[drum118]

In specific messages did suggest a long-term transition period (including 30 year options). It could be incremental (e.g. 4 coach RER EMU at the UPX station) that slowly migrates to longer trains during the high speed train era.

Regarding Bloor/Weston, I noticed at least one high platform next to a low platform, so they can "cannibalize" into each other, and use the "keep certain coaches closed" technique. But if this is not possible at all tracks at all platforms -- then yes you're right. Many compromises would need to be made. Worse comes to worse, you'd cannibalize low stations (open only 6 or 7 coaches of bilevels, while building the high platforms for 5 or 6 coaches) for the sections where UPX station could not be extended.

If this is not doable by RER Phase I and GO chose at least one high-floor EMU for the UPX replacement (are we going to discontinue UPX Union/Pearson otherwise?), you end up with an even-more-mixed-EMU fleet, but a migration path of some kind (with some, even if not all, of the elements suggested) might be needed for RER Phase II to gradually unify the fleet. During the transition period, you could run many trains as 3-coach, 4-coach, 5-coach, 6-coach and at the "difficult" stations, only open 3-coach, 4-coach, until a RER Phase II occurs and by then the UPX stations are probably 15 years and people have long forgotten.

Either way, it looks like tough decisions will be need to be made (electrify UPX or not? Is electrified UPX high platform? Do we use hybrid high/low platform trains? Discontinue UPX stations when merging into RER? What can be done with the current $13.5bn RERification, or needs to be bumped to RER Phase II as an incremental step? Build infill stations to serve high or low platforms? What is politically feasible? Even the strange ideas might be looked at: Do we convert the UPX station to low-platform for RER trainset compatibility? Will we get more blowback if we modify the station this way or that way? Are people still demanding a subway experience on the GO network with better accessibility, including all-door high-floor boarding? Never electrify UPX? Retrofit the UPX trainsets which needs to become enlarged/transit friendly or risk 2018 election fallout? Replace the UPX trainsets with RER trains? Etc. Etc.) Balancing all of these considerations is why I think high-platform EMU decisions need to be carefully thought-out.

All the above is a rock and a hard place: "What does electrified UPX (or its replacement) look like?" In 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? One that's acceptable to the population, and also politically acceptable, with a migration path that's less of a rock-and-hard-place.


If Metrolinx can join/detach trains for longer trainsets during peak, that would be great!
My understanding is that this has not been done because it takes too much time, but I realize many new EMUs have quick attach-detach couplings designed for daily couplings. That would help solve a USRC trainset throughput issue during peak, while running shorter trains offpeak.

So if that is operationally done, then some trains could double-berth, and some trains could be coupled, depending on needs. I'm not sure a unified RER-UPX needs to become 10-coach during peak. Unless they plan to decouple at Woodbine RER station (THAT would be interesting) and send half of the train down the Pearson spur... But staffing and dwell-length could be issues.

You know that moving UPX to another platform location requires rebuilding that platform at great cost as well been out of service for months. What does it do to other lines having UPX taking over an existing platform???

Using UPX as part of a ST/RER using the Stoufville line with more infill stations should happen.

[/QUOTE]
I can tell you for a fact that both Bloor and Weston station will have to be rebuilt from the ground up for high platforms regardless if its only for 5 car or 12 cars. The stairs and elevators are in the way as well the shelters. If you are building extra lenght for UPX only, you need to build a longer platform for GO trains as well based on existing fleet.

With high platforms like they are now will require express trains to slow down passing them.

All current and existing EMUs requires very little time connecting or decoupling compare to the current way that the existing fleet does it. It takes about 30-60 minutes to break drown and makeup the existing fleet and why we only see 10-12 trains in place of 5/6 off peak. Very costly to do it with current fleet compare to what it will be with EMUs.

Electrify UPX has been on the books since GO took over the line as well mandated in the EA as part of approval. When will it happen depends on a number of things, but most of all 2018 election.

 

[TOareaFan]

Oh yes, thanks for that clarification.
Whenever I said "12-coach", I meant "10-coach". I am WAY too used to Lakeshore.

Regardless, the same principles still applies to the "What does electrified UPX (or its replacement) look like?" conundrum given the engineering/political/transit compromises.

whether 10 or 12 cars if they do not stop at Weston then you are telling people west of there that they cannot connect to the airport train at the closest, least expensive, spot. You are saying "to get to the airport via train go further east than you have to and pay more for a longer trip to the airport".

As a point of interest, the customer service announcements on the KW line trains have been adjusted to promote use of Weston as a connector to UP and they not only promote the connection but the "low fare of $4.71"...which I find interesting for a variety of reasons (mainly because it suggests that UP is not as integrated into the GO/Presto fare system as much as I had expected/hoped).

 

[drum118]

12 coach trains already do not stop at Bloor/Weston....primarily because 12 coach trains do not serve the line. 10 coach trains are used on KW line.

That because there is no room at Georgetown to store 12 car trains at this time. All the platforms are built for 12 car trains these days

 

[TOareaFan]

That because there is no room at Georgetown to store 12 car trains at this time. All the platforms are built for 12 car trains these days

yes, I know that....but the post I responded to had the "air" of knowledge/expertise but had such a fundamental error in it that, frankly, made me question why I would read the rest

 

[mdrejhon]

whether 10 or 12 cars if they do not stop at Weston then you are telling people west of there that they cannot connect to the airport train at the closest, least expensive, spot. You are saying "to get to the airport via train go further east than you have to and pay more for a longer trip to the airport".

Irrelevant.

You are forgetting about the Woodbine infill RER station.

That's your future airport connection for RER/VIA/ST/HSR/GO/whatever.
You'd transfer to whatever train (UPX? RER?) heads into Pearson.
And much less double-backing for people coming from the west, too.

(NOTE: If HSR arrives, and they are unable to send RER trains up the spur -- then consider Person will someday need to do a LINK overhaul when they are ancient -- and when they do so, could theoretically extend a high-performance LINK to Woodbine, this eliminates the need to redirect the rail corridor for HSR trains. *IF* the high speed train arrives someday this century, then this is a possible solution to avoid redirecting the rail corridor. They can then call it "Pearson Station" rather than "Woodbine Station". Whether in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years...).

yes, I know that....but the post I responded to had the "air" of knowledge/expertise but had such a fundamental error in it that, frankly, made me question why I would read the rest

And your even larger error, too, TOareaFan.

Even before all of this is happening, I even repeatedly predicted that UPX could merge into a different train service (whether RER, HSR, etc). This is all being signalled to fruition earlier than I expected thanks to the political fallout forcing the fare integration between UPX and GO, and the signal of organizational merger.

 

[TOareaFan]

Irrelevant.

You are forgetting about the Woodbine infill RER station.

That's your future airport connection for RER/VIA/ST/HSR/GO/whatever.

(NOTE: If HSR arrives, and they are unable to send RER trains up the spur -- then consider Person will someday need to do a LINK overhaul when they are ancient -- and when they do so, could theoretically extend a high-performance LINK to Woodbine, this eliminates the need to redirect the rail corridor for HSR trains. *IF* the high speed train arrives someday this century, then this is a possible solution to avoid redirecting the rail corridor. They can then call it "Pearson Station" rather than "Woodbine Station". Whether in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years...).

Sure...but I am in the camp hoping that never gets built and someday, someone, will think "what can we do at Woodbine that we can't do already with existing stations"....but, yes, the trip to the airport for the western leg would be there or (preferably) at Malton.

There are people, though, who every day get off of EB trains on that line at, both, Weston and Bloor (more Bloor than Weston but, still).....so I get what you are trying to achieve but it still seems strange that you are proposing to ditch a connection to the BD subway line for those people.

 

[mdrejhon]

Sure...but I am in the camp hoping that never gets built and someday, someone, will think "what can we do at Woodbine that we can't do already with existing stations"....but, yes, the trip to the airport for the western leg would be there or (preferably) at Malton.

On Malton, I agree that's also an option.

Regardless, Weston should not be the permanent transfer to Pearson for all east/west commuters. Redirecting a "through rail corridor" corridor into Pearson for anything (HSR or otherwise, whether 10 or 50 years) would be a massive waste and slowdown.

 

[mdrejhon]

There are people, though, who every day get off of EB trains on that line at, both, Weston and Bloor (more Bloor than Weston but, still).....so I get what you are trying to achieve but it still seems strange that you are proposing to ditch a connection to the BD subway line for those people.

Nothing is ditched.

The scenario is 15-minute-and-better EMU service go past Bloor.

Kitchener trains would be much faster if they always went express, and they can simply transfer at some other station. It is a waste of rail capacity to keep milkrunning overcrowded Kitchener trains past Bloor, when frequent RER trains are punctually zooming past Bloor in both directions. There will be other transfer points in both directions, and you'd still spend less time commuting -- most commuters boarding in Kitchener or the near-Brampton cities, are disembarking at Union.

With all the talk of high frequency RER, and the talk of all-day 2-way Kitchener service, they will likely need to always go express like all Hamilton trains.

There are no Hamilton trains that stop at Exhibition, Mimico, Long Island, or Port Credit. This is probably needed to free rail capacity for high-frequency fast-accelerating EMUs that would be slowed down by milk-runned diesel locomotives. 2 hour ride times for Kitchener commuters will not provide the commuter growth needed for all-day-2-way Kitchener service, and those frequent diesel will really slow down the high-performing EMUs.

 

[steveintoronto]

Excellent to see the discussion alive! We are in agreement on concepts, disagree on the nuances to implement it. I'll itemize and clarify a few points later, but this actually makes a point both ways:
[If you could pull off a unified EMU fleet scenario for RER+UPX+ST, you could run almost identically to Paris RER B as pictured.]
Absolutely agreed on a "Unified Fleet"...albeit at the back of my mind, the F-35 fighter looms large. It's a jack of all trades, master of none, and even poor at that. We will have to examine the possibilities. Some would argue it can't be done. At this point, I say it can, but with caveats. A huge one is having Transport Canada behind it...something *very* opportune at this time with the present regime in Ottawa and their obvious desire to see projects like this work.

Here is the Paris RER being done with Tram-Trains:
http://memim.com/siemens-s70.html

[...][For T4, a two-system five-unit variant of the Siemens Avanto tram-train was chosen. Although the 15 sets are confined to the T4 route and dedicated platforms at the termini when in passenger operation, they use the main line west from Bondy to reach the SNCF Noisy-le-Sec depot for maintenance and storage.

SNCF has also ordered the 80% low-floor Avanto for the Mulhouse-based tram-train scheme due to open in 2010.]
[...]
[The Avanto fleet presently uses only the 25kV ac capability, with the 750V dc provision presumably included with a view to future extended operations over tram-type infrastructure]

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/parisrail_t4/

I'll post better better references to the s70 later, working on an iMac here and finding it difficult.

As to car length and utilizing the present Sharyo Nippons (present UPX fleet) I fully realize they are not a good choice, as I've made abundantly clear in posts prior, but we're stuck with them for now, as we are the high-level platforms (an issue to address separately) and Bloor is now capable of hosting 12 car trains, whether present fleet on that line is 10 or not is irrelevant to the RER discussion, that service will continue *for rush hour duty*. 3 car trains of the present Sharyo stock, can just barely do the task, perhaps at a 20 minute interval, from Bramalea south if the airport frequency is also reduced, and does as a connector. This is probably unacceptable for a number of reasons, and I return to the need to *lease-in* high platform 'R' variant Cummins engined (or equiv European level 2) DMUs to supplement the Sharyos while they're still around. I think they should eventually be sold-off to SMART, who are complaining about the cost of expanding their fleet. At that time, a larger *temporary* DMU or purchased EMU tram train type w/ a diesel gen section sandwiched in until catenary is up should be considered.

The point for me remains this: We *have to* get the Weston corridor south from Bramalea running as an RER corridor, even if it is to be fully integrated later when electrification happens. We can't wait for electrification! It's needed now, and those tracks are being wasted.

We have a very attentive ear in Ottawa at this time. What can be proposed while that ear is listening and avid to help? Think something up and running within the next four years, before the next election. THAT is music to their ears too! I say lease-in three car DMUs to bolster present Sharyo fleet, high-platform for now, temporary ones built where necessary, system-wide decision made later. Three car trains *will* do it. Run them more often if needed. South London's "metro" ran with two car trains most of the time, and did very well before being replaced with the Overground. I used to use it quite often into Victoria station. Once a preliminary RER service begins on that corridor, TTC and other routes will start changing to feed it. Bramalea will become even more important as a regional hub. Once the ball is rolling, ever more pressure will be on Metrolinx to get corridors electrified.

More details later, especially on the s70 and competitor equivalents. Btw: It can do over 100 kmh. Just how fast does anyone think they need for RER? It works fine for Paris and elsewhere. And available in low or high floor versions, let alone dual voltage and dieselized.

 

[mdrejhon]

As long as the tram-train options can go the rail speed limit (145kph, 90mph in several sections of the GO network), it would work well. I have used my GPS speedometer on my phone and confirm the 140kph+ speed for both UPX and express GO trains. Metrolinx seems to have intention to buy train sets capable of reaching the rail speed limit.

What GO runs on their network doesn't need to run down Toronto streets, so their train choices are pretty flexible. Some Paris RER routes use tram trains, but they weren't replacing a faster train, weren't they? Whatever train they choose will still need to have 25-mins-to-airport superimposed into its combined RER timetable, and I'm not sure most tram-trains can pull that off especially with an additional stop or two (e.g. Elginton, and either Woodbine/Malton for connection to airport) -- but I could easily be wrong.

Regarding attentive ear in Ottawa, have you seen the politics exploding in the VIA thread -- people will disagree on this. There are many who thinks Ottawa isn't attentive. Either way, imperfect candidate choices aside, the whole picture matters more: I am glad to see better alignment between federal/provincial/municipal on keeping the GO electrification moving forward even with making compromises that actually make sense (like using Crosstown westward extension). Enough said on this, but this is just my perspective.

 

[steveintoronto]

On Malton, I agree that's also an option.

Regardless, Weston should not be the permanent transfer to Pearson for all east/west commuters. Redirecting a "through rail corridor" corridor into Pearson for anything (HSR or otherwise, whether 10 or 50 years) would be a massive waste and slowdown.

Quick note on this. This is where I think many of us agree. Running a direct airport express down to Union has complicated every aspect of operating the Weston Corridor for 'transport for the plebes'. A shuttle is the best option for the chosen few, and for now, run from Weston, but in future, Woodbine specially built to accommodate that. The question is one or two train shuttle. The advantage of two tracks into the airport means that they could be run w/o crossovers and minimal signalling, each using its own track a la the Broadway shuttle in New York. Of course, a number of options exist, but I can't see, outside of a very special event, running direct from the airport to Union. Sorry airport travellers, reality has caught up to you. Do a cross platform transfer, as is done in most cities. Woodbine would be perfectly suited to terminating a shuttle, esp if it is to become a new "regional hub".

 

[steveintoronto]

I'll answer other points later, all excellent ones btw! This is a very furtive discussion, but I must run. Reality has a habit of doing that, but it's serendipity this should come-up, and I will check the forum:

[Regarding attentive ear in Ottawa, have you seen the politics exploding in the VIA thread -- people will disagree on this.]

That got written up a few weeks back in the TorSun, and nowhere else. I thought to post it here and then thought otherwise, it seems so far-fetched. The bottom line is this: For the budget to do that, *vastly more voters* will be impressed by spending the money on *urban issues* like we're discussing. In the end, from memory, the concept got a few million for further study. And I agree...interurban high-speed rail is a wonderful idea, for rich nations with vastly closer population densities. Even the UK is going through conniptions with HS2, an absurd project in my estimation, when a tenth of that budget can improve the present alignments and cut travel time to the north to within twenty minutes of what HS2 will do. Crossrail, on the other hand, is a superlative undertaking. The Libs got this one right methinks.

Excellent discussion, back later with some better reference, especially as to line speeds and acceleration rates (the latter which counts more than sustained line speed in terms of keeping timetables tight)

Quick Edit to Add: lol...I really must run, but consider this for the UPX vehicles:
Maximum speed UPX: 90 mph (145 km/h)
SMART, WES: 79 mph (127 km/h)
Prime mover(s) Cummins QSK19-R[2]

How often is that speed achieved on their present routing? Not even close. Point stands: Leased-in lighter DMUs with the same engine (uprated with the 'R' add-on to ensure Tier 4 compliance) will outperform it! What immediately comes to mind are the UK Type 158 and 159, available for leasing at this time, lighter and faster acceleration. There are options! Let's examine them, we're so close to agreeing on so many points.

 

[dowlingm]

25 year old Sprinters for UPX? For goodness sake, that is just trolling at this point. Yes, let's bin a modern DMU design to ADA/AODA standards and import a 1980s design from a railcar market that is so tight that when something's on the shelf it's for a reason. Oh and by the way good luck telling Weston that UPX is getting warmed over second hand diesels rather than EMUs.

 

[mdrejhon]

25 year old Sprinters for UPX? For goodness sake, that is just trolling at this point. Yes, let's bin a modern DMU design to ADA/AODA standards and import a 1980s design from a railcar market that is so tight that when something's on the shelf it's for a reason. Oh and by the way good luck telling Weston that UPX is getting warmed over second hand diesels rather than EMUs.

This is correct. I remember the big opposition against diesel powered UPX and the current DMU is one of the cleanest in North Ameica (Tier 4). Plus with Ontario currently on a greening spree (wind, solar, etc) for better or for worse. And of course, electrification. All factors thrown in, I do not see many new Metrolinx diesel purchases on GO network anymore. Refurbs, upgrade to Tier 4, electric and dual mode locomotives are possible, but...

GO needs ability to catch up to late schedules and things like this, so they will not buy any rail vehicles that cannot go rail speed limit. I would not count on it. The ability to save one to two minutes between stops can really add up to 10 minute timetable catchup for a late train for 120kph vs 145kph.

I have seen a GO train go from Union to Burlington, 12 coach bilevel, in a mere 30 minutes flat, not even 31 minutes (it was a late PanAm express to Hamilton).

 

[steveintoronto]

25 year old Sprinters for UPX? For goodness sake, that is just trolling at this point. Yes, let's bin a modern DMU design to ADA/AODA standards and import a 1980s design from a railcar market that is so tight that when something's on the shelf it's for a reason. Oh and by the way good luck telling Weston that UPX is getting warmed over second hand diesels rather than EMUs.

You obviously haven't read my posts closely, I've addressed those points. So what would you recommend, dowlingm?

The Class 158/9 was merely an example of a type that uses the Cummins type prime motor that the Sharyos use, albeit the older ones (and some used Perkins) might need to be upgraded, as I discussed. I admit to not doing further research as to what other *temporary stock* is available to "lease-in" in the "interim". I quoted those words since you appear to have missed them prior. So what do you suggest? Waiting until...when is the latest best guess for electrifying that corridor? Five years? Ten?

The Federal Libs are looking to finance projects with an immediacy. What is there to work with for that corridor right now? The Sharyos? There are only eighteen units. Do you think that is suffice? Please, I'd like to know if it is, as if it is to do fifteen minute all-day from Bramalea south, I take back all the possibilities I proffered prior. For the record, I hope it is, but find that extremely unlikely.

And MD, your ideas on filling that gap until electrification? Or do both of you feel we'll just have to wait until Electric Godot?

Edit to Add: MD writes:
[GO needs ability to catch up to late schedules and things like this, so they will not buy any rail vehicles that cannot go rail speed limit.] When have you clocked the Sharyos doing that speed?

You will note that the SMART ones are a lower gearing, but same power. They sacrificed top speed for acceleration Why do you think they did that, with more frequent stops on their line?

Dowling writes:
[import a 1980s design from a railcar market that is so tight that when something's on the shelf it's for a reason.]

Indeed, the reason is that electrification and replacement EMUs cascaded the stock. There are literally thousands of vehicles for lease by UK ROSCOs alone. The UK, in many cases (London's Overground, for instance) has electrified a number of lines, others have been converted to tramlines, and so due to the privatize Balkanization of BR, there are five Rolling Stock Companies that own the stock, and they have more than they need. Normally with a national rail operator, that stock is cascaded to those who need it most, but being private, the ROSCOs lease to the highest bidder. Some of the 158/9s are more than adequate to serve the *interim* needs to get RER Weston up and running until electrification.

In fact, there's even more modern stock to lease., but alas, the concept is alien to some.