GO Transit Fleet Equipment and other

[crs1026]

Everything you always wondered about seat fabrics...... by this standard, GO compares favourably.

http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20160804-why-are-trains-seats-so-hideous

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

Might be a dumb question but will the bilevel diesels still run as express commuter trains on the RER lines?

Worth answering now and then, as readers aren't always familiar with Regional Express Rail:

- Diesel trains from Hamilton/Niagara will go express past most parts of the electric section
- Diesel trains from Kitchener-Waterloo will go express past most parts of the electric section
- Even on LSE, upcoming Bowmanville trains might not be electrified. If this happens, these will probably go express somewhere west of Pickering.

 

[drum118]

Is this our future using Stadler KISS??

 

[steveintoronto]

Is this our future using Stadler KISS??

"The trains meet FRA Alternative Compliance requirements for operating in mixed traffic, which results in a high level of passive safety."

It's years beyond due for Transport Canada to "get with the program".

Some on these forums still claim weight equals safety. It doesn't! Some of these lightweights *exceed* FRA regs. And perform far beyond anything 'old school'. "The standard-gauge trains have a maximum operating speed of 110 mph (177 km/h).". I also note that model has both two high level and two low level sets of doors per coach.

Excellent article!

 

[mdrejhon]

I've never seen a Stadler KISS with dual-platform-height entrances!

 

[drum118]

Looking at the set, it setup for high & low floor platforms. No idea what is used for platforms on Cal system. Its the first one I have seen

What I don't is the bottom for the lowfloor if its the sames as this one I saw in Europe.

The KISS I have seen will work nicely for our platforms

 

[steveintoronto]

View attachment 83661

I've never seen a Stadler KISS with dual-platform-height entrances!

From the pic Drum posted in another forum, it's an artist's rendition. I tried to track down pics of an actual model, but I think it's a proposed variant. What's interesting is that it is *two* of each for each car in the drawing. A proto may in fact exist, still trying to determine.

 

[drum118]

Just found out

The EMUs are being equipped with two sets of doors to provide access to the future high-level platforms to be shared with CHSRA. Only the low-level doors will be used when Caltrain service starts.

 

[muller877]

Just found out

The EMUs are being equipped with two sets of doors to provide access to the future high-level platforms to be shared with CHSRA. Only the low-level doors will be used when Caltrain service starts.

I wonder why Metrolinx didn't get BBD to do the same (high/low doors) on the new order. Or at least include it as an option. Would be ideal today for Dundas West and Weston stops (with UPX). And tomorrow for future conversions to high platforms.

I wonder how accessibility works for Caltrain. Will there be a ramp/lift in one car for wheelchairs? Or will each stop have at least one low floor entrance? (a wheelchair gets on at a low-floor stop...how does it get off at a high-floor stop?)

 

[steveintoronto]

I wonder why Metrolinx didn't get BBD to do the same (high/low doors) on the new order. Or at least include it as an option. Would be ideal today for Dundas West and Weston stops (with UPX). And tomorrow for future conversions to high platforms.

I wonder how accessibility works for Caltrain. Will there be a ramp/lift in one car for wheelchairs? Or will each stop have at least one low floor entrance? (a wheelchair gets on at a low-floor stop...how does it get off at a high-floor stop?)

GO *will not* adopt high platforms as a standard, and shouldn't. It's already gone too far with UPX. The high level platforms are maximum four coach anyway, not suitable for RER or GO train length.

There are a number of blogs online re: "Caltrans High Speed Accessibility" that discuss the issue.

 

[drum118]

I wonder why Metrolinx didn't get BBD to do the same (high/low doors) on the new order. Or at least include it as an option. Would be ideal today for Dundas West and Weston stops (with UPX). And tomorrow for future conversions to high platforms.

I wonder how accessibility works for Caltrain. Will there be a ramp/lift in one car for wheelchairs? Or will each stop have at least one low floor entrance? (a wheelchair gets on at a low-floor stop...how does it get off at a high-floor stop?)

If they are built like Europe, there is no need for a ramp since the gap filler will do the job. The gap plate is standard on all new Europe equipment for RR. Even some lowfloor LRT have the gap plate.

What is unknown at this time for Caltrain cars, are all the stations going to be highfloor once CHSRA comes on line or a combination?? More a combination and this raise a question as to if there will be a lift to get riders from the low level to high level to allow then on or off and how will that work in the cars??

As for use, lowfloor will be the standard.

 

[steveintoronto]

More a combination and this raise a question as to if there will be a lift to get riders from the low level to high level to allow then on or off and how will that work in the cars??

I should have saved my links, as I was Googling deeply on this last night, and even what dual platform heights are in both Europe and North Am vary wildly, to the point that some manufacturers offer two variations for each on the same model. In the event, a standard is emerging, but the point remains, equipping a coach with two sets of doors is not only complicated to build, it's prone to malfunctioning at intervals regular enough to seriously affect scheduling. That was discussed at a (Railway Age?) article I was reading. The extending step-plate is considered the easiest and most workable solution, but *any kind of mechanism* not really required is one more thing to glitch, and by Houlihan's Law (he thought Murphy was an optimist) it will. And come looking to happen! Our weather doesn't help, albeit the Swedes (ABB and others) have also studied this.

In the end, the solution is, as Drum states, a standard low-level platform, and for as problematic the handicapped coaches are, they seem to be working, and platforms are already extant. Let's leave it that way, and deal with the UPX platform conundrum in retrospect. I say *no more high platform coaches or D or EMU vehicles* even on the Western Corridor. Standardization must happen now, but leave what there is in-place until more stock is ordered, and deal with it then. We still have no concrete plans for what that stock will be, let alone the features, save for earlier Metrolinx staff depictions.

Double sets of doors also means *less room in cars*! It raises a multitude of issues, and California (Caltrans) may rue the day they compromised on this one.

Edit to Add: Just found the blog I was describing previous post, amazing what a different set of search tags does:

Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Level Boarding: It's Official
caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2015/08/level-boarding-its-official.html
Aug 26, 2015 - The bi-level EMU must therefore have the same interface with the ... Section 3.3.3 of the RFP details Caltrain's new high platform interface: ... They will access the high doors using wheel ramps built into the stairs between the lower bike ...... Even west of the Sierra Nevada like Caltrans did when they scored ...
Caltrain HSR Compatibility Blog: Caltrain Should Use High Platforms
caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2013/02/caltrain-should-use-high-platforms.html
Feb 2, 2013 - It doesn't need to go this way: the new EMU rolling stock can enable the transition, by providing both high and low doors during the transition ...
Missing: caltrans

There's a lot more on-line, but that's a good start.

 

[rbt]

I wonder why Metrolinx didn't get BBD to do the same (high/low doors) on the new order. Or at least include it as an option. Would be ideal today for Dundas West and Weston stops (with UPX).

You lose most of the seats on the mid-level by doing this.

And tomorrow for future conversions to high platforms.

At what height at these high platforms? Keep in mind while answering this question that Union has both the most benefits and complications to convert; so Union will specify the height for the entire system. What UPX did almost certainly won't exactly match what Union ends up being.

For Union, the last bit of info out of Metrolinx was around lowering the trackbed and leaving the platforms unmodified. High level GO platforms may only be a foot taller than low level platforms.

 

[steveintoronto]

You lose most of the seats on the mid-level by doing this.
[...]
At what height at these high platforms? Keep in mind while answering this question that Union has both the most benefits and complications to convert; so Union will specify the height for the entire system. What UPX did almost certainly won't exactly match what Union ends up being.

For Union, the last bit of info out of Metrolinx was around lowering the trackbed and leaving the platforms unmodified. High level GO platforms may only be a foot taller than low level platforms.

Excellent points, and there's a bunch more that we haven't even mentioned yet. I'm just reading through the blog I linked last post, a lot of complications are discussed along the lines of what you just mentioned by some very informed and insightful bloggers:
http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.ca/2015/08/level-boarding-its-official.html

The discussion is mostly San Fran centric, and another factor is raised, took me aback but this *might* come up with SmartTrack eventually sharing track in stations with LRTs in Toronto (in SF's case, it's BART, the TTC subway and streetcars use "Toronto gauge", shared track won't happen but the LRTs are standard gauge and might), so BART comes into their forum's discussions too. The point is the importance of a universal standard for GO/RER, or if it isn't, then to be aware of all the complications before even thinking about doing otherwise. UPX has already complicated ordering more rolling stock to extend the line as-is by virtue of the high-level platforms, and there's not enough stock now to extend it to even Bramalea.

Edit to Correct: BART incompatibility of track gauge *is* an issue, I rescind what I wrote above, the blog linked comments *do* analogize to Toronto's TTC gauge:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit_track_gauge Rapid transit track gauge is often 1,435 mm standard gauge, but also 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm), ... Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) uses Indian gauge, though most railroad lines in the United States are built to 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) gauge.

That may appear to be an abstract point at this time, but for future considerations? I can very easily see UPX being run by LRTs, with the version of LRV being dual-voltage. They already exist in a number of cities in Europe, some of them Bombardier, such that they can run on LRT lines and the 25kV ones Metrolinx is going to use. They are low floor.

 

[mdrejhon]

You lose most of the seats on the mid-level by doing this.

If GO RER uses Stadler KISS trainsets, then they could unify the trainset with low platforms, but order a few double-platform-height consists for the UPX route. It would be a capacity hack for UPX, though.

So you have 4-coach joinable KISS consists for GO RER/ST and UPX. mostly low platform doors only. But the double-platform-height consists could be usable on the UPX route, after modifying the positions of the platform-edge doors and slightly lengthening the stations.

4/8/12 coach KISS combos were suggestively illustrated before.

The UPX stations would, after length modifications fit one 4-coach KISS like the above, but with added high-platform doors. It would then now have enough seats to break even on the farebox at reasonable prices.

Issues could include baggage, but racks and accessible area could be located at the midlevels. Longer boarding time could be compensated by the faster EMU acceleration.