Bordercollie
Senior Member
So what standard EMU rolling stock exists in North America today? There is the Arrow cars and and multilevel cars from Bombardier. Anything else?
|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
Coolstar
Senior Member
There's the Silverliner V for Philadelphia's Regional Rail and Denver's Regional Rail and the soon to be Stadler KISS in San Francisco for CalTrain. (Not my Photos.)
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Do those cars use CEM technology?
Allandale25
Senior Member
Video of the townhall. The last response to a question (in the last 5 min) provides some insight on the 401 bridge. It sounds like it will have two tracks, be to the west of the existing CP bridge, and then crossover using a diamond to head east.
Virtual Townhall On Go Train Expansion
MPP Lindsey Park, Member of Provincial Parliament for Durham, will be joined by Metrolinx President & CEO Phil Verster. It will be an opportunity for you to hear directly from Metrolinx on the Bowmanville GO Train Expansion Project.
rogerstv.com
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
Like Caltrain, the rolling stock will probably be non-FRA compliant with an exception from Transport Canada, since the EMU's will only travel on Metrolinx tracks, and never CN or CP tracks.
The extension out to Bowmanville will be a single Metrolinx track in the CP corridor, not using the CP mainline.
Like what was already done for Pickering > Oshawa on the CN lands.
rbt
Senior Member
6 Million € in Milan doesn't cover the cost of the land for a station. So the cost estimates presented in these tweets are clearly not the full cost for urban infill stations. Building a basic GO station (like York University Station) on pre-owned land with no pedestrian tunnels, bridges, or parking would be in the $3M CAD range.
That said, some infill stations like St. Clair on Barrie line have substantial roadwork projects attached to them to make access to the station practical.
Last edited:
afransen
Senior Member
Maybe the problem is that we spend $100M on parking stations with a train boarding amenity.
NY99
Active Member
but that doesn’t apply to these new infill stations... something else is at play here, clearly.
allengeorge
Senior Member
Don’t some of these new infill stations include significant road realignments etc? If that’s right, I wonder if part of the reason stations cost more than expected is that we lump so many add-on projects that it increases the cost of this ‘transit’ project.
rbt
Senior Member
They are far more than necessary for a walk-in railway station; but I think the we will be thankful for the streamlined bus integration about 10 minutes after Metrolinx implements reasonable fare integration.
Intermodal integration is one of the things that made TTC effective and efficient, despite the fact that no TTC subway station really needed a $50M bus loop attached.
afransen
Senior Member
Huh? Don't most of them have extensive surface parking (and land acquisition costs) or parking structures ($20k-$40k/spot)? The new Milton station is planned to have one. Bloomington has a 760 car (aka $30M) parking structure.
allengeorge
Senior Member
If we look at this UT article, the scope of work for each Smarttrack station seems much, much higher than the Italian infill station referenced above:
https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2021/02/toronto-and-ontario-advance-smarttrack-station-plan. I see:
* Bridge rebuilds
* Road widenings and new roads
* Bus loops
* New intersections
* Elevators
I’ve no idea whether the price per station is reasonable, but I think this may be an apples to oranges comparison.
https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2021/02/toronto-and-ontario-advance-smarttrack-station-plan. I see:
* Bridge rebuilds
* Road widenings and new roads
* Bus loops
* New intersections
* Elevators
I’ve no idea whether the price per station is reasonable, but I think this may be an apples to oranges comparison.
SFO-YYZ
Active Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2016
- Messages
- 351
- Reaction score
- 1,104
- Location
- Plateau-Mont-Royal, Montréal
God that's an ugly rollingstock. I don't get why NA (in particular U.S. transit agencies) put so little regard in the aesthetics of their EMU/DMUs. I know it ultimately serves the same purpose, but perhaps having a nice European/Asian rollingstock design might actually generate more ridership?
robmausser
Senior Member
Its about Transport Canada regulations. Asia/European rolling stock is not allowed on mainline tracks here, even if those tracks are rarely if ever used by freight. That includes GO tracks. Hence why the UPX DMU is so big and bulky, it has to be built to FRA/Transport Canada standards to survive a crash with a freight train.
Exceptions are allowed but they are very specific and generally only on spur/branch lines like what the O-Train in Ottawa uses, or the ION LRT. Freight is only allowed at night while the LRTs and DMUs are sleeping.
Transport Canada is still concerned with EMU's sharing track with VIA rail and large bi level GO trains. They usually want complete separation from them, never allowing them to operate on the tracks at the same time.
So most agencies just end up complying with the TC/FRA regulations, its just easier, and you end up with this big bulky ugly super heavy and slower trains.
drum118
Superstar
In Europe, freight is 2nd class and only starting to meet NA standards.
The longest freight train I saw was 45 cars with most having single axial at each end compare to our duel at both ends. Then there is the coupling system that time consuming for making up or breaking a train down. Moving toward automictic couplers now. All intermodal is single level with the 1950 style open car double deck as auto racks. Height of tunnels and curves for out dated rolling stock compare NA standards. Europe is only starting to catchup with NA on various type of rolling stock that been in service for decades. We use square box frames for passenger cars while Europe use curves for double deck cars that has an impact on tall riders who sit by the window.
NA is overkill on passenger equipment and why it more costly to build and run them here compare to Europe.
Both the FRA and Transport Canada requirements for DMU, EMU and passenger equipment are dictated by the RR since they don't like passenger trains and why they kill them off decades ago. Passenger train of any type doesn't make money light freight does.
Even how we build transit projects even for GO, is over kill and not required in the first place.
The longest freight train I saw was 45 cars with most having single axial at each end compare to our duel at both ends. Then there is the coupling system that time consuming for making up or breaking a train down. Moving toward automictic couplers now. All intermodal is single level with the 1950 style open car double deck as auto racks. Height of tunnels and curves for out dated rolling stock compare NA standards. Europe is only starting to catchup with NA on various type of rolling stock that been in service for decades. We use square box frames for passenger cars while Europe use curves for double deck cars that has an impact on tall riders who sit by the window.
NA is overkill on passenger equipment and why it more costly to build and run them here compare to Europe.
Both the FRA and Transport Canada requirements for DMU, EMU and passenger equipment are dictated by the RR since they don't like passenger trains and why they kill them off decades ago. Passenger train of any type doesn't make money light freight does.
Even how we build transit projects even for GO, is over kill and not required in the first place.
Last edited: