reaperexpress said:
I noticed the same thing when I rode UPX in September. It was really bouncy and squeaky, as you can see and hear in the video I took at the time (it gets bad about 30 seconds in):

I have also ridden GO and VIA trains along that stretch of line, and their ride quality seemed perfectly fine. Admittedly UP was using the centre track while GO and VIA were using the north track, but I don't see why that would make much difference.

Maybe it's an individual train with poorly adjusted shocks, but I didn't note the vehicle number.
Click to expand...
You've described it almost exactly. I have had the same experience before, can't remember where, perhaps LRC coach stock years back. Just a sense of wheels too small or too light, and the suspension and damping not optimized to suppress tendency to lose inertial direction. A heavy bogie wouldn't do it, but that shouldn't be the solution, a well-designed light one with the right damping, even active damping (electronic servo) would most likely address it. It was not just within the bogie, one of the connecting surfaces was transmitting, or causing to itself, impact the floor of the coach. And the creak on every slight change of direction. I rode the GO today, exactly the same stretch, but a different track of course, and thought the same as you. It was faultless and stable. (I get off with my exceptional cycle and bomb down the Humber to the Lakeshore and across. Would have gone to Malton, backroads to Clairville Reservoir, bike path south, but not quite warm enough today)
 
reaperexpress said:
Where did this come from? The documents I've seen have either said 79 mph (127 km/h) or 90 mph (145 km/h). Never 140 mph. Or even 140 km/h.
Click to expand...

That's the design speed of the vehicle using that motor and transmission. Using the more common Voith T312RE transmission would have resulted in a top speed of 125mph.

The speeds that you are quoting are the maximum speeds that were projected to be attained by the two starting services - SMART in California and UPX here, respectively. Of course, as we now know, the top speed that the vehicles attain in service here in Toronto is 80mph.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
smallspy said:
That's the design speed of the vehicle using that motor and transmission. Using the more common Voith T312RE transmission would have resulted in a top speed of 125mph.

The speeds that you are quoting are the maximum speeds that were projected to be attained by the two starting services - SMART in California and UPX here, respectively. Of course, as we now know, the top speed that the vehicles attain in service here in Toronto is 80mph.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Click to expand...
Fascinating. And since it's 'already posted in this thread'...could I impose upon you to reference or link that? If true, it seems VIA have their HFR train of the future.

Meantime, re Reaper's concurrence on "rough ride"...
[...][
10.22 Cardan Shafts
The cardan (drive) shafts shall have a double universal joint, splined
arrangement, and shall be torsionally resilient to cushion torsional shocks
between the truck and the transmission. The damping characteristics and power
rating selected shall meet the transmission manufacturer's recommendations.
The cardan shaft shall be designed for the worst-case track curvature and route-
specific speed/curvature profile.
Cardan shaft safety hangers shall be provided and shall meet the requirements
of 49 CFR 229.99.][...]
http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/Vehicles -Draft DMU Technical Specification 1-20-10.pdf

Oh boy, that probably explains the bogies 'feeling light'. They are! If the drive motors are body mounted, this *further* renders electrification as bizarrely complex.

I can't locate it now, but Metrolinx used to publish a web-page on how simple it will be to "just sub in electrical changes" and voila! EMU in a jiffy!

I suspect they took the page down. Too many people refusing to drink the Kool-Aid.

Bombardier had actually proposed a loco over a decade back for HSR (one presumes) with a prime mover in body, and a Cardan shaft to the bogies. I wonder if that's still on Bombardier's roster? Ostensibly less track wear, but trying to get that bogie to tract might be a real problem, unless the loco's traction transformer is like carrying a ton load in the back of a pick-up truck

Edit to Add: Indeed, it is Bombardier's TRAXX series, the forerunner described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DB_Class_101

In the event, these locos are quite heavy, even with every effort to lighten them, and in the 101's case, the xfrmr is slung under the chassis, effectively adding to the tractive factor.

Perhaps Dan will link a source that explains how Sharyo do this with the UPX DMUs? And further to that, the complications of doing this in lieu of hydraulic drive motors mounted directly on the bogies? I suspect the complexities of doing a 'direct mechanical drive' from the mechanical ZF gearbox compounds in complexity from normal practice with an all-fluid drive system, where only hydraulics are connected to the bogies, brakes and thrust.

Curious....still digging.

Late edit: From Cummins PR page on the Sharyo DMU, albeit all references appear to apply to the SMART specs:
[...][Compact Underfloor Power
The horizontal envelope of the QSK19-R allows for a highly compact installation within a self-contained power module positioned underneath the railcar body. This space-efficient installation enables a flexible seated capacity of 180 to 237 passengers for the three-car DMU train set, together with additional space for standing passengers during busy periods. Passenger convenience is further enhanced with step-in level boarding from the platform and allocated space in each railcar for up to 12 bicycles, wheelchairs or strollers.

On-board power such as air-conditioning is generated from the QSK19-R by means of a high-efficiency drive shaft, eliminating the need for an additional engine for hotel power.][...]
https://cumminsengines.com/cummins-qsk19r-to-power-nippon-sharyo-dmu

Note the lack of reference to bogie drive! Curiouser and curiouser. I'm just dying to see these spec sheets that are reputed to exist in this forum...

From the Nippon-Sharyo website:
Delivery years Car type Photo Customer Maximum Speed Qty
2015 PC
znictd1993.jpg
METROLINX (144 km/h) 16

144km/h = 89.4775 mph (let's just call it 90 mph)
http://www.nipponsharyousa.com/products.htm
 
Last edited:
As of today they are still handing out free passes for the UPX at the Airport in Montreal.

Also noticed that the new advertising at Pearson now mentions the price (and the Presto discount).
 
It comes up frequently as to what, if anything, Metrolinx is going to do to expand the Nippon-Sharyo fleet. Buying more looks highly unlikely, and then some insist that (gist) "FRA regs must be complied with for any replacements" on the surmise that TC is slave to the master next-door. It's an odd claim when even the US Federal Transit Administration funds research to get beyond the FRA regs:
[...]
TCRP is a cooperative effort of three organizations: the Federal Transit Administration (FTA); the National Academies, acting through the Transportation Research Board (TRB); and the Transit Development Corporation, Inc. (TDC), a nonprofit educational and research organization established by the American Public Transportation Association (APTA).

TCRP is funded by the public, through the FTA, and is governed by an independent board – the TCRP Oversight and Project Selection (TOPS) Committee. The TOPS Committee sets priorities to decide what research studies will be undertaken.

The day-to-day management of the TCRP program is the responsibility of TRB.
[...]

One of their research papers:
CHAPTER 4: INVENTORY AND DESCRIPTION OF RAIL
TRANSIT VEHICLES CURRENTLY AVAILABLE FOR POTENTIAL
JOINT OPERATION WITH RAILROADS
[...]
The evolving APTA Passenger Rail
Equipment Safety Standards (PRESS)
program may influence the potential use of
LRT or DMU under joint use operations.
The PRESS program is a task force of
industry experts funded by commuter rail
agencies, assembled under the auspices of
APTA and recognized by FRA. Its mission
is to develop a new set of rail car safety
standards covering the following:

Collision and Structural
Requirements
!
Electrical Systems
!
Brakes, Wheels, Trucks, and
Couplers (LRVs have
electronic/redundant braking)
!
Systems (Operations and
Maintenance)

Resulting standards will be included in an
FRA rulemaking procedure wholly or in
part, eventually producing a new set of
requirements for railcar construction,
maintenance, inspections, and testing.
[...charts and chapters continue at length...]
http://www.tcrponline.org/PDFDocuments/TCRP RPT 52-D.PDF

I'd say there's going to be a few ruffled Canadian feathers on the rails over this...

Btw: According to their chart, both Alstom and Bombardier have "high relative compliance" DMU/EMU products to meeting existing FRA regs. Report is fascinating. I know MD especially will delight in reading it.
 
Fare bargain triples ridership on UPX
Toronto Star
Two months after the Union Pearson Express slashed its fares, ridership on the troubled airport rail link has tripled, according to a spokeswoman for the provincial transit agency.

Metrolinx spokeswoman Anne Marie Aikins said Wednesday that as of the end of April, 6,500 people on average now use the service on weekdays. Including weekends, when ridership is lower, the daily average is about 6,000, she said. About 80 per cent of the riders are coming to or from Pearson International Airport, and the rest are commuters.

Before UPX lowered the cost of tickets in March, daily ridership hovered between 2,000 and 2,200 people. Immediately after the price change, that number increased to about 5,000 a day. Aikins said since then, ridership has grown at a rate of about six per cent a week.

[...]

But even as the UPX becomes more popular, Aikins conceded that it may not be possible for the service to break even. Metrolinx originally projected UPX revenue would cover the train’s costs within three to five years when ridership was to reach 7,000 a day, but the agency is now reviewing its cost-recovery strategy with the province, Aikins said.

“It was a goal set to say we didn’t want this service to cost the taxpayers any more money, to be self-sustaining through the fare box. And that was an admirable goal, but whether or not it’s . . . realistic now is difficult to say,” Aikins said.
Click to expand...
 
jcam said:
Am I right in assuming that GO Transit has yet to "right size" the operations of UP? I imagine that this news will be an impetus to trim back on things like the magazine, amount of staff, etc.?
Click to expand...

why would anyone need magazines with 2 month old information when there is wifi onboard.
I don't think staff (except for fare validation) is needed.
 
ksun said:
why would anyone need magazines with 2 month old information when there is wifi onboard.
I don't think staff (except for fare validation) is needed.
Click to expand...

The magazine originated as part of the boutique branding, which needs to be pruned. But some sort of printed media may not be totally off base even under the new model. If it generates revenue to cover its cost, it might be a useful take-away for new arrivals in Toronto.... just like the printed material that one often finds in one's hotel room, aimed at tourism and sightseeing etc. Content might need to be tweaked, and the high-end vapid stuff that one finds in the seatback magazine on an airliner isn't on anymore. But, a map of the downtown, ads for restaurants or entertainment events, how-to information on Toronto public transit, etc.

All predicated, as I say, on being able to cover its cost through advertising.

- Paul
 
The onboard announcements needs to be trimmed-back too. Basically, there's way too many of them during the 25-minute journey, especially when one considers that some are now using this as a commuter service.
 
I still see mostly two-car trains on the UPX. Initially, did see three-car trains, but nowadays it two-cars.

Have they figured out the times it is best to use three-car trains instead of two-car trains?
 
jcam said:
Am I right in assuming that GO Transit has yet to "right size" the operations of UP? I imagine that this news will be an impetus to trim back on things like the magazine, amount of staff, etc.?
Click to expand...
when I have already noticed the metrolinx website on careers section seems to have been incorporated with GO as it has a different look to it
 
The UPX should be a warning to Metrolinx when it finally gets around to bringing in fare integration and RER.

UPX is running the exact same schedule it was before the price reduction and at 15 minute all day, 2 way service it very much resembles what RER will be. Nothing has changed except the prices and as the prices fall, ridership soars. It would soar even higher if the fares were reduced again.

Queen's Park and Metrolinx are delusional if they think price doesn't matter. UPX proves that you can run a RER type service but price is more important to many than speed or even convenience. UPX is still to expensive but ML could again lower fares and see what the corresponding increase to ridership will be...........lower prices can result in higher revenues.

Before RER rolls out, ML and QP should use the UPX as a staging ground to realistically forecast ridership on different lines and their price sensitivity. If fares were reduced again by having TTC fares paid automatically deducted from the UPX fares, ridership would probably triple again.
 
I don't want the UP fare to be so low that you can't have a seat any more. Nor do I want more stops, which will kill its usefulness. Lowering fare may not bring more revenue either. The current pricing seems reasonable. It is not a subway so get over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PL1
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top