Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

[Napoleon]

The problem is that there are 5 trains needed for the daily equipment cycle, and the equipment has not been able to run reliably enough to allow them to do this. Trains still regularly get cycled into and out of service in the middle of the day.

This is definitely bit worrisome. I recall reading that the warranty was going to run out shortly.

 

[steveintoronto]

Interesting. I never really thought about trains having transmissions.

I was just digging to see what more I could find to post reference before answering Rob. The ZF mechanical gearbox has been discussed at length in this forum (IIRC?) a month or so ago. As to why it was chosen by Metrolinx and yet SMART *insisted* on the xmssn being all fluid coupling is a good question. SMART were paid by Metrolinx (a couple of hundred thousand $) to do the prototyping, but then decided to ignore some of it. There's still a torque converter before the ZF mechanical gearbox chosen, and it's a *six gear xmssn*! Sounds great in theory....and I think someone might have been intoxicated by the "green" claims for recovering that "lost (up to 20% worst case scenario) power in the all-fluid drive". Whatever, I will now post what I'd decided not to before, and keep looking on this. There's incredibly little published on this. More to come...

Felt like a 16 year old learning clutch for the first time.

Living right by the Bloor station, I can hear the shifting on the Sharyos. When it's good, it's very, very good. But when it isn't, you can hear it, and you're right, it's a lot like a trucker missing his shift....except with a mechanical xmssn, it's compounded by the number of vehicles in the consistent each finding their shift point at the same time. There's no fluid coupling to absorb the difference in RPM/load detection/and shift point parameter, it's all up to the electronic control systems. And like a computer, when they work well, they do wonders, but when it hiccups, you lose it all. Imagine for a moment two or three buses (the ZF xmssn used is essentially a bus one adapted for rail) rigidly coupled together, and expected to shift gears at exactly the same time.

Nice in theory, in practice, unless choreographed/synched, it ain't gonna happen. Things will break.

A quick Edit to Add that I may have to retract. I'll try and reference this later pro or con.

Since the 'grand plan' is to butcher the Sharyos and give them a sex-change into EMU from DMU 'as easy as pie' (if you believe the propaganda sheets Sumitomo and Metrolinx used to publish) when the Weston Corridor is electrified, the engines, bogies and a lot of ancillaries are to be removed in a 'modular fashion' and replaced by electrics. (Talk about compounding the inherent design weaknesses). One of the pluses of this will be, ostensibly, since the bogies are to be replaced, bogies with the electric traction motors bogie mounted, a much more efficient and *better tracking* bogie with greater tractive factors (in almost all cases. You want your weight right on the tractive surfaces) and they ride, in almost all cases, if well designed, much better and consistently too. No Cardan shaft!

So here's a wild proposal for Metrolinx: If you're going to electrify at some point anyway, order those bogies now, and add a generator to the Cummins prime motor. Forget fluid and/or mechanical coupling. Will this be buggy? Quite likely initially, but no more so than being totally electrified, and certainly no more so than now. So perhaps it's time to consider going the DEMU route, and even before full electrification, let alone full route flexibility after to allow these units to run on the outer regions of the network, start the conversion now.

So what about the insertion loss of electric gen to electric drive? No more so than mechanical losses, especially if those mechanics aren't working as they should.

I need more reference to comment further, but Metrolinx is facing crunch time with those units, and they need to know whether to buy in any more (at twice the price of initial purchase) or cut their losses and adapt them.

Edit to Add, Tues 11:00 AM:
Note the British Rail Class 220, and related variants, use the same engine as the Sharyos (albeit not the R version, which is the exhaust treatment for Tier 4 compliance, but same rated power output) but have a gen set driven by the engine which then drives traction motors:

All coaches are equipped with a Cummins QSK19 diesel engine of 750 hp (560 kW) at 1800rpm. These power a generator which supplies current to motors driving two axles per coach,[6] with one axle per bogie powered.[7][8]
[...]
Maximum speed 125 mph (200 km/h)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_220

Many factors might come into play realizing that performance, but I'm puzzled as to how Bombardier got that performance 16 years ago that the Sharyos can only match with a mechanical xmssn today that ostensibly "is more efficient by eliminating transmission losses".

These are also Cardan shaft driven, but the latest bogie designs have radically reduced weight and increased ride and tracking performance, with bogie mounted traction motors that can be run either EMU or DEMU.

This may all seem a solution for a problem that doesn't exist...except a problem does exist: Even if the Sharyos were performing well, the cost has doubled to buy more, and there's not enough of them at present to do the RER function of the existing Bramalea-Union Corridor on a fifteen minute headway. As Paul mentions, perhaps increasing that to 20 mins might make it work? It's still a stretch, but something has to give.

The most obvious solution if the problems we're hearing about are true is to sell them. But there is no market. UPX jumped in too fast on these, the regs for this type of system in North Am is changing fast, and we're going to have all sorts of options of European type models available to use at some point in the near future.

So we're probably stuck with the Sharyos. We'd best start looking at re-purposing them now, and utilize that to address the alleged (albeit unproven, but anecdotal logic indicates this to be the case) problems. We're still waiting for funding and a fixed date for electrifying that corridor, so a DEMU conversion looks very opportune in the meantime.

 

[reaperexpress]

According to the mini schedule, see link, the GO trains leave Weston Station at 6:12, 6:30, 7:07, 7:32, 8:00, 8:30, 8:53, 9:34, 10:29, 11:34, 12:34, 13:34, and 14:34 and nothing after. With UPX, it leaves Weston Station at the x:44, x:59, x:14, and x:28, from 5:44 until 1:14.

You can also check out the full combined Weston corridor train schedule, which I posted on page 543 of this thread.


The problem is that GO trains accelerate much more slowly than DMUs, which results in longer travel times from Weston to Union. As a result, the off-peak trains are completely useless for Weston-Union trips: even if one does happen to show up, you're still better off waiting for UP.

 

[robmausser]

I was just digging to see what more I could find to post reference before answering Rob. The ZF mechanical gearbox has been discussed at length in this forum (IIRC?) a month or so ago. As to why it was chosen by Metrolinx and yet SMART *insisted* on the xmssn being all fluid coupling is a good question. SMART were paid by Metrolinx (a couple of hundred thousand $) to do the prototyping, but then decided to ignore some of it. There's still a torque converter before the ZF mechanical gearbox chosen, and it's a *six gear xmssn*! Sounds great in theory....and I think someone might have been intoxicated by the "green" claims for recovering that "lost (up to 20% worst case scenario) power in the all-fluid drive". Whatever, I will now post what I'd decided not to before, and keep looking on this. There's incredibly little published on this. More to come...

Living right by the Bloor station, I can hear the shifting on the Sharyos. When it's good, it's very, very good. But when it isn't, you can hear it, and you're right, it's a lot like a trucker missing his shift....except with a mechanical xmssn, it's compounded by the number of vehicles in the consistent each finding their shift point at the same time. There's no fluid coupling to absorb the difference in RPM/load detection/and shift point parameter, it's all up to the electronic control systems. And like a computer, when they work well, they do wonders, but when it hiccups, you lose it all. Imagine for a moment two or three buses (the ZF xmssn used is essentially a bus one adapted for rail) rigidly coupled together, and expected to shift gears at exactly the same time.

Nice in theory, in practice, unless choreographed/synched, it ain't gonna happen. Things will break.

A quick Edit to Add that I may have to retract. I'll try and reference this later pro or con.

Since the 'grand plan' is to butcher the Sharyos and give them a sex-change into EMU from DMU 'as easy as pie' (if you believe the propaganda sheets Summitomo and Metrolinx used to publish) when the Weston Corridor is electrified, the engines, bogies and a lot of ancillaries are to be removed in a 'modular fashion' and replaced by electrics. (Talk about compounding the inherent design weaknesses). One of the pluses of this will be, ostensibly, since the bogies are to be replaced, bogies with the electric traction motors axle mounted, a much more efficient and *better tracking* bogie with greater tractive factors (in almost all cases. You want your weight right on the tractive surfaces) and they ride, in almost all cases, if well designed, much better and consistently too. No Cardan shaft!

So here's a wild proposal for Metrolinx: If you're going to electrify at some point anyway, order those bogies now, and add a generator to the Cummins prime motor. Forget fluid and/or mechanical coupling. Will this be buggy? Quite likely initially, but no more so than being totally electrified, and certainly no more so than now. So perhaps it's time to consider going the DEMU route, and even before full electrification, let alone full route flexibility after to allow these units to run on the outer regions of the network, start the conversion now.

So what about the insertion loss of electric gen to electric drive? No more so than mechanical losses, especially if those mechanics aren't working as they should.

I need more reference to comment further, but Metrolinx is facing crunch time with those units, and they need to know whether to buy in any more (at twice the price of initial purchase) or cut their losses and adapt them.

I read on here and elsewhere that Metrolinx has decided to forego the sex change, and will instead order entirely new EMU vehicles for the UPX when its electrified. The current DMU's will be either used elsewhere on the GO network (like off-peak on the Stouffeville line etc) or sold off entirely.

Apparently they determined the conversion was too costly, and were unsure of the public backlash when the DMU's would start using the EMU bathrooms.

 

[reaperexpress]

I read on here and elsewhere that Metrolinx has decided to forego the sex change, and will instead order entirely new EMU vehicles for the UPX when its electrified. The current DMU's will be either used elsewhere on the GO network (like off-peak on the Stouffeville line etc) or sold off entirely.

If they plan to use the DMUs elsewhere in the network, then they plan to build more high-level platforms too.

There seems to be more selection for off-the-shelf EMUs than there was for DMUs. There are a few options for a high-platform line with 25kv AC overhead electrification, such as the Kawasaki M8:

Image by tm on Wikipedia

or the Hyundai-Rotem Silverliner V:

Image by Xnatedawgx on Wikipedia

I'm not aware of any off-the-shelf options for low-platform accessible EMUs in North America.

 

[ssiguy2]

Why don't they screw the EMUs altogether and just use off the shelf catenary subway trains like Cleveland does to Hopkins International or would that be just too damn easy?

 

[innsertnamehere]

Metrolinx has stated that they will be going for euro trains, If they are indeed going to replace the UPx fleet as well, I see no reason why they would stick to FRA complaint vehicles.

Stuff like this would be a possibility:

 

[reaperexpress]

Why don't they screw the EMUs altogether and just use off the shelf catenary subway trains like Cleveland does to Hopkins International or would that be just too damn easy?

Why don't you go back and read the responses from the last couple times you asked this question or would that be just too damn easy?

- Platform height thread here
- This thread here

You do realize that subway trains are EMUs, right?

 

[crs1026]

I lose interest rapidly when people start obsessing about a particular model or design of vehicle - it's the wrong place to start thinking about how our transit should look, and it's strictly a fantasy pursuit (fetish?) given that we don't know the cold, hard spreadsheet data that will drive the real life decisions.

It's useful to get inspiration from the precedent of particular designs, and there may be some enduring truths available (e.g. loco hauled vs self propelled comparisons) but remember that if ML ever puts out an RFP, various vendors may propose hybrid or refined designs that are gamechangers to past products' specs. Or they may look at the terms of the tender ( content, rules for instance ) and not bid their product at all. And ML may already have formed some preferences which will inform the tender spec.

If we can get good ridership from 2WAD service going with replicas of the John Molson, I'm all for it.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

I'm not aware of any off-the-shelf options for low-platform accessible EMUs in North America.

In the RER Business Case document, there is mention of several EMUs that have accessible-height boarding, and the idea of using full-length accessible platforms. Assuming gauge considerations are solved (e.g. freight restrictions and bypass tracks), unassisted wheelchair boarding is an option. Utah Frontrunner (which uses the same BiLevels we have) provides this ability.

Why don't they screw the EMUs altogether and just use off the shelf catenary subway trains like Cleveland does to Hopkins International or would that be just too damn easy?

That's an EMU too. Subway trains are EMUs too.

 

[steveintoronto]

Sharyo are having severe problems elsewhere:

The Wall Street Journal‘s Bob Tita broke the news yesterday that the manufacturer of 130 new Amtrak railcars is years behind schedule, and probably won’t complete the order before the federal funding for it expires. How did this happen?

The 130 double decker railcars were approved for purchase in the 2008 stimulus package, destined for service in the Midwest and California. But the terms of the $352 million contract awarded to Nippon Sharyo, an American subsidiary of a Japanese rail company, made it impossible to complete on time. The company now says it won’t begin construction of the trains until 2018, when the order was supposed to be completed.

The problem can be traced to two regulations: a strict “Buy America” manufacturing requirement and the Federal Railroad Administration’s unusual safety rules.

The 2008 stimulus bill included a Buy America provision that compelled the winning bidder to build its trains “entirely in the U.S. with domestically sourced components and materials,” Tita reports.

Problem is, America doesn’t have much of a domestic passenger railcar industry, in part because the passenger train market is pretty small. To comply with the law, the Japanese company had to set up a subsidiary in the U.S. and build a brand new $100 million plant. That was the easy part.

What turned out to be more difficult was acquiring needed components that were made in the U.S. Nippon Sharyo appealed to Caltrans, which is overseeing the project, for an exemption to source these from Japan, according to Tita.

Compounding the difficulty of sourcing the parts is that Nippon Sharyo has to construct a railcar model that has never been built before. That brings us to the second problem.


Nippon Sharyo ran up against the FRA’s infamous crashworthiness standards, which “Nippon Sharyo’s car hasn’t been able to pass,” reports Tita. As a result, the company is going to have to spend the next few years reengineering the body.

America’s mandate for railcars that can withstand these crash tests is unusual, and it makes trains more expensive to build and operate without actually making them safer. In a classic post at Bike East Bay, Eric McCaughrin likened the FRA to “the soccer-Mom who thinks an SUV provides greater safety, the FRA figures collisions are inevitable and heavier is better.” [...]

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2016/04/12/how-federal-rules-make-it-harder-to-build-trains-in-america/

We're still waiting for the Cdn Min of Transport to reply as to Metronlinx' expressed desire for "European type regs".

 

[steveintoronto]

If they plan to use the DMUs elsewhere in the network, then they plan to build more high-level platforms too. [...]
I'm not aware of any off-the-shelf options for low-platform accessible EMUs in North America.

Not so:

Features
Train cars, door openings, and wheelchair berths are sized to accommodate ADAAG Common Wheelchair (30" x 48")

Entrances located along the car, rather than at the ends, permit quick boarding and exiting by all, ambulatory or wheelchair users, and accommodate boarding from full high level platforms, low level platforms, and mini-highs [...]

http://www.septa.org/service/rail/silverliner/ada.html

The question really is the *time to board/exit" from multi entrance height cars, something MDrejohn has itemized and discussed at length. The Montreal MR90s are also high and low-level accessible, and apparently coming up for sale if the Montreal proposal comes to fruition. The MR90s are now over twenty years old, need refurbishing, but are in excellent shape mechanically and electrically, and very capable units. The LIRR M7 was based on the design.

Interesting discussion here as to how that relates to FRA regs:
The MR90 is FRA compatible??? (was:Re: Metro-North New Haven Line on track for new cars)
http://www.subchat.com/read.asp?Id=219660

 

[Southcore]

Apologies in advance if my noob questions have been answered in the past but I wanted to know about future capacity/growth now that the line is becoming a commuter one:

1. Is it possible that the UPx could run more frequently in the future? Say, every 10 mins?

2. Could additional cabins/cars (whatever the correct term is) be added to the current 2 or 3 car setup?

Thanks

 

[steveintoronto]

1. Is it possible that the UPx could run more frequently in the future? Say, every 10 mins?

Not enough stock of the present Sharyos. From anecdotal reports, they're already pressed to keep even two car consists in service suffice to keep the 15 minute frequency.

2. Could additional cabins/cars (whatever the correct term is) be added to the current 2 or 3 car setup?

I read a report from one reader that he saw an LRC coach coupled into a consist, whether that was merely moving empty stock or not I don't know, I also don't know if the electronic bus (especially the Cummins motor gearbox shift parameters) is carried through dissimilar stock, but even it if is, the answer in terms of physical coupling is 'yes', an unpowered coach could be added, albeit it will slow down the acceleration and top speed of the consist. I'd wondered the same point some months back, if a two-car consist with a coach sandwiched between could meet the schedule? The effect of adding in an unpowered coach would be far less to a three powered car consist + 1 than a two + 1, as the power to weight ratio would be less affected.

I am aware that there are more powerful versions of the present Cummins motors available, if towing an unpowered coach, that might be an option to explore, but it assumes a lot of factors to work, not the least the present performance of the Sharyo DMUs.

 

[mdrejhon]

1. Is it possible that the UPx could run more frequently in the future? Say, every 10 mins?

Yes. With extra trains, and the planned CBTC signalling during GO RER electrification.

Unless we use 5-min headways with RER Bramalea-Unionville (ala SmartTrack). That will gobble up corridor capacity, even with the planned 30/45mph USRC speedup permitting 49 trains/hour going through Union by 2031. (Citation: various Metrolinx docs already linked earlier, and RER business plan)

I think it is easiest to pull off these very short headways and high frequencies if UPX+GO+SmartTrack is merged into one multilayered route with spurs similar to Paris RER B.