formal recommendation that the locomotive engineer must always control the train from the leading end in the Union Station Rail Corridor.

All that to say that from a safety perspective, it would be frowned upon to have a 1-car operation if there wasn't a cab at both ends. But if the C cars have a cab at each end like you say, then it's a non-issue.

It's important to understand that TSB recommendations are entirely that, recommendations and not directives. Neither the railways nor Transport Canada are required by law to implement them. Transport Canada is the only party that can issue directives(or Directions, Response Letters and Orders) effectively forcing the railroads to comply with an order i.e. several were made after the Lac Megantic disaster. Though that is comparatively rare occurrence. Indeed the vast majority of the time TSB recommendations are implemented (though quite often modified in some way) as was indeed the case after the Union station incident where CN - the operating railroad - issued Notice No. 97-058 preventing GO trains from operating in reverse without changing ends within the TTR - GO trains could still reverse anywhere else on the system.

Why is this important to consider? Because unlike Transport Canada directives/orders, there will not be any kind of press release or public statement from the railroads indicating if/when/how those rules which were implemented because of TSB recommendations are rescinded. Meaning they can be and indeed are frequently rescinded internally. The only way I've seen it become publicly available is if they are relevant to another TSB investigation in the future. I say all this because CN Notice No. 97-058 was rescinded over three years ago.

The current rule for making a reverse rule in the USRC can be found in the TTR USRC Operating manual. It states:

In the application of CROR 602(c), when a GO Train/Equipment is required to make a reverse move within the USRC, the TMD must be notified of this requirement.

A crew member must take up a position in the locomotive/cab control car on the leading end in the direction of travel. The automatic brake valve and a radio check must be conducted between the two ends.

Upon receiving authority to make the reverse move, the crew member on the leading end in the direction of travel must contact the locomotive engineer by radio and give instructions to make this move. Such crew member must comply with CROR 13 (Engine Bell) and CROR 14 (f) (alarm for person or animals).

If an emergency develops which requires an immediate stop, the crew member on the leading end in the direction of travel may initiate the emergency brake application by placing the automatic brake valve into the emergency position. Such crew member must remain in position until the reserve movement is completed and the movement has come to a final stop.

By "crew member" they are of course referring to CROR qualified members i.e. the engineer(s) or conductor and not the CSA.

CROR rule 602(c) is the specific rule dealing with receiving authority to reversing directions within an interlocking which is what the USRC is.

There is also an additional slightly less restrictive procedure for when a train overshots a mini ramp by up to a coach and needs to reverse to be re-spotted on the mini ramp.

I know all that's not really relevant to the discussion but if I got a dollar for every time I seen or heard someone refer to GO trains being restricted from backing up I could of bought myself a decent meal by now. And being privy to the actual procedure in place I do feel somewhat obligated in correcting that belief.

Much like many other things with this project, there has never been a public acknowledgement about what form the service will take. But from what I've heard from the ivory tower, there is some concern that ridership will be light very early in the day and very late at night, and thus it may make more sense to run a single-car train.

I have no idea how difficult it is(probably not that difficult considering they own the territory the equipment and don't use CN crews) but before they can run single car DMU's they'll have to get an exemption from CN GOI restriction 3.34:

LOCOMOTIVES RUNNING LIGHT AND SELF PROPELLED CAR MOVEMENTS
...
- Where a signal system with automatic features is in service
(i) One unit running light 30 MPH