[cplchanb]

I'm not being patriotic. I'm asking why you want higher than necessary fares or subsidies in order to provide a foreign firm with a "great" profit.

Surely we should be selecting the tender with the lowest bid (since we're customers paying for it), not the highest margin.

We can count on all of them delivering the minimum of what the tender requires and nothing more.

imo there is no definitive correlation between operator and fares. Im sure that they will be realistic in the fare structure and if fares do indeed become higher than expected I still dont think the
operator is the sole reason to blame for it.

 

[crs1026]

I'm not being patriotic. I'm asking why you want higher than necessary fares or subsidies in order to provide a foreign firm with a "great" profit.

Surely we should be selecting the tender with the lowest bid (since we're customers paying for it), not the highest margin.

We can count on all of them delivering the minimum of what the tender requires and nothing more.

Well, one gets what one pays for - lowest bidder doesn't imply least profitable, or just as effective at lower price.

This model is in use in many places around the world, so it's hard to be against it, but I will try anyways.

There are many competent transit properties who do not contract out. They build internal capabilities and skills to manage themselves. Certainly, they may go through periods of failure and there are down sides to working that way, but when they work, they work well. And they deliver at cost rather than at cost plus profit.

As a guy who worked in the public sector all my life, I'm fond of a model where there is a regulator and an auditor general who contribute to transparency and who give the public a place to be heard with complaints and concerns. It's not a perfect system, but it has transparencies and accountabilities.

The contracted model is great until someone wants to change something. A straightforward change such as asking for a realignment of a single train's timing at rush hour can affect how many trainsets are required, where trains lay over, how many crews are required, etc. So when ML says, can you please run the 8:05 local ten minutes later? The invoice for the change order may be $1M or more. In the contracted arrangement, there is no regulator to review that change on the customer's behalf nor is there transparency around what costs actually were incurred versus how much of the $1M is pure profit. How much transparency is there in the new model? If ML says they have verified the amounts, but the details are bound by confidentiality clauses, are we OK with that?

Please don't tell me that contracting is better because the private sector is somehow inherently more effective than the public sector. There are plenty of examples where private companies run aground through lax management, inadequate cost control, bad judgement, etc. The consequences may be different, and the mechanisms for meauring performance are different, but money gets wasted and scandals play out in the private sector. Are we happy to hear that our transit ran poorly and all the executives got fired? The remedy isn't really making anyone whole.

My concern is that ML and Ontario have chosen this model not because it's better but because it firewalls them from risk and from political consequences. Not happy? Blame the contractor. We just set the performance spec.
It's an admission that ML is unable to build and sustain an operating arm that has the people and systems to run an expanded RER network (let alone design and build it). And neither ML nor Ontario is ambitious or courageous enough to take that on and run the risk of messing up. There is little political upside in that.

This model may actually deliver a smoother operating system, but it will do so at a markup on cost. Is it worth it? Nobody has ever put the comparison forward for debate, except perhaps rhetorically. I wonder where the opposition parties and the media have been. Maybe the public doesn't care - yet. Wait til ticket prices and/or taxes rise.

- Paul

PS - sorry to be windy. New coffee maker is really working well. Three cups this morning.

 

[rbt]

imo there is no definitive correlation between operator and fares.

There's not much correlation between the cost for building a bridge and the fee to drive across it either; but that doesn't mean building the bridge didn't have a known cost that was paid. Fares are only one piece of the total revenue for most transit agencies and costs typically exceed fares.

There (probably) is a correlation between operator and full cost of operations which would be paying. Point being, if MTS can run the requested service cheaper than the competition, then I would hope their bid is quite a bit lower (to win the bid) instead of locking in an unusually high margin as profit. MTS running GO at a large profit doesn't help me; I'm not a share-holder.

Well, one gets what one pays for - lowest bidder doesn't imply least profitable, or just as effective at lower price.

That's certainly true but I would hope that there is enough competition in the bid that they choose to use their efficiencies to lower bid instead of locking in a higher profit.

Please don't tell me that contracting is better because the private sector is somehow inherently more effective than the public sector.

I would not. Large companies have just as much waste as small governments. Given the opportunity, I'd imagine a "governing" company would have few advantages over a traditional western government.

My concern is that ML and Ontario have chosen this model not because it's better but because it firewalls them from risk and from political consequences. Not happy? Blame the contractor. We just set the performance spec.
It's an admission that ML is unable to build and sustain an operating arm that has the people and systems to run an expanded RER network (let alone design and build it).

Agreed. For a time I hoped ML would take over TTC via a merger simply because that would put TTC staff in control of GO operations; TTC numbers alone would make it a reverse-takeover. Then I remembered it would also put, for example, the OwenSound MPP in direct control of TTC. It's difficult enough getting transit taken seriously by people who have staff that take it daily; can't imagine how much harder it would become if it was a cost center they only see a few times a year from a distance.

 

[steveintoronto]

The last few posts resonate on my earlier comment on this (gist) "looking like the UK's rail operations". The discussion that ensues in this string is remarkably similar to that unfolding *yet again* in the UK, albeit there isn't a direct parallel possible due to many differences in politics, jurisdictional powers and ownership of the rails vis-a-vis Canada (Ontario)/UK.

The UK latest: (And note this is in the Politics section of this newspaper)

[...]
Services have improved because of massive investment by the state, not because of capitalist competition. And anyway, competition is something of a misnomer when it comes to trains: the railways can never function like a regular business in that train companies can never be allowed to fail. You can't let the network go down for a week – leaving passengers high and dry - out of misplaced fealty to free market dogma.

But would the nationalisation of train franchises make journeys any cheaper? Not necessarily. Rail fares are going up at present because the government is trying to shift the burden of subsidy from the state onto the passenger.
[...]

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/nationalisation-wont-magically-solve-problems-britains-railways-1650485

The UK is rife with this discussion yet again:
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...2017/dec/06/new-vision-railways-short-sighted

But where the UK commuter and Metrolinx models are showing great operational similarity is shown here:

Sat 1 Apr ‘17
British rail is nationalised all over again – by foreign states

At Romford station, in the Essex centre of “taking back control”, there’s a choice of trains into London: those run by the Dutch, or those run by the Chinese. Anyone heading for nearby Basildon has to change at Upminster and pay a fare to the Italian firm that has been operating C2C since January.

Welsh railways fell to German-owned Arriva long ago, while ScotRail is also in the hands of the Netherlands’ Abellio. The French, as part of Govia, own much of Britain’s biggest commuter franchises, including Southern Rail. Still, the news last week that South West Trains – serving destinations such as Weymouth and Windsor from Waterloo – would from August be operated by First MTR, partly owned by the Hong Kong government, marked a tipping point in Britain’s rail franchising.

With the transfer of this network, which has been operated since 1995 by Britain’s Stagecoach, one in two of the 1.7bn passenger journeys made in the UK each year will be on trains operated by foreign firms. And all of those firms are ultimately owned by foreign states – which outrages unions and others who call rail privatisation into question.

Mick Whelan, general secretary of train drivers’ union Aslef, said: “It is savagely ironic that the Tories say they don’t believe in state control, yet are perfectly happy to allow Britain’s train companies to be run by state-owned railways – as long as it’s another state!”
[...]
But few other EU states opened their networks to competition the way Britain has. British firms such as National Express do have contracts in Germany for local and regional networks, but long-term franchises of such scale, revenues and potential profits have been a peculiarly British gift.

Yet foreign firms are expanding as domestic transport groups start to question whether they can afford the risk. National Express has quit the UK rail market altogether, selling C2C to Trenitalia this year. Stagecoach let itself be outbid by First MTR, and has struggled with East Coast. Passenger growth has slowed after a recent boom, and at least one losing bidder for the Greater Anglia franchise retained last year by Abellio privately admitted to relief, having seen the figures.

One industry source said: “People have been bidding bonkers numbers. But these foreign firms can absorb more risk because they are state-backed.”
[...]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/apr/01/british-rail-franchises-foreign-owners-subsidy

In Metrolinx' case, and due to political mismanagement mostly (the funding is there, just terribly misappropriated) I see P3 as a workable way forward. In a perfect world, it shouldn't be necessary. My major concern is the learning curve for Queen's Park, not Metrolinx. P3 has gone terribly wrong in London alone, not just the UK, not that the model is wrong, the *implementation* was wrong. Crossrail has become a beacon of how it can go right, and it's as much about separating political interference as it is about funding.

Do I trust QP to oversee P3 to Ontario's advantage? Errrr.....Here's the lesson to be learned:

The Economist
Apr 20th 2017

THE eastbound platform on the Elizabeth line at Farringdon Station in central London is 30 metres below ground. Its length is as striking as its depth. At more than 200 metres, it is almost twice as long as the typical platform on the Tube. When service begins in December 2018, it will increase rail capacity in central London by 10%, thanks to the longer trains. Travellers nearest to the terminal stations at Reading and Heathrow, to the west of the city, and Shenfield and Abbey Wood, to the east, have a shot at the acme of commuter luxury: a seat.

Crossrail, as the £14.8bn ($19bn) infrastructure project is known, is on track to deliver other small miracles. With 85% of the work completed, the project is on-budget and on-time, in spite of its size and complexity. The programme required ten new stations, some with passenger tunnels linking them to existing Tube lines. The Elizabeth line itself will snake through 13 miles (21km) of twinned tunnels, including a section under the Thames. Tunnelling is a risky business. You never can tell if you’ll run into a hold-up. The Crossrail dig has yielded 10,000 items of interest to archaeologists. At Farringdon the diggers found 25 skeletons, the remains of victims of the 14th-century Black Death. But there were no immovable objects.

In fact, big surprises were rare. For a project this complex, a lot of preparation (“de-risking” in the jargon) is needed before private contractors can be confident they won’t encounter big obstacles, and can price a bid sensibly. Once contracts were awarded, it was up to project managers to keep to the timetable. Unexpected delays, such as slow delivery of fittings, are managed in three ways, says Mujahid Khalid, who is in charge at Farringdon. A “float” of unallocated time can be drawn upon; other tasks can be brought forward; and, as a last resort, the number of shifts can be increased.

The ground has to be prepared for the six floors of offices and shops to be built over the new station. Such “over-site” developments are part of the project’s financing. Indeed London’s businesses are stumping up £4.1bn in a variety of ways for Crossrail. With hindsight, the sponsors might have considered charging for tours of the Farringdon site by visitors from cities seeking lessons for their own metro systems.

It would not be the only unorthodox initiative. The tunnels needed eight bespoke boring machines. Four dug their way back to surface and were sold back to Herrenknecht, the German manufacturer. Four (two running eastward and two westward) reached the ends of their lines beneath Farringdon. Stripped of valuable kit for recycling, the remains were left there: strange skeletons for 28th-century archaeologists to pore over.

This article appeared in the Finance and economics section of the print edition under the headline"The skeleton crew"

https://www.economist.com/news/fina...ncing-big-infrastructure-investments-managing

There's many overviews and studies published on-line that examines why Crossrail has worked so well (And Toronto's Crosstown seems to have learned lessons from it), and here's a UoT presentation on it:
https://munkschool.utoronto.ca/imfg/event/londons-crossrail-a-case-study-in-transit-investment/

 

[Platform 27]

My concern is that ML and Ontario have chosen this model not because it's better but because it firewalls them from risk and from political consequences. Not happy? Blame the contractor. We just set the performance spec.
It's an admission that ML is unable to build and sustain an operating arm that has the people and systems to run an expanded RER network (let alone design and build it). And neither ML nor Ontario is ambitious or courageous enough to take that on and run the risk of messing up. There is little political upside in that.

ML/Ontario haven't chosen this model so much as just continued the status quo. GO trains have never been driven by, dispatched by or maintained by Ontario public sector employees --- not when it was a comparatively tiny operation in the late '60s, not when it was a larger operation in the '80s, not under a contracting-in-oriented Rae government, not under a contracting-out-oriented Harris government...

It's simply inconceivable that in the present political climate, the powers that be would have said to ML "you're now going to run way more mainline passenger trains than anywhere else on the continent bar NYC, so, um, figure out how to do that, and, oh, by the way, we want you to get rid of those private contractors you've relied on for 40 years and instead start hiring your own train crews, signal maintainers, rail traffic controllers with nice public sector pensions and job security and all that and, oh, it would also be nice if they'd done this for a frequent passenger railway before..."

 

[crs1026]

ML/Ontario haven't chosen this model so much as just continued the status quo. GO trains have never been driven by, dispatched by or maintained by Ontario public sector employees --- not when it was a comparatively tiny operation in the late '60s, not when it was a larger operation in the '80s, not under a contracting-in-oriented Rae government, not under a contracting-out-oriented Harris government...

That's quite correct, as far as maintenance and running trades and the like go. However, ML has been heavily involved in front end design and project management (with many contractors and subs, to be sure, but with GO/ML as the overall project manager) and also in the operations end of the system. GO does have an operations center today, staffed by its own people. The new approach is clearly backing even further away from operations. You have a service spec, and a set of performance measures, and that's it.

I was not arguing for currently contracted staff to be absorbed into the public service. I was very much arguing for GO/ML to maintain a management structure with both decisionmaking authority and accountability for managing the operation, as it does today. That leaves the business risk with GO, but it also avoids a markup on cost - and a change management bureaucracy for the service contract. Most importantly, it leaves the hope that there will be greater transparency towards the public in what GO/ML does. There is not enough of that today, and the full contracted arrangement pushes the pendulum further away from what is appropriate, rather than towards it.

- Paul

 

[Kitsune]

can the lines be electrified with bilevels without having to raise a bunch of bridges? I thought that would be why it'll only be single levels.

 

[steveintoronto]

can the lines be electrified with bilevels without having to raise a bunch of bridges? I thought that would be why it'll only be single levels.

Can be, but unlikely to be so.

See:
http://www.railpac.org/2010/01/26/h...-electrification-is-catenary-height-an-issue/
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,3480780,nodelay=1

What I do see as likely (and this is tilting pretty fast) is single level EMUs instead of, or as well as DD EMUs, for a number of reasons. One is RER in tunnel...so the difference in height, if any, won't be due to bridges, but 'suburban services' wholly or part in tunnel with a lower catenary height, that can use mixed single level EMU and LRVs. DD *can* be used in tunnel, as Paris does, but Cdns won't be ready to accept the radically reduced head-room doing so, not to mention the load/unload rate of DD compared to single level Tram/Train/EMU. Outer RER service with widely spaced stations might still host DD EMU.

Eat your passenger heart out on this for California, being granted a waiver from the FRA (When will Transport Canada ever match this?)

[...]
In the interest of being able to purchase off the shelf European or Asian High Speed and Commuter trains, the CHSRA has apparently adopted a European standard for the height of the catenary above rail level of 18 – 19 feet. This standard will not accommodate North American freight traffic, which will require a catenary height of 22 feet or more. While this may not seem to be an issue for the HSTL, it severely limits the possibilities of service expansion to other important markets which cannot justify a dedicated High Speed right of way.
[...]

http://www.railpac.org/2010/01/26/h...-electrification-is-catenary-height-an-issue/

 

[Kitsune]

Sydney uses bi-levels in tunnels as well - some of them dating to the 1930s. Interesting about freight in Cali... double stacks need a tad over 19 feet so I can see freight being a problem.

 

[steveintoronto]

Sydney uses bi-levels in tunnels as well - some of them dating to the 1930s. Interesting about freight in Cali... double stacks need a tad over 19 feet so I can see freight being a problem.

I won't get into supporting either side of "DD or not" debate, I used to fully support DDs, having rode the Paris RER a number of times in tunnel (I was astounded first time doing so) but the debate is not as clear-cut as it seemed a decade ago. Sydney is riven with it all over again, ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-04/double-decker-debate/4109604 ) and there's some serious questions still of getting 'off the shelf' DD EMUs compared to single deck, and the loading/unloading rate with just two sets of doors. Paris RER has three, but at a cost to seating capacity, and the ceiling height is limited.

This is a debate that will erupt as RER in tunnel for Toronto becomes a much more prominent topic.

As for double stack freight, it's already settled as far as Canada's freight railways are concerned. They won't allow catenary on their rails, so to make it a freight issue is moot.

 

[Streety McCarface]

I won't get into supporting either side of "DD or not" debate, I used to fully support DDs, having rode the Paris RER a number of times in tunnel (I was astounded first time doing so) but the debate is not as clear-cut as it seemed a decade ago. Sydney is riven with it all over again, ( http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-04/double-decker-debate/4109604 ) and there's some serious questions still of getting 'off the shelf' DD EMUs compared to single deck, and the loading/unloading rate with just two sets of doors. Paris RER has three, but at a cost to seating capacity, and the ceiling height is limited.

This is a debate that will erupt as RER in tunnel for Toronto becomes a much more prominent topic.

As for double stack freight, it's already settled as far as Canada's freight railways are concerned. They won't allow catenary on their rails, so to make it a freight issue is moot.

Someone also needs to explain why freight companies will not transition over to electric railways. Have locomotives that use both diesel and Electricity, and all the freight lines are heavily used. Also, if we convert to single-level EMUs, wouldn't that mean that all platforms would have to be raised and suburban stations (Like Bramalea, Aurora) would require both low level and high level platforms?

 

[steveintoronto]

Someone also needs to explain why freight companies will not transition over to electric railways.

Either than to state "cost", I won't go near this aspect of debate, it's so surreal in North Am. A number US trans-con roads did use electric in whole or in part. If HFR is built, and freight is run over it temporally at night, then the case for electric locos for that stretch might exist.

Also, if we convert to single-level EMUs, wouldn't that mean that all platforms would have to be raised and suburban stations (Like Bramalea, Aurora) would require both low level and high level platforms?

No. Although the platform height debate is germain to the issue, Metrolinx has decided to stay with low platforms for good reason. The UPX is an outlier in the logic of it.

The same pertains to LRV:
Calgary, Edmonton adopt low-floor approach - Railway Age

Is high platform faster to load, unload? Without doubt, but is the advantage worth the massive increase in extra costs, especially when in tunnel? No...albeit it remains contentious, and the debate will arise again in Toronto's case when RER in tunnel arrives (which will be sooner than many think).

 

[MisterF]

Either than to state "cost", I won't go near this aspect of debate, it's so surreal in North Am. A number US trans-con roads did use electric in whole or in part. If HFR is built, and freight is run over it temporally at night, then the case for electric locos for that stretch might exist.
No. Although the platform height debate is germain to the issue, Metrolinx has decided to stay with low platforms for good reason. The UPX is an outlier in the logic of it.

The same pertains to LRV:
Calgary, Edmonton adopt low-floor approach - Railway Age

The new Metrolinx CEO is already talking about level boarding at Union Station, since with RER they're going to need to get people in and out of trains as quickly as possible. It would seem reasonable to assume that other stations will be built or rebuilt with level boarding where possible.

Is high platform faster to load, unload? Without doubt, but is the advantage worth the massive increase in extra costs, especially when in tunnel? No...albeit it remains contentious, and the debate will arise again in Toronto's case when RER in tunnel arrives (which will be sooner than many think).

Got any concrete info on an RER tunnel in Toronto?

 

[steveintoronto]

The new Metrolinx CEO is already talking about level boarding at Union Station, since with RER they're going to need to get people in and out of trains as quickly as possible. It would seem reasonable to assume that other stations will be built or rebuilt with level boarding where possible.

I think you're mistaking raising the platform some eight inches or so to "high level platforms"...something entirely different. "Level boarding" of the present stock would be the height now used for accessible access.
Here's what your link states:

Part of that whole solution will include a rebuild of the platforms. We must build up the platforms, but the platforms aren't right. They're too narrow. In order to get increased capacity through that corridor, we going to have to sacrifice some of [the current platforms]. We have to come up with a combination of bay and through platforms, which we'll have less of because we need wider platforms where people come up. We have to create wider width around those entry points, because it's simply unsafe. I've asked the team to look at a Union station platform layout that's different. As we're going to redo the platforms, [we'll] lift the platforms to the right level.

At no point was he referring to "high level platforms" as used for UPX.

See:
The Great Platform Height Debate | UrbanToronto

Got any concrete info on an RER tunnel in Toronto?

No, other than the inevitable need and plans for a Union Station by-pass, and how other cities are having to or have done this already. The cost of an RER tunnel is the same as a subway one, with lower costs to outfit them. Economics alone dictate a radical change in the way access to the core is gained, and it's the Province paying for it, not Toronto, with help from the Feds. The Crosstown tunnel could host heavy rail just as easily as LRT as far as bore and electric supply parameters are concerned (increase in load current permitting), but since they can already cater to "tram-trains" the loading factor, power and platform length, is roughly the same for heavy rail EMUs, which is what LRVs are anyway, the line has become so blurred as to where one starts, and the other continues.

Why would any city wish to build more subways costing multiples more in many cases of RER style through-running trains that are vastly more suitable to regional through transiting and operational efficiency?

 

[mdrejhon]

There are three platform heights possible.

8 inch - current
20 inch - low floor of a BiLevel
48 inch - UPX