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

what are the maximum and realistic service speeds of these tram trains.
Many travel at over 100kph.

They accelerate considerably faster than the present Sharyos, and won't lose that ability with time, as the Sharyos will. There are different configurations of LRVs that will go faster, but with frequent stops, top speed is not the criteria for maintaining a timetable as much as ability to brake and accelerate rapidly. I'll discuss this more later, must run.

See here: http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/yorktramtrain/
 
I'm actually now feeling sorry for UPX, given this
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...n-at-lower-fare-report-finds/article29657207/

The Globe claims the per passenger subsidy is $46. I'm wondering what accounting is being used for this. How much of the fixed cost and capital amortization is found in that number? Is the accounting common to, and shared with, GO Transit and VIA? VIA passenger counts aren't that much higher than the typical UPE train on this line, now that the commuters are using UPE. Is VIA's subsidy $46 pp also?

I don't understand the eagerness that folks on this list have for redesigning UPE into something else. The problem is not that it exists, but that the whole corridor project was skewed towards its completion while the Georgetown-Kitchener commuter/AD2W initiative has languished.

This is to be one of the first lines electrified. At that point the present fleet will be replaced with some sort of EMU. If RER/ST/whatever goes ahead, the local service on this corridor will be addressed. All that's needed is to take a critical look at what stops should be made by UPE trains. In all likelihood it goes back to being an almost-express airport link. That's not a bad thing for a city to have, and with the fare fixed it should build its business. Folks should stop trying to rebuild it into some new form. When you're in a hole, it's best to stop digging.

- Paul
 
Paul:
It's hard to "have sympathy" for an org that hides this information.
This conclusion is reflected in newly revealed portions of a number of internal reports – which total 228 pages – released late Friday to media outlets that had been pursuing the material through the freedom-of-information process.

If this isn't a reason to repurpose it, I don't know what is (speaking of 'digging a hole')
The Union Pearson Express cannot break even at its new and lower fare, an internal report suggests, and will require a hefty per-rider subsidy indefinitely.
Bungles should be left alone? I think not...
 
Is VIA's subsidy $46 pp also?

Yes, VIA's subsidies start by matching the ticket price for Corridor trips (Windsor through Quebec average subsidy is 50%) and increases from there in other parts of the country up to 90% in some areas.

Note, those 90% subsidized areas are required by law and I think some service levels were negotiated for the right to run the rails (and freight) through in the first place.
 
Last edited:
I'm actually now feeling sorry for UPX, given this
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...n-at-lower-fare-report-finds/article29657207/

The Globe claims the per passenger subsidy is $46. I'm wondering what accounting is being used for this. How much of the fixed cost and capital amortization is found in that number? Is the accounting common to, and shared with, GO Transit and VIA? VIA passenger counts aren't that much higher than the typical UPE train on this line, now that the commuters are using UPE. Is VIA's subsidy $46 pp also?
As the article states:
A Globe and Mail assessment of the most recent available data shows that fare and other revenues fell $23.3-million short of operating costs over the first eight months of UPX operation.
They're only looking at operating costs, and no amortization of the capital. It's fair to say that it doesn't look at VIA or GO in this analysis, as those are separate operations.
This was an analysis based on the oh-so-publicized ridership figures (and average fare paid, $22.50) that sparked the fare change. Now that there are many more riders, the per rider subsidy will be much lower, as it's distributed between more people. With the fares lower, there's more cost recovery to make up, and there's every chance that the overall subsidy is higher, but the per rider subsidy will be down.

To look at some numbers a bit, and see what we can glean from their analysis

Cost per person: $22.50/pax + $46 subsidy/pax= $68.50 total/pax
Subsidy per day:
($23.3M subsidy/8mos) / (240days/8mos) = $97,083 subsidy/day
People per day: ($97,083 subsidy/day) / ($46 subsidy/pax) = 2110 pax/day
Daily Operating Cost:
2110pax/day * $68.50 total/pax = $144,535 total/day
Annual Operating Cost: $144,535/day * 365days = $52,755,275 total/year

Now, with the fare change, let's say ridership has doubled but average fares are down to $7. That ridership estimation is probably conservative, based on anecdotal evidence.
Operating costs will be virtually unchanged.

New cost per person: $144,535 total/day / 4220pax/day = $34.25/pax
New subsidy per person: $34.25/pax - $7/pax = $27.25 subsidy/pax
New subsidy per day:
$27.25 subsidy/pax * 4220pax/day = $114,995 subsidy/day

With a doubling of passengers, and a reduction of average fare to $7, we see the subsidies change:
Per person subsidy: $46 to $34.25 (drop of $11.75)
Total daily subsidy: $97,083 to $114,995 (increase of $17,912)

With a $7 average fare, 6778 passengers per day is the magic number to recover the same revenue as before the fare drop, and it would mean a per rider subsidy of $14.
To break even on a daily operating cost of $144,535 at a $7 average fare would require ridership of 20,647 per day

Numbers are fun!
 
I rode on UPX today, with dog and high performance bike, Bloor to Weston. Asked about the logo on the front door to Bloor station (No dogs). Bloor Station attendant stated: "That's intended for those just walking through the station". Hmmmmm...in all fairness, she didn't really know what to say, and she was very pleasant and helpful besides. Train only 20% full if that (noonish) and fare checker was lovely about the dog and the bike. "If it were packed, I'd have to deny you passage". Fair enough. If one expects to take a bike and a dog, (a huge un-neutered Black Lab), then fair is fair.

But I was disappointed at the ride quality this time. Either the track has taken a beating over the winter, or the bogies are wearing fast...to answer an earlier poster on "tram-trains"...ride quality on a Siemens U2s over a decade ago down to the Mexican border on San Diego Trolley was *far* superior! That may be for many reasons, perhaps the Sharyos need the wheels skimmed already, dampers need adjusting, but it was not a good ride.
 
I

But I was disappointed at the ride quality this time. Either the track has taken a beating over the winter, or the bogies are wearing fast...to answer an earlier poster on "tram-trains"...ride quality on a Siemens U2s over a decade ago down to the Mexican border on San Diego Trolley was *far* superior! That may be for many reasons, perhaps the Sharyos need the wheels skimmed already, dampers need adjusting, but it was not a good ride.

perhaps maybe excessive wear due to the daily turning through that tight radius turn onto the spur? Can you elaborate on what was the discomfort? vibrations? noise?
 
perhaps maybe excessive wear due to the daily turning through that tight radius turn onto the spur? Can you elaborate on what was the discomfort? vibrations? noise?
Yeah, the bogies were hunting. 'Shammering' if I may invent the term. There is a technical term for it, and critical lateral damping would reduce it to next to zero by tuning out the vibration interval, but the lack of mass was apparent in behaviour (Virtual mass can be imparted with servo systems) (record player turntables are an excellent example, where a low mass but perfectly lathed table can display an *effective mass* multiples more than an actual mass. This is termed (in electronics) a 'low source impedance'. Must run back to work, but will try and describe the impression better later.)

Short description: They were 'chattering'.

Edit to Add: Isolation from the body to the bogies was also poor. They need more rubber between them. You might well be right about tight-radius chafing and spalling the wheel tires and flanges. More later...
 
Last edited:
Another factor here will be the impact to operating costs of shoving UPX back into GO Transit. I'd imagine that marketing, management and other related budgets will be significantly restructured and reduced.
 
This is to be one of the first lines electrified. At that point the present fleet will be replaced with some sort of EMU. If RER/ST/whatever goes ahead, the local service on this corridor will be addressed. All that's needed is to take a critical look at what stops should be made by UPE trains. In all likelihood it goes back to being an almost-express airport link. That's not a bad thing for a city to have, and with the fare fixed it should build its business. Folks should stop trying to rebuild it into some new form. When you're in a hole, it's best to stop digging.
I really think a RER/ST/UPX merger (eventually) is now really warranted so we can use the same 4-coach EMU fleet for lowest operational cost for all Bramalea/Pearson electric service. Yes, expensive possible eventual station modifications to be able to unify the fleet and further lower operating costs while distancing from "UPX upgrade".

At this rate of press, how can they possibly politically successfully electrify UPX first as a standalone service? The Sharyos SMARTs are falling apart (not even mentioned in press...yet), the subsidy is high, the electorate is upset, yet this is electrification shovel ready and hands tied in this being among the first of the electrification projects.
 
Last edited:
That was my impression, but thought I might be overlooking a few crucial details.

Edit to Add: I'm still delving on the differences between the UPX and the Sonoma-Marin SMART version of the Sharyo DMU, especially as that relates to gearbox and final ratio. I believe it was Vegeta who mentioned the tendency for the vehicle to easily creep above the mandated speed limit ("80 mph"), the SMART models are rated top speed of "79 mph" and one has to wonder if that's due to final drive ratio, taller for UPX due to the mechanical gearbox and thus less loss, or a governor. Clue here:
[...][The trains are equipped with positive train control that automatically monitors speed and brings the vehicle to a halt if traveling too fast, said Lisa Cobb, SMART’s systems and vehicle manager][...]
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/4647527-181/test-runs-reach-79-mph?gallery=5127239&artslide=0

We've covered this already previously in this thread, but since you don't feel like looking it up...

Engine - 1x Cummins QSK-19R @ 760hp
Transmission - 1x 6-speed ZF EcoLife Rail 6AP 2500

The top speed of the vehicle is about 140mph.

I haven't been able to find concrete evidence of the vehicle specs either. But I suspect that part of the issue may be the railway itself. I've tracked speeds on a fair number of trains along the segment between Pearson Junction and Weston, which was described as getting upgraded from 80 mph to 90 mph in earlier GTS planning documents. I realize that UP is mandated to stay below 80 mph, but I would expect VIA to exceed that if the speed limit allowed. But even severely late VIA trains stay below 80 mph, which suggests the speed limit was never changed.

Indeed, the zone speed was described as being upgraded to 90mph in some of the earlier planning and EA documents, but GO seems to be quite happy to leave it at 80, with slow orders in the appropriate locations as necessary.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
We've covered this already previously in this thread, but since you don't feel like looking it up..
But I have. http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...-have-cummins-tier-4-engines.html?channel=542 I also have the PDF. If it was discussed in full in this thread, it doesn't show by Googling. But even the pdf is wanting, and doesn't discuss the gearbox difference between the SMART and UPX models. Was that discussed, because you yourself have quoted:
I haven't been able to find concrete evidence of the vehicle specs either.
So please enlighten us. Did SMART change their RFP to allow a mechanical gearbox? The only RFP I can find states that it must be fluid from the prime-mover to the bogie motors

Readers might be interested in reviewing SMART's
http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/October 2015 GM Report_Final.pdf

[...][SMART’s Vehicle Maintenance (Mechanical) staff continued developing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for the Operations Maintenance Facility. Vehicle commissioning support also continued. In addition, the engine and transmission on cars 101/102 were replaced, all HVAC units were removed and re-installed to accommodate a mount modification, and new software related to the alerter was installed.][...]

This is further confused to reference in Wikipedia:
[...][Each Nippon Sharyo DMU is powered by one Cummins QSK19-R[2] diesel engine with hydraulic transmission and regenerative braking, and meets US EPA Tier 4 emission standards.][...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nippon_Sharyo_DMU

UPX Wikipedia article states:
[...][The UP Express DMUs are based on the design created for the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit system in California. Powered by a diesel hydraulic drive with a six-speed automatic transmission ][...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Pearson_Express

"Based on the design..."

I'll reference the SMART RFP link later which states "all hydraulic".

There appears to be some kind of misunderstanding....

Edit to Add: I'll make this as simple as possible: Did Metrolinx decide on the ZF mechanical gearbox as a difference from the SMART design that *Metrolinx themselves* contributed a sizable amount towards? And why?

The number Metrolinx contributed is mentioned by myself in this thread. I'll dig it out again later if challenged. It was in the hundreds of thousands of $.

Further edit: RE: ZF gearbox, and related matters as that *may* pertain to Metrolinx' choice, albeit this is an entirely different unit: (politics might be behind this)

http://www.railwaystrategies.co.uk/article-page.php?contentid=18972&issueid=530
 
Last edited:
But I was disappointed at the ride quality this time. Either the track has taken a beating over the winter, or the bogies are wearing fast...to answer an earlier poster on "tram-trains"...ride quality on a Siemens U2s over a decade ago down to the Mexican border on San Diego Trolley was *far* superior! That may be for many reasons, perhaps the Sharyos need the wheels skimmed already, dampers need adjusting, but it was not a good ride.

I noticed the same thing when I rode UPX in September. It was really bouncy and squeaky, as you can see and hear in the video I took at the time (it gets bad about 30 seconds in):

I have also ridden GO and VIA trains along that stretch of line, and their ride quality seemed perfectly fine. Admittedly UP was using the centre track while GO and VIA were using the north track, but I don't see why that would make much difference.

Maybe it's an individual train with poorly adjusted shocks, but I didn't note the vehicle number.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top