Great Platform Height Debate: Subway-Style Level Boarding for GO Trains

[crs1026]

I do wonder how much sophisticated signalling the private partner, if it is indeed up to them, will decide that GO RER actually requires. GO already has a huge amount of infrastructure and the capability to run trains every fifteen minutes already, at least in one direction. Four trains an hour really isn't very much. Advanced moving-block signalling systems are designed for systems running six times that much or more. Now if they're trying to get down to 5-minute headways or better in the peaks, the need will be more clear. But I really think that most of the ridership growth for RER will be in the off-peak period or direction. GO already has a very good market share for peak commuters to the financial district.

This is why developing a clear service plan--even a timetable--should be literally the first thing that Metrolinx does. Then, once you know what you're going to operate when all is said and done, you can work your way back from there and figure out what infrastructure, signalling, and rolling stock is required.

Thank you. A very pragmatic viewpoint.

It's good to be curious and to research all this stuff, but some people run off and develop fantasy plans that are not fact based because only the designers can appreciate all the relevant facts and requirements and evaluate the options. At the end of the day, the opinions that we in the bleachers offer are just that. You can't design a signal system by doing Google searches.

The wonderful part about train control is that politicians understand the need, but don't have a clue about the technology itself, so they have to go with what the experts recommend. Experts don't always get it right and engineers sometimes run away reinventing wheels (#Presto) but there is a hope that what GO ends up with is workable and economically prudent.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

One other thing... GO really is currently operating a lot like the LIRR in the US, with big downtown yards to store trains in the midday and turn trains because they will not consider through-running. It's worth noting that literally no major operator in Europe or Japan has a big downtown yard for storing regional trains. It really makes absolutely no sense to store trains on some of the most expensive real estate in the country, rather than at the outer ends of lines. Verster agreed with this in principle But Metrolinx's consistent planning of lines until now with odd numbers of tracks (three tracks through Sheppard West, five tracks through East Harbour) strongly suggests retaining this approach. Maybe that will be reconsidered, but much concrete has already been poured.

They're going to sacrifice most of Bathurst Yard to a new station, at least. So at least the yards are pushing outwards a bit.

Also the SmartTrack "enhancements" to GO RER eventually turns the Kitchener-Stoufville line into a through-running line (like Lakeshore East/West).

It'll all take time, though...

 

[mdrejhon]

I do wonder how much sophisticated signalling the private partner, if it is indeed up to them, will decide that GO RER actually requires. GO already has a huge amount of infrastructure and the capability to run trains every fifteen minutes already, at least in one direction. Four trains an hour really isn't very much. Advanced moving-block signalling systems are designed for systems running six times that much or more. Now if they're trying to get down to 5-minute headways or better in the peaks, the need will be more clear. But I really think that most of the ridership growth for RER will be in the off-peak period or direction. GO already has a very good market share for peak commuters to the financial district.

At the minimum, Positive Train Control is probably a shoo-in -- we will need PTC anyway to allow the conventional signalling system to be a failsafe for any future signalling systems (e.g. ETCS Level 2 wireless system). PTC is being deployed throughout North America, and naturally, it's "prevailing standards".

The tough questions get asked only on some routes -- e.g. Kitchener-Toronto -- where you have HSR, UPX, GO, VIA -- and tightly-spaced infill stations. This is probably the corridor that will demand an ETCS or CBTC deployment first.

This might be what happens:

* By 2020-2025 PTC gets deployed for GO RER with traditional signalling.
* (Today, ETCCS continues to be researched & developed)
* By 2025-2030 a specific corridor gets sufficiently congested, ETCCS is needed more
* After the Freight Bypass is built and HSR begins construction (2030-2035) Kitchener-Toronto-Unionville gets a wireless ETCCS upgrade (based off ETCS Level 3) due to station spacing & passenger traffic.

 

[steveintoronto]

The problem is that North America doesn't really have a mainline moving block signalling system.

Caltrain is trying--and failing--to invent one.

This is the canary in the overlay coalmine for ETCCS.

We’re also thinking of California’s future by designing the PTC system to be compatible with both Caltrain’s future electrification and services proposed by the California High Speed Rail Authority.

https://www.stantec.com/en/projects...ts/c/pn-caltrain-communications-signal-system

Well at least they're embracing PTC! What a hot topic that is of late. And again, TC and Ministry state (gist) "It's not apt for Canada". I read that the UPX Sharyos have the kit on board, de-activated, but no track transponders.

The challenge that Caltrain seems to have is one that ostensibly won't happen with ML RERs though: sharing with freight. On the surmise that RER is electric, the freight roads state their refusal to host catenary, and that leaves RER running only on ML track, and if freight at all, temporally separated.

But here's the fear for ETCCS, all dependent on what ETCCS is, as I can find no detail, not even a description beyond what I posted prior:

At the February Caltrain board meeting, the staff report on CBOSS positive train control showed strong signs of a failing project.

The signs of a project at high risk presented at board at meeting included:

• a slipped schedule through the end of 2016 (from an original delivery date in 2015 that was still hoped for in September)
• the custom software deliverables required for the project are consistently late and problematic
• the contractor has been under-delivering on a continual basis
• the federal acceptance requirements to define a completed project are still not complete, and continue to shift
• staff will return with a proposal to continue funding the project through the coming year
• the federal deadline for positive train control, originally set for last year, has been extended to 2018 at the earliest so there is not an immediate legal requirement to deliver

(Positive Train Control systems are intended to automatically avoid collisions; a federal mandate was imposed after a deadly crash in 2008 between a Metrolink passenger train and Union Pacific Freight Train; but passenger rail systems had been lagging in implementation and congress granted an exception).

Part of the underlying problem may be organizational transition with the technology vendor. CBOSS is built on top of GE Signalling’s ITCS product. GE Signalling was purchased last year by Alstom (a French company), one of the biggest players in the worldwide rail signalling market, with a strong market presence with an alternative technology, ERTMS. Given the organizational change at the vendor, ITCS may no longer be a strategic priority (or there may be other post-acquisition staffing issues). It’s clear based on results that the teams working on the technology aren’t delivering.
[...]
The Caltrain-High Speed Rail Compatibility blog suggests that since the High Speed Rail project needs positive train control, and needs to operate on the Peninsula corridor along with other services including Freight and Amtrak, it might make sense to stop the current project and shift to the technology that HSR will need?

Caltrain staff assert that Caltrain needs to run trains much closer together than HSR, so it has different technical requirements. However, Clem Tiller provides this example of an ERTMS system running trains 110 seconds apart at 200 km/h (125 mph), almost ten years ago.

Given the signs of a project at high risk, it seems time to get a second opinion on what to do next before spending more money on the current approach.

And ditto for ML and ETCCS?

Reading up on that (there's a lot online, it's well discussed) I tripped across this. (pun fully intended):

[...]
FRA regulations require level platform boarding at newly built stations. It is curious that the FRA rejected plans for new stations at places such as Roanoke and Milwaukee due to platform interface issues, but apparently signed off on this deficient design at SSF.

Level platform boarding benefits not just wheelchair users but all train passengers. Trains get seriously delayed when conductors must hoist wheelchair riders onto trains. Level boarding also speeds up loading of bicycles, rolling suitcases, etc. Level boarding is a key part of the Caltrain Modernization Project. Caltrain even ordered specially built trains with doors at two levels for this purpose, the but SSF platforms won’t line up with either of the door levels.

Read Full Post »

 

[steveintoronto]

Is there a list or document with all of the qualifying trainsets? Im curious

There might be, but allow me to guess your curiosity: Does it then follow that the same vehicles are acceptable in Canada? "Alternative Compliance" is the official term for "waiver".

See: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/f...dance/safety/66206/shared-use-waivers-fra.pdf

And here's an example of where the UPX Nippon Sharyos, cleared for use by Transport Canada, ostensibly due to the FRA clearance at the time, is no longer the case. In the US, the Nippon Sharyo DMU, on shared track, must use PTC. (It's not only the same vehicle, the order for UPX was handled by SMART, the only two North Am customers to ever buy this model)

POSTED: 08/12/17, 5:08 PM PDT | UPDATED: ON 08/14/2017

197 COMMENTS

A federal review of a high-tech safety system is forcing the continued delay in commuter service, Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit officials say.

That safety system was installed for the first time on part of a Colorado rail line last year, but has not been completely bug-free. It has forced the Colorado rail agency to seek and receive waivers from the Federal Railroad Administration to continue running that line.

SMART TRAIN > MORE COVERAGE

Those circumstances may be a reason why federal officials are being methodical before signing off on SMART, rail officials have said.

“The FRA, in particular, needs to sign off on Positive Train Control,” said San Rafael Mayor Gary Phillips, a SMART board member. “That system is performing satisfactorily for SMART. We saw it work during the preview service.”

SMART has spent $50 million to implement the Positive Train Control system on the 43-mile line from downtown San Rafael to the Santa Rosa Airport. The system essentially controls movements on the rails electronically to slow or stop trains before certain types of accidents could occur.

SMART is poised to be the first start-up rail system in the country to be completely outfitted with the safety system designed to prevent potentially deadly accidents. [...]

http://www.marinij.com/general-news...it-feds-ok-on-safety-system-to-launch-service

The UPX ones? They have the hardware loaded on board, but it's idle. There's no track sensors to make it work. PTC on mainline railways in Canada doesn't exist. The FRA would not allow an operation like UPX using Nippon Sharyo DMUs to start-up in the US. To continue running one, they'd need a waiver.

Here's where we still stand a year and a half later:

Train Control Working Group Final Report Presented to: The AdvisoryCouncil on Railway Safety September 2016
[...]

https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/documents/railsafety/train-control-working-group-final-report. Pg 21

In the event, Transport Canada will grant "exceptions", one being the O-Train, with the Lints and Talents, discussed at length in other forums at this site. If you need them, I have links to the TC and City of Ottawa reports.

Note Pg 62 in the annex:

And just a hunch, albeit I'm researching the details, this is the source of the ETCCS that is proving to be so elusive to track down.

Curiously, this shows in the annex:

Pg 64

Which seems to directly clash with the raison d'être for the "ETCCS" from what little of it I've found and quoted.

 

[mdrejhon]

Fascinating discussion! Please continue this discussion, I want to learn more about some of your Google Fu stuff. We seem to be the two black belt GoogleFu people on these topics here, albiet competing in different areans.

But we're also sort of polluting the Great Platform Height talk (onstentibly related as it is, is still a separate topic altogether)

I am guilty as charged too. I'm also to blame too, for bringing up the discussion.

@ShonTron (or other mods), do you want to help us by surgically moving specific PTC / ETC / CBTC / Signalling related posts to my other thread? Not a thread merge or split, but a surgical move of about a dozen(ish) posts that talk only about short-headway signalling systems: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...tc-etccs-ertms-safety-shorter-headways.21483/ (the correct thread for these new-fangled signalling systems and automatic train control systems)

 

[steveintoronto]

Fascinating discussion! Please continue this discussion, I want to learn more about some of your Google Fu stuff. We seem to be the two black belt GoogleFu people on these topics here, albiet competing in different areans.

But we're also sort of polluting the Great Platform Height talk (onstentibly related as it is, is still a separate topic altogether)

I am guilty as charged too. I'm also to blame too, for bringing up the discussion.

@ShonTron (or other mods), do you want to help us by surgically moving specific PTC / ETC / CBTC / Signalling related posts to my other thread? Not a thread merge or split, but a surgical move of about a dozen(ish) posts that talk only about short-headway signalling systems: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...tc-etccs-ertms-safety-shorter-headways.21483/ (the correct thread for these new-fangled signalling systems and automatic train control systems)

There's the problem of scant participation, however, such that a forum 'falls off the map' so a 'collective' or 'general heading' topic surmise maintains a critical flux to retain inertia.

I'd suggest gathering them all into one general heading, as Verster's interview by @jenglish has given them all a steroid shot. I don't see how they can be separated and thrive, albeit I'm aware of your sensitivities.

There's some other truly exciting aspects Verster raises that aren't covered by any of the three strings his points are now being discussed in, some with critical bearing on VIA's complementary situation, e.g. REM and the Mount Royal tunnel.

I'm hoping for enough responses under a Verster heading to spur another UT interview and article with/about him and his ideas. May I suggest "Verster, Metrolinx, Under New Management"?

If @interchange42 hadn't dropped 'heads-up' in a couple of strings, I would have missed that article. I'm still taken aback at some of the profound statements Verster made, and nothing close to that in the mass media.

That was an exceptional article, and made me follow the links to JEnglish' earlier pieces.

 

[mdrejhon]

I am regularly renaming topics, I can do that...

I've made the topic titles a little bit more interesting.

 

[steveintoronto]

I am regularly renaming topics, I can do that...

I've made the topic titles a little bit more interesting.

Excellent. It might be of assistance to link the related forums below the heading, if that is possible. With the REM announcement today, both platform height and signalling are going to be hotter topics.

And European style metro trains! As to where that and TC regs goes is a good question.

 

[mdrejhon]

Yes, with Montreal's $6.3 billion dollar copy of GO electrification / electric SmartTrack equivalent beginning construction over there THIS APRIL!!! To open in 2021.

It is going to be an exciting decade with so much new electric rail networks opening.

 

[steveintoronto]

A got this hit on YouTube by looking for something else, but what a great example of what this thread is about, albeit even more pertinent to the Relief Line forum:

 

[ssiguy2]

A fascinating discussion and I can now say, without reservation, that I am completely lost.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, {and I probably am} but is all this talk about platform height purely academic until Metrolinx/PPP company decides on whether it is going to run single or double level EMUs? For Toronto's sake and for the sake of the transit riders I hope it's NOT the latter but is that not the first main decision before any needed platform heights are even considered or have I got it ass backwards?

 

[crs1026]

A fascinating discussion and I can now say, without reservation, that I am completely lost.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, {and I probably am} but is all this talk about platform height purely academic until Metrolinx/PPP company decides on whether it is going to run single or double level EMUs? For Toronto's sake and for the sake of the transit riders I hope it's NOT the latter but is that not the first main decision before any needed platform heights are even considered or have I got it ass backwards?

It's quite hypothetical - so far - but it's definitely one with acute curiosity on the part of those in this forum. And it is a key design attribute for the new RER system, so the curiosity has a point. To the point where the slightest twitch by anyone remotely connected with the decision gets over analysed and re-debated here. Ah, UT.....

Many of those here have formed pretty firm views on what the right answer is. Sadly, that view may come from hyperactive Google searches and fairly subjective views of what brand of rolling stock would be coolest to see on our system. Rolling stock is the cart, not the horse.....but there are definitely significant implications if the spec lands on low level versus high level platforms. Boarding time and station dwell being one, capital cost and logistics of implementing a different platform height being another. Fleet size, train length, and operating cost being a further consideration. Compatibility with existing equipment that is a given for the future matters, too. The final answer may prove to be a product on a spreadsheet, and only with a full knowledge of the collumns and formulae in this spreadsheet can one predict the answer.

In all, this forum is doing a pretty good job of analysing and reanalysing all that.... without a shred of factual information or actual data on how ML or the potential bidders see the situation. And frankly, we in the bleachers aren't likely to hear much of that until a decision is reached. It's not the sort of detail that will ever be debated in a consultation or public forum. So it's strictly a conversation over a few beers. A fun one, nonetheless, provided we don't take ourselves too seriously.

As the Python guy said, " Wait for it......."

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, {and I probably am} but is all this talk about platform height purely academic until Metrolinx/PPP company decides on whether it is going to run single or double level EMUs? For Toronto's sake and for the sake of the transit riders I hope it's NOT the latter but is that not the first main decision before any needed platform heights are even considered or have I got it ass backwards?

The case is leaning to the latter, for a number of reasons, but mostly time to load or unload, or "dwell time" at a station. And this isn't just for Metrolinx at Union, it also affects VIA, seriously. For instance, to load and unload VIA's trains with supplies at their low level platforms at Union, they must be lifted up and down to the train on the platform, only to have the same operation occur from their nearby depot. High level platforms would allow 'roll-on, roll-off' management of those materials. It would save time, save labour, save expense and make it vastly safer.

Union Station and GO RER: Metrolinx's Phil Verster on the Future
February 1, 2018 4:00 pm | by Jonathan English | 11 Comments

Additionally, he (Verster, Metrolinx CEO) discussed plans to raise platforms to be level with the train doors, citing a statistic that level boarding results in a 90 percent decrease in boarding-related safety incidents. Level platforms also dramatically speed loading and unloading along the whole line. With level boarding, “you have much more operation flexibility and much speedier dwell times at stations. When you reduce dwell time, you speed up the whole journey. And 30 seconds at a station and ten station stops means five minutes on a journey, which is worth gold.”

These new approaches will first be tried on a new southern platform at Union, which will be followed by gradual widening and improvement of all the other platforms at the station between now and 2025.
[...]
One of the key questions for RER is the trains themselves. Today, GO operates an exclusive fleet of diesel-locomotive-hauled bilevel cars. Most international regional rail operations use electric multiple units (EMUs), owing to their rapid acceleration and braking, which shortens journeys and enables trains to run more closely together. Verster explained that EMUs also offer far more flexibility in terms of shortening trains to match capacity to demand in off-peak periods. There are significant performance differences between EMUs and the current bilevel trains, even if the latter are hauled by electric locomotives. Mixing trains that have different performance adds complexity to signalling and infrastructure planning. Infrastructure designed for vehicles with limited performance (freight trains are also a problem in this regard) is considerably more expensive than infrastructure designed exclusively for high-performance EMUs. However, as Verster explained, it would likely be cost-prohibitive to entirely replace GO’s enormous fleet of 1,000 bilevel cars. He did leave open the possibility of a different approach, since the final decision on the fleet composition will be in the hands of Metrolinx’s private partner.

There remain some other significant questions that the private consortium will need to answer. The bilevels have much lower door levels than standard international regional rail trains. Now that platforms are being raised to match the bilevel floors, will GO RER use unique, custom EMUs to match these floor levels? Will some of the platforms be further raised when they arrive? Or will non-level boarding be accepted on the EMUs, at least temporarily? How will the signalling and infrastructure be built to handle very different types of trains without unduly reducing capacity or adding to construction cost? Will a modern international-standard signalling system, like ERTMS, be acquired, given that traditional North American mainline signalling systems are not particularly well-adapted for rapid transit operation?
[...]

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2018/02/union-station-and-go-rer-metrolinxs-phil-verster-future

 

[mdrejhon]

A fascinating discussion and I can now say, without reservation, that I am completely lost.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, {and I probably am} but is all this talk about platform height purely academic until Metrolinx/PPP company decides on whether it is going to run single or double level EMUs? For Toronto's sake and for the sake of the transit riders I hope it's NOT the latter but is that not the first main decision before any needed platform heights are even considered or have I got it ass backwards?

GO Transit is not going to replace the whole network with 100% EMUs right away.

The EMUs will hit the Kitchene (+Unionville) corridor first, simply because of how the stars align:
(1) It has the most traffic potential of all corridors on GO -- GO RER (SmartTrack), UPX, VIA, HSR will share the same corridor
(2) It has the tightest future station spacing (once Liberty Village and Eglinton Crosstown interchange stops are added), requiring the acceleration benefits of EMUs
(3) It's also the planned route for HSR trains to take (at existing non-HSR speed limits until it reaches the true future highspeed-rail section beyond Brampton)
(4) Transport Canada wants the ETC systems on HSR corridor
So the first EMUs that GO gets, will be put on the corridor that is also, happens to also be called the "SmartTrack" corridor (Eglinton through Unionville)

However, Lakeshore East/West is currently expected continue to use the Bombardier BiLevels well past 2025 -- pulled by electric/dualmode locomotives. It will probably will continue to use Platform 24/25/26/27/28/29 at peak periods (due to operational flexibility + wider platform + "spanish solution" capability), will continue to use the Bombardier BiLevels, and Verster wants to Platform 26/27/28/29 to level boarding with Bombardier BiLevels.

This is 100% regardless of the EMU question -- and EMU boarding height might or might not be different from the BiLevels.

I think what might happen is a flexible-height platform design that can be inexpensively changed a few inches a decade later (e.g. For the BiLevel floor height versus EMU floor height) if the Lakeshore East/West route begins to use EMUs. Basically, a potential design of removable concrete blocks or platform spacers underneath rough-surface floorboards. And step addition/removals at the stairwells, and flexible elevator shafts that can be modified later at lower cost than a full platform rebuild.

This is going to be tested at ONLY ONE platform first -- this is the new platform that Verster wants to become triple-width (widen existing Platform 26/27 to 3x width, while also raising it to level boarding with bottom step of BiLevels):

When the artist created that, it wasn't level-boarding.

But this is the exact platform Verster refers to -- as the one to become level-boarding (full-length accessibility height, flush against the bottom floor, with no ramp needed (via automated retractable floor-extender steps, which is used elsewhere in the world).

But now, GO president Verster wants this to be the first level-boarding platform on the GO network. A trial per se. Basically, it would become similar to Utah FrontRunner (level boarding with Bombardier BiLevels).

Other stations would not necessarily be retrofitted right away, probably not till the 2030s (EMUs purchase). This is the most important stop to become level boarding, and ultra-wide, because this is the Lakeshore East/West peak period stop and needs to accomodate future 15-minute Lakeshore East/West headways (possibly as little as 5 minutes at peak).

This new triple-width "Platform 26-27-28-29" consumes the bypass tracks north of Platform 27 since freight trains now rarely go through Union (they can simply trundle through one of the other unused gauge-compatible platforms once a day.)