Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
Project Essentials / dataBase detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread
Union Pearson Express
,
Developer: Metrolinx

Login to
post and
upload photos
Page 55 of 328 FirstFirst ... 545535455565765105155 ... LastLast
Results 811 to 825 of 4906

Thread: GO Georgetown South Corridor/ Union Pearson Express (Metrolinx, U/C)

  1. #811

    Default

    Or I'm simply not presenting prejudiced information, in order to make try and keep something out of my backyard.


  2. #812

    Default

    Well it appears GO wants big large trains instead of smaller trains.

  3. #813

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordmandeep View Post
    Why would Go charge so much it its like 5.00 one way to go to Malton ^^^
    To make a huge profit off travel weary tourists? The airport bus charges $20 :O
    But I think if it's $5 (cheapest fare I've seen from airport to city), everyone will definitely take this over TTC.

  4. #814
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
    Posts
    7,967

    Default

    You had to take a number to get into the Weston Open House last night.

    Consultants were out in force beating the drum on cost.

    Talking to the chap from infrastructure last night as to what would be the cost benefit be if CP is put in the trench and the trench was extended to east of Jane using 1% grade vs. current plan with CP still at grade and the Bolton train would not stop at Weston. Got the usually double talk.

    Looking at the Corridor at Church St, it going to be real tight to get the 6 tracks in there.

  5. #815
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
    Posts
    7,967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lordmandeep View Post
    Well it appears GO wants big large trains instead of smaller trains.
    That the sad part and narrow thinking.

    I have been calling for smaller train for the Lakeshore during off peak for years. It would save a lot of wear and tear on equipment.

    A 3 unit DMU can move 350 riders per train or 1,400 riders an hour. Since there supposed to be 17,000 riders heading to the core, ridership will be less than 1,400 per hour except for a slot or 2.

    If you need more room, you add a car or 2 to the existing 3 unit and it still well be less weight than a GO trains.

  6. #816

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by drum118 View Post
    I have been calling for smaller train for the Lakeshore during off peak for years. It would save a lot of wear and tear on equipment.
    When they increase off-peak frequency to two trains per hour later, are they still planning to use 10- (or gasp 12-) car trains?

  7. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nfitz View Post
    When they increase off-peak frequency to two trains per hour later, are they still planning to use 10- (or gasp 12-) car trains?
    I think the main issue is the time spent shunting the consist. Is the time necessary to add and remove two or more coaches from the middle of the train really worth it for the 6 hours it would be in service?

    If you separated the fleet into long and short trains, then only half of the fleet would be suitable for rush hour.

    I'd like to see it happen but I don't see it as being very practical.
    Visions For The GTTA A blog about all things urban and regional.

    - "But what do I know, I'm just a transportation planner. No one listens to me."

  8. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RedRocket191 View Post
    I think the main issue is the time spent shunting the consist. Is the time necessary to add and remove two or more coaches from the middle of the train really worth it for the 6 hours it would be in service?


    If you separated the fleet into long and short trains, then only half of the fleet would be suitable for rush hour.

    I'd like to see it happen but I don't see it as being very practical.
    Shunting Correct me if i am wrong,do passenger trains still shunt or is that a term used only for freight trains.

    Would it not make more sense to use this type of train for this airport link.
    This Bombardier Talent dmu or emu trainsets comes in 2,3, and 4 car configuration which can be coupled to form longer trains and can be diesel, diesel-electric or fully electric. I understand Bombardier can have these up and running on our rail system in no time.Or has the Province of Ontario already sealed the deal with SNC Lavalin.



    At least they would look better arriving in to our future YYZ station than some refurbished 50 year old beat up junker.
    Last edited by Automation Gallery; 2009-Feb-07 at 19:20.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Automation Gallery View Post
    Would it not make more sense to use this type of train for this airport link.
    This Bombardier Talent dmu or emu trainsets comes in 2,3, and 4 car configuration which can be coupled to form longer trains and can be diesel, diesel-electric or fully electric. I understand Bombardier can have these up and running on our rail system in no time.Or has the Province of Ontario already sealed the deal with SNC Lavalin.
    ....
    At least they would look better arriving in to our future YYZ station than some refurbished 50 year old beat up junker.
    Great idea. And depending on the timelines they could probably buy the used cars form the Ottawa O-train as that city converts the line to LRT.

  10. #820

    Default

    The Bombardier Talent does not meet North American crash-strength standards, and is therefore cannot legally run on the same railways as other trains that do meet the standard.

  11. Default

    Word on the street is that Bombardier has a design for a north american spec DMU. It's supposed to look similar to a Comet passenger car with a different underbody. Google AMT's EMUs to get a general idea. Right now it appears to be a solution in search of a problem - perhaps we've found the problem.
    Visions For The GTTA A blog about all things urban and regional.

    - "But what do I know, I'm just a transportation planner. No one listens to me."

  12. #822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Beez View Post
    Then why not simply have a shuttle bus from Malton GO Train station to take people the 2,000 meters? It could be done as a one year trial to see if folks will even consider taking the train from Union to Pearson, before spending millions of dollars of public funds to build a dedicated rail system.

    Right now the Malton train doesn't run often or at all off rush our peak. I know this because I used to work at Derry Rd and Airport Rd and lived downtown. So I thought, great, there's a train station right next to my work. But no.... there's no train from Union to Malton in the morning, and there's no train from Malton to Union in the afternoon/evening.

    So, change the GO Train schedule for the Malton run so that the trains run all day to Union and back, but for the new runs skip all the stations between Union and Malton (perhaps one in between), and then have a luggage-capable shuttle take the passengers from Malton to Pearson. This seems like the perfect solution. I mean come on folks, there's already a direct rail line to Union station right next to the airport. Let's use that first.
    I think this is a great idea, VIA Trains should stop there also.... this would be a relatively easy way to improve access to the airport. Sure we want a direct rail line in the future, but that will take a while to plan/build.... why not try this out in the interim? (I disagree that it should be a 'trial'... more like a temporary fix)

  13. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Admiral Beez View Post
    Why not then extend the people mover another 2,000 meters to the Malton GO train station? Then GO could adjust the train runs accordingly. It just seems to be a simple solution, as you've already got rail from Union and the GTA right up to the airport's doorstep. Why not make better use of that instead of building an entirely separate rail system?
    Quote Originally Posted by nfitz View Post
    2 km? That's would much more than double the existing length. The system just isn't built for that distance; and the frequency would plummet - particularily when only one train is in service.

    It would be a completely new people mover; in which case you might as well build it into a separate platform in T1.
    Dallas Airport People Mover is 5mi/8km
    At the time they decided to go with the Austrian made Doppelmayr APM which has a max travel length of aprox 1800 meters when really they could have gone with the Canadian/German built Bombardier Innovia which has a max tavel length of 10KM.That would have been more than enough to have taken it to the Malton Go Station.That would have been the smartest and less expensive way and today we would not be talking about all this bullshit.Our politicians have to wake up and stop making poor decisions when it comes to Transportation,all you have to do is look around,from trams to subways and trains we seem to be falling behind everyone else.

    http://www.bombardier.com/en/transpo...01260d8001405c

  14. #824

    Default

    Cheers!

    Even if were to run a rail spur directly into Pearson, you would need a people mover (or reinstatement of the bus shuttles) in order to get people in between terminals and parking regardless.

  15. #825

    Default

    That people mover can always be converted to self propelling technology, in which case the ends of the system should have loops to permit easy functioning.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •