GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[Duck]

I only ask because like 2 weeks ago, all the news outlets were losing their shit over this... so like, what changed? Or was the news just wrong, and knee-jerk reporting (as if!)?

 

[kEiThZ]

I would also credit John Tory and his SmartTrack for making the Kitchener and Stouffville electrification a priority.

If they are doing Kitchener first, maybe they'll do Stouffville as well and launch Smart Track (or whatever they want to call it). Would be nice to get more than a few GO frequencies out of the work.

 

[kEiThZ]

I only ask because like 2 weeks ago, all the news outlets were losing their shit over this... so like, what changed? Or was the news just wrong, and knee-jerk reporting (as if!)?

They made it really dramatic. Hardly a showstopper. At most, a little more work, time and money. Heck, maybe a rigid catenary will work and they won't even have to do that much.

 

[gweed123]

Except UPX doesn't need Mimico. How about:

1. UPX yard, UPX-USRC-Union
2. LSW to Mimico (but that's not electric ready whereas Whitby likely will be...)
3. KT to Bramalea
4. ...

Given that UPX is meant to be only 1 x 25kV vs 2 x 25kV+autotransformers for the other services, this would be a comparatively simpler project to begin with on many levels.

Why does UPX not need Mimico? Are the trains not stored there? Almost every time I've gone by on GO I've seen at least one train parked somewhere out there.

 

[smallspy]

Why does UPX not need Mimico? Are the trains not stored there? Almost every time I've gone by on GO I've seen at least one train parked somewhere out there.

UPX is getting its own yard at Islington. They won't need to access Mimico and Don Yard anymore.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[crs1026]

Why does UPX not need Mimico? Are the trains not stored there? Almost every time I've gone by on GO I've seen at least one train parked somewhere out there.

A while back, ML had a consultant prepare this report

http://www.gotransit.com/electrific...enanceFacilityConceptual Design Rpt_Final.pdf

as that they were considering having a separate maintenance base for UPE.

Willowbrook is filling up, which is one of the reasons for the Whitby facility. It's quite plausible that the most expedient route to electrification would be to build a new facility with the electrification built in from the start. It will be quite disruptive to retrofit electrification to Willowbrook given that it is the full-out operations center for diesel trains. Once Whitby is operating, it can take up whatever slack is needed to do the electrification installation at Willowbrook. But Whitby won't be much use to UPE.

This report does not enthuse me, in that it's a gold-plated facility. If you study the org chart, you will see that the consultant contemplated a huge maintenance workforce for a fleet of only 20-some vehicles. IMHO it speaks to the grandiose mindset that UPE was built in. However - as a base for an emerging EMU fleet for RER, it might make a lot of sense, for a few years anyways.

- Paul

 

[gweed123]

Thanks guys, I wasn't aware of that new yard at Islington. Still, IIRC correctly the USRC and a small segment of LSW is going to be the "test track" for RER, hence the phasing I showed earlier.

And yes, Islington as a smaller yard for RER in addition to UPX does make sense.

 

[dowlingm]

Electrifying LSE to Whitby would cost more (longer) but it would accelerate Stouffville I guess and would have to be done at some point. The question is whether the track expansion projects MLX already plans in that area are helped or hindered by having electrification folded in.

 

[mdrejhon]

What kind of Trains are they likely to use once things are electrified? Will they still use the bilevel cars? Will the UP be electrified?

One interesting train I saw while in Amsterdam on Holidays seems appropriate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NS_VIRM

There are multiple options, single and bilevel.
The Amsterdam one could be one of the many choices.
They have touched upon the possibilities in several PDFs:

June 26, 2014
http://metrolinx01.gotransit.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20140626/20140626_BoardMtg_Regional_Express_Rail_EN.pdf#page=3

September 5, 2014
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20140905/20140905_BoardMtg_Regional_Express_Rail_EN.pdf#page=25

They had a MERX tender to invite multiple manufacturers to send information about many different trainset/locomotive types.

I collected an archive of Metrolinx RER advertisements, and the current clipart they use for their electrification advertisements, is the Stadler KISS trainset (typically sold as a 6-coach bilevel EMU) It's most likely just clipart, but it's also likely one possible of the many choices.

 

[ssiguy2]

Interesting to note that I read an article recently about Sydney trains. It is a suburban rail system much like RER and it uses exclusively multi-level trains unlike Melbourne. Many transit professional in Sydney as well as the current government think that it was a mistake and there is a push to phase out all multi-level trains.

While they have good capacity they greatly inhibit the number of trains that can be run because they are much slower to board/exit. Everyone, as expected, crams on the main floor or around the doors but when the trains are full it can take a very long time to exit/board especially those on the upper level as many not getting off still stick around the doors because there station might only be a km away.

I think for commuter rail double-deckers make a lot of sense but not for suburban rail. For commuter rail it makes sense as the traffic usually just gets on at stations heading inbound and then everyone gets off a Union. With suburban rail that is not the case as it simply more of a surface subway with people getting on and off the train all the time. It is a totally different transit pattern. It has become more problematic over the last couple of decades due to more wheelchairs and bikes using the now accessible system. Their priority area is at the main entry level.

This was one of the reasons Melbourne didn't go with multi-levels unlike Sydney.

I don't think Toronto should either for a RER/ST system and just use single level EMUs or standard catenary Metro trains.

 

[drum118]

Interesting to note that I read an article recently about Sydney trains. It is a suburban rail system much like RER and it uses exclusively multi-level trains unlike Melbourne. Many transit professional in Sydney as well as the current government think that it was a mistake and there is a push to phase out all multi-level trains.

While they have good capacity they greatly inhibit the number of trains that can be run because they are much slower to board/exit. Everyone, as expected, crams on the main floor or around the doors but when the trains are full it can take a very long time to exit/board especially those on the upper level as many not getting off still stick around the doors because there station might only be a km away.

I think for commuter rail double-deckers make a lot of sense but not for suburban rail. For commuter rail it makes sense as the traffic usually just gets on at stations heading inbound and then everyone gets off a Union. With suburban rail that is not the case as it simply more of a surface subway with people getting on and off the train all the time. It is a totally different transit pattern. It has become more problematic over the last couple of decades due to more wheelchairs and bikes using the now accessible system. Their priority area is at the main entry level.

This was one of the reasons Melbourne didn't go with multi-levels unlike Sydney.

I don't think Toronto should either for a RER/ST system and just use single level EMUs or standard catenary Metro trains.

If you visit Europe, you will find DD on local, suburban and intercity lines and there was no issues from what I saw. Even high speed lines have DD and been on them.

One needs to look at the ridership as well quality of service to see what length of train is needed and when. They can be run 3-9 car unit that are couple to other units to form up to 18 car trains. Some have 2 sets while other are 3/4 since it only takes minutes to put them together or take apart.

Also, track capacity and stations also become an issues that they only can handle X trains and riders at a time. We see what our DD does at peak time either at Union or station alone the line. You may have a fast short trip to your station, but getting out of it could be longer than your trip. Then you are putting gridlock on the local roads from those stations.

Sydney & Melbourne are going one way, Europe is going the other way using more DD. You will find single level cars all over the place as well that have been manufacture within the last 5 years or less.

Myself, after seeing and riding various manufactures DD, I prefer the Stadler KISS cars as well their trams.

 

[dowlingm]

Easier to run bilevel in much of North America since most of the height clearances have been dealt with for double stack containers etc. Since passenger is a higher priority than freight in much of Europe (and those countries own or heavily regulate the tracks to keep it that way) it's easier to roll out high capacity cab signalling systems without having to worry about vetos like CN, CP etc. so often hold over here, or even the need for long signal blocks in shared territory to contain a North American sized freight train.

The problem with single level trainsets is that you now have to raise the platform height at all stations (having spent a ton of $ on stuff like platform heating systems on the low level stops) or you create an accessibility issue and delays in boarding/deboarding from stairs. I guess you could design a single level with low level doors between the wheelsets, but then you lose capacity around the wheelsets since you need internal stairs.

 

[mdrejhon]

While they have good capacity they greatly inhibit the number of trains that can be run because they are much slower to board/exit.

Both France and Sydney runs bi-level suburban trains in a subway style tunnel in the core section -- with level boarding -- for at least one or a few stops. By all transit standards, these would be considered a hybrid between a metro and a suburban commuter system.

The boarding seems faster with these than with our bi-level GO trains. I'm not 100% sure why, but there are fewer people per EMU coach, and the long-distance passengers have a tendancy to go upstairs, while short-distance passengers tend to stay on the low level, and double-file level boarding helps.

Also, for some of these bilevel trains, there are two stairs per end of the train on both sides (where GO only has 1 on one side), which allows people to walk upstairs at the same time as walking downstairs, speeding up flow.

(Sydney's bilevel commuter/subway hybrid -- underground core section. source.)

(France RER line E. This is Paris' version of "RER" that Metrolinx essentially wants to copycat. source.)

Extremely wide doors, level boarding, and easy wide stairs.

By experience, these trains are much faster to board than our GO trains.

 

[nfitz]

The boarding seems faster with these than with our bi-level GO trains. I'm not 100% sure why, but there are fewer people per EMU coach, and the long-distance passengers have a tendancy to go upstairs, while short-distance passengers tend to stay on the low level, and double-file level boarding helps.

What I noticed, was you didn't have the same kind of wholesale turnover at one stop, like you do at Union. And for the most part, the lines don't terminate downtown - they have two suburban destinations - and multiple locations to change to the subway downtown.

It helps that Paris's downtown is more distributed.

 

[mdrejhon]

This be true that could be a factor too.
Regardless, they are still faster embark/disembark.
There are also extremely crowded stations for RER, though their platforms are often wider (lots more space per RER platform).

(Perhaps this is also where a theoretical Bathurst overflow main station and other infills eventually plays a role in the next couple of decades, by distributing multiple large core stations.)

Over time, we will have many more interchange stations between Metrolinx heavy rail network (GO/RER/SmartTrack/whatever) and the local transit network (TTC/bus/etc) as they are working over the next 10 years to integrate multiple stations.

We do need to decentralize away from Union beyond the 2030s...

By 2050s, on the LSW-LSE line with infills, we may theoretically see things like the Port Credit interchange (Hurontario LRT), Liberty station (TTC King streetcar upgraded to dedicated LRT-style ROW), Bathurst (Bathurst streetcar), Union, Cherry (DRL/Cherry streetcar), Kennedy (TTC subway, SmartTrack, etc), etc. And in 25-50 years, if 407 Freight Bypass succeeds, we've got the North Toronto Subdivision as further decentralization, linking to TTC subway in three places (Yonge, Spadina, DRL) and multiple possible LRTs by then. Not to mention, Crosstown LRT already linking multiple GO lines and TTC lines, creating further loops.

For so long, our rapid transit network had only one loop (the "U" below Bloor), but we'll have lots more loops in our rapid transit network in 25-50 years. This provides massive decentralization opportunities...