Streety McCarface
Senior Member
Well, a lot of stations are due for rehabilitation right now, so the decision to make it so is now or never.
|
|
|
Great Platform Height Debate: Subway-Style Level Boarding for GO Trains
- Thread starter mdrejhon
- Start date
Well, a lot of stations are due for rehabilitation right now, so the decision to make it so is now or never.
steveintoronto
Superstar
VIA is equipped for both low and high....the real watershed decision will be for RER. And correct me if I'm wrong on this, but that's one more aspect 'outsourced' by ML by leaving equipment choice up to private equipment suppliers who win the bid.
To attain world class speed of entering and exiting coaches, (min station dwell time) it's going to have to be high-level. This is something the ML have been querying VIA on re Union Station and increasing efficiency/throughput/and minimal tacks and platforms to permit that efficiency. GO bi-levels can be 'level boarding'.
I suspect any debate on the point is swamped right now by election announcements. The point is crucial to address though, and soon.
To attain world class speed of entering and exiting coaches, (min station dwell time) it's going to have to be high-level. This is something the ML have been querying VIA on re Union Station and increasing efficiency/throughput/and minimal tacks and platforms to permit that efficiency. GO bi-levels can be 'level boarding'.
I suspect any debate on the point is swamped right now by election announcements. The point is crucial to address though, and soon.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
Metrolinx could also take the SEPTA route and order EMUs with both high and low platforms, and at stations with lower demands, simply install an accessibility ramp for those who need it while conversion ensues elsewhere.
steveintoronto
Superstar
I know that's been suggested by a number of focused and informed posters, but it's a fudge. You end up diluting the very raison d'etre of high level platforms (at least for transit, as opposed to distance):
Speed of loading and unloading. In fact, optimally, for RER single decker coaches (and I suspect the contractor who wins the RER bidding will make a point of this anyway, at least for Toronto RER distance between proposed stations) at least three sets of doors per coach. Perhaps like the Sharyos, both sides for flexibility of station use. If one side, then four sets of doors like the latest subway cars. And all high-level.
The compromise has to to come on the platforms, not the coaches. And the necessity of that compromise will only be at RER and GO Train interchange stations. By far the bulk of VIA stations are still not even level boarding, let alone high boarding.
QP keeps kicking the can down the road on this....phhh..along with catenary electrification. Not heard much about that lately either, have we?
Here's the present state-of-the-art rolling stock, ready and willing to be bought "off the shelf" with customized accoutrements to match:
Of course, Transport Canada is going to have to enter this century in terms of couplers and signalling systems, but I suspect VIA's HFR will push those buttons anyway.
The competing trains for Thameslink are another choice, (Class 700 v Class 345 for Crossrail) and interestingly, GO Transit is mentioned in this UK Guardian story on them:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/...ube-style-standing-up-future-commuting-london
Crossrail's supplier is Bombardier, and Thameslink is Siemens. Both would put in bids on Ontario's RER.
And both are for high-platform. Of course...
Last edited:
crs1026
Senior Member
GO has over 800 bilevels, at a purchase price of $2M-$3M apiece. They aren't going to replace all of 'em anytime soon.
For the time being, GO moving to High platforms means platforms that are level with the current doors.
VIA, however, would be well placed to raise a platform or two in Toronto Union.
- Paul
For the time being, GO moving to High platforms means platforms that are level with the current doors.
VIA, however, would be well placed to raise a platform or two in Toronto Union.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
Other than UPX, what GO are trying are *level boarding* platforms, not high ones. These will be of no use for what are ostensibly the RER trains. If station platforms and tracks are increased to four, it might be necessary to do as some other nations do, Germany immediately comes to mind, where one side of a platform has a lower track bed suffice to render a high-platform, and the other side, being not as deep a trackbed, renders level boarding.
Whether Metrolinx stick with their plan of private or P3 consortiums or not, the market (albeit God help us all if ML try to reinvent the flanged wheel on this) will dictate high-level platforms (as VIA and UPX now use) for RER.
Let's flip that over for the sake of argument: Who *doesn't* use high platforms for regional trains in the developed world?
Caveat: For LRT, as done in Edmonton and Calgary, the opposite is true, due to the characteristic of building stations in roadways. It's also due to the advantage of low-floor vehicles.
RER is quite the opposite in terms of being sighted on rail rights of way, or in tunnels, not within roadways.
https://www.railwayage.com/mw/calgary-edmonton-adopt-low-floor-approach/
Last edited:
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Given that one of the biggest challenges to any platform height conversion is fleet planning, I maintain that the most practical option for level-boarding is to divide the network into different fleet types. The lines shared with VIA/Amtrak or UPX would adopt the 48" standard that those agencies already use, while the GO-only corridors maintain GO's current 25" floor height standard. That way the 25" fleet can be gradually reduced through attrition, similar to how the TTC converted to ATC-ready TR trains on Line 1 by retiring older H-series trains across the network and concentrating the remaining T-series trains onto Line 2.
Lines in red would be 48" floor-height, while lines in green would be 25" floor height. Note that even in GO's current plan, VIA/Amtrak/UPX services to Kitchener, Niagara Falls, Oshawa, Brantford and Pearson would require 48" platforms.
Comparison with all-25" option
GO's current plan is to convert the entire network to 25" level-boarding platforms. The problem is that UPX, Amtrak and VIA will be keeping their standard at 48", which means that shared stations will require two sets of platforms, one for GO and one for everyone else. This results in unnecessarily cumbersome stations with either limited capacity or extremely long walking distances. Freight access is actually the same in either option - even in the current plan, GO is building gauntlet tracks to let freight trains by their 25" level-boarding platforms.
Comparison with all-48" option
The challenge with the all-48" option is of course the 700+ Bombardier Bilevel coaches that GO already owns. Since some of the lines don't share with other passenger services, there is not as big of an advantage for 48" platforms. It's also worth noting that the lines I suggested to maintain the 25" floor height include those with higher freight and lower passenger train volumes.
Lines in red would be 48" floor-height, while lines in green would be 25" floor height. Note that even in GO's current plan, VIA/Amtrak/UPX services to Kitchener, Niagara Falls, Oshawa, Brantford and Pearson would require 48" platforms.
Comparison with all-25" option
GO's current plan is to convert the entire network to 25" level-boarding platforms. The problem is that UPX, Amtrak and VIA will be keeping their standard at 48", which means that shared stations will require two sets of platforms, one for GO and one for everyone else. This results in unnecessarily cumbersome stations with either limited capacity or extremely long walking distances. Freight access is actually the same in either option - even in the current plan, GO is building gauntlet tracks to let freight trains by their 25" level-boarding platforms.
Comparison with all-48" option
The challenge with the all-48" option is of course the 700+ Bombardier Bilevel coaches that GO already owns. Since some of the lines don't share with other passenger services, there is not as big of an advantage for 48" platforms. It's also worth noting that the lines I suggested to maintain the 25" floor height include those with higher freight and lower passenger train volumes.
Attachments
rbt
Senior Member
As far as GO RER is concerned, "level boarding" is likely to be even with the lower level of current GO bilevel cars. As much as I'd prefer them to target the middle level (with stairs up and down creating 2 internal flows toward the train doors) I doubt that'll happen.
You can see a rendering of this for the new south platform currently in RFP here:
http://www.infrastructureontario.ca/Union-Station-Enhancement-Project/
crs1026
Senior Member
It’s not inconceivable that some number of existing bilevels could have high level doors added when the cars come up for mid-life refurbishment. They will be torn apart then anyways. That would enable the partial transition that @reaperexpress is suggesting. The bilevel design is likely amenable to that kind of modification.
Coordinating the platform and elevator mods will be challenging and will lead to some amount of rework on recent station investment.... ugh.
- Paul
Coordinating the platform and elevator mods will be challenging and will lead to some amount of rework on recent station investment.... ugh.
- Paul
rbt
Senior Member
I agree, it certainly could be done. I just don't think either Metrolinx or the private partner (if they keep the giant DBFOM tender) will be interested in funding more than the absolute minimum amount of station work required. Perhaps for the next round in 2040 which targets 5 minute frequencies.
Level boarding with the current door heights can be achieved with minor reshaping of platforms (slopes down to stairs elevators, one extra step) and a slight lowering of the tracks.
Perhaps a Milton<=>Stouffville line will be rebuilt as high-floor when it's turn comes.
Last edited:
mdrejhon
Senior Member
A mixed fleet is probable, but I'd imagine dual-level doors will be appealing to Metrolinx (Like the Caltrain Stadler KISS) as an interim solution for some lines that won't be bottlenecked by this boarding arrangement.
Look at how TTC and STM (Montreal) is taking decades to complete their accessibility retrofits. We have to raise platforms incrementally.
During a 20 year transition that is more palatable to Ford budgets - we have no choice for some routes but to consider potential dual-door-height coaches. As long as they are doubledoors for both heights.
As a workaround in the conversion from a freight-constrained commuter train system into a frequent 2way regional rapid transit surface metro.
Look at how TTC and STM (Montreal) is taking decades to complete their accessibility retrofits. We have to raise platforms incrementally.
During a 20 year transition that is more palatable to Ford budgets - we have no choice for some routes but to consider potential dual-door-height coaches. As long as they are doubledoors for both heights.
As a workaround in the conversion from a freight-constrained commuter train system into a frequent 2way regional rapid transit surface metro.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Yes, I think it goes without saying that during any kind of system transition you need an intermediate fleet capable of operating with both the "before" and "after" condition. Just like how the TTC Flexity streetcars have both trolley poles and pantographs as they ride out the transition in the overhead wire network.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
It appears they want this to happen:
Page 19 of the new GO Rapid Rail business plan (RER renamed to Rapid Rail)
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd..._BoardMtg_GO_Expansion_Full_Business_Case.PDF
“2025-2030” goal timeline.
Page 19 of the new GO Rapid Rail business plan (RER renamed to Rapid Rail)
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd..._BoardMtg_GO_Expansion_Full_Business_Case.PDF
“2025-2030” goal timeline.
steveintoronto
Superstar
And I see "escalators up to the platforms" (at Union) in the report too...well duh. Great foresight on the part of all involved.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
The real question: what do they mean by "Level Boarding"? Are we going with the 48" Platform heights or heights similar to those found on the existing GO Network?
And with regards to escalators at union, why didn't they do this when they were doing the renovation? This is going to cost significantly more and make the place even more of a nightmare. Let's just hope all the food options in Bay are good when it opens.