Clean Train Coalition: Petition

[EnviroTO]

Electric locomotives are very expensive. The purchase of electric locomotives would be a mistake.

Electric-multiple-units, however, are a lot cheaper per trainset than diesel locomotive trains. The savings here would be huge. EMU can also push unpowered GO bi-levels, without the need for a locomotive.

I'm wondering what your sources are.

MP40 diesel locomotive = $5M approx.

ALP-46A locomotive = $8M approx.
BiLevel coach = $1.75M approx.
Train of 12 cars = 8 + (1.75*12) = $30M approx.

MI09 12 car double-deck EMU = $50M approx.
Class 480 12 car single-deck EMU = $30M approx.

So it would seem to me an electric locomotive is more expensive to purchase than a diesel locomotive and EMUs are, per passenger, significantly more expensive.

 

[kettal]

That's calculating by physical seat, not by serviced passenger.

Due to faster speeds & acceleration, fewer trains will need to be purchased to achieve the same level of service.

EMU trainsets do not have to be all EMU and can have abut 50% regular GO Bilevels.

With increased service, the trains will no longer need to be 12 cars long, and the fewer cars per locomotive, the less cost effective the purchase of that locomotive.

For example, a locomotive trainset which carries 12 full Bilevels, once an hour is pretty good. But when it's running every 20 minutes and it's only got 6 full cars worth of passengers, the cost benefit of that locomotive is severely decreased.

 

[kettal]

For more of the advantages of electrification, read GO's own report on electrifying the Lakeshore service:

http://www.metrolinx.com/Docs/general/GO_Lakeshore_BCA_Report.pdf

 

[TOareaFan]

Electric locomotives are very expensive. The purchase of electric locomotives would be a mistake.

Electric-multiple-units, however, are a lot cheaper per trainset than diesel locomotive trains. The savings here would be huge. EMU can also push unpowered GO bi-levels, without the need for a locomotive.

Again though....is the combined cost of these units plus the cost of elitrification less than the cost of the proposed diesel units? I think that is the essence of the earlier question posed.

 

[EnviroTO]

For example, a locomotive trainset which carries 12 full Bilevels, once an hour is pretty good. But when it's running every 20 minutes and it's only got 6 full cars worth of passengers, the cost benefit of that locomotive is severely decreased.

Yes, but running an EMU at half capacity also isn't very economical either. There are performance benefits to EMUs such as speed and energy consumption and that is why they get purchased but it isn't simply cheaper to buy EMUs. It may be cheaper in terms of electricity and getting the most out of limited infrastructure but the vehicle costs seem higher per passenger.

With a 12 car single deck EMU costing about the same as a diesel locomotive with 12 double deck cars the EMU would need to be twice as fast to carry the same number of people. GO's documents show a time reduction of only a third not a half which means that the EMU isn't carrying the same capacity without buying more cars or another EMU. Logically EMUs are meant for more frequent runs with less capacity but there would need to be more EMUs and more drivers purchased to match the capacity of a less frequent diesel locomotive pulling 12 cars so it would be difficult for it to be cheaper. The EMUs would be providing better more frequent service but where are the savings going to come from?

MU trainsets do not have to be all EMU and can have abut 50% regular GO Bilevels.

Not without reducing the performance characteristics which lead people to choose EMUs in the first place. An EMU uses electric motors and so does a an electric locomotive. The performance improvement comes from traction on more wheels and a greater combined horsepower per vehicle weight. Adding BiLevels to EMUs reduces the number of wheels with traction and reduces the horsepower to weight ratio.

 

[Voltz]

Not without reducing the performance characteristics which lead people to choose EMUs in the first place. An EMU uses electric motors and so does a an electric locomotive. The performance improvement comes from traction on more wheels and a greater combined horsepower per vehicle weight. Adding BiLevels to EMUs reduces the number of wheels with traction and reduces the horsepower to weight ratio.

Having unpowered cars in a EMU train is not necessarily a bad thing, a train can only accelerate so fast due to passenger comfort. So if only having half of the axles powered is enough to provide that acceleration rate then that is all you need, provided that is still enough power to maintain top speed, and it should be.

 

[p5connex]

The electrification of GO lines will have to happen some day, so why not just start today. Here we are contemplating the electrification of the entire system once again, with anticipated implementation times between 25 and 40 years (according to Metrolinx). If I remember correctly it is almost 2010, and we are approaching, if not already surpassed more than 100 years of electrified passenger train travel and we are still just preparing feasibility studies?

Of course the implementation will take time and it will be costly, but not nearly as costly as it will be if we wait another decade. The cost of fuel is rising daily and it will not be long before the cost/benefit schemes for diesel fuel all go flying out the window and the government will be forced to implement electrification.

The benefits of electrification far outweigh those of a diesel powered trains. As an example: I used to live next to train tracks in Vienna, where lots and lots of trains (local, regional and international) would run past 24/7 and I could barely hear a thing besides the noise of the trains changing tracks and a subtle hum from the engines or the quick noise they make as they stream past. Yet when I visit the city and go to see my brother in the West end, I hear the GO trains starting up, breaking - their motors are probably 20x louder than an electric train - oh and he a number of km's from the tracks. So, you tell me, is this really just nimby's or is it a case that really needs to be looked at and finally implemented?


p5

 

[dunkalunk]

I personally don't see the point of electrifying the Georgetown Corridor or The Lakeshore Corridor until Transport Canada "lightens up" on its safety and crash worthiness standards to more closely match European standards. The benefits of electrified track are apparent and should not be delayed. However, the better acceleration, flexibility, and reliability of EMUs compared to Electric Locomotives are also just as important.

From Metrolinx:

Perhaps the largest current obstacle to the use of EMUs in a mixed-use freight and passenger rail corridor such as the Lakeshore line is the requirement that vehicles meet North American safety and crash worthiness standards (enforced by Transport Canada in Canada and the Federal Railroad Administration in the United States). These standards differ significantly from those in Europe, where EMUs are already used extensively in many countries. As a result, the current options for “off-the-shelf” EMU vehicles that would meet Transport Canada’s crash worthiness standards are limited. The additional cost and risks associated with developing new compliant vehicles could prove to be a significant obstacle to implementation in the short term, and modifying European vehicles to meet North American standards could reduce the performance and associated benefits of EMUs discussed previously. In the longer term, it is possible that a future convergence of North American and European safety standards could provide opportunities for the use of EMUs on the Lakeshore Corridor and other GO Transit rail lines.

Canada already has one of the best rail signalling systems in the world, and with track improvements and grade separations that would come with electrification, I don't see why standards have to be as strict.

The bottom line is, I just really don't want GO buying soon to be obsolete train technology, or spending unnecessary amounts of time and money to design and build new EMUs or modify existing EMUs to North American standards, if they don't have to.

 

[EnviroTO]

Having unpowered cars in a EMU train is not necessarily a bad thing, a train can only accelerate so fast due to passenger comfort. So if only having half of the axles powered is enough to provide that acceleration rate then that is all you need, provided that is still enough power to maintain top speed, and it should be.

True, but what is so bad about an electric locomotive? Why is an EMU with only half the cars powered and the other half not automatically better or cheaper than a train with two appropriately sized electric locomotives at each end of the train? The argument being presented was that EMUs are automatically cheaper and that electric locomotives are too expensive. Since the TGV uses only un-powered passenger cars and a powered unit at each end (essentially two locomotives plus passenger cars with special shared bogies) I don't buy that locomotives solutions are automatically slower than EMUs especially once a whole bunch of un-powered passenger cars are added in.

The ALP-46A which I used in the cost approximations is significantly more powerful than GO's new MP40 locomotives. If there was to be two electric locomotives per train the power could be less than the ALP-46A (i.e. cheaper) and still be more powerful than what currently is used.

 

[Whoaccio]

Has anyone considered making a new commuter system from the ground up? I guess there was GO-ALRT, but anything more recent? There just seems to be a lot of problems with GO sharing tracks with freight trains, and indeed not even owning the majority of its trackage. Sometimes I think it would just be easier to start from scratch and build a totally separate ROW, probably near the existing rail ROWs but maybe not.

I think there would be something cool about ICTS-scale trains (without LIMs) screaming along their own ROWs every few minutes, computer controlled and no delays, stopping at real stations and with real integration to other public transit. It could run mostly at grade, swerving into cities or destinations when necessary on viaducts, with stations placed roughly every 3km.

 

[Voltz]

True, but what is so bad about an electric locomotive? Why is an EMU with only half the cars powered and the other half not automatically better or cheaper than a train with two appropriately sized electric locomotives at each end of the train? The argument being presented was that EMUs are automatically cheaper and that electric locomotives are too expensive. Since the TGV uses only un-powered passenger cars and a powered unit at each end (essentially two locomotives plus passenger cars with special shared bogies) I don't buy that locomotives solutions are automatically slower than EMUs especially once a whole bunch of un-powered passenger cars are added in.

The ALP-46A which I used in the cost approximations is significantly more powerful than GO's new MP40 locomotives. If there was to be two electric locomotives per train the power could be less than the ALP-46A (i.e. cheaper) and still be more powerful than what currently is used.

Electric locomotives are not necessarily slower than a EMU train, they just can't accelerate as fast because there is less traction available, for a frequently stopping GO train faster acceleration means faster overall speed, on a TGV line the difference is negligible because it makes very few stops.

I don't know which method would be cheaper for GO, but the argument is since EMU trains would be faster then GO would need less compared to locomotive hauled trains.

 

[kEiThZ]

...I just really don't want GO buying soon to be obsolete train technology, or spending unnecessary amounts of time and money to design and build new EMUs or modify existing EMUs to North American standards, if they don't have to.

Given the size of a potential GO EMU order and the potential market for it in North America beyond GO, I am fairly sure that some OEM would step forward to build it at a reasonable price.

 

[kettal]

Again though....is the combined cost of these units plus the cost of elitrification less than the cost of the proposed diesel units? I think that is the essence of the earlier question posed.

GO says the corridor will be electrified by 2020, so the purchase of diesel trainsets now, only to throw them out in a few years is wasted money which should be spent instead on the electric upgrades.

 

[RedRocket191]

GO says the corridor will be electrified by 2020, so the purchase of diesel trainsets now, only to throw them out in a few years is wasted money which should be spent instead on the electric upgrades.

We could use them to upgrade service on non-electrified lines or sell them to someone else. Throw them out is misrepresentative, IMO.

 

[saveyorksouthweston]

We could use them to upgrade service on non-electrified lines or sell them to someone else. Throw them out is misrepresentative, IMO.

most cities are moving to electrification, and very few use diesel trains, so who would buy these already outdated diesel trains.
spend the money today to electrify.
think of the healthcare savings and all the benefits if electrification is done today.