News   Apr 16, 2024
Windbreak Work
 451     0 
News   Apr 15, 2024
An Aerial Tour of Construction at The Residences at Central Park
 1.3K     0 
News   Apr 15, 2024
Proposal Across from St James Park Grows to 65 Storeys
 2.6K     7 

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

The most interesting thing for me in the Park Lawn IBC (other than the graceful pirouette from the earlier "It can't be done" to "It can be done") is the description of the eventual RER LSW local service level - four 8-car EMUs and one 12-car diesel train every hour. That service plan is said to be approved and funded. One wonders if it wlll see the light of day anytime soon.

I'm surprised that ML would agree to a permanent use of a less-than-12-car platform. They do that regularly now during construction projects, but not as a permanent design. It certainly seems that they are intent on not expanding track capacity west of Canpa. As expensive as that would be, it would make a lot of things possible.

The study certainly goes further than in the past to find creative ways to get to an operational "yes" for the station, but it reads like a bit of a kludge. I would want more room to amend that service plan - "constants aren't, variables won't".

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
The most interesting thing for me in the Park Lawn IBC (other than the graceful pirouette from the earlier "It can't be done" to "It can be done") is the description of the eventual RER LSW local service level - four 8-car EMUs and one 12-car diesel train every hour. That service plan is said to be approved and funded. One wonders if it wlll see the light of day anytime soon.

I'm surprised that ML would agree to a permanent use of a less-than-12-car platform. They do that regularly now during construction projects, but not as a permanent design. It certainly seems that they are intent on not expanding track capacity west of Canpa. As expensive as that would be, it would make a lot of things possible.

The study certainly goes further than in the past to find creative ways to get to an operational "yes" for the station, but it reads like a bit of a kludge. I would want more room to amend that service plan - "constants aren't, variables won't".

- Paul
Click to expand...
Why would they ever do an 8-car platform at such a busy station? The business case says the smaller platform will create confusion and will make the station further away from most of the development, which will mean people will have to walk >100m to get to most of the new neighbourhood. And the it only cost $9 million less for the small platform, why are they doing this?
 
daniel_kryz said:
Why would they ever do an 8-car platform at such a busy station? The business case says the smaller platform will create confusion and will make the station further away from most of the development, which will mean people will have to walk >100m to get to most of the new neighbourhood. And the it only cost $9 million less for the small platform, why are they doing this?
Click to expand...
They want to save costs. Plus the future electric-multiple-unit trains may as well be 8 cars only, if they are frequent enough.
 
^The 8-car EMU is apparently ML’s vision for what RER will be. It is the plan.

Correct me if I have missed a memo, but this IBC is the most definitive statement of the future service model for LSW RER. Other documents have hinted at EMU’s, and at potential headways on various lines, but I have not seen this described so definitively. Nor have I seen a statement that this design is now approved and funded.

I suspect this was all aired in one of the in-camera Board meetings, and is quite well understood within Ml as the path forward.

I’m not arguing with the model. I’m glad to see that ML has progressed its thinking into something concrete that (in ML’s own secretive way) is being turned into a reality. However, it is certainly an example of ML’s lack of transparency. There is no reason that this particular Board decision couldn’t have been dealt with in the public portion of the meeting.

Why does it matter ? Because downstream decisions (such as the Park Lawn IBC) turn on the upstream decision, which remains secret. Citizens who raise objections to downstream details are told “we have already decided X, so we can’t do what you suggest”. It results in a very high-handed and unresponsive attitude towards the community. I’m not suggesting that the public debate every small decision, but at least the public has the right to know when these things are worked out. “No surprises” is the only acceptable model for transparency and accountability.

The train buffs in the room will want to continue debate on whether it should be 6 car single level EMU’s, versus loco hauled electric double deck, versus whatever. That’s fun discussion..... so long as one realises that the ship has sailed and it’s just academic debate.

I wonder if the service model spec might be discoverable via FOI.

- Paul
 
daniel_kryz said:
Why would they ever do an 8-car platform at such a busy station? The business case says the smaller platform will create confusion and will make the station further away from most of the development, which will mean people will have to walk >100m to get to most of the new neighbourhood. And the it only cost $9 million less for the small platform, why are they doing this?
Click to expand...

All of the GO RER stations, from Liberty, Finch East, St.Clair, Woodbine, etc etc are 8 car length platforms. This is because they will be serviced by Electrified EMU trains at a frequency of every 7 minutes in rush hour, and every 15 minutes in off-peak.
 
robmausser said:
All of the GO RER stations, from Liberty, Finch East, St.Clair, Woodbine, etc etc are 8 car length platforms. This is because they will be serviced by Electrified EMU trains at a frequency of every 7 minutes in rush hour, and every 15 minutes in off-peak.
Click to expand...
Sources?
 
robmausser said:
All of the GO RER stations, from Liberty, Finch East, St.Clair, Woodbine, etc etc are 8 car length platforms. This is because they will be serviced by Electrified EMU trains at a frequency of every 7 minutes in rush hour, and every 15 minutes in off-peak.
Click to expand...

Woodbine GO has full 12-car platforms, see image below.

D641E701-3A72-41E6-A9B1-33C9DAFCEDF7.jpeg
 
robmausser said:
Lol it's only temporary, to install more tracks, for even more offpeak service.
Click to expand...
And to speedup the grade separation and the new stations. There are currently 3 station being built, but 2 are effected by off peak service.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top