GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[steveintoronto]

they want the political rewards.

By their terms? That's adding as little as possible to the Provincial debt. They want this kicked down the road as far as possible. The point is they *don't* want to spend anything on anything that they can possibly avoid. Well, other than firing Hydro chiefs, taking impossible cases to court, taking on the Feds, and the price of selling beer in corner stores.

To understand their logic, it helps to hit yourself on the head repeatedly with a hammer, and then chant along with them.

They've just bought themselves a ticket to avoid all the 'congestion' of the cost of governing transit for the next four years, for somewhere under $240M (the final instalments won't be due until they're gone).

 

[crs1026]

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.

Fair enough, but if financial close takes until late 2020, there is only so much time left for construction. And I wonder how pricing will end up after the bidders consider risk versus opportunity. If they promise 2024 but miss the deadline, what is the penalty? Is it worth taking the risk - construction seldom runs to an exact schedule.

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.

Very good point. I wonder what the life cycle assumptions are.....we may want the signalling etc upgraded to something else in 30 years. And what if today’s operator leaves us with equipment that is rotting out? SRT all over again, but a contract standing between the province and the need for a solution.

- Paul

 

[Bureaucromancer]

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:

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

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

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.

Try this for a start. My point is not only that this is a straw man, but that it is obviously such. Aside from the obvious simplicity of building an entirely new installation to heights suitable for double stack both India and Japan have operated this way.

No one claims the NEC has catenary height suitable for double stack, but no one outside CN/CP claims this is anything like a serious challenge. This strange Canadian obsession with declaring that everything must be done the way it was 80 some years ago "because that's the way it is" really drives me insane.

I say again, this claim that catenary height can't change is on the level of claiming catenary doesn't work in winter.

 

[crs1026]

^The issue is not the technical do-ability of catenary (although I wonder a bit about the wisdom of catenary over North American railways where there is intensive bulk shipment of hazardous chemicals, propane, and the like).
The issue is the semi-symbollic but otherwise real issue of somebody installing such a significant piece of infrastructure on somebody else’s property. Forces changes in operating practises and procedures, maintenance, and possibly worker safety and public liability. Implies a longevity and/or permanence that impacts the landlord’s future use of their asset. Adds to the cost and complexity of even minor changes to the physical plant.
Imagine you rent your house to a tenant. Tenants are respectful and responsible at first, but then the tenant states that they would like to build a machine shop in the garage, complete with a hydraulic hoist for fixing autos. Oh, and the building inspectors and insurance people will be dropping by occasionally to keep tabs on the operation. If they move out, they will take it all out.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

I say again, this claim that catenary height can't change is on the level of claiming catenary doesn't work in winter.

And here's your reference:

A test programme has confirmed the feasibility of operating electrically hauled double-stack container trains, leading to Indian Railways’ decision to wire the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor at 25 kV 50 Hz.

https://rdso.indianrailways.gov.in/works/uploads/File/Railway _Gazette_Double_Stack Container(1).pdf

What do you think "Dedicated Freight Corridor" might mean?

Here's a pic from that reference:

For some odd reason, using a panto that tall for rapid passenger use let alone high speed use aggravates the laws of physics. They will fail, spectacularly, and if not pushed to the failure point, they add a huge amount of drag and stress.

The wiring in most countries is too low to allow double stack container trains. The Channel Tunnel has an extended height overhead line to accommodate double-height car and truck transporters. India is proposing a network of freight-only lines that would be electrified with extra height wiring and pantographs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overhead_line#Height

Metrolinx has made clear the height it intends to use for catenary if and when it ever happens. And it's the height considered by many as a standard.in the developed world.(Approx 5.3m) CN and CP have declared that they don't wish for that, or *ANY* catenary on their main lines. That is their right under our law. On Metrolinx tracks, the conditions of sales apply from the former railway, and that may or may not dictate the ability to run double stack trains.

This strange Canadian obsession with declaring that everything must be done the way it was 80 some years ago "because that's the way it is" really drives me insane.

Your insanity or not besides, here's California's take on it:
http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/eir_memos/Proj_Guidelines_TM3_2_3R00.pdf
and the EU's and Int'l directive:
https://standards.globalspec.com/std/1604362/EN 50119

Their standards are right up to date, not "80 years ago" and they're a hell of a lot more advanced in terms of electrified passenger transit than we are.

 

[rbt]

Fair enough, but if financial close takes until late 2020, there is only so much time left for construction. And I wonder how pricing will end up after the bidders consider risk versus opportunity. If they promise 2024 but miss the deadline, what is the penalty? Is it worth taking the risk - construction seldom runs to an exact schedule.

Indeed. I wish the schedules were public so we would know that type of detail. I would assume penalties will be large enough that vendors won't try to game the system by promising a 2024 date and actually delivering in 2027.

 

[steveintoronto]

Indeed. I wish the schedules were public so we would know that type of detail. I would assume penalties will be large enough that vendors won't try to game the system by promising a 2024 date and actually delivering in 2027.

I expect to see discussion on 'daylighting' many of those terms and conditions, since the participation of the Cdn Infrastructure Bank makes this also pertinent under Federal Law.

Not that the Feds have been anywhere near compliant on FOI and just open accounting on many things, as the Globe's special feature on the EDC chronicled on the weekend. I'd say a little more investigative journalism is in order. The Province may rue the day it heralded the participation of the CIB. There's also the question of securities legislation applying.

Edit to Add: From the CIB website:

The Bank, of course, is accountable to the Government and must comply with its enabling legislation, cited above, and Part X of the Financial Administration Act (FAA). The Bank should also be guided by the Government's foundational policy statements in the Fall Economic Statement 2016 and Budget 2017, as tabled in Parliament.

https://www.infrastructure.gc.ca/CIB-BIC/letter-lettre-eng.html

Part X of the Financial Administration Act (FAA):
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/f-11/page-15.html#h-229273

Act details required compliance with:
Implementation of World Trade Organization Agreement
Canadian Free Trade Agreement
Canada-Chile Free Trade Agreement
Canada–Colombia Free Trade Agreement
Canada — Costa Rica Free Trade Agreement
Canada–Peru Free Trade Agreement
Other Free Trade Agreements

This might get very interesting...

 

[nfitz]

I would assume penalties will be large enough that vendors won't try to game the system by promising a 2024 date and actually delivering in 2027.

What's to be delivered in 2024?

This is the contract that, among other things, replaces Bombardier's current contract to operate GO Trains. The first item listed is operating GO Trains. Presumably day one, they simply operate the current equipment, and any transition, and possible electrification, would then be gradual, and subject to a lot more talks - possibly even after the contract is issued. I'd assume there'd be a lot of optional pricing in the bids.

 

[rbt]

What's to be delivered in 2024?

From what I can tell the tender is basically in 10 parts; inner + outer service of the 5 routes. The 10 "target" dates in the tender will be the dates the vendor believes they can begin providing service for those pieces.

GO has not put any deadlines into the tender at all. The vendor will be selecting their own dates, with the ability to charge more and still win the contract for earlier target dates and penalties for missing their target.

 

[nfitz]

From what I can tell the tender is basically in 10 parts; inner + outer service of the 5 routes.

Interesting ... so it doesn't cover operating the Milton and Richmond Hill lines? I'm surprised Richmond Hill isn't there.

Presumaly Union-Pearson is being done separately? I'm not sure how it currently works.

Is the RDQ document available somewhere - I think I've missed that somehow.

 

[cplchanb]

Interesting ... so it doesn't cover operating the Milton and Richmond Hill lines? I'm surprised Richmond Hill isn't there.

Presumaly Union-Pearson is being done separately? I'm not sure how it currently works.

Is the RDQ document available somewhere - I think I've missed that somehow.

man RH line always get the shaft.... no improvements no increased service... ?

 

[rbt]

Interesting ... so it doesn't cover operating the Milton and Richmond Hill lines? I'm surprised Richmond Hill isn't there.

That specific detail seems to be in an unpublished Schedule of the RFP.

Within the Business Case, which I assume remains unaltered for RFP expectations, it appeared they would take over operations of those lines but it would be using existing equipment and with existing frequencies. There were no "improvement" expectations.

The main GO Expansion bits require non-trivial construction activities and equipment to be delivered before service targets might be hit.

Presumaly Union-Pearson is being done separately? I'm not sure how it currently works.

UP is mentioned in the Business Case as being part of the RER program; but it's effectively (from a vendor perspective) a branch of Bramalea service with 7.5 minute combined frequencies.

 

[steveintoronto]

As an aside to the topic heading, but closely related to it, especially so in light of the CIB participation:

Province says it wants federal money for the Ontario Line. Ottawa says it needs more answers
By Ben SpurrTransportation Reporter
Mon., June 3, 2019
[...]
“Prime Minister Trudeau wants to pick a fight. Instead he should pick up a shovel,” he said. McNaughton called on Trudeau to “quite frankly put his money where his mouth is” and “approve these projects so the people of Ontario can benefit.”
Yurek said Toronto transit users are tired of being stuck on overcrowded vehicles and the province was committed to working with the city to get the Ontario Line built.
“Now it’s time for our federal partner to commit their support. It’s in all of Ontario’s interest to get more cars off the road with better transit, that is what Ontarians deserve,” he said.
The ministers’ comments came four months before an anticipated federal election that will pit Trudeau’s Liberals against the Ontario PC’s federal cousins in the Conservative Party of Canada.
The press conference also followed remarks Trudeau made on Friday in which he accused provincial politicians of going “out of their way to block federal funding” for infrastructure projects “just to score political points.”
In an email to the Star Monday, Brook Simpson, a spokesperson for Canada’s Minister of Infrastructure and Communities François-Philippe Champagne, said the Ford government hasn’t provided Ottawa the necessary information about the Ontario Line and other projects for them to win federal approval.
[...]
Despite the provincial minister’s comments Monday, correspondence obtained by the Star suggests that behind the scenes the federal government has signalled it would be open to providing funding for Ontario transit projects before detailed plans are finalized.

An April 30, 2019 letter from the federal deputy minister of infrastructure to her provincial counterpart stated that “in the event that approval of federal funding is required before a final business case can be developed,” the government of Canada could provide money for projects through a “stage gate” process.

Under this process, Ottawa would help pay to advance a provincial project’s design, and make funding to build new lines contingent on submission of a full business case.
[...]

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...o-line-ottawa-says-it-needs-more-answers.html

I can see the InfraBank playing an ever more important role on this...and having legal claims to ownership by doing so. The question is if that resides with the Federal Gov't, or somehow held in escrow by the InfraBank.

 

[ssiguy2]

East Japan Railway {as reported by the Japan Times} has just announced that they are going to spend $40 million on a hydrogen trains to be running and tested by 2021 with large scale service to begin in 2024 on a 120km non-electrified line.

Railway Journal has also stated that Europe is leading the way in hydrogen rail even though most of Europe is electrified due to new noise pollution regulations in the EU coming into effect within a decade. It would simply cost far too much to electrify the systems, be too time consuming, and the regulations will also apply to freight...…......that's right, hydrogen is coming along quickly in freight as well and is already being tested in Poland & Germany. The fast development of hydrogen is truly dizzying as crucial regulations for diesel phase out and noise reductions quickly approach.

 

[ssiguy2]

Just to add to the above: Forbes has stated that delivery giant DHL is buying 100 hydrogen delivery trucks for Germany and if they work well another 400 will be added to the order and delivered by 2025 and they will set up the needed hydrogen fueling stations across Germany.. In NA, Nicola Motors has raised the capitol to begin planning of a new hydrogen facility in Phoenix where they will be building hydrogen large transport trucks for freight. Anhueser-Busch has already placed a monstrous order for 800 transports.

These 2 are, of course, not rail but exemplify how fast hydrogen infrastructure will be developing over the next few years which is often, falsely, stated as a drawback to hydrogen rail.