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

[mdrejhon]

What about splitting platforms in half? All of the platforms at stations to be electrified (with maybe the exception of Stouffville) are geared for 12 car trains. The remaining diesel services will not need the current train lengths in order to handle the demand from the "beyond RER" areas, so have the platforms set up so 6 cars can fit on the low platform half, and 6 RER cars can fit on the high platform half. New RER-only stations can be built just to accommodate 6-car RER trains.

Longitudally splitting platforms in half would not be good from a safety perspective for a crowded Union station.

With high platforms, you can widen the Union platforms a tiny bit too to hug the side of an subway-style EMU better, like a subway platform.

This isn't without precedent. The UPX platforms hug the train's side a tiny bit closer -- for subway style small-gap. The platform edge of UPX overhang closer to above the rail iron than the other Union tracks. With safer, wider, all-door wheelchair level boarding, on snagless subway-style trains, you REALLY do not want bilevels to transit through those very frequently, for safety purposes.

Note -- Mistakes/accidents like switch errors still harmlessly happen, or a necessary through transit of a BiLevel through these tracks from an operational error, and the rare passing won't be fatal considering the high platforms will partially prevent people from falling under the trains -- as bilevels have safely passed by the UPX station -- but you would really not want this in regular operation at all. The top of the high platform edge would -almost- (but not quite) overhang the protruding low step of the BiLevels, like it already can do at the UPX platform, when a BiLevel needs to do a transit there for any reason.

 

[muller877]

The GO floor is only about 20" above the top of the rails. It is not as standardized as 48"

HSR trains and UPX trains are 48" (four feet above the top of the rails), and SmartTrack may end up using this platform height if level boarding is chosen. The 48" height is also the VIA floor too, and at Montreal Gare Centrale.

There can be a platform raise from ~8" to ~20", but not to the needed ~48". GO trains can in theory be modified to eliminate steps, for level boarding when using ~20" platforms. However, this platform height isn't widely standardized and would be a poor long-term choice for the Kitchener line (carrying UPX, SmartTrack GO RER, and future HSR).

My thought was to add 2 more doors to the bi-level trains. They would continue to have the 20 inch doors when there are low platforms. However, they would remove all the seats above their wheelsets. They would install another set of doors here and I think the height is around 48 inches. So the new doors would be in the location of their Multilevel coach. This would mean that each car has 8 doors.

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

Depending on the height of the platform they can can service both low and high platforms. Over time we can convert to high-platform heights without having to have an all or nothing approach.

 

[gweed123]

My thought was to add 2 more doors to the bi-level trains. They would continue to have the 20 inch doors when there are low platforms. However, they would remove all the seats above their wheelsets. They would install another set of doors here and I think the height is around 48 inches. So the new doors would be in the location of their Multilevel coach. This would mean that each car has 8 doors.

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

Depending on the height of the platform they can can service both low and high platforms. Over time we can convert to high-platform heights without having to have an all or nothing approach.

But that would mean buying new diesel coaches at the same time that Metrolinx is trying to phase out diesel in favour of EMUs. The existing rolling stock needs to be accommodated, somehow.

 

[muller877]

But that would mean buying new diesel coaches at the same time that Metrolinx is trying to phase out diesel in favour of EMUs. The existing rolling stock needs to be accommodated, somehow.

Not new rolling stock...modifying the existing stock so that it works at both heights (by adding 4 extra doors to the 4 already there). Using the trains we have on longer journey's where there is no electric power. We can use the high-level doors within the RER area (including Union). And then when it gets outside of Toronto we can keep the low-platform height so freight can still use the line.

By re-using what we have we save money and we have an interim solution that doesn't require multiple platforms at certain locations.

 

[mdrejhon]

But that would mean buying new diesel coaches at the same time that Metrolinx is trying to phase out diesel in favour of EMUs. The existing rolling stock needs to be accommodated, somehow.

You can also pull the existing BiLevel trains (and new cabs) using electric locomotives, too.
This can also be an option if the catenary at Union can fit them, and there are routes warranting the huge trains (e.g. peak expresses in corridors that can sustain them).

If we get trains that can service two different platform heights, and can pull it off without capacity constraints, then that could make a lot of sense.

Realistically I think if high platforms are involved, it may go fully high platforms.
e.g.
- Some tracks at Union become high platforms, to service an ultrahighfrequency 5-minute service.
- Infill stations become high-platform only. BiLevels would go express past these.
- Interchange stations such as Kennedy would have both low and high platforms.
- Some stations like Weston might be converted to exclusively high platforms, as an infill station that continues to exist alongside Eglinton (especially if UPX merges with SmartTrack/RER)

In this scenario, we wouldn't need trainsets that had dual platform heights.

That said, transition planning will be a killer (i.e. engineering clever partial station closures during platform height conversion).

 

[rbt]

I suppose it depends on what kind of EMUs they choose. The better question is: will they determine the EMU based off of the preferred platform height, or will they determine platform height based off the preferred EMU? Regardless, those decisions need to be made in tandem.

As much as I would like high-floor platforms, I'm almost certain they'll be keeping existing platform heights.

The bridge requirement to the wheelchair ramps isn't accidental. Any GO line which carries freight will need low-floor platforms or a fast automated bridge mechanism in all cars. A single freight that runs once per month (some weird legacy factory run) shouldn't require it but we seem to build in extra tolerance anyway.

That said, we could get Union closer to a level entry/exit with a low-floor car by lowering the tracks a bit.

 

[mdrejhon]

As much as I would like high-floor platforms, I'm almost certain they'll be keeping existing platform heights.

The bridge requirement to the wheelchair ramps isn't accidental. Any GO line which carries freight will need low-floor platforms or a fast automated bridge mechanism in all cars. A single freight that runs once per month (some weird legacy factory run) shouldn't require it but we seem to build in extra tolerance anyway

How did we get high platforms for UPX at Bloor, Weston, and Union?

Transport Canada has also indicated they might waiver things for GO, in some PDFs I have read in the past - e.g. The use of non-FRA train sets may become possible if specific conditions are met.

Theoretically, freight could be made to accidentally run past those existing UPX platform edges too. And freight trains are severely speed-limited through the USRC corridor and typically bypass the shed, on the southernmost track, away from the platforms. Do they ever go through the shed, even accidentally?

What if just half the tracks receive high platforms at Union?

If not safe enough, what about USRC resignalling to maybe enable Positive Train Control (automatic computerized train stopping upon a fault) to add a layer of safety including such cases of a rare (monthly) freight train run -- which would be forced to crawl at ultras slow speeds -- and auto stop if accidentally approaching the shed instead of the southernmost bypass track? Banning all non-PTC trains from the USRC is one way to solve this, so all trains automatically slow or stop on a rule violation (like no freights allowed thru shed, or GO train over speed limit, or attempt to pass all-red signal). This might allow Transport Canada to accept a high platform initiative? It is my understanding that the Weston corridor resignalling (GTS Peoject) made that section PTC compatible, though not live.

 

[smallspy]

First off, if you make the platforms higher you need to make them narrower, not wider. The loading gauge flares out around the "belt line" of the cars.

Second, I'm not convinced that the 48" high level platform is the best answer for GO service. Utah uses BiLevel cars and their platforms are at the same height as the lower floors of their cars. Now, admittedly I don't know how it works with freights on their lines, but to me this seems like a hell of a lot less work, effort and money to modify stations to that standard than retrofitting all of them to 48" high.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Hairball]

First off, if you make the platforms higher you need to make them narrower, not wider. The loading gauge flares out around the "belt line" of the cars.

Second, I'm not convinced that the 48" high level platform is the best answer for GO service. Utah uses BiLevel cars and their platforms are at the same height as the lower floors of their cars. Now, admittedly I don't know how it works with freights on their lines, but to me this seems like a hell of a lot less work, effort and money to modify stations to that standard than retrofitting all of them to 48" high.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Hmm.. even if GO had something like the Utah train platforms, that's a pretty good compromise, and would help with boarding times. Though are there EMUs that are of that height?

http://sites.ieee.org/sustech/files/2014/12/UTA-FrontRunner-2_web.jpg

 

[mdrejhon]

First off, if you make the platforms higher you need to make them narrower, not wider. The loading gauge flares out around the "belt line" of the cars.

What about the scenario of having positive train control? With PTC, all freight trains be prevented from entering the shed (can only move on the south bypass), and only single-level subway-style EMUs say, for half of the shed.

In this case, wouldn't the platform width restrictions become a nonissue here, and be caterable to the trainset in a theoretical all-EMU fleet for specific tracks? It seems the freight trains are already rare at Union Station and may even be virtually nonexistent in USRC in 15 years, depending on all the freight transit requirements by then.

It seems Transport Canada has indicated possible flexibility with FRA restrictions, if specific conditions are met. (Example for non-FRA trainsets) Now imagine that flexibility spills over to this, too...

Theoretically: Let's say, 15 years timeline (more or less), fully grade separated inner electric GO network owned by Metrolinx with active PTC, and freight become even more rare or nonexistent by then, flexibility is found, a unified EMU fleet is chosen, and Union is modified to fit the EMU fleet. And, in any accidential BiLevel transit through a high platform, in theory, the train's protruding lower step would just pass almost underneath the protruding wider high platform. (And by then I'd consider it a PTC failure -- and even so, we'd hope PTC has already tried to stop the train, or made it so slow it's not rocking into platform edges). Conceptually, the Metrolinx rail network may someday begin to more resemble a surface metro-commuter network with its own modified rules, just like any physically separate subway system. At least for a partitioned portion of the USRC and sections serviced by the EMUs...

Currently, I'm talking theoretically, of course.

What's your opinion in that theoretical scenario?

 

[gweed123]

Hmm.. even if GO had something like the Utah train platforms, that's a pretty good compromise, and would help with boarding times. Though are there EMUs that are of that height?

http://sites.ieee.org/sustech/files/2014/12/UTA-FrontRunner-2_web.jpg

I could go for that. Basically it brings all platforms up to the height of the current wheelchair platforms.

 

[Hairball]

I could go for that. Basically it brings all platforms up to the height of the current wheelchair platforms.

Yeah, it's kind of ridiculous how they build those wheelchair platforms, it should be level the whole way, for better boarding. And even at the wheelchair platform the CSA puts a board down for you to walk on.

I wonder if there's a reason it is done that way, maybe they aren't allowed to have the train hug the platform that close?

 

[mdrejhon]

I wonder if there's a reason it is done that way, maybe they aren't allowed to have the train hug the platform that close?

Transport Canada / FRA restrictions as I understand it. (Correct me if I am wrong).

i.e. The platforms need to safely permit rocking freight trains to pass through!

But my opinion is this is not necessarily permanently ironclad for eternity. Conceptually, imagine Metrolinx-owned trackage slowly inheriting its own independent set of rules like a physically separate subway system, via mechanisms such as Transport Canada waivers (whether 5 years, 10 years, or 100 years from now) and slow discontinuation of legacy freight service on Metrolinx-owned sections of corridors.

This isn't going to be quick, but let's assume a fully-owned, electrified, grade-separated inner Metrolinx rail network (maybe utilizing only some of the tracks, e.g. half the Georgetown Corridor width) with lots of safety mechanisms added to it (e.g. Positive Train Control).

It begs the question -- is this process (additional cost-plus requirements above and beyond RER funded ones) easier to achieve than say, building the Union tunnel (separate from DRL) and/or new Bathurst station?

 

[mdrejhon]

EDIT:
-- There are several references to Positive Train Control by Metrolinx as a RER/electrification requirement, like this slide.
-- MERX Tender for the USRC resignalling seems to describe a mechanism similiar to what I'm thinking of: automation and computer-based interlocking. (This seems highly suggestive of PTC compatibility)

Now, I wonder.... If that might someday qualify for the suggested Transport Canada waiver but also apply it to Union platform widths, allowing us to go to subway/Euro-style loading gauge standards instead of FRA/freight loading gauge standards? The PTC would prevent freight trains from entering the Union shed trackage, solving the problem. And consequently, flexibility in wider Union platform widths hugging a high-floor EMU? What are the betting-man odds?

Technically, PTC could also prevent freight trains from going under tracks that has catenary, but I don't think that's necessary -- in Europe, freight trains go underneath catenary -- and can be achieved by mandated clearance rules. But it would also help solve the Union shed tightness issue too for the catenary, too, if we're no longer worried about freight trains going through the shed, too (thanks to the PTC system).

For the relevant hinted Transport Canada waiver text that may theoretically affect loading gauge:

Transport Canada has recently indicated that they may be more flexible with the FRA structural strength requirements, which might open opportunities for GO to study a broader range of European and Asian EMUs and DMUs. Specifically, they stated their intent to require new GO vehicles to either:

• Meet FRA structure strength and crash worthiness for passenger cars, or
• Maintain temporal separation from freight and heavy rail passenger traffic, or
• Operate under some form of Positive Train Control (PTC) signalling system.

 

[rbt]

Utah uses BiLevel cars and their platforms are at the same height as the lower floors of their cars. Now, admittedly I don't know how it works with freights on their lines, but to me this seems like a hell of a lot less work, effort and money to modify stations to that standard than retrofitting all of them to 48" high.

You're talking about the FrontRunner right? I don't recall ever seeing a freight train in the platform tracks for those. For most of the corridor they have a single dedicated track and use sidings or stations for passing other FrontRunner trains.

The freight traffic are usually in an additional pair of tracks that run adjacent to stations. I've only used the system a half dozen times but I can't think of a obvious location where freight would pass through a Frontrunner station in normal operations.

They do have problem with people climbing over freight trains in order to enter/exit the station to catch the FrontRunner train at the station. Seems increasingly common in Provo where freight trains sometimes park blocking intersections for 30+ minutes.