GO Transit Fleet Equipment and other

[raptor]

Their plan is for double-level, yes.

source?

 

[drum118]

source?

Been talked about for 10 years plus, starting in 2007 with Metronauts Regional meetings.

 

[rbt]

There is nothing wrong with using double-deck trains so long as they have enough doors to deal with the on-off traffic.

It also helps reduce dwell times when the doors are on the mid-level. 2 streams of passengers (half a flight down, and half a flight up) going toward the door is a more efficient use of door time.

 

[robmausser]

A pic of the New Mexico RailRunner Bombardier Bi-Level, with luggage racks.

GO, Y U NO HAVE THIS?

I've always hated how the GO Trains dont have luggage racks.

 

[smallspy]

A pic of the New Mexico RailRunner Bombardier Bi-Level, with luggage racks.

GO, Y U NO HAVE THIS?

I've always hated how the GO Trains dont have luggage racks.

Transport Canada has decreed that all baggage racks must be enclose-able. That's why even the luggage cages on VIA have a nylon mesh on them.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[ssiguy2]

Double-deckers are fine and even ideal for commuter systems but not for a RER type system.

Commuter rail basically just has one way travelers...…...people getting on throughout the route and everyone getting off at it`s termination ie Union. A RER system is, in many ways, more of a subway system with fewer stops. It is designed to move people about the region not to one particular stop like commuter rail. This means passenger flow and dwell times are far more important. Just as people tend to stand on a subway if only going a couple stations, people will do the same on RER clogging the fewer and thinner doorways. This will become even more acute as the number of wheelchair users rises as trains and stations, unlike in the past, are fully accessible.

Melbourne got rid of it`s double-decker trains for exactly that reason and is why the new Sydney Metro, even though much of it is using the current Sydney trains rail corridor, are going to be single level. In theory double decker trains look like they would carry far more passengers but the reality is quite different. The bi-levels may only have a few steps so logically it shouldn`t make any difference but people don`t act logically. I rode a bi-level in Rome and although the seats were full there was plenty of room for standees in the aisle but people, if they can`t get a seat, just wallow near the doorways. It greatly slowed the train for people getting on/off and one individual in a wheelchair had a hell of a time trying to exit even though being on the entry level. 6 people had to get off the train so the wheelchair rider could get off and on again and I remember if clearly as my brother and I were 2 of those 6 people.

 

[smallspy]

Double-deckers are fine and even ideal for commuter systems but not for a RER type system.

Commuter rail basically just has one way travelers...…...people getting on throughout the route and everyone getting off at it`s termination ie Union. A RER system is, in many ways, more of a subway system with fewer stops. It is designed to move people about the region not to one particular stop like commuter rail. This means passenger flow and dwell times are far more important. Just as people tend to stand on a subway if only going a couple stations, people will do the same on RER clogging the fewer and thinner doorways. This will become even more acute as the number of wheelchair users rises as trains and stations, unlike in the past, are fully accessible.

One thing you seem to conveniently forget - GO isn't going to change what it already is, just add some stuff to its existing mandate.

People are still going to be taking the train for an hour or more each way every day. Simply calling it "RER" and wishing that away isn't going to change it.

Thus, you have to account for that. And thus, there's no reason why you can't use a double-decker. Design the lower level, where the doors are, for maximum occupancy and passenger flow, but the upper level with more comfort in mind. After all, this is what is done elsewhere, and it seems to be reasonably successful.

Melbourne got rid of it`s double-decker trains for exactly that reason and is why the new Sydney Metro, even though much of it is using the current Sydney trains rail corridor, are going to be single level. In theory double decker trains look like they would carry far more passengers but the reality is quite different. The bi-levels may only have a few steps so logically it shouldn`t make any difference but people don`t act logically. I rode a bi-level in Rome and although the seats were full there was plenty of room for standees in the aisle but people, if they can`t get a seat, just wallow near the doorways. It greatly slowed the train for people getting on/off and one individual in a wheelchair had a hell of a time trying to exit even though being on the entry level. 6 people had to get off the train so the wheelchair rider could get off and on again and I remember if clearly as my brother and I were 2 of those 6 people.

Melbourne never had double-decker trains, save for one short-lived and unsucessful test train.

As for Sydney's Metro, they are trying to build a modern subway system - which involves exactly what you are talking about. Lots of frequent stops, lots of on-off traffic - all of which requires lots of doors and level boarding to speed things up. It is at odds with the existing Sydney rail system, which is more commuter- and distance-focussed.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

One thing you seem to conveniently forget - GO isn't going to change what it already is, just add some stuff to its existing mandate.

People are still going to be taking the train for an hour or more each way every day. Simply calling it "RER" and wishing that away isn't going to change it.

Thus, you have to account for that. And thus, there's no reason why you can't use a double-decker. Design the lower level, where the doors are, for maximum occupancy and passenger flow, but the upper level with more comfort in mind. After all, this is what is done elsewhere, and it seems to be reasonably successful.

I second this, and would also point out that RER is moving away from 12-car trains packed to the gills, to smaller trains that are less packed, and therefore don't have so much dwell time for boarding/debarking. Because of this, I'd expect any additional time benefit to moving to single-level coaches to be negligible in the context of the whole trip. We aren't talking about a subway.

Hate to don some rose-coloured glasses for this point, but lots of the off-peak users are families with kids, and other individuals that are drawn to the train to take a nice, leisurely trip. The views from the top deck can be part of that draw. If we want to encourage ridership, particularly from people that would otherwise drive, why nix a design element that makes it pleasurable, to shave a few seconds per station in dwell time?

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Something else I've wondered about GO's existing double-decker coaches: would there be a significant enough benefit to retrofitting it into 4- or 6-packs of articulated coaches (intertrain forces, ride quality), or would the drawbacks be too much (can't separate as easy, capital cost)? Interested to hear thoughts.

 

[robmausser]

Double-deckers are fine and even ideal for commuter systems but not for a RER type system.

Commuter rail basically just has one way travelers...…...people getting on throughout the route and everyone getting off at it`s termination ie Union. A RER system is, in many ways, more of a subway system with fewer stops. It is designed to move people about the region not to one particular stop like commuter rail. This means passenger flow and dwell times are far more important. Just as people tend to stand on a subway if only going a couple stations, people will do the same on RER clogging the fewer and thinner doorways. This will become even more acute as the number of wheelchair users rises as trains and stations, unlike in the past, are fully accessible.

Melbourne got rid of it`s double-decker trains for exactly that reason and is why the new Sydney Metro, even though much of it is using the current Sydney trains rail corridor, are going to be single level. In theory double decker trains look like they would carry far more passengers but the reality is quite different. The bi-levels may only have a few steps so logically it shouldn`t make any difference but people don`t act logically. I rode a bi-level in Rome and although the seats were full there was plenty of room for standees in the aisle but people, if they can`t get a seat, just wallow near the doorways. It greatly slowed the train for people getting on/off and one individual in a wheelchair had a hell of a time trying to exit even though being on the entry level. 6 people had to get off the train so the wheelchair rider could get off and on again and I remember if clearly as my brother and I were 2 of those 6 people.

I completely agree, but Metrolinx wants to save money on the RER stations by making the platforms really short, and they want to use the same EMU's for RER as the outer system, so double deckers it is.

 

[steveintoronto]

Bear in mind that the Sydney Metro single deckers will carry more passengers:

[...]
Yet, the cost of Sydney Trains remains too high, because half the rolling stock is kept idle outside of rush hour. Our double-decker trains are a custom-built oddity. And each train has a driver and a guard.
Employing guards has increased the cost of rail services and has historically acted as a brake to investment in expanding the rail network. If the right technology is adopted, the need for guards will decline. Most of the world's heritage systems have moved to driver-only operation. Many newly built lines are driverless.
Our double-decker trains are very difficult to run at a higher frequency than they do now. They have more seats but carry fewer people than single-deck metro trains. We need more trains with more room and rail lines or else our city will have a stroke.

Game-changing rail infrastructure could be the backbone of an efficient, sustainable system that gets everyone home on time without breaking the bank.
The high-capacity driverless metro under construction offers a solution.
The new metro line is designed to carry 43,000 passengers per hour per direction (p/h/d). No Sydney Trains line can currently reach 20,000 p/h/d. Motorways only manage 2000 vehicles per hour per lane – mostly cars with one occupant.
The Sydney Metro – from Sydney's north-west to Bankstown – now under construction is an excellent idea and the Coalition governments should be praised for finally making it happen. Sydney Metro West from the CBD to Parramatta is also in the pipeline. But the Berejiklian government should keep moving in the right direction.
The City Circle tracks should be converted to metro and an all-stop metro line could run from Homebush through the City Circle to Revesby. This could be converted to carry a driverless metro like the Bankstown line or a metro with a driver, which wouldn't require the platform remakes of the Bankstown project but due to higher labour costs may be more expensive over time. Another pair of tracks, from Bondi Junction to Hurstville, is also ripe for metro conversion.
Together with the new line to Parramatta, these tracks would create a decent system for the most densely populated areas around the city. Metro conversions would facilitate the use of remaining tracks for longer distance, faster suburban trains with fewer stops.[...]

https://sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2017/08/02/a-solution-to-sydney-s-peak-hour-train-crush.html

Much has been written and detailed on the move to single-decker, and now DD is considered best for outer-areas and less frequent stops, and inner city, even in cities like Oslo, very small compared to Toronto, use DD for outlying areas, and single for close.

As for the Paris RER, on some lines the DD have three sets of doors each side. It becomes a question of trade-off for access to rapidly load/unload a DD that theoretically should carry more passengers, but in practice, can't if dwell time is the trade-off.

 

[crs1026]

Something else I've wondered about GO's existing double-decker coaches: would there be a significant enough benefit to retrofitting it into 4- or 6-packs of articulated coaches (intertrain forces, ride quality), or would the drawbacks be too much (can't separate as easy, capital cost)? Interested to hear thoughts.

The benefit is there with EMU’s because (TTC subway cars being an example) you can have two or more cars sharing one piece of equipment - switchgear, compressor, etc.
The benefit is less there with the conventional loco hauled stock because there is less “shareable” gear. If you hard-couple the cars, and one car has a failure, you have to take 2+ cars out of service. Your utilization will fall.
The current fleet doesn’t suffer from unplanned separations, nor is slack action so pronounced as to require corrective action. So I can’t see much up side. Couplers, hosebags, and quick release MU/HEP end fittings are not a big maintenance expense.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

Hate to don some rose-coloured glasses for this point, but lots of the off-peak users are families with kids, and other individuals that are drawn to the train to take a nice, leisurely trip. The views from the top deck can be part of that draw. If we want to encourage ridership, particularly from people that would otherwise drive, why nix a design element that makes it pleasurable, to shave a few seconds per station in dwell time?

Amen. If the vision for RER is something packed to the gills, standee laden, well, count me out. I don’t mind standing from Union to Kipling or Mimico, but I won’t be happy standing all the way to Mount Pleasant (although, already, too many do). Let’s not equate RER totally with subway, the modal RER rides will be longer.

Oslo and other Norwegian cities have cool RER like systems with single level stock, but from my experience train size is managed so most people can sit, and seating is more akin to GO space than TTC space.

NJT mostly uses single level 3+2 stock for 2WAD runs and uses the longer bilevel consists for peak - partly operating cost and partly to maximise peak capacity. Off peak, trains are long enough that most everyone can sit. I’m not a fan of 3+2, but it works.

- Paul

 

[Streety McCarface]

Why is that, considering there were lowfloor DD trains in Europe back in 2012??? High or low-floor platforms have no impact on electrification.

This train is like many others either high-floor or low-floor cars that have gap plates sliding out to fill the gap between the car and platform that better than what GO has today. This deal with clearance for freight and high speed trains. They come 3-9 car trains and mu 2-3 trains of different configuration. Seen 18 car trains made up as either 2 or 3 trains. Seen one of the trains cut from the main train along the way as either its not needed or being used on a branch line. Takes a very short time to decouple or couple.
(Vienna) [Wien] Photo

Frankfurt Germany

Long time to respond, I know, but because of the increased dwell times associated with double decker trains. For the exurb areas, I don't really see an issue with double deckers, but for the areas within the immediate GTHA, there could be some severe rush-hour choke-points within the system, especially at Union Station. If we're just going for an improved commuter service, then I guess double deckers would be fine, but if we're going for the perceived RER-type service, then dwell times are a huge issue due to climbing stairs, difficulties leaving the train, and less standing room.

Personally, I don't have an issue with double deckers, but I do believe that not increasing the platform heights to 48" is a huge waste given that it will significantly increase dwell times. I guess it's a no win situation regardless of when the winner chooses, given that exurb commuters would be angered by the need to stand, and people in Toronto would be slightly annoyed that they'd have to wait longer at stations.

With regards to the examples used for European cities, I've been on many of their systems, and I can safely say that Vienna's needs are far different from Toronto's. Since Vienna is an extremely dense city, the majority of passengers there are not going to be taking the S-Bahn, rather the Metro, tram, or bike. Their entire system (which has a ridership of something like 300K passengers per day) is over 650km long (compared to the ~250 of electrified lines in Toronto). Comparatively, in terms of ridership/km, Vienna's is much less than Toronto's, and this is significant because it means that the Wien Stadtbahn serves as more of a Regional Rail service/commuter service, and less of an inner city service. This means that they can really justify having double deckers because a combination of their load factors, frequencies, and service type justify them.

The thing with the Paris RER system is that they use high floor platforms, so there's no comparison since my issue is with platform height.

I guess we'll see what the future holds given the current political climate.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Why is that a waste? If they changed to high floor platforms would every platform need to be raised?

Depends on the rolling stock they purchase. Some trains like the Silverliners in Philadelphia have stepped access for low platforms and step free access for high floor stations.

There is also the prospect of a dual level railcar, such as those KISS EMUs being ordered for CalTrain:

Of course, if we didn't go with the dual platform option, I don't really see a huge problem with increasing platform heights across the network. Assuming it costs something like 20 million to do it at each station (and with many stations coming up for renovation, this might not even be an issue) there are ~70 stations in the network (Union station would be prohibitively more expensive), the extra costs associated with the addition are around 1.5 Billion dollars. Given that RER is supposed to cost some 20 Billion, 1.5 for decreasing dwell times by a factor of around 30-50%, in my eyes, is worth it. Even then, there are many stations (ie Guelph, Acton, St Catherines, the Bowmanville Extension, Bradford, Newmarket, Old Cummer, Langstaff, Centennial, Lincolnville) that won't need an entire 12-car high floor platform. Since these trains will likely be connected EMUs, the middle of the train could stop on a smaller platform that can accommodate 3-4 cars (Which is still a fairly long platform) at these lower ridership stations, bringing down costs.