RedRocket191
Senior Member
They are / did.
Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited
They are / did.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
If that's true, I have to say that they should be talking to some new consultants. As I said, Caltrain has as its entire cost $750 million. You claimed that Caltrain doesn't run through an urban area but that must mean that you haven't seen the line. It's pretty much entirely through an urban area.
Is that the difference between the same-old GO bilevel trains and real electrified regional rail? If so, a billion is a bargain.
Mapleson
Active Member
Maybe a peer review of technical reports should be undertaken, like the scientific community does.
From the Caltrain EA:
The difference is between bilevel diesal trains and belevel dual-fuel trains. A real electrified Lakeshore line will cost $6b. A real electrified regional rail system will cost over $25b including enabling works. Until GO has a real network to work with instead of borrowing capacity, electrification is a pipe dream.
For the cost of electification of part of the rail transit system, I'd rather subsidize electrifying cars.
From the Caltrain EA:
That's no rolling stock, no land aquisition, no grade seperations, no shared RoW. While there are a few at-grade minor crossings, the Caltrain doesn't need to stop as priority is given to trains and major crossings were already grade-seperated.
The difference is between bilevel diesal trains and belevel dual-fuel trains. A real electrified Lakeshore line will cost $6b. A real electrified regional rail system will cost over $25b including enabling works. Until GO has a real network to work with instead of borrowing capacity, electrification is a pipe dream.
For the cost of electification of part of the rail transit system, I'd rather subsidize electrifying cars.
unimaginative2
Senior Member
I'm sorry but those figures are just pulled out of a hat or wildly out of line. Yeah, a real review process of some kind is definitely called for if those are in any way accurate.
The Caltrain figures make perfect sense. What do grade crossings, additional tracks or even rolling stock have to do with electrification? All will have to be done anyway for a comparable diesel service.
The Caltrain figures make perfect sense. What do grade crossings, additional tracks or even rolling stock have to do with electrification? All will have to be done anyway for a comparable diesel service.
Mapleson
Active Member
The $6b comes from the Lakeshore Express Rail CBA, June 2009, as I've told you many times. They didn't do a cost estimate for diesel to 2031 service levels, so can't directly compare the $6b price tag to diesel only the $1.89b to $0.86b in 2015. Find me a recent report with a number you like and I'll see how it stacks up.
The over $25b is my own estimate, and included all the network expansion work needed to make electrification practical. $6b on Lakeshore, $1.5b on Milton expansion + $500m electric, $4b on Georgetown expansion, $2b
A real review process is currently underway and should be done in December. Nine months of "business as usual" plus delays and then we should have a comprehensive document that sets out the priorities for electrification (Lakeshore or Weston first?) and mechanisms (what rolling stock, what cantenary style, what cantenary spacing, what substation spacing, etc.)
Rolling stock, or at least the decision of type and configuration, has a large impact on the economics of electrification, because the two key benefits are higher accelerations (possibly) and lower fuel costs. Until that decision is made and accepted, rolling stock cannot be reduced to an incremental cost between trainsets. Significantly decreased headways are not possible without additional tracks and grade seperations.
A cost of electrification that does not reflect the in-ground press headline will not float, unless all other costs are paid for from a seperate project and the service gains for those improvements not attributed to electrification. In which case, we are looking at a scenario like Tier 2 diesel until 2015 and then implimenting electrification by 2025. If so, why the pressure to electrify now when GO doesn't know how to do the work. If not, a whole project cost estimate is suitable.
Ideally, costs would be broken down into a structure by structure listing of impacts on service level and a mix-and-match grab bag approach to funding used. Similiarly, line items for rolling stock, track, switches, signals, etc.
Electrification needs to happen, I just feel it doesn't need to happen in 2010.
The over $25b is my own estimate, and included all the network expansion work needed to make electrification practical. $6b on Lakeshore, $1.5b on Milton expansion + $500m electric, $4b on Georgetown expansion, $2b
A real review process is currently underway and should be done in December. Nine months of "business as usual" plus delays and then we should have a comprehensive document that sets out the priorities for electrification (Lakeshore or Weston first?) and mechanisms (what rolling stock, what cantenary style, what cantenary spacing, what substation spacing, etc.)
Rolling stock, or at least the decision of type and configuration, has a large impact on the economics of electrification, because the two key benefits are higher accelerations (possibly) and lower fuel costs. Until that decision is made and accepted, rolling stock cannot be reduced to an incremental cost between trainsets. Significantly decreased headways are not possible without additional tracks and grade seperations.
A cost of electrification that does not reflect the in-ground press headline will not float, unless all other costs are paid for from a seperate project and the service gains for those improvements not attributed to electrification. In which case, we are looking at a scenario like Tier 2 diesel until 2015 and then implimenting electrification by 2025. If so, why the pressure to electrify now when GO doesn't know how to do the work. If not, a whole project cost estimate is suitable.
Ideally, costs would be broken down into a structure by structure listing of impacts on service level and a mix-and-match grab bag approach to funding used. Similiarly, line items for rolling stock, track, switches, signals, etc.
Electrification needs to happen, I just feel it doesn't need to happen in 2010.
TOareaFan
Superstar
It has been interesting (if difficult) to follow the discussion about how much more electrification would cost. While there appears to be a fairly significant difference in the quantum there seems to be agreement that it does cost more.
Now, is there any chance that a provincial government that just sucked back $4B of previously committed transit funding is in anyway going to add additional money (however much it is) to electrify this line? I would suggest the answer is "no" and we should just get on with the task of expanding the corridor as planned, use the most eco/green friendly diesels we can and try and get people out of their cars. If the net eco benefit of less cars combined with lower emission diesels is still a positive on air quality how can that be a bad thing?
Or we could just go along with studying electrification, spending more money, knowing that we are not going to do it hoping to appease the people in Weston with a study?
Now, is there any chance that a provincial government that just sucked back $4B of previously committed transit funding is in anyway going to add additional money (however much it is) to electrify this line? I would suggest the answer is "no" and we should just get on with the task of expanding the corridor as planned, use the most eco/green friendly diesels we can and try and get people out of their cars. If the net eco benefit of less cars combined with lower emission diesels is still a positive on air quality how can that be a bad thing?
Or we could just go along with studying electrification, spending more money, knowing that we are not going to do it hoping to appease the people in Weston with a study?
Mapleson
Active Member
Electrification does have service benefits and needs to happen on at least the Lakeshore line in the mid-term (15-20 years). It wasn't specifically mentioned as being axed, so I think we'll see it shift later in the capital plan. Studying electrification is exactly what we should be doing to make sure we have the design details necessary when funding becomes available. If you believe the budget, we will be out of deficit by 2018. That said, healthcare is going to explode as the issue of 2013.
In the meantime, smaller projects double up in providing incremental service improvements and take away from the total price tag to get to the point of electrification. If we know it's a fixed end-zone, we can make sure all the steps along the way are in-line.
I think the system electrification study due in December is Go/Metrolinx's way of getting everyone on the same page internally regarding the electrification message, rather than a make-work exercise to appease a few vocal NIMBY residents. The message will change from "we are studying it" to "Lakeshore first when funding is available after 2015" rather than "There is no money in the budget to study that" which leaves them open to any and all criticisms over priorities.
In the meantime, smaller projects double up in providing incremental service improvements and take away from the total price tag to get to the point of electrification. If we know it's a fixed end-zone, we can make sure all the steps along the way are in-line.
I think the system electrification study due in December is Go/Metrolinx's way of getting everyone on the same page internally regarding the electrification message, rather than a make-work exercise to appease a few vocal NIMBY residents. The message will change from "we are studying it" to "Lakeshore first when funding is available after 2015" rather than "There is no money in the budget to study that" which leaves them open to any and all criticisms over priorities.
drum118
Superstar
Where ppl get numbers from is unreal.
Everyone looks at up front cost and not the rear cost.
Spending extra money on duel loco is a waste of money. You use diesel for trips outside the GTA area and use EMU's inside of that area.
Using EMU's will move the same numbers of riders as diesel faster and with less equipment. Lower operation cost can be had as you are using less crews and less capital rolling stock. Less rolling stock means less maintenance staff.
An EMU will use 240KW per hour of use vs. the cost of fuel per km. Hydro is going to be cheaper down the road as the cost of oil increase. I have said in the past, it would be wise to build 2-3 small power plant to feed the system and sale the exist power to help generate revenue funds. At the same time, if there is another blackout, the system still can run since it not tie into the main grid system.
You can start electrification of the Lakeshore as well the airport line first and then roll out the other lines over time. Not doing the Lakeshore now is a case of NIMBY doing more damage than good here. The airport is a must by 2015.
You are looking at $1.5-$2.5m/km of track for overhead. You need a substation every 5 miles.
The way this thing has turn into a mess like the RTP is no surprise to me as the Government has under estimated what the cost was going to be to put in a true transit system for the area.
At the same time, we have GO going on a spending spreed with no real vision as what it should be, not what it is today.
Having 90% of your fleet sitting idle during the week is a waste of capital resources.
Time to start planning for future equipment orders so it is arriving in time to start electrification service and not on diesel equipment standards.
This is what you get going sole source with one supplier that does everything.
Everyone looks at up front cost and not the rear cost.
Spending extra money on duel loco is a waste of money. You use diesel for trips outside the GTA area and use EMU's inside of that area.
Using EMU's will move the same numbers of riders as diesel faster and with less equipment. Lower operation cost can be had as you are using less crews and less capital rolling stock. Less rolling stock means less maintenance staff.
An EMU will use 240KW per hour of use vs. the cost of fuel per km. Hydro is going to be cheaper down the road as the cost of oil increase. I have said in the past, it would be wise to build 2-3 small power plant to feed the system and sale the exist power to help generate revenue funds. At the same time, if there is another blackout, the system still can run since it not tie into the main grid system.
You can start electrification of the Lakeshore as well the airport line first and then roll out the other lines over time. Not doing the Lakeshore now is a case of NIMBY doing more damage than good here. The airport is a must by 2015.
You are looking at $1.5-$2.5m/km of track for overhead. You need a substation every 5 miles.
The way this thing has turn into a mess like the RTP is no surprise to me as the Government has under estimated what the cost was going to be to put in a true transit system for the area.
At the same time, we have GO going on a spending spreed with no real vision as what it should be, not what it is today.
Having 90% of your fleet sitting idle during the week is a waste of capital resources.
Time to start planning for future equipment orders so it is arriving in time to start electrification service and not on diesel equipment standards.
This is what you get going sole source with one supplier that does everything.
TOareaFan
Superstar
No it wasn't specifcally "axed" nothing was. What we sometimes miss, though, is that politics is reality. Once the 2 or 3 or 4 projects that are to be axed are identified....which politician (and how) is gonna step forward and deliver this message "yes poor people of area 'X' we took your transit project away but kept funding the Georgetown corridor expansion....in fact, we are making it fancier/elctric now so it needs a few more billion....now, people in area, 'Y' that's where you come in because to get to that $4B reduction we need to chop more now...thanks for the votes".
It is just not going to happen (electrification of Georgetown) during this project....certainly not before 2015...so what is the life expectancy of the new, efficient - low(er) emission , diesels that the expanded service will begin with? That is the first time that electrification of of the Georgetown corridor should be reconsidered (realistically).
Mapleson
Active Member
Actually, I think the electrification studies to date have accounted for operational savings with electrification. The Lakeshore comparison shows a savings of $70m for electric over diesel with equal headways.
Most idle trainsets are due to USRC /Station capacity issues. As these get sorted out, GO service will expand accordingly and most the most of existing rolling stock.
There is no political necessity to allow any project to shrivel before Oct 2011. Electrification is the issue that GO/Metrolinx takes the most criticism on. As they are the ones to pick the poor boy, I am reasonably confident that it will be TTC projects that are 'delayed'.
Transit infrastructure spending is still projected to increase year-on-year. It's just that we have to work with $1.7b a year rather than $2.0b. The biggest 'savings' in delaying transit projects is the interest payments. Metrolinx is going to feel pressure to cut funding to unpopular projects, but I'll eat my hat if they don't keep electrification at least in the study process and Georgetown on the gravytrain to moneytown.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I was not suggesting that Georgetown would get cut or even reduced from the current scope....just that there is no chance that they will intentionally increase the bill in Georgetown, at this time, to electrify (or for any other purpose)....I still stand by that.
Mapleson
Active Member
I'll agree to that, but mostly from the perspective that they don't have the time to include electrification in Georgetown for July 2015.
I do think the bill on Georgetown is going to go up and I wouldn't be suprised to see costs overrun by 20-30%. I'd be disappointed to see them overrun by more than 50%.
I do think the bill on Georgetown is going to go up and I wouldn't be suprised to see costs overrun by 20-30%. I'd be disappointed to see them overrun by more than 50%.
hwy7
New Member
Is the ARL supposed to have its own dedicated track or will it be sharing with everything else? I wondered this the other day while waiting for a VIA train to pass so that the GO train I was riding could proceed.
Sir Novelty Fashion
Senior Member
QUESTION: Will electrification require entirely new trainsets? Can the current Bombardier bi-levels get dragged along by an electric-fed engine? Or does this require a complete redo?
RedRocket191
Senior Member
The corridor will have express tracks and local tracks. The ARL trains will share the express tracks with express GO and VIA.
Only new locomotives are needed at the very least. New rolling stock would be an upgrade, but are not critical.
Last edited: