News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 940     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 358     0 

SmartTrack (Proposed)

robmausser said:
Then how could they conclude that these stations would force suburbanites to drive, when they wouldn't even impact their trains?

(Express train is flying past St.Clair station) "St.Clair gets a station? Those damn city slicker downtowners, I hate them! Im never taking the train again!"
Click to expand...
Because not all people in all suburban stations would be getting onto express trains I presume.
 
TOareaFan said:
Because not all people in all suburban stations would be getting onto express trains I presume.
Click to expand...

Exactly -- if you have frequent express trips from the 905, then all's well, but if express service is limited to a few rush hour runs, it's not going to be a viable alternative for the 905.
 
I just glanced thru the Steve Munro article and it seems to be missing one important point about the "time impacts".

He noted that the G&M article says more stations serving Torontonians may result in lower ridership due to increased time but he states that some of this extra time would be offset by electrification which of course is true. He didn't however mention another time-savings from RER.............the probability that they will use single-level trains as opposed to double-deckers.

Not only is GO slow due to using diesel but also due to being double-decker which take up far more dwell time than single-level trains. A single level EMU has basically the same dwell time as a subway depending on the model chosen with obviously EMU that are more akin to Metro cars being the best. To visualize the difference in single vs bi-level trains imagine how much slower all the subway lines would be if they used double-decker GO trains.

Using single level trains makes un/boarding significantly more time consuming, cumbersome, and less reliable. This will be exaggerated as more stations are added not only due to the stations themselves but the changing demographics of who would use RER as opposed to those who currently use GO Commuter. Currently commuter rail is the domain of fit, healthy, white collar working people. A RER blurs the line between commuter rail and subway, more "regular" riders will be using it including the elderly, handicapped, aged, people with grocery bags, and moms with baby carriages. The more "everyday" people use the system the more noticeable in time savings will occur using single-level as opposed to bi-level trains.

Unless I missed this, this was a major time savings that Munro didn't take into account.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Not only is GO slow due to using diesel but also due to being double-decker which take up far more dwell time than single-level trains. A single level EMU has basically the same dwell time as a subway depending on the model chosen with obviously EMU that are more akin to Metro cars being the best. To visualize the difference in single vs bi-level trains imagine how much slower all the subway lines would be if they used double-decker GO trains.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends on the equipment. Pre-1978, GO was extremely dissatisfied with the loading/unloading performance of its single level cars, which is why the spec that became the bilevels called for the spacing of the doors away from the ends of the car.....so that the doors were evenly spaced all down the platform, and passengers had more than one way to turn as they entered. Certainly, there are single level EMU's on the market that have doors spaced away from the car ends, although some might not be compatible with low level platforms.

The reality is that many trains will continue to be bilevels at peak, because the ridership volume will require this. I would advocate having only one model of EMU. If that means running short bilevel trains off peak, so be it. Loading lighter volumes onto the bilevels is really not a problem. Other than at Union, I haven't seen the bilevels as slow to load....the dwell caused by the accessibility ramps exceeds the loading time.

- Paul
 
facepalming_brooklynite said:
Would these "independent consultants" make the same argument against RER?

And did they factor in electrification? Surely the improved speed from electrification would offset the extra 1-2 minutes required to stop at these additional stops.

I'm sorry, but this seems like a fundamentally absurd claim to anyone who has ever taken suburban commuter rail in Europe or Asia. The GTA desperately needs better options for transit across the region, and you can't build a true network without having some options for connectivity to other modes.
Click to expand...
i find it so hard to believe that people will give up GO due to an extra 2 min, Where do these facts come from? How can anyone believe this? Its insane
 
They could go with wider cars.

extra_wide_emu.png

and/or wider doors (like they did with Toronto's subway cars).
ratprailway.JPG
 
The wider doors thing will work, in theory, but wider doors + single level = a much smaller percentage of passengers finding seats than is the present GO reality.mI wonder how this factors into the reality of RER.

Personally, when I ride the subway, I prefer to stand, so I'm not turning up my nose at that... but I wonder how that affects things in the eyes of the current ridership, who regard standees as something gone wrong.

- Paul
 
ssiguy2 said:
He didn't however mention another time-savings from RER.............the probability that they will use single-level trains as opposed to double-deckers.
Click to expand...
What's been proposed are double level. Please link otherwise if you can find any reference to single-level coaches being proposed. It's an interesting point that ties in with platform height, and already we face a dilemma with the lack of universality on the GO system of the UPX cars.

ssiguy2 said:
The more "everyday" people use the system the more noticeable in time savings will occur using single-level as opposed to bi-level trains.
Click to expand...
This has been a raging debate in Australia with the Sydney (mostly DD) and Melbourne (All single-level) coaches. It has been elsewhere too, but Paris is an example of where DD has not displayed a deficiency in speed of loading/unloading v. the increased capacity for the same length of platform such that it renders the increased space a detriment.

crs1026 said:
Certainly, there are single level EMU's on the market that have doors spaced away from the car ends, although some might not be compatible with low level platforms.
Click to expand...
Platform height alone is a huge factor. Once it becomes a case of just low-level platforms, loading/unloading time for DD, given the same amount of doors and width of doors, is about the same.

crs1026 said:
I would advocate having only one model of EMU. If that means running short bilevel trains off peak, so be it.
Click to expand...
And that's exactly how many US cities are running their BBD bi-levels: three coach trains. As the need increases, the trains will be lengthened.

crs1026 said:
the dwell caused by the accessibility ramps exceeds the loading time.
Click to expand...
That's a huge problem still, don't know if there's any proposed fix for that. Obviously an automated device would save a lot of time.

Edit to Add: Rather than repeat the extensive writings on DD v. Single elsewhere, I'll post this in as it has links to other references too: (Note that Melbourne bridges and tunnels don't have the height to allow DD like we have in North Am)
Is single deck or double deck better?
Arguments about this will rage forever I suspect, but there are pros and cons to each.

For a higher carrying capacity, single deck trains need to be longer, providing more doors, and theoretically faster loading and unloading. Faster loading means you can push more trains down the line, and helps counter some or all the capacity benefits of double deck.

Longer trains have an obvious cost: longer platforms and it may have other impacts such as on signalling and stabling. This is where Melbourne is going — the new fleet will start at 7 cars and extend to 9 or 10.

Double deck trains have higher capacity for the length — about 50% more. But they are obviously higher, meaning some existing tunnels and bridges need modification (which may or may not be practical) and extra cost when building new track, especially tunnels.

The power-to-weight ratio of the train could be an issue. Double deck trains obviously concentrate a lot more weight per carriage, while single deck trains that spread the load out over more carriages and wheel sets may assist good acceleration.

Some people will cite security issues, as the decks mean it’s not possible to look along the length of the train. Some also cite risks with level crossings, as the lower deck is vulnerable to a motor vehicle impact, though I’m not sure if that risk has been quantified.

Most cities have stuck with single deck for their high-capacity, short trip urban and metro networks, though the Paris RER is a prominent example of double deck high-capacity suburban operation, and they’ve designed double deck carriages with a third doorway, presumably at the cost of capacity. But I’m not sure any new lines or networks are being designed for double deck operation.

A number of European countries including Belgium, the Netherlands and Switzerland use them, but primarily for longer distances, where dwell times are less important.

NSW is moving to single deck for their new metro line. Meanwhile the UK is considering double deck for its commuter lines (eg NOT the Tube, which has tunnels that are very space-constrained).

Click to expand...
http://www.danielbowen.com/2015/11/18/metro-tunnel-single-deck-only/
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
The wider doors thing will work, in theory, but wider doors + single level = a much smaller percentage of passengers finding seats than is the present GO reality.mI wonder how this factors into the reality of RER.

Personally, when I ride the subway, I prefer to stand, so I'm not turning up my nose at that... but I wonder how that affects things in the eyes of the current ridership, who regard standees as something gone wrong.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Smaller percentage per vehicle, yes, but if you increase frequency to provide additional capacity, you may be able to make up for that.
 
steveintoronto said:
Excellent analysis here:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-11/barry-ofarrell-sydney-trains-claim-doubtful/5371446
Click to expand...

Interesting, and a compelling number of systems ware reported to be working from the single level premise.

The frequency they are citing is in the 20-24 trains per hour range, with fairly complex signalling/control systems, I gather. Will GO RER ever reach that capacity level? At 4-6 trains per hour, I wonder if the same analysis holds up.

If a single level 3-wide-doorway car is used, seating capacity is what - maybe 40-50 seats? So to replace bilevel seats on a 1 to 1 basis you would be needing 2-3 times as many cars. Seems very inefficient. However, it may make sense in the context of a train that brings lots of people from the hinterland but also serves as a within-416 subway adjunct. The 905 passengers take up all the seats, and the 416 riders (whose trips are much shorter) take the standing room, just as they might on a subway.

All those systems appear to be using high platforms. That may be the fork in the road for RER. At the end of the day, too many stops is painful no matter how fast one accelerates and decelerates.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Interesting, and a compelling number of systems ware reported to be working from the single level premise.

The frequency they are citing is in the 20-24 trains per hour range, with fairly complex signalling/control systems, I gather. Will GO RER ever reach that capacity level? At 4-6 trains per hour, I wonder if the same analysis holds up.

If a single level 3-wide-doorway car is used, seating capacity is what - maybe 40-50 seats? So to replace bilevel seats on a 1 to 1 basis you would be needing 2-3 times as many cars. Seems very inefficient. However, it may make sense in the context of a train that brings lots of people from the hinterland but also serves as a within-416 subway adjunct. The 905 passengers take up all the seats, and the 416 riders (whose trips are much shorter) take the standing room, just as they might on a subway.

All those systems appear to be using high platforms. That may be the fork in the road for RER. At the end of the day, too many stops is painful no matter how fast one accelerates and decelerates.

- Paul
Click to expand...
Every point you make is crucial, so couldn't condense down quoting you.

My first impression of the analysis was "wow...they move massive numbers of people with their commuter rail systems". They're way ahead of us, and here we are discussing how many bus passengers arrive at GO stations with large parking lots. Population density per national basis and concentration of urban dwellers is remarkably similar Oz to Can (both nations considerably more urban-centric than the UK, France or US), and in most cases, they are using leading edge signalling/control. The latest suburban service opening in Sydney is *driverless*! They term it a "metro" but their terminology may differ from ours.

The high platform debate is inescapable if talking single deck coaches to load/unload at a higher rate. As pointed out, a lot depends on other factors, such as the number of doors and their width. I searched for more info on the Paris DDs with a centre door, came up short but will pursue more later on that. Not mentioned is if that is both sides of the car, or just one side. That also will change the dynamic. Accessing the UK link is also telling. If the Brits are considering going DD (they did some sixty years ago with the Bulleids on the Kent lines, in an odd staggered asymmetric arrangement for seating)(assimetric?) with their very limited loading gauge, there's even more to be considered in the discussion.

What struck me with the Paris triple door set coach was that it's built by an Alstom/BBD partnership....and my immediate thought was "Yikes, that design is a generation ahead of what they're banging out in Thunder Bay".

I'm trying not to be cynical stating this, but it's true: We're so out of date on most everything and anything to do with transit in this nation, especially Ontario.

Getting back to serving that "last mile" of transit to one's driveway....

Perhaps we can't learn lessons from the Europeans and Asians, though we should, but at least let's learn from the Americans (pre-Trump) and the Aussies.

Edit to Add: Here's the details of the M109 Paris RER DD triple door set coach:
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/mi09-double-deck-train/
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top