GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[steveintoronto]

is it known that the short stretch through the Mount Royal tunnel and north to where the line to Quebec City, which currently handles AMT, won’t be built to handle both?

It's a damn good question, and any discussion I'm aware of has been absent of late. It was a point of great contention, and one has to wonder if the need for diplomacy has forced it behind closed doors. HFR altogether seems to be on the back-burner. VIA was bending over backwards to assert that 'compromises' on their part even, could 'make it work'. REM was adamant otherwise, to the point of it being obvious they just didn't want to share their "precious". Once the loading gauge issue was neutralized by VIA arguments, REM found other arguments (timetable, signalling, control, mismatching socks, etc, etc).

I still have questions on when and how the CTA granted dispensation of their regulatory jurisdiction over the route. To keep the discussion relevant to this string though, the catenary compatibility issue has already been satisfied with running examples of the metro model of train and current/voltage type in Europe. In other words, it's only an issue if REM want it to be one. And they do...

Some of the Montreal posters might have the latest details on this. Perhaps cross-post an answer to the VIA string if you do? This issue is not going to disappear, Mount Royal Tunnel won't be the only example of where this shows up. Ottawa might have to address it too if HFR as touted happens.

Extant VIA string picks up the discussion here:
https://skyrisecities.com/forum/threads/via-rail.21060/page-235

Technical overview here:

• • 02/07/18--08:58: (Half way down page)

http://railway649.rssing.com/chan-52122752/latest.php

 

[p_xavier]

^ While it’s undoubtedly true that VIA and REM will not be compatible over the length of REM, is it known that the short stretch through the Mount Royal tunnel and north to where the line to Quebec City, which currently handles AMT, won’t be built to handle both?

- Paul

The station plan I posted is a station being built on that stretch and no, it doesn't seem to be compatible due the narrow design of the station.

 

[steveintoronto]

The station plan I posted is a station being built on that stretch and no, it doesn't seem to be compatible due the narrow design of the station.

Just doing a cursory search on this, been a while since I've read Catbus, there might be newer info, but from almost a year ago from the Gazette:

The Caisse project calls for driverless electric trains running every six to 12 minutes on the line, 20 hours per day, and would require converting the track for light-rail trains, thus making it incompatible with the heavy rail cars VIA would use.

Jean-Vincent Lacroix, a spokesperson for the Caisse, confirmed to the Montreal Gazette the Caisse’s plans would preclude VIA Rail’s trains running on the track, at least in the near term. However, Lacroix said it is expected new technology will allow VIA to adapt its cars.

“But until the adoption of this technology, we have proposed a transitory solution,” Lacroix said. “The HFR (high-frequency rail project) can connect to the REM through a new intermodal station planned for the northeast of Montreal, near Highway 40.”
[...]
However, Federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau has said he’d like the project to be compatible with the REM to minimize inconveniences for passengers.

“We want to make sure we keep all options open,” Garneau recently told the Montreal Gazette. “That includes compatibility through the tunnel; it includes a station north of the tunnel. Compatibility of the use of the tunnel is the biggest issue that both parties are working on to make sure both can use the tunnel.”

Garneau said he’ll let the experts complete the analysis, but he expects a decision to be made on VIA’s project in the next few months.
[...]

JASON MAGDER, MONTREAL GAZETTE
Updated: January 25, 2018
https://montrealgazette.com/news/lo...quebec-to-windor-travel-would-involve-the-rem

Again, this may appear superfluous to a GO electrification string, but I see this issue germane to the mix of light and heavy GO and VIA HFR vehicles having to share tracks, platforms and signalling and control in some instances. Better this gets sussed now than later,

 

[crs1026]

^ If the Trois Rivieres line isn’t connected directly to Central Station, it takes away all my enthusiasm for HFR to Quebec City. Makes absolutely no sense to push the downtown station out to another location. Adds time to the trip, even given that the new station would be at a hub.
We have a precedent for that kind of approach - Ottawa - and it’s sub optimal there.
I’m sure the technical issues of coexistence could be solved, but only if there’s a will to do so.

- Paul

 

[p_xavier]

^ If the Trois Rivieres line isn’t connected directly to Central Station, it takes away all my enthusiasm for HFR to Quebec City. Makes absolutely no sense to push the downtown station out to another location. Adds time to the trip, even given that the new station would be at a hub.
We have a precedent for that kind of approach - Ottawa - and it’s sub optimal there.
I’m sure the technical issues of coexistence could be solved, but only if there’s a will to do so.

- Paul

These posts can be moved to the Via thread afterwards. The line is connected through the CN yards around the mountain, Senneterre and Jonquière trains don't use the tunnel but did before. ARTM is currently studying that route for the Mascouche train, nothing prevents then using Central station for HFR using the same tracks as these trains. Anyways, if the feds want a business case and private partner, it's doubtful the QC section would make financial sense.

 

[steveintoronto]

I’m sure the technical issues of coexistence could be solved, but only if there’s a will to do so.

There may be technical specifics I've overlooked here, will dig even deeper later. This is a point relevant to many cities, Montreal and Toronto are only just two affected, and this spans this string and others at UT (I see this very relevant to the Relief Line discussion)

*Apparently* (I'll confirm or correct this later with direct reference, I've lost track of how I got to this reference) *a version* of the same vehicle REM is to use is used in *many* cities, one of them being Amsterdam, to operate on the same track and in stations with other classes of vehicle:

Amstelveenlijn :: Centraal Station - Amstelveen Westwijk
Line 51 was opened as a rapid tram (sneltram) on 2 Dec 1990, it shares tracks with the metro line from Centraal Station to Spaklerweg, then part of the ring line 50 to Station Zuid, and finally it runs south to Amstelveen on a separate right-of-way but with level crossings. The light rail vehicles used on this line are narrower than the metro cars, therefore they have a platform fixed to the doors to bridge the gap at metro platforms, this platform is folded down at Station Zuid, where also the pantograph is lifted up for overhead power supply along the street level section south to Amstelveen. As far as Oranjebaan these tracks are also used by standard tram line 5 (to Binnenhof), therefore stops have platforms with two different levels (like many German Stadtbahn networks). Some stops have an island platform. On 13 Sept 2004, a 2 km extension was added, with three new stations, Spinnerij, Sacharovlaan and Westwijk. [...]

http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/nl/ams/amsterdam.htm

only if there’s a will to do so.

Indeed! This answers both Metrolinx high/low platform compatibility as well as vehicle width, either with the mainline vehicle or the metro vehicle. Paris runs LRT and mainline on the same tracks on some lines as do a handful of cities and regions using the Karlsruhe example.

Further to that:

[...]
Manufactured by Alstom, the Metropolis trains are flexible and reliable high-tech rolling stock, which will serve 22 major cities, including New York, Paris, Barcelona, Amsterdam, London, Chennai and Singapore.

The trains are designed with small, medium and wide bodies and are offered in two to six car train-set configurations, depending upon the client’s requirements. The train can be fitted with fully automatic driverless system for unattended train operation (UTO) functionality.

More than 4,000 Metropolis cars are in service with more than 50 operators worldwide.

Metropolis train details
The Metropolis trains are designed to run at a top speed of up to 90km/h and are equipped for driverless automatic transport. The trains have a width ranging from 2.30m to 3.2m and a length between 13m and 25m. The car body is made of aluminium or stainless steel and is attached with either steel or rubber tire wheels depending upon the customer’s requirement.
[...]

https://www.railway-technology.com/infrastructure/

The problem of REM v mainline passenger interoperability appears to be down to a choice of width for rolling stock, all the time knowing it would spite other standard loading gauge users of shared lines.

I'm finding examples of the Metropolis vehicle sharing mainline track and stations. Will link and reference later. Montreal might be a case of the damage being already done. Federal regulators may not have jurisdiction unless there's an 'end to end' track connection, albeit I'm still mystified as to how the Mount Royal tunnel section has disappeared off of the CTA's jurisdictional purview. The Deux Montagnes line is used for freight in some sections and connects with the full national network in a number of spots.

 

[MisterF]

Beggars cant be choosers guys....we have nothing atm and can I'll afford any extravagant forms of electrification. Why then are we debating and fueling disunity by throwing in ideas that simply we cant afford both in time, resources and money??? Sure it's nice to have battery powered or hydrail but at this time we need to get an electric network up asap at the most cost effective price. Catenary is a tried and proven method that is still 100% relevant today and will still be here 100 years from now with the exception of prob japan, germany or China with their maglev. Let's get something on the rails before we debate over exotic and prototypical methods

There will always be plenty of catenary in Japan, Germany and China. Unless of course they are going to replace all their electrified lines with maglev, which they won't. There's a lot more electrified rail with catenary being built than maglev, especially in China, which now has as much HSR as the rest of the world combined. That's not going anywhere until someone invents teleportation.

 

[steveintoronto]

That's not going anywhere until someone invents teleportation.

Wait for it: Hydrogen powered teleportation...No smokers please...

 

[ssiguy2]

Wait for it. Catenary electrification...…...just hold both wires and it will blow you to your destination.

I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I am NOT saying Hydrail is the right solution but neither am I going to write it off as some form of fantasy not worth considering. If they do a fair comparison between all 3 options of hydrogen, catenary, or battery {don't think anyone is advocating a mass switch to 3rd rail or linear induction} it should be done with no preconceived ideas of what is right or wrong. Make a knowledge based decision on reliability, implementation, environmental concerns, cost, construction times, maintenance, speed, etc and then decide the best course of action.

For myself I see hydrogen as an alternative worth exploring for RER single level trains and battery as well if they use a RailBaar type recharging system as I personally hate the visual pollution of catenary wires and poles all over the damn place.

 

[crs1026]

I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I am NOT saying Hydrail is the right solution but neither am I going to write it off as some form of fantasy not worth considering. If they do a fair comparison between all 3 options of hydrogen, catenary, or battery {don't think anyone is advocating a mass switch to 3rd rail or linear induction} it should be done with no preconceived ideas of what is right or wrong. Make a knowledge based decision on reliability, implementation, environmental concerns, cost, construction times, maintenance, speed, etc and then decide the best course of action.

Quite agree, but I think you are missing others' point too. The question is not will hydrogen work, it's whether we ought to wait until it is the best solution (which it may well become), or push ahead with catenary when the risk is it may be obsolete in a decade.

There is an obvious prerequisite "Phase I" to any ML electrification. It would be construction of the central substation and feeder, which according to the EA would be from Obico to Canpa to Union. And USRC would have to be strung/insulated/grounded from end to end, and the trainshed resolved. That's a hefty proportion of the overall electrification cost. The line by line implementation can be incremental, but that full prerequisite base has to be built first.

There is a parallel prerequisite "Phase I" for Hydrail. It is construction of whatever fuel production facility is required, and an on-line fuelling stand, and probably modifications to Union Station to meet fire and building codes (which really aren't written yet). So again, there is a probably substantial up-front investment just to enable any Hydrail on any line. The facilities may be scalable as lines are converted, but that first enabling investment is a substantial fixed price investment.

We have enough money for one of the two, but prudence suggests we should not spend for both. Hydrail as it exists today cannot meet the performance spec we need for a GO train - we have 286 level Hydrail trains, but we need Pentium or better. In ten years I'm sure we will have that available.

Do we wait?

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

One thing is for certain...…….. a decision can never be made until Metrolinx decides whether it wants single or bi-level trains and even amongst these there are wide variations. It is the height of incompetence that after 4 years they still don't know what type of trains they are going to run or the platform heights. That alone should be enough to fire the entire Board. If ML had spent it's time on trains, electrification, grade separation, and fare integration and less on building parking garages then we wouldn`t be having this conversation.

 

[kEiThZ]

Hydrail may work soon. But I question whether it'll be financially viable for the volumes of commuters we need to move in the GTA.

 

[cplchanb]

Hydrail may work soon. But I question whether it'll be financially viable for the volumes of commuters we need to move in the GTA.

I think the question was answered last week in the PC mini budget. They will not spend more and are prepared to undo anything that was done by the libs. I think this will probably be the first to go for transit.
hopefully nothing more will be cut from electrification.

 

[TOareaFan]

This one?
View attachment 163962

Of course that map is worng........the black CN ownership of the KW corridor starts east of Bramalea not in the station as the map would suggest. This may seem like a nit picky thing to point out.....but that little stretch of track east of Bramalea which CN owns is stopping GO/ML from making the interim step of all day two way 7 day GO service to Brampton (up to Bramalea) that they have been suggesting/promising/including in provincial budgets for years.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I have absolutely no problems with catenary with the exception of the visual pollution of endless ugly overhead wires and poles. It SA example it makes perfect sense to continue it's catenary expansion as it has already begun and much of the core infrastructure is in place. Since Adelaide started building it's electrification thou, hydrogen rail has arrived and has the ability to be a real paradigm shift in rail propulsion and so far the results from Germany are excellent.

Toronto hasn't even started digging for electrification yet little alone built anything so it's starting from scratch. If there are viable alternatives {and no I'm not saying hydrogen is the best option nor am I saying it's not} then they should be explored and if successful in trial, embraced. Alstom would give it's left-nut to get Toronto to try it's new system and would maintain with loving care to make sure it exceeds expectations as NA will be the biggest potential market and Toronto is NA's second largest transit system so Alstom would love that kind of exposure.

Even if hydrail doesn't work there are other alternative that may be cheaper such as battery trains with RailBaar at stations saving the cost of and visual pollution of wiring and having far less upkeep and being less susceptible to weather issues.

Of course this back and forth is ultimately useless until Metrolinx can make a decision as to whether they will be running single or double level EMUs. It`s been 4 years and they still haven`t got a clue meanwhile Montreal`s REM steams ahead.

Well Montreal's took years of planning. The problem with Metrolinx is that there is always a new barrier.