[unimaginative2]

^One assumes it's off-the-shelf North American wayside CTC signalling, compatible with the existing systems operated on the freight lines and rest of the GO network.

As far as a quick round of Googling can determine, there isn't a single implementation of ERTMS in Canada or the United States, and presumably not a single piece of North American-spec rolling stock outfitted to use it. The new Positive Train Control systems that I believe LA is rolling out right now aren't ERTMS-based.

It's perhaps getting a little too rich for the armchair crowd to suggest stupid slow Toronto is lagging unreasonably behind on this file, when federal regulators in North America have long made clear that they don't see value in harmonizing with the Europeans on anything anyway.

First of all, it's not accurate at all that we're not seeing efforts to harmonize with the Europeans. The FRA is in the process of looking at a dramatic shift in its regulations to bring us closer in line to European practice. They've also gone as far as to invite more railways to request waivers to permit the use of European rolling stock.

Maybe Toronto should actually be a leader on this issue and be the first in North America to implement the technology. If it works well everywhere else in the world, there's no vortex over North America that would prevent it from working here. Moreover, if we're hearing that running a perfectly normal frequency is "impossible" with this signalling and we need multi-billion dollar capital improvements instead, maybe we should consider the idea of bring in an actually modern signalling system rather than stubbornly sticking with dated North American practice.

If we're going to be building actual regional rail, there isn't a single piece of North American-spec rolling stock that is suitable. We need to buy off-the-shelf technology from places like Europe and Japan that have actually seen rail technology evolve significantly over the past decades. Why not take advantage of the billions of dollars of research and development carried out in those regions, rather than trying to reinvent the wheel here?

In terms of interoperability, there should be no reason why equipment can't accommodate both ERTMS technology and traditional North American systems. Most European rolling stock is equipped for multiple signalling systems, especially as ERTMS is gradually rolled out across the continent. That said, I don't think the regional rail segments of the system should be shared with any other trains. Operating trains safely and quickly at high frequencies without spending billions on construction projects should be the top priority. What other trains are really using the Stouffville and Bradford corridors anyway? On the others, it could be more complex, but the only trains that might have issues would be freights, and they should probably be relegated to late-night operation anyway given their effects on passenger capacity and the availability of a high-quality freight bypass around Toronto.

 

[weekend_guy]

Seeing as how the Markham arena next to Unionville GO seems to be more and more of a done deal http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/17454-GTA-Centre-(new-Markham-arena-BBB-Architects), I wonder what coordination will occur with GO? I know that signal work and bridge replacement is currently under way along the Stouffville line, so it's not like GO is sitting on its hands, but at the same time my biggest fear (related to transit, anyway!) is that the arena opens in 2014 and service won't have been increased enough to handle passengers on event nights. At minimum, extra trains to events and several return trains would be needed. A tunnel or bridge would also be needed to connect the GO station to the west side of the tracks near where the arena will sit.

This has been pointed out before I believe, but the Stouffville line is a really tricky one for a quick increase in service, due to the large number of complicated grade separations that would be required. If you follow the line on Google, it's amazing how many major roads it crosses at grade.

The Sheppard Ave. grade separation is just a small drop in the bucket.

 

[EnviroTO]

ERTMS is European standards so I don't know why implementing it would be important since none of GO's trains will cross a border into Europe. It would make sense to install a modern system from any of the vendors which is software driven, offers similar benefits, and which is compatible with what Amtrak which trains running to Toronto from New York are more likely to support, and which commuter equipment in the Northeast corridor made by the same North American equipment providers is likely to support. The rail system in Canada has non-metric speeds posted, the frequency spectrum used in Canada and the US for various purposes is different than the EU, etc. The standard of ERTMS doesn't matter here.

 

[canarob]

This has been pointed out before I believe, but the Stouffville line is a really tricky one for a quick increase in service, due to the large number of complicated grade separations that would be required. If you follow the line on Google, it's amazing how many major roads it crosses at grade.

The Sheppard Ave. grade separation is just a small drop in the bucket.

Would this even matter if we were only talking hourly service? I think I read somewhere that the grade separations would only be needed for 20-minute service (along with adding another track).

 

[unimaginative2]

ERTMS is European standards so I don't know why implementing it would be important since none of GO's trains will cross a border into Europe. It would make sense to install a modern system from any of the vendors which is software driven, offers similar benefits, and which is compatible with what Amtrak which trains running to Toronto from New York are more likely to support, and which commuter equipment in the Northeast corridor made by the same North American equipment providers is likely to support. The rail system in Canada has non-metric speeds posted, the frequency spectrum used in Canada and the US for various purposes is different than the EU, etc. The standard of ERTMS doesn't matter here.

Yes, it does matter because it's rapidly becoming the international standard that all major signalling manufacturers (except Hitachi) have adopted. ERTMS is going to be where research and innovation into signalling is going to be focused, and if we buy some dead-end North American technology, we won't benefit from the billions of dollars in research and troubleshooting being invested in the ERTMS technology. It would be like buying a unique car being built in somebody's garage down the street rather than buying from a major manufacturer who has invested billions in developing each model.

Grade crossings are definitely an issue. Right now, somewhat absurdly, Transport Canada does not allow non-FRA compliant rolling stock to operate over grade crossings. I say absurdly because we allow non-FRA compliant buses (let alone bicycles and motorcycles) to operate on public roads without being separated by gates. In Europe, these vehicles interact quite fine with trucks on the street. All of that aside, if we can resolve this regulatory issue, I don't think that grade crossings, at least at relatively minor streets, are a huge problem for regional rail. The amount of time cars would have to wait is lower than a red light.

 

[ShonTron]

Grade crossings are definitely an issue. Right now, somewhat absurdly, Transport Canada does not allow non-FRA compliant rolling stock to operate over grade crossings. I say absurdly because we allow non-FRA compliant buses (let alone bicycles and motorcycles) to operate on public roads without being separated by gates. In Europe, these vehicles interact quite fine with trucks on the street. All of that aside, if we can resolve this regulatory issue, I don't think that grade crossings, at least at relatively minor streets, are a huge problem for regional rail. The amount of time cars would have to wait is lower than a red light.

I was trying to remember if the O-Train had any grade crossings - it does, but only at other railways (two such crossings) and one *horrors!* pedestrian/bicycle crossing. No road crossings, which is probably why Ottawa was able to get away with it.

Interesting though that light rail trains cross major roads in Calgary and Edmonton with lights/bells and gates, but somehow that's okay but using European EMUs on "heavy" rail is not. The regulations are ridiculous.

 

[gweed123]

I was trying to remember if the O-Train had any grade crossings - it does, but only at other railways (two such crossings) and one *horrors!* pedestrian/bicycle crossing. No road crossings, which is probably why Ottawa was able to get away with it.

Interesting though that light rail trains cross major roads in Calgary and Edmonton with lights/bells and gates, but somehow that's okay but using European EMUs on "heavy" rail is not. The regulations are ridiculous.

The current O-Train line doesn't, but there's talk of extending the line to Letrim, in which case it will (at Lester and at Letrim).

 

[unimaginative2]

bg

I was trying to remember if the O-Train had any grade crossings - it does, but only at other railways (two such crossings) and one *horrors!* pedestrian/bicycle crossing. No road crossings, which is probably why Ottawa was able to get away with it.

Interesting though that light rail trains cross major roads in Calgary and Edmonton with lights/bells and gates, but somehow that's okay but using European EMUs on "heavy" rail is not. The regulations are ridiculous.

You're right. The O-Train can't have road crossings because of this regulation. In their study to extend the line down to Leitrim, they'll have to build grade separations at all the roads that it will cross.

Of course you're absolutely right about the absurdity of the regulation. As soon as you call the train "light rail" and it ceases to be regulated by Transport Canada under FRA regulations, it's perfectly acceptable to run down the middle of the street in mixed traffic.

 

[gweed123]

bg

You're right. The O-Train can't have road crossings because of this regulation. In their study to extend the line down to Leitrim, they'll have to build grade separations at all the roads that it will cross.

Of course you're absolutely right about the absurdity of the regulation. As soon as you call the train "light rail" and it ceases to be regulated by Transport Canada under FRA regulations, it's perfectly acceptable to run down the middle of the street in mixed traffic.

That may be why the planning department is trying to push that extension back, despite the apparent low cost. When those grade separations are added in, it might not be so low.

However, if the extension is done as part of the LRT conversion of the line, then all of the sudden that grade-separation requirement becomes optional instead of mandatory.

Very interesting about that regulation, I didn't know that, thanks!

 

[EnviroTO]

ERTMS is going to be where research and innovation into signalling is going to be focused, and if we buy some dead-end North American technology, we won't benefit from the billions of dollars in research and troubleshooting being invested in the ERTMS technology. It would be like buying a unique car being built in somebody's garage down the street rather than buying from a major manufacturer who has invested billions in developing each model.

ERTMS isn't a technology, it is a standard. The standard allows systems from different vendors to talk to each other and interoperate. There are vehicle standards for a vehicle to be roadworthy, but it doesn't make the technology between vehicles the same. You could take Bombardier's equipment used in Europe, hook it up to a different track side signal and transmit data in MPH and all of a sudden it might not be ERTMS despite doing the same thing with the same technology. Yes, GO should get modern out of the box technology, but no ERTMS is not that important. The vendors are creating ERTMS compatible technology because it is required to sell to Europe like bilingual labeling in Canada, but the same technology can be operated in a non-ERTMS compatible manner and if it is advantageous to break spec with the Europeans to fit in the North American network we should do it.

 

[unimaginative2]

But it isn't advantageous because all of the research and development money from Europe and much of the rest of the world is going into ERTMS-compatible technologies, not North American standard technologies. We stick to the latter because of cultural and institutional intertia.

gweed, that's right about the extension. The project was budgeted for $70 million, IIRC, including two grade separations. There's a detailed report available online somewhere. I'll try and find it when I get the chance.

 

[gweed123]

gweed, that's right about the extension. The project was budgeted for $70 million, IIRC, including two grade separations. There's a detailed report available online somewhere. I'll try and find it when I get the chance.

Thanks! IMO, they should be adding an extra surcharge onto all new housing development in Ottawa South in order to pay for that extension. It may not pay for the entire thing, but I think it would be a good chip-in.

And I don't think that should be unique to this scenario. If a rapid transit line needs to be extended into a newly developed area, the area should foot some of the bill.

 

[Dan416]

All this talk about GO becoming more S-bahnesque but the line that needs it the most (Milton) is least likely to get it due to CP's ownership of the line.

We can walk and talk and dance about REX being used instead of subway to MCC/Hurontario-Dundas, but I just don't see it happening, certainly not in my lifetime, and I'm 30.

 

[ShonTron]

bg

You're right. The O-Train can't have road crossings because of this regulation. In their study to extend the line down to Leitrim, they'll have to build grade separations at all the roads that it will cross.

Of course you're absolutely right about the absurdity of the regulation. As soon as you call the train "light rail" and it ceases to be regulated by Transport Canada under FRA regulations, it's perfectly acceptable to run down the middle of the street in mixed traffic.

South of Hunt Club Road, there's only one public grade crossing, Lester Road, where the tracks have not been removed. Couldn't re-laid track be classified as "light rail" and not subject to such stupid red tape?

http://maps.google.ca/?ll=45.316207...=rU7pOzevkNlITqC_Owctvw&cbp=12,346.52,,0,5.44

 

[EnviroTO]

They can just remove the possibility of heavy rail running on the tracks or across the tracks and be reclassified as light rail. Re-laid track would still be considered "heavy rail" if it is connected to the "heavy rail" network.