News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.3K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 383     0 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

The transfers you listed are among the worst in the system. Achieving that level of connection doesn't seem like much of an accomplishment. Remember that the longer it takes to transfer, the less likely it is that making the transfer will be the fastest option for people's trip. Even with a tunnel, it would not be a very attractive connection and not that many people would transfer between GO and the subway there.

The effect of building a Main Street pedestrian tunnel is that transferring passengers wouldn't have to go up and down as far, assuming it connects directly from GO platform level to TTC concourse level (the TTC faregates would need to be relocated to the concourse where they originally were). It also saves the time of waiting for the pedestrian signal at Danforth, and reduces the number of pedestrians conflicting with buses turning left on to Danforth, potentially reducing delays. These are tangible benefits, so if the tunnel could be built built affordably it could be a good decision. But if it's going to cost a ton of money, there are probably better places we could be investing in infrastructure.
I'd reply to this by saying that while the transfer at Spadina is egregious, it is only so by comparison with the various other Line 1/2 interchanges. St. George, which for many is the subsequent stop, is obviously better than Spadina, but there is no corresponding "St. George" for LSW riders seeking Line 2; Main/Danforth is the best we got. Also, consider that the transfer at Spadina is bad insofar that people complain, but those complaints show some people actually use it, and its principle issue is length, not quality. If the transfer is so bad that there's no one around to comment on it, then I'd say that's decidedly worse because no one even bothers to make the transfer.

In any case, the issue seems to boil down to the necessity of a connection not being given serious attention (or that attention not coming to the public light). I do think the logical solution is for Metrolinx to ask one of the developers nearby to work in a tunnel. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they wanted to do it themselves, but I digress. These are the kind of QOL things Metrolinx should be able to easily ask for across the system to make it better for everyone. We can call Metrolinx inexperienced, but they should recognize that about themselves and work with developers- who are building an unprecedented amount region-wide- to capitalize on this rare opportunity to build a good transit experience together, everywhere. Obviously, this is an oversimplification, but Metrolinx holds a lot of 'carrots' to get the proverbial sticks moving. It's one of those urban design things I feel Vancouver has figured out even if they miss in a lot of other areas.
 
This an example where a section of a train is cut off from the KW train using EMU. As that section departs west, another section from the west is arriving and couple onto the KW train to be the same length going to Union like it arrived at KW.

An 3 section EMU would have more than enough capacity to handle the ridership. As ridership increase, you could move to an 4-5 section train.
 
This an example where a section of a train is cut off from the KW train using EMU. As that section departs west, another section from the west is arriving and couple onto the KW train to be the same length going to Union like it arrived at KW.

An 3 section EMU would have more than enough capacity to handle the ridership. As ridership increase, you could move to an 4-5 section train.
Buddy you neglected to understand the fact that you would need to electrify a corridor for a few trains a day.
You could use RDC's or sumitomo DMU's.
 
Buddy you neglected to understand the fact that you would need to electrify a corridor for a few trains a day.
You could use RDC's or sumitomo DMU's.
Thing known as battery power equipment with charging station at the station using pans.

Yes you can use DMU, but not a fun ride over an hour. Rode one from Copenhagen to Hamburg back in 2012
 
Thing known as battery power equipment with charging station at the station using pans.
Again infrastructure $$. A two car DMU that can carry 200 people is a lot more efficient than if those people drive. Start there. Get people out of their cars. We don't even have trains running. We don't even own the trackage. You want to start paying the host railways to put charging equipment at stations?
If it can make it from Brampton to London without changing that may make sense. But if something happens on the way and the train runs out of juice that's not a reliable solution.
 
How do you know that the hydrogen version isn't coupled to a gear box?
Who said anything about hydrogen? The Nippon Sharyo trains used by the UPX could only be configured with DMU or EMU traction power.

And the poster with whom you were debating was referring to battery powered trains with charging stations.
 
... or the JR Hokkaido DMV. :) Yes, the Nippon Sharyo DMU's transmission makes it feel like a bus. I don't understand how they can pass off a Nippon Sharyo DMU (which is a DHMU / hydraulic) as convertible to a EMU. If the DMU was a DEMU (diesel-electric) then I could see it.
 
Let’s hope there’s no major TTC disruptions on this day: View attachment 512013
Well….

1697496938233.png
 

Back
Top