News   Apr 25, 2024
 72     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
 286     0 
News   Apr 25, 2024
 491     0 

Great Platform Height Debate: Subway-Style Level Boarding for GO Trains

The Multilevel cars are a terrible idea. Besides the issues with the doorways, there are no locations anywhere on the system with restrictive overhead clearances, so why would you force yourself to be limited in size? They are considerably heavier than the BiLevels, and that means that trains won't be able to accelerate as quickly as they do today.

There seems to be no particular reason why you couldn't modify the BiLevel design to have high-level doorways if you wanted to go that way.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

FYI there are more respectful ways of disagreeing with the prior opinions than saying they are "a terrible idea".

Anyhow...

You make a good point about the disadvantages of using specifically Bombardier MultiLevels. But my original point was merely to illustrate the precedent in dual-height vehicles in Canada, not necessarily to promote that specific product. MultiLevels are optimized for operating conditions other than ours (specifically the Hudson Tubes in New York and the Mont-Royal Tunnel in Montréal), so obviously they are not as ideal as the Bombardier Bilevel, which was designed from scratch for GO Transit.

I expect that Bombardier would be open to introducing a variant of the Bilevel with doorways on the middle level if we expressed interest in it. But due to the re-engineering required, it would be a while before we could start receiving vehicles. In the meantime, we could buy some MultiLevels, which are an existing off-the-shelf product.

In defense of loading speed: The MultiLevel has just as many doors as the Bilevel, just spread out individually rather than in pairs. My guess is that this actually would result in more efficient unloading. The full-spec version used by New Jersey Transit allows all four doors to open at high-level stations, which tend to be the busiest stations. Montreal decided to cut costs by omitting the trapdoor that allows the end doors to operate at high-level platforms, since their system does not have the ridership pressure experienced in New York, or here in Toronto.
 
FYI there are more respectful ways of disagreeing with the prior opinions than saying they are "a terrible idea".
If something is a terrible idea, saying so isn't disrespectful.

In fact, it would be disrespectful not to point out that a terrible idea, is a terrible idea. To not point it out would be pandering, placating, or even brownosing. In other words disrespectful.

If you respect someone, you tell them they are full of it. If you don't respect them, you just ignore them.

Note, that I have no opinions on whether this is a terrible idea or not.
 
I think things would be better off with the platforms remaining low floor, with Bi level EMU's and doors on the lower levels.

Converting the system to high floor would just not be worth the hassle, new and old trains will be co-existing for a quite a while, there is no need to complicate things more, converting Union Station alone would be a large undertaking.

And I can't see any need for further orders of existing fleet types, even if they have both high and low doors, I would guess that any orders from now on would be RER compatible EMU trains.
 
I think things would be better off with the platforms remaining low floor, with Bi level EMU's and doors on the lower levels.

Converting the system to high floor would just not be worth the hassle, new and old trains will be co-existing for a quite a while, there is no need to complicate things more, converting Union Station alone would be a large undertaking.

And I can't see any need for further orders of existing fleet types, even if they have both high and low doors, I would guess that any orders from now on would be RER compatible EMU trains.

There will always be a place for bi-level locomotive-hauled trains in the GO network. Local services benefit greatly from the faster acceleration of EMUs, but longer distance services with fewer stops (to Kitchener and Niagara, for example) will probably still be most economical with locomotives and bi-level coaches.

In order for full-length high-platform conversion to begin, all rolling stock needs to be compatible. If we don't start getting high-platform compatible trains until the entire line is electrified, we'd be waiting decades before even starting on platform construction.

I think something which would be helpful for this discussion is the amount of time per stop we'd save with high platforms. Once UPX is up and running, I'll go out and make a comparison in dwell times at Bloor or Weston.
 
Last edited:
A related discussion is whether a partial conversion is feasible. Certain routes only?

We can use different trainsets just on one line. The Kitchener line is the HSR, UPX and SmartTrack route, and if SmartTrack trains are high platform, it obviously becomes the route with the highest pressure of converting to eventual high platforms and full electricification, making it feasible to reassign all existing trainsets to expand service on other GO routes.

Because of this, we might end up seeing existing GOTrains discontinue local service on the Kitchener line (south of Pearson) in approximately ten years - only high platform trains (UPX/SmartTrack and HSR Union/Pearson) doing local service. Then twenty years later, express can go electric -- With the intent to triple GO service by 2031, the other routes can swallow up all the existing diesel trainsets, even express ones, for the Kitchener/Stoufville route, especially when later full electricification occur on the entire route, due to HSR and expanding SmartTrack (to whole Stoufville route).
 
Last edited:
There will always be a place for bi-level locomotive-hauled trains in the GO network. Local services benefit greatly from the faster acceleration of EMUs, but longer distance services with fewer stops (to Kitchener and Niagara, for example) will probably still be most economical with locomotives and bi-level coaches.

In order for full-length high-platform conversion to begin, all rolling stock needs to be compatible. If we don't start getting high-platform compatible trains until the entire line is electrified, we'd be waiting decades before even starting on platform construction.

But my main point was that since we already have a bunch of Bi Levels, probably more than will be needed for such longer distance services where they would be appropriate, then it would odd to go buying more of them, just for the benefit of having doors at different locations.
 
But my main point was that since we already have a bunch of Bi Levels, probably more than will be needed for such longer distance services where they would be appropriate, then it would odd to go buying more of them, just for the benefit of having doors at different locations.

Ah I see your point. Yeah, that does seem a bit wasteful, but there does at least seem to be a fairly strong market for second-hand BiLevels in the US.
 
But my main point was that since we already have a bunch of Bi Levels, probably more than will be needed for such longer distance services where they would be appropriate, then it would odd to go buying more of them, just for the benefit of having doors at different locations.
No, not more than needed.
In fact, GO still has options in Bombardier order books for additional bilevel coaches (low-platform-only!), in addition to already ordered even more bilevels that will come into service in 2016/2017, not just the new cab cars. At worst, further additional options will no longer be exercised, but they'll at least keep every single pre-existing bilevel.

There is plans to increase GO traffic by 2.5x by sometime in the 2030s. The Union station revitalization is also designed to permit a 2-3x increase in commuter traffic (the new York concourse photos really confirms that it is doable). There is also plans to push 2-3x the number of trains through Union. All-day bidirectional service on all routes, including Kitchener-Waterloo, will easily swallow up a lot of these bilevels, for example.

To do so, GO needs to buy more trainsets (not necessarily these bilevels), but they will keep every existing bilevel for a very long time. Consider that the SmartTrack GO RER route might possibly use high platforms (urban segments of Kitchener/Stoufville line), while other lines use low platforms. They could then reallocate the diesel bilevels to other lines, or the longer-haul expresses, and buy new bilevel EMUs on a going-forward basis. They can choose to buy EMUs that support both platform heights, or they might use high platforms at all stations along the route.

Less than a year ago, Metrolinx expressed an interest in diversifying their train fleet so they will be buying something else other than the BiLevels.

Eventually, they will discontinue the BiLevels, but I don't think it will happen until around the 2040s at the absolute minimum. I feel you can bet your bank on it, Metrolinx will run the bilevels till at least year 2040 or so, even if it's only a third or quarter of their fleet by then. They are quite durable, ultramodern (for their age) and extremely well designed for their capability. They don't even look like a 1979 design, and the condition of even the older trainsets have stayed excellent. They are probably going to end up using electric locomotives to pull existing bilevels for express and long-haul trains (e.g. Kitchener) in addition to also using EMUs (for allstop trains where EMU acceleration is more important). In fact, Metrolinx explicitly said they will be redoing the interior over the next 18 years!!! This brings you to year 2033, and the interior design lasts for more than a decade, bringing you squarely into the 2040s, and very probably early 2050s when they discontinue the last Bombardier bilevel to a museum. Not to mention, they are buying new cabs for all of them (and creating new trainsets out of the old cabs). Those will easily last several decades, and longer than a locomotive, as they aren't an engine, and the new cabs are also compatible with electric locomotives. Many trainsets almost certainly will receive one more locomotive replacement cycle (e.g. replacing MP40's with electric locomotives) even while GO buys EMUs for densified all-stop GO RER routes like SmartTrack.

GO is expanding their fleet by more than 2x, even 3x, over the next two to three decades.... so they definitely need to keep these bilevels -- every single one of them. It may be a minority of their fleet in the 2030s, but the entire fleet certainly WILL still be running for at least two more decades, and a large portion of the fleet almost definitely at least three more decades....bank your money on it.

(Fantasizing forward.... I can imagine a 60-year-old or 70-year-old BiLevel specimen still run til the 2030s or 2040s, then a coach rolled straight into a brand new museum on its 70th anniversary in 2048 or 2049 -- complete with an exhibit of enlargements of old photos of the very same coach first being publicly exhibited at the Ex in 1978.)

For this reason, we're likely going to see a very long slow evolution to high platforms on certain routes (e.g. the Kitchener route, of SmartTrack and HSR fame) that take us well beyond the middle of this century. It's also very conceivable that not all GO RER routes will be high platform, but at least one likely probably will. That said, the first GO RER trainset that Metrolinx chooses, will hugely affect the Great Platform Debate.
 
Last edited:
For this reason, we're likely going to see a very long slow evolution to high platforms on certain routes (e.g. the Kitchener route, of SmartTrack and HSR fame) that take us well beyond the middle of this century. It's also very conceivable that not all GO RER routes will be high platform, but at least one likely probably will. That said, the first GO RER trainset that Metrolinx chooses, will hugely affect the Great Platform Debate.

What is the height of the current GO fleet above the wheelset? Could the current bilevels be converted to a high-platform level by adding another set of doors (and over time removing the lower set of doors)? There will always be need of bilevels to meet demand during rush hour.
 
What is the height of the current GO fleet above the wheelset? Could the current bilevels be converted to a high-platform level by adding another set of doors (and over time removing the lower set of doors)? There will always be need of bilevels to meet demand during rush hour.
The GO floor is only about 20" above the top of the rails. It is not as standardized as 48"

HSR trains and UPX trains are 48" (four feet above the top of the rails), and SmartTrack may end up using this platform height if level boarding is chosen. The 48" height is also the VIA floor too, and at Montreal Gare Centrale.

There can be a platform raise from ~8" to ~20", but not to the needed ~48". GO trains can in theory be modified to eliminate steps, for level boarding when using ~20" platforms. However, this platform height isn't widely standardized and would be a poor long-term choice for the Kitchener line (carrying UPX, SmartTrack GO RER, and future HSR).
 
Last edited:
GO is currently advertising for a new Chief of Rail Engineering (rolling stock). I bet that position would be overseeing all decisions related to this.
 
This thread just became more important now that Metrolinx announced they will be purchasing EMUs going forward.

(That also means the look of "GO trains" is going to completely change to something more subwayish during the RER electrification as a result...we're going to have to get used to that!)

The new questions:
Will the new EMUs require a platform height change?
 
Last edited:
This thread just became more important now that Metrolinx announced they will be purchasing EMUs going forward.

(That also means the look of "GO trains" is going to completely change to something more subwayish during the RER electrification as a result...we're going to have to get used to that!)

The new questions:
Will the new EMUs require a platform height change?

I suppose it depends on what kind of EMUs they choose. The better question is: will they determine the EMU based off of the preferred platform height, or will they determine platform height based off the preferred EMU? Regardless, those decisions need to be made in tandem.
 
I suppose it depends on what kind of EMUs they choose. The better question is: will they determine the EMU based off of the preferred platform height, or will they determine platform height based off the preferred EMU? Regardless, those decisions need to be made in tandem.
What I know is there's not very many appealing low-floor EMUs. They're all slower at boarding than the Bombardier BiLevels. The EMU that Montreal uses (Bombardier MultiLevel) has only a single-width door, and are not as quick to board as the BiLevels. The plus is they can stop at both low and high platform stations, but, in many cases only a single file of passengers entering door, and only two single-doors per coach side open at a time. Looking at other EMU options, there doesn't seem to be much low-door EMUs that could easily fit GO's requirements while also increasing Union passenger throughput.

In order to maintain/increase Union capacity....bingo.
Unless there is something I am overlooking.

I think the question now is begged (regardless of if it's the chicken or the egg).
 
Last edited:
What about splitting platforms in half? All of the platforms at stations to be electrified (with maybe the exception of Stouffville) are geared for 12 car trains. The remaining diesel services will not need the current train lengths in order to handle the demand from the "beyond RER" areas, so have the platforms set up so 6 cars can fit on the low platform half, and 6 RER cars can fit on the high platform half. New RER-only stations can be built just to accommodate 6-car RER trains.
 

Back
Top