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

They think they want electrification until they see the land acquisition requirements for it. When the system electrification study comes in December, it put a real price tag and real neighbourhood effect on these idealistic pipe dreams. There will be freight expansion on the corridor, which is and will continue to be the dominant source of Air/Noise/Vibration pollution. Electric passenger trains won't stop that.

Electric trains will mitigate the air and noise pollution of the large increase in passenger train services and that's important to the people of Weston, but also those in Parkdale, the Junction, and various other neighbourhoods. I believe they're realistic in insisting that existing technology should be used to ensure their neighbourhoods don't see large increases in air pollution.

Who knows how much freight expansion there will be on the corridor, when CN moves so much freight through the northern part of the city? You're right though, the remaining freight traffic will logically be the dominant source of air pollution, since electrified commuter rail will no longer produce any air pollution in these dense neighbourhoods.
 
Tier 4 Deisel engines will do that, which the MoE required for the corridor expansion. At a 90% reduction in nitric oxides (NOx) and particulate matter, you'd have a net improvement in air quality from 2001 running 1000% of what we are today because of any incremental improvement from freight. The sulfur content restrictions on diesel fuel give cleaner fuel in our cleaner engines. It was set at 500 ppm for the first time in June 2007, and is set to decrease to 15 ppm in June 2012 for locomotives.

I don't hold it against them that they want the best for their neighbourhood. What I don't agree with is the disproportionate claim of the impact passenger rail has on their community.

Why is it though that the potential damage from the increase in rail service is objected to more strongly than the higher rate of atmospheric damage caused by cars? I'm glad we're finally half picking up the ball on that one with our Monkey-See-Monkey-Do policy with the US, but even with the conteniental adoption of California's emmision standards for cars, road vehicles will still be allowed to produce a higher rate of pollution than rail vehicles in 2015.
 
Tier 4 Deisel engines will do that, which the MoE required for the corridor expansion. At a 90% reduction in nitric oxides (NOx) and particulate matter, you'd have a net improvement in air quality from 2001 running 1000% of what we are today because of any incremental improvement from freight. The sulfur content restrictions on diesel fuel give cleaner fuel in our cleaner engines. It was set at 500 ppm for the first time in June 2007, and is set to decrease to 15 ppm in June 2012 for locomotives.

People are more inclined to trust time-proven technologies like electric trains over technologies that yet exist. There's also no noise target with Tier 4 locomotives that I've heard of. Besides, there's no idealism in electric trains. The infrastructure is an added expense, but they're cheaper to operate and have longer life spans. They're even coming to the Lakeshore line.

Why is it though that the potential damage from the increase in rail service is objected to more strongly than the higher rate of atmospheric damage caused by cars? I'm glad we're finally half picking up the ball on that one with our Monkey-See-Monkey-Do policy with the US, but even with the conteniental adoption of California's emmision standards for cars, road vehicles will still be allowed to produce a higher rate of pollution than rail vehicles in 2015.

The expansion in transit and commuter rail is generally assumed to take cars off the road. You make a good point but we're seeing the development of electric cars as we speak and the proliferation of hybrids. There's more urgency on this issue in the communities along the corridor since this is an easier issue to tackle between them and the province and one that needs to be addressed now as the expansion of rail is being planned.
 
People are more inclined to trust time-proven technologies like electric trains over technologies that yet exist. There's also no noise target with Tier 4 locomotives that I've heard of. Besides, there's no idealism in electric trains. The infrastructure is an added expense, but they're cheaper to operate and have longer life spans. They're even coming to the Lakeshore line.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for electrification. However, I am also for prudent transit planning. As Lakeshore West has the highest ridership, it makes sense to electrify it first, so that you gain the largest impact and have the largest pool of passegers to amolirate the costs. It's the building block approach that better fits our public funding mechanics by providing many smaller scale projects rather than one monolithic job.

Given current funding levels and regional priorities, this line should reasonably be electrified by 2030. There weren't Tier 2 locomotives five years ago. There weren't Tier 1 locomotives 10 years ago. I can't remember the specific manufacturer at the moment, but they'll have a prototype by 2013. It's a future technology, but there is huge money to be made in being the first to market or the best performing. I don't see why companies would fail to seize that opertunity.

On an interesting related side note, Metrolinx defines a "future technology" as a technology where research and development work is complete, prototypes developed and testing advanced to the point where the technology is being commercially marketed and will be ready for production within 5 years (Electrification Study Terms of Reference Notes, pg 11)

The expansion in transit and commuter rail is generally assumed to take cars off the road. You make a good point but we're seeing the development of electric cars as we speak and the proliferation of hybrids. There's more urgency on this issue in the communities along the corridor since this is an easier issue to tackle between them and the province and one that needs to be addressed now as the expansion of rail is being planned.
Yes, the expansion of transit replaces some private vehicle trips. I don't see where that fact/assumption relates to the discussion. There are more cars than trains. The growth rate of cars is more than trains. The pollution rate of cars is more than trains.

Hybrid cars are a great branding campaign; they have about a 25-33% GHG reduction in emission compared to a conventional car. Electric cars an entertaining sideshow; production rates won't near demand for at least a decade. They both miss the mark because we still make air pollution (a) making the cars and (b) making electricity for the cars. With the high fixed rates for green energy and the subsidies already going to northern businesses to compensate for high enegry costs and the proviencial deficit, we aren't going to see 100% non-hydrocarbon energy anytime before 2030.

The communities along the corridor most likely have had a slight improvement in relative air quality to the city baseline over the last decade and will see a greater improvement in relative air quality over the next decade without electrification that electrification would provide. Electrification does need to be addressed, but not on an ad hoc basis.
 
The communities along the corridor most likely have had a slight improvement in relative air quality to the city baseline over the last decade and will see a greater improvement in relative air quality over the next decade without electrification that electrification would provide. Electrification does need to be addressed, but not on an ad hoc basis.

Overall, electrification still seems sensible considering the population density along the corridor and demand for transit. Those new diesel locomotives sound impressive, but I still find it hard to understand why not electrify now. Why procrastinate? What are the benefits of using diesel trains for another generation? It's not adhoc electrification, it's electrification where demand and built-form make it appropriate. I don't see how lower emissions diesel locomotives will provide better air quality than electric trains and I doubt they will be less noisy.
 
The benefits of electrification will be best seen if we abandon the archaic GO model of monster trains running on wide schedules. If they ran smaller trains at high frequency, the electrification study would come out hands-down in favour of electricity.
 
Overall, electrification still seems sensible considering the population density along the corridor and demand for transit. Those new diesel locomotives sound impressive, but I still find it hard to understand why not electrify now. Why procrastinate? What are the benefits of using diesel trains for another generation? It's not adhoc electrification, it's electrification where demand and built-form make it appropriate. I don't see how lower emissions diesel locomotives will provide better air quality than electric trains and I doubt they will be less noisy.

The problem is. Even if we begin the process (EA's etc) now for electrification it will still be years before it will be completed. Meanwhile GO will be sitting waiting like sonic the hedgehog tapping his foot to improve service.
 
The problem is. Even if we begin the process (EA's etc) now for electrification it will still be years before it will be completed. Meanwhile GO will be sitting waiting like sonic the hedgehog tapping his foot to improve service.

GO will have to improve service using diesel trains, and I'm fine with that for a few years if they're serious about electrification on the Georgetown line in our generation. They should be able to transition between improved diesel powered services and electric services by buying fewer trains and later shifting the trains to other lines with less demand.
 
Essentially that was the plan all along...

Trains have a life span of 30 years or more. They old locomotives have been sold to Montreal, so even buying a full fleet now isn't a wasted investment.
 
Those new diesel locomotives sound impressive, but I still find it hard to understand why not electrify now. Why procrastinate?
It's a matter of affordability and holistic continual improvement. It does make sense to electrify now, but it also makes sense to have say all day service on the Milton line or entend Georgetown to Kitchener. Electrifying Georgetown now means a higher relative level of pollution production from GO Transit.

What are the benefits of using diesel trains for another generation?
It means trains will continue to be more environmentally friendly than cars and allows transit expansion to remove the most cars from the roads as soon as possible. Thereby having the largest positive environmental impact.

It's not adhoc electrification, it's electrification where demand and built-form make it appropriate. I don't see how lower emissions diesel locomotives will provide better air quality than electric trains and I doubt they will be less noisy.
Electric trains still create emssions, just not spread out over the corridor, so they just shift the problem elsewhere. I believe funds should be spent to have the largest impact over the largest area first.

If noise is the concern, electrification won't fix it (except by reducing duration) as it's the same rail/wheel interface causing the noise. Noise problems should be addressed with noise pollution legistation of permissible levels. That would allow alternative design solutions such as sound barrier walls to compete for the most efficient solution.

If it's not an ad hoc basis, which corridor gives the highest rate of return? What trainsets are we going to use? What cantenary poles or third rail configuration? What RoW width? What substation spacing? What track seperation between freight and passenger tracks? Those are the questions being asked by the System Electrification Study that is coming out in December. Electrification is going to happen, it's a matter of when is best.

We are not providing enough funding to meet all transit/environmental needs, so we must prioritize. GO's operational model has been based on their infrastructure capacity limits. A centralized service area running on excess capacity track space in mixed traffic. To get to electrification, you need a huge amount of enabling works, which jacks up the incremental price from current infrastructure.

(1) 3/4 Track corridors to allow two-way full-day service
This will open the possibility to smaller EMU/DMU trains running on tighter headways as GO will have access to tracks 24 hours a day rather than 4-6 hours.

(2) Decentralized Servicing
Willowbrook is at/over capacity and GO is looking to start having regional service stations at the end of the line for overnight servicing rather than near Union Station for daytime servicing. They are planning to build one with the Lakeshore East expansion to Bowmanville and another with the Milton line expansion. This will allow full-day service rather than just peak-service.

(3) Grade Seperations
West Toronto Diamond is a big one, but almost every intersection in Toronto or Mississauga needs doing now and the surrounding Cities not far behind. Other big ones are the Davenport Diamond and Humber River Bridge and Fly-under. These will allow electric trains to take advantage of their lower mass:power ratio and maximize average operational speed.

(4) Electrification
Once you have all those works done, the price tag on electrification is much easier to swallow and environmental regulation of other sectors (phasing coal-burning plans out by 2015, no incandesent bulbs by 2013, new car standards by 2016) means it's necessary to stay ahead of the green curve. Electrification with zero-source emissions should be our target.

The ARL part of the Georgetown expansion will be completed by July 2015. Using that as the starting point of 'the next generation' of transit expansion, I would expect Lakeshore (West and East) to be fully electrified, Milton/Georgetown/Barrie to run mixed dual fuel or two trainsets, and Stouffville/Richmond Hill to run tier 4 (or 5?) diesel within 10 years. I'd expect full electrification (of the existing service area) within 20 years.

I also expect GO's annual ridership levels to break 150m by 2020 and 300m by 2030.
 
If noise is the concern, electrification won't fix it (except by reducing duration) as it's the same rail/wheel interface causing the noise. Noise problems should be addressed with noise pollution legistation of permissible levels. That would allow alternative design solutions such as sound barrier walls to compete for the most efficient solution.

The diesel engines are very loud, even when they are just idling. Anybody who has been in the union station train shed can attest to this.
 
The diesel engines are very loud, even when they are just idling. Anybody who has been in the union station train shed can attest to this.

When they accelerate, it's the worst. It's not the rail/wheel interface, it's the engine.

Mapleson: thanks for your insights, though I hope your estimates aren't overly optimistic. On the Georgetown line, many enabling works are either being built and will soon start construction (not the ones necessary for electrification of course, but a great number of big projects). We're going to have to wait and see what the electrification study says about costs, but I think you've explained the practical impediments to immediate electrification well, which proponents will have to work through.
 
I had a nice detailed post typed up, but have lost it somewhere. The gist is that GO runs ~180 weekday trips now. With capacity for counterflow trains (15-minute peak, hourly counter/off-peak, 6/10/6 peak/off-peak/off hours), you'd be running ~40 weekday trips per line.
 
When they accelerate, it's the worst. It's not the rail/wheel interface, it's the engine.

Mapleson: thanks for your insights, though I hope your estimates aren't overly optimistic. On the Georgetown line, many enabling works are either being built and will soon start construction (not the ones necessary for electrification of course, but a great number of big projects). We're going to have to wait and see what the electrification study says about costs, but I think you've explained the practical impediments to immediate electrification well, which proponents will have to work through.

Ok so I'm going to be the s**t disturber. If it's acceleration that's the problem then why would WCC demand that the ARL stop in Weston? Wouldn't that just add to the noise caused by acceleration?
 
I had a nice detailed post typed up, but have lost it somewhere. The gist is that GO runs ~180 weekday trips now. With capacity for counterflow trains (15-minute peak, hourly counter/off-peak, 6/10/6 peak/off-peak/off hours), you'd be running ~40 weekday trips per line.

Thirty-minute off-peak should be the bare minimum. When are we going to begin taking transit seriously in this city?
 

Back
Top