kettal
Banned
But will the latter be allowed to share station platforms with the current fleet? One likely scenario is that the first EMU trains would have a certain number of current-model bilevels mixed in the trainset.
|
|
|
MoveOntario 2020: GO Transit Electrification
- Thread starter Hipster Duck
- Start date
But will the latter be allowed to share station platforms with the current fleet? One likely scenario is that the first EMU trains would have a certain number of current-model bilevels mixed in the trainset.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
Yes. The latter (new vehicles for low platform) would mean no change to the stations or operating procedure. When I think GO EMU the first thing that comes to mind is a GO cab car with a electric motor taking up parts of the lower level. It would probably come in trains of three or four with unpowered coaches between two power cars.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
The problem with a train that isn't accessible throughout goes beyond entry problems. When a specific car is full in an accessible train you can easily go to the next car for space after the train is already in motion. This is a problem even now with bikes where only one is permitted per door (four per car) and if the four spaces are taken you need to go to the next car. If stops are kept short there is no time to check multiple cars for space.
waterloowarrior
Senior Member
Metrolinx Community Advisory Committee seeking input into electrification study
Metrolinx is working with a Community Advisory Committee to develop the Terms of Reference to study electrification of the GO rail system.
*
The Big Move, Metrolinx’s 25-year integrated regional transportation plan, identified both Express Rail, which would typically use electric motive power, and Regional Rail as part of our overall plan for faster, more frequent and reliable rapid transit expansion.
*
The study will consider options to conventional train technology, such as electrification, as well as other fuel technologies. It will examine the benefits, cost comparisons and provide recommendations.
*
Categories for consideration are:
·************** Technology
·************** Community and health impacts
·************** Capacities
·************** Land use planning
·************** System costs, funding, financing and delivery
·************** Ridership and usage of transit
*
As part of their work, the Community Advisory Committee is seeking public input on what questions should be addressed in the electrification study and how they should be evaluated. This input will be considered by the Community Advisory Committee in early September. Please submit your input before Thursday, September 3, 2009.
*
For input: Electrification public consultation form http://www.metrolinx.com/electrification/input.aspx
Metrolinx is working with a Community Advisory Committee to develop the Terms of Reference to study electrification of the GO rail system.
*
The Big Move, Metrolinx’s 25-year integrated regional transportation plan, identified both Express Rail, which would typically use electric motive power, and Regional Rail as part of our overall plan for faster, more frequent and reliable rapid transit expansion.
*
The study will consider options to conventional train technology, such as electrification, as well as other fuel technologies. It will examine the benefits, cost comparisons and provide recommendations.
*
Categories for consideration are:
·************** Technology
·************** Community and health impacts
·************** Capacities
·************** Land use planning
·************** System costs, funding, financing and delivery
·************** Ridership and usage of transit
*
As part of their work, the Community Advisory Committee is seeking public input on what questions should be addressed in the electrification study and how they should be evaluated. This input will be considered by the Community Advisory Committee in early September. Please submit your input before Thursday, September 3, 2009.
*
For input: Electrification public consultation form http://www.metrolinx.com/electrification/input.aspx
Long Island Mike
Senior Member
Go Transit Rail Electrification...
Everyone: I have wanted to chime in for a while here after reading about
GO Transit's desire to electrify part or all of its Rail system.
I noticed high-level platforms mentioned - the problem here is much of GO's
Rail System is shared with CN and CP freight traffic and the fact that GO as many realize has NO high level platforms. CN and CP may object to their use on their freight lines.
The only line in my opinion to justify high level platforms would be the Lakeshore Line on tracks used by only passenger trains of GO and VIA segregating freight trains to other tracks.
High-leveling GO would be a major investment requiring gauntlet tracks at some stations used by freight trains and all-new rail equipment systemwide. This obviously would be in ADDITION to the megabucks spent to electrify the system.
I feel that the Lakeshore Line being the backbone of the GO Rail system should have a mix of MU and locomotive-hauled trains - the NJ Transit ALP46A would be a good choice for a fleet of electric locomotives possibly
and perhaps the NJT/AMT Multilevel car may be a good fit if GO would need
more rail cars.
In closing I am all for expanding and improving the GO Rail system but will the vast expense justify all that would be needed here?
Thoughts by LI MIKE
Everyone: I have wanted to chime in for a while here after reading about
GO Transit's desire to electrify part or all of its Rail system.
I noticed high-level platforms mentioned - the problem here is much of GO's
Rail System is shared with CN and CP freight traffic and the fact that GO as many realize has NO high level platforms. CN and CP may object to their use on their freight lines.
The only line in my opinion to justify high level platforms would be the Lakeshore Line on tracks used by only passenger trains of GO and VIA segregating freight trains to other tracks.
High-leveling GO would be a major investment requiring gauntlet tracks at some stations used by freight trains and all-new rail equipment systemwide. This obviously would be in ADDITION to the megabucks spent to electrify the system.
I feel that the Lakeshore Line being the backbone of the GO Rail system should have a mix of MU and locomotive-hauled trains - the NJ Transit ALP46A would be a good choice for a fleet of electric locomotives possibly
and perhaps the NJT/AMT Multilevel car may be a good fit if GO would need
more rail cars.
In closing I am all for expanding and improving the GO Rail system but will the vast expense justify all that would be needed here?
Thoughts by LI MIKE
Last edited:
SunriseChampion
Senior Member
Without wishing to elaborate: yes.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I actually think improvements to GO would offer significantly higher dividends over subway construction. If GO and TTC services (and fares) were fully integrated, we might even see some relief of Yonge/Bloor. After all, why would any Scarborough resident want to spend an hour with the bus and subway instead of a half hour on the GO train to get downtown. We need a S-Bahn type service from GO. And that will require electrification. I say GO for it!
Dan416
Senior Member
Agreed 100%
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
^^ I concur as well.
Actually, for maybe the first time in my life, I saw someone get off the Stouffville Go train at Kennedy today. From downtown, it saves about 5 or 10 minutes and puts you short of $6, but with electrification and fare integration, it could save you a good 20 minutes and might actually save you some money too!
Actually, for maybe the first time in my life, I saw someone get off the Stouffville Go train at Kennedy today. From downtown, it saves about 5 or 10 minutes and puts you short of $6, but with electrification and fare integration, it could save you a good 20 minutes and might actually save you some money too!
kEiThZ
Superstar
Having spent the weekend in Vienna, I have come to loathe our lack of S-Bahn type service even more. It's really not the holes in the subway that make people drive. It's the holes in GO Train services. The Europeans build dense subway networks in the core but it's S-bahn that's the killer app of public transit elsewhere.
jwill
Active Member
True, you dont see european cities extending their subway networks into far-flung suburbs like Toronto is doing. Thats S-Bahn territory.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Where are all the S-Bahn types on the Yonge and Spadina extension threads a few weeks ago when I was trying to make the very same point. Any subway trip greater than say 30 km (rough #) should probably be served (and served better) with an S Bahn or commuter rail network.
golodhendil
Active Member
People did indicate their support for both subway extensions and GO improvements occurring concurrently, and for the Yonge extension at least the subway is intended to serve as much as a North York - York local service.
nfitz
Superstar
To be fair ... many European cities extended into far-flung suburbs decades ago. With greenbelts there, you don't see the same kind of suburban growth there, as you do here ... what you tend to get is satellite towns that are separated from the main cities by green areas; and subway isn't appropriate.
And also to be fair, London is looking at extending both the Bakerloo line back to Watford Junction, and also constructing a 4-station extension on the Metropolitan line from Croxley to Watford Junction (I somehow doubt they will do both). Which is a perfect example of extending a subway network to a far-flung suburb. Watford is about 28 km from Charing Cross. Go the same distance north of Union and you are Elgin Mills Road.
Last edited:
Disparishun
Active Member
Right. So where you have isolated pockets of urbanity, with large chunks of greenbelt or other non-development between them, you don't want to be connecting them with subway.
That's certainly not the case of the Spadina and, in particular, Yonge extensions, however. So the answer to your question is pretty simple -- the S-Bahn or commuter rail network is not the solution to the problems that the Yonge and Spadina extensions are responding to.