News   Apr 24, 2024
 328     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
 2.6K     5 
News   Apr 23, 2024
 640     0 

Great Platform Height Debate: Subway-Style Level Boarding for GO Trains

Agree, but this is the part that vexed me: "
These new approaches will first be tried on a new southern platform at Union"

What is the timeline for the south platform? what exactly does that mean? Level with old or new rolling stock?
I suspect the present DD level to floor with provision to take even higher later. Certainly those platforms when they come into service are set-aside for present stock.

I can state with assurance that VIA are also involved in discussions and examinations of even their platforms and dwell time/efficiency. VIA will be relieved to know something they've been maintaining for some time: That there are more than adequate slots and platforms per demand. What's going to be shocking for many is that Verster's now the first in ML command to state that. It's been observed by some experts that Union Station is a massive waste of potential in terms of space per numbers of passengers throughput. I defer to @Urban Sky to make the comparison with some of the German stations, and if I remember correctly, the magic of the comparison is in signalling and control, but even there, Verster's claims now go far beyond what ML was having us believe their "new signalling system" would yield.

I think we can presume the "need for a relief station for Union" could be/is no longer the case. Verster has a lot of details to fill-in, and I and many of you are 'all ears'. That (those?) platform is a very easy and immediate way to start 'the change' happening on all of this.

And for the low level platforms, but at DD door height, one has to wonder....what took them so long? Many US users of the same cars have had level boarding for them for years.

I'm now avid to read more of what Verster has to say, he's been keeping his ammunition dry until now. But he's finally drawn his weapon...I still can't fully believe what I read.

I'm going to mention @mdrejhon so he gets notification to join us here. Since he and @interchange42 linked this in two other strings, it would be good to coalesce or at least be aware of posts elsewhere in the forum on this topic.
 
Last edited:
Mark: As per your linking here from the Verster feature now up at UT:

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/02/union-station-and-go-rer-metrolinxs-phil-verster-future

But the platform height, coupler system, and signalling/control systems are all back on the table for discussion. At this point, now that single level coaches are being discussed again (see the Relief Line string re: Melbourne Metro), I'm willing to shift my stance for high-level platforms. They always did make sense, as any modern RER or Metro demonstrates, my concern was the 'standard' for GO across the system, but Verster has already broached that discussion by casting doubt on the wisdom of maintaining the same platform height across the GO Rail system. He sees two roles for GO Rail, regional distance v. urban commuter, and two (or more, he left it up to the "partners") platform height standards.

I think that multiple platform heights are inevitable, but the division should be by line, not by service type. That way where there are multiple service types on the same line, there is the flexibility to use the same platforms. This is mostly for sharing between intercity and regional services, given that local RER services should be frequent enough to warrant their own separate platforms anyway.

Perhaps the best compromise is to identify certain lines to convert to fully 48" platforms, while other lines remain low-floor and receive the displaced rolling stock through attrition. The Milton, Barrie and Richmond Hill lines don't share stations with any other services, so there wouldn't be as much benefit to raising the platforms. But Lakeshore West, Kitchener/UP and Lakeshore East/Stouffville share stations with high-floor VIA/Amtrak and future RER trains, so they should be raised to 48" to standardize.

Creating different fleet divisions may sound like a massive hurdle (and it is), but it's not unheard of. In addition to the aforementioned METRA example, Montréal's RTM also has two distinct divisions with different accessible floor height standards: the CP division (shown in red below) only uses low platforms, and the fleet includes Bombardier Bilevel coaches which are physically unable to run on CN lines. The CN division (blue) operates out of the high-platform Gare Centrale and shares track and stations with VIA, so high platforms are being built wherever possible.
Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 15.50.12.png
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 15.50.12.png
    Screen Shot 2018-02-02 at 15.50.12.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 797
On a related topic, I should cross-link the tweet and thread:

Keep in mind many conceptual RER graphics uses variations of the Stadler KISS pictogram which is a bilevel EMU.

It is one of the candidate trains proposed for RER, amongst many,

It even has a dual-height door option, which CalTrain ordered. It is a wide doubledoor for all four sets per coach, wider than Montreal AMT's Bombarder MultiLevel.

- Order mainly low door option for core electrified GO routes (serves GO platforms)
- Order at least 30-40 coaches with dual level doors (serves GO & UPX platforms) with baggage racks.

Then plenty of UPX spares, which can also run on the rest of the RER network when not used for UPX.

Fleet commonalty opportunity?

image-png.83793


This proposed GO EMU has a dual height door option too, that can serve UPX platforms.

upload_2016-8-16_14-44-58-png.83661


Basically, the Stadler KISS train, with the optional high door option. Get some with, get some withut, and gain fleet commonalty.

Slightly longer boarding is mostly nonissue due to long dwelling at Pearson and Union (the high traffic stations) unlike middle sections of double decker routes (e.g. Sydney, France). The UPX boarding and disembarkation pattern will adapt well to these bilevels.

Opportunities could include making one coach for strictly airport passengers only at Union, or encouraging one deck to be airport travellers and the other deck to regular commuters.

Accessibility would be wheelchair areas at the midlevel floors. Most baggage racks could be at the midlevel areas, to reduce baggage hassle of lifting bags up/down stairs.

And since low floor doors will not be used for UPX service, additional overflow foldable baggage shelves could unfold in front of low level doors! (Only when the specific trainset is currently in UPX service mode rather than RER mode)

Huge fleet commonalty opportunity if it can work out?

There are multiple angles to the Platform Height Debate, and I created this thread years before GO Transit is truly beginning to talk about it.

There are four potential platform heights above rail:
--> 8 inch (current)
--> 25 inch (bottom floor of Bombardier BiLevel)
--> 30 inch (many European EMUs)
--> 48 inch (UPX and VIA)

The question must be raised, if one high floor height is used (48 inch) or two high floor heights is used (25 nch for level boarding, Utah Bombardier BiLevel style).

Pros of 25 Inch
--> Trains compatible with 25 inch platforms are easily compatible with 8 inch platforms
--> Compatibility with existing Bombardier BiLevels.
modified for level boarding (but with backwards compatibility with low platforms)

Pros of 30 Inch
--> If this is needed for future EMU
--> Trains doing 25 or 30 inch platforms can manage operationally at either 24 or 30 inch platforms (step up or step down issue)

Pros of 48 Inch
--> Compatibility with VIA and UPX trains
--> Hard to be backwards compatible with low platforms
--> Not possible to be made compatible with Bombardier BiLevels.

My current prediction is GO will probably adopt 25 inch for the widened south Platform (one triple-width platform replacing 26/27). This retains 100% fleet compatibility except for UPX.

This prediction is based on GO's intent to keep using the Bombardier BiLevels for a long time to come. Currently, as far as the current GO plan, EMUs are not planned for Lakeshore East/West before Bramalea-Aurora-Unionville, and Lakeshore East/West will likely use dual-mode locos. Lakeshore station spacing puts lesser importance on EMU acceleration than for the densor stop spacing of the other corridors.

I could be wrong, and GO will use the south platforms as EMU-only stops -- then any platform height (25", 30" or 48") is on the table.
 
Last edited:
Originally, I thought that the artwork for Platform 26/27 and 28/29 was in error (artist) as the platform looked unusually wide.

However, upon further study, after Metrolinx's more recent talking, I now understand: This is the triple-width platform.

Currently, it is unclear in this concept art if it's a raised platform.

USEP%20-%20South%20Platform%20Grand%20Canopy3.bmp


As a reminder, in Utah, they use Bombardier BiLevels for Utah FrontRunner:

DMg-lvqVAAEQ_YA.jpg

Credit: Nightowlcity on flickr

DMg-lvrUIAEMz_k.jpg

(Image posted earlier in this thread)

This is what I predict will happen to Platform 26/27/28/29.

The UrbanToronto article says: "Now that platforms are being raised to match the bilevel floors" -- which portends the adoption of the 25 inch platform height as the official high commuter platform standard.

I do not think they will choose 48 inch (except as a secondary height -- for VIA, UPX, HSR) but they could use dual-door-height for UPX trainsets if they commonalize the UPX fleet with RER -- they could make only certain trains UPX compatible for fleet flexibility -- Unused UPX spares (with the midlevel deck doors) could then now be as part of standard RER trainsets.

Nontheless -- a good think before final adoption of 25 inch height. Are there many EMUs compatible with this height? The platform height should be very, very carefully decided. We need access to EMUs with a similar bottom-deck floor height as the bottom deck of a Bombardier BiLevel. That will maximize future compatibility for GO electrification and the eventual replacement of the diesels later this century.
 

Attachments

  • DMg-lvqVAAEQ_YA.jpg
    DMg-lvqVAAEQ_YA.jpg
    96.1 KB · Views: 1,404
Last edited:
^ Excellent points and research, and I for one appreciate your reposting what you have, perhaps this is the more opportune string to include other aspects besides actual platform height but related to the obvious change of approach as stated by Verster. I suspect many posters don't realize the massive changes that Verster portends. Platform height is just one.

I think that multiple platform heights are inevitable, but the division should be by line, not by service type.

There are multiple angles to the Platform Height Debate, and I created this thread years before GO Transit is truly beginning to talk about it.
A quick note on the Utah and other jurisdictional users of level bording. The BBD HS DD are offered with an extendable ledge for requesting customers to make the 'gap' seamless. That may be a detail that is soon included as a retrofit for some ML DD stock. That gap is not just clearance for passenger stock, it's for freight clearance on shared lines too.

And something that alters a lot of MD's prior presentation is the 'new' talk of single decker coaches...something that automatically renders much of the platform height debate moot. Needless to say, the original HS coaches were single deck, but ground level boarding. Any new talk of single deck EMU assumes the 48" (edited to correct) height. So one aspect of interoperability of the same platforms is stymied, but other far more important aspects open-up: "Metro" vehicles in tunnel running through onto extant RER electric lines. In the case of Toronto, one would assume 25kVAC catenary, albeit as with LRTs, dual current mode is commonly used now elsewhere. (Paris immediately comes to mind, but a good number of cities now do this). And also, LRVs being able to run on Metro lines.

The single decker EMUs ostensibly offer easier standardization of tunnel bore size. Crosstown, for instance, has a bore slightly larger than what Paris RER B use for their DD stock, but as Melbourne and now Sydney show, the move is now toward single decker. Crossrail is a stunning example of this, using a smaller bore than Crosstown, and yet being state-of-the-art in many respects, and also, of course, 25kVAC for through running onto extant mainlines when surfacing.

With the news today that TO City Council hasn't even started the next stage of planning for the Relief Line...and Verster's many hints of what's to come, and his clearly mentioning inter-urban roles for RER w/ single decker stock, and Metrolinx being the conduit for financing, and already having assumed the planning for the north leg of RL...it doesn't take a magic mirror to predict what's in store next for Toronto.

For reference as to what constitutes "Metro" stock, Alstom's Metropolis *alone* is used in well over 30 cities in the world, 22 of them major at the last count:
The Alstom Metropolis is a family of electric multiple units built by Alstom designed for high capacity rapid transit or metro rail infrastructure systems. The trains are in service in 22 major cities around the world, representing more than 3000 cars, including Singapore, Shanghai, Budapest, Warsaw, Nanjing, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, Lima, Santiago, Chile, Barcelona, Istanbul, Santo Domingo, Chennai and Kochi. Amsterdam ordered 23 Metropolis trains; the first one came into operation June 2013. Xiamen also ordered some Metropolis trainsets for the Xiamen Metro. Trains can be run in configurations of 2 to 10 cars using manned or unmanned operations.
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Metropolis

Metropolis can carry up to 100,000 passengers per hour and per direction while meeting the daily expectations of operators in terms of performance, flexibility and availability.
More than 55 customers worldwide have opted for Alstom’s metros, and about 5,000 Metropolis cars are in daily operation.

[...]

Case studies

http://www.alstom.com/products-services/product-catalogue/rail-systems/trains/products/metropolis/

http://cdn.streamlike.com/uc/getCod...ght=506&t=27.217217&width=100%&autostart=true
 
Last edited:
I might be wrong, so this isn't a refutation. But I was under the impression Alstom's Metropolis was strictly a subway/metro vehicle, no different than Bombardier's Movia family of subway vehicles. As in, not designed for use on mainline railways (i.e tracks that will share mainline services like freight, GO, VIA), or routes that have the potential for interaction with roadways (i.e. with level crossings). All the RER planned will have level crossings, and at least I think share virtually all its tracks with mainline services. RER isn't exactly 1980's era GO Urban, it's merely electrification and a few more stations. Unless that's not the case.

Oh wait, nvm. I see you wrote using extant lines and merely sharing a few platforms in certain areas. But yeah I've always been on board with level high platforms for GO upgrades. I think it's the right approach, and provides more than sufficient capacity.
 
Last edited:
I might be wrong, so this isn't a refutation. But I was under the impression Alstom's Metropolis was strictly a subway/metro vehicle, no different than Bombardier's Movia family of subway vehicles. As in, not designed for use on mainline railways (i.e tracks that will share mainline services like freight, GO, VIA), or routes that have the potential for interaction with roadways (i.e. with level crossings). All the RER planned will have level crossings, and at least I think share virtually all its tracks with mainline services. RER isn't exactly 1980's era GO Urban, it's merely electrification and a few more stations. Unless that's not the case.
Not the case. Different cities implement the same technology in different ways, but take Melbourne, for instance, where their (depending on the line) Metro does have a lot of at grade crossings.

Their new Metro line *joins* two heavy rail lines together, and the metro stock will run through on them.
The Melbourne Metro Rail Project (marketed as the Metro Tunnel and formally known as the Metro Rail Capacity Project) is a metropolitan rail infrastructure project currently under construction[1] in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. It includes the construction of a twin rail tunnel between South Kensington station (north west of the Melbourne City Centre) and South Yarra (in the south east) with five new underground stations.

The project will increase the capacity of the rail network to metro-style frequencies. The project has been touted as a precursor for various other expansion projects outlined in the PTV Network Development Plan, in particular an expansion of rail services to Doncaster, Melbourne Airport and Rowville. It will also allow for the operational separation of various existing lines.
[...]
The need for an overhaul of the existing commuter rail network was first discussed in the early 2000s as unprecedented population growth began to place significant pressure on existing rail infrastructure and constraints on the inner core of the network as it approached capacity. A plan to create a London Underground style "tube" system for Melbourne was first proposed in 2005 running between the inner-north and linking up to the south-eastern suburbs via the CBD and St Kilda Road.[7]

By 2008 the Brumby Government, as part of the now defunct Victorian Transport Plan, envisaged a two-stage project known as Melbourne Metro 1 and Melbourne Metro 2. The 17 km twin rail tunnels would have run from Footscray station to Domain Interchange via the CBD (Stage 1), costing approximately $4.5 billion, with the second stage running from Domain to Caulfield. Combined, this plan would link the Sunbury and Dandenong lines, freeing up capacity within the existing City Loop to add more services.
[...fast forward...]
In October 2015 the government announced it had abandoned earlier plans to run the tunnel just metres beneath Swanston Street and above the existing City Loop tunnels and instead place parts of the project 40 metres underground between CBD North and CBD South stations. The decision was made to reduce disruption to trams and traders on Swanston Street and avoid removing critical utilities, such as telecommunication lines, from beneath the street.[11] The government said it would compulsorily acquire the properties of 63 households and 31 businesses at several locations on the tunnel route.[12]

In January 2016 soil testing and drilling began in the Yarra River.[13] In February 2016, CPB Contractors, a John Holland/KBR consortium and a Lend Lease/Coleman Rail consortium were shortlisted to bid for the early works.[14]

In June 2016, John Holland was awarded a $324 million contract which includes the excavation of 35 metre deep open shafts adjacent to Swanston Street to enable the underground construction of the two new city stations, and the relocation of up to 100 subterranean utilities. Utility relocations started in July 2016.[15][16]

In August 2016, three consortia were shortlisted to bid for the main contract:[17]

In January 2017 works commenced in Melbourne's CBD to build shafts to allow the insertion of tunnelling equipment, and to build the new CBD North station. The works in the CBD have seen the closure of sections for Franklin Street and A'Beckett street for up to five years. Works also commenced along St Kilda Rd to prepare for the construction of both the tunnel and the Domain station.[1]

In July 2017 the Victorian Government announced the Cross Yarra Partnership (CYP) as preferred bidder for the $A 6bn Melbourne Metro Tunnel and stations public-private partnership. The consortium led by Lend Lease Engineering, John Holland, Bouygues Construction and Capella Capital has been chosen to build the 9km long tunnel and five new underground stations.

Construction for the project commenced in 2017 and is targeted for completion by 2026.
[...continues next pane...]
 
[...continued from previous pane...]
Project description[edit]
The project will consist of two 9-kilometre rail tunnels between South Kensington and South Yarra via the CBD with five new underground stations, to be known as North Melbourne, Parkville, State Library, Town Hall and Anzac. The line will run from the north-west to the south-east and combine the Sunbury line with the Cranbourne/Pakenham line.

While the rail tunnel is the centrepiece of the project, further works will also be carried out on the Craigieburn and Upfield lines and complement existing projects underway on the Dandenong line, to create four 'metro-style' lines which each run independent of each other. This includes the provision of high speed signalling, level crossing removals, track and station improvements and additional train stabling facilities. In addition, High Capacity Metro Trains will be procured to add further capacity to the network.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Metro_Rail_Project

Melbourne is already acquiring this stock to run on other lines before the new Metro tunnel is completed. In this case, it isn't Alstom stock, it's CRRC (Chinese) with some assembled in Oz, the rest in China.

Watch for the name "CRRC" to come up in a big way in a Cdn presence in the near future.

Note the many similar features of Melbourne's future model, physically and *financially* to Greater Toronto's future ML system as touted Verster.
image.jpg

Photograph: Supplied

Ding ding! One of Melbourne's new, high capacity metro trains is now stopping at Birrarung Marr.

During February 9 to 17, Birrarung Marr will be playing station to a life-sized model of one of Melbourne's brand new trains. Cease your water cooler speculation and see the swanky new high capacity train for yourself at 'Melbourne, meet your new train', a new pop-up event being put on by Transport Victoria. [...]
https://www.timeout.com/melbourne/news/take-a-look-inside-melbournes-new-high-capacity-trains-012518
Bigger trains are coming to the packed Cranbourne-Pakenham line

By Rebecca RussoPosted: Monday February 20 2017, 10:53am

image.jpg

Photograph: Zed Fitzhume
Say goodbye to cramming yourself into someone’s sweaty armpit, Melbourne’s busiest train line is finally getting an upgrade.

The Victorian government has announced a $660 million upgrade to be carried out along the entire length of the south-east Pakenham-Cranbourne line.

Over the coming years, longer platforms will be built at a total of 18 stations on the line to cater for 65 new high-capacity Metro trains which will be 20 per cent longer than the existing fleet. The new trains and infrastructure will increase capacity on the Cranbourne-Pakenham line by 42 per cent, effectively creating room for 11,000 extra passengers during peak times. [...]
https://www.timeout.com/melbourne/b...to-the-packed-cranbourne-pakenham-line-022017
 
Last edited:
A quick note on the Utah and other jurisdictional users of level bording. The BBD HS DD are offered with an extendable ledge for requesting customers to make the 'gap' seamless. That may be a detail that is soon included as a retrofit for some ML DD stock. That gap is not just clearance for passenger stock, it's for freight clearance on shared lines too.

This is a very important point. GO can't just raise platform 26/29 tomorrow, because their BiLevels are not currently compatible with level boarding. The permanently-affixed lower step needs to be replaced with a retractable/adjustable lower step that can either act as a gap filler or a step. Only once the fleet is retrofitted can the platform be raised, and with 678 coaches in the roster that might take a while.

And something that alters a lot of MD's prior presentation is the 'new' talk of single decker coaches...something that automatically renders much of the platform height debate moot. Needless to say, the original HS coaches were single deck, but ground level boarding. Any new talk of single deck EMU assumes the 25" height. So one aspect of interoperability of the same platforms is stymied, but other far more important aspects open-up: "Metro" vehicles in tunnel running through onto extant RER electric lines. In the case of Toronto, one would assume 25kVAC catenary, albeit as with LRTs, dual current mode is commonly used now elsewhere. (Paris immediately comes to mind, but a good number of cities now do this). And also, LRVs being able to run on Metro lines.

Why does it assume 25-inch platforms? Single-deck trains should assume 48" platforms given it's the standard floor height for a single-deck train in North America.
 
Last edited:
Why does it assume 25-inch platforms? Single-deck trains should assume 48" platforms given it's the standard floor height for a single-deck train in North America.
My slip! Watch out for those last few steps.

Indeed, 48", the de-facto high level standard for this part of North Am. I'll correct my post.

P.S: Figured I'd just check to find how universal that 48" height is. Quick answer: Not very!
Buses, trams, trolleys and railway passenger cars are divided into several typical categories.

  • Ultra Low Floor tram – 180 mm (7 in)
  • Low floor tram – 300 to 350 mm (12 to 14 in)
  • High floor tram – more than 600 mm (24 in)
  • Low floor train – 550 mm (22 in)
  • Train (in UK or narrow gauge) – 800 to 1,200 mm (31.5 to 47.2 in)
  • Standard North American passenger cars – 1,300 mm (51 in)
  • Train (standard gauge (except UK) or broad gauge) – 1,300 to 1,370 mm (51 to 54 in)
  • [...]
  • Canada[edit]
  • Inter-city trains[edit]
    In Canada, only Montreal's Central Station and Quebec's Gare du Palais have high level platforms at 48 inches (1,219 mm) above top of rail. Almost everywhere else, the platforms are 8 inches (203 mm) above the rail.

  • [...]
Platform height standards, even just for 'high platforms' vary widely, and "Metros" have their own section for heights. Suffice to say, the same model of Metro can have different heights set for different jurisdictions.

My claim for direct interoperability of Metro for 48" appears safe.
 
Last edited:
It was my understanding the second southern most track would be eliminated to be replaced with an island platform. Are you saying platform 26/27 will be widened to replace the existing second and third southern most tracks with a triple width platform leaving the total number of platforms unchanged?

Originally, I thought that the artwork for Platform 26/27 and 28/29 was in error (artist) as the platform looked unusually wide.

However, upon further study, after Metrolinx's more recent talking, I now understand: This is the triple-width platform.

Currently, it is unclear in this concept art if it's a raised platform.

USEP%20-%20South%20Platform%20Grand%20Canopy3.bmp


As a reminder, in Utah, they use Bombardier BiLevels for Utah FrontRunner:

View attachment 133982
Credit: Nightowlcity on flickr

DMg-lvrUIAEMz_k.jpg

(Image posted earlier in this thread)

This is what I predict will happen to Platform 26/27/28/29.

The UrbanToronto article says: "Now that platforms are being raised to match the bilevel floors" -- which portends the adoption of the 25 inch platform height as the official high commuter platform standard.

I do not think they will choose 48 inch (except as a secondary height -- for VIA, UPX, HSR) but they could use dual-door-height for UPX trainsets if they commonalize the UPX fleet with RER -- they could make only certain trains UPX compatible for fleet flexibility -- Unused UPX spares (with the midlevel deck doors) could then now be as part of standard RER trainsets.

Nontheless -- a good think before final adoption of 25 inch height. Are there many EMUs compatible with this height? The platform height should be very, very carefully decided. We need access to EMUs with a similar bottom-deck floor height as the bottom deck of a Bombardier BiLevel. That will maximize future compatibility for GO electrification and the eventual replacement of the diesels later this century.
 
The permanently-affixed lower step needs to be replaced with a retractable/adjustable lower step that can either act as a gap filler or a step.
Googled for a good hour last night trying to find reference and detail for this. I have seen at least one good description with pics and detail somewhere, but just can't seem to find the right tag to search with.

What would you even call it to get a search result with? Whatever, IIRC, the 'extendable ledge' isn't an 'either/or' option on the BBD DD or competitors (some of whom also use these), but an addition to the extant lower step, whether the lower step retracts or not is a good question. The point is compatibility with a level platform and the present (8"?) one now standard for GO. Compatibility is going to have to be crucial to making this work.

I would suspect the equipping of a dedicated set of coaches initially will be needed to match the proposed raised platforms.
@Toronto1834 points out:
The UrbanToronto article says: "Now that platforms are being raised to match the bilevel floors" -- which portends the adoption of the 25 inch platform height as the official high commuter platform standard.
OK, that's what influenced me to write "25 inch" while meaning "48 inch" without fully thinking it through.

I've had to reread this latest UT article again scouring for detail. Oddly, the exact height is never stated, but note this:
Additionally, he discussed plans to raise platforms to be level with the train doors, citing a statistic that level boarding results in a 90 percent decrease in boarding-related safety incidents. Level platforms also dramatically speed loading and unloading along the whole line. With level boarding, “you have much more operation flexibility and much speedier dwell times at stations. When you reduce dwell time, you speed up the whole journey. And 30 seconds at a station and ten station stops means five minutes on a journey, which is worth gold.”

These new approaches will first be tried on a new southern platform at Union, which will be followed by gradual widening and improvement of all the other platforms at the station between now and 2025.
"on a new southern platform at Union, which will be followed by gradual widening and improvement of all the other platforms at the station between now and 2025."

Singular! Initially.

Here's the quote that MD claims "which portends the adoption of the 25 inch platform height as the official high commuter platform standard."

For the present DD stock I agree, but likely *one of two standards* on the Metrolinx network. The other being the 48" one for single deck EMU and/or Metro RER.
There remain some other significant questions that the private consortium will need to answer. The bilevels have much lower door levels than standard international regional rail trains. Now that platforms are being raised to match the bilevel floors, will GO RER use unique, custom EMUs to match these floor levels? Will some of the platforms be further raised when they arrive? Or will non-level boarding be accepted on the EMUs, at least temporarily? How will the signalling and infrastructure be built to handle very different types of trains without unduly reducing capacity or adding to construction cost? Will a modern international-standard signalling system, like ERTMS, be acquired, given that traditional North American mainline signalling systems are not particularly well-adapted for rapid transit operation? Most important, however, is a question that can only be answered by governments: can a fare structure be developed so that transferring from bus to RER is as simple and costless as transferring from TTC bus to subway is today, so that the RER can truly become a rapid transit backbone for the region?
Beyond the platform height debate, the mention of ERTMS raises another very important discussion, and I've been informed by a passenger rail analyst that CBTC, in most of its implementations, (gist) "is good for subways, poor for mainline rail".

We had discussed this a year or so ago in one of the UT strings, and there's a fair amount of discussion and engineering details/studies on-line comparing, over-laying these (Crossrail uses both, as do some other systems) and I recall discussing this source prior:
https://www.railway-technology.com/downloads/whitepapers/testing/ertms-and-cbtc/

IIRC, it was easy to fill-in the requested information to have the paper released for viewing.
WHITEPAPER
ERTMS and CBTC Side By Side: A Comparison of State-of-the-art Rail Traffic Management Systems


There is a well-defined separation between the systems that are being used in Mass Transit networks and the ones being used for Mainline. However, each of these systems has the necessary maturity to step forward to an integrated solution that comprises the best of both worlds: European Rail Traffic Management System (ERTMS) and Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC) system.

As a relevant case study, these two systems already coexist in some networks, such as the Marmaray project in Istambul, which extends for, approximately, 77 kilometers and is equipped with CBTC for passenger services and ERTMS level 1 for freighttransportation. Although both systems are being used in the same project, they will be installed in different lines. This leads to rolling stock constraints, which must be equipped with two different onboard systems or they would otherwise be unable to run in some sections of the network.

For more information, please download this free white paper.
https://www.railway-technology.com/downloads/whitepapers/testing/ertms-and-cbtc/
(Edit: I now have this downloaded, will attach as a file if anyone requests)
CBTC Standardization: Mixed Operation on Shared Lines in accordance with ERTMS/ETCS Standards
Apr 09, 2015 railwaysignalling.eu News 0

Is it possible a CBTC standardization in accordance with ERTMS/ETCS ? Provisions have been made to plan for the migration from CBTC systems, to ETCS Level 3
FB_vs_MB.jpg
moving blocks) to operate.

A couple of years ago an interesting presentation was given by Beatriz Munoz from Invensys (now Siemens) exploring the convergence of CBTC and ERTMS for suburban rail. According to it, the concepts, principles and architectures seem to be totally compatible to allow this to work.

Another good reference to get further details on this topic is this paper, released by UIC in order to give some updates about the possibility of CBTC Standardization and mixed operation on shared lines in accordance with ERTMS/ETCS Standards.
http://www.railwaysignalling.eu/cbt...-lines-in-accordance-with-ertmsetcs-standards
 
Last edited:
[...continued from previous pane...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Metro_Rail_Project

Melbourne is already acquiring this stock to run on other lines before the new Metro tunnel is completed. In this case, it isn't Alstom stock, it's CRRC (Chinese) with some assembled in Oz, the rest in China.

Watch for the name "CRRC" to come up in a big way in a Cdn presence in the near future.

Note the many similar features of Melbourne's future model, physically and *financially* to Greater Toronto's future ML system as touted Verster.

https://www.timeout.com/melbourne/news/take-a-look-inside-melbournes-new-high-capacity-trains-012518

https://www.timeout.com/melbourne/b...to-the-packed-cranbourne-pakenham-line-022017

Something I just wanted to point out here, just more of a interesting note than anything. CRRC and more specifically CNR and CSR prior to the merger had a lot of joint partnerships with Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier. So far it seems CRRC has kept it's urban transit rail technologies (subways, light rail, etc.) fairly separate. But the more interesting designs and innovations that are appearing can be found in the CRH high speed rail/train developments, here you can see the progression of the first generation CRH trains from their original respective forms to the latest manufactured trains that are combining the best of Kawasaki, Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier.
 
Something I just wanted to point out here, just more of a interesting note than anything.
It's more than "interesting"...you're right on this, and the likelihood of events unfolding here.

CRRC and more specifically CNR and CSR prior to the merger had a lot of joint partnerships with Siemens, Alstom and Bombardier. So far it seems CRRC has kept it's urban transit rail technologies (subways, light rail, etc.) fairly separate.
That's exactly right, and when I stated "CRRC" it was because of name familiarity for readers. IIRC, in Melbourne and other instances in Oz and elsewhere, it's a *division* of CRRC, the largest rail rolling stock manufacturer in the world, by far.

It's a bit incestuous though, how all (now three?) big names in the biz compete like banshees on some projects, and yet partner on others, to the point, especially for inward investment into China, that tech know-how transfer is part of the contract. In Mel's case, the Ozzies got to host an assembly plant for some of the Metros, ostensibly the more challenging assembly done at the main plant in China. This is a good compromise, as we all know badly things can go wrong with (cough...BBD streetcars...cough) when tech is transfered out due to domestic content requirements.

Excellent post, more on this later. It's always assuring to get feedback like yours. Post more!

Addendum:
CRRC Changchun Railway Vehicles Co., Ltd. (Chinese: 中车长春轨道客车股份有限公司) is a Chineserolling stockmanufacturer and a division of the CRRC. While the CRV emerged in 2002, the company's roots date back to the establishment of the Changchun Car Company in 1954. The company became a division of CNR Corporation before its merger with CSR to form the present CRRC. It has produced a variety of rolling stock for customers in China and abroad, including locomotives, passenger cars, multiple units, rapid transit and light rail vehicles. It has established technology transfer partnerships with several foreign railcar manufacturers, including Bombardier Transportation, Alstom, and Siemens Mobility.

Joint Venture
In 2004 Alstom won the first high speed train contract in China, supporting CRC to build 60 CRH5 high speed trains.[1]

In November 2016, CRC won Melbourne suburban train contract for Evolution Rail as Public Private Partnership with Downer Group, Plenary Group.

Changchun Bombardier Railway Vehicles Co. Ltd. (CBRC)[edit]
In 1996 CRC and Adtranz (now Bombardier Transportation) established a joint venture. CRC has built cars for Shanghai Metro, Guangzhou Metro and Shenzhen Metrosince 2000.
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRRC_Changchun_Railway_Vehicles

I have an excellent new company logo for them:
"We Get Around!"

I would not be surprised in the least if CRRC (or Alstom) acquire the BBD De Havilland plant at Downsview for assembling and dispatch of rail vehicles to Cdn customers, especially Metrolinx. The spur on the adjacent rail line is conspicuously valuable.
 
Last edited:
I just wanted to jump in here as this is a very good discussion and I thought I could clarify some things about the article.

I specifically asked him whether the platforms would be raised to the height of the (current) bilevels and he said yes. It will start with the new southern platform that mdrejhon posted above, and then gradually spread around the station. I didn't have time to ask it specifically, but it seems likely that certain tracks will be removed in order to widen platforms. That is probably easier than shifting tracks around (though that option is often considered far more difficult than it actually is).

I hadn't seen that rendering, so thanks for posting it. My big concern is that the access stairs in that rendering are still way too narrow.

The problem with raising the platforms to the bilevel door level is that it's far lower than the standard of most rolling stock, as you've mentioned. This creates an obvious conflict if GO/the private partner is buying new EMU stock. This is why all of these things need to be planned in an integrated fashion: you can't figure out what the platforms should look like if you don't know what the trains will look like, and building a platform that requires unique, custom-designed rolling stock every time you buy is a recipe for high costs. Given that they're talking about leaving a lot of these things up to the private partner, this may be something for them to figure out. Another out-there option that has been vaguely considered would be adding a door at the mezzanine level of the bilevels, which would be much closer to the international standard. At the point that you're rebuilding every car, though, so it's a lot of money that might just as well be spent on buying new equipment. This stuff will need some very detailed analysis.

The other problem with the bilevels is that they have far too few doors, which greatly contributes to the slow loading/unloading and the long, capacity-killing dwells at Union. But, as Verster said, replacing an entire fleet of 1,000 cars is very difficult.

I'd be happy to answer any other questions you have about the interview.
 

Back
Top