GO Transit Fleet Equipment and other

[steveintoronto]

Why not just leave the Sharyos to do what they now do on UPX? Once compromise starts, it snowballs into all sorts of other complications and compromises. Unless there's massive mechanical issues, or the Tier IV performance isn't being met (rumours abound already), there's going to be little choice but to run them into the ground, and then possibly electrify what's left of them later (even the bogies have to be replaced to electrify them, the whole "electrification in a jiffy" spiel was absurd from the get-go). It's even within possibility to pull them (push-them) as unpowered coaches with an electric loco one end, or just electrify one as a powered coach and the rest as trailers. That way the present bogies could be kept on most, a sizable saving. (Not to mention the inevitable teething problems all over again from mechanical refit)

We're stuck with them, and they run at a loss, always will, so best we make do with them, waste as little money more as possible. They'd even need an internal refit to maximize their use on unelectrified branch-lines, not to mention high-level platforms.

Btw! Count the number of coaches in pic 1, Current GO Train Fleet

I blame it on inflation...

 

[mdrejhon]

Why not just leave the Sharyos to do what they now do on UPX? Once compromise starts, it snowballs into all sorts of other complications and compromises. Unless there's massive mechanical issues, or the Tier IV performance isn't being met (rumours abound already), there's going to be little choice but to run them into the ground, and then possibly electrify what's left of them later (even the bogies have to be replaced to electrify them, the whole "electrification in a jiffy" spiel was absurd from the get-go). It's even within possibility to pull them (push-them) as unpowered coaches with an electric loco one end, or just electrify one as a powered coach and the rest as trailers. That way the present bogies could be kept on most, a sizable saving. (Not to mention the inevitable teething problems all over again from mechanical refit)

We're stuck with them, and they run at a loss, always will, so best we make do with them, waste as little money more as possible. They'd even need an internal refit to maximize their use on unelectrified branch-lines, not to mention high-level platforms.

Btw! Count the number of coaches in pic 1, Current GO Train Fleet

I blame it on inflation...

The first route to be electrified is UPX.
Are you proposing to electrify the Sharyos instead...

 

[drum118]

Why not just leave the Sharyos to do what they now do on UPX? Once compromise starts, it snowballs into all sorts of other complications and compromises. Unless there's massive mechanical issues, or the Tier IV performance isn't being met (rumours abound already), there's going to be little choice but to run them into the ground, and then possibly electrify what's left of them later (even the bogies have to be replaced to electrify them, the whole "electrification in a jiffy" spiel was absurd from the get-go). It's even within possibility to pull them (push-them) as unpowered coaches with an electric loco one end, or just electrify one as a powered coach and the rest as trailers. That way the present bogies could be kept on most, a sizable saving. (Not to mention the inevitable teething problems all over again from mechanical refit)

We're stuck with them, and they run at a loss, always will, so best we make do with them, waste as little money more as possible. They'd even need an internal refit to maximize their use on unelectrified branch-lines, not to mention high-level platforms.

Btw! Count the number of coaches in pic 1, Current GO Train Fleet

I blame it on inflation...

Because there is agreement that Sharyos would be replace once the line is electrify and support it. The Sharyos aren't worth the extra Million per car to convert them to EMU.

You could put them on X line for off peak service, but how are riders go to board Them?? Best to sell them if a buyer can be found for them and only know of one place other than Toronto at this time.

Far off scraping the high platforms for UPX once the new lowfloor EMU start showing up, even with the extra cost to do the conversion.

You do know the MPI MP40PH-3C can pull those extra cars to the point they can do 14 as push/pull??

 

[steveintoronto]

The first route to be electrified is UPX.
Are you proposing to electrify the Sharyos instead...

I detailed exactly what I saw as possible for the DMUs, and not one option was electrifying all of them. I suggested the lesser possibility of electrifying roughly a third of the fleet to act as motor coaches, the other two of the consist being trailers. But that makes even less economic sense the more I think about it. It would be just as cheap or cheaper and more flexible to do my preferred option: Electric loco and de-motored DMUs as trailer coaches. Either way "run them into the ground" before scrapping them, even after the diesel prime movers are removed. No-one is going to buy them, and Metrolinx paid far too much for them. The only option might be to sell them at a huge loss to SMART, and their models are different.

Best to sell them if a buyer can be found for them and only know of one place other than Toronto at this time.

Absolutely agreed, albeit we differ on the time frame of doing it. We paid twice what they were worth for them, logic dictates we get as much back out of them as possible, and the high-level platforms, so once the prime motors are toast, gut the drive train and ancillary weight (save for generator) and use an electric loco to drag or push them as coaches. When the electric conversion is completed on the entire Western Corridor, then scrap the Sharyos and the high-level platforms, shift the locos to longer consists, which can then be 12 coaches long with the added length at Bloor and Weston. Platforms would have to be extended up the line, but that's easily manageable. And of course, as you state, the 3Cs can pull longer consists, and the later twin prime variants can pull even longer ones still.

Far off scraping the high platforms for UPX once the new lowfloor EMU start showing up, even with the extra cost to do the conversion.

Agreed again, albeit squeezing what life there is from the Sharyos first. I see it as quite do-able that the low-floor Bombardier LRVs could do the present UPX duty, and more routes to Pearson, running also along the Eglinton and Finch LRTs to there:

Bombardier to Supply Twelve Additional FLEXITY Swift Tram-Trains to Karlsruhe, Germany
Rail technology leader Bombardier Transportation has been awarded a contract to supply 12 FLEXITY tram trains to the city of Karlsruhe, Germany. The contract is valued at approximately 60 million euro ($67 million US) and is a call-off from an order for 30 dual-system tram trains originally placed in 2009.
[...]
The three-section light rail vehicles are 37 m long and 2.65 m wide, with space for 244 passengers. For optimal integration into the existing infrastructure all access areas are medium-floor, but still ensure rapid passenger flow and easy access for travellers with limited mobility as well as for passengers traveling with prams and heavy luggage. Each vehicle is fully climatized, and equipped with three multi-purpose areas and a passenger toilet. Conventional air springs guarantee a smooth ride limiting wear and tear of both wheels and tracks to an absolute minimum. Overland these tram-trains reach a maximum speed of 100 km/h. The vehicles are identical to the ones originally ordered, but have integrated a number of additional customer requirements such as new handle straps for standing passengers.
[...]

The BOMBARDIER FLEXITY dual-voltage tram trains for Albtal-Verkehrs-Gesellschaft GmbH (AVG)
http://www.bombardier.com/en/media/...e-additional-flexity-swift.bombardiercom.html

At 65 mph, these aren't as fast as the Sharyo DMUs in the long run, but much faster to accelerate and stop. They would be able to keep the present schedule.

You do know the MPI MP40PH-3C can pull those extra cars to the point they can do 14 as push/pull??

When the high-level platforms are removed, that will be perfect for Bloor and Weston, and the rest of the stations up the line can lengthen theirs too, although Bloor and Weston might only become RER stops, but we're talking small details now. I commented on "Pic 1" as it claimed "current", but as yet, no 13 coach trains!

 

[drum118]

As it been stated by a Metrolinx board member at various Metrolinx meeting, it takes him 25 minutes by train to Oakville and 30 minutes to get out of the parking lot using a 12 car train.

What good is going to longer trains running express and normal service that will not only create a higher wait time to get out onto the street and great another gridlock on the street system??

By running short headway with shorter trains, you cut down on the traffic issues as well different type of service.

The Sharyos will be lucky to see 50% life cycle use.

There is nothing wrong having different size of trains at peak if you are running various types of service and headway. This is some thing neither GO or Metrolinx have been able to wrap their head around since 2006.

UPX exist as a name only since the major change month ago. As other have said in the past, best to roll the UPX into GO using the same equipment other than trying to maintain another odd ball fleet unless it used for something else. You could use it as part of the Toronto-London-Windsor HRS service.

 

[cplchanb]

The UPX stations would, after length modifications fit one 4-coach KISS like the above, but with added high-platform doors. It would then now have enough seats to break even on the farebox at reasonable prices.

Issues could include baggage, but racks and accessible area could be located at the midlevels. Longer boarding time could be compensated by the faster EMU acceleration.

Couldnt they technically have a 3 car or even back to back end cars for the KISS?

 

[drum118]

Couldnt they technically have a 3 car or even back to back end cars for the KISS?

You can use 2-3 cars KISS with no problem with highfloor, but an odd ball for the whole fleet and only can be dedicated to this line only.

In Europe, they have sections set up for luggage and posted on the door windows similar to the one above for stroller and scooters.

Even standard coaches in Europe have luggage area as you get on the car.

 

[mdrejhon]

You can use 2-3 cars KISS with no problem with highfloor, but an odd ball for the whole fleet and only can be dedicated to this line only.

Some possible pros of a unified Stadler KISS EMU fleet could be:

- Most KISS would be low door only for GO RER
- Some KISS would be dual-height doors for UPX and flexibility to reassign to GO RER
- UPX KISS could maybe later be modifiable to single-platform-height with more seating (replace doors with a bolted/welded windowed wall) if permanently reassigned. Much like how they modify/refurbish old coaches and cabs.

Cost savings
- Flexibiility to run spare UPX EMUs on all GO RER routes
- You can afford to keep extra UPX EMU spares by keeping them live on, say, the Kitchener route
- Same maintenance on all EMUs, only difference is an extra set of doors on UPX EMUs
- Enough capacity per train to operationally break even at potentially lower fares than today
- Flexibility to stop UPX trains on a main Union track (just as a temporary detour, or even closure of UPX terminal in 20 years from now)

Politically easy
- UPX "boondoggle" factor is easier to avoid
- Feels more integrated with electrified GO

If UPX eventually relocates in twenty years to a main Union track, you can even migrate to a merged GO/RER/ST "single route with spurs" similar to Paris RER B. You would have 5 minute service to some of: Exhibition, Liberty Village, Bloor, Weston, Eglinton with some express stopping plans interspersed to keep the "25min to airport every 15min" claim. Which is exactly what Paris does.
...Use my platform sign idea, if politically necessary just call it "SmartTrack East"/"SmartTrack West" (I'll tolerate it) much like LSE/LSW thru route. But runs 5mins or 7.5mins all day long thanks to Brampton/Kitchener and UPX routes alternatingly. Stations like Bloor will have 5min service. Airport would have 15min. Glance at destination list, if your destination is listed, then board it.

The maintenance would be very similar, there would be potential major cost savings of keeping a single type of EMU.

 

[steveintoronto]

Enough capacity per train to operationally break even at potentially lower fares than today

UPX "boondoggle" factor is easier to avoid
- Feels more integrated with electrified GO

I go back to an idea I stated earlier: Use the Sharyos as *unpowered coaches* and traction is via an electric loco. By the time all the mods suggested are done on the Sharyos, with attendant re-certification, it would be just as cheap and be more onward compatible to use the electric locos that are claimed to being ordered later. These would be usable for any demand on the electrified sections.

With the Sharyo prime motors removed and attendant ancillaries (fuel tank, rads, etc) the rate of acceleration w/ an electric loco for three coach consists would make for even less travel time than now taken. Leave the present high-level platforms in place, and only when the time is appropriate, remove them and retire/cascade the high-level coaches too.

With the massive sums sunk into those platforms and the Sharyos, it's best to squeeze all possible life out of both. Other standard coaches would have to be used for the Bramalea run....I can't see the line being electrified beyond that unless the Missing Link (partially or fully) is built.

The option would then exist, if enough demand is presented, to make some consists up with retired VIA LRC coaches, and four coach trains could be run. Although the LRC and Sharyos can be coupled mechanically, I suspect there are interoperable issues that make full hotel and control buses limited.

 

[drum118]

On Friday I saw 203, 211 and 237 x cab cars as standard coaches. Rode 203 home and the only changes I saw was the divider between crew and passengers gone with seats with their back to the window. Door added to the control area.

MPI MP54AC 647 was mu to 629 behind it and they were pulling 12 coaches. I have yet to see 647 in service.

I regret not get back on the train at Aldershot to get a photo of a coach painted tan brown below the top windows between 2 boxcar and look like it had a BERT?? report mark, but since the train was 10 minutes late, head to catch the Hamilton bus.

 

[drum118]

Stadler commissions first Westbahn Kiss 2 EMU

 

[dowlingm]

Caltrain's Stadlers will be high level EMUs. If TTC could consider the downtown and uptown streetcars part of the same order, Stadler could offer a DMT-T-DMT vehicle for UPX as an option to the massive order Metrolinx will be placing.

It should be noted however that NJ Transit are likely (some day) to place an EMU multilevel order to replace their Arrows, and Metrolinx and AMT could go in on a Canadian variant of that design especially if Metrolinx have notions of going high floor in some non-UPX lines.

 

[mdrejhon]

312km in just 2h10min for what is an electric version of a GO train -- not bad! (I presume that is an express)

Imagine these running on an upgraded Kitchener Line in just 1h05min -- including some stops!

We wouldn't need no high speed trains (albiet those could coexist later, if we've got incremental grade separations and extra trackage completed on the whole already-electrified Kitchener line).

 

[drum118]

The KISS Meet FRA requirements and can do 110 mph

They are to be built in Salt Lake City with first set due Summer 2019 and in service 2020

More full detail Here

 

[mdrejhon]

The KISS Meet FRA requirements...

Yes, but, to be clear, this is not traditional FRA criteria of yesterday --

FRA created a new compliance category of slightly-modified-Euro strength trains, with relatively lightweight modifications to satisfy FRA.

This now allows manufacturers to make minor structural modifications to Euro trains to meet FRA compliance, without needing to be traditionally heavy.

... "The EMUs would meet FRA Alternative Compliance requirements for operating in mixed traffic, with a high level of passive safety."...

It is my understanding:
...KISS is not allowed by FRA to run temporally too near freight trains consecutivly
...but can run temporally near all existing passenger trains (including Bombardier BiLevels) as the "mixed traffic"
...that Positive Train Control or similar (automatic braking) is mandatory.
...simpler structural improvements like ruggedization of the gas tanks, stronger windows, crush zone (does not have to be stiff/heavy anymore, just need to absorb shock to FRA satisfaction etc.)

Basically "Euro plus" strength, but it has more in common with Euro standards than historic FRA heavy/stiff strength.

At least, that is how I read the FRA Alternative Compliance as, for the KISS... passive improvements on Euro standards without much extra weight (nothing like what happened to Acela Express).

...This also happens to be good for GO's electrification plan too, if Transport Canada matches FRA amendments.