News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 86     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
News Roundup for July 12, 2024
 272     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Hoist, Hoisted
 582     0 

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

Hairball said:
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
Click to expand...

If they're getting built for us, no reason why GO can't specify that height. Or just about any height, really.

mdrejhon said:
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.
Click to expand...

PTC is not a panacea. It's not even some sort of magic pill or lotion. You don't need PTC to prevent trains from entering the trainshed. Physics is the problem, and you're certainly not going to overcome that with PTC.

rbt said:
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.
Click to expand...

I've never seen photos of freights past the platforms, but they must as there are a number of industries that are only serviceable from the FrontRunner tracks. That they are probably servicing the industries at night probably also makes it more difficult to photo.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Surely all the stations could be extended a mere 10 meters so why don't they just electrify the line and use 5 car subway trains and make it part of ST? It seems so simple.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Surely all the stations could be extended a mere 10 meters so why don't they just electrify the line and use 5 car subway trains and make it part of ST? It seems so simple.
Click to expand...
Gee!! Have you look that these station in person and if so, no way in hell they can be extended 10 meter for Union?? Why 10m when you need more??

ST on this line is a "JOKE considering the corridor will be 100% electrify in the first place"

You can't extend to the west at Union without interfering with the switches. Going east will be on the curve and being narrow.

You have major issues at both Bloor and Weston to the point you will have to make the new GO Platform longer and forcing riders to walk further. The centre Platform at Weston can be length north, but may interfere with the grade slope.

You can add 1 car at Pearson with some work.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Surely all the stations could be extended a mere 10 meters so why don't they just electrify the line and use 5 car subway trains and make it part of ST? It seems so simple.
Click to expand...
I find it amazing that you've been going on and on and on about how this line can be converted virtually overnight, but you don't even seem to know what was actually constructed for the UP Express. Sort of reminds me of the Eglinton West heavy rail proposal, actually.
 
Let's imagine a post-RER era where we somehow ended up choosing a shorter trainset similar to Stadler KISS (6-coach bilevel EMUs) one which is compatible with both current low platforms (one stairstep up) and slightly raised platforms (level boarding). Say, theoretically.

I imagine if we decide to use shorter 150 meter trains of any kind (bilevel or single, low floor or high floor) -- we'd use the double-berthing technique. Trains would go off in opposite directions.

Use the hour before peak hour to preload Union nearly full of these trains. Then run them outwards at higher (post-USRC-resignalling) frequencies than normally attainable if they had to contend with frequent incoming trains. We already run LSW at 7.5 minute peak, thanks to the station-preberthing technique which Metrolinx already does today.

Run 150 meter trains double-berthed during peak (Union preloaded pre-peak), but run them as single-berthed through service (LSE-LSW and Bramalea-Stoufville) during offpeak. Like today's LSE-LSW. But with shorter trains, single-berthed would ideally be roughly centered under glass atrium with first coach right above westmost Bay Concourse stairs, to minimize distance for TTC users. With 15-minute offpeak service, using 12-coach trainsets probably is excessive as they often run less than half empty offpeak.

The Metrolinx 2031 document projects we should be able to roughly roughly double USRC throughput after a bunch of optimizations (resignalling included). So the 7.5 minute peak possibly become 5 minute and similiar (5-7.5 minutes for another) -- assuming UPX, during electrification of itself, ended up discontinuing as a separate-train separate-station service to give bandwidth for a unified larger-train RER service.

The high frequencies would not be sustainable beyond peak, if using the station-preberthing technique (and reduced incoming-trains-frequency) since it is only a temporary spike in outgoing frequency from the reduced incoming USRC contention and stock of trains preberthed into Union.

Whether it's doable within the RER budget is a legitimate question, obviously.
 
Last edited:
OK OK, so run 80 or 90 meter subway trains. That's still 4 to 4.5 subway car service.

The stations are there so all it needs is electrification. If UPX is being electrified then just replace the current DMU with subway trains and run it as a TTC service. That's basically the entire western portion built for little money or effort. You can add stations as funds become available.
 
ssiguy, have we not been over before why subway cars can't run into Union and cross tracks FRA trains are operating on? Last time you wanted to send them to Stouffville I think. Are you just on a mission to annoy people?

Unless the GTAA rollercoaster is ripped out, UPX isn't getting any longer. So 3 car EMU Multilevels (hello NJ Transit could you please get on with ordering some so there's a design ready to go kthxbai) is about as dense as it's gonna get until/unless that happens.
 
Subways run on regular railway track all the time. Catenary subways are common thru out the world. The entire Hong Kong, Delhi, Barcelona, Singapore METRO systems {not suburban rail}, and most of Tokyo's run on regular rail track powered by overhead catenary. In fact overhead catenary is a superior system in mostly outdoor lines as they are less susceptible to down time than third rail as third rail has issues when snowing or with flooding. They are also better for maintenance and safety as crews do not have to worry about electrification when servicing other rail tracks along the corridor.

80 meter stations equates to 4 subway cars.......not extremely high capacity but certainly decent. If the stations are 85 meters then a 90 meter train with "hangover" at each end would result in a 90 meter subway train. Even with only one track station at Union, they could still run every 6 or 7 minutes easy.

As far as Transport Canada, I think Toronto could probably get a waiver as it Metrolinx owns the tracks, much of the track is UPX only from Weston, it doesn't share stations with GO or VIA, it's totally grade separated, and cargo rail along the corridor is now quite low and slow moving. I think if they wanted to Toronto could pull some political strings and get a waiver due to these rather unique conditions.

"Technically" it's the same as running a catenary subway on CP rail thru Saskatchewan but in reality they have nearly nothing in common and I'm sure Transport Canada would acknowledge this and be more flexible and may require improvements to the corridor overtime but I'm sure they won't treat it like a subway going thru the Prairies.
 
BTW.............Toronto's closest subway kin is not Montreal but Cleveland and Cleveland's sole subway, The Red Line, uses 100% catenary power. Also the Red Line also serves the airport with a few stops Hopkins International and downtown going thru mostly older rail corridor.

The best example of a surface subway to the airport is your next door neighbour.
 
Just did a little fact finding and found something I didn't know.

Railway regulations are federal and provincial {which I knew} but I didn't know that federal regulations only apply to interprovincial, international, or national importance lines. Seeing the Georgetown corridor is not any of these things it comes under PROVINCIAL safety regulations.............in other words, Wynne.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top