News   Jul 17, 2019
 57     0 
News   Jul 16, 2019
 588     6 
News   Jul 16, 2019
 592     0 

GO Transit Electrification (Metrolinx, Proposed)

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
23,157
Reaction score
3,298
Location
Toronto
Disappointed that you are pushing more FUD when I honestly do not think its reasonable.
Given the number of times we've been point-blanked lied to by Ministers, it's disappointing that so many would drink the kool-aid yet again, instead of applying "fool me twice"! Particularly in the presence of documents that are playing down electrification.

I've been advocating electrification here for over a decade. I think it will come sooner or later. But I don't think it's going to come as quickly and extensively as many think. I certainly don't think it's going to arrive anywhere close to the timetable that Metrolinx and the Ministry initially promised (wasn't that 2017 :)?)
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
2,951
Reaction score
673
If ML is serious about opening all the RER lines by 2025 these proposals and ML decision of who won will have to come pretty quickly. Even Toronto can manage catenary in 5 years on the system but that's not the biggest issue, it's the trains. This, regardless of the technology, is going to require a massive fleet of new trains and in order for them to provide minimum 15 minute service on all the lines, ALL must arrive by 2024. If some of the current double-deckers are employed, they too will have to be taken out of service in order to change technologies at a time when the system is already running at capacity meaning many of those new trains must arrive BEFORE that can be done.

Such a huge order will not be easily filled so the tenure has to go out very soon. They have to test the trains on all of the 200 km RER track which will probably be about 6 months meaning the entire catenary or hydrogen stations, maintenance, and garage infrastructure must be up and running by 2024 at the latest. If ML is truly committed to have all of the RER lines up and running every 15 minutes each-way all day by 2025, they have absolutely no time to waste.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,062
Reaction score
1,541
Time to read the fine print. The bidders will determine the timetable. 2024 is out the window.
Maybe. At the news conference Verster indicated there was an time-value component to the bid which rewarded earlier completion. The RFP has most of the good information in addon Schdedule documents that aren't on the IO site (yet?) including how proposals are evaluated which is not strictly based on cost.

Anyway, Verster implied during the news conference that, for example (using made up numbers of my own), a $11B bid for 2024 completion might be considered cheaper after applying the "Final Proposal Score" math than a $9B bid for 2028.

Assumming it's a per-route segment (inner/outer services being separate) we may see implementation of some pieces like inner Lake Shore or Kitchener much earlier than 2024 even while Union corridor is undergoing heavy modification.

Of course, I'm also a little nervous about what we have in 2055 when tendering for replacement equipment and operator. If we tender the DRL with the same style we may find ourselves with a LIM and a non-standard signalling system which is only compatible with a single vendor; perhaps even a bankrupt one.
 
Last edited:

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,333
It's an interesting process because Metrolinx goes into it without really knowing anything
Neither do the public.

QP has retained expertise alright. They know how to spin up a time machine. And meantime QP has built....what exactly? The cost of any infrastructure is kicked into the future. QP's present costs? $280M, and even that is disbursed over time.

How's that Ontario Line coming along?
 
Last edited:

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,062
Reaction score
1,541
How's that Ontario Line coming along?
If it follows this process it'll be jacked. Nonstandard signalling system, linear induction motor designs heavily patent protected, and other proprietary bits that can be shoved in to guarantee sole-sourced vehicle/maintenance renewals in 30/60/90 years. With luck, they'll have a penalty for use of equipment that cannot be replaced/maintained by fewer than 3 vendors.

At least GO Expansion needs to follow fairly standardized railway stuff due to VIA/CN/CP sharing the corridors.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,333
At least GO Expansion needs to follow fairly standardized railway stuff due to VIA/CN/CP sharing the corridors.
Like catenary? CBTC? That rules out CN and CP right there. (To be more precise, for catenary, double stack will be barred, which presents a problem at Oakville and beyond)(and Brampton/Georgetown and other locations) At least VIA are partially embracing PTC due to US compatibility.
 
Last edited:

Bureaucromancer

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
172
Reaction score
113
(To be more precise, for catenary, double stack will be barred, which presents a problem at Oakville and beyond)(and Brampton/Georgetown and other locations)
Would people stop reapeating this ****? Just stop. Yes, it is CN's excuse to bar electrification, no, there is no truth to it. It's on the level of catenary not working in winter.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kps

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
2,951
Reaction score
673
There is another key component of the process that, of course, didn't make the media announcement which will effect who wins...……..politics. This is a whopping amount of money and political parties don't hand out such largess to be swell guys...……….they want the political rewards. This means that any proposal that has the soonest timeline for both construction and completion has a big political advantage and with Ford sagging in the polls he will want to get as much political mileage out of this project as humanely possible.
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,333
Yes, it is CN's excuse to bar electrification, no, there is no truth to it.
So let's get this clear, are you stating that CN and CP aren't barring catenary on their track? Don't get me started on whether it can be cleared on not by double-stack, yes it can, with provisions. And one of those provisions is to raise panto height, a real performance detriment for modern EMUs. NEC for instance hosts double-stack. In spots. But that's not CN and CP's position to do so. And both have riders on their sales contracts for lines they sold to Metrolinx, let alone for their tracks that host Metrolinx trains.

So perhaps you could throttle down your hysteria, and present reference to make you point? Let's flip this over, since CN use the Deux Montagnes line, for instance. Is it allowed double-stack? If so, then show a reference.

If your point is that the Class 1's are using a straw-argument, then state that.

Meantime, here's a claim for the NEC, and a lot of this is probably to do with UIC/FRA standard cat height specs being used or not:
There is insufficient clearance on much of the Northeast Corridor for doublestacks. I do not know whether they run under the ex-RDG wires or not. Most, if not all, stack traffic into North Jersey runs either via the ex-LV/CNJ (NS) or the Hudson Valley (CSX). I'm not sure CSX runs any stacks north of Philadelphia to/from the southern portion of its system; if they do, they'd be the ones running the trains under the ex-RDG wire. I suppose one exception might be "garbage stacks" but those are usually smaller containers that don't require as much vertical clearance as merchandise boxes demand.
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,1243173

More here:
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2661222
Ownership
 Electrification would be easier to implement on GO Transit owned corridors as these are expected to require fewer negotiations.
 Electrification of freight corridors would need to be negotiated with CN and CP.
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/electrification/docs/ElectricificationStudy_FinalReport.pdf pg 14

The point is contentious. I challenge you to produce reference for your claim.
 
Last edited:

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,333
they want the political rewards.
By their terms? That's adding as little as possible to the Provincial debt. They want this kicked down the road as far as possible. The point is they *don't* want to spend anything on anything that they can possibly avoid. Well, other than firing Hydro chiefs, taking impossible cases to court, taking on the Feds, and the price of selling beer in corner stores.

To understand their logic, it helps to hit yourself on the head repeatedly with a hammer, and then chant along with them.

They've just bought themselves a ticket to avoid all the 'congestion' of the cost of governing transit for the next four years, for somewhere under $240M (the final instalments won't be due until they're gone).
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
5,255
Reaction score
5,481
Anyway, Verster implied during the news conference that, for example (using made up numbers of my own), a $11B bid for 2024 completion might be considered cheaper after applying the "Final Proposal Score" math than a $9B bid for 2028.
Fair enough, but if financial close takes until late 2020, there is only so much time left for construction. And I wonder how pricing will end up after the bidders consider risk versus opportunity. If they promise 2024 but miss the deadline, what is the penalty? Is it worth taking the risk - construction seldom runs to an exact schedule.

Of course, I'm also a little nervous about what we have in 2055 when tendering for replacement equipment and operator. If we tender the DRL with the same style we may find ourselves with a LIM and a non-standard signalling system which is only compatible with a single vendor; perhaps even a bankrupt one.
Very good point. I wonder what the life cycle assumptions are.....we may want the signalling etc upgraded to something else in 30 years. And what if today’s operator leaves us with equipment that is rotting out? SRT all over again, but a contract standing between the province and the need for a solution.

- Paul
 

Bureaucromancer

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
172
Reaction score
113
So let's get this clear, are you stating that CN and CP aren't barring catenary on their track? Don't get me started on whether it can be cleared on not by double-stack, yes it can, with provisions. And one of those provisions is to raise panto height, a real performance detriment for modern EMUs. NEC for instance hosts double-stack. In spots. But that's not CN and CP's position to do so. And both have riders on their sales contracts for lines they sold to Metrolinx, let alone for their tracks that host Metrolinx trains.

So perhaps you could throttle down your hysteria, and present reference to make you point? Let's flip this over, since CN use the Deux Montagnes line, for instance. Is it allowed double-stack? If so, then show a reference.

If your point is that the Class 1's are using a straw-argument, then state that.

Meantime, here's a claim for the NEC, and a lot of this is probably to do with UIC/FRA standard cat height specs being used or not:

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,1243173

More here:
https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2661222

http://www.metrolinx.com/en/electrification/docs/ElectricificationStudy_FinalReport.pdf pg 14

The point is contentious. I challenge you to produce reference for your claim.
Try this for a start. My point is not only that this is a straw man, but that it is obviously such. Aside from the obvious simplicity of building an entirely new installation to heights suitable for double stack both India and Japan have operated this way.

No one claims the NEC has catenary height suitable for double stack, but no one outside CN/CP claims this is anything like a serious challenge. This strange Canadian obsession with declaring that everything must be done the way it was 80 some years ago "because that's the way it is" really drives me insane.

I say again, this claim that catenary height can't change is on the level of claiming catenary doesn't work in winter.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
5,255
Reaction score
5,481
^The issue is not the technical do-ability of catenary (although I wonder a bit about the wisdom of catenary over North American railways where there is intensive bulk shipment of hazardous chemicals, propane, and the like).
The issue is the semi-symbollic but otherwise real issue of somebody installing such a significant piece of infrastructure on somebody else’s property. Forces changes in operating practises and procedures, maintenance, and possibly worker safety and public liability. Implies a longevity and/or permanence that impacts the landlord’s future use of their asset. Adds to the cost and complexity of even minor changes to the physical plant.
Imagine you rent your house to a tenant. Tenants are respectful and responsible at first, but then the tenant states that they would like to build a machine shop in the garage, complete with a hydraulic hoist for fixing autos. Oh, and the building inspectors and insurance people will be dropping by occasionally to keep tabs on the operation. If they move out, they will take it all out.

- Paul
 

Top