nfitz said:
If they had proposed that the service start out as electrified, there would be people would be out there complaining that all the electrical lines in their backyard could give them cancer.
Click to expand...


Electricity is clean power :) and an electrified rail corridor would most likely not have any more overhead wires than some of our streets with streetcars and poles. Regarding cancer and electricity, in today’s modern world you would basically have to live next door to a generating plant or a transformer station to be a statistic, even then you would have a better chance of getting hit by lighting.

Think of all this bitching and complaining as a good thing and maybe the government will finally realize that people want the best for their neighbourhoods, cities and country, and maybe instead of them putting off the electrification of our rail system for another 20-30 years. They just might do something about our antique infrastructure sooner than later. :rolleyes:

Hey i am all for a direct link to the airport, but lets do it right, and not just ram something mediocre down peoples hoods, Just For The Sake Of It. :mad:
 
Last edited:
khristopher said:
What scares me about them being diesel, is that I don't see it being electrified 5 years later. Look how long we've been using diesel GO trains...
I think Toronto gets comfortable with something and just leaves it that way.
Click to expand...

Its a third world mentality. If it don't stink don't touch it.
 
There is a limited pool of money, so if there is not a good business case to upgrade - then it is unlikely to get done, there are things higher in priority. Would I like them all to be electric, sure, but I also want more money spent on subways, and better integration between go and subways - which would lead to increased traffic on GO lines. No for electrification, that should come with eliminating all level crossings, moving to lighter stock, which can then be run more often. There is a lot to do, but limited funds.

Now for people that moved next to a rail line and then complained about the noise or pollution - well they chose to live there. Now they argue that they should change the line around just for them - which ends up as a backdoor subsidy to them (i.e. prices are usually depressed a little near a rail line due to noise) - changing it has a direct affect on housing prices. So if they really want to help - have them pay $30,000+ per person for the upgrade - then it might make a better business plan :rolleyes:
 
Automation Gallery said:
Hey i am all for a direct link to the airport, but lets do it right, and not just ram something mediocre down peoples hoods, Just For The Sake Of It. :mad:
Click to expand...

I'm all for doing it right, but it doesn't change the fact that we could improve the situation for many people in the west end in 5 years vs 10-15 years.

I've heard many people on this forum say "put express buses on the road today and see if there really is a market for LRT tomorrow." I see a lot of parallels here.
 
Everyone is for "doing it right." The economic realities of building train lines in Ontario though are a little more complex than moaning about how Denmark's hyper-subsidized train network is all electrified.
 
And after all this discussion, I'm yet to have anyone actually claim to be able to smell "stinky" diesel trains on other corridors where they are currently in use.

The whole thing is absurd - emissions from a full 12-car GO train are miniscule compared to the number of vehicles that it replaces. Thanks god they've streamlined the EA process so it doesn't get hung up on such obviously obstructive issues.

What frustrates me though, is that by focussing on such issues, that aren't going to be taken seriously, they draw attention away from areas in the plan that CAN be improved - such as the Lawrence crossing, the grade separation between the adjacent CN and CP tracks, and even the placement of stations (surely there should be one stop for some trains between Bloor and Union).
 
cacruden said:
There is a limited pool of money, so if there is not a good business case to upgrade - then it is unlikely to get done, there are things higher in priority. Would I like them all to be electric, sure, but I also want more money spent on subways, and better integration between go and subways - which would lead to increased traffic on GO lines. No for electrification, that should come with eliminating all level crossings, moving to lighter stock, which can then be run more often. There is a lot to do, but limited funds.
Click to expand...

It's a chicken-egg thing. The more people who use GO lines and VIA, the easier the business case is for electrifying the Georgetown Corridor. This can be achieved in multiple ways such as making the trip faster or more comfortable, increasing capacity, or increasing access through more parking (unsustable and misguided IMO) or improving transport connections.

I agree that money needs to be spent wisely, which is why I'd accept the Georgetown corridor being upgraded to allow easy electrification in the near future and divying money up between local and interregional transit. However, keep in mind that any improvements on the Georgetown line would also mean improved service everywhere west along the north mainline. It's not just commuters that the Georgetown corridor serves.

(I know VIA and to an extent GO suck now, but there's hope for increased service with increased capacity and rising gas prices.)
 
I guess all these individuales that couldnt care less about the electrification of our rail systems, dont really give a shit about the environmental pollution.
 
Automation Gallery said:
I guess all these individuales that couldnt care less about the electrification of our rail systems, dont really give a shit about the environmental pollution.
Click to expand...

Isn't that like saying if you're not part of the solution you must be part of the problem?
That if you don't support immediate electrification then you don't care about the environment?

When did the universe get so black and white?
 
Last edited:
Automation Gallery said:
I guess all these individuales that couldnt care less about the electrification of our rail systems, dont really give a shit about the environmental pollution.
Click to expand...
Where do you think those nice new vehicles are going to draw their power from? Where-ever there is spare generating capacity --- most likely coal (you know the extra plants that are slated for shutdown - but can't because we don't have enough other electricity generated capacity) :rolleyes:
 
That what the green energy act is for! Fingers Crossed, I hate nuclear!
 
nfitz said:
And after all this discussion, I'm yet to have anyone actually claim to be able to smell "stinky" diesel trains on other corridors where they are currently in use.
Click to expand...

This is a good point. I've never really even noticed GO trains having a smell at all.
 
cacruden said:
Where do you think those nice new vehicles are going to draw their power from? Where-ever there is spare generating capacity --- most likely coal (you know the extra plants that are slated for shutdown - but can't because we don't have enough other electricity generated capacity) :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Most of our power comes from nuclear and hydro, so it's not like there's going to be a huge increase in pollution. Even if all our power came from coal, I really doubt an electric train would cause more pollution at the power plant than a diesel locomotive pollutes.

That's not to say I'm against diesel trains serving the airport, at least until the corridor is electrified (the sooner the better).
 
MisterF said:
Most of our power comes from nuclear and hydro, so it's not like there's going to be a huge increase in pollution. Even if all our power came from coal, I really doubt an electric train would cause more pollution at the power plant than a diesel locomotive pollutes.
Click to expand...

Hydro electric in Ontario hasn't been expanded by any significant amount in decades. The additional tunnel at Beck for ? (500MW or 1 GW? I've forgotten) will pretty much tap out the last of it.

Nuclear, however, can be expanded to the top of the valley without non-political difficulties.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top