News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

ssiguy2 said:
I think bi-levels would be a huge mistake.

They are certainly very useful in commuter type systems where you have masses travelling at just 2 times a day and nearly all the passengers are headed to just one or 2 terminal station like GO today. RER however should be single level trains because it will very much be metro-like service with far more people getting on and off the throughout the system. This is were bi-levels shortcomings become very clear.

Bi-levels have MUCH longer dwell times as they have fewer doors and there is always congestion at them from 2 levels of people trying to get to few door, negotiating bikes, strollers, wheelchairs, and the many who just linger at the doors as opposed to taking a seat. Paris RER uses bi-levels but that's because people are travelling far longer distances using it because the city already has a huge Metro system. Off course longer dwell times result in both slower and less frequent service capabilities.
Click to expand...

To the contrary, I think that double-deck rolling stock is a requirement - but it has to be done in concert with level boarding of some sort.

Yes, there will be a requirement for ease of access and fast loading/unloading of riders. But one thing that won't change is that a substantial proportion of the ridership will be travelling from much further away, and so there will be a need to continue to cater to them.

You should revisit the newest RER stock - they have designed it with different seating configurations in the different parts of each car in order to cater to the different ridership patterns that occur on their system (and which is likely to also going to be happening in the Toronto scenario). A variation on this idea is what GO should be aiming for with any new rolling stock.

Dan
 
cplchanb said:
I still would like to see level boarding with the low floor EMUs. currently theres a distinct gap to step aboard the bilevels even though they are low floor.
Regardless with dedicated track that is exclusive to ML wouldnt raised platforms not be an issue to begin with?
Click to expand...

You are talking about raising the existing platforms for low floor, which is relatively easy.

Creating high platforms would be a logistical nightmare considering all the existing fleet is low floor.
 
ssiguy2 said:
I think bi-levels would be a huge mistake.

They are certainly very useful in commuter type systems where you have masses travelling at just 2 times a day and nearly all the passengers are headed to just one or 2 terminal station like GO today. RER however should be single level trains because it will very much be metro-like service with far more people getting on and off the throughout the system. This is were bi-levels shortcomings become very clear.

Bi-levels have MUCH longer dwell times as they have fewer doors and there is always congestion at them from 2 levels of people trying to get to few door, negotiating bikes, strollers, wheelchairs, and the many who just linger at the doors as opposed to taking a seat. Paris RER uses bi-levels but that's because people are travelling far longer distances using it because the city already has a huge Metro system. Off course longer dwell times result in both slower and less frequent service capabilities.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Even on the areas that are electrified outside of the "rapid" 15 minute or less area (Barrie line north of Aurora, Stouffville north of Unionville) , they should just buy electric locomotives and use the existing bilevel cars.

For everything inside the "rapid" area, should be single level.
 
ARG1 said:
It is sort of. The plan is to use Electric Locomotives for Peak Hours only. Outside of Peak Hours, they will use the EMUs even on the stretch from Union to Allandale.
Click to expand...

Yes and I think this is a waste, due to the fact that it forces bi-level EMU's on the inner portions of the network, which should be single level.

I don't think Metrolinx will consider single and bi level EMU's, that just complicates things beyond what they are capable of handling.
 
robmausser said:
Yes and I think this is a waste, due to the fact that it forces bi-level EMU's on the inner portions of the network, which should be single level.

I don't think Metrolinx will consider single and bi level EMU's, that just complicates things beyond what they are capable of handling.
Click to expand...
If not Metrolinx, what about the teams bidding on this project? Considering that they will decide on the trains used.
 
Last edited:
^^^ This is one of the key problems in how Metrolinx has put this out to tender. The businesses running the system are naturally going to pursue the system that best serves it's financial abilities which by no means means it is the best system for the travelling public.

In normal cities, the transit agency dictates the type of train they want to run BEFORE it is put out to tender. Toronto could find itself where the 3 remaining bidders are all putting forward bi-level trains for RER and even if it's not the best option, that won't matter as they have painted themselves into a corner. Most people on this thread {myself included} do not think hydrogen is the best option for RER but I can't wait to hear all the screaming if all 3 bidders only propose hydrogen systems.
 
north-of-anything said:
Would be nice to have a digital display for the next station instead of just an audio announcement. The buses have them, why can't the trains?
Click to expand...
The accessibility cars have had displays for a couple of years now. Not sure when the rest of the fleet gets them. The newest Bilevels seem to have space set aside for them.
 
APTA-2048 said:
The accessibility cars have had displays for a couple of years now. Not sure when the rest of the fleet gets them. The newest Bilevels seem to have space set aside for them.
Click to expand...

They have had a couple of full trains set up with them for testing. But a full roll-out is dependent on the completion of the installation of the CAT5 network as well as a couple of other mechanical upgrades on all of the old cars.

Dan
 
Interesting what Siemens as part of a bidding consortium has to say in terms of hydrogen and battery powered trains. Their Mireo platform can be equipped with both:

Diesel multiple units are a thing of the past, at least according to Jochen Steinbauer. As Director of Development for Alternative Drives at Siemens Mobility, he’s in charge of the Mireo Plus platform and has participated in the development of both the hydrogen- and battery-powered versions. In an interview, he talks about the strengths of battery-powered trains, what the developments are that will revolutionize the market in the near future, and what sets Mireo Plus B apart from the competition.

www.mobility.siemens.com

Totally fit for the future – Mireo Plus B

The Mireo Plus platform points the way to the future of sustainable rail transport. Jochen Steinbauer, Director of Development for Alternative Drives at Siemens Mobility, talks about the strengths of battery-powered trains and explains what sets Mireo Plus B apart from the competition.
www.mobility.siemens.com www.mobility.siemens.com
 
afransen said:
The battery version sounds promising for bridging stretches that aren't electrified. Hydrogen doesn't sound appropriate for GO. Maybe for HFR?
Click to expand...

Maybe. If you believe Nikola then HFR is the ideal distance for Hydrogen (400 to 800 miles); the weight of the cells is less than the equivalent battery capacity. I'm not sure battery weight matters as much for a train since the %age increase would be less.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top