cplchanb
Senior Member
hydrogen was first raised by delduca in the waining days of the Wynne govt as a failed tactic to win political points
|
|
|
GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
ssiguy2
Senior Member
If hydrogen is dead or even battery fine but that clearly exemplifies what a fiasco this entire procedure has been.
By not making a decision years ago is why Toronto is the Gold Standard of transit projects coming in late and never on budget. If the catenary decision was made years ago, Toronto could have had most of the infrastructure put up by now. With all money and time these new and improved stations, track widenings, and grade separations have cost, it would have been drastically more cost effective and least disruptive to build them as part of the particular local projects. But no, Toronto wants to build everything and then go back and put in the poles after words. Name me ANY other city on this planet that has spent so much on a project where they still don't even have a clue on what kind of trains they are going to use nor what kind of technology it will run on.
It is nothing short of scandalous and an affront to all taxpayers in the province that after 7 years since RER was first announced, endless environmental reviews, a plethora of town meetings, updates every 3 months, huge disruptions to service and road traffic, and billions already having been spent, Torontonians still have absolutely no idea what they are getting. 'Don't worry, be happy' is Metrolinx's RER policy and rest assured that at some point at some time you're going to get something and just to make this even more offensive when you finally get something we still have no idea how much you are going to have to pay to use it.
This truly is the transit policy equivalent of people who think waiting for the Tooth Fairy is sound financial planning.
By not making a decision years ago is why Toronto is the Gold Standard of transit projects coming in late and never on budget. If the catenary decision was made years ago, Toronto could have had most of the infrastructure put up by now. With all money and time these new and improved stations, track widenings, and grade separations have cost, it would have been drastically more cost effective and least disruptive to build them as part of the particular local projects. But no, Toronto wants to build everything and then go back and put in the poles after words. Name me ANY other city on this planet that has spent so much on a project where they still don't even have a clue on what kind of trains they are going to use nor what kind of technology it will run on.
It is nothing short of scandalous and an affront to all taxpayers in the province that after 7 years since RER was first announced, endless environmental reviews, a plethora of town meetings, updates every 3 months, huge disruptions to service and road traffic, and billions already having been spent, Torontonians still have absolutely no idea what they are getting. 'Don't worry, be happy' is Metrolinx's RER policy and rest assured that at some point at some time you're going to get something and just to make this even more offensive when you finally get something we still have no idea how much you are going to have to pay to use it.
This truly is the transit policy equivalent of people who think waiting for the Tooth Fairy is sound financial planning.
Last edited:
MrGoose
Active Member
You were admonishing Metrolinx for not adequately investigating the benefits of battery and hydrogen trains only a few months ago...
Either Metrolinx made this decision 7 years ago and its "they aren't doing their due diligence". Or they wait and it's "Metrolinx is incompetant!!!"
tayser
Active Member
3 minute frequencies are what our current network can handle in peak here in Melbourne and there's nothing really special about it. Much of the base tech in use had a step change when the city loop was opened in late 70s/early 80s (there's been changes since but that was the last major infrastructure change that would have also seen a new operations/signalling system rolled out)..
The biggest pinch points are the 4 individual city loop tunnels that if they operated like other services - like GO - would be two-track pairs. We're building a 3rd track pair across the existing system in the inner-city now to push more suburban capacity.
While making comparisons are fraught with danger, our network, in a Toronto context would operate like: Oshawa and Lincolnville would merge onto the one pair and then through route to Hamilton and Milton. The branches might have equal services or they could be proportioned another way (i.e split 4 TPH on each branch forming 8 TPH in the shared section or 4 TPH on one branch pair and 6 TPH on the other etc). The other track pair would be Kitchener and Allandale half-terminating and half through-routing to Bloomington. You don't need fancy new signalling systems to make that happen (i.e ~20TPH in each direction on both track pairs).
The real long-term questions you'd want answered are is that sufficient? Is Toronto (or more to the point downtown) going to remain prime, always? Are there opportunities to development other central areas - and not force so many people to interchange at Union?
The Melbourne Metro project is something akin to creating a new track pair across central Toronto because - let's say in some fuiture scenario post GO electrification (and major service increase) there's congestion on the Milton and Oshawa lines [Im pulling this example out of my arse so don't fret on it] - and rather than quadruplicate and replicate the route via Union, the tunnel will bring new services to other parts of downtown. The Pakenham/Cranbourne lines form a trunk 30km from central Melbourne and then they used to fight for space with the Frankston line closer to the city - all three lines (the two trunks) are heading to 20 TPH in peaks and there's forecastable population growth in the hundreds of thousands in one branch but not the other - thus, re-routing via new track pair gives everything breathing room for inner/middle/outer suburbs as well as the inner-city.
That may be explained poorly and/or a future scenario for Toronto that is way out in whacko land, but the system you look to be implementing, I'm willing to bet will probably prove more popular than what you might believe based on experience here. Rail to the suburbs isn't taboo anymore and you might be thinking about how to build more capacity scenarios quicker than you think.
rbt
Senior Member
20tph for LakeShore West is less the track and more an issue with dwell time at some stops; mostly Union but doubling ridership at Oakville would be a problem too. Level mid-deck boarding (2 sets of internal stairs) and much wider platforms are the obvious solution but the transition is difficult and it's capital intense (elevator rebuilds and in a few cases bypass tracks for that rare freight train would be required).
Coolstar
Senior Member
TVOs take on Metrolinx abandoning the Hydrail idea.
www.tvo.org
Fail, Hydrail: Metrolinx finally ditches plans for hydrogen-powered trains | TVO.org
OPINION: After four years of investigation, the company has all but abandoned the idea of hydrogen-fuelled trains zipping through the GTA. Good riddance.
turini2
Active Member
Ontario/Toronto has been burnt before by being guinea pigs for new transit technology. Deciding that electrification is the way forward is very positive.
I think overhead is the best solution given the current technology. Of course, that doesn't preclude the possibility that for some lines Metrolinx goes with something that can run on both overhead wiring and on battery.
Take for example Lakeshore East and West: Electrify from Aldershot (or Burlington if track ownership is an issue) to Oshawa. The train can then run on battery from Lewis Yard to Aldershot/Burlington, and from Oshawa to Bowmanville.
This would mean that the service would not necessarily need to be stratified by vehicle type based on what is and isn't electrified. The stratification would be based more on what makes sense from a service perspective.
Take for example Lakeshore East and West: Electrify from Aldershot (or Burlington if track ownership is an issue) to Oshawa. The train can then run on battery from Lewis Yard to Aldershot/Burlington, and from Oshawa to Bowmanville.
This would mean that the service would not necessarily need to be stratified by vehicle type based on what is and isn't electrified. The stratification would be based more on what makes sense from a service perspective.
allengeorge
Senior Member
This was always a ridiculous idea - especially for a project with the scale of GO electrification.
That Del Duca pushed for it speaks volumes to his lack of critical thinking skills (and, I’m disappointed that he’s the leader of the OLP now).
It sounds like Metrolinx internally knew of was bogus but for political reasons had to keep up the fiction of ‘studying’ it. I wonder how much it pushed the project back >:
That Del Duca pushed for it speaks volumes to his lack of critical thinking skills (and, I’m disappointed that he’s the leader of the OLP now).
It sounds like Metrolinx internally knew of was bogus but for political reasons had to keep up the fiction of ‘studying’ it. I wonder how much it pushed the project back >:
Last edited:
Coolstar
Senior Member
robmausser
Senior Member
Also Bramalea to Georgetown GO, if Metrolinx decide to electrify the portion from just west of Georgetown to Kitchener.
Allandale25
Senior Member
GO Expansion Projects – On Corridor at the top of the list at $15.705 billion.
sacred
Active Member
VIA Rail HFR
Allandale25
Senior Member
Was that meant to be a question? Also the VIA thread is here: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/via-rail.21060/unread
ssiguy2
Senior Member
If you guys care to go back a way you will see that I have NEVER said I think hydrogen was the best option and I have always said that battery should be the preferred one.
Battery is very much just catenary trains without the need for so many wires and infrastructure but the technology of the trains are exactly the same. The ONLY difference between the 2 is that one has bigger batteries. Battery trains are not new and they have been plying the rails for well over a 100 years. Battery trains have always be possible but, until recently with the lightening advancement of battery technology, they have never been practical.
Now they are practical and offer the benefits of a tried-and-true technology, zero emissions, efficiency, and quiet ride of standard catenary but with the flexibility of diesel. One of the primary disadvantages of catenary is not only the cost of the infrastructure itself but also it's inherent inflexibility. One of the benefits of diesel is that you can run the damn things anywhere you please with no new infrastructure required. This is part of the reason why many cities not only phased out their streetcars but also their trolleys.................they can't go all the places you want them to go. Battery gets rid of this problem as no new infrastructure is required to expand the system.
Certainly catenary wires have to be set up but only at specific points like terminus stations or where the trains maybe stationary for a length of time like Union. Outside of that all that is needed is recharging at each station itself and now that can be done contact-less just like many electric buses do worldwide. Battery is also not at the whim of Mother Nature, can store the electricity overnight hence buying the power when it's cheapest, doesn't have the upkeep and replacement costs associated with wires, and any extensions to service can be done automatically as opposed to having to do a new environmental review, going out to tender, and the cost and time to build the needed infrastructure. If Metrolinx decided it needs to extend RER to Hamilton, it would takes years to get it up and running while battery wouldn't require a damn thing and could be running tomorrow.
Battery trains simply offer the best of both worlds.
Battery is very much just catenary trains without the need for so many wires and infrastructure but the technology of the trains are exactly the same. The ONLY difference between the 2 is that one has bigger batteries. Battery trains are not new and they have been plying the rails for well over a 100 years. Battery trains have always be possible but, until recently with the lightening advancement of battery technology, they have never been practical.
Now they are practical and offer the benefits of a tried-and-true technology, zero emissions, efficiency, and quiet ride of standard catenary but with the flexibility of diesel. One of the primary disadvantages of catenary is not only the cost of the infrastructure itself but also it's inherent inflexibility. One of the benefits of diesel is that you can run the damn things anywhere you please with no new infrastructure required. This is part of the reason why many cities not only phased out their streetcars but also their trolleys.................they can't go all the places you want them to go. Battery gets rid of this problem as no new infrastructure is required to expand the system.
Certainly catenary wires have to be set up but only at specific points like terminus stations or where the trains maybe stationary for a length of time like Union. Outside of that all that is needed is recharging at each station itself and now that can be done contact-less just like many electric buses do worldwide. Battery is also not at the whim of Mother Nature, can store the electricity overnight hence buying the power when it's cheapest, doesn't have the upkeep and replacement costs associated with wires, and any extensions to service can be done automatically as opposed to having to do a new environmental review, going out to tender, and the cost and time to build the needed infrastructure. If Metrolinx decided it needs to extend RER to Hamilton, it would takes years to get it up and running while battery wouldn't require a damn thing and could be running tomorrow.
Battery trains simply offer the best of both worlds.