GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[smallspy]

There was mention of that in the capital report at the ML Board meeting a meeting or two back.

It's a new GO storage yard, not addition mainline trackage (yet, anyways).

We seem to just keep buying more GO trains instead of creating turnback capacity so each trainset does double duty. RER will change that eventually. I wonder what the planned lifespan of the bilevels are. The oldest cars in the fleet will be 40 years old soon. That's impressive, but they won't last forever.

- Paul

The new yard will hold 6 trains during the middle of the day.

The issue isn't that the trainsets aren't doing multiple runs - a lot of them are, already - but rather that so many of the trains are sitting "fallow" during the off-peak times. There are 54 trainsets currently in use on any given weekday, but only 14 are necessary for mid-day service. That's a lot of equipment that sits around doing nothing, and it requires a lot of space to store them.

GO is expecting to get 50 years of life out of each car, so the first BiLevels have about 10 years of life left in them.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[mdrejhon]

GO is expecting to get 50 years of life out of each car, so the first BiLevels have about 10 years of life left in them.

So that place the coaches & cabs manufactured this decade, well into the 2060s.

Given your line of work, what do you think your estimate for permanent retirement of this distinctive version of Bombardier BiLevel model?

I'm imagining the overall durable design of this model allows the newest coaches to perhaps survive (after refurbishment cycles) to its 100th anniversary in year 2076-2078 (depending on if one defines "first manufacture" or "first in service").

 

[dowlingm]

We seem to just keep buying more GO trains instead of creating turnback capacity so each trainset does double duty.

If you mean double berthing at Union, presumably this is waiting on signalling/PTC?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

March 12
From the looks of things, Metrolinx maybe looking at putting a 5th track in the corridor with the relocation of the south fence to the south. The new yard slowing taking shape.

If I 'm not mistaken, a new yard track has been added to the main yard on the south side.

OT I am always amazed when seeing railroad rails "unassembled" Something that is normally so straight at appears so rigid to be so curvy/squiglly. I know it is in part to the fact that the rails are not connected to the ties but still, always a sight to see.

 

[Allandale25]

If you mean double berthing at Union, presumably this is waiting on signalling/PTC?

Good reminder about double birthing. Where is GO Transit on that? Has any progress been made? We already have a sense of which tracks it is, right? Would they need to add any new stair connections?

 

[crs1026]

If you mean double berthing at Union, presumably this is waiting on signalling/PTC?

I meant the ability for early-arriving trains to turn back to their point of origin and do a second trip.

For example, we are about to hit 10 trainsets for the Milton line. Each trainset costs $20M or more. Each trainset comes in (once) in the morning and goes out (once) in the afternoon. That's poor equipment utilization. The cause is not schedule but rather track capacity. Had we spent, say, $80M on expanding track capacity, could we do the same with 6 trainsets? Saving a lot in maintenance, and, yes, yard expansion.

All commuter services have "fallow" periods. NJT and others park lots of trains at rush hour, but they work harder to up the utilization during peak.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

Unfortunately, I don't think $80M would even be remotely enough for Milton. The yard and extra trainsets is much cheaper (at this time for Milton). I suspect you probably need to add one more zero for the bare minimum needed to make Milton consist reuse operationally cheaper than fallowing 2 or 4 consists.

One of the reasons why we designed one of the most massive commuter trains in the Western world is this situation (10-coach, now 12-coach, bilevel trains with capacity for nearly 2,000 seats, and up to 2,500-3,000 crush with standees). Move maximum number of commuters per train trip on constrained corridors not owned for passenger use.

As a result, we have one of the world's biggest-capacity commuter trains in a developed nation -- it's right up there in the rankings in terms of seat count.

Fortunately, now it is a different situation for other corridors that Metrolinx now owns, from their massive ownership expansion in the last 10 years. We have finally opened the door to GO RER, 15-minute service with probable smaller consists such as possibly 6-coach EMUs.

 

[dowlingm]

Milton line isn't a great example - CPR don't feel there is enough track capacity for them to permit counterpeak service. Their corridor, their call, unless Metrolinx wants to pay for more track which someone (drum118?) pointed out is gonna be difficult to do in places without significant expropriation and associated/somewhat justified complaining from the displaced homeowners.

 

[smallspy]

If you mean double berthing at Union, presumably this is waiting on signalling/PTC?

Union Station signalling, which is currently scheduled for 2019. PTC doesn't even seem to be on the immediate horizon.

I meant the ability for early-arriving trains to turn back to their point of origin and do a second trip.

For example, we are about to hit 10 trainsets for the Milton line. Each trainset costs $20M or more. Each trainset comes in (once) in the morning and goes out (once) in the afternoon. That's poor equipment utilization. The cause is not schedule but rather track capacity. Had we spent, say, $80M on expanding track capacity, could we do the same with 6 trainsets? Saving a lot in maintenance, and, yes, yard expansion.

All commuter services have "fallow" periods. NJT and others park lots of trains at rush hour, but they work harder to up the utilization during peak.

- Paul

Again, a fair number of trains do run 2 or more trips - probably close to a quarter of all of the trainsets every day. But in the absence of additional track capacity on the majority of the lines, it is impossible to do much more than that.

And then again, physics certainly comes into play as well with this. In the case of Milton, where the end-to-end trip time is an hour (not including time to change ends and perform the requisite brake checks), you would only save a couple of trainsets to run the same service. A train leaving at 5pm wouldn't have the ability to make another run until almost 7.30pm - more than 20 minutes after the last currently scheduled train on the line. Trips out to Barrie and Kitchener have even less of a chance to run a second trip by virtue of the length of their runs.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Northern Light]

Milton line isn't a great example - CPR don't feel there is enough track capacity for them to permit counterpeak service. Their corridor, their call, unless Metrolinx wants to pay for more track which someone (drum118?) pointed out is gonna be difficult to do in places without significant expropriation and associated/somewhat justified complaining from the displaced homeowners.

Excepting a couple of bridges (notably over the Humber) the corridor is at least 3 tracks wide (room for) until Hurontario (Cooksville GO), I didn't look further west.

Most recently rebuilt underpasses/overpasses show room for 4 tracks.

I don't know regulations state vis a vis train volume, but I imagine much more capacity may trigger requirements for more grade separations.

It shouldn't be all that pricey to get enough new capacity (re-laying track, in most cases) to have trains pass each other at strategic locations.

I'm not suggesting RER type service, but limited 2-way in rush hour, and enough capacity for limited, 2-way, off-peak as well.

We don't need to be stuck on all trains going as far as Milton either. Trains could be turned at Cooksville or somewhere other logical point on the route.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Construction starting at Cornwall and Trafalgar next to Oakville GO & parking garage on the new GO Transit Control Centre. Very little info online about this project, but the scale seems to be decently large, as evidenced by the huge construction office. (Picture by Jayne Huddleston)

 

[drum118]

March 12
I guess it will be 2018 or later before the Exhibition GO Station is 100% complete. Other than some caisson or ? has been drill into the west end of both platforms, nothing has happen for the eastbound platform.

The east end can't happen until TTC rebuilds the retaining wall and replace the 2 loop tracks. Foundation for the wall should start late this month.

The north side has seen a lot more work lately and until the new north entrance is ready to go into service, can't touch the rest of the west end of the west platform.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

RE: bi-levels, I always wondered if GO transit would consider refurbishing them into articulated, un-powered consists. Seems the decision was to go with EMU's, which is a shame. So many bi-levels with so much capacity, seems like a waste.

March 12
I guess it will be 2018 or later before the Exhibition GO Station is 100% complete. Other than some caisson or ? has been drill into the west end of both platforms, nothing has happen for the eastbound platform.

Does anyone know the purpose of those...things? Are they shifting the platforms west?

 

[drum118]

RE: bi-levels, I always wondered if GO transit would consider refurbishing them into articulated, un-powered consists. Seems the decision was to go with EMU's, which is a shame. So many bi-levels with so much capacity, seems like a waste.



Does anyone know the purpose of those...things? Are they shifting the platforms west?

That was the original west end of the platform before construction started some 3 years ago.

Once they get the new north entrance open, riders will have to use the new tunnel to gain access to this platform to the east so the west section can finally be rebuilt to support the new north track 1 or 1A.

I expect to see the current coaches being part of EMU trains in the beginning and then stated to be phase out as true EMU trains come on line. Still need a lot of these cars for the non electrify line areas.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'm new here, hopefully this is an apt string to post. Immediate comment: Incredible photos Drum!

On the EMUs and ability to pull existing coaches. There's a number of factors to consider, including weight of the bi-level cars, affected acceleration, the couplers, the braking system, the triple-phase Head End supply, and that they'll still be needed for outer regions of the system. From what I can reason, they will have to be loco hauled with the necessary ancillaries supplied by those locos.

This raises the point though on what the EMUs are going to be. Reading back through the various strings, I see the Karlsruhe model is well-discussed, but further to that, the Siemens S70 for one, as used extensively in the US, called the Avanto in Europe, specifically the Paris RER, is used dual voltage on both high voltage 25kV AC and low 1.5kV DC. That latter voltage can easily be spec'd to the 750V DC used for LRTs in Toronto. The S-70 is commonly coupled into Tram-Trains (again, as discussed previously in these threads) or as singles and duals, cab each end or otherwise, for street running. Whether a variant of the present Bombardier model for the LRTs can be altered likewise for a limited number is a good question some readers might have the answer for. The flexibility offered would put a whole other scenario on the table for routing and do-ability of RER inter LRT for Toronto. The Scarborough SRT could instantly become a connection for 'Tram-Trains' both in Scarborough, and to connections downtown.

And to add a further, albeit radical factor: Electrification has been presumed to be at 25kV AC, 60 cyles. Although the traction transformer weight is decreasing with time and better components, it's still a substantial mass to accelerate and brake, not to mention other aspects of regulation during heavy loading. Some aspects of low voltage DC lines still have an advantage, especially with switching type regulation. Excellent discussion here:
http://www.railjournal.com/index.ph...ion-choices-overhead-ac-vs-third-rail-dc.html

Not only would DC mean significantly less weight w/o the traction xfrmr, it would mean greater inter-operability with LRTs, and a better price by quantity pricing.

Thoughts?