GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[Amare]

You all may want to sit down before reading this.

The roof of the new Burlington GO station is finished.

Guessing it's now only 18-24 months until the whole project is done.

Just too add to this, if anyone is interested in learning more about the patheticness that is Burlington GO here is some more info:

Burlington GO

 

[steveintoronto]

If Metrolinx would do what OC Transpo has done, and discuss with TC (now is a very good time, with the Fed Libs avid to get things moving) certifying options like the following, things can move ahead rapidly. And yes, it's more DMU's, albeit 'light' ones, not AAR/FRA crash compliant, but meet even more stringent APTA specs. If this is good enough for the US, surely than can be here too. Until electrification, which is still nebulous time-wise, an acquisition of these could buy Metrolinx time for the Weston Corridor/Bramalea South, and be cascaded to non-electrified branches when electrification occurs:
(These are proven and guaranteed, as are other European models assembled in North Am, Siemens and Bombardier et al)

[FORTH WORTH Transportation Authority signed a $US 106.7m contract with Stadler Rail for eight four-car articulated DMUs for the Tex Rail commuter line in a ceremony at the city's Intermodal Transportation Center (ITC) on June 9, 2015.

The contract, which includes the supply of components for 10 years, was signed by the authority's chairman Mr Scott Mahaffey, CEO Paul Ballard, and Stadler Rail CEO Mr Peter Spuhler. The deal includes an option for up to 24 additional trains and final assembly will take place in Texas with a site at nearby Lewisville being considered as a possible location for the facility.

The 43.5km 10-station line from Fort Worth city centre to Grapevine and Dallas Fort Worth (DFW) Airport Terminal B is due to open in late-2018 and is initially forecast to carry around 10,000 passengers per day, increasing to 14,500 by 2035.

On June 2 the US Federal Transit Administration gave Fort Worth Transportation Authority the go-ahead to take the $US 1bn project to the engineering phase, which included authorisation to order rolling stock.]
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/fort-worth-orders-stadler-dmus-for-tex-rail.html

Here's an example of leasing in the UK, something I've suggested to howls of derision from one poster, but Metrolinx appears headed to disaster as per UPX. There are thousands of units for lease in the UK right now, many of them 'tapped out', many quite usable for a ten year lease or less:

26 January, 2016
[UK: Spanish rolling stock manufacturer CAF is to supply 281 new vehicles worth £490m for the next Northern franchise, leasing company Eversholt Rail announced on January 22.

The order comprises 31 three-car and 12 four-car electric multiple-units, and 25 two-car and 30 three-car diesel multiple-units. The 160 km/h units will be part of CAF’s Civity family, and all are scheduled to enter service by December 2018.

The new rolling stock will enable the fleet of 1980s Class 14x Pacer DMUs to be withdrawn from the Northern franchise, and potentially redeployed to other operators.
[...]
EMUs previously supplied by CAF are currently operated by Northern Rail and Heathrow Express, while Northern Ireland Railways has a fleet of DMUs and Midland Metro operates CAF trams. [...]
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/...awarded-arriva-rail-north-train-contract.html

 

[mdrejhon]

With the info of Sharyo issues, and them possibly not lasting, I suppose all options are now on the table.

 

[steveintoronto]

With the info of Sharyo issues, and them possibly not lasting, I suppose all options are now on the table.

In a way, it might be a good thing to force more dynamic thinking and approach. What a bitter lesson though! (Let alone expensive).

The option, as we've discussed before, of 'fleet commonality', even in several variances, of using LRVs compatible with LRT running should be examined. Might it require dedicated tracks separate from the present heavy-rail? Even so, south from Bramalea, that can be accommodated. Precedents for crossing heavy rail already exist. In the event, temporal separation might finally rule some of the corridors. The difference for the Weston Corridor is that it's almost completely extant already. It can't just sit there for ten years, some solution has to be found.

 

[mdrejhon]

The option, as we've discussed before, of 'fleet commonality', even in several variances, of using LRVs compatible with LRT running should be examined. Might it require dedicated tracks separate from the present heavy-rail? Even so, south from Bramalea, that can be accommodated. Precedents for crossing heavy rail already exist. In the event, temporal separation might finally rule some of the corridors. The difference for the Weston Corridor is that it's almost completely extant already. It can't just sit there for ten years, some solution has to be found.

There is a crossing conflict as the spur is on the south side of the corridor, so they need a grade separation to isolate the UPX tracks.

Forum member reaperexpress posted a great fantasy map about this.

Assuming the UPX trainsets can climb steeper slopes when electrified, this may be a good idea anyway to keep corridor capacity high, for future 15min RER service theu Bramalea.

 

[steveintoronto]

There is a crossing conflict as the spur is on the south side of the corridor, so they need a grade separation to isolate the UPX tracks.

Forum member reaperexpress posted a great fantasy map about this.

Assuming the UPX trainsets can climb steeper slopes when electrified, this may be a good idea anyway to keep corridor capacity high, for future 15min RER service theu Bramalea.

If someone could link that map, I'd be grateful. We might not be able to come up with a definitive example of what can be done, but we can certainly distill down the possibilities now that *apparently* heavy DMU is being ruled out. There may be some surprises yet to come on the Sharyos...but it's not looking good. I wonder if SMART are watching this?

Agreed on the grade separation, even well powered DMUs can climb the grade of a flyover/under. Perhaps this is one of the first points for Metrolinx to address, no matter what traction is used. I'll search for Reaper's map.

 

[steveintoronto]

Been looking for Reaper's map, (found some great ones, just not the one on UPX) but what I'm struck by going over previous posts in different threads is how many of the projected future uses of the cascaded Sahryos now appear to be still-born, but I'm just part of the chorus in extolling a new tact on utilizing extant corridors, such as the Bramalea South/UPX one.

Pardon my juxtaposing this from another thread, but it needs to see the light here again, the time has *really* come now:

Using advanced Google-Fu search syntax, I was finally able to dig up evidence of Transport Canada flexibility on non-FRA trainsets:

So there you go, an actual government document that confirms Transport Canada stated they will consider allowing PTC to allow non-FRA commuter trains sets. We might able to get those beautiful European-style commuter trains, after all (and our Bombardier also makes some of them too.... Trains we're not yet allowed to run for North America commuter trail yet).

Also, we know from multiple media reports, that SmartTrack might be "light rail" (suggestive of non-FRA) proposal, found in multiple documents. Not "light rail" as streetcars, but "lighter than FRA" rail as in Euro style EMUs.

With Metrolinx ownership, we now have really good temporal freight separation already on the segment of GOtrain network slated for electricifation. From what I have researched (see prior posts), we see near-definite intention of Metrolinx introducing PTC during the GO RER electricifation upgrade.

And of course, DMU in the interim and to cascade outward later.

Other than the timing and sequence of events, the time might be nigh now. Except Metrolinx might be forced to rejig the deck. In light of the *apparent* information revealed in this forum today...I'd say a direct appeal to the Feds via Morneau might be very timely and well-received. The Provincial Libs are going to be in for a really rough time unless this is solved somehow, and the Federal Libs just might be able to help them. All in the name of jobs, mind you. (And rightly so, some degree of Cdn assembly should be required, something that *didn't* happen with the Sharyos)

Thanks for that link MD!

 

[smallspy]

Assuming TRE would release them, their RDCs are pretty recently used - surely it wouldn't take a year to get them roadworthy? They wouldn't be as comfortable as the UPX car fit out, but if Metrolinx were desperate enough to need them, how much would that matter?

They haven't been run since what, 2012? It would take a week on each unit to go over it and make them roadworthy again, so if not much else is necessary they could be up and running quickly, that's fair. I was thinking of a more elaborate rebuild however, more in line with what the VIA units received.

Vegeta: I stand corrected, and your inside info proves invaluable in not pursuing that option. Wow! Metrolinx have certainly kept that info tight. I'm curious as to the engine probs, as the same engine has performed well in many European and elsewhere examples. The hydraulic xmssn immediately struck me as odd, especially knowing that 'the plan' was to later electrify them. I wonder if cooling is indicated as a chronic problem? That would also limit how hard you could push them. Who knows? They may not even be able to meet their specs, let alone sustain them. Any further info on that most appreciated. There have been complaints about the cost price, here and in Sonoma.

The engine has worked well elsewhere, yes, but the most recent versions built for service in Europe are almost 10 years old now. And there are very well known ongoing issues with many of Cummins' diesels in the past 8 or 9 years, stemming primarily from the introduction of the EPA 2007 regs.

The transmission of the DMUs aren't hydraulic. The most common transmission with the Cummins QSK19 engine is the Voith T312BRE hydrostatic transmission, which allows for up to 125mph operation - but that isn't what was spec'd on the units. Instead they went with a ZF EcoLife 6-speed mechanical transmission. This type of unit is capable of 140mph. But it is also a bit of an unknown - it'd never been fitted to the QSK19R before, and so it required a lot of integration into the units that only got resolved literally weeks before service started last June.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[dowlingm]

They haven't been run since what, 2012? It would take a week on each unit to go over it and make them roadworthy again, so if not much else is necessary they could be up and running quickly, that's fair. I was thinking of a more elaborate rebuild however, more in line with what the VIA units received.

you're right, I didn't think Denton (to whom TRE had loaned the RDCs while waiting for Stadler units) had sent them back that long ago, but it looks like fall 2012 is correct.

I guess the question of replacing ZF transmissions (if that is the weak link, or at least poor integration with the power) could be considered with say Voith 312s (see Hunters in NSW, Aus which have QSK19 power) but then they'd have to be recertified for emissions, presumably?

 

[steveintoronto]

Dan writes:
[The engine has worked well elsewhere, yes, but the most recent versions built for service in Europe are almost 10 years old now. And there are very well known ongoing issues with many of Cummins' diesels in the past 8 or 9 years, stemming primarily from the introduction of the EPA 2007 regs.

The transmission of the DMUs aren't hydraulic. The most common transmission with the Cummins QSK19 engine is the Voith T312BRE hydrostatic transmission, which allows for up to 125mph operation - but that isn't what was spec'd on the units. Instead they went with a ZF EcoLife 6-speed mechanical transmission. This type of unit is capable of 140mph. But it is also a bit of an unknown - it'd never been fitted to the QSK19R before, and so it required a lot of integration into the units that only got resolved literally weeks before service started last June.]

That's a bus transmission! Whoa....again, Metrolinx have not been forthcoming on this. So UPX is the test bed? Great concept, or could be once it's gotten right, albeit I'm haunted by the Ghost of Leyland and Pacers! I'm not going to fault Metrolinx on being willing to pursue innovative ideas, there may have been little choice once the heavy DMU path was chosen, but for Gawdsakes...why with just a one-year factory service/warranty arrangement? (The details of which I'm still trying to find, and to see what deal SMART have made on this)

What's transpired in this forum the last day or so is beyond a news story in the press. This *appears to be* the stuff of scandal. I'm flummoxed by these revelations, may have to back-track later when I dig out more info...but the *litany* of things that can go wrong with this trajectory keeps compounding exponentially.

Edit to Add: Quick question Dan or others: Could the overheating (ostensible major cause of block failure) be tied to this transmission? My immediate thought would be insufficient cooling (radiator and associated plumbing, fan assisted cooling, thermal relays, etc) but also the *oil cooling circuit* if there is one, and altered due to change of xmssn and associated oil cooling systems. Which then raises the issue of "fires" that you mentioned. Best I stop there, and do some digging...

Quick edit to add:

Sound familiar?

 

[dowlingm]

ZFs have been fitted to a Class 158 with NTA855 in the UK (Vossloh trying to sell legacy operators on a refit package to save fuel) but they don't see the climate extremes Toronto does which perhaps is a factor? The Ecomat (previous gen Ecolife) is also fitted on UK Class 172s and Northern Ireland Rail Class 4000s but they use MTU powerplants.

 

[44 North]

This is more of a broad question, but it somewhat relates to TC regulations and operation styles used around the world:

Let's say one rapid transit or RER line operates as two branches, each using perhaps 3-car trains. Along the main trunk of the line while a train is sitting at a station, is it feasible for two 3-car trainsets to become coupled together into a 6-car train while in operation (and in a timely manner fitting of rapid transit-style operation)? And I guess vice versa - i.e uncoupled from a 6-car train into two 3-car trains?

Naturally this wouldn't be using the current GO or TTC rolling stock, but maybe something like a tram-train using automated light rail technology. Could this coupling/uncoupling procedure theoretically be done quickly/effortlessly? And are there any examples of rapid transit/RER lines being operated with higher frequency trunk lines that split into shorter trains to operate along branches?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

This is more of a broad question, but it somewhat relates to TC regulations and operation styles used around the world:

Let's say one rapid transit or RER line operates as two branches, each using perhaps 3-car trains. Along the main trunk of the line while a train is sitting at a station, is it feasible for two 3-car trainsets to become coupled together into a 6-car train while in operation (and in a timely manner fitting of rapid transit-style operation)? And I guess vice versa - i.e uncoupled from a 6-car train into two 3-car trains?

Naturally this wouldn't be using the current GO or TTC rolling stock, but maybe something like a tram-train using automated light rail technology. Could this coupling/uncoupling procedure theoretically be done quickly/effortlessly? And are there any examples of rapid transit/RER lines being operated with higher frequency trunk lines that split into shorter trains to operate along branches?

German S-Bahn does this???

I would think there will be an issue in the situation of a 6 car train separating into two 3-car trains. When boarding the initial 6 car train one would need to know which car continues on in the desired direction. An example in the Go system would be boarding an east bound train at Union that will split at Danforth station into two trains, Lakeshore and Stoufville, a passenger would need to know which cars will become the Lakeshore train and which become the Stoufville train.

 

[robmausser]

I didn't realize until fairly recently that you could cross underground from Liberty Village to Exhibition place. (without needing a ticket) It's a good option to have.

You technically dont need a ticket to walk anywhere on GO. Theres no fare gates. Its POP.

 

[mdrejhon]

German S-Bahn does this???

I would think there will be an issue in the situation of a 6 car train separating into two 3-car trains. When boarding the initial 6 car train one would need to know which car continues on in the desired direction. An example in the Go system would be boarding an east bound train at Union that will split at Danforth station into two trains, Lakeshore and Stoufville, a passenger would need to know which cars will become the Lakeshore train and which become the Stoufville train.

Related:

A few has brought up the possibility of 6 coach EMUs coupled during peak to 12-coach EMU.
You would have quick uncoupling/coupling (5min automated) but only for beginning/ending peak operations. Shorter trains for offpeak, longer trains for peak. The quick-couple ability is fast enough for this, as there is a long enough dwell at Union to permit automated couplings on certain trains that support this.