GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[crs1026]

Any idea why? Part of re-jiging the line as part of the 4th track project that is now under way?

It looks like the old Western Lead (the pocket track that curves over to the Oakville Sub) is out of service, and trains don't run to/from Bathurst Yard any more.

Look for lots more changes as tracks are added for the Barrie line and the fourth Weston track.

There are now higher speed crossovers further west in the Strachan ditch.

- Paul

 

[robmausser]

Once the current construction work is complete, the line will have at least two tracks all the way from Unionville to Union, with the exception of the single-track segment between Kennedy and Scarborough Junction.

Green is existing segments with 2+ tracks, Amber is under construction
View attachment 150402

Given that it takes 4 minutes to get through the single-tracked segment, the theoretical minimum headway for bidirectional service would be about 10 minutes, so service could be scheduled about every 15 minutes. However, that frequent service would come at the expense of Lakeshore East and VIA services on the shared segment between Union and Scarborough, making it a non-starter. The City would also not be very happy with trains going at grade through the Danforth & Midland intersection every 8 minutes.

I think the most optimistic use of the tracks under construction would be 30-minute local service to Unionville all day, plus peak-period peak-direction express service to Lincolnville every 30 minutes. Anything more would be unfathomable without the planned 4th track on the Kingston Sub and some kind of resolution for the Kennedy-Scarborough Jct segment.

I wonder if there would be any merit to a 6 car consist running back and forth between Kennedy and Unionville, with a free transfer at Kennedy subway station for the rest of the trip downtown.

This is what AMT does in Montreal with their St.Jerome Line, during off-peak, you have to get off at Parc Metro station and take the subway downtown the rest of the way. This is because of the remainder of the line for St.Jerome line downtown being occupied.

 

[Allandale25]

Good shot here of the construction at the Bramalea GO Station.

 

[mdrejhon]

ight now I am wondering if our best bet will be to order the low and high door option like Caltrain allowing us to transition to the likely eventual high platforms . .

That's what I suggested to merge UPX and RER. The same train can be used for both UPX and for RER routes.

I have a thread The Great Platform Height Debate.

GO has a pictogram of the KISS potentially being used for RER:

- 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 low plat, GO high plat & 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?

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

Basically, the Stadler KISS train, with the optional high door option. Get some with, get some without, and gain fleet commonalty.

And you can use one 4-coach trainset for UPX. (station modifications needed to lengthen to 4 coaches instead of 3 coach, but that's just details). Midplatform baggage racks and accessible seating area on the midlevel areas, long-distance non-Airport commuters encouraged to sit on the high deck.

BiLevels aren't a service speed problem if you've got the major boarding delays only at the terminuses (e.g. at Union and at airport). BiLevels are a problem with boarding speed with many middle-of-route major stations (e.g. Sydney) that slow down the train to being unable to do 2-minute headways. That's why Paris RER double deckers are often not a problem in Paris, because they seem to use them for routes where the major boarding surges are generally at a downtown terminus with their own dedicated platforms. Just like UPX! So I think BiLevels are okay for UPX given this consideration, BiLevel type trains will not slow down UPX because of this and 2-minute headways aren't needed anyway for UPX -- you can still easily upgrade to do 10-minute headways down the road -- they dwell the UPX train at Union for almost 10 minutes often! So a 5 minute dwell is still generous for a BiLevel type train -- and even a 2-minute to 3-minute dwell is possible if service frequencies ever need to be increased to a 7.5min interval.

 

[dowlingm]

Ok, so I apologize in advance this might become a long post . . .

First, Caltrain Kiss EMU's are coming along nicely: http://calmod.org/electric-train-images/ really great to see Kiss used in other North American cities (and Flirt as close as Ottawa) right now I am wondering if our best bet will be to order the low and high door option like Caltrain allowing us to transition to the likely eventual high platforms . . .

KISS EMUs meet Alternative Tier 1 standard, so while it doesn't need to have Temporal Separation, it does require operational Positive Train Control in Caltrain service. So, Metrolinx would need to get that going.

 

[dowlingm]

Mother of All DBFOMs contains signalling?

Parsons have a contract for what Metrolinx calls ETCCS so it's supposed to happen, but I can't imagine TC getting out of step with FRA and allowing KISS operation before PTC is fully commissioned.

 

[smallspy]

KISS EMUs meet Alternative Tier 1 standard, so while it doesn't need to have Temporal Separation, it does require operational Positive Train Control in Caltrain service. So, Metrolinx would need to get that going.

Except that PTC is a requirement for just about every single passenger-hosting rail line in the US, and is not required anywhere in Canada.

I haven't heard anything out of Transport Canada about what their requirements would be should GO want to go in a similar route.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[aquateam]

Parsons have a contract for what Metrolinx calls ETCCS so it's supposed to happen, but I can't imagine TC getting out of step with FRA and allowing KISS operation before PTC is fully commissioned.

Ah, isn't Parsons the same firm responsible for the CBOSS tire-fire of a signalling system?

I've never heard of ETCCS. Some googling only resulted in posts by @steveintoronto and this forum, which basically confirms that Metrolinx is completely incapable of learning from its mistakes and will continue to unnecessarily pour hundreds of millions into custom-made NIH-syndrome taxpayer-funded R&D projects.

 

[dowlingm]

Ah, isn't Parsons the same firm responsible for the CBOSS tire-fire of a signalling system?

oh dear. This is not a good news story http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-end-of-cboss.html

However, Metrolinx should have a somewhat simpler time of it given that they aren't trying to smash two different systems together as it seems Caltrain tried to.

 

[Streety McCarface]

That's what I suggested to merge UPX and RER. The same train can be used for both UPX and for RER routes.

I have a thread The Great Platform Height Debate.

GO has a pictogram of the KISS potentially being used for RER:

- 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 low plat, GO high plat & 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?

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

Basically, the Stadler KISS train, with the optional high door option. Get some with, get some without, and gain fleet commonalty.

And you can use one 4-coach trainset for UPX. (station modifications needed to lengthen to 4 coaches instead of 3 coach, but that's just details). Midplatform baggage racks and accessible seating area on the midlevel areas, long-distance non-Airport commuters encouraged to sit on the high deck.

BiLevels aren't a service speed problem if you've got the major boarding delays only at the terminuses (e.g. at Union and at airport). BiLevels are a problem with boarding speed with many middle-of-route major stations (e.g. Sydney) that slow down the train to being unable to do 2-minute headways. That's why Paris RER double deckers are often not a problem in Paris, because they seem to use them for routes where the major boarding surges are generally at a downtown terminus with their own dedicated platforms. Just like UPX! So I think BiLevels are okay for UPX given this consideration, BiLevel type trains will not slow down UPX because of this and 2-minute headways aren't needed anyway for UPX -- you can still easily upgrade to do 10-minute headways down the road -- they dwell the UPX train at Union for almost 10 minutes often! So a 5 minute dwell is still generous for a BiLevel type train -- and even a 2-minute to 3-minute dwell is possible if service frequencies ever need to be increased to a 7.5min interval.

Why can't we just utilize high floor platforms, double-decker or not? It gives flexibility by allowing increases in service to occur.

Also, I believe the bottleneck locations are along the Union Station corridor. With all the lines feeding into one section of track (LSW, Barrie, KT / LSE, ST), assuming they're each running at 5-10 minute frequencies during the peak hours, it's very easy to hit 2 minutes per train at stations like Spadina, Gerrard, and especially Union.

 

[mdrejhon]

Why can't we just utilize high floor platforms, double-decker or not? It gives flexibility by allowing increases in service to occur.

Also, I believe the bottleneck locations are along the Union Station corridor. With all the lines feeding into one section of track (LSW, Barrie, KT / LSE, ST), assuming they're each running at 5-10 minute frequencies during the peak hours, it's very easy to hit 2 minutes per train at stations like Spadina, Gerrard, and especially Union.

I have written about short headways before too, see this thread
New GO Train Control+Signalling (PTC, CBTC, ETC) -- Safety & Subway-Like Frequency

My earlier posts simply suggests the ability to share trainsets between UPX route and all fhe RER routes.

It will take 20 years to gradually convert all platforms to high platform, and may never happen to entire GO network. The dual-height door train allows a less painful transition. To soften the pain (and be able to share trainsets between UPX and RER) we would have a mix of door heights including trains with both heights -- a bonus that KISS offers.

Parsons have a contract for what Metrolinx calls ETCCS so it's supposed to happen, but I can't imagine TC getting out of step with FRA and allowing KISS operation before PTC is fully commissioned.

It's a legitimate question.

Supposedly, $200 to $800M of the $13.5 billion RER is the new system that supports these trains.

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona.../GO_RER_Initial_Business_Case_EN.pdf#page=161
Price quotes of PTC/CBTC come from section 5.6, Page 145 labelled, Page 161 PDF viewer.

It is possible not to spend this cost, but would probably put constrains on trainset selection.

 

[steveintoronto]

oh dear. This is not a good news story http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2018/02/the-end-of-cboss.html

However, Metrolinx should have a somewhat simpler time of it given that they aren't trying to smash two different systems together as it seems Caltrain tried to.

Unfortunately, from what I can gather (and there's incredibly little published info on it) that's exactly what ETCCS is, an interface to overlay two otherwise incompatible systems.

Now in all fairness, Crossrail do that with *three* systems overlaid, and end up with a capability of higher speed (by our norms) operation on a two minute or less headway possible. In practice, at least initially, it will be run at 2.5 mins through the core tunnel section. But Crossrail and other agencies have the very best techs and bundles of money on this as well as EU resources. Metrolinx? Errr....

 

[steveintoronto]

My earlier posts simply suggests the ability to share trainsets between UPX route and all fhe RER routes.

It will take 20 years to gradually convert all platforms to high platform, and may never happen to entire GO network.

By default, if not desired design, I can't see Metrolinx adopting a single platform height system-wide. It will be as you infer, and as other operators even in Europe do: (Oslo is a prime example) Platform height determined by need. RER and UPX: high. Everywhere else, as is, other than being raised the few inches to level boarding for low when platforms are refurbished.

I fear a 'huge reckoning' is coming for Metrolinx, and capital expenditure is going to be slashed ruthlessly. Beeching arrives by GO train.

But I also think there may be some bright spots, like far greater utilization of the UPX 'pathings' (they're not really dedicated tracks, but might be almost that with further improvement if needed) such that UPX and Georgetown RER are completely compatible, save for RER being electric capable (a whole other can of electric eels) and intermixed with the present Sharyos such that the Sharyos continue as Airport service with fewer stops, and higher performance RER single level EMUs do the local service as well as carrying the Hoi Polloi to possibly a different northern terminal, and regular, perhaps through-running platforms at Union, albeit high level for a three to four car consist. The present UPX station would continue for 'Airport Service'. This would also allow lay-by without fouling RER schedules.

The prime motivator? Cost. The Con Jobs are going to concentrate on maximizing what's already extant (and I agree with caveats) rather than expounding a new fantastical dream that gets built next year, errr...the year after....errr...the year after that...errr..here's some pictures...

Electrification is going to have to be totally re-evaluated after the complete privatization of ex-Hydro and I think wisely as a proviso of sale that the resulting private electric operator(s) are to bid on electrifying at least the southern Georgetown Corridor, just as UPX was promised to be first for....next year, the year after, errr...maybe the year after that...ohh...but look at all these palaces of parking we're building in suburbia...the year after that...

Massive sums were sunk into UPX. It's time the taxpayer got more of that back, and it's already extant, not a promise or a dream, and a massive revisit of greater utilization of it would show "The People" that Dougie is working in their interests. Of course, someone would have to draw pictures on a storyboard for Dougie to understand, but I digress...

No KISS double-deckers, ,just proven and affordable single level (D)EMUs, perhaps with a diesel module a la FLIRT so the promise of "able to be run off catenary later" could/would actually come true.

What a concept...

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Not sure which two lines you are referring to. Unionville- Scarboro Jct was notionally to be done by 2019, But with the section south of Kennedy missing, and the fourth track to Union yet to be done, two way service is at best a 20 min headway, and 30 a safer bet.

As for Barrie, we don’t have tenders awarded. So no improvement over today until 2021 or later. And don’t forget the promise to Davenport residents that in effect trains won’t exceed hourly service midday and evenings until electrification is finished. Wonder what Doug will do with that promise.

- Paul

So the whole Barrie service in effect wont be done until 2024 and politics is turning trains back at unionville. Great.

 

[Neutrino]

Why can't we just utilize (...)

Unrelated, but we we stop using this word? It's ghastly corporate speak for the word "use" which means the exact same thing and it's immensely annoying. /endrant