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

Metrolinx meeting brings questions around electrification

Metrolinx meeting brings questions around electrification


Mar 23, 2010

ERIN HATFIELD

Read More: http://www.insidetoronto.com/news/l...eting-brings-questions-around-electrification

######################################################

They came with questions, mainly about electrification. Hundreds of people curious about the Metrolinx expansion were at a public forum Monday, March 22, but the resounding response was they would have to wait for answers. Every seat and then some in Toronto City Hall's council chambers was filled for a forum concerning the proposed Metrolinx expansion of the Georgetown South transit line and the rail link from Union Station to Pearson International Airport.

The forum, hosted by councillors John Filion, chair of the Toronto board of health, and Paula Fletcher, chair of the parks and environment committee, consisted of a panel discussion, with Gary McNeil, the executive vice-president of Metrolinx and managing director of Go Transit, Dr. David McKeown, Toronto's medical office of health, and Prof. Christopher Kennedy, transportation infrastructure expert.

Kathleen Wynne, Ontario minister of transportation, was at the meeting to observe but chose not to answer questions or participate in the conversation. Short presentations by the panelists were followed by a question-and-answer period. Residents from Scarborough to Etobicoke and all points in between posed questions, mainly to McNeil, regarding the use of diesel trains.

Although the plan is currently to use diesel trains, McNeil said if there is a case for electrification, the study will show that and work currently underway would have to be completed regardless of the kind of trains used. Metrolinx is doing a study on the electrification of its entire GO Transit rail system as a future alternative to diesel trains currently in service. This study is expected to be completed by the winter of 2010.

######################################################
 
The thought of having a network of all-electric GO trains is just so cool for some reason.

Hopefully by the time I'm "over the hill" and resort to moving to the hard suburbs to raise my rug-rats, there will be something similar to the German ICE train which I can use to get from Milton to downtown Toronto... at 320KM/h. tee hee.
 
The tracks can still be electrified in the future and not be separated from non GO traffic, no one was lying about that.
 
Voltz said:
The tracks can still be electrified in the future and not be separated from non GO traffic, no one was lying about that.
Click to expand...

Correct and correct.

1) Bridges and other structures are being designed to accommodate electrification in the future. This is not a case of "building it twice".

2) As has been mentioned before, the current rules prevent anything less than a full sized train from operating on a full sized railway. If we want to add rapid transit to the corridor then we'll have to A) dig under or B ) build more stations and turn the line into an Overground. I prefer option B, but I recognize that as long as you have GO with a regional mandate and the TTC with a local mandate you won't realize this. The mandate has to change, and change is going to have to come through cooperation.
 
Voltz said:
The tracks can still be electrified in the future and not be separated from non GO traffic, no one was lying about that.
Click to expand...
I was speaking of separation of tracks for maintainance reasons rather than mixed-use traffic on the corridor.

kettal said:
Are you saying that track separation is not being taken into account with the current line rebuild? That would mean GO was lying when they said the new tracks are capable of being electrified in the future.
Click to expand...
I am saying that the GO electrification study hasn't been completed, so we don't know what RoW width will be used. If they don't "know" something, they can't "lie" about it. However, in a 3 or 4 track rail corridor, you need to space tracks internal tracks more than the 13' or 14' that are used with 2 track corridors or else you need to foul multiple tracks in order to do maintainance work. (Picture how you'd remove a rail-tie and replace it.)

New structures (bridges, subways, overpasses) are being designed to accomidate a headroom clearance that would incorporate overhead electrification equipment.

kettal said:
Further, EMU trainsets are often cheaper than locomotive trainsets, so there should be a cost savings on train purchase compared to buying more locomotives. Also, only 50 km of the line should be electrified, as there won't be frequent all-day service further than Brampton. Long-haul journeys (of which there are only a few each day) can continue to use diesel, and run express through the urban areas.

GO's own studies have claimed that electrification pays for itself within 10 years of operational savings. (from a report on Lakeshore electrification.)

In light of this, maybe you should reconsider your $3 billion number?
Click to expand...

I was speaking of system-wide electrification, as in 15 years, the Milton line will carry the same volume as Lakeshore West or East currently do. However, you break the cost down, a more significant air quality improvement for the cost would be acheived by targeting higher vehicle emission standards. I will stand by my lick-and-a-promise number as it is roughly in the order of what I expect to come out of the GO Electrification Study in December. Everyone is just guessing until we build it, but after then we'll have an official estimate.

kettal said:
The Locomotives create a lot of vibration and noise pollution, anybody who has used a GO train will tell you this. They're also very slow at accelerating compared to electric multiple unit trains.
Click to expand...
I believe no one who uses GO trains has used an MP40 (Tier 4) train. If noise pollution (please compare to 401 volumes) is the issue, their are more cost-effective solutions than electrification.

Put another way, if you had to choose between a DRL subway and electrified GO trains, which would you fund? Which would have the greater positive enironmental, social, and economic impact?
 
I am a very pro-green individual, but my main issue with pouring huge amounts of money into electrification is the fact it diverts funding from higher benefit yielding projects. Tier 4 diesal trains will produce less than 15% of the pollution of trains built in 2000. Reducing that final section at the cost of billions when road transportation creates many times the level of pollution seems a waste.

I'd rather see the 401 move 32 km/h at rush hour than a GO Train at 320 km/h. :p
 
I just wanted to reiterate that Blue 22 is massively overdue. I just wound up once again driving some out-of-town visitors to the airport because their only options were getting lost lugging a mountain of bags at rush hour on two subway lines and a bus, riding an overpriced hour-long Airport Express, or taking an expensive cab that would get stuck in traffic anyway. I truly do not understand the opposition to the service. It wouldn't be for most of us forumers but it would be a huge boon for the massive number of people who take cabs to the airport or for tourists who don't mind spending a bit for a reliable and user-friendly trip in to town.

Note that this does not mean I oppose improved GO service on the route. It's not an either/or proposition. Business travelers who otherwise take cabs or limos (or even the Airport Express bus) aren't going to stuff their luggage into the 5:10 to Bramalea and then again onto a people mover. On the other hand that's fine for people on a budget or airport workers.
 
I'm going to call red herring. No one is talking about third or fourth rail for mainline trains in Canada. Any new third/fourth rail projects are generally extensions of existing service. Overhead catenary does not require spacing between tracks. THAT's what every study done to date recommends, and I would be shocked if the current study did not also propose.
 
I completely support this movement and its goals. Electrification of these lines is long overdue, both for environmental and operational reasons. GO is also much more likely to offer a real regional rail service if it has the electrical infrastructure and EMUs rather than the standard Gary McNeil 10-car diesel bilevel trains every hour.

Mapleson said:
I believe no one who uses GO trains has used an MP40 (Tier 4) train. If noise pollution (please compare to 401 volumes) is the issue, their are more cost-effective solutions than electrification.
Click to expand...

It's not the only issue but it is an issue. I just don't understand the phenomeon of transit advocates who constantly try to advocate cheaping out on transit projects...

Put another way, if you had to choose between a DRL subway and electrified GO trains, which would you fund? Which would have the greater positive enironmental, social, and economic impact?
Click to expand...

That's a completely false choice. Has anybody presented those as the two options? If we have to cut other transit projects to pay for it (which, again, is far from certain), I can think of a fair number that could stand a trim.
 
Mapleson said:
I am saying that the GO electrification study hasn't been completed, so we don't know what RoW width will be used. If they don't "know" something, they can't "lie" about it. However, in a 3 or 4 track rail corridor, you need to space tracks internal tracks more than the 13' or 14' that are used with 2 track corridors or else you need to foul multiple tracks in order to do maintainance work. (Picture how you'd remove a rail-tie and replace it.)
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure I follow you here. Are you aware that there is a total re-tracking currently happening along the Georgetown rail corridor? Are you saying that the new tracks are not being built in a fashion that allows such maintenance to occur in an electrified future? If you are right about that, then it's a major show of incompetence. I certainly hope you are wrong.

I believe no one who uses GO trains has used an MP40 (Tier 4) train. If noise pollution (please compare to 401 volumes) is the issue, their are more cost-effective solutions than electrification.

Put another way, if you had to choose between a DRL subway and electrified GO trains, which would you fund? Which would have the greater positive enironmental, social, and economic impact?
Click to expand...

Did you forget to read the part where electrification pays for itself in 10 years of operational savings? That means 11 years after electrification, we're getting a SURPLUS in transit budget compared to a no-electrification scenario. That is why this is a fallacy to call it not-cost-effective, too expensive, etc.
 
Last edited:
It's not just about a raw comparison of pollution per seat mile or per horsepower. It's about the faster acceleration of electric trains that allow for tighter headways and faster travel times. It's about the ability to run frequent multiple units rather than locomotive hauled bilevel mega-trains hourly at best. And it's about forcing GO to look at a different operational model rather than continuing with its massive but infrequent commuter train approach.

All of these things would do a lot more for the environment than just reduce local particulate emissions.
 
jmacmillan said:
Looking forward to it!
Click to expand...

Though did we really need another study? Why not just, you know, DO IT. They already did a study for Lakeshore. I know this one is for the whole system. But it just seems like a waste of time. Like all the Toronto-Montreal HSR studies.
 
Electric trains need to be studied because they're such a new technology. They've only been running in countless other cities for 150 years, we don't want to jump into this without proper consideration.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top