[Platform 27]

will the station at union only have one platform?

No, it will have 25 platforms.

There's nothing stopping arriving trains dropping of passengers on any platform. Or departing really, though I assume departing trains and most arriving trains will be off a single platform.

I think jimmy's talking about UP's station-in-a-station at Union, which will AFAIK be a single platform.

Mainline EMUs and DMUs generally come with high floors, while Union's "regular" platforms in the train shed are low. While I suppose you could theoretically load and offload them from the regular platforms in the train shed, that wouldn't meet accessibility rules, nor would it be particularly convenient for folks with luggage.

Besides, dating right back to Blue 22 the plan was to keep the service out of Union proper to avoid having a mini-train consume a full track slot that could be better used by a 12-car GO monster.

 

[drum118]

I think jimmy's talking about UP's station-in-a-station at Union, which will AFAIK be a single platform.

Mainline EMUs and DMUs generally come with high floors, while Union's "regular" platforms in the train shed are low. While I suppose you could theoretically load and offload them from the regular platforms in the train shed, that wouldn't meet accessibility rules, nor would it be particularly convenient for folks with luggage.

Besides, dating right back to Blue 22 the plan was to keep the service out of Union proper to avoid having a mini-train consume a full track slot that could be better used by a 12-car GO monster.

You can get EMU and DMU that are lowfloor as I saw them and rode them last year.

 

[nfitz]

I think jimmy's talking about UP's station-in-a-station at Union, which will AFAIK be a single platform.

Mainline EMUs and DMUs generally come with high floors, while Union's "regular" platforms in the train shed are low. While I suppose you could theoretically load and offload them from the regular platforms in the train shed, that wouldn't meet accessibility rules, nor would it be particularly convenient for folks with luggage.

Ah yes ... I forgot that Metrolinx had cocked things up completely by not ordering low-flow DMUs. That would then restrict them to the UPX platform ... though presumably they will have some scheme with stairs and lifts on standby for rare occasions when they can't use the UPX platform.

 

[M II A II R II K]

They could at least give airport workers a free pass so they can get to work on it.

 

[TOareaFan]

They could at least give airport workers a free pass so they can get to work on it.

Sure....they could also give everybody a free GO or TTC pass for their trips to work

 

[jimmy3]

thanks for the response!
I guess the line will be tied to needing unique rolling stock for its lifespan then

 

[Markster]

thanks for the response!
I guess the line will be tied to needing unique rolling stock for its lifespan then

Just think of it as the first baby step towards a conversion of the Georgetown corridor to high-floor EMU rapid transit!

 

[Platform 27]

You can get EMU and DMU that are lowfloor as I saw them and rode them last year.

I said generally. I'm aware there are partial-low-floor MUs operating in Europe, but as far as I know nobody is currently making an FRA-spec low floor MU.

 

[mpd618]

I said generally. I'm aware there are partial-low-floor MUs operating in Europe, but as far as I know nobody is currently making an FRA-spec low floor MU.

I don't know if Transport Canada will follow suit (I would hope so), but the FRA looks set to soon allow pretty much European-spec passenger trains.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Interesting how PTC is, or was suppose to be implementation at the same time. I wonder if one is dependent on the other.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Thanks for the photo update.

Man is the viaduct ever currrr-vy and those aren't even the tightest turns. Maximum speed is going to be quite slow on that, I'd estimate 30mph.

I would have preferred this option;

1. Use of existing industrial spur connection to the mainline, the switches and track alinement would of course need significant upgrading.
2. Two industrial facilities would be cut in half, they may have been able to continue operations on smaller portions of land. One is an oversized storage yard for Ipex Inc the other Gazzola Paving Limited. May have required expropriation.
3. Gentle high speed curve along undeveloped land.
4. A City of Toronto Winter maintenance depot located here would need to be relocated.
5. Most expensive potion, Disco road would be grade separated with an overpass followed by 6 new bridge structures for the 427-409 interchange. The track however would remain at almost the same elevation, and trains would be able to operated at a high speed as the 427-409 interchange is already at an elevated level.
6. The UPX would continue at ground level along side unused parking lots.
7. The UPX would only now begin to elevate in order to clear Viscount Rd and further onto the airport. Access road to the parking structure would of been relocated to south side.
8. UPX trains finally slow down for the final curve into the Airport station. This path would have required the removal /rebuild of the Airport people mover.
9. UPX continues along an elevated viaduct at a much lower level then the actual one above Dixon and airport access roads.
10. UPX continues next to the T3 parking garage and then follows that of the existing people mover using most of its existing columns.
11. UPX terminates where the Airport people mover station for terminal 2 currently exists.

In all, travel times could have been cut by 3-4 mins from the currently projected 25 min since the almost 2 mile long/3km viaduct will be the slowest part of the trip (the slow trip through the Union Station Rail Corridor is at least only a little over 1 mile long). Likely would of been more expensive option and probably would have required the elimination/rebuild of the people mover as well as some expropriation. But I'm curious if they even considered such an option.

Anyhow, whats done is done.

That's quite a bit of land expropriation/property division. I bet if they did a cost benefit analysis on that route they would find the extra cost of all that work would make the project financial unfeasible.

 

[ssiguy2]

That's quite a bit of land expropriation/property division. I bet if they did a cost benefit analysis on that route they would find the extra cost of all that work would make the project financial unfeasible.

With the incredibly low ridership this line is expected to have, this line is already financially unfeasible but little things like that has never gotten in Metrolinx's way when it comes to building lines built on politics and not on the needs of the citizens to actually have a rapid transit connection to it's airport that everyone can take.

Also any answers to my question about the difference in cost if this hade used standard heavy rail as opposed to the current diesel trains?

 

[TOareaFan]

With the incredibly low ridership this line is expected to have, this line is already financially unfeasible

Is it? Your post made me recall a discussion I had on here a while back with someone calling it a "white elephant"....their claim (which I don't agree with) is that the trains will run 80% empty on average. I think, over time, it will exceed that level of ridership but it led me to write this in response:

...while I don't begrudge you your opinion, I wonder what that projection of 80% empty is based on? ......

That said, if 25,920 seats every day are only, on average, 80% used that still translates to 1,555,200 riders per year. So, even with that (IMO) overly pessimistic ridership projection and using your earlier cost estimate of $47,304,000 ($900 per train trip) if those riders were charge $25 per trip you would still see revenue of just shy of $39 million and a cost recovery ratio of 82%.

So is that a white elephant? A line that recovers 80% of its cost?

Look at it another way......if your cost estimate is correct, and the fare is $25 and absolutely no one used this train on the weekend (unlikely)...that would leave 260 days of M-F trips......to break even on those costs the trains would need to run at 28% capacity on those M-F trips......does that seem like a totally unreasonable number?

Like you, I actually have no idea what the actual numbers will be but (again making a lot of assumptions) a line that breaks even just with 28% of its seats filled 71% of the time seems like a long way from a white elephant....or am i missing something?

 

[Platform 27]

Also any answers to my question about the difference in cost if this hade used standard heavy rail as opposed to the current diesel trains?

By "heavy rail" do you mean traditional Toronto subway stock?

 

[smably]

TPA notice for Union-Pearson electrification:
http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.ne...ement_UP_Express_Electrification_EA_Final.pdf