[ssiguy2]

Forgetting the capacity & speed debate for a minute, the biggest problem I have with DD is their inaccessibility. This is the 21st century and if we are trying to make a more inclusive society then making sure the transportation system is accessible to all is paramount. DD are horrible for the disabled and people with mobility issues and are in fact the WORST possible rolling stock option for serving this segment of the community. This is also going to become exponentially worse as our population ages. The elderly are rarely seen on commuter rail because it's strictly for people that work and the disabled also are rare due to them not being well represented in the workforce. The elderly and disabled tend to take transit in off-peak periods for shopping, meeting friends, medical appts etc and off-peak regular service is what RER is all about.

Of course there is another issue, the increasingly number of people cycling to work or post-secondary. We build this bike infrastructure but with DD make it next to impossible for them to use transit for the long haul part of their commutes. The sections that have at the entry doors on DD are tiny. They are essentially nothing more than walk-in-closets you have to negotiate thru to get to the living room. With ever more bikes and retirees, these little patches of carpet are going to be completely inefficient. Most parents with young kids never use commuter rail either but rather also use non-peak service and there is another segment of the population that will be cramed into these little go-thrus. You could easily find trains only running at half capacity but the entry areas packed.

I can't wait for the future battle when the entry/exits become so clogged like they are in Rome that GO too will have to start banning bikes to ensure people with mobility issues can board the train.

 

[ARG1]

Forgetting the capacity & speed debate for a minute, the biggest problem I have with DD is their inaccessibility. This is the 21st century and if we are trying to make a more inclusive society then making sure the transportation system is accessible to all is paramount. DD are horrible for the disabled and people with mobility issues and are in fact the WORST possible rolling stock option for serving this segment of the community. This is also going to become exponentially worse as our population ages. The elderly are rarely seen on commuter rail because it's strictly for people that work and the disabled also are rare due to them not being well represented in the workforce. The elderly and disabled tend to take transit in off-peak periods for shopping, meeting friends, medical appts etc and off-peak regular service is what RER is all about.

Of course there is another issue, the increasingly number of people cycling to work or post-secondary. We build this bike infrastructure but with DD make it next to impossible for them to use transit for the long haul part of their commutes. The sections that have at the entry doors on DD are tiny. They are essentially nothing more than walk-in-closets you have to negotiate thru to get to the living room. With ever more bikes and retirees, these little patches of carpet are going to be completely inefficient. Most parents with young kids never use commuter rail either but rather also use non-peak service and there is another segment of the population that will be cramed into these little go-thrus. You could easily find trains only running at half capacity but the entry areas packed.

I can't wait for the future battle when the entry/exits become so clogged like they are in Rome that GO too will have to start banning bikes to ensure people with mobility issues can board the train.

Exactly how are double decker trains less accessible than single decker trains, or at least 70% low floor trains? Exactly what about double decker trains makes them the worst option for people with mobility issues? A major issue is that you seem to be arguing from the position of high floor Double Decker trains like the ones in Sydney, and while it could be argued those trains have these problems, low floor Double Deckers are an entirely different story, those could be just as accessible as an LRV like what we're getting on the Eglinton Crosstown if not more.

> The sections that have at the entry doors on DD are tiny. They are essentially nothing more than walk-in-closets you have to negotiate thru to get to the living room.

Again that's not a necessity. Yes the current GO bilevels are designed this way because the goal is to maximize seating capacity, but that by no means is the only way to design Bilevels. If you're going to make claims like these, try to back it up with evidence.

 

[tsm1072]

Forgetting the capacity & speed debate for a minute, the biggest problem I have with DD is their inaccessibility. This is the 21st century and if we are trying to make a more inclusive society then making sure the transportation system is accessible to all is paramount. DD are horrible for the disabled and people with mobility issues and are in fact the WORST possible rolling stock option for serving this segment of the community. This is also going to become exponentially worse as our population ages. The elderly are rarely seen on commuter rail because it's strictly for people that work and the disabled also are rare due to them not being well represented in the workforce. The elderly and disabled tend to take transit in off-peak periods for shopping, meeting friends, medical appts etc and off-peak regular service is what RER is all about.

Of course there is another issue, the increasingly number of people cycling to work or post-secondary. We build this bike infrastructure but with DD make it next to impossible for them to use transit for the long haul part of their commutes. The sections that have at the entry doors on DD are tiny. They are essentially nothing more than walk-in-closets you have to negotiate thru to get to the living room. With ever more bikes and retirees, these little patches of carpet are going to be completely inefficient. Most parents with young kids never use commuter rail either but rather also use non-peak service and there is another segment of the population that will be cramed into these little go-thrus. You could easily find trains only running at half capacity but the entry areas packed.

I can't wait for the future battle when the entry/exits become so clogged like they are in Rome that GO too will have to start banning bikes to ensure people with mobility issues can board the train.

If stations are slowly upgraded to all be level boarding with the low floor of the DD coaches, I don't see accessibility or bikes being an issue. You can refurb the coaches to have limited sitting on the low level, giving plenty of space for bikes, standing room, and an accessibility area with priority seating in every coach. The second level can remain standard seating for those taking longer trips.

The big improvement needs to come in station layout, in order to ensure even loading across the train. You can quite often find plenty of space at one end of a train, while the other end is standing room only.

 

[crs1026]

The big improvement needs to come in station layout, in order to ensure even loading across the train. You can quite often find plenty of space at one end of a train, while the other end is standing room only.

This is a huge issue at Toronto Union, where the platforms are so narrow and walking down the platform may actually be dangerous. Especially bad at rush hour and after sporting events where a crush load all use a fraction of the available stairways.

Beyond that, I don't know how one encourages people to spread out..... regular riders do discover where the space is most available on their train.

- Paul

 

[reteequa]

This is a huge issue at Toronto Union, where the platforms are so narrow and walking down the platform may actually be dangerous. Especially bad at rush hour and after sporting events where a crush load all use a fraction of the available stairways.

Beyond that, I don't know how one encourages people to spread out..... regular riders do discover where the space is most available on their train.

- Paul

I think that when the Bay concourse opens this issue will be slightly solved. Able to disperse passengers better before they get to the platforms.

 

[Coolstar]

Toronto Star's take on Metrolinx dropping Hydrogen. Did we really waste $7 Million on a stupid idea? https://outline.com/ZsNKJb

 

[MrGoose]

Toronto Star's take on Metrolinx dropping Hydrogen. Did we really waste $7 Million on a stupid idea? https://outline.com/ZsNKJb

Spoiler

And in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't even that bad

 

[north-of-anything]

Compared to some of the ideas that have been studied by transit agencies in Canada, $7 million on a stupid idea is just the cost of doing business.

Now that we've settled on catenary, though, are we going to see some portions of corridors electrified before others, or will it all be studied and designed at once?

 

[Coolstar]

Compared to some of the ideas that have been studied by transit agencies in Canada, $7 million on a stupid idea is just the cost of doing business.

Now that we've settled on catenary, though, are we going to see some portions of corridors electrified before others, or will it all be studied and designed at once?

Fair enough. I believe Metrolinx intends on a phased approach when it comes to electrification according to the Metrolinx Engage site. Work will start by next year.

 

[allengeorge]

Fair enough. I believe Metrolinx intends on a phased approach when it comes to electrification according to the Metrolinx Engage site. Work will start by next year.

It really depends on the Ontario budget (dropping in April?) If Paul Bethlenfalvy (Minister of Finance and Treasury) lets IO sign a contract, great. He got into politics to get the books into order, so, who knows. Hopefully Doug Ford cares enough about transit to keep the dollars flowing; he's been supportive so far.

 

[drum118]

Hydrogen rejected as alternative to commuter railway electrification​

Toronto: Metrolinx confirme l’électrification du réseau GO et rejette l’hydrogène comme alternative​

 

[Allandale25]

I posted this in the Smart Track thread but it could also go here:

SmartTrack (Proposed)

If it is just a matter of investment to get up to those 20k-30k/hr capacities, would it not make sense to pursue them? I mean, we can wait 50 years for a subway to do the same job, or try to fully leverage our rail ROWs. I don't think Metrolinx has said we will continue to use the same type of...

urbantoronto.ca

 

[ssiguy2]

While I certainly appreciate that Metrolinx studied hydrogen as primarily a delay tactic so they can continue to make no decisions on anything, the puny $7 million was not a waste but rather a bargain.

If ML doesn't want hydrogen for RER then fine but that doesn't mean it is not {nor will not become} a viable option in the future. Obviously the number of hydrogen trains is going to grow exponentially over the next couple decades especially as our entire transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture sector transfer over to zero emissions and, except for cars, commuter rail, and short range delivery trucks, expecting batteries to be able to do it is truly laughable. This means not only will the technology grow immensely but so will the needed infrastructure including CN & CP.

It may not be any use to them now but in 20 years when they need to expand service to other areas which must be done with zero emitting vehicles but where the high costs of catenary cannot be justified, then hydrogen will seriously be considered. What ML has learned can also provide vital information to other commuter services in Ontario and especially Ottawa and London to say nothing of VIA rail. The days of diesel rail are quickly coming to an end and that means a switch to alternatives that don't require gobs of initial infrastructure spending.

Considering this is not even pennies on the dollar for ML, the amount of knowledge they have gained from a system that will be plying our rails nation wide in 30 years seems like it was money well spent.

 

[KevinT]

If ML doesn't want hydrogen for RER then fine but that doesn't mean it is not {nor will not become} a viable option in the future.

Meanwhile, in truckland:

Scania’s commitment to battery electric vehicles

Scania’s aim is to be the leader in the shift towards a sustainable transport system. Battery electric vehicles will be the main tool to drive this...

www.volkswagenag.com

Scania has invested in hydrogen technologies and is currently the only heavy-duty vehicle manufacturer with vehicles in operations with customers. The engineers have gained valuable insights from these early tests and efforts will continue. However, going forward the use of hydrogen for such applications will be limited since three times as much renewable electricity is needed to power a hydrogen truck compared to a battery electric truck. A great deal of energy is namely lost in the production, distribution, and conversion back to electricity.

Repair and maintenance also need to be considered. The cost for a hydrogen vehicle will be higher than for a battery electric vehicle as its systems are more complex, such as an extensive air- and cooling system. Furthermore, hydrogen is a volatile gas which requires more maintenance to ensure safety.

 

[MrGoose]

While I certainly appreciate that Metrolinx studied hydrogen as primarily a delay tactic so they can continue to make no decisions on anything, the puny $7 million was not a waste but rather a bargain.

If ML doesn't want hydrogen for RER then fine but that doesn't mean it is not {nor will not become} a viable option in the future. Obviously the number of hydrogen trains is going to grow exponentially over the next couple decades especially as our entire transportation, manufacturing, and agriculture sector transfer over to zero emissions and, except for cars, commuter rail, and short range delivery trucks, excepting batteries to be able to do it is truly laughable. This means not only will the technology grow immensely but so will the needed infrastructure including CN & CP.

It may not be any use to them now but in 20 years when they need to expand service to other areas which must be done with zero emitting vehicles but where the high costs of catenary cannot be justified, then hydrogen will seriously be considered. What ML has learned can also provide vital information to other commuter services in Ontario and especially Ottawa and London to say nothing of VIA rail. The days of diesel rail are quickly coming to an end and that means a switch to alternatives that don't require gobs of initial infrastructure spending.

Considering this is not even pennies on the dollar for ML, the amount of knowledge they have gained from a system that will be plying our rails nation wide in 30 years seems like it was money well spent.

Meanwhile over in Europe, they're turning trucks into catenary trucks such is the value of having overhead wires.