Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[Euphoria]

I fear Scarberian Stubway sticker shock. I support whatever mode gives the greatest bang for the buck for coverage, and the one that wins the bucks to build it. Maybe some form of dual mode is the answer. Versatility is key.

 

[steveintoronto]

Very short on time, will comment in detail later, but just received this link in my email, and I suspect a Cdn take on this in the press shortly, make that a *Toronto* take, other systems in Canada are vastly ahead on this:

Key to Improving

Subway Service in New
York? Modern Signals

New York’s subway is struggling with old infrastructure and overcrowding.
The M.T.A.’s failure to modernize its signal system is a crucial example.

By EMMA G. FITZSIMMONSMAY 1, 2017

[...]New York could find inspiration overseas. Another major city with an even older — although smaller — subway system is also confronting soaring ridership: London. It is further along in its ambitious effort to modernize its signals and has emerged as a global leader in how to upgrade an aging subway, offering lessons to New York and other cities.
[...]
A More Modern Tube
Then there is London. A close look at how it is attacking the same problems could provide something of a blueprint for New York.

As its population climbs, London is facing similar concerns about subway overcrowding. The London Underground, known as the Tube, opened in 1863 and is the oldest subway system in the world. It now carries about five million people each day, its highest ridership ever. The crowding at rush hour is so intense that officials sometimes must close certain stations.
[...]
London is also working to ease overcrowding by building a new line and buying roomier subway trains, with accordion-style connectors between cars. A new route called the Elizabeth line will open in London next year, with plans for 10 new stations and 26 miles of new tunnels. The plan, known as Crossrail, is the largest infrastructure project in Europe, costing about £15 billion, or more than $19 billion.

But Transport for London, the agency that runs the Tube, has faced obstacles, too. In 2013, it canceled a contract with Bombardier, a transportation company, over concerns that it could not complete signal work on four older lines on time, and started over with a different company.

The agency lost time and money, but officials learned from the mistake, said Stephen Joseph, executive director of Campaign for Better Transport, an advocacy group.

“There’s a feeling Transport for London knows how to do this now,” Mr. Joseph said.
[...]

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/...t-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

This applies to Cdn passenger rail too, and GO RER! Think Union Station as much as the subway when reading this.

Yes, "Crossrail again" folks. Suck it up, New York gets it...

 

[crs1026]

This applies to Cdn passenger rail too, and GO RER! Think Union Station as much as the subway when reading this.

Yes, "Crossrail again" folks. Suck it up, New York gets it...

*sigh* I seem to recall that TTC is redoing the entire Line 1 signalling system to bring it up to modern standards? And USRC is being updated also? I think we "got it" some time back, quite by ourselves.

The issue at hand is cross-feeding between RER and the DRL. It can be done, certainly....heck, with enough engineering, we could design it to accommodate the Flying Scotsman as well. I just don't see the benefit, especially if DRL eventually becomes a full J or U in which case it we will want both routes.

RER may justify its own new tunnel some day - we may be talking about Union Station/RER in 2040 in the same tones that we talk about Bloor/Yonge in 2030. I would leave that one alone for a few years, especially since RER is unproven and no one understands what it may bring. Toronto is not approaching Paris or London density just yet. Those cities' solutions are based on numbers that we won't reach for a long time.

The basic issue of platform height stands to keep them apart. Signalling won't address that mismatch.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

And USRC is being updated also? I think we "got it" some time back, quite by ourselves.

Line 1, yes, already running two minute headway. USRC? Not that I can ascertain. It has been mentioned in connection with RER and electrification, and appears in some GO reports two years old. I'm unaware of any move to establish CBTC.

Could you link your reference for that? I see Metrolinx mentioning 5 min headways with electrification and RER EMUs and some form of CBTC, perhaps with run-through at Union that could be decreased, but others are achieving 2.5 min headways with RER, (Paris RER down to two) and have been for years.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...fitscases/GO_RER_Initial_Business_Case_EN.pdf

The Nippon Sharyos even have the equipment on-board for a form of CBTC, but it remains idle since there's no corresponding track infrastructure to respond.

A lot other points are addressed by Metrolinx staff prior. Excellent ideas, no sign of implementation:

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...fitscases/GO_RER_Initial_Business_Case_EN.pdf

 

[TrickyRicky]

I think Mayor Tory's recent meeting with Patrick Brown has relevance to this thread. If the PC party comes to power what will be their priorities for transit in the city? While hypothetical in nature because the Liberals still have a chance some thoughts: The easiest no-solution solution would be to use the Scarborough one-stop as cover to commit no new funding. Second, would be to do the previous thing I mentioned but also throw Mayor Tory a bone with some funding towards Smart-track (basically just adding a few more RER stops in Toronto). A third more ambitious but less likely transit committed strategy could be to do A and B but also fund the DRL while cancelling all other LRT projects and diverting all funding and effort to DRL. DRL could also be picked up as a policy objective by the PC Party but in a non-committal "we like subways" kind of way with no clear funding or time-line.

 

[TransitBart]

I don't think it's anti-subway per se. Some have challenged whether the Relief Line could be something cheaper (like LRT) - which is an entirely reasonable and prudent thing to test..... transit should be scaled to the particular application rather than being pro-LRT or pro-subway. Personally, I'm convinced that DRL has to be full subway given ridership projections etc, but others may have other views.

- Paul

1. The busiest highway in North America is the 401.
2. Toronto has a population approaching 3.0 million people.
3. The GTA has a population of about 6.5 million people.

Does anyone really believe that a streetcar, sorry LRT will suffice? Really? How could you build anything that would not be used? What the hell other options are there?

Line 1 - packed.

Line 2 - packed.

Anything that gets built will be used because there are zero, diddly squat, bugger all alternatives.

 

[steveintoronto]

2. Toronto has a population approaching 3.0 million people.
3. The GTA has a population of about 6.5 million people.

Dwell on those figures for a moment. Inside the GTA there's more people outside of Toronto than in. The "downtown" in "relief line" has been dropped...due to the realization that relief is not needed so much within Toronto's border, but outside of it. Any body kept entirely off the subway system is one less crush load. RER looped where the "Queen line" always should have been can and would do that. And take many to their destination with no transfer save for the last mile.

So that is the catchment to service to relieve all subway lines. And building a subway, (initially to be run with four car trains) is not going to do it. Once the bulk of the GTA area is serviced by RER into downtown, then the subways can handle the lessened traffic connected by extensions. To build a subway from Pape and Danforth to Osgoode as "the most expensive subway Toronto has ever built" is madness. It has to be part of a much greater scheme, or built to encompass a later, greater scheme by making it forward compatible. And $11B+ to the longer version is a huge chunk of money. That would do wonders for GO. The Missing Link is only costed at $5B. VIA's HFR, with rolling stock included, is same.

In the event, there's no funding for this, and even if there was, it won't even be started, let alone built for ten years or more. Toronto's subways need relief now, and even with Line 1 now at 2 min headway in peak, it's still packed. The obvious and much faster solution is for RER to carry more, and for future planning (and the province has the cash, they'll be spending it on GO not the TTC, and Tory is only exacerbating this) the province will build their own projects. Eglinton Crosstown is just the start, and the introduction of private/public partnership to do it.

Whatever, I'm sure there's going to be a massive shift in policy from QP on this, the signs are already clearly evident. Tory doesn't like Wynne's largess? He can jump out the pot and into the fire with the others.

There's still hope for Private Investment, but Tory had best learn what "business case" means.

 

[MisterF]

There's no plans I'm aware of to run RER on the airport line - though I guess there is some benefit to those at Mount Dennis and Bloor.

The airport line is already pretty close to what could be considered RER. It has 15 minute frequencies and will soon be electrified. Like the rest of the system, we don't know what the fare structure will be in the future. When combined with the Kitchener RER line, trains will run frequently at the stations where both stop.

True - but ignoring the UP service, there's no actual stations in any of those sections. There's also the Milton line that runs alongside the Kitchener line, to well north of Bloor - but they didn't even build a platform at Bloor for the track that they use. There's also the proposed Bolton GO line, but it's not planned for RER.

Perhaps there will a new Smarttrack station in there somewhere - I've lost track of the current proposals, they seem to trim the station list, every time I see a report. And if they do build one at Bathurst Yard, I don't think it would be a stop on the Lakeshore West track, due to the location.

Again, UP shouldn't be ignored as it already provides 15 minute service, albeit with limited stops and non-integrated fares. It's already being used as a de facto GO line by residents of that part of the city. Six new Smarttrack stations are planned in addition to the two new RER stations. Annoyingly and confusingly, Smarttrack and RER are still being talked about separately even though Smarttrack is officially described as an enhancement of RER including an integrated fare structure.

http://smarttrack.to/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Station-Map.png?x64185

Another wrinkle is the Smarttrack plan as it currently stands would increase the frequencies of the Stouffville and Kitchener RER lines beyond the 15 minute base case. So at Unilever Station for example you could see a train every 5 minutes or so.

Would it? Where does it say that? I got the impression that skip-stopping was on the table.

A variety of service concepts and stopping patterns is being considered but frequencies to Unionville for example are in the 5-10 minute range depending on the option. The info is available on smarttrack.to.

Whatever form this all ends up taking, it's a major investment in transit for central Toronto any way you look at it.

 

[steveintoronto]

And USRC is being updated also? I think we "got it" some time back, quite by ourselves.

Toronto is not approaching Paris or London density just yet. Those cities' solutions are based on numbers that we won't reach for a long time.

On the 2015 GO RER Business Case Report I quoted prior, http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...fitscases/GO_RER_Initial_Business_Case_EN.pdf
Steve Munro observes:

It is amusing to read about the benefits of proven technology, something for which Ontario has not been noted in past endeavours.

Virtually all of the works are within existing rail corridors, so environmental and community impacts are limited mostly to noise and vibration. RER will use proven technology that is working around the world. [p. v]

Descriptions of RER cite similar operations in more than 50 city regions worldwide [page 6], and list a number of factors that simplify implementation [p. 4]. I cannot help thinking of how badly past studies have downplayed the benefits of LRT which bears a family resemblance, but at a local rather than a regional level.
[...]
Metrolinx intends to pursue discussions with the railways regarding the upgrades needed on their trackage, and also intends to review “modern, proven technology” with Transport Canada and the railways.
[...]
At one point, there is even a claim that GO carries as many people into the core in the peak as the subway does, but this is hard to credit given that total one-way GO ridership is only about 90k. Possibly a restricted definition of the “core” has been used that omits a wide area served well by the subway, but less so by GO. In any event, growth of GO capacity will increase the commuting load it can bring to downtown Toronto.
[...]
Trips from “downtown” are also growing strongly after a long period when the numbers were almost flat. Again, this will bear watching in the 2016 data when it is available. However, we must be careful about the definition of the “downtown” area which could very well exclude a good chunk of the central city such as the University of Toronto campus. It will be important to distinguish between “outward” trips that are simply among various locations in the old City of Toronto, and those to suburbs where GO/RER would make a difference.
[...]
Finally, there is the question of commuting that is not focused on the City of Toronto. The total trip count is very large, and it is almost entirely served by private autos with little sign of growth in other modes. This is a huge challenge for both the regional rail network, and for transit systems within the communities outside of Toronto.
[...]
GO’s fleet plans include their current diesel-hauled trains with 10 or 12 bilevel cars, but also 4-car EMU sets running in 4, 8 or 12-car consists. The fleet required to operate the basic off-peak service would be EMUs, with electric locomotives hauling existing bilevels for peak service on routes that are electrified. [p. 20]
[...]
Although there will be additional costs once RER is operating, the report claims that additional revenue will more than offset this because fare revenue goes up more than operating costs, especially considering the savings available with EMU operations over the current diesel-hauled trains.
[...]

https://stevemunro.ca/2016/03/30/gorer-details-emerge-in-business-case-analysis/

From the GO Business Case Report:

 

[nfitz]

The airport line is already pretty close to what could be considered RER.

Other than the first R. Regional. It would be the shortest RER line in the world!

Whatever form this all ends up taking, it's a major investment in transit for central Toronto any way you look at it.

A major investment, sure. It could have 0 riders, and be a major investment! But is it a good use of money. Not without more frequent service, and TTC fares.

 

[MisterF]

Other than the first R. Regional. It would be the shortest RER line in the world!

The point is that it provides useful, relatively frequent rapid transit service to the stations where it stops.

A major investment, sure. It could have 0 riders, and be a major investment! But is it a good use of money. Not without more frequent service, and TTC fares.

Well it's a good thing that they're looking at integrating fares then. Nothing is finalized yet but it seems to me that the province and feds aren't going to spend $13.5 billion on RER just to handicap the system with the current obsolete fare structure.

 

[crs1026]

UPE is currently an unintentional 'RER Demonstration' thanks to the Bloor Weston GO pricing. When GO electrifies and acquires an EMU fleet, UPE can use the same equipment as the rest of RER, albeit limited to 3 cars, and Bloor/Weston service can shift to the Kitchener-Bramalea trains. What we've learned is just how popular a service with RER-ish stop spacing and frequent headways can be. Now extrapolate the Weston/Bloor ridership that to all GO lines....well worth the investment.

I have found myself taking UPE after Jays games, just to get from Union to Dundas West to grab the subway from there. In the context of an evening of Skydome-priced beer and hot dogs, the extra five bucks seems pretty trivial and it's just so nice not to face the crowds at the Union subway station. And faster. But- we still need a subway/LRT network.

For the next twenty years or more, we need to get competent at building 'vanilla' RER and 'vanilla' subway/LRT . Then we can adapt. Paris had an RER network for decades before they started making it into a super-subway. What we need for the moment is a lot closer to, say, Oslo's network (a fairly standard, but very efficient, EMU operation) than anything more hybrid.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

The Nippon Sharyos even have the equipment on-board for a form of CBTC, but it remains idle since there's no corresponding track infrastructure to respond.

They have nothing of the sort.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

steveintoronto said: ↑
The Nippon Sharyos even have the equipment on-board for a form of CBTC, but it remains idle since there's no corresponding track infrastructure to respond.

They have nothing of the sort.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I'll dig out details specific to UPX later, but for now, here's what the Nippon-Sharyo's came equipped with:


SMART RAIL & PATHWAY PROJECT

SMART Board Workshop

Vehicle and Systems

February 11, 2015
[...]
Page 3

SYSTEMS CONSTRUCTION AND TEST

3

▪ Central Instrument Locations are being installed all along the

railroad. 90% of these are in place.

▪ A continuous communications fiber ductbank is constructed

all along the railroad

▪ The data center and central control rooms are under

construction

▪ Testing at individual locations will begin in March
▪ Integrated testing of all the systems – train control,

communications, central control, grade crossings – with
trains – will begin by year’s end
Page 4
Page 5

SYSTEMS AND VEHICLES ARE PUT TO USE
FROM CENTRAL CONTROL

5

▪ Dispatchers request the routes for trains from central control

via the fiberoptic network

▪ After the route is cleared by the “wayside”, dispatchers

instruct engineers via radio when to move trains

▪ Dispatcher can not send the trains in an unsafe movement –

SMART’s Positive Train Control design does not allow it


HOW SYSTEMS AND TRAINS INTERACT

6

▪ Central Instrument Location

(CIL) , fiber ductbank and
track

▪ Train is given message sent

from CIL via rail and picks it
up with these:


THEN WHAT?

7

▪ The message is decoded

in a secure location

▪ And passed to the

train’s engineer

Page 8
WHAT DOES PTC DO?

8

The PTC system will stop the train whenever an engineer fails
to adhere to his/her target speed, at all times

▪ In curves, PTC enforces the curve speed to prevent

derailments

▪ At turnouts, PTC will not allow conflicting movements
▪ At platforms leading up to crossings, PTC enforces a stop

Page 10
IS THERE MORE?

10

▪ Fiber is used to sync the operation of adjacent crossings
▪ Intelligent camera systems alert controllers to people in the

tunnel or on/around the Haystack Bridge, via fiber

▪ Fiber will be used for ticket machine communication and

station camera monitoring

▪ Train Radio

» 160 MHz VHF Spectrum radio system – assigned by the

Association of American Railroads (AAR)

» SMART working with Marin and Sonoma Counties and

jurisdictions on an interoperability agreement and plan for
emergency response.
[...]

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c.../8826+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=ubuntu

This system is present in the UPX vehicles, but until the appropriate transponders can be installed on the track, it is turned off and redundant.

I'll link more later when time permits.

Posted: 06/17/16, 3:44 PM PDT | Updated: on 06/18/2016
35 Comments

Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit is poised to be the first rail line system in the country to start service completely outfitted with a safety system to prevent potentially deadly accidents, according to agency officials.

SMART has spent $50 million on implementation of what is known as a “Positive Train Control” system on the line from downtown San Rafael to the Santa Rosa Airport, which will see passenger service later this year.

The system essentially controls movements on the rails electronically to slow or stop trains before certain types of accidents could occur.

In SMART’s case, a fiber optic network is used to “talk” to the train system to prevent a train from moving while sitting in a turnout while another train passes, maintain safe speeds in curves to prevent derailments and to slow speeds in work zones where workers are present.

The system stops the train if an engineer fails to adhere to the software-programmed instructions. The system is also used by dispatchers to lower speeds when a grade crossing has been damaged.

“So if the engineer loses capacity to operate the train for some reason and becomes incapacitated, or if there is a criminal act of some type, the system ensures the safety of the train as it travels,” said Farhad Mansourian, the rail agency’s general manager.

Such a system could have prevented the deadly accident of Amtrak passenger train 188 in Philadelphia in May 2015, National Transportation Safety Board officials said last month. That train had entered a curve where the speed is restricted to 50 mph. But the train was traveling at 106 mph because the engineer was distracted and failed to slow the train. Eight passengers were killed and 185 others were transported to area hospitals. SMART’s top speed will be 79 mph.

SMART has just applied for $3 million from the federal government to have the safety system installed for the 2.1-mile extension from downtown San Rafael to Larkspur. The extension could open as soon as 2018.

In April, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Railroad Administration announced $25 million in grants for implementation of the safety system.

SMART will have to spend between $10 million and $12 million to operate the safety system on the downtown San Rafael to Larkspur extension and hopes to land the $3 million to augment the cost.

“The system is both software and hardware equipment,” Mansourian said.

In 2008, Congress required railroads to install the safety systems. Last October, Congress extended the original deadline to implement the system from Dec. 31, 2015 to at least Dec. 31, 2018. In theory, SMART could have delayed deploying the safety system until later to save money now.

“It’s an important safety feature and the SMART board saw its value,” Mansourian said.

The federal grant money is part of the 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act that finances the U.S. Department of Transportation. The grant is competitive and there is no guarantee the money will come to SMART.

Federal rail officials will give preference to projects that would provide the greatest level of public safety benefits.

“Positive train control is a long overdue technology that prevents accidents and saves lives,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx in a statement. “These funds will help us get closer to implementing PTC, and I encourage applications that can make these limited dollars go as far as possible.”

http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20160617/NEWS/160619811

 

[M II A II R II K]

May have to build new dedicated trackage sometimes diverging from the existing fixed routes if there's no space in certain areas.