News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

The only thing that stood out for me was that all the maps had RER ending at Burlington. I thought RER was suppose to go all the way to Aldershot?
 
ssiguy2 said:
The only thing that stood out for me was that all the maps had RER ending at Burlington. I thought RER was suppose to go all the way to Aldershot?
Click to expand...
1613945174528.png

CN owns the track beyond Burlington GO. Metrolinx is only electrifying the corridors they own.
 

Attachments

  • 1613945204715.png
    1613945204715.png
    302.4 KB · Views: 180
So metrolinx has decided to abandon the previous Beach Layover facility in Burlington because it would be too disruptive to businesses. Instead they've proposed a new layover further east at Walkers Line.

Old Proposal

New Proposal

The old proposal had a maintenance facility and storage for 16 trains. The new one can only store 9. In addition, 5 trains will be stored at Midland

Midland Layover Proposal

1613946809272.png

nfitz said:
I'm puzzled that Stouffville is higher than Lakeshore East (or Lakeshore West).
Click to expand...
The reduction in layover size might be related to this.

Probably not, I think most of the facilities were relocated to the new Whitby Yard
 
Last edited:
ssiguy2 said:
If you guys care to go back a way you will see that I have NEVER said I think hydrogen was the best option and I have always said that battery should be the preferred one.

Battery is very much just catenary trains without the need for so many wires and infrastructure but the technology of the trains are exactly the same. The ONLY difference between the 2 is that one has bigger batteries. Battery trains are not new and they have been plying the rails for well over a 100 years. Battery trains have always be possible but, until recently with the lightening advancement of battery technology, they have never been practical.

Now they are practical and offer the benefits of a tried-and-true technology, zero emissions, efficiency, and quiet ride of standard catenary but with the flexibility of diesel. One of the primary disadvantages of catenary is not only the cost of the infrastructure itself but also it's inherent inflexibility. One of the benefits of diesel is that you can run the damn things anywhere you please with no new infrastructure required. This is part of the reason why many cities not only phased out their streetcars but also their trolleys.................they can't go all the places you want them to go. Battery gets rid of this problem as no new infrastructure is required to expand the system.

Certainly catenary wires have to be set up but only at specific points like terminus stations or where the trains maybe stationary for a length of time like Union. Outside of that all that is needed is recharging at each station itself and now that can be done contact-less just like many electric buses do worldwide. Battery is also not at the whim of Mother Nature, can store the electricity overnight hence buying the power when it's cheapest, doesn't have the upkeep and replacement costs associated with wires, and any extensions to service can be done automatically as opposed to having to do a new environmental review, going out to tender, and the cost and time to build the needed infrastructure. If Metrolinx decided it needs to extend RER to Hamilton, it would takes years to get it up and running while battery wouldn't require a damn thing and could be running tomorrow.

Battery trains simply offer the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...

Using battery for the whole system makes *no* sense

ssiguy2 said:
Now that hydrogen is out of the picture, what do YOU guys think is the best answer? For myself it's obviously battery because I can't think of a single advantage catenary has over catenary battery. I am also on the record for single level EMU and think double level would be a ghastly mistake.

So, instead of just bitching at me, what do YOU propose for RER in terms of both technology and train types and why?
Click to expand...

People have been talking about what the best answer is on this thread for *years* I guess you have not been listening

ssiguy2 said:
The entire VIA fleet has to go emissions free within 30 years and, except for maybe some short-run routes, hydrogen is the best option not least of which is because it is the ONLY option. To electrify VIA's monstrous system using catenary is beyond ridiculous. Of course CN & CP are going to have to do the same thing and VIA will probably just wait til those 2 companies built out their hydrogen infrastructure and then just tap into it. This allows VIA to go emissions free without the astronomical initial infrastructure cost.

As far as RER, whatever one's take on catenary vs catenary -battery is, it would be a huge mistake if Metrolinx decided on strictly a catenary style train even if they put up all the wires. Any train should have enough battery power to run at least 30 km without a catenary connection. This allows for immediate extension of service, puts the system at far less the whims of Mother Nature, and allows maintenance and rehab of the catenary system to be done without shutting down an entire line. Using 'limited range' battery back up system also has the advantage of allowing the system to be phased-in as opposed to 100% catenary systems which is an all or nothing deal.

I think 2 level trains would be a huge mistake but the only exception would be the, as noted above, the UPX as it will have vastly fewer on-off passengers than regular RER, and there is a need for more space for luggage. It also gets rid of the problem of the UPX stations being much shorter than RER ones and hence allows for higher capacity without the expensive station upgrades.
Click to expand...

VIA does not have a "massive" network, they mostly use networks owned by the freight railways for which there is a pretty strong case to electrify them in dense traffic areas
 
nfitz said:
I'm puzzled that Stouffville is higher than Lakeshore East (or Lakeshore West).
Click to expand...
The detail on LSE is bizarre. On Page 55 they specify 95 revenue diesel hauled trains per weekday, plus 70 non-revenue diesel hauled trains. That's almost one non-revenue move for every revenue move.

But then, Barrie (pg 52) specifies 232 revenue electric trains and 130 non-revenue electric trains. Won't the folks around the Davenport Diamond be thrilled to learn that a third of the trains traversing the new flyover will be empty!

I was going to respond about the Stouffville number with a sarcastic "Must be Smart Track". But maybe that's the reality?

- Paul
 
jelbana said:
Why are there non-revenue trains at all?
Click to expand...
Well non-revenue trains usually means moving out of service trains... somewhere, usually to a layover facility.
crs1026 said:
The detail on LSE is bizarre. On Page 55 they specify 95 revenue diesel hauled trains per weekday, plus 70 non-revenue diesel hauled trains. That's almost one non-revenue move for every revenue move.

But then, Barrie (pg 52) specifies 232 revenue electric trains and 130 non-revenue electric trains. Won't the folks around the Davenport Diamond be thrilled to learn that a third of the trains traversing the new flyover will be empty!

I was going to respond about the Stouffville number with a sarcastic "Must be Smart Track". But maybe that's the reality?

- Paul
Click to expand...
It begs the question of what exactly is defined by non-revenue trips. If you have to move a train from Allendale Waterfront to the Bradford Layover Facility, does that count as a non-revenue service? This could mean the number is inflated by a ton of extremely short service trips.
 
ARG1 said:
Well non-revenue trains usually means moving out of service trains... somewhere, usually to a layover facility.

It begs the question of what exactly is defined by non-revenue trips. If you have to move a train from Allendale Waterfront to the Bradford Layover Facility, does that count as a non-revenue service? This could mean the number is inflated by a ton of extremely short service trips.
Click to expand...
That's a good point. If the diesel trains are peak service, there could be four equipment moves per day for every trainset. One to position for the morning service, then say three revenue moves, then a non-revenue move to layover. Repeat for the afternoon peak. That's 4 equipment moves for 6 revenue moves. The numbers could look even worse if a trainset's service profile has a deadhead turnback between two revenue peak trips....6 non-revenue moves for 4 revenue moves. We would have to know more. The location of the service yards is a bit odd, especially Midland, and that could inflate the equipment moves.... but better to deadhead to Midland at day's end instead of going all the way to Willowbrook or Whitby, I guess.

Nevertheless, the Stouffville Line number is surprising. I would have thought LSE/LSW would be in the same ballpark.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
That's a good point. If the diesel trains are peak service, there could be four equipment moves per day for every trainset. One to position for the morning service, then say three revenue moves, then a non-revenue move to layover. Repeat for the afternoon peak. That's 4 equipment moves for 6 revenue moves. The numbers could look even worse if a trainset's service profile has a deadhead turnback between two revenue peak trips....6 non-revenue moves for 4 revenue moves. We would have to know more. The location of the service yards is a bit odd, especially Midland, and that could inflate the equipment moves.... but better to deadhead to Midland at day's end instead of going all the way to Willowbrook or Whitby, I guess.

Nevertheless, the Stouffville Line number is surprising. I would have thought LSE/LSW would be in the same ballpark.

- Paul
Click to expand...
With Lakeshore East you still have to move trains from the Eglinton/Guildwood Layover facility (wherever it is) to Oshawa to start the day with those peak hour services, so same ideas apply.
 
So service into Union during AM peak will be (all trains per hour):

Lake Shore West: 9 (up from 6)
Lake Shore East: 10 (up from 4)
Kitchener: 9 (up from 2.5)
Barrie: 8 (up from 2)
Stouffville: 11 (up from 2)

Total: 47 trains per hour through Union for these 5 corridors.

UP Express appears to remain an independent service. The Kitchener Line roll plan doesn't show modifications to make it practical to go from Pearson to Bramalea.

No mention of anticipated future Milton or Richmond Hill service levels.


2019 AM peak service on Lake Shore West is very bunchy; about half of them arrive at Union during a 50 minute period. I presume the proposed AM peak service will be more evenly spread over a 3 hour period.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
So service into Union during AM peak will be (all trains per hour):

Lake Shore West: 9 (up from 6)
Lake Shore East: 10 (up from 4)
Kitchener: 9 (up from 2.5)
Barrie: 8 (up from 2)
Stouffville: 11 (up from 2)

Total: 47 trains per hour through Union for these 5 corridors.

UP Express appears to remain an independent service.

No mention of anticipated future Milton or Richmond Hill service levels.


2019 AM peak service on Lake Shore West is very bunchy; about half of them arrive at Union during a 50 minute period. I presume the proposed AM peak service will be more evenly spread over a 3 hour period.
Click to expand...

Are they going to fully double-track the Barrie and Stouffville lines?

Hard to imagine 8 trains per hour in each direction managing with a single track, even with many sidings. And they can't do just one direction at peak, because there is no room to store so many trains near Union.
 
Rainforest said:
Are they going to fully double-track the Barrie and Stouffville lines?

Hard to imagine 8 trains per hour in each direction managing with a single track, even with many sidings. And they can't do just one direction at peak, because there is no room to store so many trains near Union.
Click to expand...

Yes for the central portions.

Service levels on the outer portions remain quite one-sided. 4 trains per hour from Allandale to Union, but only 1 train per hour from Union to Allandale.

The Barrie Line rollplan shows mostly single track from Holland Landing north to Allandale; Bradford Station is double-tracked. Presumably Bradford will be timed meeting point.


Souffville is single track between Mount Joy and Linconville.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top