[ssiguy2]

Eventually I think you will see GO no longer serving Toronto at all with Union and subway interchanges {ie Bloor West} as the only stations within the city itself.

ST or RER or whatever the hell the call it will basically be a Toronto City "Plus One Station" service. In other words eventually all the current GO corridors will be twinned and grade separated within the City itself and anyone entering or leaving the city except from Union and BloorWest/Kennedy will have to take ST to the next city and then transfer.

As an example Long Branch, Bramalea, Piickering will be the last stations on their lines and all GO trains which will be double-deckers will then travel non-stop to Union. Anyone coming in from past those cities {ie Guelph, Hamilton, Oshawa}, will have to transfer at those last stations on to a ST train and vice versa using th single level EMUs so that the GO and ST trains and service can be easily identified. GO will be strictly a commuter rail service and once it hits those last stops it will fly thru Toronto to Union and ST will handle all other trips in the City.

 

[mdrejhon]

Eventually I think you will see [classic GO trains] no longer serving Toronto at all with Union and subway interchanges {ie Bloor West} as the only stations within the city itself.
[snip]

Very feasible and solves the UPX congestion issue, by easily slotting the nonstop diesel GO expresses between UPX trains (see my previous post). The performance profile of a diesel 12 car bilevel already permits that, at least. That frees up one track per direction for the allstops. Freed from servicing old bilevels, there is more EMU trainset choice freedom as only seven discontinued classic GO stations need to be converted (platform length and platform height) between Weston and Unionville. Metrolinx gains full EMU flexibility of choice.

Regardless of what branding they may use, they might still incorporate GO in the names (e.g. GO Express and GO RER), you're right about what may happen -- the bilevels may discontinue servicing the 416 stations. Then the trains & platforms within 416 can easily be modified to adapt to each other.

Another method is to use France's method that allows random-ish service plans -- by having dotmatrix boards or videoboards (at stations) that is simply a list of upcoming stations with checkmarks next to serviced stations (unmarked stations are bypassed by the upcoming/arrived train). That way, you know which train to get on or not. So in theory, different trains could have random station-stop schedules, and people would know which train to catch. However, in practice, there's several different types of trains that has different station runs (and spurs). A SmartTrack train can show it plans to run the Bramalea spur, or the Eglinton spur (every other train), or show that there are peak-period SmartTrack trains that skips certain stations.

Since electricifation terminus will eventually migrate outwards from Bramalea towards Kitchener, and the use of the same kind of trainsets SmartTrack uses, they may eventually need to to run the SmartTrack trainsets semi-express eventually on the Bramalea (now-turned-Kitchener) routing. So they may use France-style electronic checkmarked station lists permitting random-ish service plans on same trainsets to be reasonably intuitive. And a lot of us use transit apps so we can know how frequent our destination station is serviced.

But yes, they could run distinct services with distinct trains, and that is possibly what will happen for now. On the other hand, this is not what France does with their RER (the acronym that Metrolinx is essentially copycatting, of their inspiration).

 

[mdrejhon]

Metrolinx and GO has started using this specific EMU artwork when showing off GO RER on the SmartTrack routing.
This could, potentially, be your SmartTrack train.

(attachment by makingtracks1950)

Even if not the actual train chosen, and defintely more a 10 year plan rather than 5, it is similiar to the existing bilevel used in Germany (look at the window pattern!), so it is a pictogram of an actual train in service. This would meet capacity needs by fully replacing classic GO with SmartTrack trains (even sans Eglinton spur) in a merged GO RER trainset. Classic 12 car GOtrains can just go express to Bramalea, freeing up 7 discontinued GO platforms to be modified to be compatible solely to these trains.

The pictogram is the Stadler KISS. The floor height is 17 inch and hugs a platform edge very tightly, allowing near gapless boarding at existing GO low platform stations (one step upwards) or level boarding when the GO platform is raised a few inches. I believe Stadler KISS is currently a strong favourite within Metrolinx, apparently, because of its compatibility with existing low platform stations while allowing stations to be upgradeable to level boarding piecemeal. The question boils down to the politics of buying foreign trains, as well as getting Transport Canada to agree to this train - but now that Metrolinx owns the rail that GO RER runs over, Transport Canada may agree to exceptions that prevent Stadler KISS from currently being used on Toronto railtrack.

There are other candidate trains, but Stadler KISS (if allowed by Transport Canada) is a great compromise for replacing classic GO trains as it checks most Metrolinx desired "checkboxes":

- Compatible with existing GO platform height with no level change
- Accelerates fast like a subway train, freeing berths quicker.
- Level boarding upon raising platform height
- Four stairs for double file at each door, twice as many as current GO.
- One of the faster-boarding blilevels on the market.
- Cheap optional gradual platform height conversion (only 150 meters raised only less than 10 inches) preserving existing station buildings (with anither step added and 9 foot ceiling reduced to 8.3 foot)
- Tiny subway-small gap
- Big enough to allow classic GO trains to be discontinued someday on is route (reassign them to expanding other routes)
- All cars accessible (upon platform raising) without needing staff to put a ramp out
- No need to hire additional accessibility staff for new trainsets
- Decent maximum speed (160kph) for flexibility
- EMU model capable of headways as tight as 3 minute (given suitable corridor signalling system)
- Slottable between UPX trains on same track, even when doing all stops (due to acceleration performance and higher max speed than UPX)

This consequently makes Stadler KISS a great choice for GO RER SmartTrack, providing a route to eventually completely discontinuing classic GO trains from the urban segment (confining them to the Georgetown corridor passing tracks). They need every diesel for a long time as the GO expansion will consume all the trains currently on order, even when eliminating them from Kitchener-Stoufville and reassigning to other routes.

Coincidentally, if they choose these specific trains, I am correct in my prediction Metrolinx is choosing 150 meter EMU RER trains, because the Stadler KISS is a 150 meter long integrated EMU trainset. Running near-subway-like frequencies with these trains (15min offpeak, 7.5 min peak) will move more people than half-hourly 12-car 300 meter trains, so this is not a bad compromise, if they do, in fact, use this train as the SmartTrack train. Thse trains are capable of subway-like headways (3 minutes) on a modernized corridor, so I am using 7.5 minutes as a guesstimate due to Bloor and USRC bottlenecks, but these train performances easily slot between UPX trains.

Not surprising at all. EMUs, by necessity, is an obvious nobrainer on the SmartTrack routing, for those who understand sheer corridor efficiency is required to share all the planned future services in the Georgetown corridor (SmartTrack+RER, UPX, HSR, GO expresses to beyond Pearson)

As you can see, I may be very well right on my SmartTrack prediction (150 meter EMUs).

(photo from Wikipedia)

 

[gweed123]

Metrolinx and GO has started using this specific EMU artwork when showing off GO RER on the SmartTrack routing.
This could, potentially, be your SmartTrack train.

Good pickup! And yes, I agree 100% with your posting. Using that EMU for both GO RER and SmartTrack (905 + 416 & 416-centric, respectively) would make a tonne of sense. I have never rode one of those trains though. How is the passenger flow inside them? Does it allow for relatively quick boarding and exiting? Higher frequencies will require smaller dwell times. I'm just hoping these vehicles can meet those requirements.

 

[mdrejhon]

Goos question. They are capable of subway-short dwell times. They easily allow level accessible boarding with no accessibility staff or ramp like today's train. The level boarding will speed up entry/exit of poeple, especially older poeple, and the performance envelope of this train apparently is good enough to allow it to do all stops while slotted between UPX trains, if push came to shove.

From peeking at the train performance of UPX versus Stadler KISS, and assuming occasional faster between-station speed to catch up in its slot behind UPX, it does look like you can safely slot one allstop SmartTrack Stadler KISS every 15 minutes right after a UPX train departs. Maybe two, but it all depends on the corridor bottlencks, USRC resignslling, maximum speed of certain stretches. UPX does have a small margin built into it, otherwise it would have been doing 20-22 minutes.

It is wholly conceivable they will instead intersperse the 12car diesel expresses (nonstop to Bramalea) between UPX instead, and dedicate a track solely to these trains for maximum level-platform-edge-hugging capability and subway-like frequences (5min even, if they manage to pull off such throughput after the planned USRC resignalling and Bloor rejigging from 4 track to 6 track, enroaching into part of the land west of railpath as shown in Google Maps overlay of the eastmost sixth Bloor track (which does not exist yet).

But with this trainset, can easily go either way, and thus provide maximum flexibility during train reroutes, if the corridor is on-the-fly switchable between the above two modes of operation, permitting a shut-down track or station situation without always slowing down service. It truly simplifies operations for Metrolinx to have such a flexible EMU performance envelope like this, to maintain on-time service with multiple different track assignment plans.

 

[gweed123]

Goos question. They are capable of subway-short dwell times. They easily allow level accessible boarding with no accessibility staff or ramp like today's train. The level boarding will speed up entry/exit of poeple, especially older poeple, and the performance envelope of this train apparently is good enough to allow it to do all stops while slotted between UPX trains, if push came to shove.

From peeking at the train performance of UPX versus Stadler KISS, and assuming occasional faster between-station speed to catch up in its slot behind UPX, it does look like you can safely slot one allstop SmartTrack Stadler KISS every 15 minutes right after a UPX train departs. Maybe two, but it all depends on the corridor bottlencks, USRC resignslling, maximum speed of certain stretches. UPX does have a small margin built into it, otherwise it would have been doing 20-22 minutes.

It is wholly conceivable they will instead intersperse the 12car diesel expresses (nonstop to Bramalea) between UPX instead, and dedicate a track solely to these trains for maximum level-platform-edge-hugging capability and subway-like frequences (5min even, if they manage to pull off such throughput after the planned USRC resignalling and Bloor rejigging from 4 track to 6 track, enroaching into part of the land west of railpath as shown in Google Maps overlay of the eastmost sixth Bloor track (which does not exist yet).

But with this trainset, can easily go either way, and thus provide maximum flexibility during train reroutes, if the corridor is on-the-fly switchable between the above two modes of operation, permitting a shut-down track or station situation without always slowing down service. It truly simplifies operations for Metrolinx to have such a flexible EMU performance envelope like this, to maintain on-time service with multiple different track assignment plans.

Thanks for the clarification! That's certainly good news, as I know there's a pretty substantial bottleneck at doors to board and exit GO trains, especially at Union. Hopefully at Union they can use the tracks where there is a platform on either side, to allow for entering on one and exiting on another. Other GO stations shouldn't be such a big deal, but Union is the big one.

As for track configuration, I would think that having 2 dedicated GO RER tracks would make the most sense, with UPX, GO diesel, and VIA sharing the remaining tracks. This will become especially crucial if more GO RER services (Milton, a branch to Woodbridge, SmartTrack/GO RER Toronto, etc) start getting layered on top of the planned Bramalea service.

 

[ssiguy2]

I think using double-decker trains for ST would be a mistake.

People from the 905 getting downtown will use GO as they will be express trains and hence people will go to either level of the train. When the stations are more closely spaced {ie every 2 or 3 km like ST} people will be far more hesitant to go the the second floor because people are primarily lazy. With more frequent service and more stations people will probably stay on the main boarding level to be close to the doors at their station and save the bother of having to go to the upper deck only to come back down in 10 minutes. This will result in packed lower levels and little used upper levels. It will also result in more difficult boarding/unboarding.

I know this sounds odd but it happens all the time. Look at the subways, people will continue to stand even if there are seats if they are only going a couple stations rather than going to the bother of sitting down. This is especially true with students with napsaks. Look at all the people who pack a bus but there is tons of room at the back but everyone wants to stay near the doors. How many times have you heard the bus driver say "move to the back of the bus"? Also people are always late running to the exits and you will have people running down the stairs screaming to somebody to hold the doors. Again this would be an issue on a double decker ST system.

Also on D-D GO trains traffic on the trains stairs only goes one way---up. Because nearly everyone gets off at the same station you have little up/down traffic on the stairs whereas with a ST system it would be a problem even with a lightly used second level.

On commuter rail where literally 95% of all the patrons are getting off at one station, it doesn't make a hoot of difference but on a more frequent stop system D-D can really slow things down. For ST they should go strictly with single level trains which would also make them easier to differniat between ST and GO service.

 

[mdrejhon]

The Stadler KISS EMU bilevel trainset has a reputation for being a VERY fast boarding bilevel even with large crowds. With level boarding and four sets of stairs per train car, it's very easy to go upstairs. There's a separate set of stairs for each door set on both sides of the train, so you don't have the slowdown like today's GO trains which only has two sets of stairs.

There are no seats near the stairs on the midlevel, so both sides of the midlevel is used for stairs, allowing double-file to go upstairs/downstairs. Instead of single-file like today's GO trains. And huge midlevel landing area that easy for doublefile flow. Due to this, combined with level boarding, crowd boarding speed per coach is apparently roughly twice the current GO trainsets. It is rather impressive.

One drawback is fewer seats per coach, due to the large gaping standing room area at the midlevel for faster embark/disembark, but this is a tradeoff for a SmartTrack style routing. There is more standing room per coach than current GO to make up for fewer seats. And if really need more peak capacity, in theory they can work with the manufacturer to chain two of these trainsets for a 300 meter 12-car pretty competitive in capacity (seated+standee) to current trains.

Sincle levels may be more feasible, but this bilevel EMU seems to be good compromise fit for merging GO RER and SmartTrack requirements into a single trainset compatible with planned Georgetown corridor services.

 

[gweed123]

The Stadler KISS EMU bilevel trainset has a reputation for being a VERY fast boarding bilevel even with large crowds. With level boarding and four sets of stairs per train, it's very easy to go upstairs. There's a separate set of stairs for each door set on both sides of the train, so you don't have the slowdown like today's GO trains which only has two sets of stairs.

There are no seats near the stairs on the midlevel, so both sides of the midlevel is used for stairs, allowing double-file to go upstairs instead of single-file like today's GO trains. Due to this, combined with level boarding, crowd boarding speed per coach is apparently roughly twice the current GO trainsets. It is rather impressive.

One drawback is fewer seats per coach, due to the large gaping standing room area at the midlevel for faster embark/disembark, but this is a tradeoff for a SmartTrack style routing. There is more standing room per coach than current GO to make up for fewer seats. And if really need more peak capacity, in theory they can work with the manufacturer to chain two of these trainsets for a 300 meter 12-car.

Thanks for the clarification. This does seem like the ideal hybrid between the current GO layout and the current TTC subway layout. Easier flow within the car, but still comfortable and relatively sheltered seating areas for longer trips.

 

[mdrejhon]

There is a magic that happens in Europe when this train stops at busy stations with level platforms on both sides. Because of separate stairs for each side, the stairs can go bidirectional when stopping spanish solution style; one side doors open first and people immediately notice and naturally move to the side of faster flowing stairs at the spanish solution station, as there is lots of room at midlevel and low level to go around people. Second-time commuters know not to bother fighting the wrong flow direction, so the "upstairs" direction is vacated by the time the embark doors open, making it immediately abailable to the embarking passengers. Within mere moments of flow discovery, it quickly stablizes and normalizes to a fast bidirectional flow with people quickly going upstairs and downstairs at the same time.

It is rather impressive how much faster the bilevel embark/disembark is on the Stadler KISS when you see it happen in Europe. It darn near subway speed boarding when you witness it. The large open midlevel floor landing make it easy to go bidirectional and herds people away from crowding the low floor. For a bilevel, Stadler KISS is very spanish solution friendly. Metrolinx already uses the spanish solution on a lot of peak GO trains, opening one doors at a time and advertise only one embarkation platform (e.g. 25 instead of 25/26) to speed things up, but this train will speed things up at Union even more too. Twice as fast as a 520pm crush GO train at Union. (unless things are in the way, like multiple bikes or wheelchairs, or ultra Yonge subway style crush capacity, inside train, then things do slow down a lot anyway, no matter the train...)

It is almost as if Metrolinx staff actually visited Europe and witnessed several trains in action, and chose the ideally preferred model. Good bilevel choice if SmartTrack must be bilevel. Obviously they will need to take multiple bids, but few meet the Metrolinx bullet list nearly as well as the Stadler KISS model does.

 

[mdrejhon]

Regarding the FRA rules, and running non-FRA trains, it is apparently doable due to the Metrolinx ownership of the entire SmartTrack corridor, and reassignment of specific SmartTrack trackage away from heavy rail use. 99 percent can be completely physically separated from classic GO/VIA trackage within the Georgetown corridor and the megaproject to expand Stoufville corridor. Two tracks at Union would need to be permanently dedicated to lighter rail use such as SmartTrack. For the contentious 1% subject to FRA type rules, Transport Canada waivers (precedents exist) will be needed for some crossovers.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showth...ad-(including-extensions)?p=997327#post997327

 

[ehlow]

The wikipedia page for UPX says that those DMU trains are "FRA Tier 1 compliant".

Can't RER just use similar trains, but longer (more cars) and electric? The UPX trains don't look very sleek, but they seem like they would do the job, if higher capacity.

 

[gweed123]

The wikipedia page for UPX says that those DMU trains are "FRA Tier 1 compliant".

Can't RER just use similar trains, but longer (more cars) and electric? The UPX trains don't look very sleek, but they seem like they would do the job, if higher capacity.

The interiors would need to be completely modified for an RER type of use. Right now the insides look more like a VIA train than a GO train or a TTC subway train. Using those trains would also require a migration over to high platforms.

 

[robmausser]

I think using double-decker trains for ST would be a mistake.

People from the 905 getting downtown will use GO as they will be express trains and hence people will go to either level of the train. When the stations are more closely spaced {ie every 2 or 3 km like ST} people will be far more hesitant to go the the second floor because people are primarily lazy. With more frequent service and more stations people will probably stay on the main boarding level to be close to the doors at their station and save the bother of having to go to the upper deck only to come back down in 10 minutes. This will result in packed lower levels and little used upper levels. It will also result in more difficult boarding/unboarding.

I know this sounds odd but it happens all the time. Look at the subways, people will continue to stand even if there are seats if they are only going a couple stations rather than going to the bother of sitting down. This is especially true with students with napsaks. Look at all the people who pack a bus but there is tons of room at the back but everyone wants to stay near the doors. How many times have you heard the bus driver say "move to the back of the bus"? Also people are always late running to the exits and you will have people running down the stairs screaming to somebody to hold the doors. Again this would be an issue on a double decker ST system.

Also on D-D GO trains traffic on the trains stairs only goes one way---up. Because nearly everyone gets off at the same station you have little up/down traffic on the stairs whereas with a ST system it would be a problem even with a lightly used second level.

On commuter rail where literally 95% of all the patrons are getting off at one station, it doesn't make a hoot of difference but on a more frequent stop system D-D can really slow things down. For ST they should go strictly with single level trains which would also make them easier to differniat between ST and GO service.

Completely agree. I think that Stadler FLIRT would be a much better option.

You can order them 6 car lengths long

Which I think would be enough for better than 15 minutes headways, especially when we will still be using the Bi-Levels to the outer regions.

Plus if you REALLY needed more seating you could couple 2 together to make a 12 car length: we have the platform space, might as well use it.

Ontop of that they should really simply be increasing headways instead of making bigger trains: the idea of RER is more trains per minute, not larger big trains less frequently.

Thats the model we are trying to get away from.

 

[mdrejhon]

That's another nice single-level train, and single level probably could even be made to work especially if a service plans come up that allows the bilevels to continue to handle peak overflow easily. Even the Bombardier non-FRA European stuff could be in contending, too, if we had to politically buy something Canadian to buy a non-FRA favour.

The Toronto commuter train system is relatively exceptional and relatively unique in North America in that it now simultaneously owns virtually everything; track ownership, corridor land ownership, station ownership, train control ownership, and some trackage they own is no longer used by freight (making it feasible to restrict some of the tracks in their network permanently only to their own trains). With 13.5 billion dollars and a bit of Metrolinx lobbying, I'm pretty sure they can eventually pull off a non-FRA trainset for at least one GO RER route, one way or another. A lot of those European trains are excellent candidates if some arm-twisting happens with FRA regulations, which doesn't necessarily have to apply anymore in Metrolinxs' exceptionally enviable situation. There are freight running rights on some tracks that Metrolinx owns, but not all of the tracks on, and freight running rights aren't even available on all Metrolinx corridors (except by special exception). Near-complete segregation of some GO corridors away from the network freight trains runs on, is getting more and more feasible with the work Metrolinx has been doing. Assuming 100% of the GO RER network becomes fully grade separated, there's not even Transport Canada or FRA rules on surface crossings, either. Even FRA itself has been changing in the last ten years, granting more exemptions than they used to, and lightening some regs to permit new kinds of trains. There was a time where UPX would have been non-FRA, for example! The regulatory climate will be even more different in another ten years.

Many North American commuter routes can only envy/dream of what GO/Metrolinx has accomplished to today, a lot of them being forced to run on freight railroads and non-owned corridors, or forced to share their track with other railroad use. Upon GO RER, we have a more integrated rail system (ownership+operations) than both Chicago and New York commuter rail (even if we don't move as many people as they do). Within a few years, there is probably enough power for Metrolinx to lobby for re-designation of some of their heavy rail corridors away from now-unnecessary and onerous heavy rail regulations to allow the ability to run non-FRA commuter trains. Even moreso likely especially with a supportive federal government aligned with the Ontario government.

If GTHA pulls this off successfully, and I believe they have a chance, this sets a major precedent for North America for the introduction of European-style commuter rail systems, later this century, that behave far more like a subway than a traditional intercity train.