Admiral Beez
Superstar
I don't think a layover is necessary. Instead of parking trains all day for the short period of rush hour use the trains throughout the day to expand non-rush hour use.
|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
ARG1
Senior Member
First, that video should not be used a citation for anything.
Second, we are expanding non rush-hour service as much as we can, however there is a limit to how much is reasonable. Most lines that can have off peak service will see trains almost every 15 minutes, however as always more demand will run during rush hours where we're going to need more trains.
Allandale25
Senior Member
It's not just parking the trains. If you look at the description for the Don Valley Layover it also talks about other things they'll do to the trains like cleaning.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
OnCorr contract RFP has closed for bids. Can't wait till it (finally) starts construction.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
The two bidders who submitted:
EnTransit
EnTransit
- Applicant Lead: SNC-Lavalin Capital, Siemens Project Ventures, Keolis
- Construction Team: SNC-Lavalin, Siemens
- Design Team: SNC-Lavalin, Siemens, Balfour Beatty Rail
- Operations & Maintenance Team: Keolis SNCF, SNC-Lavalin, Siemens
- Financial Advisor: National Bank
- Applicant Lead: Aecon Concessions, John Holland, Meridiam Infrastructure, Alstom Transport Canada
- Construction Team: Aecon IM, John Holland, Alstom
- Design Team: WSP, Hatch, Alstom
- Operations & Maintenance Team: Deutsche Bahn, John Holland, Aecon O&M
- Financial Advisor: RBC Dominion Securities
cplchanb
Senior Member
Shame that there's no other contractors other than aecon and snc. They take a long long time on their infrastructure projects.
In terms of potential rolling stock, what can Siemens and Alstom provide for locomotive and emu?
In terms of potential rolling stock, what can Siemens and Alstom provide for locomotive and emu?
Amare
Senior Member
Just because i'd like this to go as delay/scandal-free as possible, im banking on the ONxpress Transportation Partners consortium.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I too would bet on Onxpress - Aecon already does a ton of work for Metrolinx and Metrolinx is also very familiar with Alstom equipment.
And who wouldn’t want to get the operator of the U-bahn to operate Toronto’s version of it?
And who wouldn’t want to get the operator of the U-bahn to operate Toronto’s version of it?
Coolstar
Senior Member
S-Bahn you mean. And I agree with the above. I'm hoping for Onxpress to be the winner. Exciting stuff.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Hoping for ONxpress too. Seems the most likely to keep Bombardier legacy sites active with work.
Deadpool X
Senior Member
That can only happen if rush hours and non-rush hour have the same frequencies, that is every train that comes in, goes all the way back to its origin. Why would Metrolinx run empty trains at 5 or 10 min frequency in non-rush hours. The difference between rush hour and non-rush hour service is what they need to park at this sites instead of hauling trains all the way back empty.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Chicken or egg. Why would those non-rush hour trains be empty? The DVP, GEW and 400-series highways are packed with people going places throughout the day, clearly we’re on the move, but no one thinks a train will get them anywhere.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Because service frequency is only one part of the demand equation. There are also underlying demand patterns. If you run a constant frequency all day, as you are suggesting, you will still have variation in use over the course of the day - namely a big spike at rush hour. In which case you will want to run longer trains during that part of the day. And once we have EMU's, it will be more practical to split trains during the day, to reduce operating costs during periods when dual-unit (e.g. 2 x 6-car EMU) trains are not necesary.
And where do you store the half of the train which is not in use? Yeah, that's right, a layover facility.
Here in the Netherlands, service frequencies barely change during rush hour, but there are still huge yards around major stations. Because those lengthened trains need to come from somewhere.
If you want to delete all of GO's yards, fine, but don't start whining when the services lose tons of money because they are so unnecessarily expensive to operate.
cplchanb
Senior Member
also many of the stations are in the middle of nowhere and require a car to get there anyways. whats the point of driving to a station to take a train when one can just drive to their destination much more quickly?? the bloomington mausoleum is a prime example. who would go to that station in the middle of the day??
DirectionNorth
Senior Member
The solution, of course, is to make those stations easier to access by foot, and to add destinations there. Easier said than done though. It would require a change in land use (!) and transport policies.
Also, there's no service to Bloomington in the middle of the day. We literally spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on a parking garage that happens to have a train service attached.