News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.6K     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 

Also wondering whether the Resources Road site has had sufficient examination in an EA. Certainly, the Whitby site had a pretty full EA. Is this optional for Resources Road?

As that screengrab suggests, I can't see the economy in spreading the maintenance out across three facilities. Whitby is obviously not an attractive base for LSW or for the northwest/north/northeast lines, but Resources and Willowbrook are a wash.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
^1) Is there confidence that Resources Road would have anywhere near the capacity needed to do the maintainance for the entire RER electric fleet? It's a pretty space constrained spot.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand, Resources Road would be for the UPX fleet only, no GO.

2) I can understand that one might not want wires in some of the diesel maintenance shops, and WB may not have been designed to accommodate them. However, Willowbrook did get attention in the EA, didn't it? At minimum, it will clearly be a layover facility for electrics.

- Paul
Click to expand...

I believe you are correct re: layover electrification, looking at the latest documentation. I'd be surprised of the actual maintenance buildings were going to be modified, though.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
You misunderstand, Resources Road would be for the UPX fleet only, no GO.
.
Click to expand...

For clarity - are we talking diesel or electric? Once RER electrifies, is there any belief that UPX will stay diesel or will utilise its own EMU fleet, as opposed to just becoming another vanilla RER line using the same fleet?

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
For clarity - are we talking diesel or electric? Once RER electrifies, is there any belief that UPX will stay diesel or will utilise its own EMU fleet, as opposed to just becoming another vanilla RER line using the same fleet?

- Paul
Click to expand...

Electric. i.e. the facility won't move forward until the corridor is electrified and there's a new fleet order/mod in the pipe.

And there's no way it will stay diesel if the line is electrified. Otherwise, you won't hear the end of it. That's not just NIMBY either, that part of the city does have legit air quality issues, and UPX+GO make a small but cumulative addition to it. It would be of benefit to the local airshed, and there's no reasonable explanation to electrify one and not the other.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
Electric. i.e. the facility won't move forward until the corridor is electrified and there's a new fleet order/mod in the pipe.

And there's no way it will stay diesel if the line is electrified. Otherwise, you won't hear the end of it. That's not just NIMBY either, that part of the city does have legit air quality issues, and UPX+GO make a small but cumulative addition to it. It would be of benefit to the local airshed, and there's no reasonable explanation to electrify one and not the other.
Click to expand...

In that case - why would there be a dedicated maintenance facility for a small fleet of UPE EMU's, when there is a much larger fleet of RER vehicles to be serviced? Either Resources has to be large enough to serve all RER, or it's a hugely uneconomic proposition.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
In that case - why would there be a dedicated maintenance facility for a small fleet of UPE EMU's, when there is a much larger fleet of RER vehicles to be serviced? Either Resources has to be large enough to serve all RER, or it's a hugely uneconomic proposition.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Well, there is the issue in that we simply don't know what the RER fleet will end up looking like. There may end up being two totally different fleets of equipment used - the much larger RER fleet being maintained at Willowbrook and ERMF, and the small UPX fleet maintained at its own facility at Resources Rd. RER may not even end up using EMUs at all.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Or, hybrid solutions like dual-level doors on Stadler KISS. Metrolinx would be able to order a fleet of mainly low-doors, but include high-level doors on some EMU trainsets to serve the UPX stations. It will not be an ideal trainset, with accessibility adaptations needed, but it is one theoretical possibility in a fleet-flexibility situation.

Stadler KISS with single level doors - can serve RER network
Stadler KISS with dual level foors - can serve RER and UPX
 
smallspy said:
Well, there is the issue in that we simply don't know what the RER fleet will end up looking like. There may end up being two totally different fleets of equipment used - the much larger RER fleet being maintained at Willowbrook and ERMF, and the small UPX fleet maintained at its own facility at Resources Rd. RER may not even end up using EMUs at all.
Click to expand...

Even accepting those scenarios - and I agree, none of us really know what the fleet will end up looking like - a satellite shop for a fleet of 20-30 units of one type just down the road from a bigger shop is not a very economic way to operate. Overheads will be higher and economies of scale will be foregone. There will be duplication of shop equipment and of effort compared to one combined shop in one location.

Certainly Whitby is no place to lay over or do running repairs on equipment for any of the lines other than LSE. But in the same way, Resources is hardly efficient for any of the north/northeast/northwest lines or LSW. For the number of hectares involved, an annex to Willowbrook nearby eg up the Canpa Sub would be more efficient than a satellite yard 10 km away.

If you look at the original Resources proposal - the staffing was ridiculous for a UPX side fleet. It translated to workers per car rather than cars per worker. That's just not on. If you add non-UPX maintenance to the facility, you need to bring enough of the fleet to make that attractive. That spreads the maintenance across more yards. That has to be harder to manage than concentrating it at two yards.

Many seem to agree that EMU is the most likely equipment type for off-peak service. Personally, I still don't see how two flavours of EMU would make sense. UPX can easily use the same fleet as RER.

- Paul
 
Reecemartin said:
I think it's been discussed but, is the guideway strong enough to support full BiLevel EMUs? And also that would probably necessitate construction at the termini to adjust length and door spacing no?
Click to expand...
plus losing flat internal floor means more to people who are likely to have luggage.
 
crs1026 said:
For clarity - are we talking diesel or electric? Once RER electrifies, is there any belief that UPX will stay diesel or will utilise its own EMU fleet, as opposed to just becoming another vanilla RER line using the same fleet?

- Paul
Click to expand...
There is no expectation of UPX staying electric. Not any public one anyway, given the likely reaction of the communities who were promised diesel UPX was only an interim choice pending electrification
 
crs1026 said:
Even accepting those scenarios - and I agree, none of us really know what the fleet will end up looking like - a satellite shop for a fleet of 20-30 units of one type just down the road from a bigger shop is not a very economic way to operate. Overheads will be higher and economies of scale will be foregone. There will be duplication of shop equipment and of effort compared to one combined shop in one location.

Certainly Whitby is no place to lay over or do running repairs on equipment for any of the lines other than LSE. But in the same way, Resources is hardly efficient for any of the north/northeast/northwest lines or LSW. For the number of hectares involved, an annex to Willowbrook nearby eg up the Canpa Sub would be more efficient than a satellite yard 10 km away.

If you look at the original Resources proposal - the staffing was ridiculous for a UPX side fleet. It translated to workers per car rather than cars per worker. That's just not on. If you add non-UPX maintenance to the facility, you need to bring enough of the fleet to make that attractive. That spreads the maintenance across more yards. That has to be harder to manage than concentrating it at two yards.

Many seem to agree that EMU is the most likely equipment type for off-peak service. Personally, I still don't see how two flavours of EMU would make sense. UPX can easily use the same fleet as RER.

- Paul
Click to expand...

I'm not totally in disagreement with you on any of your points Paul, but consider the following:

- It seems like UPX will almost certainly run with single-level EMUs once electrified. Much of their equipment is located underneath the body, and thus the access and maintenance spaces need to be set up as so.
- In a scenario where RER gets electric locos, a good proportion of the work done for maintenance must be done from above. Willowbrook and ERMF are already configured for this or largely so.
- In a scenario where RER gets EMUs, it gets a bit more fuzzy. Are they single-level EMUs? Double-level? A mix of both? The access requirements may be very different, and thus may require different working spaces.
- The Resources Road property is quite small, and wouldn't lend itself to keeping more than just a couple of full-length trainsets for storage or light maintenance.
- The Resources Road property is located in a good location to minimize deadheading of the UPX trainsets.

While you're absolutely right about the overhead costs of running 3 different facilities, it may just make more sense - or even save money - once everything is built-out to keep UPX off on its own and separated from the rest of the fleet.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
I can certainly buy the idea of a small layover yard for UPX, and perhaps an inspection station with wires where things can be troubleshooted or inspected. Heavier maintenance gets done with pants down in any event, so mixed diesel-electric shops are not inconceivable. Hauling dead UPX cars down to Willowbrook occasionally for maintenance is more appealing than those higher overheads.

As you note, a lot depends on what the locos and fleet look like, and we just don't know yet.

It's a bit like BT or KW Transit with dedicated express buses of a different model that are kept separate (mostly) from the local bus fleet operationally. Nobody builds separate garages - an oil change is an oil change, a hoist is a hoist. Same with TTC having to sort out what gets done at Hillcrest vs Leslie.

I seem to recall discussion in the Flexity threads about how much more complicated it would be for the GTA LRT fleet to have two vendors versus sticking with one....same applies here. The argument that UPX is better served by single level cars makes sense, i guess.... until service grows and we max out the capacity of those short platforms. If they are co-procured with RER, a lot of the systems and hardware could be common to the RER fleet. That might be optimal.

- Paul
 
Barrie Line Update:

Double tracking is essentially complete from Rutherford to York U. The past two weekend closures have gotten the the junctions and tracks aligned so that there are two continuous tracks from just south of Rutherford until York U. The Highway 7 bridge has been double tracked and they are spending the last working days of 2017 finishing up the Snider overpass double tracks. Lots of trench digging for signal installation. Should all be complete in time for the December 30 service changes!
 
alexb said:
Barrie Line Update:

Double tracking is essentially complete from Rutherford to York U. The past two weekend closures have gotten the the junctions and tracks aligned so that there are two continuous tracks from just south of Rutherford until York U. The Highway 7 bridge has been double tracked and they are spending the last working days of 2017 finishing up the Snider overpass double tracks. Lots of trench digging for signal installation. Should all be complete in time for the December 30 service changes!
Click to expand...

Which area is next again for double tracking? North of Rutherford?

Btw, someone posted a map showing what areas of the Barrie Line are double tracked. Anyone care to dig that up?

I'd like to modify it with the new double trackage, continually as new areas are added.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top