News   Apr 24, 2024
 992     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 1.6K     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
 633     0 

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

Hurontario is a good example having a tram-train service.
How specifically?

I could see a tram train working on the Don Branch maybe, going onstreet when the mainlines bend up and into USRC, or on the OBRY to provide another connection between Mississauga and Brampton, stuff like that. Most tram train applications I've seen involve lightly worked sections of mainline track, not being thrown in amongst the volume of traffic we see on most GO alignments.
 
not being thrown in amongst the volume of traffic we see on most GO alignments.
Even though interlining does happen in a few instances in Europe, the value would be to *temporally supplement* RER between peak when RER wouldn't be running on some lines due to lack of sufficient ridership. At that time, 'run-throughs' from mostly street alignments could keep the service frequent without running heavy trains unnecessarily. When the RERs are running, the LRVs would run on the LRT only routes at peak headways.

I could see a tram train working on the Don Branch maybe, going onstreet when the mainlines bend up and into USRC,
That would be a very good example, and also consider into tunnel from the Bala Sub from the north under Millwood and Pape to do the Relief Line, which when demand exceeds LRT capacity, RERs are run. During peak, some RERs would continue as express down to Union from Steeles or further north if a dedicated RoW is built beside the CN line to Richmond Hill. (catenary and CN don't mix).

Most tram train applications I've seen involve lightly worked sections of mainline track, not being thrown in amongst the volume of traffic we see on most GO alignments.
And that's the 'temporally separated' aspect again, if for no other reason than to satisfy TC regs and crashworthiness concerns so the LRVs aren't turned into bulldozers to meet those regs.
With the Alstoms on order (and they can be ordered dual-mode to run on 25kVAC as well as 750 VDC) they are even more suitable to be run as tram-trains than the Flexities. Spirit top speed is 100+kph, they'd fly down the Bala Sub.

The point cannot be lost on this though: If you bore a deep tunnel (as the Relief Line is to be), it costs no more to make it forward compatible, in fact slightly less if you use low-level platforms, and station length will increase the cost slightly, but considering upgrading that in the future is a massive sum, if it's possible at all, best to overbuild the tunnel now, plan for future RER running, and run it LRV until that time. Other than overload breaker settings, the electrical and other infrastructure would be the same. This would of course be like Eglinton Crosslink: Standard gauge and same bore* diameter. Signalling and control would have to be the same as whatever the RER uses (one of the CBTC standards)

* (At least for single deck coaches. I've yet to find if a slightly larger bore diameter is needed for the BBD DD coaches. )

or on the OBRY to provide another connection between Mississauga and Brampton
Or Mississauga to Orangeville, the segment north of Brampton being run single track with passing loops.
 
Last edited:
The fact that Cherry Tower is being relocated to accommodate this may indicate a tactical decision on the TTC's part to not force the issue previously, since now it is clearly on GO's dime to do that relocation. But it would be disastrous in my view to have this work done and not get a portal out of it even if track is not immediately laid, even if it means expediting the redesign of the road network south of the USRC which should be part of the Gardiner East project anyway.

That there is no likelihood of reprofiling the corridor to add more clearance to Parliament and Sherbourne bridges is unfortunate but I guess there's no helping that.
 
Even though interlining does happen in a few instances in Europe, the value would be to *temporally supplement* RER between peak when RER wouldn't be running on some lines due to lack of sufficient ridership. At that time, 'run-throughs' from mostly street alignments could keep the service frequent without running heavy trains unnecessarily. When the RERs are running, the LRVs would run on the LRT only routes at peak headways.
It would probably be easier and cheaper to just run RER all day, and gerrymander other routes which run downtown at peak to use RER corridors (i.e. connect to RER services). TTC couldn't find it efficient even to use 2 or 4 car subways off peak, never mind an entirely different vehicle.

(Don Branch) would be a very good example, and also consider into tunnel from the Bala Sub from the north under Millwood and Pape to do the Relief Line, which when demand exceeds LRT capacity, RERs are run. During peak, some RERs would continue as express down to Union from Steeles or further north if a dedicated RoW is built beside the CN line to Richmond Hill. (catenary and CN don't mix).
I have no idea what's going on in this paragraph. Relief Line, RER, trams, CN - getting off the Bala over the Don River and the DVP and under Pape, somehow... It sums up for me how "tram trains" and "RER" mean little except what the person proposing them wants it to be.
 
I have no idea what's going on in this paragraph. Relief Line, RER, trams, CN - getting off the Bala over the Don River and the DVP and under Pape, somehow... It sums up for me how "tram trains" and "RER" mean little except what the person proposing them wants it to be.
Well you could start with your own definition:
SNCF consider Line T4 a tram train, and it operates as single vehicles, not in multiple.

The Bala Sub south of Steeles is ML owned, starting just north of there is CN owned, and they won't allow catenary. RER is presumed to be electrified: Catenary is necessary. The Bala Sub is not projected to be an RER route and thus electrified due to some issues, all of which could be addressed. When one looks at the very high cost of the Relief Line, and how synergy could be had by combining the Relief Line with RER, like many other world cities do, various proposals should be entertained.

Here's an example, with English dialog and description:
UK’s first tram train unveiled in Sheffield

Published on Dec 15, 2015
Passengers in South Yorkshire will become the first to benefit from the UK’s first ever tram train. The vehicles from this government-funded project are designed to run on both the city’s tramlines and the rail network between Sheffield and Rotherham. This will allow passengers to make single journey between tram stops and conventional rail stations from early 2017, once the works are complete.

See the news story: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mi...

 
Last edited:
When one looks at the very high cost of the Relief Line, and how synergy could be had by combining the Relief Line with RER, like many other world cities do, various proposals should be entertained.
Why seek synergy when we could have vertical integration?
 
Here's an example, with English dialog and description:
UK’s first tram train unveiled in Sheffield

Published on Dec 15, 2015
Passengers in South Yorkshire will become the first to benefit from the UK’s first ever tram train. The vehicles from this government-funded project are designed to run on both the city’s tramlines and the rail network between Sheffield and Rotherham. This will allow passengers to make single journey between tram stops and conventional rail stations from early 2017, once the works are complete.

See the news story: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/mi...

An example of a two year pilot which doesn't start running until 2018
http://www.sypte.co.uk/tramtrain/
 
I still can't figure out how these extensions in service are going to be financed. There is no such thing as off-peak trains that have ridership levels as high as rush hour ones and seeing that GO fares already make up 80%+ of revenue, how are these operations being funded? Having new track and stations is one thing but having the money to run them is quite another.
 
I still can't figure out how these extensions in service are going to be financed. There is no such thing as off-peak trains that have ridership levels as high as rush hour ones and seeing that GO fares already make up 80%+ of revenue, how are these operations being funded? Having new track and stations is one thing but having the money to run them is quite another.
It's a very good question, especially since funding for infrastructure is being offered for various schemes, but operating costs aren't.

In the past, railways would drop off a number of coaches to run shorter trains to maintain service, but that was generations ago. To do that now is problematic due to regulations and the type of couplers TC approves. The US allows waivers for some of those things, TC, not so much.

One of the answers is as ML does now, just run full trains at peak, and on some routes, off-peak, the shorter consist ones run as peak on one line are used for off-peak on other lines. Many trainsets are on lay-by between peaks, as it just doesn't make sense to run them almost empty even if they have the slots available to do it.

With the electrification of many lines *supposedly* imminent, and those lines owned by ML, who could ostensibly get temporal waivers from TC, it might make sense to run some of their potentially 'surplus' (if BBD honour their delivery commitment) Alstom LRVs on some of those lines to maintain "frequent service" (every 15 mins or less) and run onto local LRTs from those tracks. (The TTC would be precluded from this due to different track gauge). This is what a number of very progressive cities are doing, and San Diego has done for decades.

Without frequent service, usage just won't build.

It remains to be seen if the GTHA ever adopts something of this nature. It would have to be Metrolinx that drives this kind of change, and there are indications they are losing patience (or at least their political masters are) with Toronto and the TTC.

I suspect there might be a major announcement on change before the next Ontario election.
 
With the electrification of many lines *supposedly* imminent, and those lines owned by ML, who could ostensibly get temporal waivers from TC, it might make sense to run some of their potentially 'surplus' (if BBD honour their delivery commitment) Alstom LRVs on some of those lines to maintain "frequent service" (every 15 mins or less) and run onto local LRTs from those tracks. (The TTC would be precluded from this due to different track gauge). This is what a number of very progressive cities are doing, and San Diego has done for decades.
What service in San Diego are you asserting this is happening on? Sprinter or the Trolley?
 
I still can't figure out how these extensions in service are going to be financed. There is no such thing as off-peak trains that have ridership levels as high as rush hour ones and seeing that GO fares already make up 80%+ of revenue, how are these operations being funded? Having new track and stations is one thing but having the money to run them is quite another.

And if they roll out to much and Ontario needs austerity (given the debacle of the future projected deficit by watchdog it is likely) we may have transit rollback similar to what Bob Rae had to do. What the NDP had to do should give the politicians warnings not to ramp up too quickly.
 
I still can't figure out how these extensions in service are going to be financed. There is no such thing as off-peak trains that have ridership levels as high as rush hour ones and seeing that GO fares already make up 80%+ of revenue, how are these operations being funded? Having new track and stations is one thing but having the money to run them is quite another.

Well, the peak trains have already paid for that 80% of quasi fixed costs eg trainset cleaning and maintenance, station operating costs, etc. You mostly need to pay for fuel, and some labour, but the labour cost is likely at a lower rate per trainmile because more crews will work straight shifts instead of split shifts. Some added wear and tear on equipment and plant.

Having said that, the move from half hourly service on Lakeshore to 15 minute service means twice as many trains will be out there off-peak. GO probably has all those trains sitting idle between peaks, but that's still a doubling of fuel usage and crew time. Half hourly all-day service likely just uses the equipment better (yeah, maybe there's a cost to hostling shorter trains off-peak too) but moving to 15 minute service will drive costs way up.

- Paul
 
What service in San Diego are you asserting this is happening on? Sprinter or the Trolley?
The Sprinter isn't in San Diego, it's in North County. I've lived in both there (Escondido) and SD. I'm referring to the SD Trolley. It also has a section in tunnel built after my time there. I took the Trolley many times, and I'm very familiar with the history. The freight operation over the SD tracks is SD&IV. The heavy rail tracks the Trolley runs on when outside the urban core, complete with freight sidings and industrial branches, is former Southern Pacific.


The San Diego and Imperial Valley Railroad (reporting mark SDIY) is a class III railroad by agreement of the owners of the railroad, the San Diego and Arizona Eastern Railway from San Diego, California to San Ysidro, California (which operates on the San Diego Trolley's Blue Line), and on the Trolley's Orange Line to El Cajon, as well. [...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Diego_and_Imperial_Valley_Railroad

Mid-Coast Trolley Project
[...]
The Mid-Coast extension runs alongside the tracks used by the Coaster commuter trains and the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner, except at the northern end, where it is planned to climb Miramar Hill to serve UCSD; the mainline tracks go around the hill instead. Right now, the plan is to build dedicated tracks for the trolley; if it were a tram-train, it could instead use the existing tracks shared with regular trains and only use new tracks to climb the hill to UCSD.

Tram-trains also have a history in the U.S., by another name: the interurban. In the first half of the 20th century, private companies built long commuter lines and even intercity rail lines. They were mostly separate from the conventional rail network, and were electrified rather than steam-powered, but ran like regular railroads between cities; within cities they ran on city streets, like streetcars. At the beginning of the 20th century, there was some track-sharing between urban transit and commuter rail in New York, but federal regulations outlawed it in the 1910s on safety grounds.

Today, some former interurbans have been turned over to light rail, which runs on city streets in the center and on dedicated railroad lines farther out. Unfortunately, the need to construct new dedicated tracks for every light-rail line, rather than sharing regular train tracks, leads to high construction costs. Using the existing rail tracks is cheaper, and San Diego should investigate if it is possible to modify the Mid-Coast extension to do so.

There is already one place in the U.S. using a proper tram-train using mainline rail: the New Jersey River Line uses city streets in Trenton and Camden and mainline track between them. The regulations for this are complicated, and River Line has strict time separation, with freight trains running only at night. But European regulations are friendlier to tram-trains. An ongoing overhaul of American passenger rail regulations is planned to permit lightly modified European trains on American tracks, and it is likely that sharing tracks between intercity passenger and freight trains and light rail will soon be permitted.

Public transit consultant Jarrett Walker discussed tram-trains in 2009. He said that the technology is useful when there is a dominant destination that is a little too far away from the train tracks. In the case of San Diego, this is UCSD. Walker cautioned that street-running slows down the trains, since they have to obey street traffic rules; in this case this is not a problem, since the segment through UCSD is planned to be elevated rather than on the street.[...]
http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topi...s-wildly-expensive-mid-coast-trolley-project/

More here:
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/...lley-network-mostly-skipping-over-inner-city/
 
Last edited:
In the last 2 years GO Rail has only experienced very modest growth and that came with new stations are far more service during the day and on weekends. To assume that these additional riders are just using off-peak is rather stupid so again, how is this being financed?

If Metrolinx wants to know what kind of REAL latent demand there is for a RER-type service, they should drop the fares 50% across the board in non-peak and weekend times. It could just be a 6 month trial but expenses would increase one nickel and the {supposedly} higher ridership may make up the reduced fare levels to the point of maybe even overall revenue increases on the lines. From the rather lackluster increases in rail ridership in the last 2 years, it doesn't seem like people are jumping at the chance to take the added services. It would also help entice some new riders to try to service for the first time. They need that enticement because parking is much less costly on weekends and evenings than during standard business hours and the driving is far quicker and more relaxing.

Metrolinx should learn from it's UPX mistakes and lower fares. The UPX tripled it's ridership, the revenues and expenses stay the same.
 
In the last 2 years GO Rail has only experienced very modest growth and that came with new stations are far more service during the day and on weekends. To assume that these additional riders are just using off-peak is rather stupid so again, how is this being financed?

If Metrolinx wants to know what kind of REAL latent demand there is for a RER-type service, they should drop the fares 50% across the board in non-peak and weekend times. It could just be a 6 month trial but expenses would increase one nickel and the {supposedly} higher ridership may make up the reduced fare levels to the point of maybe even overall revenue increases on the lines. From the rather lackluster increases in rail ridership in the last 2 years, it doesn't seem like people are jumping at the chance to take the added services. It would also help entice some new riders to try to service for the first time. They need that enticement because parking is much less costly on weekends and evenings than during standard business hours and the driving is far quicker and more relaxing.

Metrolinx should learn from it's UPX mistakes and lower fares. The UPX tripled it's ridership, the revenues and expenses stay the same.
The biggest draw for off peak service is the events in Toronto...(the spike in ridership that sports {Jays/Leafs/Raptors/TFC} drive on off peak use is easily noticable and same goes for concerts and other events)....and I can assure you that in Toronto (and I assume other cities too) the cost of parking is markedly more for such events than during normal working hours in the core.
 

Back
Top