[MisterF]

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

See:
The Great Platform Height Debate | UrbanToronto

Yes, like I said, level boarding. You could be right that that would be the height of the accessible part of the platform, but how it will actually end up is anybody's guess. Raising the platforms at Union is in the preliminary stages at best.

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?

I see. From your wording I thought you might have some inside info. Whether the DRL should be a traditional subway or an RER tunnel is a worthy debate to have and the idea of building it as RER seems to have merit. But even if the subway option is chosen as it looks like it will be, the current rail corridors can handle a lot more traffic. A new platform system at Union should enable it to handle a lot more passengers and ridership will be more dispersed and less Union-focused. Still, I have a feeling that whatever form the DRL takes, it still won't be enough. Continuous expansion is going to be needed for the forseeable future. Let's just hope it doesn't take them a century again.

 

[steveintoronto]

20 inch - low floor of a BiLevel

The beauty of this is with newer cars and addition of an automatic extension at the doors sensing this height of platform on the present DD stock, (This is already being done on some EMUs and LRVs) compatibility isn't a problem between level boarding and the present low platforms. Single level EMUs can also be built to be level to this height. Egress and ingress will be much faster and safer, and accessibility for wheelchairs virtually problem free.

But even if the subway option is chosen as it looks like it will be, the current rail corridors can handle a lot more traffic. A new platform system at Union should enable it to handle a lot more passengers and ridership will be more dispersed and less Union-focused.

The corridors aren't the problem, it's the throughput of Union, and even with improvement and the two added platforms, it's the choke point to the west of Union that severely limits capacity, thus the talk of a 'Bathurst' station. The fix is to build a tunnel that by-passes Union, ostensibly under King or Queen, and if that is done, it might as well assume the DRL alignment and role (with softer curves due to the longer coaches).

That discussion is still not fully born, but is in gestation.

 

[Dan416]

With the lack of any progress on the Milton front I find it unlikely that they're going to bother electrifying it on the same timeline as the rest of the lines.

Time for Mississauga to start asking for a subway instead I guess.

 

[torontocolin]

I'm assuming Lakeshore Eastwould be first but, what would be next? My ultimate fear is that the whole system gets built out at once instead of being done corridor by corridor. Then again Lakeshore East needs to be done before anything much else can happen.

LSW would be the next obvious answer, so that service can continue to be through-run, and also because it sees so many trains and will be most primed for 15 minute service. Also Kitchener, at least along the UPX route and maybe all the way to Bramalea. Ultimately though, the likely answer is that it depends on the progress of enabling works (bridges, grade separations, etc) and political pressures from municipalities more than ridership.

 

[dowlingm]

Of possible interest: in November New Jersey Transit exercised an option for 17 Bombardier ALP-45DP electric-diesel locomotives. If GO ends up buying them to support initial electrification efforts (and/or keeping them for the same reason NJT uses them - to operate sections of diesel service over mostly electric lines) then there is a larger pool of existing models for Bombardier to maintain a decent spares line.

 

[robmausser]

With the lack of any progress on the Milton front I find it unlikely that they're going to bother electrifying it on the same timeline as the rest of the lines.

Time for Mississauga to start asking for a subway instead I guess.

Metrolinx has specifically stated years ago that they are not doing GO-RER/electrification on the Milton line and have no plans to because its owned by CP.

However the full Missing Link would allow them to in the future.

Honestly, a subway extension of line 2 to Mississauga would suck for anyone coming downtown to Toronto. Too slow, too many stops.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Metrolinx has specifically stated years ago that they are not doing GO-RER/electrification on the Milton line and have no plans to because its owned by CP.

However the full Missing Link would allow them to in the future.

Honestly, a subway extension of line 2 to Mississauga would suck for anyone coming downtown to Toronto. Too slow, too many stops.

BD subway would take 30-35 minutes, maybe 40. Considering it gives people in Mississauga flexibility to travel anywhere in toronto, it is somewhat viable. It would only suck for people working at King and Bay, but they'll still have the current milton line and better service on the LSW line with Regional Rail capabilities.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Would probably take about 41 minutes to get to St George (23 from Kipling, plus another 18 or so for the additional 12km to MCC), add 12 or so to get to Union.. not a great travel time.

 

[dowlingm]

Would probably take about 41 minutes to get to St George (23 from Kipling, plus another 18 or so for the additional 12km to MCC), add 12 or so to get to Union.. not a great travel time.

Gonna put in a pitch here for platforms at Bloor GO as part of the TTC Dundas West connection https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/go-bloor-station-milton-line-platform-or-lack-thereof.26303/

 

[dowlingm]

Can they pull 12 car trains?

I believe so - NJT multilevels are heavier than GO bilevels too.
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=166383&sid=03d8643d17eee198a38ae2d191cd90ae

 

[steveintoronto]

Rail Engineer features:

Hydrail comes of age

• 5th January 2018

[...]
Fuel cells from Canada

Hydrogenics is a Canadian-based company that develops and manufactures hydrogen generation and fuel cell products. It also has plants in Belgium and Germany. The company has contracts that include the supply of fuel cells for thousands of buses throughout China and support for California’s heavy-duty fuel cell vehicle projects.

It has supplied electrolyzers for over 55 hydrogen fuel stations worldwide, including two in Britain. In 2014, Hydrogenics was awarded two contracts to install them in Aberdeen, to fuel the city’s fleet of ten hydrogen buses, and at Honda’s Swindon factory to support the development of the company’s fuel cell cars as well as fuelling the Council’s small fleet of bi-fuel Transit vans.

In 2015, the company announced that it had signed a ten-year exclusive agreement with Alstom to supply at least 200 fuel cells over a ten-year period based on the company’s second generation HyPMTM power modules.

The development of the company’s fuel cells shows why it is only recently that hydrogen power trains have become a viable proposition. In 2001, its 25kW fuel cell weighed 290kg and had an efficiency that ranged between 38 and 45 per cent. The iLint’s HD30 fuel cell has an output of 33kW and weighs 72kg with an efficiency ranging between 48 and 55 per cent. Thus, since 2001, the company’s fuel cells have become much more compact because of a fivefold increase in their energy density (from 86 to 458W/kg).
[...]
Looking to the future

Pollutants from rail diesel traction may soon become increasingly unacceptable. In California, a study has shown that the nitrous oxide emissions from diesel locomotives hauling freight trains from the ports of Los Angeles is equal to that from all Southern California’s industrial plants. In the USA and Europe, emissions standards for railway diesel traction are more relaxed than those for lorries and buses on the basis that railway emissions are low per tonne hauled. This may change with increasing concern about total emissions.

In Toronto, such trains are hauled by diesel locomotives of 3,000kW, which is far greater than the power of any hydrogen powered rail vehicles to date. Initial feasibility work shows that a hydrogen-powered locomotive with this output would have to be a two-unit locomotive with one unit containing only the hydrogen storage. Such a hydrogen locomotive would thus need the train to be extended by another coach length, or require a passenger coach to be removed from the train.

This indicates that the space required to store hydrogen is such that its use to fuel freight locomotives or high-speed trains may not be viable. For high-powered rail traction applications, electrification is likely to remain the only non-polluting, low-carbon option, dependant on how electricity is produced. For lower-powered applications, such as shunting locomotives and multiple units, it will be difficult to persuade legislators to continue to accept higher emissions from railway diesels when hydrogen offers a zero-emissions alternative.

For example, Canada’s fleet of 3,000 locomotives consumes two billion tonnes of diesel to produce six million tonnes of CO2 and 100 thousand tonnes of pollutants that are hazardous to health. This is one of the reasons why Transport Canada has funded a study into the feasibility of using Hydrail vehicles for commuter trains in Ottawa and Toronto.
[...article continues at feature length...]

https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/01/05/hydrail-comes-of-age/

 

[ssiguy2]

Hydrail makes a lot of sense and will grow exponentially over the coming decades.

I certainly believe that Metrolink should continue {start?} it's electrifying process on the RER routes but for the traditional GO service commuter rail, Hydrail maybe the way to go. It would have faster de/acceleration, non-polluting, and quieter all of which would appeal to both riders and the communities they go thru. Milton would obviously be a good place for a Hydrail line.

Toronto should test the technology on a current line such as the UPX which is despised by Westonians due to it's diesel noise and pollution and is a mid-capacity line which the current Hydrail trains are geared towards. I bet Alstom would be ecstatic to loan one to Metrolinx if they knew that it could result in big orders in the future. Also, unlike the current line in Germany and other places, Toronto is a big city and in NA where few commuter trains are electrified. It would give Alstom the visibility it needs in NA and be showcased by Alstom as a good fit in large urban areas that need train service but not the pollution and noise that goes along with it.

Getting a loaner from Alstom would also allow Metrolinx to increase service on the line before electrification without having to buy more diesel trains.

 

[cplchanb]

Hydrail makes a lot of sense and will grow exponentially over the coming decades.

I certainly believe that Metrolink should continue {start?} it's electrifying process on the RER routes but for the traditional GO service commuter rail, Hydrail maybe the way to go. It would have faster de/acceleration, non-polluting, and quieter all of which would appeal to both riders and the communities they go thru. Milton would obviously be a good place for a Hydrail line.

Toronto should test the technology on a current line such as the UPX which is despised by Westonians due to it's diesel noise and pollution and is a mid-capacity line which the current Hydrail trains are geared towards. I bet Alstom would be ecstatic to loan one to Metrolinx if they knew that it could result in big orders in the future. Also, unlike the current line in Germany and other places, Toronto is a big city and in NA where few commuter trains are electrified. It would give Alstom the visibility it needs in NA and be showcased by Alstom as a good fit in large urban areas that need train service but not the pollution and noise that goes along with it.

Getting a loaner from Alstom would also allow Metrolinx to increase service on the line before electrification without having to buy more diesel trains.

as long as the province doesnt sacrifice a single % from the overall scope of electrification . all too often weve tested untried tech at the expense of practicality

 

[ssiguy2]

I agree, continue with electrification but be open to Hydrail's other potential application such as non electrified GO commuter routes at off-peak hours or starter routes like Peterborough, Brantford, Niagara, or Orangeville. The local are probably going to be far more receptive to non-polluting and very quiet smaller Hydrail trains than the bigger, noisey, and polluting alternative currently used.

The UPX would be a perfect place to test the technology and god knows they can't be much worse than the crates that are running on it now. It would allow for increased service on the route BEFORE electrification but without the need of buying more diesel trains. Alstom would love to give Toronto a loaner to showcase it's technology to an NA audience.

 

[crs1026]

UP may not be the ideal first application for hydrail - anything that incents ML to rest on its oars with stringing wire is counterproductive. The Kitchener line needs wires - at least to Bramalea - and not using them for UP just refuces the value gained from that investment.

But I would agree with say Niagara, as it's peripheral and not so high priority for wires, and initial loads may be smaller. Or implement a 'jitney' service where there isn't service at present.....Brampton-Orangeville for instance.

- Paul