[AlvinofDiaspar]

For so long, our rapid transit network had only one loop (the "U" below Bloor), but we'll have lots more loops in our rapid transit network in 25-50 years. This provides massive decentralization opportunities...

You don't need a loop to decentralize - the fact is there were opporunties to decentralize and it was a failure (even nodes such as Y+B saw stagnant office growth). In fact, the trend appears to be the opposite at this point.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

But if the DRL doesn't go to Union aren't we decentralizing? Kinda, sorta.....

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

But if the DRL doesn't go to Union aren't we decentralizing? Kinda, sorta.....

Not really - DRL is more growing the centre than bona fide attempts at decentralization a la MCC, NYCC, SCC, etc.

AoD

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm wondering if mdrejhon and me are thinking of decentralization in the sense of different drop off points in the core, as opposed to having a single huge station (and point of failure).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm wondering if mdrejhon and me are thinking of decentralization in the sense of different drop off points in the core, as opposed to having a single huge station (and point of failure).

Fair enough, though it would be hard to see how Union will get decentralized - reliever stations may help, but it would probably not be all that appealing. It will be interesting to see how that issue gets dealt with.

AoD

 

[mdrejhon]

Fair enough, though it would be hard to see how Union will get decentralized - reliever stations may help, but it would probably not be all that appealing. It will be interesting to see how that issue gets dealt with.
AoD

Let's consider the post-DRL scenario where our skyline densifies in various points all the way from Liberty Village through Distillery District, including new office complexes, not just condos.
Lots has happened to Toronto in 10 years.
Now consider the 25-35 year window.
Canada will tend to be favourable for a long time to come (favourable position in resources, surviving climate change, geopolitics, safe haven, etc) and this will generally pressure towards continued Toronto growth on many facets in a second-tier World City perspective.

I'm currently thinking out to 2050 when all the GO RER/ST, DRL, King corridor, transit initiatives finally coincide into a substantial system with multiple choices of routes between A and B, with many more integrated hubs. By then the heavy rail corridors also behave as rapid transit (frequent 2-way service) in a similar fashion to the RER systems of the world (worthy of being displayed integrated into all TTC subway maps)

Yes, the station roles will be as relievers, as Union will never be trully decentralized, but there could be a major interchange station (or two) similar in scale to "secondary central stations" of other cities.

Many rapid transit systems star-out and loop, in superimposed criss-cross fashion. When I say loop, I don't necessarily mean a one-seat-ride loop, but many, many, many interchange pionts by virtue of lines crossing each other, and convenient interchange stations.

By (even third tier) world city standards, Toronto has unusually few rapid transit interchanges.

 

[rbt]

Fair enough, though it would be hard to see how Union will get decentralized

It's actually straight forward (and ridiculously expensive?). You move tracks out of Union and tunnel them under other streets (north/south of union). Ideally, GO service would probably meet at east/west transfer points and bubble out through downtown.

            ||                                          
======     ||                                          
      \\    ||                                          
       \\   ||                                          
         \\//                                          
          ||                                           
          ||                                           
======\\  ||                                            //
       \\ ||                                   ||      //
        \\||                                   ||     // 
          ||                                   ||    //   
          ||        ====  KING  =====          ||   //        
          \\      //                 \\       //   //     
============ XFER ======= UNION  ======= XFER ============
                  \\                 //                  
                    == LAKE SHORE ===

Restricts transfers through downtown but plenty of time to get on/off. XFER stations are locations where nice big platforms can be built.

 

[Forgotten]

Let's consider the post-DRL scenario where our skyline densifies in various points all the way from Liberty Village through Distillery District, including new office complexes, not just condos.
Lots has happened to Toronto in 10 years.

The new office complexes are already happening on King St. Potential reliever stations will be on a street no one will actually need to be on if planning gets their way thus making them pointless because no one would use them.

 

[Allandale25]

I can't remember but maybe someone here will know this. Is there a specific date Metrolinx has stated on when they will release the design specifications/RFP/requirements for electrification?

 

[steveintoronto]

I wasn't aware of this string until you posted, Reece. It is a very relevant one.

For Union efficiency's sake, I just hope that they merge UPX+SmartTrack into some unified service with multiple stopping plans, so that UPX frequencies no longer interferes with RER frequencies.

This point remains relevant, and it also means the need for less tracks, especially considering UPX stock is already next-gen signal/control ready.

Given that UPX is meant to be only 1 x 25kV vs 2 x 25kV+autotransformers for the other services, this would be a comparatively simpler project to begin with on many levels.

I'll dig on this to detail further if requested. I've been involved in transformer design and development. Without examining the specifics, the most obvious answer is to use a centre-tapped to ground 50kv winding, whether it is auto or not is another discussion, and use one leg (25kv) for now until the other half is needed later. It took me some time to understand the theory of operation of using split windings as is used for hv AC catenary, but suffice to say it is the same reason North Am utility code requires a split feed for kitchen counter and range use. It reduces line loss considerably, and with that offers better regulation. If you can transmit current at a higher voltage and reduce the need for using the 'neutral' return (by splitting your load) considerable efficiencies and savings are the result. Much better to plan this for a split system and just use one side until the other needed later.
(Edit to Add: In some instances, a balanced split feed will somewhat neutralize the radiated interference from catenary, although that presumes the split feed legs are running parallel to each other. This is because the radiating lines will be opposing phase to each other, and "balanced" since most of the return is through the other leg, not the neutral ground. I'll see if I can find and link a site that discusses this with drawings and details to explain the effect)(the interference otherwise can be be quite high, especially affecting AM radio and audio systems).

This report does not enthuse me, in that it's a gold-plated facility. If you study the org chart, you will see that the consultant contemplated a huge maintenance workforce for a fleet of only 20-some vehicles. IMHO it speaks to the grandiose mindset that UPE was built in. However - as a base for an emerging EMU fleet for RER, it might make a lot of sense, for a few years anyways.

That's a discussion that's got to be revisited. Haven't read the linked report yet, but will later.

 

[dowlingm]

Re: the electric maintenance workforce - it's interesting to read threads on railroad.net when electrification of MBTA Providence Line or similar routes is proposed, or the elimination of electric operation on MARC. I don't know whether it is an issue of FRA regs but it seems that the prevailing wisdom is that electrification support costs are huge and it's only something you do if you're going to run most of your outfit as electric - MARC outsourced their electric maintenance for Penn Line service to Amtrak but when the Chargers are rolled out that's over.

 

[steveintoronto]

Re: the electric maintenance workforce - it's interesting to read threads on railroad.net when electrification of MBTA Providence Line or similar routes is proposed, or the elimination of electric operation on MARC. I don't know whether it is an issue of FRA regs but it seems that the prevailing wisdom is that electrification support costs are huge and it's only something you do if you're going to run most of your outfit as electric - MARC outsourced their electric maintenance for Penn Line service to Amtrak but when the Chargers are rolled out that's over.

Yeah, I tripped across that discussion again Googling for something else the other day. The irony is that MARC's decision also involves the NEC, which they don't maintain!

I think their probs with the electric locos they had was a large part of the problem, but their situation is specific, for most passenger systems (and freight in other nations, NZ being a current one (pun not intended) as well as the obvious European roads, electric is the way to go (I swear the puns are unintentional). Even the UK, where electricity costs are very high, is electrifying as much as they can, the Great Western even being done, albeit treasury costs now limiting it to Bristol.

I'm glad to see the responses from you and Rejohn, btw! This topic is (dare I pun on purpose?) 're-energized'.

 

[steveintoronto]

but when the Chargers are rolled out that's over.

Got to run here, but aside from the electric discussion, the mention of "Chargers" is key, as it appears by far (I'm being subjective) the best choice for VIA a la the Brightline trainsets.

I wonder if they have a bi-modal version in the works for the Charger? As much as the VIA spec is for (gist) "operating and proven", that wording *may* allow an update later for something VIA could have today. It might even involve an exchange with Siemens or the company that submits the service and package bid for the whole trainset.

I wonder if Urban could 'point us to some links' because sure a heck it would be impossible for him to answer that directly.

 

[smallspy]

Re: the electric maintenance workforce - it's interesting to read threads on railroad.net when electrification of MBTA Providence Line or similar routes is proposed, or the elimination of electric operation on MARC. I don't know whether it is an issue of FRA regs but it seems that the prevailing wisdom is that electrification support costs are huge and it's only something you do if you're going to run most of your outfit as electric - MARC outsourced their electric maintenance for Penn Line service to Amtrak but when the Chargers are rolled out that's over.

It's not just the maintenance as far as electrification goes on the NEC, but rather that apparently Amtrak's access costs to the overhead are quite high. (Or in part in parcel, that Amtrak is passing along those costs as part of the access costs.) That has been thrown about as why MARC has decided to dieselize, and why MBTA hasn't pursued electrical equipment to operate on the Providence Line.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

The present discussion may appear to be veering from the forum surmise, but it is highly relevant, as Metrolinx and VIA are going to have to discuss same at some point, and that point is getting nearer:

[...]
MARC's electric locomotives, powered by an overhead line called a catenary, have been prone to breakdowns, especially in hot weather.

"Sometimes it causes a cascading problem where you have other trains down the line affected," said MTA spokesman Paul Shepard. "Putting additional diesels on the tracks will improve reliability of service and will enhance the passenger experience."

The MTA is moving to make the purchase now because Amtrak plans to stop maintaining MARC's electric fleet. The national railroad, which has maintained MARC's electric locomotives since 1983, notified the agency last fall that it would discontinue that work next summer.

Amtrak told the Maryland agency it cannot keep spare parts for MARC's aging electric fleet in stock anymore because it no longer uses them itself.Kimberly Woods, an Amtrak spokeswoman, said Amtrak has had some of the same locomotives, but the national passenger railroad is moving to replace them.

The MTA plans to ask the state Board of Public Works for permission to piggyback on an Illinois contract with Siemens Industry Inc. to buy the diesel engines.

Concerns about the reliability of MARC peaked in June 2010 when a Penn Line train with an electric locomotive stalled outside Washington in 100-degree heat and the passengers were stranded for two hours. The so-called "hell train" incident became an issue in the 2010 gubernatorial election between then-Gov. Martin O'Malley and former Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr.

MARC owns 10 electric locomotives, which can operate only on its Penn Line between Perryville and Washington. MARC also has 25 diesel locomotives, which are used on the Camden and Brunswick lines as well as the Penn Line. The Camden Line runs between Union Station and Baltimore's Camden Station. The Brunswick Line runs from Martinsburg, W.Va., to Union Station.

Shepard said four of MARC's electric locomotives are 27 years old, near the end of their useful life, while six are 15 years old and do not have a good record for reliability. He said the older models will be scrapped as soon as there are diesels to replace them. The newer models will be evaluated to determine whether they can still be useful.

He said the electric engines in MARC's fleet have a reliability rating of 40 percent to 50 percent — meaning that on average, they are out of service more than half the time.

MARC's diesel fleet, which was replaced about five years ago, has a reliability rating of 85 percent, Shepard said.
[...]
There is a small trade-off in terms of speed. The diesel engines have less horsepower than the electric engines and cannot go as fast. But Shepard said the difference amounts to no more than five minutes on an express run on the Penn Line from Washington to Perryville.

Shepard said that by piggybacking on the Illinois contract, Maryland will be able to buy the locomotives at a volume discount and save taxpayers money. The MTA said it conducted a national search to find the deal with the best price.
[...]

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/bs-md-marc-locomotives-20150807-story.html

There's a lot of relevance in there to VIA, whether Siemens bid as a full trainset or as part of a consortium.

Wednesday, August 12, 2015
MARC replacing electric locomotive fleet with high-speed diesels
The Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) has decided to phase out its 10-unit fleet of AEM7 and HHP8 electric locomotives used for MARC regional/commuter rail service and replace them with eight new 125-mph “Charger” diesel-electric locomotives from Siemens Industry.

The MTA plans to ask Maryland’s Board of Public Works for permission to piggyback on an Illinois DOT contract with Siemens to acquire the locomotives, for an estimated $58 million. Amtrak, which has been maintaining MARC’s electric fleet since 1983, will no longer be able to provide the service as of June 2016 because it has retired its own HHP8 locomotives and is phasing out its AEM7s as new Siemens ACS-64 electrics enter service.

The MTA plans to ask Maryland’s Board of Public Works for permission to piggyback on an Illinois DOT contract with Siemens to acquire the locomotives, for an estimated $58 million. Amtrak, which has been maintaining MARC’s electric fleet since 1983, will no longer be able to provide the service as of June 2016 because it has retired its own HHP8 locomotives and is phasing out its AEM7s as new Siemens ACS-64 electrics enter service.

The Charger locomotives, which are based technically on the Siemens Eurosprinter, Eurorunner, and Vectron locomotive platforms, feature a primary traction drive consisting of a 4,400-hp-rated 16-cylinder diesel engine with a cubic capacity of 95 liters. The QSK95 complies with EPA Tier IV emissions regulations. The 120-ton (approximate) Charger locomotive offers a starting tractive effort of 65,200 pounds (290 kN).

MARC’s four EMD/ASEA-produced AEM7s, like Amtrak’s, are approaching 30 years in age. Its six-unit HHP8 fleet, also like Amtrak’s, is only about 15 years old but has suffered from reliability and availability problems. (The HHP8 was part of Amtrak’s Acela Express trainset contract with a Bombardier/Alstom consortium in the late 1990s.) [...]

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...locomotive-fleet-with-high-speed-diesels.html

Note the specs of the Wabtec MP54 here:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...livered-to-metrolinx-go-transit.html?channel=

Just musing, but what's the do-ability, since the Brightline trainset is very over-powered, to adapt the Wabtec MP-54 by having just one prime motor, and the other bay used for a traction transformer and associated electrical switching/control?

This might not meet VIA's stated spec requirements as per (gist) "already in-service/proven" but it might be inspiration for Siemens, who have vast experience with electrics, to consider doing similar with the Charger? (A smaller prime motor to make room for traction xfrmr and control circuits) A trainset of four light-weight coaches would still have roughly 4400 HP total pulling it, and ditto if not more in electric mode. (Loco each end) And then (dare I raise the point?) GO and VIA could share berthing and servicing the locos?