News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

Trains coming every 15 mins isn't a metro.

While I don't disagree, some cities will be disappointed to learn the train they ride everyday and refer to as a metro isn't a metro.

Especially if that cut-off goes down to 12 minute frequencies; that would remove half the lines in the USA from that label including chunks of the MTA.
 
Last edited:
While I don't disagree, some cities will be disappointed to learn the train they ride everyday and refer to as a metro isn't a metro.

Especially if that cut-off goes down to 12 minute frequencies; that would remove half the lines in the USA from that label including chunks of the MTA.
Yeah...the term "metro" is very nebulous, and means a different thing in Europe and the East from what it does in North Am, but once "frequent running" is achieved (every 15 mins or less) then the physical terms of a 'metro' apply:
What do you mean by Metro train?
A premetro design means that an underground rapid transit system is built in the city center, but only a light rail or tram system in the suburbs. Conversely, other cities have opted to build a full metro in the suburbs, but run trams in city streets to save the cost of expensive tunnels.
[...]
Metro is the most common term for underground rapid transit systems used by non-native English speakers.[12] Rapid transit systems may be named after the medium by which passengers travel in busy central business districts; the use of tunnels inspires names such as subway,[13] underground,[14] Untergrundbahn (U-Bahn) in German,[15] or the Tunnelbana (T-bana) in Swedish;[16] the use of viaducts inspires names such as elevated (el or L), skytrain,[17] overhead, overground or Hochbahn in German. One of these terms may apply to an entire system, even if a large part of the network (for example, in outer suburbs) runs at ground level.

In most of Britain, a subway is a pedestrian underpass; the terms Underground and Tube are used for the London Underground, and the North East England Tyne and Wear Metro, mostly overground, is known as the Metro. In Scotland, however, the Glasgow Subway underground rapid transit system is known as the Subway. In most of North America, underground mass transit systems are primarily known as subways, whereas the term metro is a shortened reference to a metropolitan area. In that vein, Chicago's commuter rail system, serving the metropolitan area, is called Metra. Exceptions in naming rapid transit systems are the Washington Metro, Los Angeles Metro Rail, the Miami Metrorail, and the Montreal Metro, which are generally called the Metro.[18]
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit

"Metro" *generally* refers to a slightly lighter vehicle than used in many/most 'subways', roughly the same size and vehicle configuration, (number of doors and both sides), often catenary powered, and running at an interval of 15 mins or less. Almost always they are high-platform. They are also considerably cheaper than the equivalent subway vehicles, slightly more efficient due to the powering arrangement and lower mass, and often capable of a higher running speed than typical subway vehicles.

The best indication of what constitutes a 'metro' vehicle is to see what manufacturers call that.
https://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/rail-vehicles.html
http://www.alstom.com/products-services/product-catalogue/rail-systems/trains/products/metropolis/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Modular_Metro#/media/File:SiemensFrankston.jpg
 
At 15 minutes headway, 50% of riders will wait 7.5 minutes or less (assuming even distribution of arrivals). Pare the headways to 12 minutes, and 75% will wait 9 minutes or less. Put a couple of commercial services in the stations, even just an ATM - and washrooms, of course - and the wait may be time gained. Certainly better than the bus up the street that I rely on (and am happy with) today.
A transit line does not need to reach the level of block-on-block, ATO critical headways to be marketable and desirable. We need to begin from the ridership projections at different headways to see what is optimal. And what the various levels of headway might cost.
I recall that when ST was first studied by the City, at some headway level the projected ridership soared. I would like to understand better how that works in the context of RER.
Those who advocate for x<five minute RER or nothing (and then call for a single level railcar with multiple door openings) are in their own way chanting 'subways, subways, subways'. I would like to see a more scalable analysis to understand what a less than subway level service might offer.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Those who advocate for x<five minute RER or nothing (and then call for a single level railcar with multiple door openings) are in their own way chanting 'subways, subways, subways'. I would like to see a more scalable analysis to understand what a less than subway level service might offer.
In case you mean Verster, Metrolinx' new CEO, here is what he states:
According to Verster, the proposed system would still be somewhat different from German S-Bahn or French RER systems, but it would share most of their essential characteristics. GO RER lines would be more like a subway, rather than the limited commuter services they are today.
[...]
Union Station has nine access tracks from the west, and room for nine tracks from the east—more track capacity than all of the Paris RER lines combined (they move more than 13 times as many people as GO). Modernizing Union would provide all the capacity that could foreseeably be required, without the need for major new infrastructure.
[...]
Additionally, he discussed plans to raise platforms to be level with the train doors, citing a statistic that level boarding results in a 90 percent decrease in boarding-related safety incidents. Level platforms also dramatically speed loading and unloading along the whole line. With level boarding, “you have much more operation flexibility and much speedier dwell times at stations. When you reduce dwell time, you speed up the whole journey. And 30 seconds at a station and ten station stops means five minutes on a journey, which is worth gold.”
[...]
In effect, GO RER would mimic overseas regional rail systems, with trains running from one side of the region to the other through downtown along dedicated track paths, which Verster says would “greatly add to our capacity through the corridor.” This problem, and possible solutions, was discussed in greater detail in an earlier article.
[...]
If GO RER is to be a real part of the city’s rapid transit system, as Verster clearly aspires, governments must make the operating funding available to enable a free transfer from a TTC bus to RER, just as it is from TTC bus to subway.

Verster explained that GO RER will be developed as a public-private design-build-finance-operate-maintain partnership, rather than Metrolinx developing the expertise in-house. The private partner consortium that will be building and operating the RER system will make many of the key decisions, particularly on technology and the trains themselves. “We are turning to the market and we’re being very flexible in terms of what the market can offer us on RER,” he said, “to build a network, to build a fleet, and to build a service formula that require our timetable commitments.”

One of the key questions for RER is the trains themselves. Today, GO operates an exclusive fleet of diesel-locomotive-hauled bilevel cars. Most international regional rail operations use electric multiple units (EMUs), owing to their rapid acceleration and braking, which shortens journeys and enables trains to run more closely together. Verster explained that EMUs also offer far more flexibility in terms of shortening trains to match capacity to demand in off-peak periods. There are significant performance differences between EMUs and the current bilevel trains, even if the latter are hauled by electric locomotives. Mixing trains that have different performance adds complexity to signalling and infrastructure planning. Infrastructure designed for vehicles with limited performance (freight trains are also a problem in this regard) is considerably more expensive than infrastructure designed exclusively for high-performance EMUs. However, as Verster explained, it would likely be cost-prohibitive to entirely replace GO’s enormous fleet of 1,000 bilevel cars. He did leave open the possibility of a different approach, since the final decision on the fleet composition will be in the hands of Metrolinx’s private partner.
[...]
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? Most important, however, is a question that can only be answered by governments: can a fare structure be developed so that transferring from bus to RER is as simple and costless as transferring from TTC bus to subway is today, so that the RER can truly become a rapid transit backbone for the region?
[...]
http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/02/union-station-and-go-rer-metrolinxs-phil-verster-future
 
Trains coming much sooner than every 15 mins would be the case on some lines. Don't overlook the possibility (and this is already done in Europe and elsewhere) of metro vehicles and LRVs sharing the same track for the inner areas with more demand for frequent service.

London's Crossrail will have a train every two and a half minutes through the core, but less on the various branches feeding into the central tunnel, and some running on a less frequent schedule on the outer branches.
but (since these points are made consecutively) Crossrail isn't an example of mixing mainline and non mainline stock, correct?
 
but (since these points are made consecutively) Crossrail isn't an example of mixing mainline and non mainline stock, correct?
Crossrail is very much an RER and though the rail and loading gauge are the same, signalling is very different, and any mainline train that uses Crossrail in tunnel must have all compatible signal systems onboard. I'll find a link to add later on that. Crossrail trains (Type 345, for instance, are seated like subway vehicles, and don't have toilets) are multi-equipped for signal systems. http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/new-trains/

Meantime:
London’s cross-city line follows the RER model
13 Mar 2009

CROSS-CITY: Many enhancements have been made to RER Line A since it was completed across the centre of Paris in 1977. Now carrying more than 60 000 passengers/h on each track, it offers similarities to London’s Crossrail project, making a comparison particularly instructive.

Andrew Boagey, Business Director, Northern Europe, SystraMarc Genain, Project Director, Systra[...]
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...Ms-cross-city-line-follows-the-rer-model.html

Addendum:
ETCS & CBTC Interfaces – Crossrail Signalling - Network Rail ...
https://www.networkrailconsulting.com/news-and...crossrail-signalling/download
ETCS & CBTC Interfaces – Crossrail Signalling. David Milburn, Technical Head Signalling & Control Systems. Network Rail Consulting (NRC). MENA Conference, December 2015

However: (And here's the lesson that Metrolinx and others must learn!)

New Civil Engineer magazine:
Crossrail 2 to cut signalling systems
10 November, 2017 By Katherine Small
Crossrail 2 is using the lessons learnt from the previous Crossrail and Thameslink projects and will use one signalling system across the entire line.

The new rail line, connecting Broxbourne to the north of London and Epsom, Shepperton and Chessington South in the south and south west of London, will use the European Train Control System (ETCS), even where it transfers onto existing lines.

“The difference between Thameslink, Crossrail and Crossrail 2 is the equipment on the (Crossrail 2) train will effectively only be ETCS but it will recognise the legacy type of signalling,” said Network Rail head of Crossrail 2 Chris Curtis. “Therefore there will only be one computer on the train, not three like the Crossrail trains.”

Crossrail is using a complex combination of three separate signalling systems on board its trains to be able to interface with the systems used on the existing Network Rail sections of the route.

In the north east it will use the Train Protection & Warning System (TPWS), the central section – on its own dedicated tracks – will use Communications-based train control (CBTC) and in the west it will return to TPWS. It is also working to interface with Network Rail’s introduction of the European Train Control System (ETCS) for the digital railway programme.

Crossrail chief executive officer Andrew Wolstenholme highlighted the complex issues which Crossrail is currently facing as it tests the new systems and the integration between them.

“When you introduce new technologies you always have to be cautious,” said Wolstenholme. ”Most of the work we’re doing now is in laboratories, writing the software, testing the software. We have trains at Melton going up and down and testing three levels of signalling software and we have software on the trains themselves. It’s a very complex programme indeed and it’s probably equally as complicated as introducing a new Boeing or Airbus.

“Signalling systems these days don’t reside on the track side, they reside in the train cab and the computing power of the train brain has to be enormous. What’s happening now is the final code is being tested to make sure we can travel across those complex interfaces in a way that passengers find seamless.”

Curtis said the Crossrail 2 project was now learning from the previous projects and implementing the simpler system from the start.

“The key bit from Crossrail and Thameslink is we worked out all of this as we went along,” said Curtis. “On Crossrail 2, we’re using it right from the beginning.

“The intention is that if you make the trains easier to operate then it will be cheaper from a maintenance point of view and there’ll be less risk. It’s early days, but that’s the intention.”
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/te...-2-to-cut-signalling-systems/10025144.article

This is a point many (@jenglish included) have made repeatedly. If the Europeans, who've sunk $Bs into this, are struggling with 'adapting' systems, and the massive costs and compromise that go with it, why in hell would Metrolinx want to embrace "ETCCS", let alone disparate systems with next to nothing in common in terms of actuation and implementation?

Penny wise, Pound foolish. Do a state-of-the-art system when electrifying a line. By other factors, it looks like RER stock, if electrified, won't be running on freight shared routes anyway, (unless freight done temporally and by single warrants) so order the EMUs and the new signalling system at the same time. It might even render wayside signals moot, and actually offer savings over costs.
 
Last edited:
Wait hang on.

You think the word 'Light' has any relation to the vehicle weight?
Roughly, yes, but just like "metro" it means different things in different places, which is just maybe why I used the term "generally".

"Light" used in this terminology almost inevitably means "no freight traffic". Oddly, that's not the case with "heavy rail".

Feel absolutely free to link a definition.
What is the Difference Between
Light and Heavy Rail?

  • LRT vehicles are smaller and slower than subways, but travel faster and carry more passengers than streetcars or buses.
  • Subways are larger and longer – a subway train can hold up to 1500 passengers (in ‘crush’ conditions). An LRT can hold 255 people in each vehicle, and it can be linked into a train of two or more cars.
  • Like a subway, LRT vehicles can be boarded through all doors at ground level, making them wheelchair accessible and reducing loading time.
  • Subways get their power from an electrified rail below the train – this requires larger stations, more infrastructure and safety separation.
  • LRT can run aboveground at street level, like streetcars, however they operate in separate lanes, meaning they are not affected by car and truck traffic.
  • LRT can also run underground, like subways through tunnels to avoid conflicting with roadways.
  • LRT stops are planned to be about 500 metres apart, but closer than subway stops.
 
You think the word 'Light' has any relation to the vehicle weight?

That's the official definition for most of Africa; weight of the fully loaded vehicle. In general, since people weigh less than rocks or oil, passenger transportation is light rail and freight is heavy rail.

The light-rail lines under construction in Lagos are going to run up to 352m long trains, 3.1m wide.

Globally, there are several definitions for what "light" means.
 
That's the official definition for most of Africa; weight of the fully loaded vehicle. In general, since people weigh less than rocks or oil, passenger transportation is light rail and freight is heavy rail.

That may be the case in Africa, but that's certainly not the situation here in North America. The definitions are far more nuanced.

When dealing with transit: "light rail" is used to define a vehicle such as a streetcar or LRV, which can see some on-street running. "Heavy rail" is used to define a vehicle that will generally run on its own private and grade-separated right-of-way, and runs at higher frequencies and with a greater capacity, such as a subway.

But when dealing with the railways, "light rail" is used to define anything which can't run in mixed traffic with other railway equipment, and would need some sort of separation between it and other equipment. In this case a subway is considered "light rail". "Heavy rail" is used to define any piece of equipment which can run in mixed traffic.

In Europe, the lines are even more blurred as there isn't nearly the same level of separation between modes as there are here.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
"Light rail" as we use it was derived in the US. As it becomes more internationalized, it absorbs other nations' terminology. The UK, for instance, (and Canada may also have used this term) licensed what were termed "light railways" historically, but now define "light rail", at least for regulatory purposes:
Light rail and tramways
Light rail is an urban rail transportation system that uses electric-powered rail cars along exclusive rights-of-way at ground level, on aerial structures, in tunnels, or occasionally in streets. The operation is under full signal control and the current UK systems have full automatic train protection.

As the name suggests, the term light refers to operations carried out under a less rigorous set of regulations, using lighter equipment at lower speeds than those used by heavy rail, such as services provided by train operating companies.

A tram system, tramway or tram is a railway on which streetcars or trolleys run. It is typically built at street level, sharing roads with traffic, but may include private rights of way especially in newer light rail systems.

Many older tram systems do not have platforms, which enables integration with other forms of transport and pedestrians making simultaneous use of the streets.
[...]
How do we regulate light rail and tramways?
We have responsibility for health and safety on light rail and tramways. There is no specific safety legislation for these systems. Both infrastructure and rolling stock safety are assessed using the same criteria for heavy rail, but tailored for light weight, lower speed operation. However, there is legislation relating to highways which affects light rail and tramways.

Safety issues on individual systems are normally dealt with by our field inspectors. They are supported by a small team of specialist inspectors with light rail experience who also consider new and modified works proposals.

Key issues
The following are key areas of interest for light rail and tramways:

  • proposals for the application of driver licensing to light rail and tramways;
  • the applicability of European urban transit Directives on interoperability to light rail and tramways;
  • the applicability and relevance of other railway safety initiatives to light rail and tramways;
  • requirements for disabled access to railways, and their application to light rail and tramways;
  • supporting the UKTram industry groups in their work to produce guidance for light rail and tramway systems;
  • research into safety critical issues in light rail and tramways where these differ from mainline railway practice, such as wheel/rail interface; and
  • review of the regulatory regime for light rail and tramways.
The UK is aided, as it is in many nations, by it being a 'national' competence. It is becoming so more in the US, but in Canada it is still strictly provincial unless crossing borders.

Note the emphasis on signalling in many nations, and it being distinct from heavy rail systems.

The term "metro" is not normally defined or delineated in a regulatory framework as such. "Metro" is much more nebulous and applied in many loose ways, but the best way to grasp the common usage internationally is by looking at what the manufacturers themselves call "metro" equipment and rolling stock.
 
The term "metro" is not normally defined or delineated in a regulatory framework as such. "Metro" is much more nebulous and applied in many loose ways, but the best way to grasp the common usage internationally is by looking at what the manufacturers themselves call "metro" equipment and rolling stock.
Arguably, Lakeshore East/West is already a metro, when measured via North American standards. ;)
 
Arguably, Lakeshore East/West is already a metro, when measured via North American standards. ;)

Not quite at 30 minute off-peak frequencies. UPX, however, stands up pretty well to service in Washington, Atlanta (20 minute evenings), many 'L' lines in Chicago (12 minutes isn't unusual; Pink has 20 minute late evening frequencies), BART branch service (core has great frequencies; branches can be 20 minute frequencies), San Diego, some Boston lines (orange/blue hits 12 minutes), Portland MAX (15 minute), Seattle (15 to 24 minute at edge of service periods) and many LA lines.

USA hasn't really embraced public transit.

Of course, if you remove USA cities as a comparable the story is a bit different; Mexico city in particular runs a tight ship.
 
Last edited:
True... That said:

San Diego feels more metrolike at 2pm, but not in the evenings. San Diego runs every 30 minutes after 730pm on many lines, and it stops running at barely after 11pm. Our last GO train departs Union at 12:43am.

And Los Angeles has their Metrolink, which is closer to hourly or peak-only on many routes. So many "metro" named lines that are less convenient than our own Lakeshore East/West.

There's also even some subways with 30-minute late-evening frequencies too.

Albeit not European standards, Toronto does have one of the better commuter train systems anywhere in North America, and GO RER will increase that chasm further. GO RER essentially turns it into a more real metro with 15-min AD2W with higher-frequency for some core stations (e.g. Gerrard)
 
Last edited:
Still wanting in terms of defining the slippery term "metro"...something very necessary for Toronto to come to terms with since Verster is making the distinction of what the *latest* idea is for RER v the earlier one. Verster has his work cut-out for him in selling the 'newer' RER. It won't be as heavy as the present loco-hauled trains, in many ways.

Signalling. platform height and regulatory embrace all play into this. One of the 'advantages' to even the Pendolino trainsets (HFR material) is that they can be uncoupled into two trains with a drive coach leading each half and recoupled without anyone even having to get out of the cab. And "metros" take delight in that being possible.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_rail_terminology
 

Back
Top