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

There is no regenerative braking, because to be regenerative the forces being produced by the wheels braking need to be stored somewhere.
The regeneration goes to the hotel and running batteries.
Regenerated brake energy shall be used to operate the auxiliary inverter in
dynamic braking.
And thus my comment:
A token amount. (Edit: To clarify, the UPX model uses a fraction of this for hotel power, but not for tractive effort) Ostensibly most is still dumped as heat. Now I'm starting to understand why the UK DEMU equiv class can reach the same top speed or higher with the same prime motor. You'd expect the insertion loss of the generator/electric traction motor circuit to render a lower top speed and acceleration rate compared to a direct-drive mechanical one....except this vehicle isn't recovering the energy claimed. (See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_220 )

But oddly, Metrolinx and Sharyo claim regeneration:
Braking energy is converted into electricity by the auxiliary power generator, and helps to provide onboard lighting and heating.[45]["SMART Technical Specification for Diesel Multiple Units" (PDF). 20 January 2010.

On the retarder:
10.23 Dynamic Brake System
The car shall have a dynamic brake system. Dynamic brakes shall be
automatically blended with the friction brakes to minimize use of friction brakes
while producing the required service braking rates. The dynamic braking effort
may vary with car speed, but shall provide measurable braking force down to at
least 10 mph. Dynamic brakes shall comply with the requirements of Section 2.
The dynamic brakes shall not be applied through independent operator
command.
A hydrodynamic retarder integral to the transmission shall be provided. The
transmission retarder shall convert car kinetic energy into heat by means of fluid
shear within the transmission operating fluid. This heat shall be rejected to the
transmission cooling system and ultimately to an air-to-water or air-to-oil heat
exchanger. The retarder should be rated for steady state operations of at least
60% of the maximum tractive effort rating of the drive train. The transmission
cooling system shall be designed with enough fluid volume to handle single car
stopping efforts well in excess of the rated, steady-state retarder output.
The transmission cooling system, if not the same as the engine cooling system,
shall follow the same design criteria as stated above.
It shall be possible to cut out the dynamic brakes by means of a sealed switch.
Vehicles -Draft DMU Technical Specification 1-20-10.pdf

But thank you for making my point Dan.
 
Last edited:
I can't speak to the SMART units, as I don't know their specific set-up and configuration. But the UPX units have no ability to have regenerative braking, as there is nothing that can "regenerate" in the driveline. They have a diesel engine, connected to a mechanical drivetrain, which is then connected to the right-angle drives mounted on the inner-most axles of each truck. Because of this, they use a device called a retarder.

But yeah, continue to use outdated and incorrect documents.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
But yeah, continue to use outdated and incorrect documents.
Well Dan, perhaps you'd care to link or give reference to something that suits your standards?

I've quoted from the reports available to me. If you have some more authoritative source, feel absolutely free to post it with reference.

I've found your claims to be somewhat pie-in-the-sky, like your top speed claim of 125mph for the Sharyo DMU's. You never did respond to my posting the correct ones from Sharyo's website that they claim themselves.
I can't speak to the SMART units, as I don't know their specific set-up and configuration. But the UPX units have no ability to have regenerative braking, as there is nothing that can "regenerate" in the driveline.
So you now agree that the SMART and UPX models aren't the same?

Progress. How about the ZF gearbox? And aren't you overlooking the coupling in the gearbox that goes to the generator?

And I repeat, *you are making my point*! It might help if you would read what is written. I have claimed that the amount of regeneration is small, since it just drives the generator as well as mechanical friction to heat conversion (mechanical brakes). That's contrary to Metrolinx claim!

If you keep making my point, you'll have to argue with yourself.
 
Design
The Nippon Sharyo DMUs are powered by Cummins QSK19-R[2] diesel engines with hydraulic transmission and regenerative braking, and meet US EPA Tier 4 emission standards. Structurally they are FRA Tier 1 compliant with crash energy management features, making them capable of operating on the same line with standard North American freight trains without the need of special waivers. Braking energy is converted into electricity by the auxiliary power generator, and helps to provide onboard lighting and heating.[4]

Operators
File:SMART Rail Rolling Stock (Nippon Sharyo DMU).jpg
Nippon Sharyo DMU in SMART livery
Union Pearson Express
Seven trains will comprise the fleet of Union Pearson Express, grouped into 4 three-car and 3 two-car train sets (for a total of 18 cars).[3] Union Pearson Express units feature enclosed overhead luggage bins as required by Transport Canada, and an enhanced enclosed luggage tower.
http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Nippon_Sharyo_DMU

The Nippon Sharyo FRA DMU is, as its name implies, an FRA (US Federal Railroad Administration) compliant Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) built for both the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) in California and Metrolinx (UP Express) in Ontario, Canada.

According to Nippon Sharyo these DMUs are convertible to electric traction.

Design/Specifications:Edit
  • Length: 85ft/car (mated into 2 or 3 units per trainset)
  • Top speed: 90mph (Restricted to 79mph for SMART)
  • Powertrain: Cummins QSK19-R, Tier 4 compliant, 6 speed automatic transmission
  • Power output: 760hp
  • Interior power: Powered by mix of engine power and regenerative braking.
  • Number built: 32 powered cars (18 for Metrolinx, 14 for SMART)
Not surprisingly, Metrolinx have taken down the specs they used to claim. Very curious....
 
Got some feedback from some out of towers the other day. A new vendor to our company was in the office making a pitch presentation...sent 4 people to the office....all live in different US cities....all are frequent visitors to Toronto (have many clients based here)....3 of the 4 came to our office via the UP...the other took a cab....not sure if it means anything but 3 men used UP the one woman took a cab......the 3 guys love the train and now use it every time they come to Toronto...one of the guys (the one that seems to do the most travelling) has been using it since it opened (he is the one that got the others using it)....couldn't believe it was so empty when it was originally priced (still thought it incredible value in terms of comparative price/reliability/time)....is now even more surprised that, while it is busier than it was, it is still rarely full when he uses it....he is, a self admitted, transit enthusiast and uses transit wherever possible wherever/whenever he travels around north america.....and he describes UP as the absolute best public transit service he has encountered anywhere when you consider cleanliness, efficiency, time saving, cost and service level (comfort, wifi, etc.). He is simply in love with UP and is not quite sure why more of us are not.

Was interesting to hear.
 
At $9 it's a steal now.

I just wish it was an all-3-coach fleet, using more reliable trains, and I wish the stations were properly designed for 4-coach berths (considering RER electrificaiton is planning 4/8/12 coach detachable EMU trainsets). The current system is going to be hopelessly overcrowded at peak-period in 5 years from now when people become more addicted to it, especially if 2-coach trains continue.
 
Got some feedback from some out of towers the other day. A new vendor to our company was in the office making a pitch presentation...sent 4 people to the office....all live in different US cities....all are frequent visitors to Toronto (have many clients based here)....3 of the 4 came to our office via the UP...the other took a cab....not sure if it means anything but 3 men used UP the one woman took a cab......the 3 guys love the train and now use it every time they come to Toronto...one of the guys (the one that seems to do the most travelling) has been using it since it opened (he is the one that got the others using it)....couldn't believe it was so empty when it was originally priced (still thought it incredible value in terms of comparative price/reliability/time)....is now even more surprised that, while it is busier than it was, it is still rarely full when he uses it....he is, a self admitted, transit enthusiast and uses transit wherever possible wherever/whenever he travels around north america.....and he describes UP as the absolute best public transit service he has encountered anywhere when you consider cleanliness, efficiency, time saving, cost and service level (comfort, wifi, etc.). He is simply in love with UP and is not quite sure why more of us are not.

Was interesting to hear.

Ya it's the exact same in my company.
 
Well Dan, perhaps you'd care to link or give reference to something that suits your standards?

I've quoted from the reports available to me. If you have some more authoritative source, feel absolutely free to post it with reference.

I've found your claims to be somewhat pie-in-the-sky, like your top speed claim of 125mph for the Sharyo DMU's. You never did respond to my posting the correct ones from Sharyo's website that they claim themselves.

You can claim what you want, Steve. Having been on, under, and worked with the guys who worked on the equipment itself, I know what it is, what it does, and what its capable of. I can try and get you photos of the various builders plates and operating manual pages, if that would really appease you.

So you now agree that the SMART and UPX models aren't the same?

I have never said that the SMART and UPX models are the same. I honestly don't know what SMART spec'd beyond those very early, preliminary documents. The final result may be very different - just as it was with the UPX units.

Progress. How about the ZF gearbox? And aren't you overlooking the coupling in the gearbox that goes to the generator?

They have a separate motor and generator for onboard power. There is no connection between the main engine and the generator. Thus, no regeneration.

And I repeat, *you are making my point*! It might help if you would read what is written. I have claimed that the amount of regeneration is small, since it just drives the generator as well as mechanical friction to heat conversion (mechanical brakes). That's contrary to Metrolinx claim!

If you keep making my point, you'll have to argue with yourself.

Riiiiight. Making your point - which is what, exactly? That you have no clue?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
At $9 it's a steal now.

I just wish it was an all-3-coach fleet, using more reliable trains, and I wish the stations were properly designed for 4-coach berths (considering RER electrificaiton is planning 4/8/12 coach detachable EMU trainsets). The current system is going to be hopelessly overcrowded at peak-period in 5 years from now when people become more addicted to it, especially if 2-coach trains continue.

I think once the Kitchener line gets 15-minute RER, people commuting Weston-Bloor-Union might largely switch over to that; if not, I think they'll need to actually raise UPX fares slightly just to make it no longer cost the same as GO. If the two are both 15-minute two-way electric trains, and UPX is 3 cars at max and GO is 4/8/12 coaches, and UPX needs to serve airport passengers, then it would be ridiculous to have them cost the same and UPX be overcrowded. Currently, I get it, it provides a great option to Bloor and Weston commuters, but once GO is in place there's no need to have the non-pearson fares be as low. They should raise it so that the GO-equivalent-trip fares are $1 or $2 more than GO, and with identical 15-minute headways local commuters should, appropriately, then use GO almost exclusively.
 
If the two are both 15-minute two-way electric trains, and UPX is 3 cars at max and GO is 4/8/12 coaches, and UPX needs to serve airport passengers, then it would be ridiculous to have them cost the same and UPX be overcrowded.
If it's economically feasible to do so and the platform-height problem is not too expensively solved -- My current opinion is simply merge UPX / ST / RER for a unified train fleet for corridor-efficiency and maximal people-moving considerations.

The trains spur out to Aurora(Barrie), to UPX, and to Bramalea(Kitchener) respectively, with 15-minute service on all of them.

All trains would have the same fare, all trains would be the same fleet, 4-coach EMU at UPX berth, and 8/12-coach EMU at Platform 4/5. Same fleet, using the current Metrolinx proposed detachable 4/8/12 coach fixed-EMU-trainsets (4 hard-joined coaches that can only detach in groups of 4).

Run roughly 5 minute service (train departures alternate between longer trains at Platform 4/5 and shorter trains at an expanded 4-coach Union UPX berth) with various layers of express and allstops ala Paris RER. Three interspersed stopping plans for an identical train: The airport express stopping scheme, the Bramalea allstop scheme, and Aurora stopping scheme. All airport users would need to go to the UPX station to board this train. After the USRC capacity expansion initiatives (49 trains/hour), there may be enough room to do this. These routes could be co-joined (SmartTrack-style) to the Stoufville route, and theoretical Richmond Hill RER, as through routes, assuming there's enough through capacity (30/45mph USRC crossovers).

If you look at Paris RER B's train schedule, this is how Paris' RER works. Subway-frequency multilayered service with lots of spurs for "one line".

As in other RER systems in other cities, digital signage says "This current train will stop at: Bloor | Eglinton | Airport" or it will say "This current train will stop at: Bloor | Liberty | Weston | Eglinton | ... ... ... | Bramalea" or similar (list of checkboxes lit/unlit, in older signage). And stopping plans/interspersing can get modified on the fly for offpeak versus peak trains, as in many RER systems.

(If you've ridden other "spurred RER" systems elsewhere, it's actually rather simple.... It's a lot less confusing than how New York city often did it, and what 1960s TTC did when the Bloor line first opened)

This might not happen, but it's a scenario worth mentioning, as this is essentially "RER 101 Bible" stuff if you've ridden other RER trains of the world...
 
Last edited:
No one cares on here what you have done.

We want documented proof.
"We"?

Maybe there could be some cooling of jets.

As for UPX/ST being a unified fleet, 18 months into Tory's term SmartTrack is still a deeply fuzzy concept so possibly best not to worry about shoehorning it. Also, this notion of "standardisation" across UPX/ST/GO is how Bombardier landed both the downtown streetcar and uptown LRV orders, and look how well that turned out. As I pointed out then, Toronto's orders are, generally speaking, massive compared to most other operators and therefore fleet economies of scale only go so far before they get outweighed by products insufficiently optimised for quite different taskings.
 
This kind of talk is heresy here. I was reamed out when I brought this up in the past.

The way this forum works is you're supposed to believe whatever an anonymous poster here says--don't ask questions.

I think what you meant to say was:

The way this forum works is we have anonymous posters who in the past have exhibited a level of knowledge and expertise to the point that most here believe what they say--and ask questions of the sort that might clarify what they mean/say but not question their motives or level of knowledge.

If that is what you really meant, let me know and I will go back and "like" your post. :)
 
You can claim what you want, Steve. Having been on, under, and worked with the guys who worked on the equipment itself, I know what it is, what it does, and what its capable of. I can try and get you photos of the various builders plates and operating manual pages, if that would really appease you.

They have a separate motor and generator for onboard power. There is no connection between the main engine and the generator. Thus, no regeneration.

Riiiiight. Making your point - which is what, exactly? That you have no clue?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Really Dan? I've quoted this info before, but you continue to make things up with absolutely no reference or admission that you were completely out to lunch prior, like you claim for "125mph".
"Onboard power such as air-conditioning is generated from the QSK19-R by means of a high-efficiency drive shaft, eliminating the need for an additional engine for head-end (hotel) power.".

Here's the whole detailed article from Railway Age directly quoting Cummins.
Cummins Inc. is now producing its Tier 4 Final-compliant QSK19-R diesel engine, which will power the new Nippon Sharyo diesel multiple-unit (DMU) trainsets designed for transit and regional/commuter services in North America.
Nippon_Sharyo_DMU.jpg
Contracts have been awarded to Nippon Sharyo U.S.A./Sumitomo Corp. of America for 32 railcars, configured as either two- or three-car DMU trainsets with the 760 hp (567 kW)-rated engine installed under-floor in each railcar. The first DMU is scheduled for delivery in 2014 for UP Express (opposite), the air-rail link currently under construction from downtown Toronto Union Station to Toronto Pearson International Airport, connecting the two busiest transportation hubs in Canada with a fleet of 18 railcars to be operated by GO Transit. Another 14 railcars will be delivered to the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) rail line, north of the San Francisco Bay, running on a new line currently under construction.

Cummins High-Horsepower Engine Business Vice President and General Manager Ed Pence said the QSK19-R is “the first railcar engine being produced in North America that is certified to meet Tier 4 Final ultra-low emissions standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), taking effect Jan. 1, 2015. The under-floor QSK19-R is the latest generation of the 19-liter, six-cylinder engine manufactured at our Seymour, Ind., Engine Plant.”

To meet EPA Tier 4 Final regulations and the equivalent Stage IIIB standards for railcars in Europe, the 19-liter engine is fully integrated with Cummins Selective Catalytic Reduction (SCR) aftertreatment. The SCR system reduces exhaust emissions to “extremely low levels,” with the three-car, three-engine configuration totaling 2,280 hp (1,700 kW) output, said Pence. “In addition to its clean-engine credentials, the QSK19-R has very fast torque response, with a peak output of 2,275 foot-pounds (3,084 N•m). This allows the DMU to achieve rapid acceleration from idle—an important advantage in reducing journey times on routes with short distances between stations.”

“Smart electronic controls and advanced combustion techniques result in a remarkably smooth power delivery from the QSK19-R, providing a comfortable travel experience for passengers when the DMU runs at its top speed of 90 mph (145 kph),”Pence added. “The engine runs quietly, with minimal vibration, due to an upgraded common-rail fuel system able to precisely balance fueling across the six cylinders. The horizontal envelope of the QSK19-R allows for a highly compact installation within a self-contained power module positioned underneath the railcar body. This space-efficient installation enables a flexible seated capacity of 180 to 237 passengers for the three-car DMU trainset, together with additional space for standing passengers during busy periods. Passenger convenience is further enhanced with step-in level boarding from the platform and allocated space in each railcar for up to 12 bicycles, wheelchairs, or strollers.”

Onboard power such as air-conditioning is generated from the QSK19-R by means of a high-efficiency drive shaft, eliminating the need for an additional engine for head-end (hotel) power. “Although compact in size, the QSK19-R shares the same inherent structural strength of larger Cummins high-horsepower engines, and uses premium materials throughout the engine to enhance durability,” noted Pence. “As a result, the engine is capable of operating for up to 20,000 hours before a rebuild may be required, dependent on duty cycle. Multiple-life capability means that the QSK19-R engine continues to work at peak performance, even after three rebuilds.”

“The QSK19-R already comes with an enviable reputation for uptime reliability well proven in DMU intercity operations in Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, and China,” said Pence. “A population of more than 1,700 railcars powered by the QSK19-R makes this by far the most successful underfloor railcar engine in the industry. We are delighted to be working with Nippon Sharyo to power its new DMU, which is uniquely designed for North America and will offer a fast, clean, and energy-efficient travel alternative to heavily congested highways. Production of the QSK19 engine is now under way at our Seymour facility, which means we will see the new Nippon Sharyo DMU up and running this year, ahead of when the Tier 4 Final regulations take effect.”
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...-cummins-tier-4-compliant-power.html?channel=

As to "my point"? I'll repeat it *yet again* since you lack the capacity for retention, let alone nuance: Metrolinx' claims as to how "green" this vehicle is as that pertains to regeneration and other factors (Exhaust components being one) are doubtful. Regenerative recovery is only a small degree of the energy wasted in heat. I leave it at that. I don't want to confuse a grease monkey with engineering concepts that don't come prepackaged in a service kit.
 

Back
Top