GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[muller877]

[ I'm hoping John Tory's PC connections can help save the project, or that Trudeau steps up and funds the provincial and federal share] The tripartite funding is contingent on each partner contributing. Minus one leg, the table falls. In the event, the City's share is probably less than a third, but if QP decides not to support appropriation for that line, it ain't gonna happen. You are right though, the Waterfront line wasn't on any of the PC lists, even before Ford...("b-Ford"?)

I wonder if electrification will be the one item that can be dropped to initially save some money.

What are the benefits for EMU's over DMU's?
- acceleration is slightly better with EMU's (from zero to sixty for EMU's are about 50 seconds and DMU's are about 60 seconds). But not a huge difference. Advantage EMU
- higher capex for EMU infrastructure but higher opex for DMU's. Right now with our fiscal constraints... Advantage DMU
- pollution costs. No longer a factor
- Promises around Davenport. No longer a factor
- implementation speed. No need for the electrical wiring. Advantage DMU

My conclusion. The PC's will decide to proceed with RER/Smarttrack without electrification. Most voters (other than many who would never vote PC anyways) do not care how they get transit improvements...as long as they get them. By adding a few stops, laying a second or third track and buying some DMU's the PC's can deliver on their promise without spending the billions and billions needed for electrification.

They then can spread the federal money out over other transit priorities.

Then electrification can proceed on a more fiscally restrained scale on lines that have high volume without the grandiose scale and promises that the Liberals set out.

Which makes sense. Even London did not electrify all of the Overground all at once...only did so when it made economic sense (I recall that they did some more electrification about 5 years ago)

 

[steveintoronto]

I wonder if electrification will be the one item that can be dropped to initially save some money.

They might. That's Ontario for you. Generations behind the rest of the world.

What are the benefits for EMU's over DMU's?

Much larger than you list. There's a good reason why anyone given the opportunity chooses electric over diesel.

Even London did not electrify all of the Overground all at once...only did so when it made economic sense (I recall that they did some more electrification about 5 years ago)

Errr...sorry, I've really got to call this one way offside.

I'm very familiar with London rail. There was one unelectrified section from Gospel Oak east that was the missing link between all the other sections. It was electrified without a second thought when TfL took over the North London Line:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_London_line

Vid just up a few minutes ago on this:

The equivalent missing section which was a freight link is akin to the Canpa sub. The rest of the lines assumed by the London Overground have been electrified for generations, save for a stretch connecting another line to the West London Line, which historically was electrified, but was lifted over fifty years ago, and re-established recently to produce the London Overground as it is today:

https://tfl.gov.uk/maps/track/overground

The difference to GO's electrification is that the Overground is powered at 750vDC (see clarification at end) roughly the same as the Underground (albeit single pole to common) to allow interrunning as has been done for generations again of Southern Region electrics (and some Great Northern) interoperated with London Underground. The Watford Lines for instance, and the Great Northern Tunnels into the City.

What GO has touted are mainline overhead 25kVAC 60Hz akin to international standards albeit in Europe the standard current frequency is 50Hz.

Where QP can decide to save money is to actually do this, rather than postpone it, and cancel the Hydrogen balloon before they get badly burned...

As to acceleration rate for DMU v EMU, there is a Class 158, using the same prime motor as the UPX Sharyos, but a lot faster in acceleration, and braking, because it is a very light-weight construction. I can go into engineering details if you wish, but suffice to say that Transport Canada wouldn't allow them as is.

And that's a huge point of discussion right there. Class 158 beside (and they ride great, been on many), here's the physics at play for the present GO loco hauled v MU: Add in the struggle to achieve Tier exhaust ratings, and the problems compound geometrically, not that Ford would care. He'd choose a side-valve flathead V-8 with unrefined oil...

http://www.railway-energy.org/static/Multiple_units__MUs__vs._loco_hauled_trains_23.php

For clarification on electrification of the North London Line and almost all of the other disparate lines of what is now the Overground:

Traction current supply[edit]
Originally, the line was electrified in 1914-5 using the fourth rail +420 V / -210 V system, as used by London Underground. This was changed in the 1970s to +630 V / 0 V, which in itself required no changes to the trains, only to the substations. However, the trains (1957 stock at the time) were modified for return current to be by the running rails, as on other third rail systems, so the fourth rail and the centre shoes on the trains were removed, except that four-rail running was retained between Richmond and Gunnersbury for the Underground trains that share this section, with the centre rail bonded to the running rails. The line is now electrified using that same third rail system from Richmond to Acton Central, but with overhead lines now used from Acton Central to Stratford. The line into Broad Street used third rail supply and, when the through service to North Woolwich started in 1985, trains used the third rail throughout. When the trains were replaced a few years later by dual-voltage Class 313 trains, [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_London_line

Late Edit to Add:

Here's the story only four days old:

City Metric
TRANSPORT
RAIL

• June 11, 2018

On London Overground’s Gospel Oak to Barking line, electric dreams do come true
By James Cracknell
[...]
Back in 1964, a chunk of what is now the London Overground orbital network was under threat of closure from the government, amid the notorious axe of British Rail chairman Dr Beeching. In reaction to this a rail users’ group was formed which successfully campaigned to save the Goblin route, after highlighting its value to London commuters.

But although it avoided closure, the railway was left to rot for decades. “British Rail basically didn’t spend a penny on it for 50 years,” explains Glenn Wallis, secretary of the Gospel Oak to Barking Rail Users’ Group and a former signalman on the line. “As far as they were concerned there were always more important things to spend money on.”

The trains were unreliable, station facilities were closed down, and, as a short railway that avoided major interchanges and mainline stations, the Goblin remained obscure. “It was known as the ‘forgotten railway’,” says Glenn, who worked on the line for 29 years. “There was one year in the early 1990s when they didn’t even have anyone managing it. We had to organise our own rosters.”

Glenn alleges that TfL never wanted to run the line, such was its troubles. “But then the government told them they had to – so the line was sort of tacked on to the rest of the Overground network.”

The transfer from the former Silverlink franchise to TfL finally went through in November 2007, and the simple fact of putting the Goblin on the tube map seemed to give it a new lease of life.
[...]
But there was still one major obstacle preventing the Goblin from expanding further. “It was the only line on the tube map not to be electrified,” said Glenn. “We knew it had to happen.”
[...]

https://www.citymetric.com/transpor...arking-line-electric-dreams-do-come-true-3968

 

[dowlingm]

Difference with U.K. apart from state ownership of the track infrastructure is that they don't run double stack freight (so overhead wire height only has to clear 9ft6 containers on flats where that clearance has been implemented) and indeed some freight flows actually use electric traction. Difficult to compare to this freight bound network in Canada which tolerates passenger here and there

 

[ssiguy2]

I wonder if Ford will go ahead and try Hydrogen Rail. Hydrail does have the benefit of not requiring expensive overhead catenaries and I bet he could get a sweet deal from Alstom to test a few and/or get the political benefit of ordering Hydrail if Alstom builds a major plant in Ontario. It would also be a win for Ford as it allows RER to go ahead {it definitely will go ahead because it serves the outer Toronto suburbs and 905} but allows him to put his own stamp on the project as opposed to continuing a Wynne project.

 

[steveintoronto]

Difference with U.K. apart from state ownership of the track infrastructure is that they don't run double stack freight (so overhead wire height only has to clear 9ft6 containers on flats where that clearance has been implemented) and indeed some freight flows actually use electric traction. Difficult to compare to this freight bound network in Canada which tolerates passenger here and there

No proposed electrified passenger routes in Ontario, or indeed Canada, are touted for double stack freight. Or in the US, or in Europe. I'm not familiar with any standard UIC catenary height that does. There are some freight haul railways that have a non-standard height of catenary, but not UIC.

So where's this difference?

And how do you explain this, save that it's not electrified:

Award-winning transport consultants
Award-winning transport consultants
This morning saw the first ever double-stack container train to be seen in the UK, courtesy of new open-access rail freight operator Fopol Rail.

1 April 2017 Historic moment for UK rail freight as double stack container trains launched

This morning saw the first ever double-stack container train to be seen in the UK, courtesy of new open-access rail freight operator Fopol Rail. The 750 metre train formed of 37 wagons can carry 74 x 40' length containers, dramatically increasing the carrying capacity of a single train and taking a record-breaking number of lorries off the road network. Welcoming this dramatic development for UK and European rail freight, Lila Porof, Managing Director of Fopol Rail, said:

“North America and the Indian sub-continent have already embraced the step-change in efficiency of rail freight using double-stack intermodal trains. We are therefore delighted at being first to market with launching double-stack operations in Europe, and based on our assessment of routes capable of accommodating such trains in the UK, we will be now be able to offer services on several key intermodal corridors in the coming months.”

Fopol Rail's emerging network of W13-gauge short-line routes (subject to confirmation and minor footbridge re-engineering) is expected to include:

• Felixstowe (to Trimley)
• London Gateway (to Thames Haven Junction)
• Southampton Western Docks (internal movements only)
• Tilbury Northfleet Hope terminal (to junction with exchange sidings)
• Boston Docks (to just outside Thorpe Culvert and almost to Sleaford)
• Thamesport to Lower Stoke (A228 overbridge)
• Dungeness branch (Appledore to Lydd)

Intermodality is delighted to have helped with the fabrication of this exciting new chapter in the ongoing story of rail freight.

Also note that a lot of the published reference is out of date, and written by folks who don't have a vision:

Other countries

• 
  Australia - double stack trains operate between Perth, Adelaide, Darwin and Parkes, NSW[6] 6.5 m (21 ft) clearances.[7]
• 
  China - using double stacked container trains under 25 kV AC overhead lines.[8] Initially this was restricted to a standard ISO 8′6″ container and a reduced size 8′0″ container - even after increasing the height of the overhead wire for allowing two standard ISO containers it is not possible to use a stack of two 9′6″ hi-cube containers on those line under electrification.[8]
• 
  India - Mundra Port operates double stack diesel trains on 1,676 mm (5 ft 6 in) gauge using flat wagons.[8][9] Experiments for double stacking under 25 kV AC overhead lines have begun because of funds given by Japan.[10][11]
• 
  Netherlands - The freight-only Betuweroute has been physically prepared for double-stack container transport, but the line ends at the German border, and the connecting German railway line has not been converted yet. Also the electrification with 25 kV AC overhead causes concerns, similar to the Chinese situation. The remainder of the Dutch network is not suited for double-stack container transport.
• 
  Panama - In 2001 new tracks were laid for the Panama Canal Railway, parallel to the canal. It allows for double-stack trains. The bottom of an existing tunnel was dug out to accommodate the extra height.
• 
  United Kingdom - The small structure gauges and consequently small loading gauges on British railways mean that double stacking is not possible and that well cars are required to be able to transport 9 ft 6 in (2.9 m) high intermodal containers on routes where the loading gauge is W9 or smaller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well_car

Gosh, do you think Canada can do something innovative, just like the RoW has done generations ago? Just like Canada *had* generations ago? And the last remnant, the Mount Royal Tunnel, has been seized by the REM project, and RTM scrapping the perfectly adequate EMUs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deux-Montagnes_line

Canada is moving backwards, while even the US is moving forward on this. And the US runs freight under the North East Corridor catenary, and the UK still has electric freight only locos in service, and ordering new ones:
http://www.qca.org.au/getattachment...,-New-Electric-locomotives-for-the-UK-Th.aspx

Just as an electric HFR service could do either mixed or temporaly separated freight with passenger. But only if Transport Canada and other institutions enter the modern age. Bit of a huge problem there...

 

[steveintoronto]

I wonder if Ford will go ahead and try Hydrogen Rail. Hydrail does have the benefit of not requiring expensive overhead catenaries and I bet he could get a sweet deal from Alstom to test a few and/or get the political benefit of ordering Hydrail if Alstom builds a major plant in Ontario. It would also be a win for Ford as it allows RER to go ahead {it definitely will go ahead because it serves the outer Toronto suburbs and 905} but allows him to put his own stamp on the project as opposed to continuing a Wynne project.

There's real irony in that it's more efficient for the human body to kick the catenary can down the road than to fill that can with hydrogen and pretend it's better.

There are only two nations in the world kicking that can: The UK and Canada by way of Ontario. The French and Germans don't need to pretend it can replace the real thing, only supplement it on lines where the cost of catenary isn't justified as the line carries too few passengers. Perhaps if they brought back the Pan Am Games again, they could run a Hydrogen train to Collingwood, (for Olympic level splashing) Mt Forest (for Olympic weed pulling) and Beeton (for Olympic potato sack races) and tell us all how practical and cheap it is to do it?

 

[Towered]

I wonder if Ford will go ahead and try Hydrogen Rail. Hydrail does have the benefit of not requiring expensive overhead catenaries and I bet he could get a sweet deal from Alstom to test a few and/or get the political benefit of ordering Hydrail if Alstom builds a major plant in Ontario. It would also be a win for Ford as it allows RER to go ahead {it definitely will go ahead because it serves the outer Toronto suburbs and 905} but allows him to put his own stamp on the project as opposed to continuing a Wynne project.

I hate Doug Ford, but in this case I'm hopeful that he won't waste any further time or resources into this dumb hydrail idea.

 

[Allandale25]

Article just posted here on the hydrogen discussions after the Minister's announcement last year.

 

[steveintoronto]

I was just checking to see the actual figure IBI compiled for the Missing Link, this is the full one including CP. I know it occurs later in the report in actual numbers, but they can be very misleading. As a rule of thumb, they're doubled to come to a more believable figure, but comparing like for like is a much more neutralized way of expressing what's involved, and this really must be kept in mind:

https://www.milton.ca/MeetingDocume.../ENG-020-15 The Missing Link Final Report.pdf

Think about that, and how *doable* the CN Bypass, let alone the whole Missing Link is, and the massive pay-off from doing it. It would *save* money in the long run, massive amounts. It will take a gun to a few heads to get them to sit down at the table, however.

Some feel I'm in Abstract Land quoting the various pertaining acts. Far from it:

https://www.milton.ca/MeetingDocume.../ENG-020-15 The Missing Link Final Report.pdf

If the OntCons are serious about providing far better regional transit for the 905, there's no better place to start than here. And get the Feds in on this immediately.

 

[Allandale25]

^ wouldn't this be better in the Bypass/The Missing Link thread?

 

[steveintoronto]

^ wouldn't this be better in the Bypass/The Missing Link thread?

It depends on where you plug it in. The Bypass/Missing Link is an essential part of completely electrifying at least the K/W service, and eventually others. Freight is one of the excuses to not electrify in part, let alone in full, on a number of lines. Bypass that freight, and the excuse is then just down to Hydrail, which in part was being touted as a way to get around that.

Electrification isn't an issue in isolation.

 

[smallspy]

No proposed electrified passenger routes in Ontario, or indeed Canada, are touted for double stack freight. Or in the US, or in Europe. I'm not familiar with any standard UIC catenary height that does. There are some freight haul railways that have a non-standard height of catenary, but not UIC.

So where's this difference?

And how do you explain this, save that it's not electrified:

Award-winning transport consultants
Award-winning transport consultants
This morning saw the first ever double-stack container train to be seen in the UK, courtesy of new open-access rail freight operator Fopol Rail.

I take it that you didn't note the date on the article then? Or the crappy photoshop of the containers onto the existing image?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Allandale25]

No proposed electrified passenger routes in Ontario, or indeed Canada, are touted for double stack freight. Or in the US, or in Europe. I'm not familiar with any standard UIC catenary height that does. There are some freight haul railways that have a non-standard height of catenary, but not UIC.

So where's this difference?

And how do you explain this, save that it's not electrified:

Award-winning transport consultants
Award-winning transport consultants

I take it that you didn't note the date on the article then? Or the crappy photoshop of the containers onto the existing image?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

This site is helpful at finding original images. I ran the double-stacked image posted on the "Intermodality Ltd" website through a reverse image search and it found the original, non-photoshopped version. See here. Looks like the original image ran in the publication.
www.nieuwsbladtransport.nl

Original:

Photoshop:

 

[kps]

No proposed electrified passenger routes in Ontario, or indeed Canada, are touted for double stack freight. Or in the US, or in Europe. I'm not familiar with any standard UIC catenary height that does.

I though Caltrain was going for 23.5′ wire height to pass plate K on shared lines.

 

[smallspy]

I though Caltrain was going for 23.5′ wire height to pass plate K on shared lines.

I do believe that was the plan for the Caltrain electrification.

There are locations under wire in and around the North East Corridor where the wire is high enough to allow for Plate F/Plate K equipment to operate. And while most of the scheduled freights may not need to take advantage of this, it does come in handy from time to time. http://testplant.blogspot.com/2013/09/electrification-clearance-for-double.html

Dan
Toronto, Ont.