[smallspy]

The issue is that most of GOs platforms aren't capable of double berthing.. 24 through 27 certianly aren't and the platforms that are 660+ meters long are used by VIA. GO on quick inspection has maybe 2 tracks capable of double berthing.

Double berthing with EMUs would be more than possible however, presuming they are shorter.

I suppose that you're technically right when you say that most of GO's platforms aren't capable of double berthing. The only tracks that won't be capable of double-berthing, at least with the current-length trains and the current platform configurations, are tracks 3, 4, 5, 6, 15 and 16. And with VIA being pushed down towards the south, that still leaves tracks 7-10 free for double-berthing for now.

If the assumption is that the trains will get shorter, 4, 5 and 6 re-enter the equation.

The operative word there is "effectively". Without a passing track, the train behind can't leave before the train in front, and an empty berth in front can't be accessed if the rear one is occupied. Unless, of course, you operated the station as if it was 2 back to back terminal stations but that has a different set of capacity constraints.

That's your word, and I think that it's misused in this case. Who needs to pass the train in front?

According to the studies done, back-to-back double-berthing is a more efficient use of track capacity and allows for more trains per hour to use the station.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Neil]

That's your word, and I think that it's misused in this case. Who needs to pass the train in front?

According to the studies done, back-to-back double-berthing is a more efficient use of track capacity and allows for more trains per hour to use the station.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Are you speaking about AECOM's 2011 US and USRC Track Capacity Study? It correctly states that 6 trains per hour can be achieved with through routing and 4 trains per hour with reverse routing. Back to back double berthing therefore gives you 4x2 = 8 which is a 33% increase. Ths report was limited to current track configuration however.
If a passing track is added to the equation, then you get the dwell time of through routing with the benefit of double the platform length or a 100% increase. That's why the current track configuration is not capable of "effective" double berthing.

 

[smallspy]

Are you speaking about AECOM's 2011 US and USRC Track Capacity Study? It correctly states that 6 trains per hour can be achieved with through routing and 4 trains per hour with reverse routing. Back to back double berthing therefore gives you 4x2 = 8 which is a 33% increase. Ths report was limited to current track configuration however.
If a passing track is added to the equation, then you get the dwell time of through routing with the benefit of double the platform length or a 100% increase. That's why the current track configuration is not capable of "effective" double berthing.

That's right - the report was based on what was built and the improvements were scheduled to be made. Not some fantasy world where we instantaneously can modify humongous structures with no potential disruption to the general public.

You also forgot to factor in, by the by, that what you are proposing would also vastly reduce the number of platforms available.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Neil]

That's right - the report was based on what was built and the improvements were scheduled to be made. Not some fantasy world where we instantaneously can modify humongous structures with no potential disruption to the general public.

You also forgot to factor in, by the by, that what you are proposing would also vastly reduce the number of platforms available.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Steady on Dan. No where did I say this would instantaenous, cheap or easy. In fact, I said I believe we'll be dealing with current setup for more than a generation. This topic began with a discussion of potential and lost opportunity.

On the topic of platform numbers, yes there would be much less. Correct me if I'm wrong but current Union setup is 16 tracks, 15 used for passenger rail and 13 platforms. I am proposing:

platform
track
track
track
platform
track
track
track
platform
track
track
track
platform
track
track
track
platform
track
track
track
platform

So 15 tracks and 6 platforms. However, with through routed double berthing, there are now 20 places to park trains rather than the current 15. Flexibiltiy is the key though. Exact scheduling becomes less of a requirement since a train delayed in the station for whatever reason no longer blocks the line that its sitting on. There is some balance to this configuration as well. Each grouping of 3 tracks collapse down to 2 after leaving the platform area so 15 becomes 10. Hey, that's the # of tracks at the CN tower pinch point.

 

[nfitz]

1) What benefit is there from adding 5 passing tracks? No in-service passenger trains pass through the station without stopping. And those that are out-of-service seldom do.

2) What benefit is there considering this just after a $1-billion rebuild? Surely we're a couple of generations from another opportunity.

3) Saying that with double-berthing that you have 20 places ignores that GO already has plans to implement double-berthing. You should compare the 20 places, to the number of places available after that plan is finished.

 

[mdrejhon]

The issue is that most of GOs platforms aren't capable of double berthing.. 24 through 27 certianly aren't and the platforms that are 660+ meters long are used by VIA.

I expect track-sharing to occur between GO and VIA.

It's quite obvious it will happen, with:
- massive GO concourse expansions (happening)
- signal upgrades happening (will be deployed)
- upgraded "train traffic control" centre (will be deployed)
- better trackside changeable-message video boards in VIA concourse (will be deployed)
- I see provisions for at least future access to VIA's tracks from GO concourse AND teamways (look at the diagrams)
- all entrances (VIA+GO) to all tracks will have changeable-message video boards
- more track capacity upgrades will occur, than VIA expansions will bring.

When these happens, it wouldn't be too difficult of a stretch, to simply develop information technology capacity to on-the-fly reassign specific tracks between VIA and GO, once all entrances to all tracks have changeable-message video boards (like the ones you see for Platforms 25-27). Like the gate-sharing that happens at many airports nowadays. Those type of boards will also be in the renovated VIA concourse within a couple years. They can on-the-fly reassign tracks between GO / VIA. Even if GO passengers still have to board via the GO concourse, and VIA passengers still have to board via the VIA concourse, with alternate entrances 'discouraged' during peak (via turning off escalators, roping off, and crossed-out symbol on video board -- in order to prevent peak GO passenger traffic from crowding-out waiting VIA passengers). Though the future teamway entrances to platform #14-21 would probably be open to VIA ticketed passengers, too -- they already fare-inspect onboard anyway, and most VIA users buy tickets online anyway.

The new signal upgrades, new train traffic control system, and the all-entrance changeable video boards, makes it easy to reassign tracks on the fly. I actually saw it mentioned somewhere that it is part of the capacity-increasing plan, but I can't find it. I am pretty darn certain track-sharing is going to happen eventually, in the long term expansion through 2031.

What's the ownership of VIA's Union tracks? That wouldn't even be a dealbreaker at all! If VIA owns full rights -- then it may be a simple matter of Metrolinx cost-effectively dangling dollars to VIA to "conveniently rent some of their capacity whenever they don't need a track". Cash-starved VIA accepts, and uses the extra dollars to increase train frequency (the growing capacity pie serves both VIA and Metrolinx! Some of VIA's tracks are actually double-berthable by long 12-car gotrains and VIA probably won't run 8 trains per hour per track during GO's critical peak period times -- that is $$$$ sitting on the table!!!). Cheaper to dangle dollers that way than to accelerate digging a 4-track underground sooner than they need to. And VIA still gets to increase train service frequency, and they can still double-berth offpeak.

GO already pushes something like two dozens trains per hour through the limited GO trackage (look at GO's schedule between 4pm through 5pm) and they'll easily eat into VIA's expanded track capacity before 2031, just to fill up the triple-square-footage expansion of GO concourses.

Thusly, GO can double berthing only during peak, on the VIA tracks, for specific GOTrains/RER approaching Union from opposite directions. Once the capacity is increased, VIA doesn't need ALL of that capacity, and Metrolinx can simply reimburse VIA. That is very efficient use of trackage that VIA may not always use.

And we'd justify building Simcoe Street Teamways (And west-side York Street teamways) too as an alternate access to the west-side double-berth. Those too, will be accessible both by VIA passengers and GO passengers, via changeable video boards (already in use at some entrances), since track-sharing looks obvious.

 

[Neil]

1) What benefit is there from adding 5 passing tracks? No in-service passenger trains pass through the station without stopping. And those that are out-of-service seldom do.

2) What benefit is there considering this just after a $1-billion rebuild? Surely we're a couple of generations from another opportunity.

3) Saying that with double-berthing that you have 20 places ignores that GO already has plans to implement double-berthing. You should compare the 20 places, to the number of places available after that plan is finished.

1. The passing tracks are not there to bypass union. They are there so an approaching train can slot into the far berth if the near one is occupied. Obversely, a departing train in the rear berth can depart while the front one is occupied. However, passing tracks can be used as well for express/freight through the station.

2. The benefit? Well when solutions like a 2nd sub-level station or an awkward Barthurst yard station are being considered, I would hope other options are considered in a cost-benefit analysis.

3. Not all berths are created equal. Read the USRC Capacity Study. Reverse operation double berthing only adds 33%. It also means the commuters traveling through Union have to change trains adding to the passenger load on the platforms.

 

[nfitz]

1. The passing tracks are not there to bypass union. They are there so an approaching train can slot into the far berth if the near one is occupied.

That sounds like a massive waste of resources for the rare occasion there isn't a nearside berth available.

I don't see the point.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Even if GO passengers still have to board via the GO concourse, and VIA passengers still have to board via the VIA concourse, with alternate entrances 'discouraged' during peak (via turning off escalators, roping off, and crossed-out symbol on video board -- in order to prevent peak GO passenger traffic from crowding-out waiting VIA passengers).

Would be rather difficult to do, the VIA area already gets flooded now whenever a packed train off loads at Union. You could use escalators and reverse them but GO at least seems to be moving away from their use replacing many of them with stairs over the years. On the other hand I don't think reducing the amount of exit routes from the platforms is really desirable, you'd increase platform congestion since you'd have about 3 cars worth of people at the center of Union who'd then be forced to take alternative routes many of which are already badly congested.

What's the ownership of VIA's Union tracks? That wouldn't even be a dealbreaker at all! If VIA owns full rights -- then it may be a simple matter of Metrolinx cost-effectively dangling dollars to VIA to "conveniently rent some of their capacity whenever they don't need a track". Cash-starved VIA accepts, and uses the extra dollars to increase train frequency (the growing capacity pie serves both VIA and Metrolinx! Some of VIA's tracks are actually double-berthable by long 12-car gotrains and VIA probably won't run 8 trains per hour per track during GO's critical peak period times -- that is $$$$ sitting on the table!!!). Cheaper to dangle dollers that way than to accelerate digging a 4-track underground sooner than they need to. And VIA still gets to increase train service frequency, and they can still double-berth offpeak.

Thusly, GO can double berthing only during peak, on the VIA tracks, for specific GOTrains/RER approaching Union from opposite directions. Once the capacity is increased, VIA doesn't need ALL of that capacity, and Metrolinx can simply reimburse VIA. That is very efficient use of trackage that VIA may not always use.

VIA doesn't own any tracks at Union. The entire USRC corridor including the tracks at Union station are owned by GO transit, though the TTR(Toronto Terminal's Railway) is the operating railway and maintains the track. VIA rail of course has running rights to use and operate through the station. They would be no money directly changing hands but VIA rail must be giving sufficient track time & platform space for their service.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

1. The passing tracks are not there to bypass union. They are there so an approaching train can slot into the far berth if the near one is occupied. Obversely, a departing train in the rear berth can depart while the front one is occupied. However, passing tracks can be used as well for express/freight through the station.

2. The benefit? Well when solutions like a 2nd sub-level station or an awkward Barthurst yard station are being considered, I would hope other options are considered in a cost-benefit analysis.

3. Not all berths are created equal. Read the USRC Capacity Study. Reverse operation double berthing only adds 33%. It also means the commuters traveling through Union have to change trains adding to the passenger load on the platforms.

There is negligible amount of freight traffic going through Union station and every single passenger train that passes through Union also stops there. That will not change for the foreseeable future. And I imagine they have considered the possibility of changing the track arrangement though who knows exactly how thoroughly they investigated it. What your proposing would require a complete reconstruction of the station, one far more expensive and grander in scope than the current rebuild. Save to say the use of satellite stations, however inconvenient they might ultimately be to commuters and/or the construction of the underground tunnel would both be far less expensive and disruptive.

 

[Neil]

That sounds like a massive waste of resources for the rare occasion there isn't a nearside berth available.

I don't see the point.

Here's the single track scenario. Suppose you start with an empty station. A train arrives and occupies the farside berth. Now, as long as that train is sitting there, if another train arrives its going to occupy the rear berth. Now as long as that train is sitting there, another train can't arrive at all and the the front berth is useless. Very quickly, the best you can hope for in terms of train frequency is to approach the dwell time but in practice you also have to add in the buffer time and effects of the approach speed.

See the start of this vid to see the passing track configuration: http://youtu.be/wgvwH1qAE5g

 

[vegeta_skyline]

See the start of this vid to see the passing track configuration: http://youtu.be/wgvwH1qAE5g

Not sure if it would impede the effectiveness of such a configuration but over here they would never allow trains to operate that fast(that looks to be about 25mph/40kph) through a station like Union.

 

[Neil]

There is negligible amount of freight traffic going through Union station and every single passenger train that passes through Union also stops there. That will not change for the foreseeable future. And I imagine they have considered the possibility of changing the track arrangement though who knows exactly how thoroughly they investigated it. What your proposing would require a complete reconstruction of the station, one far more expensive and grander in scope than the current rebuild. Save to say the use of satellite stations, however inconvenient they might ultimately be to commuters and/or the construction of the underground tunnel would both be far less expensive and disruptive.

Yes, express/freight is a minor point and I treated is as such. I doubt that changing the track arrangement was considered at all. That's an issue of rail operations and the current shed rebuild has little to do with that. Lets be honest; It's a paint and paper job with the addition of a skylight. A satellite station as proposed at Bathurst relies on a DRL to that location, so you could say that either of the alternatives involve underground tunneling. Don't get me wrong, I think we will need to put the Lakeshore line in a underground tunnel eventually. Personally, I would stack it below a DRL tunnel for example under Wellington so station infrastructure could be shared. I suppose the main point I'm trying to make here is that there is a lot of untapped capacity in the Union site, capacity that will have to utilized at some point. This as well as the underground proposals are very expensive.

 

[Neil]

Not sure if it would impede the effectiveness of such a configuration but over here they would never allow trains to operate that fast(that looks to be about 25mph/40kph) through a station like Union.

But would that still be the rule if we had high wider platforms?

 

[reaperexpress]

Here's the single track scenario. Suppose you start with an empty station. A train arrives and occupies the farside berth. Now, as long as that train is sitting there, if another train arrives its going to occupy the rear berth. Now as long as that train is sitting there, another train can't arrive at all and the the front berth is useless. Very quickly, the best you can hope for in terms of train frequency is to approach the dwell time but in practice you also have to add in the buffer time and effects of the approach speed.

See the start of this vid to see the passing track configuration: http://youtu.be/wgvwH1qAE5g

I understand the benefit of the passing track, but I don't think it's anywhere near justified. Implementing it would require rearranging the tracks, which is a non-starter given the support pillars (as we've discussed countless times in this tread). It also eliminates the Spanish Solution arrangement we currently have, increasing dwell times.

And finally, Union Station mostly sees terminating services, unlike Amsterdam Centraal.