Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

[rbt]

Yes. With extra trains, and the planned CBTC signalling during GO RER electrification.

The main physical constraint seem to be the approach into Pearson and while I've not timed that stretch (can someone measure that?), it feels like a 5+ minute trip between the mainline tracks and the terminal. I assume the limited speeds are due to the tight curves and not something electrification will improve on.

Anyway, take whatever that travel time is, add 1 minute to clear the way, and you get your best case UPX headway BUT pushing to meet that headway will require a longer trip time (time spent waiting for that single-track section to clear to enter it ASAP; same reason Finch backs up).

I can't find a stop timing chart though I recall one being posted in this thread. How long is it from Westin to Pearson? I'm guessing around 8 minutes, with most of that in the single-track section?

It's possible to end up with 10 minute frequencies and a 28 minute typical trip time. Line capacity improves a smidgen but it's not going to be an exciting change to customers.

 

[steveintoronto]

I think it is easiest to pull off these very short headways and high frequencies if UPX+GO+SmartTrack is merged into one multilayered route with spurs similar to Paris RER B.

I go even further: it's a pre-requisite. Anyone heard of Houlihan's Law? He thought Murphy was an optimist.

Unless the two legs are interleaved on a fixed algorithm, (part of which is that the other leg *must* stay on schedule, it can't be put on hold until the first leg is cleared) as soon as one goes awry, so do the rest.

I can't help but think the best solution is for the airport to be served by a shuttle to a new station at Woodbine (which is planned as a hub anyway) and then interchange with a Bramalea to Union (and later extended out the eastern side of Union) RER. If the shuttle was a unique vehicle, the present fleet of Sharyos could just barely manage with the present number of stock to maintain a fifteen minute frequency on that route. (Twenty minute with two-car trains far more likely) This would also make far more sense of charging the present GO fare on the UPX between Weston, Bloor and Union, and extended to Bramalea and stops in between, also at standard GO rates. Loco hauled on the hour would go express from between Bramalea and Union, perhaps stop at Woodbine for air travellers, but allow the RER to service all other stops in between.

The Airport Shuttle could then charge whatever seems appropriate. It might still make sense to extend one of the east-west LRTs through Woodbine (racetrack) Station to assume the airport spur alignment. It's unfortunate that UPX as envisaged just can't work, but it was a bridge too far from day one in the way conceived.

With there being a dedicated Airport Shuttle from Woodbine Racetrack Station, it makes redundant the need for flyovers at the junction since the platform(s) for the shuttle would be on the western side of Weston Corridor.

 

[mdrejhon]

The main issue is the platform incompatibility high versus low platforms, and the distinct station design that UPX got.

Initially, they may not be able to merge it into a unified trainset right away in the 1st EMU cycle, but it could be done incrementally (maybe as a 2nd stage EMU upgrade of UPX). In theory you could use the same 4-coach EMUs suggested for GO RER to also be used for UPX (4-coach permanently-joined EMUs joinable to 8-coach and 12-coach trainsets).

Several parties mentions that the UPX stations are extendable to 4 coaches, albiet with difficulty.

Assuming the bend radius of the GO RER EMU trainset Metrolinx may choose is compatible with the UPX spur -- then that leaves platform height as the remaining issue to reconcile before UPX is just a Paris-style RER airport spur. By then the UPX stations might, say, be 20+ years old and due for a refurb that solves the platform height differences, and allows using the same EMU fleet during a 2nd stage update.

The question is how quickly the "boondoggle-factor" is navigated (the embarassment of butchering up existing UPX stations in the name of GO RER integration).

 

[ssiguy2]

I am not trolling when I say that the UPX should just run catenary subway trains as there are a couple good reaons why I think they are better than an EMU.

First, I think UPX should not be part of GO but rather the TTC and hence having it as another subway line with subway cars makes it more easily recognisable for Torontonians and visitors. Remember this line serves Union and Pearson so if there is a single line in the whole system that should be more sensitive to visitors who are not familiar with the system, it's this one.

Second, this is not a commuter route in the classic sense of the word. This is an inner city route that will have many more stations than it does now once it's rolled into Smart Tracks. That will probably mean stations at Etobicoke North, Eglinton, St,Clair, Queen West, and Liberty Village. That's a lot more stations and unlike standard commuter rail where 90% of the passengers are going to Union, there will be a LOT more on/off traffic at each station.

That means that you have to have trains that are fast not only in speed but also in station dwell time. Sydney and Melbourne have taken different paths in this over the years. Both have similar suburban rail systems but Sydney runs exclusively double-decker and Melbourne single. Turns out Melbourne's trains are considerably faster because double-decker trains take too long to load/unload. Melbourne once ran some double decker trains but got rid of them and now Sydney is going to do the same.

What has also made Melbourne trains faster over the years has been their choice of single-level EMUs. The one's they are now buying look inside and out more like subway trains than EMUs. More and wider doors, more subway type seating and design, lighting, all full accessibility.

I think Toronto should use just subway catenary cars if the TTC runs it. If unfortunately GO runs it then they should be single - level EMUs that are very much more like subway cars in their designs. These should not be just regular electrified GO trains with one floor but more akin to Metro/subway style EMUs to reflect the fact that this line will have quite a few stations and due to this and having a lot of on/off users at each station, dwell times must be kept to a minimum,.

 

[crs1026]

On an intellectual long term level I can buy some of what you suggest, but on a practical level I don't know why people want to tinker with UPE at all. There are plenty of precedents for having multiple operators on a single rail corridor, but this would be a big shift for GO and I wonder if it's the right place to be putting their energies. On a managerial level, one integrated operator is not inefficient. On a technical level, the overall envelope for this corridor will be defined by the current diesel bilevel service (those bilevels will run on this line for a long time to come) plus whatever electrified spec GO selects for RER/ST. Adding other flavours to the mix is a recipe for things not working right.

The paramount need is to implement the RER/ST service envelope. This implies a fourth main track, some added stations, and electrification. As noted, platform height is likely the biggest thing to be debated here. Once RER/ST arrives, the airport line goes back to being an airport express. Plenty of time to consider how it could be modified.

Getting all worked up because the current DMU's are not perfect is a bit unhelpful. (Do we have actual data on their mean time between failures? What percentage of these failures are attributable to the drive train? It may be that there are a number of little bugs that need tweaking - not unusual for the first year of service. )

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

Ssiguy, if you say "I'm not trolling but this is what should be" and then posit a scenario with non trivial problems, all of which have been pointed out to you before, then either you're lying about not being a troll or you're a fantasist who can't help it. Either way, not a good look.

 

[christiesplits]

I took the UPX yesterday for the first time since the fare decrease.

I noticed a marked improvement in signage and wayfinding to get to the Pearson platform. The one kink is still where the Link train platform "hugs" the UPX platform. I can see people easily getting confused between the two.

Departing from Pearson at 4:00 the train was at 90% capacity. One person got off at Weston and a half dozen at Bloor. I was surprised by the number of airline and airport staff I saw.

This is in sharp contrast to my first ride last September on a Sunday afternoon. Probably only 15% capacity with a bored barista twiddling her thumbs at the Balzacs.

My only 'peeves':

- The blockage at the train doors when passengers are trying to load their luggage

- The CIBC branding on the video screens and trains seem a little overbearing. At times I felt like I was riding the "CIBC Express."

- The fact that the train goes through Toronto's post-industrial armpit. I know airport trains generally don't go through the "scenic areas" (Newark to NYC, CDG to Paris, too many to count) but it would be nice if they could complete even minor beautification along the rail corridor such as repairing old fencing and noise barriers.

 

[smallspy]

Several parties mentions that the UPX stations are extendable to 4 coaches, albiet with difficulty.

Anything can be done, if you throw enough money at it. But the UPX platforms at Pearson can not be easily extended without a huge investment which will likely not be worth the cost.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[W. K. Lis]

...

- The fact that the train goes through Toronto's post-industrial armpit. I know airport trains generally don't go through the "scenic areas" (Newark to NYC, CDG to Paris, too many to count) but it would be nice if they could complete even minor beautification along the rail corridor such as repairing old fencing and noise barriers.

Doesn't help that graffiti has so quickly appearing on the fences, buildings, and even the glass along the route.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

- The fact that the train goes through Toronto's post-industrial armpit. I know airport trains generally don't go through the "scenic areas" (Newark to NYC, CDG to Paris, too many to count) but it would be nice if they could complete even minor beautification along the rail corridor such as repairing old fencing and noise barriers.

I say it adds character.

 

[mdrejhon]

Anything can be done, if you throw enough money at it. But the UPX platforms at Pearson can not be easily extended without a huge investment which will likely not be worth the cost

Or just open three coaches out of four, relating to an earlier idea where the three coaches whose doors open in the main Union UPX terminal, would also be the doors that open at Pearson. Any platform extension at Union would be a shallow (TTC style depth) raised platform extended towards the shed that can quickly and easily be accessed via stairs from the low Platform 3 for Weston/Bloor commuters.

Depends on how far RER/UPX is merged in electrification, I guess.

 

[smallspy]

Or just open three coaches out of four, relating to an earlier idea where the three coaches whose doors open in the main Union UPX terminal, would also be the doors that open at Pearson. Any platform extension at Union would be a shallow (TTC style depth) raised platform extended towards the shed that can quickly and easily be accessed via stairs from the low Platform 3 for Weston/Bloor commuters.

Can't be done with the current track configuration at the airport. It's not just the platforms - the tracks themselves are only long enough for 3 cars. A 4 car train would be hanging out on the double-crossover at Pearson. That then leads to all sorts of other issues that need to be taken care of from an operational standpoint, nevermind the idea of leaving that last car closed.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[mdrejhon]

They certainly "designed UPX into a corner" with no solution except expensive modifications if Metrolinx ever wants trainset unification for UPX/RER. I suppose it is something that probably won't happen in the first cycle of EMU purchases, it'd initially end up being a compatible UPX EMU distinct from the other GO RER EMUs.

Assuming they go this "easy" route, I guess we'll see a generation pass (20 years) before major UPX-impacting system modifications occur. Like around the time that HSR trains come to the station they decide to name Pearson GO (Malton or Woodbine). And whether they decide to use UPX or a rail-based LINK overhaul/upgrade as the connector to Pearson GO to connect to all terminals.

 

[crs1026]

They certainly "designed UPX into a corner" with no solution except expensive modifications if Metrolinx ever wants trainset unification for UPX/RER. I suppose it is something that probably won't happen in the first cycle of EMU purchases, it'd initially end up being a compatible UPX EMU distinct from the other GO RER EMUs.

Assuming this route remains the first priority when electrification comes along, we might see an EMU design that boosts capacity, and that is prototypical for RER. The three-car configuration would still be sufficient.

We have a ways to go with the interiors, however. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/...o_look_like_the_palace_of_versailles_for.html

- Paul

 

[cplchanb]

Assuming this route remains the first priority when electrification comes along, we might see an EMU design that boosts capacity, and that is prototypical for RER. The three-car configuration would still be sufficient.

We have a ways to go with the interiors, however. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_eye/...o_look_like_the_palace_of_versailles_for.html

- Paul

I rather not....the tacky stickers make it look like some cheap hodge podge. Now if they actually had some replica decor, it would be more interesting.