[EnviroTO]

Speaking of "Science"....you display an incredible lack of understanding physics. A photon isn't the point of discussion. Wavefronts and their nature are.

If a photon isn't the point of the discussion then why state something about "thermally emitted photons". Science is about measurable properties. If one light source can generate photons with the same energy as another, the photons are no different. If those light sources can generate multiple photons with the same coherence then the same light is being produced. If both of those light sources can maintain that light at the same intensity over time then the impact of that light on one's eyes would be no different. The properties of the light required should be selected first, and the technology second based on the conformance to the properties of light desired, energy efficiency, and cost.

In terms of making the install future proof, I'm not sure how that would be possible. If a new light source technology comes out the only way to take advantage of it would be to swap out light sources. For constant intensity you are going to need AC to DC converters with minimal ripple and to make it future proof you would need those to be tunable. Although even then the converters themselves are likely to get more efficient over time so they would get swapped out too. So you are left with maybe only one thing you can do to future proof which is to use wiring that minimizes voltage drop.

 

[steveintoronto]

If one light source can generate photons with the same energy as another, the photons are no different.

I see (pun fully intended). So if water molecules are identical, all oceans are the same?

If a new light source technology comes out the only way to take advantage of it would be to swap out light sources. For constant intensity you are going to need AC to DC converters with minimal ripple and to make it future proof you would need those to be tunable. Although even then the converters themselves are likely to get more efficient over time so they would get swapped out too. So you are left with maybe only one thing you can do to future proof which is to use wiring that minimizes voltage drop.

I'm sorry to be so dismissive of your dialog, but you fail to understand, almost completely, the physics at play. *Thermionic* devices, by their very nature, since they have thermal mass, emit photons (as well as other radiation, much of it heat) long after the alternating power cycle finishes. That's why I described the ability of LEDs to generate Gigs of bits over fibre optics, they turn on and off at the speed of light (or more correctly, the speed of the current alternations feeding them)(edit: There are other limitations to this speed, reactive forces and slew rates to name a few, but LEDs drive fibre optics). For this reason, filament type bulbs are exceedingly poor at transmitting multiplexed signals, albeit some bulbs have been used in the past to transmit audio signals up to a thousand cycles per sec or so. The heat of the filament radiates long past the alternating cycle. You *don't need DC* to feed a bulb! You don't need *drivers*. You don't need rectification or any form of power supply/conditioning beyond basic surge protection, and that's offered by and large by the turn-on impedance of the wire supplying the device (albeit I'd recommend an additional surge protection device being added in series, as I stated prior, like a varistor, in the cause of device longevity.) Most filament bulbs, and indeed all devices, usually fail at turn-on. That's known as "cold device resistance" allowing an in-rush of current unless otherwise buffered. In regular practice @ 60 cy p/sec, (120 peaks per sec) fluorescent lights flicker, LEDs *really* flicker, filament lightbulbs don't. Fluorescents are somewhat muted by the 'afterglow' of excited phosphor molecules. This is why the replacement screw-in type florescents are much softer than the older style, their power supply is an AC/DC/AC conversion to a much higher cycling rate. (You can hear some of them 'singing')

An arc type lighting device has somewhat differing characteristics, you can actually get an arc to "talk", some early loudspeaker designs used this technique....but now I'm digressing. Arc lighting is almost always garish and harsh.

Perhaps you could just Google, acquaint yourself with the basics, and then reference that in your queries?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If a photon isn't the point of the discussion then why state something about "thermally emitted photons". Science is about measurable properties. If one light source can generate photons with the same energy as another, the photons are no different. If those light sources can generate multiple photons with the same coherence then the same light is being produced. If both of those light sources can maintain that light at the same intensity over time then the impact of that light on one's eyes would be no different. The properties of the light required should be selected first, and the technology second based on the conformance to the properties of light desired, energy efficiency, and cost.

In terms of making the install future proof, I'm not sure how that would be possible. If a new light source technology comes out the only way to take advantage of it would be to swap out light sources. For constant intensity you are going to need AC to DC converters with minimal ripple and to make it future proof you would need those to be tunable. Although even then the converters themselves are likely to get more efficient over time so they would get swapped out too. So you are left with maybe only one thing you can do to future proof which is to use wiring that minimizes voltage drop.

The terminology used is imprecise -the measurable aspect is that the emission spectrum from different light sources (filament, LED, CFL, whatnot) are different. There is no need to talk about individual photons. Anyhow, I think this is getting WAY too OT and further discussion should be done elsewhere.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

First I don't think go transit is interested in shorter trains as it would mean more of them to meet the current level of passengers. Second Union station is what's called a through station and isn't set up to be used with tail tracks, because all trains go through it there used to be more tracks to bypass the platforms by go transit has taken those over to increase their use.

Ever heard of UPX? It uses Track 3, even if the high-level platform is offset from the station shed proper.
That track can be accessed mid-point by a cross-over track, to allow access both ends for shorter trains (GO is presently running 6 car trains on some runs) and this is in fact is done in a number of European stations, Penn Station in NYC and many UK stations where there is access from opposing directions.

I think it's an excellent idea, but much more so for a selected few tracks, not all of them, as most runs are "run-through". I also think it's the key to getting the western leg of RER up and running in as short a time as six months, using the F59s that are being excised, and surplus coach stock waiting to be refurbished.

At the rate we're now going, there'll be a colony on the Moon before RER is up and running.

First I don't think go transit is interested in shorter trains as it would mean more of them to meet the current level of passengers.

I would have agreed with this up until the last year or so, and realizing that VIA run a number of *two single level coach* trains! If VIA can justify doing that in terms of costs of manpower, let alone return on track costs, then a three coach double decker GO train, an almost five single level coach equiv capacity, can certainly do better. And GO has the locos and coaches to do it! That's been discussed in other forums, and discussions identified the amount of stock (multiples more than needed is sitting idle). The challenge will be to efficiently utilize the limited track space at Union, and splitting Track 3 further in terms of access at mid-point for 'run-around', with passenger waiting space supplemented beyond the north side of the wall (now being renovated) appears to be a very doable option.

 

[Megaton327]

Ever heard of UPX?

Ever seen GO's ridership numbers during peak hours vs UPX's at any time?

 

[steveintoronto]

Ever seen GO's ridership numbers during peak hours vs UPX's at any time?

lol...yeah, that's why you run more shorter trains more often, and off-peak. Just like UPX. It satisfies a number of issues, not the least platform load and unload rate, let alone more flexible connectivity of trains. I never suggested not running the peak time trains in lieu of the shorter ones, in fact, with rationed platform space and *pathing* into the station, it might be necessary to suspend frequent short train service during peak times to allow 10 and 12 car trains to use the access. All been detailed and discussed in GO forums at this site.

--------------------------------
Just realized the opening page to this string posts a picture of the Great Hall....with three chandeliers depicted, if not more not shown:

Now that's a bit more like it! If a chandelier is going to be kept, then best multiply the incidence. What isn't depicted in the rendering is the glare/reflection that will come from a limited number of light sources. Like Grand Central, row lighting distributed around the ledge (I forget the proper arch. term) below the upper windows will be needed for even in-fill. The eye will be drawn to the chandeliers though, they are features, and the present one can be kept, refurbished, and complementary ones added (recovered from elsewhere would be preferable).

 

[Jonny5]

I would have agreed with this up until the last year or so, and realizing that VIA run a number of *two single level coach* trains! If VIA can justify doing that in terms of costs of manpower, let alone return on track costs....

Careful. What VIA has to justify in expenses is a lot different than what GO does. VIA has official and unofficial service mandates GO does not.

 

[steveintoronto]

Careful. What VIA has to justify in expenses is a lot different than what GO does. VIA has official and unofficial service mandates GO does not.

lol...in terms of track usage at Union, the point is independent of politics. Shorter trains allow "double-berthing", and it is a very valid approach, albeit I suggest reading all of Munro's chapter, a quip of which I'll post here: (some of the points are dated, platforms are being extended, and UPX is extant, but Munro's point on (my term) "Union West" being established in the Bathurst Yard is a good one) (See pdf page 6, https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/usrc-track-study_execsummary.pdf )

[...]
Double-berthing was also studied. In this scheme, trains from the east and west would share the same track each using half of the platform. If a track is used for through service, the minimum headway is 10 minutes (allowing for dwell time, some leeway for delays and the time for a train to clear the platform before its follower can enter). That’s 6 trains per hour. With double-berthing, trains are reversing at the station, and the minimum headway is 15 minutes because of the time needed to set up a train to change direction. That would, in theory, give us 4 trains an hour each way, or 8 trains in total. Double-berthing could add capacity, but it poses additional problems.

First off, only four tracks (6-9) are long enough to hold two full-length trainsets. Second, for frequent service, trains could not be spotted in advance on the platforms, but would have to pull into position with another train already on the track. This is a safety concern and it affects operating speeds. Finally, passengers would have to walk to the extremities of the platforms (well beyond the shelter of the train shed) to reach the outer cars. [...]

https://stevemunro.ca/2011/12/02/union-station-rail-corridor-capacity/

Munro links the complete reports and track layout diagrams at url above.

 

[mdrejhon]

row lighting distributed around the ledge (I forget the proper arch. term) below the upper windows will be needed for even in-fill.

Accent lighting.

Which would be good in some parts of Union where I noticed they will be needed.

 

[steveintoronto]

"Cornice" lighting!

Note it in the pics following:

Marilynn K. Yee/The New York Times
Workers on Tuesday test the new bulbs on one of the 10 Beaux-Arts chandeliers in Grand Central Terminal’s main concourse.

At Grand Central, a Fluorescent Twist to a Light-Bulb Joke

By A. G. SULZBERGER
Published: April 28, 2009
How many people does it take to change every light bulb in Grand Central Terminal?

Six, it turns out. And it’s a full-time job.

On Tuesday, those wiremen — their official title — unscrewed the last remaining incandescent bulbs in the building, replacing them with compact fluorescent bulbs and completing the greening of the lighting system at the bustling station.

While the wiremen worked, photographers snapped pictures, and officials applauded the efforts, reminiscing about the days when both station and light bulb were young.

The bulbs were on one of the 10 huge Beaux-Arts chandeliers in the main lobby. Adorned with gold detail and banded with 110 bulbs, the 96-year-old globe-shaped chandeliers hang above the main concourse balconies like luminescent Fabergé eggs.

Fluorescent bulbs last longer and use less energy, saving money and helping advance the city’s environmental goals.

They were first installed in the terminal in the mid-1980s, with tube-shaped fluorescents hung on the train platforms largely to brighten them, said Marjorie S. Anders, a spokeswoman for Metro-North Railroad. About seven years ago, compact fluorescents, which can be screwed into standard light sockets, were installed in the cornice that rings the ceiling of the main concourse, 75 feet above the ground, largely because frequently replacing the old bulbs was a risky and labor-intensive chore.

And as the technology and aesthetics improved — fluorescents became less distinguishable from incandescent bulbs and could be dimmed — the bulbs were added everywhere from the departure board to the chandeliers.

“If you see an incandescent bulb in this place, call me,” said Steve Stroh, the terminal’s electrical and mechanical superintendent, who has overseen the replacement effort. “We’ll have it changed, because we may have missed one or two.”

Replacing the roughly 4,000 bulbs in the public areas of the terminal — which doesn’t include the platforms, the train yards, or office space — will save an estimated $200,000 a year, Ms. Anders said.

Mr. Stroh would not even hazard a guess as to the number of bulbs throughout the terminal, which covers 48 acres, but he estimated that the annual light bulb budget was less than $100,000. Excluding labor, it costs about $1,100 to replace all the bulbs on a single chandelier, but the payback on that investment will take just months.

However, with the bulbs burning 24 hours a day, the shift from incandescent bulbs will not be putting any of the six wiremen out of work, Mr. Stroh said. Even with the fluorescents, he said, “it’s a big job.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/nyregion/29bulbs.html

For the actual stellar ceiling depicting the heavens, LEDs are used, but not for infill light:

http://gothamist.com/2014/10/14/ceiling_secrets.php

Grand Central Station is a legendary New York City landmark, and its 98-year-old celestial ceiling is part of what makes it so special. Until recently, however, passengers were unable to see the station’s beautiful green ceiling and its depiction of the constellations because it was buried under layers of accumulated dirt and pollution. In 1996, the MTA gave the ceiling a thorough cleaning that once again revealed its full splendor. It also revealed, however, that most of the light fixtures responsible for creating the effect of twinkling stars were dimming, missing or altogether broken. So in 1997, authorities intervened with a new fiber optic lighting system. It worked for a while, but the stars faded again, and in 2009 they were barely visible.

Cut to Monday, November 8th, when the Grand Central Station ceiling was again exposed, this time with a newly installed LED lighting system. It took electricians 6 months to put in, but the LEDs promise to shine brighter, last longer and use less electricity than any of their predecessors. And, according to the New York Times, the LED lights “…add astronomical accuracy: Each individual fixture has a unique glass diffuser that modulates intensity to better capture the size and intensity of the star being depicted.” Now that’s attention to detail!

https://www.diodeled.com/grand-central-station-shines-brightly-once-again-thanks-to-led-lights/

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Careful. What VIA has to justify in expenses is a lot different than what GO does. VIA has official and unofficial service mandates GO does not.

Plus Via alos has to compete with airlines and automobile traffic much more then Go Transit does. For example it can cost just as much to take the train to Montreal as it is to fly there. Very few of Via trips are likely poel commuting with in the GTA. If A VIA train is short it's because there isn't demand for along train. Most of the time Go Trains will be standing room only with all 12 cars filled.

 

[steveintoronto]

Plus Via alos has to compete with airlines and automobile traffic much more then Go Transit does. For example it can cost just as much to take the train to Montreal as it is to fly there. Very few of Via trips are likely poel commuting with in the GTA. If A VIA train is short it's because there isn't demand for along train. Most of the time Go Trains will be standing room only with all 12 cars filled.

The two car trains are regional/commuter ones. Point stands. You don't need a 12 car platform for a two car train.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

The two car trains are regional/commuter ones. Point stands. You don't need a 12 car platform for a two car train.

Shorter Go trains would cost more money then could be justified. For Example you would have to rebuild every platform on the system. Plus you have extra fuel and personal cost.

 

[steveintoronto]

No one ever suggested replacing the present peak trainsets with shorter ones. There are already 6 car trains running on the Allandale and Mt Pleasant runs, and UPX are how many cars exactly?

 

[mdrejhon]

Two words: GO RER

As part of the GO RER Businses Plan, there appears already an intent to do 4, 8 and 12 car GO trains. Offpeak doesn't really need 12 coach running 15 minute frequency.

EMUs are desired for the 'SmartTrack' routing (Bramalea-Unionville) as well as the Barrie line to at least Aurora.

Quick-join joiners so they can go to 12-coach for peak.

I do see potential Union double berthing of the 4/4 and 4/8 car GO trains, in the EMU era, but operationally, they'll probably 'accumulate' just before peak, with incoming 4-coach and 8-coach EMUs arriving to let off people on the same platform, then train joins in minutes, and leaving as a 12-coach consist at evening peak period.