GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[steveintoronto]

What problem is that? Are you referring to the fact that someone in the press was surprised they'll need to use overhead fixed rail instead of catenary as most railways in an enclosed area do, including TTC 509/510? Eglinton won't be catenary in the tunnel either.

Electrification of Union isn't really much of a problem unless Metrolinx makes it into a problem. They can (and should) lower the rail-bed too (reduces number of stairs for passengers for boarding the train). Use the new rubber rail-clamps like TTC is currently testing.

Indeed. It's actually preferable but entails expense and a solid structure overhead:
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/railway-systems/powering-the-railway

 

[raptor]

What problem is that? Are you referring to the fact that someone in the press was surprised they'll need to use overhead fixed rail instead of catenary as most railways in an enclosed area do, including TTC 509/510? Eglinton won't be catenary in the tunnel either.

Electrification of Union isn't really much of a problem unless Metrolinx makes it into a problem. They can (and should) lower the rail-bed too (reduces number of stairs for passengers for boarding the train). Use the new rubber rail-clamps like TTC is currently testing.

Where did you see that Eglinton won't be using catenary in the tunnels? news to me.
Perhaps we can look at this in a different way: the reason for the short timelines of this RFP is to soon be able to say, "look, we tried, it's not gonna work, we proceed with the conventional electrification". They'll have the TPAP done by then anyway and could proceed with tendering.

 

[steveintoronto]

Where did you see that Eglinton won't be using catenary in the tunnels? news to me.

Technically, "catenary" is a geometric term used for hanging overhead supply wire. It infers something flexible, like a chain, or a looped elastic suspension. Other than a slight engineered 'give' to the overhead *rail* to be used in Crosstown and other limited overhead situations, they are not interchangeable terms. When streetcar overhead wire goes under a bridge, and has to become fixed rail, it is no longer termed "catenary" as it doesn't hang from an elastic suspension.

There's a limitation in semantics...thus the term "rigid catenary"

Example:

Rigid Catenary (or Overhead Contact System)

The rigid catenary is an Overhead Contact System (OCS) that can replace, with many advantages, the contact wire with sustentation wire, the third rail or the suspended bimetallic T-rail.

It is formed by an aluminium alloy profile, which accommodates the copper contact wire, with a great cross section for the current that allows operative OCS voltages from 750 to 1.500 V, without any feeding supply. It has been also installed in lines with a feeding supply of 25 KV.

Rigid catenary system is a new power supply mode of electrification railway, comparing with the traditional flexible catenary system, it has below advantages.

1- more capability of current carrying

With large cross section current bar profile clamping contact wire, current bar profile and contact wire clamped in the draw-back collet current bar profile can permit high level current passing. Further more it can effectively reduce the radiation problem which caused by high level current.

2- No risk of breaking-off, more security

As there is no traction stress, it allows more contact wire wear without risk of breaking-off in rigid catenary system, the only limitation is that the pantograph can not touch the current bar profile.

3- Easy operation and maintenance

As the contact wire allows more wear and its installation and replacing is easy in rigid catenary system, the maintenance cost is greatly reduced. Periodical control of the current bar profile connectors tightening and cleaning up of the isolators are the only maintenance operations to be carried out

4- less tunnel clearance, less construction cost

Rigid catenary system reduces great tunnel clearance against standard catenary system, so the construction cost is greatly reduced.

[...]

http://www.railsystem.net/rigid-catenary-or-overhead-contact-system/

 

[rbt]

Where did you see that Eglinton won't be using catenary in the tunnels?

I looked at the tunnel bore size. Catenary inside a tunnel is relatively rare as it requires several feet of clearance (even for 750V DC lines) above the free-hanging wire. The electrical feed for Eglinton will be a non-flexible rail bolted to the ceiling in some way.

Ninja Edit: Catenary is a shape describing a non-stiff wire/chain hanging between 2 points (at various tensions). If it doesn't make the shape, then it's something else and you cannot use "catenary" equations to calculate where it sits at any given point along the way; clearances need to be calculated another way.

Probably look similar to what you find in Madrid:

 

[cplchanb]

My feeling is that they want to avoid building the conventional electric infrastructure, both to (potentially) lower costs and to appease NIMBYs (umm...taxpayers), who don't want it in their view.

A prime example is the cyclone project
Newly developed chopper with no real world experience. We assumed the risk of developing it and we paid heavily for it (on top of the fact the govt kept on adding onto it)

 

[W. K. Lis]

Diagram on the Eglinton tunnel:

 

[Garuda]

Diagram on the Eglinton tunnel:

View attachment 121204

I'm curious, is the diameter of that tunnel large enough should the Crosstown Line become heavy rail for TR trains?

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm curious, is the diameter of that tunnel large enough should the Crosstown Line become heavy rail for TR trains?

It's an excellent question! And the answer, depending on which "loading gauge" used, is yes! Paris RER with double-deck trains, the type that move more passengers per hour on a double track than any other commuter line in the Western World (perhaps even the world) is slightly less diameter (bore width) than Crosstown.

Let me take your question further, to intuitively answer where you're going with this: The Downtown Relief Line, for instance, could use the TBMs being used for Crosstown (once refitted) to bore a tunnel that could run RER trains in the future, and through-running onto the rest of the RER network later, and LRVs now until tunneling allows through connection to the extant GO lines.

The major differences being station length needed for longer consists typical of RER, but being low platforms, which are easier/cheaper to provide, and the LRVs being either bi-modal current (750VDC/25kVAC) or straight 25kVAC to run on RER tracks. Paris has a line doing just that, as do a couple of other cities.

[...]In Europe, Siemens's Combino and Avenio models are the preferred offerings for purely light rail or tramway systems; and the same S70 model, under the name Avanto, is principally sold to tram-train systems which, in whole or part, share their tracks with heavy rail trains. Here its principal competitors are Bombardier’s Flexity Link tram-train and Alstom’s Citadis Regio-Citadis/Citadis-Dualis tram-train variants. To date, the Avanto has been sold to two tram-train operations in France.[2] [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_S70#cite_note-tre184-2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_S70

The S70 is also made in the US for the NorthAm market.

 

[Leo_Chan]

I'm curious, is the diameter of that tunnel large enough should the Crosstown Line become heavy rail for TR trains?

The tunnels yes, the stations no as the LRT is low floor while Toronto Rockets are not.

 

[Leo_Chan]

It's an excellent question! And the answer, depending on which "loading gauge" used, is yes! Paris RER with double-deck trains, the type that move more passengers per hour on a double track than any other commuter line in the Western World (perhaps even the world) is slightly less diameter (bore width) than Crosstown.

Let me take your question further, to intuitively answer where you're going with this: The Downtown Relief Line, for instance, could use the TBMs being used for Crosstown (once refitted) to bore a tunnel that could run RER trains in the future, LRVs now.

The major differences being station length needed for longer consists typical of RER, but being low platforms, which are easier/cheaper to provide, and the LRVs being either bi-modal current (750VDC/25kVAC) or straight 25kVAC to run on RER tracks. Paris has a line doing just that, as do a couple of other cities.

It's been said time and time again that the DRL is not going to be RER or LRT, and it WILL be a Subway using TR.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's been said time and time again that the DRL is not going to be RER or LRT, and it WILL be a Subway using TR.

Yeah, right. A lot of things have been said "time and time again". Keep saying it. It might actually come true some day.

 

[steveintoronto]

The tunnels yes, the stations no as the LRT is low floor while Toronto Rockets are not.

Wow, you really have a shuttered outlook on these things. Perhaps you'd best have a talk with Edmonton for a start?

Edmonton used high platforms for the first lines, now using low platforms for the latest line.

The two pioneering Canadian LRT cities, Calgary and Edmonton, located in the western province of Alberta, are both planning a major shift in their design and operating philosophies.
[...]
Both systems, from the outset, adopted high-platform boarding. Edmonton’s stations have been somewhat simple and utilitarian, for the most part, apart from those in the subway section, while Calgary’s have tended to be elaborate and expensive.

Edmonton has about three miles of subway, extending from the northwest fringe of downtown to the University of Alberta, south of the center city. This approach was quite costly, and hindered significant extension of the line for a number of years. To this day, Edmonton Transit operates one long line from the northeast to the southern sector, with a short, recently opened branch to the northwest.
[...]
Siemens LRVs have been the car of choice in both cities, with newer models ordered as the original models pass their 30th anniversaries.

Both cities have recently decided, since low-floor operations can be implemented at significantly lower cost, to pursue this approach on two completely new lines. These will be completely separate operations from the existing high-floor lines, although transfer will be possible. That said, both Calgary Transit and Edmonton Transit have extensions to the existing high-platform routes on the drawing boards, for future construction.

Another advantage of low-floor LRT is that it can be situated on local streets, on reserved track, with less obtrusive stations more acceptable to local residents.
[...]

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...algary-edmonton-adopt-low-floor-approach.html

 

[Leo_Chan]

Wow, you really have a shuttered outlook on these things. Perhaps you'd best have a talk with Edmonton for a start?

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean. Can you please explain what's special about Edmonton?

 

[nfitz]

The tunnels yes, the stations no as the LRT is low floor while Toronto Rockets are not.

The tunnel diameters on Eglinton are larger than subway.

I haven't seen anything that precludes them building platforms in the stations for subway trains. Though the escalators would require some modification.

 

[Leo_Chan]

The tunnel diameters on Eglinton are larger than subway.

I haven't seen anything that precludes them building platforms in the stations for subway trains. Though the escalators would require some modification.

I believe the original question was about changing the stations when ridership exceeds 2/3 LRVs and frequencies to be converted to heavy rail. At that point, the stations would have already been completed and operating for years. Therefore, it is not whether or not the stations CAN be built for heavy rail now (they probably can), but converting from Standard Gauge low floor LRT to Toronto Gauge TR subway. Basically the opposite of Sheppard Stubway to LRT.