dowlingm
Senior Member
I don't think Metrolinx should be permitted to proceed with this project without full public consultation and a business case. UPX was a time-compressed botch job - which the same agency created - let's not make another one.
Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
But no one is releasing the document, so we can't even look at it to try to understand the some of the reasons for the choices made.
My hope is that this construction is combined with the first stage of the GTAA's transit terminal (or at least stage 0.5) otherwise there will be another phase of construction and delays. In fact IIRC the APM LINK train at GTAA is near the end of it's useful life span and so it's replacement could be combined into this construction.
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
Metrolinx has confirmed that the bridge proposal isn't gonna happen after all, thankfully.
www.thestar.com
Metrolinx plans UP Express overhaul but says $80 million bridge won’t be part of it
Metrolinx still studying other proposals that would integrate UP Express service with the rest of GO Transit as part of a major expansion of the regional rail network planned for about 2025.
www.thestar.com
TheKingEast
Senior Member
Overaul 4 years in. I had to laugh at that.
Amare
Senior Member
I'm not sure on the technicalities but all I know is that if you thought UPX trains were slow on spur today, they would crawl with BiLevels in the route's current configuration.
felix123
Active Member
Does anyone know exactly why the trains run as slowly as they do on the spur? Is there a likely way that they could be run faster? Would the tracks need to be superelevated as the Skytrain tracks are in Vancouver?
Steve X
Senior Member
As they approach the platform, they have to manually line up the train cause they don't have ATO. For the other direction, I think they have to wait for the signal to clear for the train to proceed onto the mainline.
crs1026
Senior Member
There’s no reason to believe that the new version of UP service will be worse, in fact it has the potential to serve more people better if it is extended eastwards or northwards. Building a boutique service before the basic RER network was built was a huge mistake. Blame the politicians for that.
It’s regrettable that the service will lose its current platform, which is pretty nice (and cost a bunch). Realigning the platforms is needed to enable run-through routes for RER generally. The UPE change should not be thought of in isolation - yeah, ML may need to spend another half billion on the trainshed generally, but UP is not the driver...RER is. Union may come to look more like four or five parallel metro lines than a traditional ladder style terminal.
The detail that I found interesting was the assumption that electrification was a part of the change. That was the most tangible sign I have seen that it’s truly in the plan.
It’s also a sign that Union is gonna be full soon, period. That makes me wonder how long before ML gets interested in adding say a North Toronto terminal. Another decade, I imagine, but it’s not beyond belief anymore.
- Paul
It’s regrettable that the service will lose its current platform, which is pretty nice (and cost a bunch). Realigning the platforms is needed to enable run-through routes for RER generally. The UPE change should not be thought of in isolation - yeah, ML may need to spend another half billion on the trainshed generally, but UP is not the driver...RER is. Union may come to look more like four or five parallel metro lines than a traditional ladder style terminal.
The detail that I found interesting was the assumption that electrification was a part of the change. That was the most tangible sign I have seen that it’s truly in the plan.
It’s also a sign that Union is gonna be full soon, period. That makes me wonder how long before ML gets interested in adding say a North Toronto terminal. Another decade, I imagine, but it’s not beyond belief anymore.
- Paul
robmausser
Senior Member
Installation of Positive Train Control would allow for faster speeds.
robmausser
Senior Member
The fact that you think that this is talking about the BiLevels running in place of the UPX shows that you dont know what you are talking about or understand the discussion.
robmausser
Senior Member
The overhaul wont happen until 2025 at the earliest. So more like 10 years in. Which is still quite early.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Is there a separate "Annual Report" for UPX, or is it included with Metrolinx? Is there a link available, can't find anything on the Metrolinx website about current or past annual reports? As a "shareholder", I would like to see it.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Amare
Senior Member
Metrolinx is thinking about replacing the Nippon Sharyos. All options are on the table for vehicle replacement. No option has been chosen yet because it highly depends on vehicle is picked for GO RER operations, which itself will be tendered out privately. Vehicle selection highly depends on what is used for GO RER (as recently proposed) because Metrolinx is thinking about integrating UPX closely to GO operations. BiLevels of any kind arent off the table yet because no one knows what vehicle will be selected for RER operation. RER vehicle selection would have an impact on UPX due to the fact they would use the same/similar equipment (different consists) as currently proposed by Metrolinx
So please dont start with me here.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
I predicted the possibility that this could happen...
(1) Metrolinx is evaluating lengthenable EMU consists that can run shorter-length offpeak (and perhaps for UPX route, e.g. 4 coach), Credit: METROLINX
........
(2) Caltrain is ordering the dual-door-height version of the Stadler KISS, a heads up given by drum118 in 2016, photo credit
.........
What happens would be that GO orders a mix of the same type trainset
- some trainsets with doors at one level (legacy only)
- some trainsets with doors at both levels (legacy + UPX)
- same train model, just some with optional dual-height option
- Pearson-compatible trainsets would have the high doors & baggage racks.
- All trainsets can couple to 4/8/12 coach, with Pearson trains being 4 coach
- Fleet commonalty with low maintenance.
- More flexibility for slow-buildout to future GO level boarding options (2028 milestone kinda stuff)
Metrolinx said they intend 42 stations to become level boarding in the December 2018 meeting, and repeatedly mentions "level boarding" as part of the GO Expansion (the thing that used to be called GO RER for 2025, now targetted for year 2028).
There is -- as of yet -- no final decision on level boarding height, but this will influence the practicalities of merging UPX+RER. The two main platform height candidates are likely existing BiLevel floor height (~20 inch) and the standard 48" (existing VIA/UPX) with their attendant compatibility pros/cons.
From various posts I made since 2015-thru-2018 in: Great Platform Height Debate Thread
I would not be surprised if another of my earlier predictions became true, the merger of RER+UPX during electrification, with multiple stopping plans. Say trains every 5 minutes that executed different stopping patterns (1) true express to Pearson, (2) limited-stops resembling existing UPX, and (3) all-stops that included Woodbine(if built), Weston(kept), Eglinton(Crosstown), that included (3a) Pearson terminus and (3b) Brampton/Kitchener terminus -- all in a true Paris-RER-style multilayered service plan. It's possible the painted livery will be somewhat different to give a token nod to UP Express branding -- at least initially -- even if it is the same EMU for the rest of the GO network. First double frequency to 7.5 min initially (2028?), then a continued progression path to increasing service even further to 5 or sub-5 minute metro-style frequencies utilizing further-upgraded signalling (~2041).
Now about single-deck vs double-deck UPX/RER:
Single-level trains may happen instead as long as there are 3 or 4 doorsets per coach for faster embark/disembark subway style, and/or quick upgrades to metro frequencies. But if there's only two sets of doors and at 7.5 minute frequency, it could easily remain bilevel given the special Toronto situation (very different from Sydney). Single level will work if signalling of the main GO network is upgraded to CBTC with ~20tph/track capacities. But signal upgrades that could easily take a long time (Well beyond 2028) before the whole GO network is upgraded to Japanese/Paris/TTC standards of metro frequency per track, especially with many USRC constraints. Selective use of single-deck trains (UPX style) may continue, but would be harder to merge RER/UPX.
Double-deckers are more problematic for busy intermediate stations (this is an amplified problem in Sydney double decker 'subway', to the point where they want to go single-level trains). Multiple busy downtown stations in the middle of a double decker route creates major dwell bottlenecks for bidirectional embark/disembark flows. But that's less of an issue for UPX because the bidirectional embark-disembark don't reach Union-like and Pearson-like flows (terminus stations instead of middle stations). Thus, since the heavy concurrent bidirectional embark-disembark bottlenecks are mostly at the terminii -- switching UPX from singledeck to doubledeck likely won't bottleneck UPX in quite the same way as doubledeck bottlenecked Sydney. Paris manages to ram through double-deck RER at 24 trains per hour on the same track (subway-frequency GO service) and technology exists today to effectively fleet-merge GO/RER/UPX for the UPX/Kitchener corridor.
Attachments
Last edited: