DavidJamesTO
Active Member
Why not just use the US Railcar DMU? It's already FRA-compliant?
Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited
Paleo
Active Member
It's funny how so many around here immediately heaps scorn on to the TTC for being obstructionist and not "cooperating" and offering cheaper transfers to and from GO stations then this comes out. I wonder who is to blame!
Dan416
Senior Member
Until the TTC and GO Transit/Metrolinx merge, this thinking will continue at GO I imagine.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
So... how much is it going to cost to do the whole system? Which lines should go first? Second? Third? What are the long-term implications on fleet? Operational procedures?
That's why we study.
I hear you when you say "just do it" (and I want it done first), but in a world where people spend a year researching which HDTV they are going to buy I think it's reasonable to study how we're going to go about making a multi-billion dollar investment.
That's why we study.
I hear you when you say "just do it" (and I want it done first), but in a world where people spend a year researching which HDTV they are going to buy I think it's reasonable to study how we're going to go about making a multi-billion dollar investment.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
I would agree. The TTC and the city of Toronto in general needs to think regionally, while GO needs to think locally. Unfortunately, there is no incentive for the City to think regionally, as 905ers don't vote for 416 councillors. Similarly, there is no incentive for GO to think locally when their ridership comes from the 905 due to the TTC cornering the market on 416 to 416 trips.
Change isn't going to come organically... It will have to come through cooperation (forced or otherwise).
Change isn't going to come organically... It will have to come through cooperation (forced or otherwise).
Darwinkgo
Active Member
I think the companies that have made them have gone bankrupt a number of times. If they had a history of delivering projects on time (or at all in some cases) maybe it would make sense. But then again - they could win a tender.
TOareaFan
Superstar
It is the multi-billion dollar investment that has me opposed to this. While electrifying the system, in and of itself, makes sense....what we really need in this region is more transit. If we end up spending multi-billions (or even multi-hundred millions) on electrifying does anyone think that money will be spent in addition to expansion money? It is, far more likley, to be the transit expenditure for whatever period that takes.
So, I think, instead of expanding transit we will end up just making the little transit we have better.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
It is for that very reason that my stance has always been to support electrification but not to support delaying enhancements until electrification is complete. Just because we are planning to extend the subway to Richmond Hill Centre doesn't mean we shouldn't throw more buses on the corridor today.
Mapleson
Active Member
I can see the benefits of electric trains in a general neutral circumstance, but GO runs bilevel mega-trains because of the space restrictions at Union Station. It's why they went to bilevel coaches. It's why they went to 12-car consists exclusively on the Milton corridor. The Georgetown South corridor expansion will allow all-day service, similiarly the Milton corridor expansion plans would allow all-day service. GO is getting more vocal about the fact that service levels are restricted to what CP/CN will allow them to use ("excess capacity"). Yes, we will gain closer headways with electrification, but deisal corridor expansion would allow this as well.
If you admit it is about acceleration and not velocity, then GO won't have any more frequent service beyond 1-2 extra squeezed in, as there won't be any new track space without the construction of additional track on an expanded corridor.
The previous study for Electrification of Lakeshore did not include all costs (specifically property valuations) and called for more information for a more extensive study, circa 2010 GO System Electrification. This is why it was called an "Interim Report".
The Lakeshore Electrification interim report cited costs of $5.98 billion and is only going to go up. This isn't going to get funded in the current deficit-ridden economy for at least 2-3 years, why then rush a product into the ground when you have no strategic vision of what you are actually trying to achieve. What, where, why, how, and when are all questions I'd like to see answered before we invest a decade or more into this.
Rather than trying to push through a project that it going to be rejected or fight against the Air Rail Link project for funding, why not take the measured approach of making sure you have a solid case to take to the government and public that's realistic in the overall impact to those living along the rail corridors.
I support electrification in concept, but I believe infrastructure constrains have to be lifted first. Look at the big ticket items on Metrolinx's plate (from MoveOntario 2020) for GO.
1) Lakeshore West
- capacity expansion by adding a third track from Port Credit to Oakville
- capacity expansion by adding a third track from Burlington to Hamilton
2) Lakeshore East
- line extension from Oshawa to Bowmanville
- capacity expansion by adding a third track from Union Station to Scarborough
3) Georgetown South
- capacity expansion from Union Station to Georgetown
4) Milton
- capacity expansion from Union Station to Milton
5) Richmond Hill rail
- line extension to Aurora Road
- capacity expansion from Union Station to Richmond Hill
6) Bradford rail
- line extension to Barrie
- capacity expansion from Bradford to Barrie
- expansion from Union Station to Bradford
7) Stouffville
- capacity expansion from Union Station to Stouffville
- line extension to Uxbridge
8) New lines
- New GO Crosstown rail line between Weston Road and the Don Valley
- New GO Crosstown rail line between the Don Valley and Agincourt
- New GO rail line from Union Station to Bolton
- New GO rail line on the Havelock line from Agincourt to Pickering
- New GO rail line on the Seaton line from Agincourt to Brock Road in Pickering
9) Electrification
- GO Lakeshore rail line electrification (SuperGO)
Items 1-4 are enabling works for future electrification of these lines. Georgetown South corridor expansion (Phase 1 of 4) will be done by July 2015. Lakeshore and Milton corridors expansion should be done by 2021, if funded. This'll take us almost to the 25 year planning horizon for Union Station. Give a 5-year window for detailed design, environmental assessment, and construction puts the soonest we'd realistically see electrification at 2025. Any sooner will be a waste of money as we don't have the track or station capacity to support it. Electrification can't be done before corridor expansions.
One side note, electrification will only affect GO and not the CN/CP freight trains that comprise the majority of air, noise, and vibration pollution. They will continue to run diesal.
Hipster Duck
Senior Member
I'm with Mapleson here. Electrification is great as unimaginative says, but even if all our lines are under the wire, they are still mostly traveling on single, jointed tracks with weeds sticking out of them and block signals that are meant to move 100-car freight trains...benefits like increased frequencies and a new operational model could not even be properly taken advantage of.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
I don't get what's so terrible about the Budd cars. They're being refurbished from top to bottom and their shells are basically indestructible. I'd have thought there would be a bit more respect for recycling. I just rode VIA's old Budd cars and I'm so happy I wasn't stuck in some new Viewliner.
Not that I wouldn't be happy with Talents, too. They're great little vehicles.
Not that I wouldn't be happy with Talents, too. They're great little vehicles.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
The original study was for the whole network too.
I don't think anybody here supports delaying enhancements. It's delaying electrification that people oppose.
Obviously nobody would electrify a single-track line with jointed rail. Electrification would have to be done in combination with the necessary track improvements. There's no law saying you can't do both at once. In fact, it would be a lot easier.
There is no reason why GO has to run mega-trains, especially outside the rush hour, as long as they have a decent corridor under their control (like they will have on Georgetown) with proper, modern signalling. Union is a pretty capacious station. If you ran it like real regional rail, not terminating at Union and with a pair of tracks dedicated to each line, frequencies are almost unlimited.
I'm not sure where you got it but that figure is completely insane. France is building an entire greenfield high-speed line that's much longer than the Lakeshore line (and is obviously electrified) for 2 billion euros. Caltrain is electrifying a 52-mile quad-track corridor right now for $785 million.
Last edited:
kettal
Banned
This is already not true of Lakeshore, and it will be untrue of Georgetown in 4 years.
RedRocket191
Senior Member
+1
Mapleson
Active Member
Lumping enabling works into electrification costs just serves to raise the price tag and cloud the issue of fund prioritization. Rather than viewing it as delaying electrification, why not view it as advancing enabling works, while figuring out what they are going to do.
GO does not have a currently have a definitive picture of RoW widths or even prefered cantenary support configuration. Until these things have been nailed down, any enabling works either have to guess and potentially be wrong after spending hundreds of millions of dollars or wait. Clearly, this isn't acceptable and why the Air Rail Link is proceeding without electrification to squeeze in completion by July 2015. If GO knew what 'electrification' meant exactly, as they should in December, they could design accordingly.
You state why GO has to run mega-trains: Union Station and not having 2 dedicated GO tracks per line.
I agree with the premise of splitting up Union Station loading, as it is THE pinch point on GO's network. I also agree with twin-tracked dedicated passenger lines (GO/VIA). I would build/advance all these projects while electrification is being sorted out. What is the difference in air pollution reduction between adding twinned deticated tracks on the Milton corridor (~$1.2B) to allow all-day service with 12/15 minute headways versus electrifying the Lakeshore corridor.
My number $6b figure came from the June 11, 2009, GO Transit Lakeshore Express Rail Benefits Case Analysis Report. The Caltrain line was not in an urban setting (higher land values), did not require extensive land aquistion, did not include rolling stock, and does not operate in a shared RoW (Costs included are electrifcation equipment, Signal, communications, grade crossing, infrastructure). I'm also holding my breath until 2014 for the final cost figures as the cost was $831m in 2003 and now stands at $1.23b including rolling stock. The same general difference apply with the French high-speed line. Greenfield refers to develop done on 'virgin terrority' rather than 'brownfield' redevelopment as GO would be required to undertake. That $6b will be on the low side of the system-wide study findings, I believe.
For comparison, a single grade-seperation for these expanded rail corridors will cost between $100m and $150m.