With regards to the UP station at Pearson, it's going to rebuild into a central passenger processing terminal as part of Pearson's Master Plan into the late 2020s, I just hope the ON Gov/Metrolinx can take this rare opportunity and work with Pearson/GTAA to properly integrate the various transit modes (FinchW + Eglinton LRTs, UP Express, RER, Regional Bus) within one building, so that the terminal can be designed for proper passenger flow and transfer between the different transport modes and equipped for electrification; rather than doing various expensive awkward add-ons afterwards.

I hope they will design the future Pearson RER/UP station as through station for various lines similar to other major international airports/transport hubs.

Transit Hub Signals Bold Reinvention of Toronto's Pearson Airport (2017-Feb-07)
urbantoronto.ca

Transit Hub Signals Bold Reinvention of Toronto's Pearson Airport | UrbanToronto

Officially announced today, the bold Pearson Transit Hub could re-invent Canada's largest airport into a multi-modal global hub.
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
NeilsenJ said:
With regards to the UP station at Pearson, it's going to rebuild into a central passenger processing terminal as part of Pearson's Master Plan into the late 2020s, I just hope the ON Gov/Metrolinx can take this rare opportunity and work with Pearson/GTAA to properly integrate the various transit modes (FinchW + Eglinton LRTs, UP Express, RER, Regional Bus) within one building, so that the terminal can be designed for proper passenger flow and transfer between the different transport modes and equipped for electrification; rather than doing various expensive awkward add-ons afterwards.
Click to expand...
Don't forget LINK which will be replaced for the Pearson Hub.

Several possible ideas:
- Add a rebuilt LINK that goes all the way to either Malton or Woodbine RER stations (whichever becomes the Pearson Hub - "Union Station North")
- Or replace LINK with a free-transit section of the new electric UPX/RER or the merged Finch+Eglinton LRT (connect Finch West and Eglinton Crosstown through both Terminals). Basically, the public transit would replace LINK.

Scenario 1: Standalone LINK replacement
The LINK gets replaced with something extended -- that connects to the Pearson Hub at either Malton GO station or Woodbine GO Station. This can connect to a future high speed train too.

Scenario 2: LINK replaced by UPX extension loop
Theoretically the (modified) UPX can replace LINK -- simply by modifying the UPX viaduct route and extending it into a loop. It could even reconnect to the mainline at Malton, allowing RER trains from Kitchener to go through both Pearson terminals while enroute to Union -- while keeping Kitchener expresses (and VIA/HSR) roaring past on the straighter mainline. Basically a detour that extends the original UPX spur all the way to Malton, turning UPX into the LINK replacement. It could even be a rail loop circling around Pearson (stopping in the general area of all the old LINK stops) It will probably require some UPX curve modifications and relocating the original UPX stop, but then you'd have an incredible Pearson Hub opportunity.

Scenario 3: LINK replaced by FinchWest+Crosstown LRT loop
You connect the Eglinton Crosstown LRT with Finch West LRT together at Pearson. Route it in a way that services the original LINK locations. Run a "free transit" section at Pearson much like Calgary C-Train downtown.

In these scenarios is the flexibility to decide where to locate Pearson Transit Hub on the Pearson grounds. This might not happen at initial electrification, but could happen when they need to replace LINK in a Pearson Hub compatible manner.
 
Last edited:
Whats the chance of SmartTrack and UPX integrating, so basically ML runs a 4 car train from Pearson to Unionville? No more express train directly to downtown, but at least Pearson passengers have public rail to take.
 
robmausser said:
Installation of Positive Train Control would allow for faster speeds.
Click to expand...

No, it won't.

PTC has no effect on track geometry and curvature.

nhui06 said:
Whats the chance of SmartTrack and UPX integrating, so basically ML runs a 4 car train from Pearson to Unionville? No more express train directly to downtown, but at least Pearson passengers have public rail to take.
Click to expand...

This is one of the ideas that Metrolinx has had floating around internally since before the launch of the UPX. It may not specifically be trains from the Stouffville Line, but rather having trains come from further away than just Union.

Dan
 
The key issue with an airport link is reliability - certainly for passengers heading in the airport direction. Extending beyond Union would be convenient especially for the development of the Unilever lands but also would have potential to have significant OTP degradation. Might need a protect train in Don Yard or some other convenient spot to ensure a delay to trains east of the Don didn't smash up Union-airport schedules?

Also, extending up the RH or Stouffville - at some point aren't buses across 407 a better option than a train into the core and out again if the intent of this particular service is to serve airport passengers?
 
dowlingm said:
The key issue with an airport link is reliability - certainly for passengers heading in the airport direction.
Click to expand...

This is it. That's the entire point of Union Pearson Express. The whole appeal is that I know with certainty that I can walk to Union in 10 minutes and that odds are pretty good that there'll be a train there waiting and once it departs, it'll take me 25 minutes to get to the airport. I can calculate with a high level of certainty what time I'll arrive at the airport which saves me time and gives me peace of mind that I don't have to worry about traffic. That was worth even the original higher price.

UPX made it like having a major international airport in the heart of downtown Toronto. Original plans even called for airline desks and baggage pre-checking at Union Station. You'd check into your flight, get your luggage tags, then get on the airport train as if it were a terminal shuttle at Pearson and when you arrive there in 25 minutes, drop your pre-tagged luggage off on a conveyer and walk to your gate.

I hope that what ends up happening is they just swap out the trains for electric sets and that standard GO trains share the line with express airport trains. Standard GO trains depart from a GO platform accessible from the York/Bay Concourses and airport express trains depart from the UPX station which becomes an offsite airport check-in hall. The GO train makes more stops and the express train goes directly from downtown to YYZ. It's fine if it costs more since it offers a benefit over standard GO trains.

UPX made the case for a small downtown airport redundant and has played a major role in defeating Porter's island airport expansion plans.
 
dowlingm said:
Also, extending up the RH or Stouffville - at some point aren't buses across 407 a better option than a train into the core and out again if the intent of this particular service is to serve airport passengers?
Click to expand...

It seems like there's a better case for integrating it with the LSE. It would arguably be the best way to the airport from every LSE station. Of course then unless you want to run trains every 7.5 minutes on the LSE, you lose the LSE-LSW connection.

This is going to be a problem for the whole GO network if the goal is through-running. They're aiming for fifteen minute service to six destinations when GO expansion is done, but four of them are west of Union and only two are east.
 
mdrejhon said:
Double-deckers are more problematic for busy intermediate stations (this is an amplified problem in Sydney double decker 'subway', to the point where they want to go single-level trains). Multiple busy downtown stations in the middle of a double decker route creates major dwell bottlenecks for bidirectional embark/disembark flows. But that's less of an issue for UPX because the bidirectional embark-disembark don't reach Union-like and Pearson-like flows (terminus stations instead of middle stations). Thus, since the heavy concurrent bidirectional embark-disembark bottlenecks are mostly at the terminii -- switching UPX from singledeck to doubledeck likely won't bottleneck UPX in quite the same way as doubledeck bottlenecked Sydney. Paris manages to ram through double-deck RER at 24 trains per hour on the same track (subway-frequency GO service) and technology exists today to effectively fleet-merge GO/RER/UPX for the UPX/Kitchener corridor.
Click to expand...

You're misconstruing what's happening in Sydney. The existing suburban rail network operates double deckers exclusively - with drivers and there will be a program to upgrade signalling to one level of CBTC (like in Melbourne) for those existing lines. The new lines they're building are operationally independent from the existing network and are adding trackage to the CBD (as well as the suburbs). There are presently 3 track pairs entering central Sydney (there are more track pairs south of Central, but they all funnel into three pairs to travel through/around central CBD - looking at it all from this angle is how Melbourne & Brisbane are also addressing their respective rail network capacity issues - Melbourne Metro and Cross River Rail (Brisbane)), the new metro line (operationally independent) adds another pair.

The new metro line and it's driverless/automated single deck rolling stock are only replacing two isolated segments of existing line (that operate with DDs) but through the city and out the other end into the middle and outer north-western suburbs, it's all new track / added capacity on top of what exists. The two existing corridors/infrastructure that are being repurposed are not a part of the same line - the services that ran on them prior to the 'metroification' were entirely separate. The issues you mention of lower TPH capacity in central Sydney owing to the slow load/unload times associated with double-deckers will (technically) still be a thing because there is no plans at this stage to shift those lines to single deck rolling stock on higher frequencies.
 
MetroMan said:
UPX made it like having a major international airport in the heart of downtown Toronto. Original plans even called for airline desks and baggage pre-checking at Union Station. You'd check into your flight, get your luggage tags, then get on the airport train as if it were a terminal shuttle at Pearson and when you arrive there in 25 minutes, drop your pre-tagged luggage off on a conveyer and walk to your gate.
Click to expand...
I think they tried that early on with a few airlines, but it didn't get used as much as they thought it would, plus they probably don't have enough space for them at Bloor and Westen to have them. Most airlines now have you check-in with kiosks at the airport and you can print your boarding pass if you haven't done it at home or are using it on your phone via your airline's app, they alios now have automated check-in at the airport to where you put your bag on the belt scan your ticket and it weighs it and tell you if it's overweight or it accepts it and sends it down to the sorting area.
 
tayser said:
You're misconstruing what's happening in Sydney. The existing suburban rail network operates double deckers exclusively - with drivers and there will be a program to upgrade signalling to one level of CBTC (like in Melbourne) for those existing lines. The new lines they're building are operationally independent from the existing network and are adding trackage to the CBD (as well as the suburbs). There are presently 3 track pairs entering central Sydney (there are more track pairs south of Central, but they all funnel into three pairs to travel through/around central CBD - looking at it all from this angle is how Melbourne & Brisbane are also addressing their respective rail network capacity issues - Melbourne Metro and Cross River Rail (Brisbane)), the new metro line (operationally independent) adds another pair.
Click to expand...
I'm glad to hear they're deploying CBTC, that'll help improve efficiency. Whether by allowing more trains without affecting dwell times (because trailing trains can get much closer before the train ahead had to continue onwards), or by adding extra frequency that makes people more willing to wait for the next train (in the event of door-closing interruptions, etc).

All the different papers from Sydney does have many interpretations of many people's concerns of the double-decker efficiency problems (alleged and otherwise).

Unlike my actual ridership experience in various parts of Canada, USA, Europe, and Asia, I have never ridden the systems of Oz, so I can only judge the Sydney system by what I read through the papers.

As one of the Oz newspapers closed out on, "There are solutions." (One of those many old articles panning the Sydney double deckers -- it's titled "Double-decker trains a mistake for Sydney" -- but at least acknowledged and complimented Paris in running efficient high-frequency double deckers).
 
Using Paris double-decker RER trains as an analogy for either Sydney or Toronto is a false one. Unlike Syd/Tor, Paris already has a huge inner city Metro system so those RER riders are very much more long distance and regional ones. This as opposed to Toronto where RER in the city itself will very much serve more Torontonians for shorter trips...……….essentially it's surface Metro and hence 2 totally different kinds of riders. The more "regional " travel aspect of Paris RER means that there are fewer short-trip on/off passengers so double decker is ideal as opposed to Toronto RER which will have many more on/off passengers due to lack of subway service so single levels are best for faster dwell times.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Using Paris double-decker RER trains as an analogy for either Sydney or Toronto is a false one. Unlike Syd/Tor, Paris already has a huge inner city Metro system so those RER riders are very much more long distance and regional ones. This as opposed to Toronto where RER in the city itself will very much serve more Torontonians for shorter trips...……….essentially it's surface Metro and hence 2 totally different kinds of riders. The more "regional " travel aspect of Paris RER means that there are fewer short-trip on/off passengers so double decker is ideal as opposed to Toronto RER which will have many more on/off passengers due to lack of subway service so single levels are best for faster dwell times.
Click to expand...
RER exists to move more people from the suburbs (ie Brampton, Vaughan, Richmond Hill, Markham, Pickering, Oshawa, Oakville, Mississauga, Hamilton and Burlington) into Toronto by increasing frequencies and making trains travel faster, thereby reducing traffic on the major freeways. The extra service in Toronto is merely a byproduct. That's why they're looking at Double Decker trains. Any extra train stations in Toronto merely exist (in the eyes of Metrolinx) to allow passengers to get off at stations other than Union.

I don't think it's the right choice of technology, but it does have its advantages.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Using Paris double-decker RER trains as an analogy for either Sydney or Toronto is a false one. Unlike Syd/Tor, Paris already has a huge inner city Metro system so those RER riders are very much more long distance and regional ones. This as opposed to Toronto where RER in the city itself will very much serve more Torontonians for shorter trips...……….essentially it's surface Metro and hence 2 totally different kinds of riders. The more "regional " travel aspect of Paris RER means that there are fewer short-trip on/off passengers so double decker is ideal as opposed to Toronto RER which will have many more on/off passengers due to lack of subway service so single levels are best for faster dwell times.
Click to expand...

Another thing to consider....

Despite the sheer number of lines and the reach of the Metro system in Paris, the capacity of the system is shockingly small. The trains are short, and for many of the lines the headways are no better than anywhere else (i.e. 3 minutes or more at rush hour). Thus, it gets overwhelmed very easily.

As you correctly point out, the RER was conceived in part as a way to try and off-load much of the longer-distance trips off of the Metro system. It also took over much of the service of the close-in commutershed operated by the SNCF.

The fact that they are using double-deckers in Paris has more to do with the fact that the system was too successful at pulling people out of the Metro and the pre-existing Transilien commuter service than anything else. Much like in Toronto (and many other places that use double-deckers), the train lengths were at or approaching their maximum limits, and so the only way to increase their carrying capacity was to go upwards.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top