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

This is even more true as the airport expands. The people mover (likely a modified one that can operate more than 2 trains) would collect and distribute passengers to the 4 to 6 airport related stops from the mainline station.
Yeah, I see same for both engineering and cost challenges. That 'people mover' could be an orbital LRT loop that uses the present UPX elevated RoW and allows through running current bi-mode EMUs or LRVs onto the then electrified Georgetown line.

Example here:
[...]The primary purpose of the Class 399 units is to operate the tram-train service between Sheffield and Rotherham. As a consequence, they will be dual voltage vehicles capable of operating on both the 750 V OHLE of Supertram's network, and the 25 kV OHLE that is the standard on the National Rail network. Although the route to Rotherham will be electrified to the 750 V standard used on the rest of the Supertram network, the installation of dual voltage capability is to allow the vehicles to be "future-proofed" for use as and when the Midland Main Line north of Sheffield is electrified.[8] Additionally, because they will be operating on a heavy rail line, they will be subject to higher crashworthiness standards than the rest of Supertram's fleet, meaning that these units will be the only ones capable of operating the tram-train service to Rotherham.[5][9] However, they will also be used to strengthen Supertram's existing fleet, which has not been expanded since it was originally commissioned in 1992. The vehicles will be fully integrated into Supertram's fleet, and will be maintained by the manufacturer at the main Nunnery depot.[10] The Rotherham service is envisaged to operate every 20 minutes between Cathedral and Rotherham Central, before terminating at a new stop at Rotherham's Parkgate retail park, with a total journey time of approximately 25 minutes.[6] A total of three vehicles will be required for this service level; three of the remainder will be used to increase capacity on the rest of the network, with the seventh in maintenance.[8] Initially however, four of the seven vehicles will be dedicated to the Rotherham service, with the other three used for fleet expansion. This is owing to the different wheel profile required for running on National Rail tracks as opposed to Supertram's own. This is envisaged to be the case until Supertram has completed its full track replacement programme.[11]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_399

The Alstom Citadis are one of many from the LRV family that are also used this way, so Union Express and LRTs would share the same loop encircling Pearson. (Think the Chicago L Loop, where the trains are technically LRVs anyway) Positive Train Control (PTC) would be used of course. The present flyways the UPX use could either be a stub spur off of the 'loop', or part of the loop itself if extended.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jys
I think it would be better to have a station on the railway corridor with a people mover to the terminals, than to divert the corridor to the airport. UPX may not be needed or even fit in the corridor with all the increased service that should come online.

So did GO when they studied the idea of rail service to the airport in 2002. Of course, we've now seen how that story ended.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Is there a reason that once RER/Smart track is in place, that half the trains go into the airport while the other half continues up?
 
Are you asking if that's possible? It certainly is, though obviously with the caveat that RER trains will likely be very different vehicles from UPX trains, unless they want to rebuild the two terminal platforms.

Of course, if the goal is to free up the UPX track pair for HSR and/or Kitchener express trains, it would be difficult to run Pearson and Brampton bound trains on the same tracks with one stopping at King-Liberty and St Clair, and the other bypassing those stations, especially if you want to maintain 15 minute service to both Bramalea and Pearson.

Personally, I think the idea of a line with 7.5 minute headways that stops at all the Toronto stations, and splits for either Pearson or Brampton is the best possible outcome -- I think with EMUs it would still be more than rapid enough, and it would have huge ridership if priced appropriately, making it the best possible use of the track space -- but for a lot of people the X in UPX is as important as the U and P.
 
Are you asking if that's possible? It certainly is, though obviously with the caveat that RER trains will likely be very different vehicles from UPX trains, unless they want to rebuild the two terminal platforms.

Of course, if the goal is to free up the UPX track pair for HSR and/or Kitchener express trains, it would be difficult to run Pearson and Brampton bound trains on the same tracks with one stopping at King-Liberty and St Clair, and the other bypassing those stations, especially if you want to maintain 15 minute service to both Bramalea and Pearson.

Personally, I think the idea of a line with 7.5 minute headways that stops at all the Toronto stations, and splits for either Pearson or Brampton is the best possible outcome -- I think with EMUs it would still be more than rapid enough, and it would have huge ridership if priced appropriately, making it the best possible use of the track space -- but for a lot of people the X in UPX is as important as the U and P.
Agreed with most points. I'm prone to add: "And the UPX destined trains can run express with less stops"...save that running on the same pair of tracks (which may or may not be the case) on a tight headway (7.5 mins) renders the consequence of stopping at all stations redundant. The UPX has to get to final destination in a slot determined by time, not speed. There's always the possibility of passing tracks (or switch loops on the other tracks extant) to speed past stopped 'locals'...but even with a state of the art control/signal system, once you start messing with controlled headways, and in this case for very little time gain, complications compound geometrically. The result would most likely be calling the service "frequent" and not stating the interval on a schedule. Expresses would get there as fast as circumstance and some deduced central control parameters would permit, and ditto for the locals.

I'm not sure that would work for 'anally ordered persons' who shrink at the thought of running service on that basis. The Swiss need not apply for any job openings.

On the other hand, that's exactly how it's done with buses, the forgiving aspect being "frequent service" which means a max of 15 mins, ideally, every 7.5.

I still can't comprehend the diversion of all passenger traffic through Pearson. Of course it can be done, but do we want or need it to be done? The cost to doing so would be *far better* realized elsewhere...like the Missing Link.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jys
The Alstom Citadis are one of many from the LRV family that are also used this way, so Union Express and LRTs would share the same loop encircling Pearson. (Think the Chicago L Loop, where the trains are technically LRVs anyway) Positive Train Control (PTC) would be used of course. The present flyways the UPX use could either be a stub spur off of the 'loop', or part of the loop itself if extended.

Chicago L trains are Heavy Rail...

From Wikipedia: "the Chicago "L" is the fourth largest heavy rail rapid transit system in the United States in terms of route mileage. It runs over a total of 224.1 miles (360.7 km) of track."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_"L"
 
Chicago L trains are Heavy Rail...

From Wikipedia: "the Chicago "L" is the fourth largest heavy rail rapid transit system in the United States in terms of route mileage. It runs over a total of 224.1 miles (360.7 km) of track."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_"L"
I'm talking about the cars, many of the previous generations derived from PCCs. The lines themselves, although mixed (which is my point) are mostly old interurban ones. Some were true heavy rail.

And one is truly subway, even though being a diverted L line.

Survivors


A Pullman Company electric interurban unit heading west toward Michigan City on the South Shore Line in 1980
Interurban business increased for the survivors during World War II due to fuel oil rationing cutting car use and large wartime employment. When the war ended in 1945, riders quickly went back to their automobiles, so most of these lines finally abandoned.[20] Several systems managed to struggle into the 1950s, including the Baltimore and Annapolis Railroad (passenger service ended 1950), Lehigh Valley Transit Company (1951), West Penn Railways (1952), and the Illinois Terminal Railroad (1958). The West Penn was the largest interurban to operate in the east at 339 miles and had provided the very hilly Pittsburgh area coal country towns with hourly transportation since 1888.[21]

Four lines serving commuters in three major cities lasted into the 1960s: the North Shore Line and the South Shore Line in Chicago, the Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Company, and the Long Beach Line in Long Beach and Los Angeles (the last remaining part of the Pacific Electric system). The Long Beach Line was cut in 1961, the North Shore Line in 1963, and the Philadelphia Suburban's West Chesterroute 103 line in 1966.[22]

The South Shore Line is now owned by the state of Indiana and uses mainline-sized electric multiple units, although one section of street running in Michigan City, Indiana, remains. The Skokie Valley portion of the North Shore Line from Dempster Street to Howard Street was acquired by the Chicago Transit Authority and is now the Yellow Line. The Yellow Line initially operated with third rail from Howard Street to the Skokie Shops and switched to overhead wire for the remainder of the journey to Dempster Street, until 2004 when the overhead wire was replaced with third rail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interurban
 
  • Like
Reactions: jys
Continued from above:
[...]
5000-series
The 5000-series cars (numbered 5001–5004) were manufactured by the Pullman Car Company and the St. Louis Car Company. They arrived on CTA property in 1947. Only these four cars were ever built. These cars were the first "L" cars to feature the "blinker door" configuration, in which the doors to the train open inward into the car rather than slide horizontally. This door configuration was later used on the 6000-series, 1-50 series, 2000-series and the 2200-series.

The technology for these cars was based on the Presidents Conference Committee streetcar but also borrowed design elements from the North Shore Line's Electroliners. The 5000-series was distinct in that each car was a three-piece articulated unit, the only cars on the "L" system to ever feature articulation. They were also the first series of "L" cars to be wider at the windowsills than at the doorsills to permit more interior space and still provide clearance for station platforms.

They were originally assigned to service on the Garfield Route (a precursor of today's Blue Line) before eventually being refitted with pantographs and renumbered 51 to 54 for service on the Skokie Swift where they finished their service life. The 5000-series was retired in 1985.[3][4][5]

6000-series
Main article: 6000 series (CTA)



6000-series work train cars at the California station on the O'Hare branch on May 19, 1985.
The 6000-series cars (numbered 6001–6720) were manufactured by the St. Louis Car Company of St. Louis, Missouri and first delivered to the CTA in 1950. 130 were ordered originally with the series eventually totaling 720.

The 6000-series built upon the design of the 5000-series, using PCC technology and blinker doors. Unlike the 5000-series, the 6000-series units consisted of two cars coupled together in married-pairs, the first series of "L" cars to be so designed.

A large percentage of these cars were built using trucks, motors, control equipment, seats, windows and other components salvaged from Chicago's recently retired fleet of PCC streetcars.

The 6000-series was in service on all of the CTA's routes except the Skokie Swift. Use on the Lake-Dan Ryan route was however limited to emergencies and during car shortages in late 1969 and during the winter of 1979-80. The 6000-series cars were used by SEPTA on the Norristown High-Speed Line during the delays of the N-5 car deliveries. The last of the 6000-series cars were retired on December 4, 1992.[6][7]

1-50-series
Main article: 1–50 series (CTA)



Car 48 at the Halton County Radial Railway museum.
The 1-50 series cars (numbered 1-50) were manufactured by the St. Louis Car Company of St. Louis, Missouri, and delivered to the CTA in 1959 and 1960. The cars were similar to the 6000 series design, but were double ended, single cars, as opposed to the 6000 series single ended, married pair configuration. The quarter point doors were adjacent to the operators cabs, allowing the operator to collect fares without leaving the cab. Like some members of the 6000 series, these cars utilized parts salvaged from Chicago's recently retired fleet of PCC streetcars.

Cars 1-4 were equipped for high performance test service, with higher horsepower motors, and were delivered in a distinctive maroon and silver gray paint scheme.

Originally assigned to the West-Northwest service, in later years these cars were found mainly on the Ravenswood, Skokie, and Evanston lines.

10 of these cars were converted in 5 married-pair sets and renumbered 61a-b to 65a-b, and were utilized in Skokie service.

The last cars of the 1-50 series were retired in 1999. Seven cars of this series have been preserved by various railway museums.[8][9]
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_"L"_rolling_stock

There were some later models too built by Boeing Vertol...based on...guess what?
[...]
Known as the Boeing LRV (not to be confused with the Lunar Roving Vehicle), the articulated light rail vehicles entered revenue service on Dec. 30, 1976, on Boston's MBTA Green Line "D" Branch. The first regular runs on the San Francisco Muni system began in 1979.

In 1976, Boeing Vertol also began to build Model 2400 Rapid Transit Cars for the Chicago Transit Authority (CTA). A special ceremony Jan. 11, 1978, honored the delivery of the 100th RTC to the "Windy City," and the remaining 100 were delivered the same year. These stainless steel cars feature smooth curved, stainless steel exteriors and contoured fiberglass frontends. They had fiberglass seats with padded inserts, walnut grain wainscot panels and brown floors. They were the first cars built for the Chicago "L" in more than 50 years to have sliding doors, providing easier access for wheelchairs. [...]
http://www.boeing.com/history/products/rapid-transit-car.page

The "L" is a perfect example of where the two types of vehicle (which really aren't distinct to begin with anyway, they merge) run inter-operationally.
 
Last edited:
Chicago L trains are Heavy Rail...

From Wikipedia: "the Chicago "L" is the fourth largest heavy rail rapid transit system in the United States in terms of route mileage. It runs over a total of 224.1 miles (360.7 km) of track."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_"L"

They're heavy rail when compared to "light rail" vehicles.

But they're certainly not heavy rail when compared to Amtrak, Metra and freight trains.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Are you asking if that's possible? It certainly is, though obviously with the caveat that RER trains will likely be very different vehicles from UPX trains, unless they want to rebuild the two terminal platforms.

Of course, if the goal is to free up the UPX track pair for HSR and/or Kitchener express trains, it would be difficult to run Pearson and Brampton bound trains on the same tracks with one stopping at King-Liberty and St Clair, and the other bypassing those stations, especially if you want to maintain 15 minute service to both Bramalea and Pearson.

Personally, I think the idea of a line with 7.5 minute headways that stops at all the Toronto stations, and splits for either Pearson or Brampton is the best possible outcome -- I think with EMUs it would still be more than rapid enough, and it would have huge ridership if priced appropriately, making it the best possible use of the track space -- but for a lot of people the X in UPX is as important as the U and P.
From my picture earlier, one four-coach EMU trainset would almost fit the existing platforms if the doors are realigned.

You might need to lengthen the platform by about 10 or 15 meters to fit the final doors (In theory, 3.5 coaches wouldn't need a station lengthening, if the doorless ends of the train poked a little beyond the platforms, aligning the doors at the ends of platforms). There is enough space to expand the platforms marginally. Expensive, but not insanely so.

A big question is turning radius of say, a Stadler KISS on the sharp curves of the viaducts. Weight seems to be OK, as it's apparently only slightly heavier per axle than the existing UPX. (Certainly not GO locomotive heavy!)

A 4-coach bilevel EMU like a Stadler KISS (with high level door option) will need no platform height changes at UPX, while still being able to serve the low level platforms when used elsewhere. The only changes would be a very slight platform lengthening to reach a last set of doors, or that one door could simply stay closed (in theory).

This would allow trainset unification, double UPX capacity, while allowinf 7.5 minute headway between alternating Bramalea/UPX trains with what would likely become the "SmartTrack" trainset (errrr, GO RER EMU).

Very Paris-like in RER spurring behaviour where trains alternated forking left/right down two spurs (Pearson vs Bramalea).

Merging RER and UPX in this manner, brings theoretically almost four times the passenger throghput for shared stations (Eglinton Crosstown, Bloor Subway, etc) with potential full free-transfer fare integration to TTC within the 416 zone.

One can use 12 coach EMU for the Bramalea during peak (while keeping UPX 4 coach), but offpeak can easily also be handled by 4-coach equally for Pearson and Bramalea for 7.5 min core service and 15-min spur service.

Allstop of course. UPX will stop at both Weston and Eglinton anyway, so not really an express anymore, but electrification will compensate slightly, still 25mins to airport even with one or two more added stops. Trains stay in sync, just tighter headways (quite doable even with traditional block signalling, without the CBTC-like signalling system Metrolinx wants to install for RER).

Put the terminus on electronic signboards on the side of the train, so people know which train is going where, if heading outside the common segment. The Pearson/Bramalea trains can be different platforms at Union (Pearson service at existing UPX platform, Bramalea service at any of the GO platforms) but use the same platforms at the shared stations.

Oh - and theoretically, twenty years on, future HSR service (London-Guelph-Kitchener-Pearson-Union) can be tomorow's true airport express for all cities, interchanging with a LINK extension to the future Pearson Hub (tentatively where Malton is, but could instead be a future Woodbine RER station if a LINK extension repurposes the UPX viaduct. 2030s-2040s thinking when UPX stations needs a reno anyway and a Pearson Hub comes to fruitition).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jys
It's a nice vision. A corridor leveraged to effectively serve both local and regional demand, integrated into the local network. It has its flaws (watering down of the express and fancy attributes of the UPX, distance between platforms at Union, challenge of maintaining headways that tight, especially if Kitchener RER service is through-run with Stouffville), but why let the perfect be the enemy of the good?

However, I really struggle to envision Metrolinx embracing something like this. Spending that volume of resources on local service, and effectively integrating with the TTC to that degree seems like the kind of thing they'd struggle to wrap their minds around. They've been coming around on local 416 service lately, but I still think they see themselves as primarily the agency that gets people from the 905 to Union and back. We're years away from a final decision being made on how to handle integrating (or not) RER and UPX, but if they had to do it today, I just can't see them doing this.
 
ML is “Coming around on local 416 service” mostly because the City is communicating a willingness to pay for that service (aka SmartTrack).
The Weston/Bloor enhancement to UP is a political overlay, forced by ML’s initial miscalculation with UP pricing. Sadly, the Province pushed the pendulum too far over and UP is now underpriced as an airport service, and serving a local market that ML ought to be already servicing much better, were it not for ML waking up too late to CN’s position on the Halton line. One boo-boo feeds the next.
Other than these two stops, I don’t see ML doing much to adjust its 416 service other than via ST. It has taken steps to link to the subway/LRT network, eg Downsview Park, Caledonia and Mt Dennis, and that’s to the good.

- Paul
 
Spadina, Caledonia, and Lansdowne stations are not SmartTrack, unless you choose to define SmartTrack as any new GO station in the 416, in which case there really isn't any way for Metrolinx to expand local GO stops and not have it count as SmartTrack. However, you breezed right past two critical signals that they have an increased interest in local services:
  1. There is now a TTC/GO co-fare
  2. They're actively building a huge new line on Eglinton, with one more about to start on Finch
Yes, the reasons why they're doing all these things are primarily political, but so is basically everything Metrolinx does. It doesn't change the fact that after opening two stations in the 416 in like 30 years before Downsview Park, they're suddenly interested in enhancing transit in the 416 all over the place. I still don't think it's enough, but it's way more than they've done in the past.
 
Spadina, Caledonia, and Lansdowne stations are not SmartTrack, unless you choose to define SmartTrack as any new GO station in the 416, in which case there really isn't any way for Metrolinx to expand local GO stops and not have it count as SmartTrack. However, you breezed right past two critical signals that they have an increased interest in local services:
  1. There is now a TTC/GO co-fare
  2. They're actively building a huge new line on Eglinton, with one more about to start on Finch
Yes, the reasons why they're doing all these things are primarily political, but so is basically everything Metrolinx does. It doesn't change the fact that after opening two stations in the 416 in like 30 years before Downsview Park, they're suddenly interested in enhancing transit in the 416 all over the place. I still don't think it's enough, but it's way more than they've done in the past.

I probably should have said "GO is not coming around". You make a fair point that ML is behind Crosstown and Finch. It's hard to understand the exact value in ML being involved, as these could easily have been City led projects, but it's commendable that ML would step in when the City was unable to find any forward direction. And while it's good that ML would think to link the projects it is building where they intersect, that's a low-hanging fruit exercise.

Spadina is on GO's books because ML needed a relief for Union, and enough regional customers are headed for the west-of-Simcoe zone that they can situate platforms there and still attract those 905 riders. That's not a 'service the 416' agenda. Lansdowne is a political gesture to the Davenport community. One wonders how thrilled ML was with that one.

- Paul
 

Back
Top