[reaperexpress]

Just because GO doesn't mention EMUs now doesn't mean they won't in the future. When you have nearly 900 bi-levels, you can't just sell them for pennies on the dollar.

Nobody is suggesting that we sell 900 BiLevels for pennies on the dollar. We are talking about the trains that GO will need to purchase to accommodate ridership growth and replace aging BiLevels.

I can see them gradually being phased out especially for lines with closer station spacing. As for the longer routes ie to KW/Niagara/Barrie, I could potentially see them never getting phased out. EMU's due indeed faster acceleration than electric locos {EL} but the further out you get and the wider the stop spacing, the less of a disadvantage that becomes.

This is what I'm suggesting, but in order for EMUs to be gradually phased in, there need to be yards which are capable of mantaining EMUs. This is not a small ask - EMU maintenance facilities are significantly different than just coach + locomotive facilities. For example, they need to be able to bring an entire trainset in for heavy maintenance, rather than just one locomotive or coach at a time. If GO/ONx does not plan ahead, they will not have any EMU-ready maintenance facilities, and when it comes time to expand the fleet, they will have no choice but to continue buying locomotives and coaches which are not as well suited to local services as an EMU would be.

The longer the trip, the more important the quality and comfort of the ride becomes. EMU's, due to multiple propulsion, gives it an acceleration advantage over EL but conversely doesn't offer the ride quality. Due to EL only having one moving cab, the rides on the actual passenger cabs are quieter and smoother than on EMU where the passenger are sitting a top the engines. For longer distance trips, that makes a big difference and makes the service more appealing for those distance commuters. EMUs are ideal for the original RER portions of the system and EL hauling bi-levels for the longer distance ones.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that EMUs inherently have inferior ride quality to coaches? In my experience, the ICM EMUs in the Netherlands feel identical to the ICR coaches they're based on.

The Caltrain bilevel trains seem very short. I saw one at Millbrae but didn’t get a great picture, as I was rushing to catch my flight, but I’ll just post it anyway. I think they had only 4 coaches. They seemed to accelerate quicker than a GO train.

CalTrain does often run quite short trains. But as a result they also buy lower-power locomotives. They use the MPI MP36 (3600 hp) whereas GO uses the MP40 (4000hp) and MP54 (5400 hp). Nevertheless it's very plausible that a 4-car CalTrain would accelerate faster than a GO train.

 

[smallspy]

The Caltrain bilevel trains seem very short. I saw one at Millbrae but didn’t get a great picture, as I was rushing to catch my flight, but I’ll just post it anyway. I think they had only 4 coaches. They seemed to accelerate quicker than a GO train.

View attachment 514498

This is not one of their EMUs - it is a regular loco-hauled train, using the same BiLevel coaches we use here in Toronto.

Their EMUs are 7-cars long, and you wouldn't have seen one operating in San Francisco yet. Their test track and maintenance facility is down in San Jose. They haven't expanded their testing to any significant lengths of the mainline as yet.

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that EMUs inherently have inferior ride quality to coaches? In my experience, the ICM EMUs in the Netherlands feel identical to the ICR coaches they're based on.

There are studies out of England that indicate this, although they also seem to be highly regional. Thus why certain operators - Trans-Pennine, for one - have focused on loco-hauled consists in certain situations/corridors (seemingly to their detriment).

CalTrain does often run quite short trains. But as a result they also buy lower-power locomotives. They use the MPI MP36 (3600 hp) whereas GO uses the MP40 (4000hp) and MP54 (5400 hp). Nevertheless it's very plausible that a 4-car CalTrain would accelerate faster than a GO train.

Horsepower doesn't really mean much until the loco reaches the "transition point", which on the MP-series locos is about 32-ish MPH. Tractive effort - the amount of force put down to the rail - is the important figure here.

The Caltrain locos have less tractive effort than GO's MP40s by virtue of not being ballasted as much, but with less trailing weight they are able to accelerate much faster from a stop.

(AC traction motors make a bit of a mess of these equations due to a variety of factors, not the least of which is their improved slip control capable by the control systems necessary to make them work.)

Dan

 

[ssiguy2]

EMUs do have the advantage of not having the small jerk you get when the train stops or starts which you naturally get when a loco is pulling trains as opposed to all cabs being powered. Conversely, EL have lower vibration and noise levels while actually travelling because they are further from the engine while on an EMU you are literally seating right on top of them. It's pretty basic.............the further from the engine you are, the better the ride quality but the biggest difference is in the noise levels. On short suburban trips it really wouldn't be noticed but on longer commuter trips, it would be an added benefit to make the service more appealing. Again, EMU for RER and EL for long haul commuter services.

Contrary to what Miller thinks, there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all transportation system. Each have advantages and disadvantages, so you use the system that is best suited for the service type you are providing.

 

[smallspy]

EMUs do have the advantage of not having the small jerk you get when the train stops or starts which you naturally get when a loco is pulling trains as opposed to all cabs being powered.

The jerk has nothing to do with how the train is powered. Subways sometimes get that jerk when braking, and they are very obviously EMUs.

What has a far bigger factor in things like that has to do with how the equipment is put together. As good as they are, Type H tightlock couplers (what is used on the equipment today) will always have a little bit of slop in them. Automatic couplers (such as Scharfenburgs) are better - until they get baffed out, and then they aren't. Drawbars are always going to get you the best equipment-to-equipment results, but with the added drawback of maintenance and marshalling difficulties.

Conversely, EL have lower vibration and noise levels while actually travelling because they are further from the engine while on an EMU you are literally seating right on top of them.

The noise and vibration levels are lower with electric locos versus diesels, sure. But they're not drastically so depending on where you around the equipment. If you're trackside, for instance, the differences are almost nil. If you are on the equipment itself, there is a noticeable difference but that's going to be of no concern to a passenger. Onboard, yes, you're going to get some vibration and noise - but even with a DMU (like as used on the Union Pearson Express) it's not overwhelming.

Dan

 

[Reecemartin]

Just because GO doesn't mention EMUs now doesn't mean they won't in the future. When you have nearly 900 bi-levels, you can't just sell them for pennies on the dollar. I can see them gradually being phased out especially for lines with closer station spacing. As for the longer routes ie to KW/Niagara/Barrie, I could potentially see them never getting phased out. EMU's due indeed faster acceleration than electric locos {EL} but the further out you get and the wider the stop spacing, the less of a disadvantage that becomes.

The longer the trip, the more important the quality and comfort of the ride becomes. EMU's, due to multiple propulsion, gives it an acceleration advantage over EL but conversely doesn't offer the ride quality. Due to EL only having one moving cab, the rides on the actual passenger cabs are quieter and smoother than on EMU where the passenger are sitting a top the engines. For longer distance trips, that makes a big difference and makes the service more appealing for those distance commuters. EMUs are ideal for the original RER portions of the system and EL hauling bi-levels for the longer distance ones.

EMUs do have the advantage of not having the small jerk you get when the train stops or starts which you naturally get when a loco is pulling trains as opposed to all cabs being powered. Conversely, EL have lower vibration and noise levels while actually travelling because they are further from the engine while on an EMU you are literally seating right on top of them. It's pretty basic.............the further from the engine you are, the better the ride quality but the biggest difference is in the noise levels. On short suburban trips it really wouldn't be noticed but on longer commuter trips, it would be an added benefit to make the service more appealing. Again, EMU for RER and EL for long haul commuter services.

Contrary to what Miller thinks, there is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all transportation system. Each have advantages and disadvantages, so you use the system that is best suited for the service type you are providing.

EMUs do not have "engines" they have motors, and they are generally not noticeably loud and certainly not going to generate huge vibration. The subway trains are EMUs. Tons of long distance services around the world, including most HSR services are EMUs.

 

[MovingBlock]

Do you have any evidence to support your claim that EMUs inherently have inferior ride quality to coaches? In my experience, the ICM EMUs in the Netherlands feel identical to the ICR coaches they're based on.

Only the end-cars on the ICMs are powered. Same goes for the VIRM. The intermediate cars on the ICM are identical to ICRs

 

[reaperexpress]

Only the end-cars on the ICMs are powered. Same goes for the VIRM. The intermediate cars on the ICM are identical to ICRs

Okay and I have sat in both the end cars and the centre cars, and the only difference is the noise of the traction motors.

 

[Bojaxs]

Shouldn't GO achieve AD2W traffic on all lines before seriously considering electrification? I feel that separating the freight from the passenger traffic would do a lot to improve service. Even if we didn't electrify anytime soon. Instead of electrification, I would rather see Metrolinx spend money on the freight bypasses, building dedicated tracks, and double/ triple tracking all the lines.
People always compare our passenger trains to Europe. But Europe doesn't have the type of freight trains like we have in Canada. In every major city in Canada you see freight trains everywhere. They dominate the railroads in Canada. The last couple days I have been looking at videos of the EXO in Montreal and the West Coast Express in the greater Vancouver area. How would you even go about electrifying the lines in these cities when they don't even have their own tracks?
The WCE doesn't even look like it has space to lay out it's own single track. Look at all the freight it shares the tracks with.

 

[afransen]

Electrifying helps with speed, not just frequency.

 

[generalcanada]

Shouldn't GO achieve AD2W traffic on all lines before seriously considering electrification? I feel that separating the freight from the passenger traffic would do a lot to improve service. Even if we didn't electrify anytime soon. Instead of electrification, I would rather see Metrolinx spend money on the freight bypasses, building dedicated tracks, and double/ triple tracking all the lines.
People always compare our passenger trains to Europe. But Europe doesn't have the type of freight trains like we have to in Canada. In every major city in Canada you see freight trains everywhere. They dominate the railroads in Canada. The last couple days I have been looking at videos of the EXO in Montreal and the West Coast Express in the greater Vancouver area. How would you even go about electrifying the lines in these cities when they don't even have their own tracks?
The WCE doesn't even look like it has space to lay out it's own single track. Look at all the freight it shares the tracks with.

To be clear, Go Expansion and electrification will only happen on metrolinx owned right-of-ways.
Kitchener 2wad service ends at Bramlea, RH they arent going to add service for a long time. Milton is the same.

LSE, Stouville, Barrie will all get 2wad 15 minute or better service.

KW and LSW are kinda different, they will be getting 2wad but only until a certain point.

Bramlea GO for KW and Burlington for LSW.

Sure purchasing track ROW's would be good investments, but you only need to look at whats needed for it for anyone with sense to shoot it down quickly.

The ‘Missing Link’ would deliver subway-style train service in Mississauga, so why won’t Queen’s Park or Ottawa step up?

The ‘Missing Link’ would deliver subway-style train service in Mississauga, so why won’t Queen’s Park or Ottawa step up?

thepointer.com

The Missing Link: Shaping the Future of the GTHA Rail Network | UrbanToronto

One of the most effective transit upgrades for the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area could come not from building a new transit line, but from building a new freight line: we look at 'The Missing Link'.

urbantoronto.ca

This would be a massive project with great benefits, but its just not going to happen

Same with KW, There are things we can do like building a flyunder for GO owned trackage near Bramlea (silver underpass i think its called)

Like we could wait until MX owns all the ROW's before doing go expansion? But how about no LOL

 

[Willybru21]

KW and LSW are kinda different, they will be getting 2wad but only until a certain point.

Bramlea GO for KW and Burlington for LSW.

But the lakeshore west already has 2 way all-day service beyond Burlington right now

 

[generalcanada]

But the lakeshore west already has 2 way all-day service beyond Burlington right now

ah I havent been following LSW service levels for awhile now. I just went to the go expansion business case.
In any case, they dont own the trackage so metrolinx cant build electrification there.

not sure if CN would even allow that track to be bought. Its part of CN's mainline track through Toronto

 

[Bojaxs]

not sure if CN would even allow that track to be bought. Its part of CN's mainline track through Toronto

Not likely. With CN now constructing the Milton Logistics Hub, their portion of track that runs through Aldershot GO just became more valuable. All Metrolinx can do west of Burlington is construct parallel running, dedicated tracks. Not sure how that would work with the Bayview junction.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

they dont own the trackage so metrolinx cant build electrification there

I’d imagine they can request CN to permit it. It wouldn’t create any issues for freight trains.

 

[robmausser]

Shouldn't GO achieve AD2W traffic on all lines before seriously considering electrification?

This is basically happening. But GO isnt one person, they can multitask. While AD2W is being ramped up with the existing fleet by adding more track, work is being done to prepare electrification.

We will see AD2W on all GO owned lines in the next couple of years.

We wont see it on the lines that GO doesnt own, which wont be getting electrified anyways. Thats Milton and Richmond Hill.

We might see improved services on these lines, but since they are mostly not GO owned, theres not as much that can be done.