[rbt]

I wonder whether there is data on the passenger flow within GO bilevels. My impression is that the stairs to the top level, and not the doors, is the limiting factor on passenger flows. For example, at Union, once the doors are open on both sides of the train, the doors have ample capacity, but it takes forever for all the 'upstairs' passengers to make their way downstairs.

Mid-level boarding double deckers in France and Sydney certainly appear to have faster passenger movement than GO cars.

The benefit is one set of stairs up, one set down, and a small at-level bit for those with mobility issues. That's 3 streams of flow feeding the doors when exiting.

 

[ant6n]

Making the bilevels work with 650m (with level boarding) and 240m (with steps) doesn't seem like such a big deal. You just need a retractable step at 450mm.

I'm more concerned with how this will play with 1219mm high platforms used by UP Express and VIA. If VIA switches to 650mm for HFR, it'll open a whole 'nother can of worms.

Does anybody know how high the doors are of the Bilevels? If the doors are higher than 2050mm, it may be possible to add 10cm of flooring and move to 760mm platforms, creating the possibility of using a standard that's used widely world-wide (i.e. HSR trainsets are available too).

 

[smallspy]

I wonder whether there is data on the passenger flow within GO bilevels. My impression is that the stairs to the top level, and not the doors, is the limiting factor on passenger flows. For example, at Union, once the doors are open on both sides of the train, the doors have ample capacity, but it takes forever for all the 'upstairs' passengers to make their way downstairs.

- Paul

When loading, the two flow constraints are the doorways - specifically, the exterior steps into them - and to a lesser degree the first set of steps to the intermediate level.

Exiting, those two locations are an equal constraint.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

GO definitely needs to get proper level boarding, because the current procedure with the CSA manually laying down and picking up a wheelchair ramp at every station seriously adds to the station dwell times, which represents increased operating cost due to increased employee and equipment time as well as lost potential revenue due to slower service. This is absolutely unacceptable given the close station spacing planned for RER.

Retrofitting platforms will be expensive no matter which option is chosen, so my preference is to go all-out with 48" platforms, to ensure interoperability and accesibility with Amtrak, AMT, VIA and UP Express (especially if we want to use UPX as a jumping-off point into RER). We have a huge number of new station platforms planned for the next decade at both existing and new-build stations, so the sooner GO picks a level-boarding solution, the less it will cost.

View attachment 94784

This argument is premised on the assumptions that:

• Coaches need >2 doors per side
• Usability and accessibility by VIA can't be addressed by updating their rolling stock
• We need to accommodate Amtrak
• UPX uses the same part of the platforms, and also cannot solve the issue when they upgrade to EMU's

I think our existing bi-level coaches are pretty accessible today, and bi-level coaches in general here to stay for our commuter system (existing fleet or future electric fleet), and VIA desperately needs to replace their fleet already anyway. The 25" platform seems most compatible IMO.

 

[reaperexpress]

This argument is premised on the assumptions that:

• Coaches need >2 doors per side
• Usability and accessibility by VIA can't be addressed by updating their rolling stock
• We need to accommodate Amtrak
• UPX uses the same part of the platforms, and also cannot solve the issue when they upgrade to EMU's

I think our existing bi-level coaches are pretty accessible today, and bi-level coaches in general here to stay for our commuter system (existing fleet or future electric fleet), and VIA desperately needs to replace their fleet already anyway. The 25" platform seems most compatible IMO.

Let's break this down.

Coaches need >2 doors per side
Certainly current GO-type service does fine with only 2 doors per side, as most riders get on then sit down for a long time. And VIA/Amtrak do just fine with only 1 door per side, because they have even less boarding/alighting per trip. But as GO expands into more short-haul subway-like services as part of RER, the amount of boarding and alighting per seat will go up substantially, and it will become more common to get a standing load. In these conditions, the number of doors (and specifically the maximum distance between any two doors) is critical. Even on our subway trains, which are shorter than a mainline rail car and have 4 doors per side, people standing halfway between doors during busy times will have difficulty making it out of the train at their stop.

Usability and Accessibility by VIA can't be addressed by updating their rolling stock / We need to accommodate Amtrak
Amtrak's eastern division has the same vehicle standards as VIA so I'll address these together.

The only practical way of having accessible train service is to have the platform at the same level as the floor of the train. Sure you can have lifts, but those are expensive to maintain and massively increase the dwell times. Having different doors at different levels of the train doesn't work (think bottom level and middle level of a bi-level coach) because someone might get on at a high-level platform (middle level) and need to get off at a low-level platform (bottom level).

So VIA and Amtrak need to pick a height for their floors, and any platforms other than that height will need lifts in order to be accessible. Your suggestion is future train orders be spec'd with 25" floor height, so that they can have level boarding at GO platforms. That would obviously be the best solution if GO were the only railway they share, but it is not. All of northeastern North America other than the GTA has adopted the 48" platform as the accessible standard, including Montreal and Ottawa. So it would make no sense for VIA/Amtrak to adopt a 25" floor height.

UPX uses the same part of the platforms etc.
Obviously UPX doesn't need to necessarily use the same platforms as GO, nor does any other agency for that matter. That's the situation we have today with GO and UPX.

The whole point of this discussion is to examine the possibility of having a single accessible standard so that all train operators can use the same platforms. The main disadvantage of having designated platforms for different operators is the space requirement. Just look at Bloor station. The platforms are 390 metres long, so if you get off the north end of a GO train, it's be a 5-minute walk just to get to Bloor Street. And that's just with 3-car platforms for UPX. For anything other than UPX you'd need a 6-car platform at least.

Bonus: 25" floor heights are more expensive to produce
There isn't enough room under a 25" floor to have a standard bogie, which is why the current GO coaches have their middle levels over the wheels. To have a relatively level floor throughout the length of the train, you need specially-designed integrated bogies, which are typically Jacob's Bogies. I'm actually not aware of any 25" floor-height trains without interior steps - the European low-floor examples I know have 850mm (33") entry with a ramp up over the wheels. I'm actually a big fan of the Jacobs Bogie design, but it does have the disadvantages of being more expensive to build and maintain than a standard bogie and forcing trains to have a fixed consist length.

 

[crs1026]

I don’t know if it is structurally feasible to retrofit a door to the end (middle height) section of a GO bilevel, but it would seem preferable to align commuter and regional floor heights than to have GO promoting its own standard. That might make implementation more challenging, but done one line at a time, and assuming that the lifecycle for GO bilevels will eventually cull the older cars from the fleet, it is manageable. There are certainly operators in North America who intermingle platform heights, sometimes within the same train. It’s not optimal, but it is feasible as a transition strategy.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

I don’t know if it is structurally feasible to retrofit a door to the end (middle height) section of a GO bilevel....

- Paul

The design of the car allowed for it, so I can't help but think that there's no reason - other than cost - why it couldn't be done.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[mdrejhon]

Yes, I recall that the Bombardier BiLevel was intentionally designed that it could be retrofitted for level boarding to 48 inch platforms, if it was ever needed.

New big problem will be the accessible bathrooms, which would now be on the wrong level for such a theoretical retrofit. That, and the sheer number of platforms.

If a 48 inch route is built (e.g. along SmartTrack route), it would likely use EMUs like the dual-level-boarding Stadler KISS that CalTrain has ordered.

 

[reaperexpress]

Two more cities have now joined the 48" high-platform club: Niagara Falls NY and Rochester NY, both of which are served by trains from Toronto. Apparently a 48" platform is under construction at Syracuse station as well.

It is plainly evident that VIA and Amtrak are committed to the 48" platform+floor height as their standard for accessibility. Which makes GO Transit the only passenger railway in northeastern North America which doesn't use the 48" platform standard.

New Rochester Station, opened October 2017:

Image from Democrat and Chronicle

New Niagara Falls International Station, opened December 2017:

Image from Niagara Gazette

Currently there are 11 GO stations served by VIA/Amtrak, and these will all need 48" platforms for access to intercity trains, similar to the 2 GO/UP stations which already have 48" platforms. If GO adopted the 48" standard moving forward, it would avoid the need to build cumbersome, expensive and inefficient stations with two sets of platforms. There are lots of new platforms planned in the near future, so if there's a time to transition to new standard, it is now. It's very expensive to retrofit platforms, but it doesn't cost anything to build them higher in the first place.

Mainline passenger railways using 48" platforms in northeastern North America:
Amtrak, Long Island Railroad, Maryland Area Rail Commuter, Metro-North, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, New Jersey Transit, Réseau de Transport Métropolitain (de Montréal), Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Shore Line East, UP Express & VIA Rail.

GO stations currently served by VIA:
Kitchener, Guelph, Georgetown, Brampton, Malton, Niagara Falls, St Catharines, Aldershot, Oakville, Union, Guildwood

Incomplete list of stations with new platforms planned in the near future:
Grimsby, Stoney Creek, Kitchener, Guelph, Georgetown, Mount Dennis, Bramalea, Aurora, King City, Maple, Rutherford, Downsview Park, Caledonia, Union, Danforth, Milliken, Agincourt...

 

[strookie]

Two more cities have now joined the 48" high-platform club: Niagara Falls NY and Rochester NY, both of which are served by trains from Toronto. Apparently a 48" platform is under construction at Syracuse station as well.

It is plainly evident that VIA and Amtrak are committed to the 48" platform+floor height as their standard for accessibility. Which makes GO Transit the only passenger railway in northeastern North America which doesn't use the 48" platform standard.

New Rochester Station, opened October 2017:
View attachment 132665
Image from Democrat and Chronicle

New Niagara Falls International Station, opened December 2017:

Image from Niagara Gazette

Currently there are 11 GO stations served by VIA/Amtrak, and these will all need 48" platforms for access to intercity trains, similar to the 2 GO/UP stations which already have 48" platforms. If GO adopted the 48" standard moving forward, it would avoid the need to build cumbersome, expensive and inefficient stations with two sets of platforms. There are lots of new platforms planned in the near future, so if there's a time to transition to new standard, it is now. It's very expensive to retrofit platforms, but it doesn't cost anything to build them higher in the first place.

Mainline passenger railways using 48" platforms in northeastern North America:
Amtrak, Long Island Railroad, Maryland Area Rail Commuter, Metro-North, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, New Jersey Transit, Réseau de Transport Métropolitain (de Montréal), Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, Shore Line East, UP Express & VIA Rail.

GO stations currently served by VIA:
Kitchener, Guelph, Georgetown, Brampton, Malton, Niagara Falls, St Catharines, Aldershot, Oakville, Union, Guildwood

Incomplete list of stations with new platforms planned in the near future:
Grimsby, Stoney Creek, Kitchener, Guelph, Georgetown, Mount Dennis, Bramalea, Aurora, King City, Maple, Rutherford, Downsview Park, Caledonia, Union, Danforth, Milliken, Agincourt...

But 48" is incompatible with the SuperLiner cars, so does Amtrak have two standards?

 

[reaperexpress]

But 48" is incompatible with the SuperLiner cars, so does Amtrak have two standards?

Yes, the western US uses low platforms and the northeastern US uses high platforms.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Yes, the western US uses low platforms and the northeastern US uses high platforms.

I should probably also mention METRA with regards to low platforms. It also seems to be the standard in the Midwest. If Blue Water services were extended back to Toronto, it could create issues if METRA pursues RER in the future. Also, isn't CalTrain supposed to have duel level platforms at 22'' and 50.5''? So how would they run Amtrak services along that corridor or would it be limited to HSR in terms of intercity travel?

 

[reaperexpress]

I should probably also mention METRA with regards to low platforms. It also seems to be the standard in the Midwest. If Blue Water services were extended back to Toronto, it could create issues if METRA pursues RER in the future. Also, isn't CalTrain supposed to have duel level platforms at 22'' and 50.5''? So how would they run Amtrak services along that corridor or would it be limited to HSR in terms of intercity travel?

Low-floor is indeed the standard in the midwest and south, but not in Chicago. It's the dividing line between low and high floors, so Amtrak lines heading east from Chicago are generally high-floor, while lines heading west are generally low-floor. Even within the Metra network this is true: the Metra Electric district (which heads east) is high platform while the rest of the lines (which head west) are low-platform.

Metra Electric district

Metra BNSF district (shared by Amtrak lines heading west to Quincy IL, Los Angeles CA, Emeryville CA)

CalTrain only shares track with Amtrak in and south of San Jose, Amtrak doesn't operate into San Fransisco. However almost the entire line will be shared with high-floor California HSR trains, so they're converting from low-platform to high-platform to be compatible with HSR services. The dual-platform situation is only temporary during the transition from low-platform to high-platform.

 

[steveintoronto]

Mark: As per your linking here from the Verster feature now up at UT:

[...]The bilevels have much lower door levels than standard international regional rail trains. Now that platforms are being raised to match the bilevel floors, will GO RER use unique, custom EMUs to match these floor levels? Will some of the platforms be further raised when they arrive? Or will non-level boarding be accepted on the EMUs, at least temporarily? How will the signalling and infrastructure be built to handle very different types of trains without unduly reducing capacity or adding to construction cost? Will a modern international-standard signalling system, like ERTMS, be acquired, given that traditional North American mainline signalling systems are not particularly well-adapted for rapid transit operation? [...]

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/02/union-station-and-go-rer-metrolinxs-phil-verster-future

Many thanks to @interchange42 for the heads-up to read that article. I've become pretty immune to a lot of the "GO Transit Announcement" hype and promo.

This man *get's it*. Really gets it. And the author is also top rate. I now read his blog.

But the platform height, coupler system, and signalling/control systems are all back on the table for discussion. At this point, now that single level coaches are being discussed again (see the Relief Line string re: Melbourne Metro), I'm willing to shift my stance for high-level platforms. They always did make sense, as any modern RER or Metro demonstrates, my concern was the 'standard' for GO across the system, but Verster has already broached that discussion by casting doubt on the wisdom of maintaining the same platform height across the GO Rail system. He sees two roles for GO Rail, regional distance v. urban commuter, and two (or more, he left it up to the "partners") platform height standards.

This UT piece is one of the most encouraging, evolutionary articles I've read about GTHA transit in a long time. There's also very real opportunity for HFR and HSR to merge into this too. By merge, I mean share track and stations to intersect, and some to even share.

Lots to discuss on this...

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Mark: As per your linking here from the Verster feature now up at UT:

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/02/union-station-and-go-rer-metrolinxs-phil-verster-future

Many thanks to @interchange42 for the heads-up to read that article. I've become pretty immune to a lot of the "GO Transit Announcement" hype and promo.

This man *get's it*. Really gets it. And the author is also top rate. I now read his blog.

But the platform height, coupler system, and signalling/control systems are all back on the table for discussion. At this point, now that single level coaches are being discussed again (see the Relief Line string re: Melbourne Metro), I'm willing to shift my stance for high-level platforms. They always did make sense, as any modern RER or Metro demonstrates, my concern was the 'standard' for GO across the system, but Verster has already broached that discussion by casting doubt on the wisdom of maintaining the same platform height across the GO Rail system. He sees two roles for GO Rail, regional distance v. urban commuter, and two (or more, he left it up to the "partners") platform height standards.

This UT piece is one of the most encouraging, evolutionary articles I've read about GTHA transit in a long time. There's also very real opportunity for HFR and HSR to merge into this too. By merge, I mean share track and stations to intersect, and some to even share.

Lots to discuss on this...

Agree, but this is the part that vexed me:

These new approaches will first be tried on a new southern platform at Union

What is the timeline for the south platform? what exactly does that mean? Level with old or new rolling stock?