Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

[Mapleson]

This is already not true of Lakeshore, and it will be untrue of Georgetown in 4 years.

Lakeshore requires $1.89b in enabling works to significantly electrify. Phase 1 of 4 of Georgetown will be finished in 5 years and 3 months.

One of the biggest hidden points facing electrification is "It is recognized that any effort to electrify the Corridor will require the approval of both CN and CP." Track fouling rules and cantenary supports will be in conflict. While they each own only a small portion of the Lakeshore corridor, the whole project will pivot around accomidating freight while capping costs.

 

[js97]

Agree with mapleson..

it's the greatest value/bang for the buck.

Yes, electrification would be great, but when it's runing full capacity and doesn't get cars off the road, it really doesn't do anyone serivce.

Spend the money on expanding routes, the cars you take off will more than make up for the very efficient T4s produce.

it would be nice to do both, but since we only have money to do one, expansion in service produces a greater benefit.

 

[nfitz]

Recyling seems the best solution to me. With electrification likely coming in the next 10 to 20 years, there seems little point in buying brand-new diesels that will last 40 years, when there is older equipment that can be recycles until such time electrification is an option.

 

[RedRocket191]

Recyling seems the best solution to me. With electrification likely coming in the next 10 to 20 years, there seems little point in buying brand-new diesels that will last 40 years, when there is older equipment that can be recycles until such time electrification is an option.

But then again, the new stuff can be recycled too. Endless loop FTW.

 

[Mapleson]

I completely support this movement and its goals. Electrification of these lines is long overdue, both for environmental and operational reasons. GO is also much more likely to offer a real regional rail service if it has the electrical infrastructure and EMUs rather than the standard Gary McNeil 10-car diesel bilevel trains every hour.

I agree electrification offers environmental and operational benefits. However, electrification does not offer the highest environmental or operational benefits for their cost. We operate in a limited funding environment. It is prudent to ensure investments are the most effective solution for the supposed problem. The key there is different people suppose different problems.

I just don't understand the phenomeon of transit advocates who constantly try to advocate cheaping out on transit projects...

It's called compromise. I want the highest level of service. I need a minimum level of service. Reality falls somewhere in between.[/QUOTE]

That's a completely false choice. Has anybody presented those as the two options? If we have to cut other transit projects to pay for it (which, again, is far from certain), I can think of a fair number that could stand a trim.

It is, as Metrolinx won't build subways, so I'll pick one of the 15 Big Move projects that the Lakeshore Express Rail competes directly against: 403 Transitway from Mississauga City Centre to the Renforth Gateway.

The Georgetown expansion is already causing GO to cancel/delay several minor projects due to budget constraints. Expect this to become much more obvious in 2014/2015.

Regardless of how Metrolinx spend's their funding, ultimately the cost for ANY transit develop comes from taxpayers and user-fees, and we should apply pressure to all levels of government and government agencies to fund the projects we feel are 'most worthy'.

I'm not so sure I follow you here. Are you aware that there is a total re-tracking currently happening along the Georgetown rail corridor? Are you saying that the new tracks are not being built in a fashion that allows such maintenance to occur in an electrified future? If you are right about that, then it's a major show of incompetence. I certainly hope you are wrong.

I am saying the Georgetown expansion allows for electrification height requires on structures, but horizontal track spacing has not been agreed with CP/CN. Why is it incompetence to not know what outside parties will demand?

Did you forget to read the part where electrification pays for itself in 10 years of operational savings? That means 11 years after electrification, we're getting a SURPLUS in transit budget compared to a no-electrification scenario. That is why this is a fallacy to call it not-cost-effective, too expensive, etc.

I did forget to read that part, as I like to draw my own conclusions based on the information within reports. Specifically to 2031 total operating cost savings are $648m (1888m - 1.24b) between diesal expansion and electric where as costs are $5,115m more. This leaves a price tag of $4,467m for 18,480 additional seats ($241,720 per seat or $66.15 per seat-day for 10 years) compared to diesal of $858m for 7,700 ($111,428 per seat).

Diesal option has a net present value of $120m in incremental fare revenue. Electrfication has a net value of $420m ($190m + $230m). This means there return periods are: Diesal - 858m/120m = 7.15 years and Electric - 5973m/420m = 14.22 years. However, the diesal return is from 2015 and 'paid off' in 2022, while the electric return is from 2031 and 'paid off' in 2045.

 

[unimaginative2]

Yes but that's electric with the same shitty loco hauled trains every hour. Electrification permits a whole new operational approach: regional rail rather than commuter rail.

It's called compromise. I want the highest level of service. I need a minimum level of service. Reality falls somewhere in betwee.

Yes but you're not the Minister of Finance. You're a transit advocate. That's why you should advocate for the best transit possible and then let the government cut it down to what they can afford. If you advocate a mediocre system that you deem affordable, then they're just going to cut it down to a lousy system.

 

[Mapleson]

Appendix B to the Lakeshore Express Rail BCA discusses EMUs.

Perhaps the largest current obstacle to the use of EMUs in a mixed-use freight and passenger rail corridor such as the Lakeshore line is the requirement that vehicles meet North American safety and crash worthiness standards.

I'd have to look into that statement more myself to see how restrictive it actually is.

If a transit advocate's goal is to dream big, why aren't we asking for new seperate GO corridors? Rip out neighbourhoods and run straight tracks to take GO above 80 mph. While we're at it, can we build an upper deck on the 401 that only connects to other 400-series highways? I like to dream big, but I prefer to set my sights on what is feasible. By demanding the sky, it leaves it up to the powers that be to decide what corners to cut, rather than presenting a rationalized idea that will go through more or less unmolified.

 

[unimaginative2]

Okay but those "enabling works" are the additional tracks that are going to be built anyway. It's hardly fair to include those as part of the cost of electrification. No new land would be required to add overhead catenary, either. You're also including rolling stock which would have to be purchased anyway for improved service, whether diesel or electric. The only thing that counts as the cost of electrification is the electrical infrastructure and catenary.

 

[nfitz]

I've never seen diesel vehicles converted to electricity before; are there examples?

 

[Darwinkgo]

Well, you could, it wouldn't be that hard, but you would have to pull it out of service. Replace generators with transformers, mount pantograph, done. But yeah, likely would buy electric locos/multiunits then sell your diesel ones. Not so hard.

 

[unimaginative2]

Ah but the Weston corridor will be easily wide enough for two dedicated tracks for not FRA trains. Besides, the nighstock cars aren't FRA compliant and they're running across the entire VIA network. The FRA is looking at relaxing its requirements, too, with the advent of positive train control.

There's a difference between feasible and cheap. There is no question that electrification is feasible. It's being studied by Metrolinx. Surely you understand that full-length double-deck expressway on the 401 is obviously in a completely different category. That's quite the straw man argument.

 

[Mapleson]

Okay but those "enabling works" are the additional tracks that are going to be built anyway. It's hardly fair to include those as part of the cost of electrification.
No, it's $858m for diesal and $1887m for electric alternatives. A billion dollar difference.

No new land would be required to add overhead catenary, either.

I can catagorically say this is not the case. You can accept my word on that fact, or we can have a private aside. IMO, significant extra land will be required, which is why I believe GO is so touchy on the subject.

You're also including rolling stock which would have to be purchased anyway for improved service, whether diesel or electric. The only thing that counts as the cost of electrification is the electrical infrastructure and catenary.

Different perspectives in costing. I prefer an all-in "this much gets you this" approach rather than a "this will cost this much and that costs that" approach. Both have their benefits. In this case, as cost, acceleration and fuel efficiency of rolling stock affects the return period, it is benefital to include them. If you want a report that just adds electrical infrastructure to a developed system, you'll have to wait another decade or more.

 

[Mapleson]

There are many questions regarding if electrification is feasible. It's being studied by Metrolinx. The biggest question is RoW configuration.

So you believe that transportation advocates should limit ideas from "best transit possible" to "best transit feasible"?

Finally, I'm not advocating GO's diesal option, but I'm advocating we want until December to start making proclaimations on what overhauling the system will cost and achieve. As it stands, electrification does not yet have the details required to be implemented, even in the preliminary design stage.

 

[DavidJamesTO]

I think the companies that have made them have gone bankrupt a number of times. If they had a history of delivering projects on time (or at all in some cases) maybe it would make sense. But then again - they could win a tender.

Once. The old company that made them went bankrupt and US Railcar was formed from the remaining assets. They're also working with American Railcar, one of the oldest railcar makers in the US, to get production underway. Even if the new company does have financial issues, I'm sure they could get an agreement with Bombardier to build them under licence.

That said, I see nothing wrong with the old Budd cars. Dallas' Trinity Rail Express still uses them on some of their off-peak services, they've been sitting in Mimico with nothing to do for almost twenty years, and, like others have said, pretty much any product from Budd is almost impossible to kill. Forget the 1955-vintage Canadian rolling stock: Amtrak's still using Budd passenger cars from 1948!!!

 

[kettal]

I am saying the Georgetown expansion allows for electrification height requires on structures, but horizontal track spacing has not been agreed with CP/CN. Why is it incompetence to not know what outside parties will demand?

Shouldn't they get the answer to that question before they invest so much in building these new tracks?