GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[steveintoronto]

^ @Mapleson : Excellent answers! My apologies for not realizing you're 'well up' on the issue.

So if the APTA adopts the FRAs alternative compliance standards, then TC will adopt and accept it by default.

Just took a brief look at the TC link, and I've quoted from that prior too, IIRC the locomotive spec also states "APTA"...but not much else. Since those pages have been 're-written' it's actually more difficult to find regs than it was before.

I'd still like to nail TC down on whether they will offer 'accommodations' 'exceptions' or (God forbid the Americanism) 'waivers' for various pieces of equipment. What I have discovered reading those sections is that it's the *operator* and not the manufacturer that applies for and ostensibly gains 'permission' (with conditions attached) for the use of 'non-conforming' stock. This was the case for the O-Train, and I've posted the TC and City of Ottawa extensive pages on that previously in the VIA string. The TC one was taken down at some point, and re-appeared about a year or so later, edited. As to why is puzzling. The City of Ottawa's are still up as originally posted almost a decade ago. I'll find the links and post as an edit here later. TC (And even CN and CP, along with many gov't agencies, assisted in OC-Transpo being awarded that. One wonders 'where's the assistance for GO Transit?' There might be some, I can't find it on-line.

What I can add to that is that I'm more familiar with trade agreements than TC missives, and CETA won't find what's up on the TC website as acceptable. "Railway equipment" is a section heading in CETA, and virtually 100% tariff free. It seems TC haven't got the memo....from a gov't that wants us all to sing the praises of what wonderful things they've done for us. (I'm a pro free-trader, albeit the noise from the south has tested that).

All TC would have to do is put a paragraph up on their website clarifying that 'Canada is open for business as long as the product meets the chapters and verse in trade deals, and domestic regulations'. I'll detail more answers later when I have reference at hand to do them justice.

Edit: From my saved notes:
http://data.tc.gc.ca/archive/eng/programs/environment-utsp-otrainlightrailproject-973.htm

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ttc/2002/12-04/ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0012.htm

I see the tc one is dead again. I have pretty extensive notes from that page, here's the lost of orgs behind OC-Transpo's 'accreditation' to use the (initially) 'Talents' (German mainline running design from BBD)

Recognition. The O-Train has won several awards:

Canadian Urban Transit Association’s Corporate Innovation Award (June 2002)
American Public Works Association’s Project of the Year Award (January 2003)
FCM-CH2M Hill Sustainable Community Award, in the sustainable transportation category (May 2003)

Participants

City of Ottawa
Transport Canada
Human Resources Development Canada
Canadian Pacific Railway
Canadian National Railway
VIA Rail
Carleton University
Public Works and Government Services Canada
National Capital Commission
Ottawa Police Services
Women’s Initiative for a Safe Environment
Transport 2000
Canadian Transport Agency
Local citizens and advocacy groups
[...]
The O-Train was initiated to assess the technical feasibility of using an existing rail corridor for rapid transit, to validate expectations about ridership, performance and cost, and to allow proper analysis of possible larger-scale implementation.
[...]
The O-Train travels on an 8-km length of existing freight rail track, and connects to the city’s bus rapid transit system (the “Transitway”) on each end of the line. The existing corridor is owned by Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR). The line serves Carleton University, a major employment centre, and a shopping mall in a densely populated neighbourhood.

The pilot project is unique by North American standards and involves four “firsts.” It is the first time that light rail
passenger trains had been mixed with heavy rail traffic on an existing rail network, and the first time passenger rail services had been operated by a single operator. In addition, this was the first time Bombardier Talent DMU trains had been used anywhere in North America, and the first trains driven by bus operators.

I'll see if I can track the web-page to see if it's re-posted under a different url rather than quote extensively.

Google does list one...and it's a dead-end. However, the wonder of Google cache saves the day:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...g.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=ubuntu

 

[nfitz]

This link has been updated:

GO Rail Expansion - GO Regional Express Rail On Corridor

GO Rail Expansion will transform the transportation network in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area over the next decade. Metrolinx will transform the GO Transit rail network into a system that will deliver two-way, all-day service every 15 minutes over core segments of the GO Rail network...

www.infrastructureontario.ca

The RFP has indeed been released yesteday.

LOL! Perhaps my page was caching! That might be a first for an IO transit project. They must have sat on the short-list ... which they took 14 months to complete.

 

[MisterF]

Good to know that RER isn't dead, despite what some here have so confidently claimed.

 

[steveintoronto]

Good to know that RER isn't dead, despite what some here have so confidently claimed.

I wouldn't be so sure. Metrolinx themselves are claiming the term is dead. It's "Expansion" now, don't ya know? And this is just a limited RFP. The posted copy is a standard form, absolutely no specifics on the actual details, but I find this worthy of close scrutiny, especially in lieu of statements coming out of the Premier's office:

https://www.infrastructureontario.c...ridor/GO_Exp_OnCORR-Request_for_Proposals.pdf

Be aware that this is far from binding. I've yet to pore over it, but clauses like this jump off the page:

3.7 Addenda/Changes to the RFP Documents (1) Subject to Section 3.1(2), the Sponsors may, in their sole discretion, amend or supplement the RFP Documents at any time. The Sponsors shall issue changes to the RFP Documents by Addenda only.

Gosh, this present regime in QP would never do anything like that now, would they?

The buck stop with the taxpayer always. P3 are a good way to keep debt off the books, but when things get risky, the joint-venture vehicle can just declare bankruptcy and walk away.

This is @crs1026 point with "backstops" and the subject of a sometimes heated discussion I had with a pension fund investment org risk assessor this afternoon. I won't go into the details, I was a bit taken aback at his political naivete, which is inseparable from a project claimed to be "Canada's largest P3 to date" or any large Pension Fund investment for that matter, but the real question, and it goes right to your point of (my term) "Backstop of Last Resort" is if that's the Taxpayer, or the Cdn Infrastructure Bank with their $2B, and even that being debt financed. (A loan, rather than grant)

So say it does end-up being the Taxpayer 'on the hook'...does the Taxpayer then own the asset? (Via the CIB, or Parliamentary motion) This also ties in with the federal regime now stating: We'll work with cities, even when provinces won't work ... - CTV News

Look for some answers on that in the press in the next few days. What the Globe featured today is just the beginning. There's questions about the nature and accountability of the CIB in this instance, let alone the whole funding model.

 

[nfitz]

Disappointed that you are pushing more FUD when I honestly do not think its reasonable.

Given the number of times we've been point-blanked lied to by Ministers, it's disappointing that so many would drink the kool-aid yet again, instead of applying "fool me twice"! Particularly in the presence of documents that are playing down electrification.

I've been advocating electrification here for over a decade. I think it will come sooner or later. But I don't think it's going to come as quickly and extensively as many think. I certainly don't think it's going to arrive anywhere close to the timetable that Metrolinx and the Ministry initially promised (wasn't that 2017 ?)

 

[ssiguy2]

If ML is serious about opening all the RER lines by 2025 these proposals and ML decision of who won will have to come pretty quickly. Even Toronto can manage catenary in 5 years on the system but that's not the biggest issue, it's the trains. This, regardless of the technology, is going to require a massive fleet of new trains and in order for them to provide minimum 15 minute service on all the lines, ALL must arrive by 2024. If some of the current double-deckers are employed, they too will have to be taken out of service in order to change technologies at a time when the system is already running at capacity meaning many of those new trains must arrive BEFORE that can be done.

Such a huge order will not be easily filled so the tenure has to go out very soon. They have to test the trains on all of the 200 km RER track which will probably be about 6 months meaning the entire catenary or hydrogen stations, maintenance, and garage infrastructure must be up and running by 2024 at the latest. If ML is truly committed to have all of the RER lines up and running every 15 minutes each-way all day by 2025, they have absolutely no time to waste.

 

[John Bisan]

Now that's a lot of money

 

[crs1026]

If ML is serious about opening all the RER lines by 2025 these proposals and ML decision of who won will have to come pretty quickly.

Time to read the fine print. The bidders will determine the timetable. 2024 is out the window.

- PUl

 

[rbt]

Time to read the fine print. The bidders will determine the timetable. 2024 is out the window.

Maybe. At the news conference Verster indicated there was an time-value component to the bid which rewarded earlier completion. The RFP has most of the good information in addon Schdedule documents that aren't on the IO site (yet?) including how proposals are evaluated which is not strictly based on cost.

Anyway, Verster implied during the news conference that, for example (using made up numbers of my own), a $11B bid for 2024 completion might be considered cheaper after applying the "Final Proposal Score" math than a $9B bid for 2028.

Assumming it's a per-route segment (inner/outer services being separate) we may see implementation of some pieces like inner Lake Shore or Kitchener much earlier than 2024 even while Union corridor is undergoing heavy modification.

Of course, I'm also a little nervous about what we have in 2055 when tendering for replacement equipment and operator. If we tender the DRL with the same style we may find ourselves with a LIM and a non-standard signalling system which is only compatible with a single vendor; perhaps even a bankrupt one.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's an interesting process because Metrolinx goes into it without really knowing anything

Neither do the public.

QP has retained expertise alright. They know how to spin up a time machine. And meantime QP has built....what exactly? The cost of any infrastructure is kicked into the future. QP's present costs? $280M, and even that is disbursed over time.

How's that Ontario Line coming along?

 

[rbt]

How's that Ontario Line coming along?

If it follows this process it'll be jacked. Nonstandard signalling system, linear induction motor designs heavily patent protected, and other proprietary bits that can be shoved in to guarantee sole-sourced vehicle/maintenance renewals in 30/60/90 years. With luck, they'll have a penalty for use of equipment that cannot be replaced/maintained by fewer than 3 vendors.

At least GO Expansion needs to follow fairly standardized railway stuff due to VIA/CN/CP sharing the corridors.

 

[steveintoronto]

At least GO Expansion needs to follow fairly standardized railway stuff due to VIA/CN/CP sharing the corridors.

Like catenary? CBTC? That rules out CN and CP right there. (To be more precise, for catenary, double stack will be barred, which presents a problem at Oakville and beyond)(and Brampton/Georgetown and other locations) At least VIA are partially embracing PTC due to US compatibility.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

(To be more precise, for catenary, double stack will be barred, which presents a problem at Oakville and beyond)(and Brampton/Georgetown and other locations)

Would people stop reapeating this ****? Just stop. Yes, it is CN's excuse to bar electrification, no, there is no truth to it. It's on the level of catenary not working in winter.

 

[ssiguy2]

There is another key component of the process that, of course, didn't make the media announcement which will effect who wins...……..politics. This is a whopping amount of money and political parties don't hand out such largess to be swell guys...……….they want the political rewards. This means that any proposal that has the soonest timeline for both construction and completion has a big political advantage and with Ford sagging in the polls he will want to get as much political mileage out of this project as humanely possible.

 

[steveintoronto]

Yes, it is CN's excuse to bar electrification, no, there is no truth to it.

So let's get this clear, are you stating that CN and CP aren't barring catenary on their track? Don't get me started on whether it can be cleared on not by double-stack, yes it can, with provisions. And one of those provisions is to raise panto height, a real performance detriment for modern EMUs. NEC for instance hosts double-stack. In spots. But that's not CN and CP's position to do so. And both have riders on their sales contracts for lines they sold to Metrolinx, let alone for their tracks that host Metrolinx trains.

So perhaps you could throttle down your hysteria, and present reference to make you point? Let's flip this over, since CN use the Deux Montagnes line, for instance. Is it allowed double-stack? If so, then show a reference.

If your point is that the Class 1's are using a straw-argument, then state that.

Meantime, here's a claim for the NEC, and a lot of this is probably to do with UIC/FRA standard cat height specs being used or not:

There is insufficient clearance on much of the Northeast Corridor for doublestacks. I do not know whether they run under the ex-RDG wires or not. Most, if not all, stack traffic into North Jersey runs either via the ex-LV/CNJ (NS) or the Hudson Valley (CSX). I'm not sure CSX runs any stacks north of Philadelphia to/from the southern portion of its system; if they do, they'd be the ones running the trains under the ex-RDG wire. I suppose one exception might be "garbage stacks" but those are usually smaller containers that don't require as much vertical clearance as merchandise boxes demand.

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,1243173

More here:
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2661222

Ownership
 Electrification would be easier to implement on GO Transit owned corridors as these are expected to require fewer negotiations.
 Electrification of freight corridors would need to be negotiated with CN and CP.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/electrification/docs/ElectricificationStudy_FinalReport.pdf pg 14

The point is contentious. I challenge you to produce reference for your claim.