rbt
Senior Member
One of the primary roles of the Private partner is to be the fall-guy for politicians.
|
|
|
GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
One of the primary roles of the Private partner is to be the fall-guy for politicians.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Well, it looks like electrification is off the radar for quite a while. Obviously this is going to effect the speed of the trains but also cost much more to operate as, I understand it, diesel fuel takes up around a third of operational costs. One of the issues of off-peak service and it's costs are the fact that GO still runs monster trains. An 8 car train in Toronto may not seem too big but in the vast majority of cities in the world, that is still a huge train.
That said, why does GO not run much smaller trains during off-peak and weekends? Even a 4 car train still has very high capacity and more than enough for those time periods. When the same massive diesel engine is pulling a 4 car train, you would think that it would not only save fuel but also have faster acceleration but I don't know by how much. Do any of you guys actually know the fuel consumption and acceleration speeds per bi-level car pulled?
That said, why does GO not run much smaller trains during off-peak and weekends? Even a 4 car train still has very high capacity and more than enough for those time periods. When the same massive diesel engine is pulling a 4 car train, you would think that it would not only save fuel but also have faster acceleration but I don't know by how much. Do any of you guys actually know the fuel consumption and acceleration speeds per bi-level car pulled?
goodcitywhenfinished
Active Member
I am just still aghast that it will take until 2036 to electrify a single line. Not to mention it's only Burlington to Oshawa. Does this mean we can expect Barrie Line electrification in the mid 2040s? Kitchener line by 2055? Insane.
This can't be real.
This can't be real.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
crs1026
Superstar
Good observation, but the answer is likely, simplicity is worth the cost of the added fuel and engine wear.
For instance a Sunday train may only need four cars in the morning..... but if there is a Jays game in the afternoon it will need it later in the day. Possibly again in the evening for some other event. Cutting cars in and out or swapping consists is labour intensive, and it makes no sense to incur those costs.
Schedules can't be adjusted for faster short trains because they have to be set for the limiting case, which is the 12 car train that may be deployed at times. And given that each route uses a template hourly schedule , it makes no sense to speed up some runs as those would break the pattern.
I have to say, GO is actually running pretty full these days. I rode a midday 6-pack run to Aurora this week that was jam packed. Those longer trains are not that empty so often to create concerns about fuel waste.... it's a nice problem to have.
- Paul
Northern Light
Superstar
@crs1026 answer above is on point.
But I think mine below adds its own anecdotes and thoughts that are a worthy book-end.
***
At current frequencies, on the Lakeshore line (generally every 30m off-peak) I find the trains are running 30-50% full.
The trains are 12 cars long, not 8.........but just to meet existing demand with a few seats to spare, you couldn't drop trains below 8 cars, and then you would have little to no room to grow ridership.
Shorter trains are desirable, but this has to be paired with higher frequency. If we double off-peak service, to every 15m, it follows, that on day one, without adjusting for demand growth, you'd see occupancy for an L12 consist drop to no greater than 25% and possibly down to ~15%, a cut to six cars would seem reasonable. Though, I would imagine we would see s sizable spike in ridership from that service level, so perhaps a cut to 8 cars would be more realistic.
north-of-anything
Active Member
Does it?
I don't believe that industry moving to areas without a direct rail connection require a direct rail connection. They can use intermodal stations alongside existing railways and bring it in the last 10-20km by truck. Alternatively, they are locating along existing freight rail lines and their spurs.
CN and CP aren't clamouring to build new freight lines when they have poured investment into their existing corridors, especially through greenfield where their customer base is not guaranteed.
crs1026
Superstar
I did get a little intel in some of the odd issues that were raised by the graphics in the Trillium article.
First, the notion of "North" vs "South" systems is based on a couple of logistical points rather than a lack of interest in building all lines. The biggest differentiator is Union Station, which before too long will have the new expanded south end platforms ready. At that point, and with some trackwork restored, it will be possible to route LSE/LSW along the south side of the USRC such that there are no routing conflicts with the other "North" lines. That's a big benefit for LSE/LSW operations and readies it for upgrading well ahead of the other routes.
Once LSE/LSW get their south routing, it then becomes possible to begin modifying the older platforms to a new configuration. That requires one or more platforms to be taken out of service at a time....and that constrains how many trains can use the station per hour. So while other routes that will use the older platforms may see a little added service, the sequencing can't happen as fast as LSE/LSW.
Also, the "Northern" lines have much work left to be done to complete double tracking and signalling just to get to 2WAD. These things have to be further along before either service upgrades can match LSE/LSW and before electrification can be pursued.
Lastly, as to the reference to CN freight ..... while CN sold GO the Oakville Sub, CN retained emergency rights to the full line with full clearance ( full Plate H, in fact) guarantees right thru the USRC. So while CN is not using USRC at the moment, that capability has to be built into the new design.
So, there is some logic to the North vs South premise.... the point being, LSE/LSW will be ready for improvements sooner than the others... it's not that other lines are being downgraded, but more that things can't all happen at once. Separating the lines into two bundles means they can be planned and executed at different paces and that affects their operation for the next decade.
Lastly, with the new south platforms coming, the biggest constraint on electrification for LSE/LSW isn't the USRC - it's a few low bridges, especially around Parkdale. The graphics implied a "gap" in electrification, but that isn't so, it's just how the slides were drawn. The schedule for addressing those bridges is what determines when electrification can be started. The schedule for other lines will happen when other technical issues on those corridors are solved.
It's still a lot less than what the grandiose PR declarations promised.... but it's not without some underlying planning and thought.
- Paul
ssiguy2
Senior Member
You would think a 4 car train every 15 minutes would be more than enough capacity.
Trains are like airplanes, nearly all the energy used is used during de/acceleration. The difference between a large & small train/plane in terms of fuel is shockingly small once they get to cruising speed. You would think that there would be a significant difference between a train pulling 4 cars as opposed to 8 in both fuel & speed. Even if the difference is just 20%, that means you could run 20% more capacity using more frequent 4 car trains as opposed to 8 car ones every 30 minutes.........that'a lot of people and makes the service even more enticing.
Trains are like airplanes, nearly all the energy used is used during de/acceleration. The difference between a large & small train/plane in terms of fuel is shockingly small once they get to cruising speed. You would think that there would be a significant difference between a train pulling 4 cars as opposed to 8 in both fuel & speed. Even if the difference is just 20%, that means you could run 20% more capacity using more frequent 4 car trains as opposed to 8 car ones every 30 minutes.........that'a lot of people and makes the service even more enticing.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
It’s amusing to see that you understand even less about planes (where the biggest driver for fuel consumption is of course weight, including that of the fuel itself) than about trains…
Last edited:
Dan416
Senior Member
That’s very informative and good to know. Thank you.
hw621
Senior Member
With this those fvcktards at ML can retire comfortably.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I would strongly suggest you first actually work a single day in a public railroad and learn what it means to deal with their political masters before using such immature language which makes me seriously doubt you even have a highschool diploma…
generalcanada
Senior Member
Language aside, i doubt hes talking about the engineers, more like the VP's and above who dont do anything
cplchanb
Senior Member
Uhh... no one at ML runs the trains as you are insinuating. The guilty ones at ML are the planners consultants and decision makers who are stuck in the North american wild west commuter mindset. They deserve to all be fired. ML seriously needs to clean shop and hire new leadership from abroad who have actual knowledge of how to develop a modern 21st century rail network. Hell even india has much better rail than us... we are the worst in the G7 when it comes to rail infrastructure. that's shameful