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

[mdrejhon]

Here's a new PowerPoint presentation, 2012 about converting Bombardier BiLevels to level boarding.

Selected slides pictured.

This is what GO's Verster plans, I believe.

It's possible to have level boarding with Bombardier BiLevels, with only a 3-inch gap (no human-deploy ramp needed). While retaining 100% compatible with non-special freight train loads, using the following instructions. (Only Special Loads would be unable to use Platform 26/27/28/29).

(The Bombardier BiLevels were UTDC before Bombardier bought them)

 

[mdrejhon]

Also, the 2015 RER Business Plan already proposed a fleet mix already -- e.g. continuing to use dualmode/electric locomotive driven BiLevels in conjunction with EMUs during electrifying GO. Some Metrolinx docs mentioned Lakeshore East/West since the wide station spacing makes EMUs much less needed -- electric locomotives has almost the same benefits for a widely-spaced route like Lakeshore.

Another reason why EMUs will arrive within subsegments of the Kitchener-Stoufville first -- including the UPX-variant and the SmartTrack-variant.

There is further reconfirmation again in December 2017 of anticipated electric locomotives. What else can they be used but to pull Bombardier BiLevels? Which, were still being ordered recently, and many are still brand new today.

From GO's December 7 PDF

...And that's likely what's pulling the electrified Lakeshore East/West for level-boarding with Bombardier BiLevels on Platform 25/26/27.28.

The EMU-versus-electric locomotives balance is still TBD.
....but the electrified Lakeshore East/West will almost definitely not be the first EMU route.

The first EMUs will likely arrive 2025-ish but we may go 100% EMU someday -- but probably not till 2040+ or 2050+. It'll be a long-term phase-in.

So expect electric locomotives in front of level-boarding-modified Bombardier BiLevels. With the existing new cabs (already designed to be electric locomotive compatible!) on the opposite end.

All the stars align into this becoming one of my mostly-accurate predictions (assuming electrification still proceeds).

 

[crs1026]

Has there been any evidence reported that the older bilevels are nearing end of life? They have all been refurbished in North Bay, but it's not clear to me whether they were just cosmetically refreshed versus heavy rebuild. Was there a teardown that revealed any serious deterioration or aging? If not, it could be another 20 years before there is a need to replace those already 40 year old railcars.

An MP40 pulling a 3-car midday train is wasteful, because you have sixteen cylinders turning and burning diesel fuel even at idle. But an electric loco pulling a 3-car train in idle consumes very little power, with next to no moving parts, and it regenerates. So, while I understand why an EMU fleet would be preferable as a clean sheet replacement, the incremental impact of GO having to buy electric locos and use these with the bilevels for the next 20 years is likely small potatoes. Those who salivate at the drop of the word 'EMU' will cringe, but a loco based fleet may be better business sense until the bilevels reach end of life...... platform height permitting.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Excellent posts @mdrejhon . Utah's solution for that height and for the UTDC DDs is by far the best, albeit it's what I believe is the automatic filler. Whether or not that can be fitted as a retro-fit (IIRC, I did read that somewhere) and in combination with the present fixed treadle is a good question. I've Googled for it and failed to find it.

What one has to reflect on is "Why is this now possible for GO trains, and wasn't prior?". The reason being stated is/was the danger to crew hanging off ladders on cars being shunted for switching, and getting crushed between the platform edge and the moving car. I accept that as rational, but why has it suddenly disappeared in the dialog?

And even if it is a concern, why are other jurisdictions functioning under the same regs (ostensibly AAR ones cited by TC) able to circumvent this? Gauntlet tracks for freight at station platforms perhaps?

Union Station, for instance, has had the freight by-pass tracks for years. Why has the bog-obvious on this been so elusive all this time?

There's a sane, warranted discussion on how high the platforms should be, but there's no disagreement, freight clearance besides, on the need for at least the minimum height for level boarding of the DDs lower level. And even if there is in some cases, where has the gap plate option been all this time?

This is a case of not adding up. It's taken Verster to crack the silence at the top.

Addendum: The term is "bridge plate"!

An extended bridge plate in a low-floor light rail car

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

 

[crs1026]

What one has to reflect on is "Why is this now possible for GO trains, and wasn't prior?". The reason being stated is/was the danger to crew hanging off ladders on cars being shunted for switching, and getting crushed between the platform edge and the moving car. I accept that as rational, but why has it suddenly disappeared in the dialog?

It's not a satisfying answer..... but..... this kind of prohibition is railway specific and the railways are free to cancel or impose the prohibition as they choose.

There are plenty of places on the railways where riding on the outside of a car is prohibited because of tight clearance. Special instructions in the employee timetables and operating directives warn of the hazard. Every so often one hears of an accident where a worker forgot or miscalculated about a tight spot. These mishaps have been fatal. But the hazards continue to exist. A similar flip-flop concerns the practice of climbing on or alighting from a moving freight car while switching. For a while this practice was banned altogether for safety reasons, but railway management felt that switching took too long if trains stopped every time a worker needed to get on or off. So the practice was reinstated, in the interest of productivity.

I'm not saying that this is how things should be.... but you asked how could this potential hazard suddenly be determined to be acceptable? That's how.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

Has there been any evidence reported that the older bilevels are nearing end of life?

Some of the earliest units probably need to probably be decomissioned by the 2030s.

I hope not, since we need *ALL* existing existing BiLevels *AND* the EMUs (at least for the SmartTrack subset of GO RER.

The Bramalea-Aurora-Unionville subset of GO network is the currently nominally expected EMU-ization of the electric GO network according to all the documents that I have read. Even throwing in Kitchener and Stoufville allday EMUs, that doesn't free up even enough BiLevels to need to decommission or sell them yet. Assuming this continues to be the case (and no further EMUs until later on, e.g. after 2031), there's going to be no immediate decommissioning of any BiLevels.

AFAIK, we're not going to even need to sell any of the BiLevels in 2025 at first.
The first EMUs is needed above-and-beyond just to simply free up enough BiLevels (From Kitchener-Stoufville) for the rest of the 15-min allday GO elsewhere (e.g. Lakeshore, Barrie Allandale) and still have enough left for Niagara/Bowmanville, etc, and also counterpeak service.

What we already ordered in BiLevels isn't sufficient to sustain all committed GO expansions, and expected expanded frequencies, while simultaneously also achieving 15-min counterpeak service on all all-day routes.

We need to ramp the budget up dramatically for a full-EMU GO -- and we don't have the money to accelerate EMU deployment. Considering that even a 12-coach Stadler KISS carries less people than a 12-coach Bombardier BiLevel. So we'd have to go better than 15-min when we go full-EMU -- subway style 3-to-5 minute headways on all GO routes simultaneously. That's going to require one heck of a good ETC system -- to handle lower-capacity EMU trains.

The necessary moving-block signalling for a full single-deck EMU deploy will cost well over $800M, because of mandatory ultra-short headways required on all routes simultaneously. They now expect this sort of ETC well beyond 2025.

Electrified GO will thus, necessarily be a massive mix of every single BiLevel (and life-extensions of all of them), combined with the addition of EMU trainsets.

We'll probably, thus, be riding electric-loco driven Bombardier BiLevels for quite a while to come, and the Bombardier BiLevels will be providing the metro-like Lakeshore East/West service with level boarding and "15-minutes-and-better" service.

 

[steveintoronto]

this kind of prohibition is railway specific and the railways are free to cancel or impose the prohibition as they choose.

OK, then why has Metrolinx been choosing not to? Freight?

 

[crs1026]

The first EMUs is needed above-and-beyond just to simply free up enough BiLevels (From Kitchener-Stoufville) for the rest of the 15-min allday GO elsewhere (e.g. Lakeshore, Barrie Allandale) and still have enough left for Niagara/Bowmanville, etc, and also counterpeak service.
What we already ordered in BiLevels isn't sufficient to sustain all committed GO expansions, and expected expanded frequencies, while simultaneously also achieving 15-min counterpeak service on all all-day routes.

I support the idea, I'm just not so sure of the quantum. Right now there are so few turnbacks on the system. So many trains make one trip to Union in the AM and go out of service. If these trains turned back (or, more precisely, if they ran through and carried on up another line) instead of heading to the yards, we might actually need *fewer* trainsets than we do today.... with 15 minute headways everywhere.

For instance, if every inbound morning Barrie train (running on 15 minute headways) ran through to Unionville, and vice versa to Aurora, we would not need many more trains laying over at each end at night than we have today.

If we assume more express trains are added from Hamilton, and maybe Oshawa, then yeah at some point we run out of bilevels. But I bet you the math is far more favourable than one might think. Double tracking Barrie, Stouffville, and solving Georgetown will work wonders for fleet utilization. Even moreso if we solve Milton.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

I support the idea, I'm just not so sure of the quantum. Right now there are so few turnbacks on the system. So many trains make one trip to Union in the AM and go out of service. If these trains turned back (or, more precisely, if they ran through and carried on up another line) instead of heading to the yards, we might actually need *fewer* trainsets than we do today.... with 15 minute headways everywhere.

For instance, if every inbound morning Barrie train (running on 15 minute headways) ran through to Unionville, and vice versa to Aurora, we would not need many more trains laying over at each end at night than we have today.

If we assume more express trains are added from Hamilton, and maybe Oshawa, then yeah at some point we run out of bilevels. But I bet you the math is far more favourable than one might think. Double tracking Barrie, Stouffville, and solving Georgetown will work wonders for fleet utilization. Even moreso if we solve Milton.

There's certainly lots of efficiencies that can be gained, especially if we can achieve shorter dwelling at Union too -- made possible via level boarding and the ultra-wide south platform.

From what i'm seeing, the tentative plan is to interline Kitchener with the Stoufville line. Bramalea-to-Unionvile will be 15-minute EMU service. (That's one of the "SmartTrack enhancements" of GO RER) so we'll be getting through-running electric GO trains like Lakeshore East/West. I don't think Aurora/Barrie is currently going to be interlined with another line, but it could be interlined with a theoretical long-future Richmond Hill RER.

The hourly Hamilton service is supposed to be an express train service (express past Oakville), so that suggests an extra train on top of the 15-minute electrified service -- basically 5 offpeak trains in both directions going past Oakville (1 express hourly, 4 allstop 15-min) -- being the intended offpeak service plan.

I suspect that beyond ~2031, this hourly train may actually extend all the way to St. Catharines eventually, since they're looking for ways to provide 2-way train service between Hamilton and near Niagara Falls (StCat being easier all-day terminus, since it avoids the peak-only Welland Canal drawbridge 4 guaranteed slots per day).

Whatever spare bilevels exists, I bet GO will find a way to use them up. Express service plans, Niagara, Bolton, Bowmanville, etc. Once the oldest coaches needs to be truly retired (beyond 2025), that's when EMUs slowly starts taking over.

 

[smallspy]

Has there been any evidence reported that the older bilevels are nearing end of life? They have all been refurbished in North Bay, but it's not clear to me whether they were just cosmetically refreshed versus heavy rebuild. Was there a teardown that revealed any serious deterioration or aging? If not, it could be another 20 years before there is a need to replace those already 40 year old railcars.=

- Paul

Not North Bay - CAD in Montréal has had the last two rebuilding contracts, including the last scheduled rebuild for the Series I cars. They are expecting to get maybe 10 more years of life out of them.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[mdrejhon]

How many of the coaches are Series I?

And I hope they work to preserve a few for heritage purposes (in original burnt orange + leather interior -- I love those original 1978 interiors). Coach #2002 (I think?) - has its original burnt orange, so I nominate that as the candidate for preservation as a working heritage coach that keeps getting used past year 2028, its 50th anniversary.

 

[mdrejhon]

Excellent posts @mdrejhon . Utah's solution for that height and for the UTDC DDs is by far the best, albeit it's what I believe is the automatic filler. Whether or not that can be fitted as a retro-fit (IIRC, I did read that somewhere) and in combination with the present fixed treadle is a good question. I've Googled for it and failed to find it.

Utah is using BiLevels from GO Transit.

Lots of the BiLevels that were sold off during the mid-1990s GO cutbacks were purchased by Utah.

So, obviously, they've clearly been retrofitted for level boarding. If they can do it, then so can Metrolinx.

The biggest question is achieving operational compatibility with legacy low platforms on Lakeshore East/West, via solutions like an extendable step or mini-bridge-plate. Including the potential situation where a wheelchair user accidentally wheels into any door, and unable to disembark at a low platform elsewhere on GO. Such eventualities needs to be planned/accomodated for, in a (multi)generational transition from low platforms to level boarding.

I know, because I tried to hunt down where GO coaches #2000, #2001, and #2002 went -- the first 3 numbered coaches. I learned that GO coach #2001 is currently serving service on Utah's FrontRunner, and that is how I found out Utah FrontRunner is using coaches that originally ran on GO. I think it was smallspy or vegata_skyline (one of the train drivers) who said that.

 

[smallspy]

Utah is using BiLevels from GO Transit.

Lots of the BiLevels that were sold off during the mid-1990s GO cutbacks were purchased by Utah.

Not one of the BiLevel cars running in Utah is second-hand. All were purchased new from Bomardier.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[mdrejhon]

Not one of the BiLevel cars running in Utah is second-hand. All were purchased new from Bomardier.

Oops, yes, I got that one detail wrong - Doublechecked from: http://transit.toronto.on.ca/regional/2507.shtml
Thanks for the clarification.

Some of the sold-off units is in use at another commuter service, not FrontRunner.

 

[reaperexpress]

Yet another city joins the 48" high-platform club with direct service to/from Toronto:

New platform at Ottawa Station:

48-inch platforms are not an isolated quirk, they are the standard for this part of the continent. Metrolinx will need to build 48" platforms to serve intercity trains, the only question is whether they also build additional low platforms for regional trains, or whether they will convert to 48" equipment on the lines shared with VIA, UP Express or Amtrak (Kitchener and Lakeshore).