Finally, there is zero chance GO will switch platform heights, the cost is far to much for to little gain. As i hope i have convinced you, single level trains can't help GO. So if we are stuck using bi-level, they will have longer dwell times due to their nature. Changing the platform heights wont help them unload faster.
I agree that using 12-car bilevel trains for off peak service is likely uneconomical. But buying a redundant fleet of single level equipment to use off-peak, while the bilevels sit idle, is equally uneconomical.
TL;DR:
- Locomotive-pulled BiLevels do accelerate faster, but not as fast as EMUs
- Unpowered BiLevels can be a waste of corridor capacity on UPX trackage as they can't run tight headways ahead/behind UPX EMUs
- the fleet is not redundant.
- we'll need all the bilevels (and upcoming) and all the RER EMU trains operating concurrently (at peak).
- fleet requirement is beyond even BiLevel coaches/cabs on order;
- 15-min AD2W (All Day 2-Way) consumes more trains than 15-min peak-only-direction.
- Assign the BiLevels for Lakeshore RER, and EMUs for Kitchener-Stoufville RER. Lakeshore bidirectional 15-min AD2W consume all the new coaches (and then some); requiring fleet expansion for 15-min AD2W elsewhere.
- so many planned services on Kitchener corridor; not enough corridor capacity if using BiLevels for 15-min allstop RER service.
- tight spacing of GO RER stops (if this SmartTrack element is kept) is inefficient even with electric locomotives; need EMUs;
- Multiple research papers show high platforms DO shorten dwell times. France uses short subway-style dwell times with their lines using high-platform EMU RER trains (both single and double deck).
- If EMU forces platform height change,
ONLY SEVEN pre-existing GO stations (plus a platform or two at Union) require platform height upgrades.
- better ability to tightly slot many similiar-service trains between UPX trains (e.g. EMU behind EMU);
- may not be able to reliably run Barrie/Kitchener/UPX/expresses concurrently in _both_ directions at high-frequencies.
Long Reply:
In the proposed service plan, there's hourly allday service to many endpoints while the RER section is 15 minutes. This suggests they would run the bilevels all day long, but going express past many RER stations. And that not all RER trains would remain permanently bilevels. To take full advantage of electrification, you'd want to plan to involve EMUs for faster acceleration for high frequency service in station-dense routes (e.g. SmartTrack infill stations). The BiLevels may end up not being economical (even for peak period service) when using denser station spacing, ala Kitchener-Stoufville RER with the SmartTrack element of triple the number of stops.
Why bother electrifying these lines if you can't take advantage of all the advantages of EMUs, and wasting corridor capacity because of larger headways between trains because of slower acceleration? Although electric locomotives can accelerate the BiLevels faster, it may not mathematically be enough for the 15-minute goal (which may be as lower like 5-7 minute during peak) on 5 lines. Running half as many bilevels at larger headways, or twice as many EMUs at shorter headways, the ability to slot a different 15-minute service between UPX trains is possible with EMUs but will not be possible with BiLevels!
With 15-minute (and better) RER on Kitchener and Barrie, along with UPX, they need to make very efficient use of the corridor and the bottlenecks it entails, and to pull off slotting trains (or two or three) between trains (3.75-min headways, 5-min headways, 7.5-min headways), you need to match up the acceleration and speed profiles of the trainsets much better. A BiLevel can't easily squeeze between UPX trains and stop at the same stations, but an EMU or two could easily do so (with short dwell times).
Headways are going to dramatically shorten in the RER era, and I a long BiLevels can be a headway limiting factor. Shorter headways than today, yes, but not as short headways that EMUs can achieve (and compatibility with simultaneous same-track headway with UPX, would be a major deciding factor on whether to use EMUs).
By sheer corridor capacity reasons, as they may not be able to reliably pull off
reliable 15-min (and better) service bidirectionally on 3 different lines (Barrie RER, Kitchener RER, UPX)
while simultaneously with passing BiLevel express trains coming from beyond Bramalea (on Kitchener) and beyond Aurora (on Barrie). Mathematically it's doable with EMUs by precedent (e.g. France which has the ability to run 3-minute headways even with TGV high speed trains), but I'm not 100% sure we could do it running only unpowered BiLevels for all of the non-UPX services.
Now throw in Ontario's future HSR (whose construction could very well begin by the late 2020s or during 2030s) if these rail-happy governments continue), and if we're still running BiLevels in this specific corridor, there's no room to let these HSR trains pass (conceivably, the beyond-Brampton BiLevel express trains would be replaced by all day HSR trains as the beyond-Brampton commuter service, as it's likely HSR would de-facto be assigned to Metrolinx, and previous media mentions of $10 frequent-commuter high speed train fares, is highly suggestive of Ontario's HSR initiative being a commuter HSR). Since GO RER is for around mid-2020s. UPX is a DMU and will eventually be EMU.
To run subway-tight headways behind EMUs you must run other EMUs. Not considering EMUs would be a very grave corridor-capacity-wasting mistake on the Kitchener corridor, e.g. being incompatible with running tight headways ahead/behind UPX trains....
Yes, it requires expensive decisions (platform compatibility, extra stations, new trainsets, etc)... But we still need each and every one of the Bombardier BiLevels to improve service in the rest of the corridors.
It goes without saying we'll see at least a large number of electric locomotives pulling Bombardier BiLevels. They are great coaches for what they were designed for, and popular by other commuter services. But RER demands a fleet expansion beyond even the coaches/cabs on order, and the corridor capacity considerations such as tighter headways (including on trackage used by UPX), so at least one RER route would be a shoo-in for EMUs. And Metrolinx did use the phrase "diversified fleet" at least a couple times.
Another option is we discontinue the UPX service in favour of a GO RER service with a Woodbine Racetrack stop (using UPX as a short-trip express). But UPX is likely here to stay, considering recent mathematics show that UPX easily breaks even in the worst case scenario and becomes profitable for Metrolinx in the base case scenario (see math found in testy debate with k10ery) -- the numbers are potentially better I than expected as evidence was found that operating cost included amortization (amortization explaining a big difference between a sub-$20M annual operating cost quote -- profitable on UPX being less than 20% full -- and the quoted $70M annual operating cost quote -- profitable on UPX being 38% full -- and history on captive airport audience with worse/expensive options do profitably take similar expensive airport trains in Hong Kong/Tokyo/London, and the economics of UPX is actually stronger than London, UK being there a cheap subway alternative there but we only have an even slower, cheap bus alternative). It smells strongly like Metrolinx may end up having a permanent perpetual $50M+ annual profit with UPX, after capital cost are fully paid -- an extra fund source that Metrolinx would quickly get addicted to. So it is possible that the UPX train is here to stay, to self-fund other Metrolinx shortfalls -- although it would not be used as such, observe that $500M of UPX profit in 10 years can pay for platform height upgrades of seven GO stations, plus Union, that are on the SmartTrack route. (There are only seven pre-existing GO stations, that would require a platform height upgrade, in order to be compatible with a very good corridor-capacity-maximizing EMU .... the rest of the SmartTrack infills would be brand new stations). Even if UPX only broke even and its financials had nothing to do with SmartTrack platform height, UPX still is a MU (DMU becoming EMU) that pretty much demands good train performance profiles (acceleration/braking) to slot trains reasonably densely between UPX trains.
Now we're forced to find ways to slot more and more trains ahead/behind UPX trains, or use faster accelerating allstop trains with short dwell times to slot more trains between UPX trains. Faster services attract more ridership and pays for farebox more quickly, if SmartTrack uses a low fare ($3) as Tory wants, it needs high throughput and fast allstop speed to keep ridership high to compensate for the low price, and that pretty much literally demands EMUs, and many EMUs are higher platform. As you can see, not much platform-height-retrofitting is required (only seven GO stations, and one or two platforms at Union). We might end up using low-floor EMUs (which severely limits our options), or having a vendor design a brand new EMU for Metrolinx (like our 1979 coach was custom designed for GO), or deciding to raise the height of the platforms (which greatly widens our choice of EMUs), but any of these would still make the Georgetown corridor service plan achievable rather than impossible.
Lakeshore 15-min (and better during peak) service can easily consume a large number of Kitchener BiLevels -- requiring a new set of coaches to run 15-min (and better) Kitchener/Stoufville RER all day. Why not make the Kitchener allstop being EMU's to guarantee we can still run 15-min (and better) services on 3 different lines while simultaneously running express services at the same time? There is already corridor capacity on Lakeshore to handle 7.5-minute bilevels (like they do for Lakeshore West today at peak 4:45-5:45, 8 trains) and that corridor only requires schedule precision on one or two routes (Lakeshore allstops and Lakeshore expresses), with occasional freight trains and deadheading-to-maintenance trains being lower schedule priority. But Georgetown/Kitchener corridor will handle four or five distinct service profiles (UPX, Kitchener RER, Kitchener express, Barrie RER, Barrie express, and eventually future HSR), all at pretty decent frequencies, both directions. How are you going to pull this off with tight headways with just 100% slower-locomotive-accelerating bilevels whose acceleration profile does not overlap well with UPX? Why not squeeze a few extra trains between UPX trains, without risking UPX service too much?
For these reasons, maximizing corridor capacity, I predict EMUs are the RER choice on the Kitchener corridor, whether it be GO RER or SmartTrack. Better than 50-50 chance. Unless we dramatically downgrade GO RER plans
Corollary: Indirectly, the EMU decision forces the Great Platform Height Debate
