GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[TOareaFan]

I have to strongly disagree with you there. I vastly prefer travelling on the train to the bus--I get extremely nauseous if I read a book, work on a laptop, or even look at my phone too long on a GO bus, but can easily do it without nausea on the train. Additionally, DVP/404 traffic in either direction is terrible for much of the day.

Not sure why you think you are strongly disagreeing with me. I am not disputing there will be an increase.....I am just not swallowing 442% increase (particularly given the one bit of evidence they supply {in the summary document anyway} is the 29% increase on Lakeshore which is, as they point out, very similar to what they have seen in other jurisdictions).

That means that, for me, taking the train is currently about an hour of 99%-productive time, whereas taking the bus is anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and a half of 100% unproductive time. That's for the same price, and the same start (Aurora) and destination (Union) points. Also, I'd like to point out that the other 3 members of my immediate family are the same, as are most of my friends.

Again, nothing there eases my discomfort with the 442% increase figure....you would count as zero % as you currently shift your journey to match the current train schedule...you would be better served with better flexibility (which is good) but you would still count as the same number of trips.

Also, while this is anecdotal, it is accurate for myself, 3 members of my immediate family, and many friends. Not everybody who lives in the suburbs has a full-time 9AM-5PM job in the downtown core and exclusively travels for work; many work part-time, or flexible/off-peak hours, are on call, go downtown for medical appointments or recreation or other events scheduled midday, and so on.

I never said that "everybody" who lives in the suburbs has a job downtown that is 9 - 5...but the vast majority of people who travel from the suburbs to downtown do. That is why we have things called "peak" and "off peak"...peak is where most (not all) of the trips are.

 

[mdrejhon]

Fleet plan is mostly electric Locomotives for peak service, bi-level EMUS for off peak. GO will be aiming to relax crash standards to use European trains.

Examples used in the case include the Bombardier TRAXX P160 AC for the electric locomotive, and the Bombardier Twindexx EMU and Stadler KISS for the off peak EMUs. Interest is expressed in the tilt capabilities of the Twindexx, which would allow for faster operating speeds on the Barrie and Stouffville lines which have poor track geometry.

Interesting!

-- My prediction that GO will be able to relax FRA structural standards for RER is reconfirmed much more strongly in this new report.

-- And my prediction that KISS is one of the contenders already hinted by the EMU clipped they chose to use for their RER ads, actually really had some original intentional "one of the candidates" selection interest in them rather than a random pick from a clipart catalog.

-- And my prediction that they may use the same train for the Unionville (SmartTrack, a label on enhanced RER) and Stoufville (Non-ST) using the short turning technique. Page 21, one in four trains extended past Unionville (Mt Joy).

-- And my prediction of Positive Train Control. Actually, they're going with a very similar system, CBTC ($800M quote) costing more than PTC ($200M quote). Doc says CBTC was already rolled into the RER electrification budget. Interesting!

Not that it will actually happen (yet), just more strongly reconfirmed the above are "on the table".

Now, what I found interesting is the 12-coach KISS on page 23! By joining three 4-coach KISS consists with their quick connect-disconnect feature.

--other takeaways--

Not in report but modified seating densities in EMUs is a wildcard.

KISS has fewer seats per coach than a Bombarier BiLevel. Presumably, they might be able to run KISS fully on some peak routes like the Bramalea-Stoufville route (superset of SmartTrack) if they can order higher density North America style commuter coach seating similar to BiLevels -- the Euro KISS has bigger seats, often uses a two class system, and fewer seats per coach in Europe. But this remains to be seen, almost nothing beats a 12 coach Bombardier BiLevel in sheer seat count and crush capacity.

Need to study bend radii of the EMUs as one of the candidates may someday run the UPX spur as an EMU replacement of UPX trains. This is a small hole, and incompatible floor heights, may force GO RER Bramalea to a distinct, different trainset -- but remains to be seen.

TRAXX looks neat, need to study them more.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The EMUs would be used for off peak service only. Peak services would be done with electric locomotives pulling existing bi-levels.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The EMUs would be used for off peak service only. Peak services would be done with electric locomotives pulling existing bi-levels.

Excuse my ignorance but this seems counter-intuitive. Wouldn't the improved acceleration/deceleration profile of a MU be a plus on a peak period service where; a) the majority of customers ride/revenue is earned b) the nature of peak period trips make time very important (making it in to the office in time and c) with the most services running at one time and track space/time being limited getting into and out of a track block be key.

Or is it simply a passenger capacity issue between the Bi-levels and the EMUs?

 

[mdrejhon]

The EMUs would be used for off peak service only. Peak services would be done with electric locomotives pulling existing bi-levels.

One scenario? Perhaps.

But guaranteed scenario? For all routes? I think not.

There are also mentions of all-day EMU services in the report too. (section 2.5.5, Scenario 5)

There will still be diesel trains, like the hourly Hamilton trains, run as a Bombardier BiLevel. But in one of the scenarios, there are Union-Aldershot EMUs still operating at peak period, along with Hamilton using existing BiLevels. Table 16, for example implies all-day EMUs for Aldershot-Oshawa.

That said you may be very well right, but some scenarios appear to combine both BiLevels and EMUs during peak period, as in not 100% of all berths will be BiLevels during peak.

It's also a Union capacity problem to switch back and fourth between BiLevels and EMUs. This surmises the possibility of being mathematically more efficient to let short EMUs terminate in Union off-peak to couple-up into one longer EMU that departs during peak -- the Union Station Rail Corridor is highly capacity constrained. This may, also, in theory, mean fewer EMUs consists departing during peak -- but not zero. You don't want EMUs deadheading out of Union during peak, anyway (wasting peak throughput capacity)... So, mathematically (because of USRC throughput limit), might as well continue using EMUs during peak to maximize passenger-seat throughput during peak, even if the EMU seating is lower density than the BiLevels. (because you've avoided deadheading overhead).

Metrolinx/GO likes to preload Union full of trains just before peak, so that outgoing trains don't need to contend (interfere) with incoming trains. They also skip one LSE-LSW "through train" for this reason. If GO had to switch between EMUs and BiLevels, where will the EMUs go? BiLevels are just going to /add/ to peak capacity, rather than /replace/ the EMUs. In other words, what I am reading is that EMUs will run during peak, but BiLevels will "add" extra peak period trains.

The report even implies this too, "Capacity added to match demand" (Table 4). Given the 15-minute Hamilton peak service proposed elsewhere, automatically means diesel capacity added to Lakeshore West during peak period -- but that doesn't necessarily replace the Aldershot EMUs (NOTE: we already run Lakeshore West at ~7.5 minute from 4:45pm thru 5:45pm).

About the seating capacity issue -- it is too early to tell -- we have to keep in mind that European trainsets often come with lower-density seating than Bombardier Bilevels, so a higher-density coach configuration would probably be ordered by Metrolinx, and we might see numbers sufficiently competitive enough, that a 12-coach EMU would sufficiently stand-in if they choose the couple-uncouple technique for peak/offpeak.

The report explicitly says this, even too: "Assume four-car EMUs are used initially, coupled into eight-car and 12-car trains during peak hours" (p. 133 labelled, p. 149 in PDF viewer).

What you said is only one scenario.
You aren't necessarily right for all scenarios.

 

[rbt]

That is nothing to be sneered at, for sure, but then we jump to the projections by line and are told that trips on the Barrie line will jump by a whopping 442%.....those numbers are hard to swallow.

Very high Barrie line growth is perfectly believable but there is a bit of sleight of hand. Right now you have mid-day/evening/counter-peak buses every ~15 minutes to New Market (Union and Yorkdale runs); so ridership of 0 on the train for those runs.

That's a few thousand people per day who will be added to the train ridership (50% increase?) from day 1 without a single additional GO fare being paid. Lake Shore's frequency enhancement did not replace bus runs during those time slots.

Add to that benefits of it being a train, cutting an hour off the trip to Barrie, etc. and it rapidly adds up. Greyhound service on that corridor will likely get absorbed as well.

 

[innsertnamehere]

One scenario? Perhaps.

But guaranteed scenario? For all routes? I think not.

There are also mentions of all-day EMU services in the report too. (section 2.5.5, Scenario 5)

There will still be diesel trains, like the hourly Hamilton trains, run as a Bombardier BiLevel. But in one of the scenarios, there are Union-Aldershot EMUs still operating at peak period, along with Hamilton using existing BiLevels. Table 16, for example implies all-day EMUs for Aldershot-Oshawa.

That said you may be very well right, but some scenarios appear to combine both BiLevels and EMUs during peak period.

did you read the report? it was pretty explicit that the 4 car EMUs would not be adequate. I'm not speculating here, its straight up out of the benefits case. Peak services will be run with 12 car bi-levels pulled by 1 or 2 electric locomotives. Off peak services will be done with 4 car EMUs.

 

[muller877]

Yes there is some updated information include potential service levels, track plans, and revenue graphs. There is a summary report, the full report, and two appendices here: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...nefitscases/benefits_case_analyses.aspx#gorer

I was really impressed at how open and transparent it was on cost. It shows the subsidy requirements of each line under a status quo vs their recommended approach. They also didn't ask for the moon. They did studies on each line and concluded that the cost was not worth the benefit for some of the proposed expansion (Alternative 5 is the recommended approach).

Based on a 60 year life, the subsidy per rider per year is miniscule (assuming the current GO fare model). And this is after the capital costs of building/maintaining the line (but before the soft fuzzy "social" benefits).

For example to add an extra 12 million rides per year on the Lakeshore West line it will cost an incremental $1.3b (over 60 years). That is equivalent to $1.80 per user INCLUDING CAPITAL COSTS (page 38). System-wide the added fare revenue will exceed the added operating costs (and will partially pay the capital costs).

Does the TTC have any proposal as compelling as this?

This is exactly the analysis that needs to be done for each proposed transit project. No hiding the capital costs, no hoping that some other level of government will bail you out when you need new cars, just hard facts and the incremental costs to the taxpayers...whomever they are. Based on this type of analysis taxpayers can understand the long-term implications of these types of projects.

Of course there are a lot of assumptions which they have tested. I'm no expert and I hope that others who are (and not ones who will give knee jerk reactions) can provide insight to us.

 

[rbt]

Again, nothing there eases my discomfort with the 442% increase figure....you would count as zero % as you currently shift your journey to match the current train schedule...you would be better served with better flexibility (which is good) but you would still count as the same number of trips.

Bus counts and train counts are kept separate. He counts for much more than 0% in increased Barrie corridor train ridership.

 

[TOareaFan]

Bus counts and train counts are kept separate. He counts for much more than 0% in increased Barrie corridor train ridership.

he said he shifts his travel time to avoid the bus so is on the train anyway, just not at the time he would prefer...so he is already counted in the current train usage.

 

[TOareaFan]

That's a few thousand people per day who will be added to the train ridership (50% increase?) from day 1 without a single additional GO fare being paid. Lake Shore's frequency enhancement did not replace bus runs during those time slots.

For shifting people from buses to trains to account for an initial 50% bump, there would have to be around 5,600 ppl/day on those buses....there may be but that would be a lot of buses..no?

 

[Megaton327]

he said he shifts his travel time to avoid the bus so is on the train anyway, just not at the time he would prefer...so he is already counted in the current train usage.

My point was that I am taking up peak capacity when I do that, which is already at its limit--lots of standees as of King/Maple going south, and out of Union coming back. Off-peak there is room to spare--my point is that, if not even the majority, then enough peak riders might switch to off-peak trains to free up peak capacity for those riders who must travel during peak.

And I also said I avoid taking transit sometimes and drive my car all the way downtown instead. I think a lot of personal vehicles can be taken off the region's highways by adding off-peak trains to lines which completely lack them today. And there's your percentage train ridership increase, too.

 

[TOareaFan]

My point was that I am taking up peak capacity when I do that, which is already at its limit--lots of standees as of King/Maple going south, and out of Union coming back. Off-peak there is room to spare--my point is that, if not even the majority, then enough peak riders might switch to off-peak trains to free up peak capacity for those riders who must travel during peak.

And I also said I avoid taking transit sometimes and drive my car all the way downtown instead. I think a lot of personal vehicles can be taken off the region's highways by adding off-peak trains to lines which completely lack them today. And there's your percentage train ridership increase, too.

if the number was double I might believe it....but over 400% is incredulous.

 

[mdrejhon]

did you read the report? it was pretty explicit that the 4 car EMUs would not be adequate. I'm not speculating here, its straight up out of the benefits case. Peak services will be run with 12 car bi-levels pulled by 1 or 2 electric locomotives. Off peak services will be done with 4 car EMUs.

Yup, I read.
I added further quotations as proof, to buttress that I'm (also) right here.
Please see above.

Most revealingly:

The report explicitly says this, even too: "Assume four-car EMUs are used initially, coupled into eight-car and 12-car trains during peak hours" (p. 133 labelled, p. 149 in PDF viewer).



You might be right too, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong (for these reasons). I also explained why we both may simultaneously be right. (As I edited earlier, "Capacity added to match demand" section of the PDF says EMU keeps running, but diesels add to peak capacity)

The EMUs would couple-uncouple for peak, to create the 12-coach peak period EMUs that run simultaneously with additional peak diesels. European units have quick couple-uncouple capabilities, to produce longer trains much more easily, and is already mentioned as an operational possibility in the new report.

So again, we might both be right.

It remains to be seen what actually gets operationally chosen, but the point is, multiple options are being considered in the rpeort.

 

[mdrejhon]

if the number was double I might believe it....but over 400% is incredulous.

Precedents do exist. Lakeshore, IIRC, increased more than 400% in an earlier 10-year timespan. It once had no offpeak service.

Barrie daily ridership is only 17,000 and only 7 trains a day. There's a massive volume of cars on Highway 400, and many proposed infill stations. GO is expanding to 200 trains a week (~30 a day) by 2020s and far beyond for 2024. Let's consider that most of the traffic is up to Aurora, not all the way to Barrie. They'll be short-turning most of the trains at Aurora.

That said, with a massive extra number of trains, it seems a realistic projection to see ~300-500%ish from a line that only had 4 peak trains in 2003, 7 right now, to something that now sees trains every 15 minutes. This isn't UPX.

Barrie Line is getting a whole different order of magnitude than the Lakeshore West 30-minute introduction -- that only pretty much doubled the number of offpeak trains. The 15-minute "rapid transit convenience" and the hourly "commuter convenience" brings a lot of new riders on in a wholesale way much like the introduction of a new subway line where one didn't exist.

There are precedents elsewhere for the 400%.