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

[ARG1]

You think Metrolinx would spend hundreds of millions of dollars raising platforms to 1220mm after they already have level boarding at 610mm?!

I agree that 1220mm level boarding has rolling stock advantages over 610mm level boarding but there's absolutely no way those benefits would justify hundreds of millions of dollars (billions?) in station upgrades.


The single-level rolling stock with low-platform level boarding tends to use Jacobs Bogies to provide a low floor throughout the coach. The floor between the coaches is slightly higher, and connected by a ramp. Jacobs bogies don't need a central mounting point like conventional bogies, so passengers can actually pass between the wheels. Although these trains tend not to have more than 2 doors per car side, they have a shorter car length which results in more doors per train length than our current Bilevels.

Stadler FLIRT of Nederlandse Spoorwegen

Stadler FLIRT of TexRail (which includes 610mm level boarding). The wheels are located under these seats.

Today? Absolutely not. But when is the last bilevel going out of commission? 30-40 years from now? That's a long time you know.

 

[reaperexpress]

Today? Absolutely not. But when is the last bilevel going out of commission? 30-40 years from now? That's a long time you know.

I'm also talking about 30-40 years from now. By then there will already be network-wide level boarding at 610mm. Upgrading to 1220mm will be an enormous task - even larger than the current task of introducing 610mm platforms.

In contrast the net cost of going directly from our current 127mm platforms to 1220mm platforms is not that much higher than the cost of going from 126mm to 610mm.

 

[ARG1]

I'm also talking about 30-40 years from now. By then there will already be network-wide level boarding at 610mm. Upgrading to 1220mm will be an enormous task - even larger than the current task of introducing 610mm platforms.

In contrast the net cost of going directly from our current 127mm platforms to 1220mm platforms is not that much higher than the cost of going from 126mm to 610mm.

Sure but it doesn't have to be done all at once. The whole point of having dual level boarding is that you have flexibility in how it is set up. For instance you can start with the stations that are shared with VIA, raise the platforms on those lines, and then over time raise the platforms on more and more stations.

 

[smallspy]

In contrast the net cost of going directly from our current 127mm platforms to 1220mm platforms is not that much higher than the cost of going from 126mm to 610mm.

I don't think that is true at all.

There are a lot of places where there is simply not enough room to build a ramp from 127mm to 1220mm. What do you do there? Stairs are applicable in some, sure, but most certainly not at existing ramps or at elevators. It seems to me that that ultimate answer at those locations is rebuilding the elevator as a whole, and that's certainly a heck of a lot more expensive than just building a ramp out of cheap materials such as concrete or dirt+asphalt.

Dan

 

[reaperexpress]

I don't think that is true at all.

There are a lot of places where there is simply not enough room to build a ramp from 127mm to 1220mm. What do you do there? Stairs are applicable in some, sure, but most certainly not at existing ramps or at elevators. It seems to me that that ultimate answer at those locations is rebuilding the elevator as a whole, and that's certainly a heck of a lot more expensive than just building a ramp out of cheap materials such as concrete or dirt+asphalt.

Dan

Most platforms on the lines shared with VIA are accessed by stairs/elevators, not ramps, and those which are accessed by ramps tend to be the ones where there is abundant space. So the question is really how many of the existing elevators could stay where they are despite 610mm boarding. I think the answer is not that many, given that so many stations are being reconstructed anyway.

Take for example the number of future platforms on the Stouffville line which were reused from the pre-2015 stations:

Number of platforms in future (number of those which are the currently existing platforms)
East Harbour: 3 platforms, (0 existing)
Danforth: 3 platforms (0 or 1 existing, depending on design)
Kennedy: 2 platforms (0 existing*)
Agincourt: 2 platforms (0 existing*)
Milliken: 2 platforms (0 existing*)
Unionville: 2 platforms (0 existing**)
Centennial: 1 platform (1 existing)
Markham: 1 platform (1 existing)
Mount Joy: 2 platforms (0 existing**)
Stouffville: 1 platform (1 existing)
Lincolnville / Tree in the Parking Lot: 1 platform (0 existing)

* these platforms exist now, but didn't exist prior to GO expansion
** one platform existed prior to GO expansion, but the elevators did not

By my reckoning, only 3 or 4 of the 20 platforms which will be in place post-GO expansion are using the same vertical circulation which existed prior to GO Expansion.

If we had decided on 1220mm platforms five years ago, these stations could have been built at 1220mm from scratch, which is only marginally more expensive than building to 610mm. However, as I stated in my earlier post, the ship on 1220mm has already sailed, and we should instead be focusing on keeping the political pressure on the upgrade to 610mm.

 

[smallspy]

Most platforms on the lines shared with VIA are accessed by stairs/elevators, not ramps, and those which are accessed by ramps tend to be the ones where there is abundant space. So the question is really how many of the existing elevators could stay where they are despite 610mm boarding. 1220mm platforms would definitely require a bunch of elevator reconstructions.

But will those same platforms still have enough space to handle a 48" high platform? Some will, certainly. But I'm also sure that there are others (such as the stops along the Stouffville Line) where the station locations are far more constrained and so ramps would be built to the impediment of other station facilities such as parking.

Without thinking about it too hard, I can think of both Danforth and Scarborough needing far more major work in order to accommodate 48" high platforms, such as the replacement of elevators at both. Both have had major work in the past 15 years, and can handle the 610mm standard with little effort. And I'm sure that there are many others, too.

Dan

 

[reaperexpress]

But will those same platforms still have enough space to handle a 48" high platform? Some will, certainly. But I'm also sure that there are others (such as the stops along the Stouffville Line) where the station locations are far more constrained and so ramps would be built to the impediment of other station facilities such as parking.

Yes, at this point it would be impractical to upgrade the Stouffville line stations to 1220mm. That's why the key is that this decision on level boarding platform height needed to be made 5-10 years ago, before we built those stations. And that decision was indeed made 5-10 years ago, and the answer was 610mm. And now it is too late to change that.

Without thinking about it too hard, I can think of both Danforth and Scarborough needing far more major work in order to accommodate 48" high platforms, such as the replacement of elevators at both. Both have had major work in the past 15 years, and can handle the 610mm standard with little effort. And I'm sure that there are many others, too.

Regardless of the platform height, most of the platforms at Danforth and Scarborough are being rebuilt as part of GO Expansion. The platforms at Danforth are being shifted to accommodate at 4th track, and the north platform at Scarborough needs to be shifted southward if the rail-to-rail component of the Scarborough Junction Grade Separation is cancelled but the road-to-rail components proceed.

 

[rbt]

You think Metrolinx would spend hundreds of millions of dollars raising platforms to 1220mm after they already have level boarding at 610mm?!

Do you think TTC would spend $1.5B expanding Bloor/Yonge after having gone through an expansion already?

Short answer is yes, if there is a solid ridership business case for increasing rush-hour throughput by ~10% on a line then GO will move to mid-deck level boarding. Middle-aged Gen Alpha will just say the X/Millennials that implemented RER were cheap/idiots and pay for the change.

When the alternatives on the table are 18-car trains or separating the line out of Union (underground tunnel under Harbour), changing platforms heights is cheap.

Of course, I presume Metrolinx will continue to have significant increases in customer demand and GO-RER won't end up like today's Chicago Metra.

 

[ARG1]

Of course, I presume Metrolinx will continue to have significant increases in customer demand and GO-RER won't end up like today's Chicago Metra.

Context?

 

[rbt]

Context?

Metra Electric has decreased ridership since 1974 when private companies abandoned the services (RTA was formed and took them over), but the diesel commuter services have grown ridership quite a bit over the same time period.

Basically, Chicago runs the similar service today as in 1970 (last round of electrified service upgrades) because there's no passenger demand for improved service.

 

[smallspy]

Yes, at this point it would be impractical to upgrade the Stouffville line stations to 1220mm. That's why the key is that this decision on level boarding platform height needed to be made 5-10 years ago, before we built those stations. And that decision was indeed made 5-10 years ago, and the answer was 610mm. And now it is too late to change that.

So if they're stuck with a 610mm standard, and it is reasonably impractical/unlikely to use different rolling stock on the different lines for any number of different reasons (with the exception of electrification and the assuption that there will be new rolling stock being ordered for it).....

Why are we having this discussion?

Regardless of the platform height, most of the platforms at Danforth and Scarborough are being rebuilt as part of GO Expansion. The platforms at Danforth are being shifted to accommodate at 4th track, and the north platform at Scarborough needs to be shifted southward if the rail-to-rail component of the Scarborough Junction Grade Separation is cancelled but the road-to-rail components proceed.

Danforth is "shifting" about 200 feet to the east - meaning that about 900 feet of the existing platforms isn't going anywhere.

As for Scarborough, the north platform didn't have to go anywhere with the rail-rail grade separation, so what makes you think that it has to if they aren't going ahead with that part of it? Remember that the rail-rail grade separation project also called for grade-separating the level crossing at Danforth Road.

Dan

 

[ARG1]

So if they're stuck with a 610mm standard, and it is reasonably impractical/unlikely to use different rolling stock on the different lines for any number of different reasons (with the exception of electrification and the assuption that there will be new rolling stock being ordered for it).....

Why are we having this discussion?

I brought up the possibility of doing something similar to Caltrain/Exo/NJTransit where we order EMUs that have dual height boarding so that in the future when the last bilevels retire, we can begin raising some station platforms to high floor - a project that would be done 30-40 years from now.

Caltrain Stadler KISS for reference:

 

[reaperexpress]

So if they're stuck with a 610mm standard, and it is reasonably impractical/unlikely to use different rolling stock on the different lines for any number of different reasons (with the exception of electrification and the assuption that there will be new rolling stock being ordered for it).....

Why are we having this discussion?

This is a very good question...

Danforth is "shifting" about 200 feet to the east - meaning that about 900 feet of the existing platforms isn't going anywhere.

As for Scarborough, the north platform didn't have to go anywhere with the rail-rail grade separation, so what makes you think that it has to if they aren't going ahead with that part of it? Remember that the rail-rail grade separation project also called for grade-separating the level crossing at Danforth Road.

Dan

I don't think we've seen any plans for Scarborough Grade Separation without the rail-to-rail component, but if it were deleted as Verster unofficially suggested, both of the Stouffville tracks would rise out of the tunnel under Danforth on the north side of the station, as opposed to the previous plan where one track merged in on each side of the Lakeshore corridor. It looks like there isn't space for two tracks on the north side, so they may choose to shift the current north platform south by one track.

 

[smallspy]

I brought up the possibility of doing something similar to Caltrain/Exo/NJTransit where we order EMUs that have dual height boarding so that in the future when the last bilevels retire, we can begin raising some station platforms to high floor - a project that would be done 30-40 years from now.

Okay........

Why?

Metrolinx has set their future standard as 610mm. No doubt that they've also communicated that to the various companies involved in tendering.

I don't think we've seen any plans for Scarborough Grade Separation without the rail-to-rail component, but if it were deleted as Verster unofficially suggested, both of the Stouffville tracks would rise out of the tunnel under Danforth on the north side of the station, as opposed to the previous plan where one track merged in on each side of the Lakeshore corridor. It looks like there isn't space for two tracks on the north side, so they may choose to shift the current north platform south by one track.

Ahhhh, that's fair.

And I don't think that any roll plans/diagrams/plates/etc have yet been made public - if there were any ready to be made public.

But considering that they were going to be building a new bridge on the east side of the tracks over St. Clair, I don't see why they couldn't build a new one on the west as well.

I guess we shall see....

Dan

 

[tsm1072]

Okay........

Why?

Metrolinx has set their future standard as 610mm. No doubt that they've also communicated that to the various companies involved in tendering.

It seems the discussion is whether 610mm was the right call as opposed to 1220mm. Will GO ever reach a volume where their throughput is limited by the 610mm standard? I would say maybe at a few stations during peak demand. But low floor EMU's should be sufficient for the 'metro-style' routes and it probably was never worth the cost of having to convert an entire network for the benefit of a couple of stations.