News   Jan 20, 2021
 11     0 
News   Jan 20, 2021
 692     0 
News   Jan 20, 2021
 440     0 

GO Transit Electrification (Metrolinx, Proposed)

sche

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 5, 2019
Messages
131
Reaction score
251
Maybe. If you believe Nikola then HFR is the ideal distance for Hydrogen (400 to 800 miles); the weight of the cells is less than the equivalent battery capacity. I'm not sure battery weight matters as much for a train since the %age increase would be less.
Well, Nikola seems to be a massive scam, so I probably wouldn't believe a single thing that they say. Some short sellers published a report on them and it's scathing to say the least: https://hindenburgresearch.com/nikola/
Nikola's response to them is also laughable at best: https://nikolamotor.com/press_relea...n-false-and-misleading-short-seller-report-96
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,201
Reaction score
950
I think it's fair to say that most of you support single-level trains. Remember thou that Metrolinx made the asinine decision not to dictate what kinds of trains or technology these private companies can use. So what are you going to do if all 3 of the bidders offer nothing but bi-level trains for their proposals? What if all 3 also decide to use catenary along the entire length which seems like a grotesque waste of funds?

I mean this as a serious question, what will you do?
 

NY99

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 24, 2016
Messages
83
Reaction score
179
I think it's fair to say that most of you support single-level trains. Remember thou that Metrolinx made the asinine decision not to dictate what kinds of trains or technology these private companies can use. So what are you going to do if all 3 of the bidders offer nothing but bi-level trains for their proposals? What if all 3 also decide to use catenary along the entire length which seems like a grotesque waste of funds?

I mean this as a serious question, what will you do?

the response you’d get is that, given the apparent benefits of single-level trains over bi-level trains, there would be huge competitive pressure for each of the teams to incorporate them in their proposals. If none of the teams pick single level trains, it’s very very likely due to one of two reasons:

1) the benefits really aren’t that great

2) Metrolinx has required the use of bi-levels

If the former is true, then no one gives a crap. If the latter is true, we’d all be disappointed, tut tut at Metrolinx, and continue on with supporting the project. Either way, RER promises to be a transformative project for the region.

Similarly for catenary, competitive pressure is at play here. There’s not a chance in hell any of the 3 teams, in a lowest-bidder procurement environment, would propose doing anything that was classified as a “grotesque waste of resources”. Either full-length catenary is needed, and so all teams incorporate it, or it’s not, and none of the teams do.
 
Last edited:

ARG1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
460
Reaction score
1,162
I think it's fair to say that most of you support single-level trains. Remember thou that Metrolinx made the asinine decision not to dictate what kinds of trains or technology these private companies can use. So what are you going to do if all 3 of the bidders offer nothing but bi-level trains for their proposals? What if all 3 also decide to use catenary along the entire length which seems like a grotesque waste of funds?

I mean this as a serious question, what will you do?
Nothing because nothing is really asinine about these decisions. There is especially nothing wrong with catenary being used along the entire corridors. While hydrogen and battery power trains might make more sense, they are generally a much more untested form of electrification, so the safer option is definitely catenary. As for whether or not they use bilevels, its not really that big of a deal anyway. Almost the entirety of the GO Network has been designed with bilevel coaches in mind, and considering that the fleet of bilevel coaches will be used to power the electric loco service as well as the remaining diesel loco services, using bilevel emus isn't that much of a big deal. If anything you're using the available resources and space to a much better degree.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
8,510
^There is nothing that “proves” the need for RER to have subway-volume boarding (where the volume of passengers at any one stop argues for a greater number of doors per car). The vision is that RER will look more like a subway and less like a downtown centric commuter collector, sure. But what % of spaces will turn over at every stop? Bilevels may still prove acceptable, especially if the lower level is opened up to handle shortest distance standees/cyclists/etc and longer distance riders gravitate upstairs. So no, I’m not convinced RER must be single level. And, barring long term changes post COVID, there will still be a need for a peak fleet which the current bilevels are eminently suited to.
I cannot imagine that GO will sign a deal and immediately scrap its ~1,000 existing railcars. End of life cycle will present opportunities for gradual change. Maybe one or two routes change at a time.
I don’t understand this obsession with a sudden switch to single level equipment. Vendors will play the ball where it lies. If they feel they can meet the performance spec with the existing fleet, why inflate their bids by forcing more new equipment procurement than absolutely necessary? Don’t fix what isn’t broken, but plan around oppotunity as it arises.

- Paul
 

Streety McCarface

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
2,038
Reaction score
2,038
^There is nothing that “proves” the need for RER to have subway-volume boarding (where the volume of passengers at any one stop argues for a greater number of doors per car). The vision is that RER will look more like a subway and less like a downtown centric commuter collector, sure. But what % of spaces will turn over at every stop? Bilevels may still prove acceptable, especially if the lower level is opened up to handle shortest distance standees/cyclists/etc and longer distance riders gravitate upstairs. So no, I’m not convinced RER must be single level. And, barring long term changes post COVID, there will still be a need for a peak fleet which the current bilevels are eminently suited to.
I cannot imagine that GO will sign a deal and immediately scrap its ~1,000 existing railcars. End of life cycle will present opportunities for gradual change. Maybe one or two routes change at a time.
I don’t understand this obsession with a sudden switch to single level equipment. Vendors will play the ball where it lies. If they feel they can meet the performance spec with the existing fleet, why inflate their bids by forcing more new equipment procurement than absolutely necessary? Don’t fix what isn’t broken, but plan around oppotunity as it arises.

- Paul
One has to remember that 250 of the coaches will be over 40 years old by the time RER is ready, with ~600 or so cars left over. Remember, GO is still planning on running services up Richmond Hill and Milton, with expansions as well. There's also service to Kitchener, Bowmanville, Lincolnville, Hamilton, and Niagara falls, as well as any future service to Bolton we might see. You could very easily see the following breakdown of service dedicated to each corridor before spares:

Milton - 10 trains, 120 coaches
Richmond Hill - 8 trains, 96 coaches
Kitchener - 8 trains, 96 coaches
Lincolnville - 8 trains, 96 coaches
Bowmanville - 4 trains, 40 coaches
Niagara Falls - 2 trains, 24 coaches.
Hamilton - 4 trains, 48 coaches.

Low and behold, even the peak hour service on these sections still requires 520 coaches before spares.

You can have single levels on the newly electrified sections and still justify keeping the bilevels on these other diesel/dual mode services.
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,201
Reaction score
950
One of the many problems with bi-levels however is that are uniformly slower than single level trains due almost exclusively as a result of much longer dwell times. This inhibits frequency levels and speed making them less appealing to the general public.

Anyway, I was simply presenting this to illustrate how truly ridiculous this entire bidding process is. Seriously, it's been 7 long years since RER was announced and Metrolinx still doesn't even know what trains they will be running little alone the technology. This is truly scandalous and heads should be rolling starting with Verster's for allowing such an ass-backwards tendering process.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
18,360
Reaction score
7,155
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
One of the many problems with bi-levels however is that are uniformly slower than single level trains due almost exclusively as a result of much longer dwell times. This inhibits frequency levels and speed making them less appealing to the general public.

Anyway, I was simply presenting this to illustrate how truly ridiculous this entire bidding process is. Seriously, it's been 7 long years since RER was announced and Metrolinx still doesn't even know what trains they will be running little alone the technology. This is truly scandalous and heads should be rolling starting with Verster's for allowing such an ass-backwards tendering process.

Are you talking about the dwell times at Union Station or non-Union Stations? Do you have links to the dwell times at each station?
 

JSF-1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
474
Reaction score
773
Location
Woburn
One of the many problems with bi-levels however is that are uniformly slower than single level trains due almost exclusively as a result of much longer dwell times. This inhibits frequency levels and speed making them less appealing to the general public.
I don't think its a problem with Bi-Levels in general, but just our implementation of it. Our doors are on the lowest level which forces people to climb up to 2 flights of steps to get to a seat if they don't want to sit on the lower level. Comparatively Bi-Levels like seen in Sydney have there doors at mid-level which should make boarding faster since passengers disperse in 2 directions (up or down) instead of everyone going in one. Now obviously this is all moot since GO RER doesn't include high level platforms due to logistical issues.

27272438848_e3d8206182_b.jpg
 

KevinT

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 20, 2016
Messages
575
Reaction score
681
Location
Kitchener
Interesting what Siemens as part of a bidding consortium has to say in terms of hydrogen and battery powered trains. Their Mireo platform can be equipped with both:


It would certainly solve the missing Missing Link for the Kitchener Line. Here's hoping this (or its equivalent) is what we get.
 

cplchanb

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,951
Reaction score
961
I don't think its a problem with Bi-Levels in general, but just our implementation of it. Our doors are on the lowest level which forces people to climb up to 2 flights of steps to get to a seat if they don't want to sit on the lower level. Comparatively Bi-Levels like seen in Sydney have there doors at mid-level which should make boarding faster since passengers disperse in 2 directions (up or down) instead of everyone going in one. Now obviously this is all moot since GO RER doesn't include high level platforms due to logistical issues.

View attachment 272691
that would only work if we have high platforms. Unless raising all platforms is part of the scope of this project, low entry doors is the way to go
 

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
4,259
Reaction score
3,921
Does anything prevent bilevel coaches from having more doors on the lower level? Upstairs more long-distance seating and bottom level more metro layout?

Doors: the design has never taken additional lower doorways into account. It does allow for doors above the trucks (for high-platform loading), but no more than that.

Seats? Absolutely - the car design is for a series of open tubes that allow for any number of different configurations.

Dan
 

ARG1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
460
Reaction score
1,162
I don't think its a problem with Bi-Levels in general, but just our implementation of it. Our doors are on the lowest level which forces people to climb up to 2 flights of steps to get to a seat if they don't want to sit on the lower level. Comparatively Bi-Levels like seen in Sydney have there doors at mid-level which should make boarding faster since passengers disperse in 2 directions (up or down) instead of everyone going in one. Now obviously this is all moot since GO RER doesn't include high level platforms due to logistical issues.

View attachment 272691
that would only work if we have high platforms. Unless raising all platforms is part of the scope of this project, low entry doors is the way to go
Recently, Toronto published a document sent to them from Metrolinx outlining many aspects of the GO Expansion Program, and one of the things it mentioned was, and I quote, " More accessible stations – level boarding at 42 stations, which will allow customers to board and alight faster and reduce trip times by 2-5 minutes." This document was released I believe a week or 2 ago, so more than likely they are planning raised platforms, and its probably being budgeted separately from the current station expansion projects so its entirely possible that in order to fully use their allotted budgets (because that's exactly how crown corporations always work), we might see the current stations rebuilt all over again just to have higher platforms.

Document in Question: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-156542.pdf
 

JSF-1

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
474
Reaction score
773
Location
Woburn
Recently, Toronto published a document sent to them from Metrolinx outlining many aspects of the GO Expansion Program, and one of the things it mentioned was, and I quote, " More accessible stations – level boarding at 42 stations, which will allow customers to board and alight faster and reduce trip times by 2-5 minutes." This document was released I believe a week or 2 ago, so more than likely they are planning raised platforms, and its probably being budgeted separately from the current station expansion projects so its entirely possible that in order to fully use their allotted budgets (because that's exactly how crown corporations always work), we might see the current stations rebuilt all over again just to have higher platforms.

Document in Question: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2020/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-156542.pdf
I believe the platform levelling for GO RER isn't to high-level standards like what Sydney has. The platforms you see in places like Australia, Germany, and Japan are subway height platforms. What GO RER is doing is a more marginal increase to bring platforms in line with the lower level doors so you no longer need to step-up to get into the train; since the current platforms are actually lower than the doors. You can actually see in this image in the distance, the accessible ramp part of the platform. That's as high as the platforms are getting. This is well below the subway height platforms used in the aforementioned countries.
Go_train_at_Rouge_Hill.jpg
 

Top