[steveintoronto]

Jon: I was thinking of contacting you to add to the string here. Checked your blog, but nothing fresh up there, so absolutely delighted you've posted! How can we 'summon' you here, or will you be checking in every-so-often?

the private partner

This is the key to this all being so cathartic. IO and Metrolinx have been slipping it into their press releases for a while now. Verster is the first to not only feature it in his approach, but he *heralds it*! The only persons that should come as a shock to are coddled Ontarians. Should Government totally fund all these projects? In a perfect world, perhaps, But in a province with a dearth of projects needed a generation ago, it's the only way to get it moving now. There are pitfalls, just like buying a house. It doesn't follow that you should never own one because you lack the cash in savings to buy it.

I credit Desjardins-Siciliano with dragging this into the popular press. VIA, especially HFR is a parallel topic to this, and hopefully @Urban Sky will be posting here. He's a VIA analyst, and station flow (track as well as platform) is one of his areas of excellence.

building a platform that requires unique, custom-designed rolling stock every time you buy is a recipe for high costs.

Toronto especially, not just Ontario, has to start "buying off the shelf". There's such an incredible range of ro-stock available once 'international standards' are accepted. Transport Canada may be an impediment there for signalling, couplers, crash strength etc. Verster just might be the man to talk some sense to them. I can see an easy alliance of Verster with Desjardins-Sicilano on that.

Given that they're talking about leaving a lot of these things up to the private partner,

There's the key to it all again. "Private Partner"

Another out-there option that has been vaguely considered would be adding a door at the mezzanine level of the bilevels, which would be much closer to the international standard.

The other problem with the bilevels is that they have far too few doors, which greatly contributes to the slow loading/unloading and the long, capacity-killing dwells at Union.

Yup. Even single decker (EMU or Metro) are looking like subway cars now with three or four sets of doors down each side. The ability to squeeze any more out of DD for rate of in/egress can only be allowed by sacrificing their cause d'etre to begin with: Capacity. Sydney is in the midst of a massive debate on that right now, past the debate, actually. They've gone 'metro' for better or worse. For Crossrail, it never was an issue. UK loading gauge always did make it virtually impossible, Southern Region attempts generations back besides. With the incredibly efficient throughput Crossrail is projecting, it's not a loss, and tunnel bore is less than that of LRT in tunnel for Eglinton Crosstown.

I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have about the interview.

It was an excellent article!

 

[jenglish]

Jon: I was thinking of contacting you to add to the string here. Checked your blog, but nothing fresh up there, so absolutely delighted you've posted! How can we 'summon' you here, or will you be checking in every-so-often?

I'll check in every so often. I suppose you could also message me on Twitter if I'm not responding.

This is the key to this all being so cathartic. IO and Metrolinx have been slipping it into their press releases for a while now. Verster is the first to not only feature it in his approach, but he *heralds it*! The only persons that should come as a shock to are coddled Ontarians. Should Government totally fund all these projects? In a perfect world, perhaps, But in a province with a dearth of projects needed a generation ago, it's the only way to get it moving now. There are pitfalls, just like buying a house. It doesn't follow that you should never own one because you lack the cash in savings to buy it.

Verster emphasized the "buying expertise" aspect of going with the P3 model. In terms of the funding, it's worth remembering that whether it's built (and financed) by a private partner, or directly by the government, the government is paying for it. Going with private finance does keep it off the government's books (though at a cost), but effectively the government is still just paying the private company to borrow on their behalf. Certainly you're right that it doesn't make any sense at all, either way, to not borrow to pay for infrastructure that will last decades.

Toronto especially, not just Ontario, has to start "buying off the shelf". There's such an incredible range of ro-stock available once 'international standards' are accepted. Transport Canada may be an impediment there for signalling, couplers, crash strength etc. Verster just might be the man to talk some sense to them. I can see an easy alliance of Verster with Desjardins-Sicilano on that.

I agree. Verster did say that he generally prefers going with the prevailing technology in the jurisdiction where he's working, but left the option open to bring in technology from Europe. In my opinion, going to Europe/Asia for the rolling stock makes an enormous amount of sense. Obviously it will still need to be customized to a certain extent, but the amount of technology that has been developed by the far bigger operators overseas simply can't be matched in North America. In terms of regulations, Caltrain is already getting permission to use European-designed EMUs, which will help their system a lot. Unfortunately, they decided to develop their own homemade signalling system for their tiny operation, rather than use an off-the-shelf European one that has been developed at a cost of billions. Unsurprisingly, it hasn't been going too well.

 

[jenglish]

Yup. Even single decker (EMU or Metro) are looking like subway cars now with three or four sets of doors down each side. The ability to squeeze any more out of DD for rate of in/egress can only be allowed by sacrificing their cause d'etre to begin with: Capacity. Sydney is in the midst of a massive debate on that right now, past the debate, actually. They've gone 'metro' for better or worse. For Crossrail, it never was an issue. UK loading gauge always did make it virtually impossible, Southern Region attempts generations back besides. With the incredibly efficient throughput Crossrail is projecting, it's not a loss, and tunnel bore is less than that of LRT in tunnel for Eglinton Crosstown.

The mentality people need to get into is seeing RER as basically the same as metro/subway. Sure, the fundamental technologies may end up being a little bit different (somewhat different signalling, catenary instead of third rail, maybe bigger loading gauge) but from a service/rider standpoint, it should be just about the same. Free transfers, turn-up-and-go frequency, etc. One of the biggest hindrances to that is the long time it takes to load and unload the bilevels. Imagine if the subway trains pulling up at Bloor station had two floors, only two doors per long car, and narrow little stairways. Each train would require 5 minutes to empty out, and by that point trains would be backed up all the way to Finch. That's why a lot of agencies, even ones with vastly more riders than GO could possibly imagine (like JR East in Tokyo), tend to go with single-level rolling stock with many doors. That's not universal among good operators--Paris' RER is moving toward special two-level stock with enormous doors. They do bring passenger comfort advantages as well by providing more seating. It's not an open-and-shut question on single-level versus two-level, but any rapid transit service absolutely needs to be able to get people on and off trains quickly.

It's worth noting that Crossrail's projected operating pattern (24 trains per hour on a pair of tracks) is pretty standard. Paris and Munich have both gotten up to 30, with some difficulty. There's no reason why that shouldn't be achievable in Toronto, and if it is achieved, there are very few new tracks that need to be built.

In my old Corridor Capacity article, I listed all the infrastructure I think would be required for an ultra-high-capacity rapid transit service in all GO lines. For a more limited service (15 minute frequency), it might be even a little bit less. This is in addition to wide Union platforms with good, wide access stairs.

• Building a dedicated pair of CityRail tracks in the CP Galt Sub (GO Milton) corridor.
• Expanding the Weston corridor to 4 tracks north of the Junction and 6 tracks south, which is already approved in the current Metrolinx EA.
• Expanding Lakeshore East to 4 tracks.
• Providing a continuous pair of tracks on the Stouffville, Richmond Hill, Barrie, and Bolton corridors.
• Flying (grade-separated) junction where the Bolton and Barrie lines enter the Kitchener/Milton corridor, and where Stouffville enters the Lakeshore corridor.
• A grade separation between the Milton corridor and the Kitchener intercity/UP tracks.
• The re-alignment of tracks through the Union Station Rail Corridor to eliminate the need for different lines to cross and unnecessary switching.
• The addition of simple surface stations along all routes to serve dense development and major connecting bus, subway, and streetcar routes.
• A station complex at Cherry Street to turn and service trains [or elsewhere east of Union].
• Electrification of all corridors

Much of this track work is already under way or complete. Milton is tricky and could be addressed either with a freight bypass and full takeover of the route (plus the North Toronto line, which would be useful) or with a pair of passenger tracks next to the existing freight line (ideally with a diversion to serve Mississauga City Centre along Hurontario and the 403). The freight bypass is a wonderful project if CP is involved and they are completely moving their freight trains out of Toronto and leaving the lines for RER service. If it's just to get CN out of downtown Brampton, it's probably not cost effective. There's clearly room for four tracks through downtown Brampton. The cost of a handful of buildings removed/demolished does not come anywhere near the multibillion dollar cost of a freight bypass.

When you add this all up, it's really astonishingly small given the benefits. Electrification and signalling should both be in the hundreds of millions. Three grade separations at, let's say, $150 million each. The station improvements at Union and area should be in the low hundreds of millions. The biggest problem is getting the absolutely unbelievable cost of new GO stations down to a more reasonable level. The $100 million they're talking for one station is an order of magnitude too high--along with New York that's easily the highest in the world. Here's a project for a new S-Bahn station in Frankfurt and its cost is 5.5 million euros.

A very, very rough back-of-the-envelope calculation:

• Electrification (2 million/km*453 km) $906 million (not all would likely be electrified, but made up for by some quad-tracking)
• Signalling $500 million (I am being generous here)
• Three grade separations $300 million
• Rebuilding Union platforms and approaches $500 million
• 50 new stations (at $10 million each) $500 million (you probably would want a few more than 50 new stations on the whole network, but it's a start)
• 65 rebuilt stations (at $5 million each) $325 million
• 400 km of new single track (this is a very generous amount of new track--probably more than needed) ~$600 million
• New rolling stock (1000 cars at about $2 million each--a very rough estimate) $2 billion

So the total cost of all that is $5.8 billion.
Of that, only two-thirds is actual infrastructure construction--the rest is new rolling stock. And that's enough infrastructure to run trains every 5 minutes on Lakeshore, Milton, Kitchener, and Stouffville, and 10 minutes on Barrie and Richmond Hill. So that means the City of Toronto alone could have the equivalent of four new subway lines each comparable to the Bloor-Danforth, all for a cost less than the Crosstown. And that's not to mention all the benefits to the 905. The cost-benefit of RER is unbelievably high compared to any other transit project, since most of the infrastructure is already built.

There are only two things I've excluded. One is road-rail grade separations. You'd certainly want to build some at major arterials and that's already happening, but I don't really buy the argument that every crossing needs to be separated--at least not immediately. RER trains are not high-speed. They're not mile-long freight trains that occupy the crossing for five minutes, either. The gates would be down for considerably less time than a normal red traffic light. Assuming good, four-quadrant gates, they'd still be far safer than a typical road intersection. Imagine if we had to grade-separate every street intersection because a car might ignore a red light. But if eliminating all level crossings is deemed essential, that's probably another couple billion or two. It's a lot, but certainly the project's benefits would massively outweigh the costs.

The other is the cost of buying right-of-way from the freight railways. Much of it, especially within the 416, has already been bought. Buying the corridors through Brampton and Mississauga, or bypassing them, will add some cost.

It was an excellent article!

Thanks!

 

[steveintoronto]

^ A very good reply bordering on your UT article, The Sequel. To allow others to address some of the points they share with you, I'll concentrate on the points that are cathartic:

Verster emphasized the "buying expertise" aspect of going with the P3 model. In terms of the funding, it's worth remembering that whether it's built (and financed) by a private partner, or directly by the government, the government is paying for it. Going with private finance does keep it off the government's books (though at a cost), but effectively the government is still just paying the private company to borrow on their behalf.

This is worthy of a discussion subject heading alone. The Infrastructure Bank overlaps the P3 model. This is very late coming to this nation, Oz is a gen ahead on this, as are many other nations, the UK showing the best and worst on this, Crossrail being something entirely unique, almost all Gov't, but arranged as a corporate entity with two levels of gov't as shareholders, and with few exceptions, a stunning success, a new model to emulate. Crossrail in fact publish studies on their funding model for others to learn from.

This is where Verster is daring! He's putting it 'right out front', because his experience has seen how this works, and works well (with caveats), and I admire the man for it. He's a realist, like VIA's D-S. It is not well received universally though, but if nothing else, it's a 'wake-up call' to those thinking coffers are bottomless. Hopefully the intellectually squeaky wheel gets funded.

Certainly you're right that it doesn't make any sense at all, either way, to not borrow to pay for infrastructure that will last decades.

Like buying a house, the devil is in the details. Many if not most gov't financing is borrowing in one form or another, the challenge is to have the lenders accept some of the risk, the more the better, albeit the cost will increase. PFI or PPP is the way to balance lack of funds with return on investment for private capital to participate. Needless to say, I'm preaching to the converted to you on that. The Public have to start accepting it.

The mentality people need to get into is seeing RER as basically the same as metro/subway. Sure, the fundamental technologies may end up being a little bit different (somewhat different signalling, catenary instead of third rail, maybe bigger loading gauge) but from a service/rider standpoint, it should be just about the same. Free transfers, turn-up-and-go frequency, etc.

Yes! I've actually run into very stiff resistance on exactly this point in these fora, banned for it for two weeks, albeit by being so persistent, in the Relief Line string.

For the life of me, and with the Province on the hook for funding (with the Feds ostensibly matching) and QP assuming jurisdiction of the northern leg (at this rate, it might be the entire length re: Keesmaat's latest tweets) I can't see how this isn't being discussed more. When 'the most expensive subway project ever' for TO is being proffered, it's not being looked at to embrace 'run-through tunnel' under the core to the west of Toronto and back onto extant corridor. Making it *compatible in almost every respect* with RER immediately provides the opportunity to *bypass the subway altogether* in many cases. And Union if done under Queen or King. The present subway can return to doing what it has done best. How can "Relief" be allowed to become tomorrow's 'restraint' when it needs to be 'release' of run-through to serve the RER region to right downtown and looped back out again? Standard track, standard 25kVAC catenary, 48" platforms, and signal and control fully compatible and *uprated even* from the present archaic GO ones. Relief Line to be in tunnel? Make it a Metro that continues out onto electrified GO tracks. Osgoode would be a 'terminal' only until a western extension allows full 'run-through'.

If it's going to cost a "fortune", then maximize the yield, and it actually makes it *far more attractive* to private participation. Part of that might/will be one of the partners vertically integrating their own manufactured rolling stock...with no tender necessary. That latter detail might reduce P3 to P2 however. And that should be considered.

It's not an open-and-shut question on single-level versus two-level, but any rapid transit service absolutely needs to be able to get people on and off trains quickly.

Another debate in itself that Verster broaches, I can't see the utility of DD EMUs in the RER role for exactly the reason you and he state. Paris may do it right (RER B), but they're an exception now to best practice.

It's worth noting that Crossrail's projected operating pattern (24 trains per hour on a pair of tracks) is pretty standard. Paris and Munich have both gotten up to 30, with some difficulty. There's no reason why that shouldn't be achievable in Toronto, and if it is achieved, there are very few new tracks that need to be built.

And IIRC, the design limit for them (and they feel it is attainable and sustainable) is 30 per hr through the core. That's their future plan, along with longer (12 car) trains. The station tunnels are already bored for lengthened platforms. The technology is certainly there for two minute fully protected and controlled intervals. Other posters will ostensibly add more on that.

When you add this all up, it's really astonishingly small given the benefits. Electrification and signalling should both be in the hundreds of millions. Three grade separations at, let's say, $150 million each. The station improvements at Union and area should be in the low hundreds of millions. The biggest problem is getting the absolutely unbelievable cost of new GO stations down to a more reasonable level. The $100 million they're talking for one station is an order of magnitude too high--along with New York that's easily the highest in the world.

So that means the City of Toronto alone could have the equivalent of four new subway lines each comparable to the Bloor-Danforth, all for a cost less than the Crosstown. And that's not to mention all the benefits to the 905. The cost-benefit of RER is unbelievably high compared to any other transit project, since most of the infrastructure is already built.

And yet it seems so surreal to many Torontonians, even informed ones, of not just what's possible, but what's now being done, and has been for close to a generation elsewhere. This is proven technology.

I don't really buy the argument that every crossing needs to be separated--at least not immediately. RER trains are not high-speed. They're not mile-long freight trains that occupy the crossing for five minutes, either.

This is an interesting point, the proviso being "RER" (or Metro). Even in many US cities (I've spent time in LA and Diego) "car land"...commuter rail at grade crossings may not be desirable, but they are very affordable...and *acceptable* save for multi-lane arterials and highways. Ditto in Oz, albeit Melbourne especially is looking to replace a lot of 'at grade' crossings, but it's not the 'be-all and end-all' that it is here in Toronto.

Verster has a tough sell ahead. It's important that he be backed on a lot of it. He's pointing out the only way forward on this.

 

[mdrejhon]

Fascinating talk.

I opened a Pandora's Box on January 13th, 2015 with my first post on raising GO platforms.

Has GO been reading my posts?

(Metrolinx apparently followed me on Twitter. I don't work for them though. But I'd like to believe that my huge number of ideas I posted over the last four years are good and are being monitored by GO. Hopefully.)

When you add this all up, it's really astonishingly small given the benefits. Electrification and signalling should both be in the hundreds of millions. Three grade separations at, let's say, $150 million each. The station improvements at Union and area should be in the low hundreds of millions. The biggest problem is getting the absolutely unbelievable cost of new GO stations down to a more reasonable level. The $100 million they're talking for one station is an order of magnitude too high--along with New York that's easily the highest in the world. Here's a project for a new S-Bahn station in Frankfurt and its cost is 5.5 million euros.

The price quote for the new signalling alone (without electrification) is $800 million dollars if they go for a full network-wide CBTC system.

This is already mentioned in Metrolinx documents.

I posted this March 29th, 2016 -- here on UrbanToronto -- on Page 2 of my GO Transit: Train Control (PTC/CBTC) -- Safety & Shorter Headways thread.

-------Begin old 2016 post of mine-----

What's a ballpark cost estimate for PTC on the full GO network? $500 million? $5 billion?

We now know:

$200 million for PTC
$800 million for CBTC
And it's already part of the GO RER budget...

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona.../GO_RER_Initial_Business_Case_EN.pdf#page=161
Price quotes of PTC/CBTC come from section 5.6, Page 145 labelled, Page 161 PDF viewer.

An enhanced train control technology is already part of the GO electrification budget, from what I am reading.

Also, further selected quotes:

TRAIN CONTROL: Enhanced Train Control (ETC) is a prudent and necessary investment given the level of services now being operated. This may be of a type of train control, such as Positive Train Control (PTC) and Communication-Based Train Control (CBTC).

In all scenarios, allowance is made for installation of ETC (and associated costs) to varying extents within the five scenarios.

It is noted that PTC is not yet a legal requirement in Canada but it is mandated in the U.S., and many RER systems in other countries have a train control system with similar functionality. PTC’s effect on capacity is not yet known; it should be noted that CBTC is the working assumption for the Scenario 5 (10-Year Plan Optimized) RER program.

Installing new train control systems to enable higher frequency services.

(and more, cementing an ETC system as being germane to RER).

The Scenario 5 is the GO electrification (EMU scenario).
If GO is receiving EMUs at all, then we're getting a form of ETC too, needed anyway to milk the EMU advantages (short headways) -- meaning we'd get CBTC to go with them.

FRA structural strength requirements are also possibly being relaxed (Table 30):

Technical Standards: GO currently voluntarily complies with US FRA and American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA) standards which are optimized for mixed operation with freight.

It is assumed for the purpose of this IBC that GO: 1) adopts international (UIC and EN) technical standards;2) this approach is accepted by Transport Canada under the Alternate Practice policy; and 3) by CN and CPR where they interact with RER services. Operating rule changes would need to be discussed and confirmed with Transport Canada and other bodies. This discussion with Transport Canada is particularly important with respect to rolling stock, train control and electrification costs.

The word "important" and "costs" being applied to the discussion to Transport Canada...

Billions from 3 levels of government (... the SmartTrack pitch in to the GO RER budget...) results in many tapping feet and twiddling thumbs at Transport Canada, breathing fire down at them to make a decision on rules & safety requirements -- and given the apparent intent of $800M spend for GO-wide CBTC.

...we might overhear Pearson ATC reporting flying pigs on their radar.

-------End old 2016 post of mine-----

 

[mdrejhon]

There are only two things I've excluded. One is road-rail grade separations. You'd certainly want to build some at major arterials and that's already happening, but I don't really buy the argument that every crossing needs to be separated--at least not immediately.

Agreed.

The question is what Transport Canada communicated to Metrolinx about restrictions on train structural strength (e.g. European-strength trainsets instead of overbuilt North America trainsets).
From some old evidence I dug up of Transport Canada flexibility:

Transport Canada has recently indicated that they may be more flexible with the FRA structural strength requirements, which might open opportunities for GO to study a broader range of European and Asian EMUs and DMUs. Specifically, they stated their intent to require new GO vehicles to either:
 Meet FRA structure strength and crash worthiness for passenger cars, or
 Maintain temporal separation from freight and heavy rail passenger traffic, or
 Operate under some form of Positive Train Control (PTC) signalling system

It did not mention grade separations, but it may be part of the discussion between Metrolinx and Transport Canada.

I don't know what they ultimately will agree on, but that can affect EMU choice -- fragile trains crashing into a truck at a malfunctioning grade crossing -- and forcing Metrolinx to buy heavier and more expensive EMUs instead -- if they skimp spending on grade separations. Tough call.

(Originally mentioned June 23, 2015 )

And, in that thread, I also mentioned Metrolinx on November 22, 2017 -- Parsons secured an ETCCS Tech Services Contract. So, indeed, Metrolinx has an intent to deploy ETCCS. Anecdotally, it may be a hybrid between CBTC, PTC and traditional signalling, with a good, long, upgrade path. What's the ultimate budget breakdown of ETCCS for the $13.5bn RER, or is it another line item above-and-beyond? That's a big question.

P.S. Fantastic job, Jonathan English, for re-igniting these important discussions! (And independently of knowing about my threads). Maybe you can use my earlier (little-read) research for a Part 2 followup on Metrolinx signalling plans and the new Oakville train control office. Just credit me for my time my digging through Metrolinx PDF files! I'd like to know what Metrolinx is going to eventually do about signalling, if it's going to be the $200M skimp or the $800M Euro/Japan precision system-wide, or a kind of phased deployment.

 

[steveintoronto]

Has GO been reading my posts?

They've ostensibly been reading common sense and best practice. That you or any of us others have been pointing that out for years is incedental.

The real question is (and I at first thought Verster was going to be 'more of the same'). Why now? Who or what got through the incredibly bungling bureaucracy to allow Verster to be the oracle of change, if not the master of it? Obviously McCuaig's leaving opened up the position. I keep re-reading some of Verster's statements just to be sure he has said what I thought he did, we're all so programmed to expect talking heads chanting stale mantras.

Btw: Excellent to see your reviewed posts fresh again. A lot was researched and stated in this and other strings (VIA being one) that made their case years ago, and still do today.

I don't know what Metrolinx and Transport Canada agreed on grade separations, but that can affect EMU choice -- fragile trains crashing into a truck at a malfunctioning grade crossing -- and forcing Metrolinx to buy heavier EMUs instead.

There's a real irony in there, in that the EU regs for lighter and more modern passenger rolling stock *exceed* the FRA test results in all but inertial deflection forces. In the US itself, there was great pressure brought to accept APTA regs in lieu of FRA/AAR ones, and the FRA now regularly issues waivers, as you know.

From my cursory check of TC regs, *locomotives* can now be accepted by APTA specs, it's ambiguous as to whether that's in addition or instead of FRA ones. I can find no mention of coaches or EMU being accepted by TC from APTA specs. That may exist, but I've searched a number of times, and was unable to find it.

[...]
(b) Passenger Locomotives

After January 1, 2015 new and remanufactured locomotives travelling at speeds exceeding 25 MPH (40 KPH) shall be designed and constructed as a minimum in accordance with the latest revision of the “American Public Transit Association” (APTA), the Association of American Railroad Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices or equivalent standard.
[...]

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/rules-tco76-338.htm

In all fairness to TC, they don't write the rules, they're enforcers of the various Rail and Transportation Acts.

But where's Garneau and the Ministry on this? Surely they must have some studies undertaken to revise the relevant legislation to bring it into the modern era...?

 

[M636RF]

t did not mention grade separations, but it may be part of the discussion between Metrolinx and Transport Canada.

I don't know what they ultimately will agree on, but that can affect EMU choice -- fragile trains crashing into a truck at a malfunctioning grade crossing -- and forcing Metrolinx to buy heavier and more expensive EMUs instead -- if they skimp spending on grade separations. Tough call.

I'm not sure if grade crossings are that much of a concern when it comes to non-compliant trains. Recent generations of European rolling stock are designed to withstand most crossing collisions, and lower speed collisions between different trains.

The problem with non-compliant trains is that FRA compliant stock presents a safety hazard. Adequate signaling systems, and ideally separation from freight trains, should be enough to mitigate this risk.

 

[steveintoronto]

Cross linked from
GO Transit: Train Control (PTC / CBTC / ETCCS / ERTMS) -- Safety & Shorter Headways | Page 8
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...ty-shorter-headways.21483/page-8#post-1302998

This gives Verster a documented basis for many of his 'apparently' evolutionary claims. This is important in case he runs into resistance and opposition, which he will. Access the link above to see the context for which I make comment below.

From: GO Regional Express Rail Initial Business Case
Appendix A Corridor Specifications
pdf index pg 254:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...RER_Initial_Business_Case_Appendix_A-J_EN.pdf

(apologies, managed to install Adobe Reader on this machine, a feat in itself since it's no longer supported for Linux, had to copy as text instead of a screenshot. Adobe Reader the only one with full pdf file search not found in later versions)(I'm running an alpha OS due to complications from the Spectre 'fix' wiping out my last OS and files.)

H.1 Introduction
Reducing journey times is a key element of the GO RER strategy. Journey
time reduction can be achieved through a multi-faceted strategy and can
include:
• Upgrading the signalling system to a moving block signal system
instead of the current fixed block signal system.
• Track and infrastructure improvements such as increasing the radius of
curves and reducing vertical grades, particularly on approach to grade
separations.
• Modifying operating practices including increasing speed restrictions
where possible.
• Adjusting station spacing to affect train stopping and acceleration
capabilities.
• Reducing level crossings which require trains to stop or slow.
In the latter two cases, in particular, the rate at which a train can accelerate
and decelerate is of significance. While the current GO fleet can achieve
maximum speeds of close to 160 kilometres per hour and the maximum
speed of trains will remain at about 160 kilometres per hour (100 miles per
hour), electric trains and EMUs have much faster acceleration. This means
that they can accelerate up to the maximum speed much more quickly, and
therefore much closer to stations, and for a greater length of the distance
between stations. With diesel locomotives, trains accelerate slowly and do
not always reach even 110 kilometres per hour (70 miles per hour)
between stations.
When peak-only operation is limited to a few trains each day, it is difficult to
justify investment to improve line speeds. With electric locomotive
operation and higher performing EMU operation, constraints such as
curves, track quality and structural limits over older bridges can become
the limiting factors, resulting in overall higher average line speeds and trip
times. With frequent, all-day operation, there can be a commercial case for
investing to remove these constraints.
Line speed is a vital ingredient in achieving greater utilization of rolling
stock and crew. Improved journey times also increase ridership and
revenue and can improve track use by enabling a greater throughput of
traffic on each track. This track speed improvement can be of significant
value over single lines and approaching/through platforms at busy stations
such as Union. Increasing the throughput of trains to significantly improve
the operating efficiency of each platform, whilst simultaneously improving
access/egress and safety, are essential prerequisites of RER in order to
fulfil the capacity requirements at this core location.
Typically, acceleration away from a station stop may be constrained by
switch geometry and other factors such as structures (e.g. Union station)
and passing clearances. Low speed constraints tend to generate the
greatest adverse impact on journey times. Raising the speed from 10 miles
per hour to 20 miles per hour will halve the section run time, while raising it
from 90 miles per hour to 100 miles per hour will have a smaller impact
unless it is achieved over a significant distance.
The infrastructure capability over many of the GO corridors provides
numerous opportunities to explore improvements that could better align the
infrastructure capability with that of a modern electric train.

Note: *The very first point* is
• Upgrading the signalling system to a moving block signal system
instead of the current fixed block signal system.

What's the use in installing an inevitably bug-prone 'custom made' fudge (ETCCS) to allow yesterday's systems for tomorrow's trains?

How freakin' Metrolinx can you get? I think Verster will be having a few words on this issue...

 

[mdrejhon]

Yes, plainly loud and clear in the RER Business Case, as a "can include":

I don't know how custom-made ETCCS is.
I think it's hopefully simply a North Americanized ETCS.

Basically, modifications to ETCS as a a North American progression path.
We cannot replace traditional signalling with variants of ETCS Lev3/CBTC system overnight, cold-turkey-style.

Whatever is done, necessarily must be an overlay-like approach, or two concurrent systems, with traditional signalling as fallback or failsafe -- there's no way to short cut around this, at least as a transition period. The scale and scope is just simply too massive.

What's important is that this isn't a "Metrolinx" specific system; even if Metrolinx may be the first big North American train network to do such a massive conversion from traditional signalling to CBTC-like system. We're one of the first North American systems to do this on such a massive scale -- and we'll probably beat Caltrain to deploying such a signalling system.

Let's not witness our worst fears:
New CalTrain Signalling: Steaming Pile of CBOSS

So I would agree that we should avoid clueless moments. There's no real comparable North American system, and we shouldn't copycat Caltrain in their CBOSS, but to learn from their slow-moving potential-mistake-in-progress. Unfortunately, with lack of precedent, North America has to invent a new signalling system -- and we'll have to face bugs heads on.

In the light of this, $800M may be a lowball estimate. It's possible that Metrolinx is getting cold feet already on the "moving block" requirement, and falling back to a comfy compromise of simple PTC (much cheaper). Just use smaller blocks (like on Georgetown Corridor), add PTC, and be done with it for $200M.

Let's pay close attention -- upgraded signalling is germane to GO RER. Without upgraded signalling, a lot of RER promises fall apart. Few realize how dangerously important the signalling system decisions are right now, to GO RER.

Other than this CBOSS difficulties, are there any North American industry standards to put a successful moving block signalling system overlay on top of traditional railroad signalling systems? Where the old system continues working as a fallback/failsafe, on existing connected railroad corridors?

Credit where credit due though.
The European-style Stadler KISS that Caltrain is getting, qualifies under a new FRA category called "FRA Alternative Compliance". So there's FRA precedent now, and Transport Canada could probably adopt such similar flexibility. Metrolinx is probably happy about this, because this is one of the several qualifying EMU trainsets being considered for GO RER.

That said, many questions about the upcoming signalling standards -- as it will have a major impact on future possible achievable headways.

 

[steveintoronto]

[...]
I don't know how custom-made ETCCS is.

I see various references to it being "Metrolinx". I can find no other reference to it for anyone else anywhere.

I think it's hopefully simply a North Americanized ETCS.

Evidently not. It's a fudge.

We cannot replace traditional signalling with variants of ETCS Lev3/CBTC system overnight, cold-turkey-style.

Why? Of course it's going to be an undertaking, but note that it's for *Electrification* compatibility. Unless someone can link or refer me to a technical analysis,, I'd guess it's not just operational and software incompatibility being translated to make it 'somehow work', it's also a case of analog/digital incompatibility, and analog is *very* EMI (electromagnetic interference) prone.

Unless proven otherwise, and I'm still searching on this, this is not only a fudge, it's just plain *asking for a nightmare* of trying to re-invent the wheel when the answer is just to do it properly, as has been done with $B of European investment to work out the bugs, and there's been many. The Europeans had to overly some (13?) different fudges underneath ERTMS...best I reference this:

ERTMS implementation strategies
The deployment of the European Rail Traffic Management System means the installation of ETCS components on the lineside of the railways and the train borne equipment. Both parts are connected by GSM-R as the communication part. Various railway roll out strategies can be used. With the introduction of ETCS the infrastructure manager has to decide whether a line will be equipped only with ETCS or if there is a demand for a mixed signalling system with support for National Train Control (NTC). Currently, both 'clean' and mixed systems are being deployed in Europe and around the world.[12]

'Clean' ETCS operation
Many new ETCS lines in Europe are being created and then it may often be preferred to implement ETCS Level 1 or Level 2 only. With this implementation strategy the wayside signalling cost is kept to a minimum, but the vehicle fleet that operates on these lines will need to all be equipped with ETCS on board to allow operation. This is more suitable for new high-speed passenger lines, where new vehicles will be bought, less suitable if long-distance freight trains shall use it. Examples of 'clean' ETCS operation include HSL-Zuid in the Netherlands, TP Ferro international stretch (Sección Internacional / Section Internationale) Figueres [ES] – Perpignan [FR], Erfurt–Halle/Leipzig in Germany, among others. Also all ETCS railways in Sweden and Norway, since the ETCS and ATC balise frequencies are too close so that older trains would get faults when passing Eurobalises.

Mixed operation
Mixed operation is a strategy where the wayside signalling is equipped with both ETCS and a conventional Class B system. Often the conventional system is the legacy system used during the signalling upgrade program. The main purposes of introducing a mixed operation (mixed signalling system) are:

• For financial and operational reasons, it is impossible to install ETCS for the complete network in a short period.
• Not every train is equipped to run on ETCS lines and ETCS-equipped trains cannot run only on new lines.
• Having a fall-back solution minimises the risk to the operation.

With mixed operation it is possible to run a line with both conventional and ETCS trains and to use the advantages of ETCS technology for the trains so equipped (e.g. higher speed or more trains on the line) but with the benefit that it is not necessary to equip the whole train fleet with ETCS simultaneously. Examples of ETCS in mixed operation include HSL 3 in Belgium where ETCS is mixed with national ATP system TBL or High-Speed Line Cordoba-Malaga in Spain[13] where ETCS is mixed with NTC of ASFA and LZB.
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europ...gement_System#ERTMS_implementation_strategies

So here's a simple question: Is this to allow *running under non-electrified sections with legacy signalling and control* but *SWITCHABLE* to a standard ERTMS system under catenary?

THAT could/would make sense...somewhat. But here's the thing, EMUs are only going to be running on Metrolinx owned (or VIA or partner) tracks. Something doesn't add up on this. The dearth of info doesn't help.

Whatever is done, necessarily must be an overlay-like approach, or two concurrent systems, with traditional signalling as fallback or failsafe -- there's no way to short cut around this, at least as a transition period. The scale and scope is just simply too massive.

With caveats, that is agreed.
"two concurrent systems" completely isolated and switchable, save for automatic transition, like dual-mode power source, or aircraft control systems.

Are there any North American industry standards to put a moving block signalling system overlay on top of traditional railroad signalling systems? Where the old system continues working as a fallback/failsafe?

That first sentence truly worries me, and the Europeans are *still* wrestling with this, Crossrail is in the midst of accommodating a more classic CBTC (for underground use) and ERTMS for the mainline run-through interconnections.

I'll do a search and see how that's progressing, but let me guess, if I were a fly on the wall to their discussions: "If you can avoid doing this, for God's sake do".
I know that @jenglish and @Urban Sky are both versed on this, so hopefully they can be summoned to comment on this.

 

[mdrejhon]

The signalling system is a big question, indeed.

Whether this becomes the Presto-approach (taxpayer funds to inhouse reinvention) or a more sensible compromise, is going to be a very important question.

Maybe this is the approach we need -- but will Transport Canada let Metrolinx do the cold-turkey? I think not, alas.

Needless to say, if we are designing a new signalling system from scratch, Presto-style, then $800M can easily cost-overrun to more than $1B.

While all politicians wrangle over slapping "SmartTrack" on trains, the signal system engineering monster lurks.

Moving block indeed is the holy grail. But to get down that path, many will probably repeatedly call it a "boondoggle" several times between 2020 and 2029 to describe the signalling system upgrades -- $800M crossing $1B (even a 25% overrun) will automatically get a lot of pouncing by rural electorate. It's potentially be the most politically problematic aspect of GO RER: High risk of unproven signalling system upgrades. I'm taking the violin out -- cue the music.

I would totally understand if Metrolinx gets cold feet about the Holy Grail and go the PTC upgrade approach. Break up the blocks into smaller ones -- like on the Georgetown corrodor -- and add Positive Train Control (PTC) instead.

Personally: I say: "GO" (pun intended) for moving block if 2018 becomes favourable. It's what TTC subway is doing to decrease headways by 2020. But be forewarned. Doing the same for GO will be an order of magnitude more complicated and expensive.

 

[steveintoronto]

Edit: I somehow missed an entire section working with an alpha OS on this machine. Deleting the pics may have taken the entire added section:

The costs for the switch to ETCS are well documented in the Swiss reports from their railway operator SBB to the railway authority BAV. In December 2016 it was shown that they could start switching parts of the system to ETCS Level 2 whenever a section needs improvement. This would not only result in a network where sections of ETCS and the older ZUB would switch back and forth along lines, but the full transition to ETCS would last until 2060 and its cost were estimated at 9.5 billion Swiss Franc (US$ 9.64 billion). The expected advantages of ETCS for more security and up to 30% more throughput would also be at stake. Thus legislation favours the second option where the internal equipment of interlocking stations would be replaced by new electronic ETCS desks before switching the network to ETCS Level 2. However the current railway equipment manufacturers did not provide enough technology options at the time of the report to start it off. So the plan would be to run feasibility studies until 2019 with a projected start of changeover set to 2025. A rough estimate indicates that the switch to ETCS Level 2 could be completed within 13 years from that point and it would cost about 6.1 billion Swiss Franc (US$ 6.19 billion). For comparison, SBB indicated that the maintenance of lineside signals would also cost about 6.5 billion Swiss Franc (US$ 6.6 billion) which however can be razed once Level 2 is effective.[34]

The Swiss findings influenced the German project "Digitale Schiene" (digital rail). It is estimated that 80% of the rail network can be operated by GSM-R without lineside signals. This will bring about 20% more trains that can be operated in the country. The project was unveiled in January 2018 and it will start off with a feasibility study on electronic interlocking stations that should show a transition plan by mid 2018. The 1450 km Rhine Corridor shall be rebuilt to ETCS by 2022 already, and the point of 80% of the network shall be reached by 2030.[35] This is more extensive than earlier plans which focused on ETCS Level 1 with Limited Supervision. Effectively, ETCS Level 1 Full Supervision will be skipped in favor of Level 2.
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System#Level_NTC

Here is a translated German page on Digitale Schiene:

"Digital Rail"Bahn relies on radio and more trains
As of: 23.01.2018 15:14

Funk instead of fixed signals: billionaire control technology is supposed to make 400,000 kilometers of cable superfluous and enable 20 percent more train traffic. The technology is already in use between Berlin and Munich.

The railway wants to conduct its trains digitally in 10 to 15 years. This should be able to drive 20 percent more trains on the German rail network. Also signal boxes and points are to be controlled and monitored by radio technology.

A corresponding program named "Digital Rail Germany" has now been presented to railway director Richard Lutz in Berlin. "Rail traffic is becoming more stable, more reliable and thus punctual," said Lutz.

Common standard for Europe
The new control technology is based on the ETCS (European Train Control System), the European safety and security standard that replaces the approximately 20 different signal systems throughout Europe. For new lines ETCS is already mandatory. "This technology makes the approximately 160,000 signals and thus a large part of the 400,000 kilometers of cable superfluous," says Lutz. He promises a "big leap" for the customers.

Already in use is the new technology on the route Berlin-Munich. The new line through the Thuringian Forest has reduced the travel time between the two cities from six hours to 3:55 hours in the Sprinter. However, problems with ETCS, among other things, had slowed down the trains initially because the train had entered data incorrectly.
[...]

https://translate.google.ca/transla...ahn-will-mehr-zugverkehr-101.html&prev=search

Note how much this saves! More discussion when I've further researched this. Suffice to say Verster would address this by stating "If the partner wishes to do it this way, we would assist in any way, with caveats, of course". This is because the "partner" would supply their own stock 'off the shelf' with matching state-of-the-art digital signalling.

"Presto" MD, is exactly what I was thinking for how things not only go wrong, they go wrong geometrically.

Post Edit: Google "Digital Rail Germany" as the tag for a lot more on the above:

Video: the German Digital Rail Strategy explained - Thales

Here's something that answers how Crossrail approaches the challenge of integrating CBTC and ETCS together, part of an extensive article on Crossrail and signalling:

[...]
At Westbourne Park the transition between CBTC and ETCS will take place on the move up to 50mph. If a westbound transition to ETCS level 2 should fail, multiple aspect signalling will still be in place (ETCS is initially provided on GWML as an overlay) enabling Crossrail trains to run on conventional signalling using AWS/TPWS under ‘NTC ‘(National Train Control).

For train builders, delivering compatibility between legacy TPWS and ETCS is challenging. However, UNISIG, the industrial consortium created to develop the ERTMS/ETCS technical specifications, has issued an interface specification for a unit they call a Specific Transmission Module (STM).

The purpose of the STM is to manage the interface between national train protection systems and ETCS to provide seamless train operation. In 2014, Mors Smitt was awarded a contract by Bombardier Rail Control Solutions to install TPWS+STM on the fleet of class 345 Aventra EMUs, providing TPWS/AWS functionality outlined in the latest GE/RT8075 group standard with the STM functionality defined in UNISIG standards. [...]

https://www.railengineer.uk/2016/01/08/signalling-crossrail/

I get the distinct impression the answers are already out there, and when Metrolinx is ready to electrify, these will be "off the shelf".

 

[mdrejhon]

The onus is on as follows:

--> Risk mitigation. Metrolinx should not automatically bailout a failed/problematic/costoverran signalling system upgrade by private company
--> Incentives for major upgrades at reasonable cost-per-headway reduction without sacrificing safety.
--> Incentives for maximization of usage of industry standards to keep future costs down, and safety high.

Structure it in a way for good bang-for-dollar.

The good news is the majority of GO is open-air, and a wireless ETCS system is probably a very good idea for GO, with traditional signalling as failback/failsafe upon ETCS failure (e.g. ETCS radio reception loss, ETCS shutdown, etc).

If this could be pulled off economically, with little risk of safety issue and cost overrun, then by all means.

Even ETCS is very new, we should follow industry standards where possible:

Off-the-shelf wireless ETCS (even Level 2) -- combined with off-the-shelf traditional signalling, in a simplified failover sequence (ETCS first, then block signalling). The goal would be strictly keeping it to industry standards, to keep cost down, and absolutely minimizing customization necessary to support the dual standards (e.g. avoiding complex expensive failover programming.).

Picture this, in an ETCS signal loss -- train would automatically brake immediately unless the traditional signal block was definitively confirmed clear. ETCS priority, then if no ETCS, the traditional block signalling. Which would automatically causes PTC to occur if headways are currently tight. Can be automatically and safely achieved via also having simple PTC on the traditional blocks.

Simple interlock, in theory, so that it's a failsafe in both partial and complete ETCS fails (such as ETCS spotty radio reception, ETCS hacking/jamming, or ETCS system outages). But risks becoming complicated with piling on adding obscure requirements.

But ETCS Level 2 and ETCS Level 3 are both /almost/ too new for GO to use right away.

Even if not the Presto approach -- In all likelihood, Metrolinx is actually going to end up paying a private vendor to expedite Europe's ETCS into North America, with any necessary FRA & Transport Canada mandated modifications. Being the first-mover in shoehorning ETCS into North America, will still make us a guinea pig for a lot of future North America commuter train systems. With beta glitches and cost overrun risk -- including cost of modifications due to regulatory requirements.

How much can we risk-mitigate? That's the question.

(Gee, some of these posts should be moved to the PTC / CBTC / ETCS thread instead -- this isn't all exclusively platform height related)

 

[jenglish]

I asked Verster specifically about installing ERTMS/ETCS. He said that his generally prefers sticking with the prevailing standards in the local jurisdiction, but that if it is appropriate, he would consider incorporating European-standard products. Read into that what you will. It may mean that the private partner will play a major role in choosing the signalling system. Since the prequalified private partners are predominantly European, they may want to bring in a European system they're familiar with. Then again, they might not, fearing regulatory complications over here.

The problem is that North America doesn't really have a mainline moving block signalling system. Caltrain is trying--and failing--to invent one. The signalling problem is certainly a complex one, and bringing ERTMS to North America for the first time would not be simple. On the other hand, remembering that developing ERTMS cost billions, creating a new system from scratch will not be simple either.

I do wonder how much sophisticated signalling the private partner, if it is indeed up to them, will decide that GO RER actually requires. GO already has a huge amount of infrastructure and the capability to run trains every fifteen minutes already, at least in one direction. Four trains an hour really isn't very much. Advanced moving-block signalling systems are designed for systems running six times that much or more. Now if they're trying to get down to 5-minute headways or better in the peaks, the need will be more clear. But I really think that most of the ridership growth for RER will be in the off-peak period or direction. GO already has a very good market share for peak commuters to the financial district.

This is why developing a clear service plan--even a timetable--should be literally the first thing that Metrolinx does. Then, once you know what you're going to operate when all is said and done, you can work your way back from there and figure out what infrastructure, signalling, and rolling stock is required.

Fixing operating patterns to provide consistent tracks and eliminate constant crossing moves would also go a long way to add capacity without the need for new infrastructure or even new signalling. For example, every UP Express train has to cross all the Kitchener and Barrie line trains to get to its platform. This has a huge negative effect on capacity. Trouble is, the only solution is either some expensive flyover or moving the UP Express platform to somewhere between the Kitchener/Barrie platforms and the Lakeshore platforms. It's not a difficult fix operationally, but it would require some reconsideration of past decisions. Maybe an overpass could be built from the current UP Express station to a platform a few tracks south, if they really don't want to lose that Skywalk entrance.

One other thing... GO really is currently operating a lot like the LIRR in the US, with big downtown yards to store trains in the midday and turn trains because they will not consider through-running. It's worth noting that literally no major operator in Europe or Japan has a big downtown yard for storing regional trains. It really makes absolutely no sense to store trains on some of the most expensive real estate in the country, rather than at the outer ends of lines. Verster agreed with this in principle But Metrolinx's consistent planning of lines until now with odd numbers of tracks (three tracks through Sheppard West, five tracks through East Harbour) strongly suggests retaining this approach. Maybe that will be reconsidered, but much concrete has already been poured.