Metrolinx has now released Part 2 of the Draft Environmental Report for the Georgetown South Service Expansion Project, and will hold a series of Open Houses over the next few weeks.
I will add more details to this post once I have a chance to digest several hundred pages of online information.
Updated 6:15 pm:
Mark Dowling sent along a note about a rather bizarre statement in the Metrolinx document:
Are Metrolinx trying to pull a fast one? Section 5.1.7 Page 204 (page 216 of the PDF):
“At present there are no electric double-deck commuter cars that can legally operate on North America railway lines.”
What would they call these then? Or has this fleet been retired by METRA since 02?
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Metra_Electric_train.jpg
- Link to the photo used in the Wikipedia article
In any case, nobody said they had to be EMUs, did they? (Although EMU would have its advantages, obviously).
It’s this sort of thing that makes one wonder about the accuracy of so much else Metrolinx produces, or of the (possibly unintentional) bias in their studies.
Steve Munro 
A word of warning to those who try to read this report, the rail corridor runs east west everywhere, even where it crosses Bloor St. and you thought it was running north south. No no, it is running east west. When they say that they want to expand the bridge across Bloor to the north side, they mean east. I really hope that they have a better command of directions in the real world.
Also of interest is the proposal for the Pearson Rail Link which will start with four, two car trains sets with one hat spare train and a car for maintenance. They are going to increase to 18 cars for four three car trains sets, a hot spare of three cars and three cars for maintenance. In its main report Metrolinx mentions electrification and says that no double deck electric cars available meet current rail requirements.
“Acquisition of new electric rolling stock. (At present there are no electric double-deck commuter cars that can legally operate on North America railway lines.) ”
I believe that this is because they do not meet the requirements of the “Americans With Disabilities Act, ADA”. The Bombardier bi-levels meet this requirement because of their low floor centre section and wide door loading. High platform cars would probably meet this requirement but the Blue 22 RDC’s probably do not meet Ontario’s requirements unless they use a high platform centre door. I will have to check this out.
Does anyone know if there is a requirement in Ontario or Canada (I am not sure under whose jurisdiction this line falls.) It would be a real bummer if they built the damn thing and the cars had to be replaced in six years to meet the needs of the disabled.
LikeLike
I believe that these cars do not meet the ADA requirements except in the high platform areas within the city of Chicago. I cannot remember where I read it, it was not a Bombardier document, but none of the passenger equipment for heavy rail in the US that has low platform capabilities has the door width to meet the ADA requirements for accessibility. The South Shore cars in the photo pre date the new requirements. This is what I believe they mean by the “legally operate” on North American Railway lines, hence my question about RDC’s on the Union Pearson Rail Link. Does Canada have similar restrictions?
LikeLike
VIA just had to rebuild the interiors of some Renaissance cars to make them accessible after a court ruling.
Also, i have a hard time believing the Air-Rail Link can operate without some consideration for AODA/ODA – http://www.accesson.ca/mcss/english/pillars/accessibilityOntario/planning/planning_transportation.htm
LikeLike
It should be unnecessary to have double-decker EMUs.
The farther-flung rush-hour only runs that extend beyond an electrified network’s all-day service area can continue to be diesel pulling the bi-levels during the peak times that that capacity would be needed.
The EMUs have the ability to run more frequently than their diesel counterparts since they can stop faster (and start faster, but stopping faster is the safety edge). This can allow them to be single-level and still provide about the same capacity as the less frequent diesel cars, Union Station capacity permitting (with or without Summerhill/North Toronto, which can only help by a small amount). This would speed up service on multiple angles because platforms are cleared of waiting passengers more frequently with more numerous sets of doors, reducing dwell times, and reduce shoving to get down from the upper level (heaven forbid you get off before Union Station). These are important aspects when more stops within 416 are added. It would be an overall service quality improvement.
The EMUs certainly don’t have to be bi-level to accommodate the off-peak period demand levels when diesel runs with bi-levels wouldn’t be operating.
Bi-levels should be an irrelevant factor to the UPRL.
Steve: It’s not the UPRL to which the comment relates, but to electrified service in the Brampton corridor. The real issue with the bilevels is that they are designed to accumulate a load over time which they disgorge at Union, or conversely, to fill up at one point and then dribble out passengers along the way outbound. If the traffic changes to ons-and-offs along the way, they will get into capacity and loading problems just like an ALRV trying to handle everyone through one door.
LikeLike
Robert, I think the “oh noes the disabled” might be convenient for metrolinx to cling to in respect to the Metra cars but let’s face it if the cars were newbuild there is no way the number of cars GO will need for Georgetown and Lakeshore wouldn’t justify an AODA compliant design – and that’s if you discount electric locos. I mean, those *87 trains a day* to Barrie will need rolling stock, right?
Steve: Careful with the counts. Those are number of trains on each route, bothways, because, for example, an hourly headway means two trains per hour. That would account for 36 trains a day just for starters. The number of trainsets is a function of the minimum headway, the length of the line measured in running time, and the spare ratio, not the number of trips per day. The same number of cars on Spadina would be a lot further apart running on Queen.
LikeLike
Mark Dowling Says:
June 1st, 2009 at 9:54 pm
“Robert, I think the “oh noes the disabled” might be convenient for metrolinx to cling to in respect to the Metra cars but let’s face it if the cars were newbuild there is no way the number of cars GO will need for Georgetown and Lakeshore wouldn’t justify an AODA compliant design – and that’s if you discount electric locos. I mean, those *87 trains a day* to Barrie will need rolling stock, right?”
I am not quite sure what you are saying. There is no reason that they could not make an electric version of the current bi-levels. They would need to move the doors a little closer to the centre, put the transformers and ancillary parts between the door and the truck. You might lose 6 to 8 seats per car but it could be done. If they don’t make the cars self propelled then there is no reason for electrification. I am still not sure it is worth the cost.
LikeLike
Are high-floor accessible trains a non-starter? I assume it’d be a total pain to provide raised platforms at Union Station, but for the rest of the line it seems like a small change given the overall scale of what they’re contemplating.
And looking at the ups and downs approaching the airport, will there be seatbelts?
LikeLike
Can unpowered bilevels be mixed into a trainset of EMU? If so, then there’s the answer to your wheelchair loading problem.
Although for the rest of us, we will still need good climbing skills to get onto the high floor units.
LikeLike
There is no reason you cannot build a bi-level electric train, even if there was not already one working. There is also no reason, from a technical standpoint, you could not have a train with an electric locomotive. Cost wise, of course, it’s wiser to build units that can power themselves.
I also fail to see the big whoop even if you could not build bi-level electric trains. Surly there must be *some* kind of other option like, oh, single level cars? This sounds like a bunch of doublespeak from metrolinx to try and get their own way.
LikeLike
Matt L. Says:
June 2nd, 2009 at 12:02 am
“Are high-floor accessible trains a non-starter? I assume it’d be a total pain to provide raised platforms at Union Station, but for the rest of the line it seems like a small change given the overall scale of what they’re contemplating.
“And looking at the ups and downs approaching the airport, will there be seatbelts?”
They are because a train cannot pass a high platform at more than 10 mph because of the side to side swaying of the cars. The TTC subways that are dead heading have to slow down going through stations because of this. In the US where they have high platforms on mainline track they use a set of gauntlet tracks that move the passenger train over a foot to get close to the platform.
Nick J Boragina Says:
June 2nd, 2009 at 4:20 am
“There is no reason you cannot build a bi-level electric train, even if there was not already one working. There is also no reason, from a technical standpoint, you could not have a train with an electric locomotive. Cost wise, of course, it’s wiser to build units that can power themselves.
“I also fail to see the big whoop even if you could not build bi-level electric trains. Surly there must be *some* kind of other option like, oh, single level cars? This sounds like a bunch of doublespeak from metrolinx to try and get their own way.”
The reason that we need the bi-level cars is because of their lower mid level which gives you direct access to the wheel chair platform with out any steps. Note that this platform is a good foot away from the train so it does not get hit by any side sway and the conductor has to put down his little platform. Electric locomotives give you a marginal increase in speed that is not worth the cost of electrification. If you cannot run EMU’s then don’t electrify.
The Metra cars are all high platform gallery cars, sorry I thought they were South Shore cars earlier, and cannot load at a low platform. The South Shore run a modified single level cars with high platform loading in Chicago and then use the standard end steps out side of the city centre, They even stop in the middle of a street like a street car does. Both systems run on 1500 VDC if I remember correctly so they do not need the extra transformer and control systems of an AC powered unit.
The cost to put in high level platforms would be astronomical as you would need the gauntlet track to let through trains go by at speed. You also could not use the middle track at three track sections as there is no room for the gauntlet. The GO bi-levels are easily adapted to high level use by putting the doors in the section over the trucks but I don’t think that this will happen anytime soon.
LikeLike
I don’t see why raised platforms are perceived as something which is incredibly difficult, verging on impossible. The main problem as Union would be adding some extra steps at the top of the current flights of stairs, but you’re going to be pouring a lot of concrete around the place if your raise platforms, so it wouldn’t require uch extra effort. VIA wouldn’t object, because their doors are even higher than GO’s.
Is it true that the current coaches are easily convertible to EMUs?
Also, given this is Canada and not the USA, is there anything legally preventing Transport Canada from saying that European style train standards (which specify things in terms of strength, rather than in terms of weight like the FRA does)?
LikeLike
Blue22’s RDC’s will meet all current ODA requirements regardless of being high-floor because they will use the same method that VIA uses at Union Station – a portable lift onto and off of the trains.
This is not practical for any sort of high-capacity commuter train for a variety of reasons.
That said, there is no reason why someone couldn’t come up with an EMU design that could pull a number of BiLevel cars to allow for accessibility (and additional capacity).
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
LikeLike
“And looking at the ups and downs approaching the airport, will there be seatbelts?”
Seeing as how the subway, which has the comparable grades as the airport approach between Dundas and King, I don’t think there’s any issue. Remember that those Metrolinx boards have the squares equal to 1 meter vertically, and 10 meters horizontally, making the illustrated slopes 10 times steeper than they are in real life. This is deliberate to understand how severe they are to a train even though they’d be nothing to a pedestrian or even a wheelchair.
LikeLike
I have looked up the ADA requirements for rail passenger service and here are the highlights from the American requirements:
These are much more stringent than the Canadian laws. I believe that there is also a requirement for door widths but I have not found it yet. What I believe that Metrolinx meant to say was that there are currently no electric bi-level cars that have low platform loading that meet these requirements. Here is the section from the internet:
LikeLike
Yep, they’re still running in Chicago in 2009.
And in Maryland/DC as well!
LikeLike
zb Says: Can unpowered bilevels be mixed into a trainset of EMU? If so, then there’s the answer to your wheelchair loading problem.
The answer depends on what you by mixed. Generally, EMUs contain a mix of powered and unpowered cars, even those designed for high speeds. (E.g., the Pendolinos used in the UK have six powered and three unpowered cars, and can do 140mph).
However, what I think you mean is “could you mix the current carriages with EMUs in the same train”. This certainly technically possible, especially if the powered EMUs were built using the roughtly the same shells as the current carriages (which would be a cheaper option anyway). Some modification to the current carriages’ electrical systems would be needed, but nothing major.
However, I see no intrinsic reason why EMUs that are outwardly identical to the current carriages aren’t possible.
LikeLike
When the present bi-levels first cme out I heard that they had sloped ends to accommodate pantographs, perhaps as a variation on future orders.
LikeLike
zb Says:
“Can unpowered bilevels be mixed into a trainset of EMU? If so, then there’s the answer to your wheelchair loading problem. The answer depends on what you by mixed. Generally, EMUs contain a mix of powered and unpowered cars, even those designed for high speeds. (E.g., the Pendolinos used in the UK have six powered and three unpowered cars, and can do 140mph).”
You can do this but the problem for these trains is not maximum speed but acceleration. The stations are so close together that they are not going to get to 140 mph. Unpowered axles reduce your rate of acceleration so if you electrify then have all the cars and axles powered. This also allows for more flexibility. The Union-Pearson Rail Link has such steep grades that it requires at least half the axles powered, hence the reason for the RDC’s.
Tom West:
If they run EMU’s off 25 000 VAC then they will either need a conversion unit to change the single phase to three phase and my knowledge of this type of inverter is a little rusty. It would probably be easier to put in auxiliaries that ran from single phase. If you did this then you could not mix the cars.
David:
I thought the sloped ends were styling only. The original single level GO ars had a roof reinforcement for pantographs and conduit in the body at one end to bring down the power feed. I know this because I worked on them one summer when they converted the self propelled cars into cab cars and saw all the drawings.
LikeLike
What I don’t get is why not simply swap diesel for electric, simply put an electric locomotive on each end of a current bi-level consist and call it done.
LikeLike
Robert Wightman said “… because a train cannot pass a high platform at more than 10 mph because of the side to side swaying of the cars.”
Odd, because European trains frequently pass through stations at high speed. Try standing at a platform when a non-stopping German ICE train blows through (not on a high speed line, just regular tracks) at 60-70 mph, for one example. Very common. You don’t need a high speed train to prove that point, either, even regular expresses do it. If they can’t do that here, it must be a combination of our poor track and crappily-built cars. Build it right, there’s no problem with any speed our trains could manage.
LikeLike
The Kawasaki’s were delivered in 2000 too!!
Is this what we should expect from Metrolinx, the agency who thinks they know what is good for the region?
LikeLike
Tom West: There’s certainly nothing preventing Transport Canada from allowing European trains, but that doesn’t mean they’ll do it. They’ve allowed Ottawa to use unmodified Bombardier Talents, but only if freight trains don’t use that line at the same time, which is the same condition that the U.S. authorities have imposed on the European equipment used in Trenton, New Jersey and Austin, Texas.
Achieving this sort of ‘time segregation’, as it’s called, across a whole line is probably beyond GO’s means. On the other hand, it would save us the trouble of designing yet another brand new train duplicating features that already exist, and going through the period of teething troubles that seems to afflict most modern stock.
Wogster: Swapping in electric locomotives is perfectly possible, but harder to justify. For a commuter service that makes frequent stops, much of the benefit for electrification comes from the superior acceleration of electric multiple-unit trains over locomotive-drawn equipment.
LikeLike
Robert Wightman Says: [high-floor accessible trains are a non-starter] because a train cannot pass a high platform at more than 10 mph because of the side to side swaying of the cars.
That’s if “accessible” is taken to mean “1 inch gap between carriage floor and platform surface” then you are right, but there are other ways of making carriages accessible. For example, if the carriage floor and platform surface are still level, and you have a just have a bigger gap (say 20cm), then all you’d need is a small ramp that folds down to rest on the platform. You could make it automatic (like the doors), and even put them all doorways so everyone benefits.
My suggestion of 20cm doesn’t come from thin air – it’s roughly the gap between platform and train you get with British trains such the the Intercity 125s (a.k.a. HSTs), which regularly run through stations at 200km/hr.
Wogster: As Robert Wightman pointed out, EMUs offer better acceleration because they have more powered axles (potentially 48 for 12-car EMU vs six for a loco), decreasing journey times, and increasing the benefits of electrifcation.
LikeLike
I get the point of EMUs and acceleration, but wouldn’t Wogster’s suggestion be a decent interim solution? The bi-levels could then be replaced with EMUs when they retire from service.
LikeLike
Bombardier’s recent Regina trains in Sweden do exactly what Tom describes. As the doors open, a small step extends from the side of the train, closing the gap with the platform. It’s very convenient, and doesn’t impinge on passing trains or require any rebuilding of the station platform.
Ottawa does the opposite, with small extensions attached to the side of the platform, which can be removed when a wider freight train needs to pass – but this would be less practical on a larger scale, since it requires the stations to be built to match one specific type of train, and forces the driver to stop at the exact right position.
LikeLike
From: TrainOrders.com
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,94008
Re: Bombardier lozenge cars
These cars are designed to be all purpose: coach, cab car, RDC w/engine “downstairs”, MU electric w/pantograph on each end, etc. The comes from a friend who knows (and specifically asked) the original designer.
LikeLike
John Bromley Says:
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:28 am
“Robert Wightman said ‘… because a train cannot pass a high platform at more than 10 mph because of the side to side swaying of the cars.’
“Odd, because European trains frequently pass through stations at high speed. Try standing at a platform when a non-stopping German ICE train blows through (not on a high speed line, just regular tracks) at 60-70 mph, for one example. Very common. You don’t need a high speed train to prove that point, either, even regular expresses do it. If they can’t do that here, it must be a combination of our poor track and crappily-built cars. Build it right, there’s no problem with any speed our trains could manage.”
John:
The problem is not the high speed passenger trains but the high speed freights. Stand by the side of the track and watch one sway as it goes by at 60 mph. I got this from a railway track engineer. I do not think that the railways are going to rebuild all their equipment so GO can run high platforms with no gap.
Tom West Says:
June 3rd, 2009 at 10:03 am
“Robert Wightman Says: [high-floor accessible trains are a non-starter] because a train cannot pass a high platform at more than 10 mph because of the side to side swaying of the cars.
“That’s if “accessible” is taken to mean “1 inch gap between carriage floor and platform surface” then you are right, but there are other ways of making carriages accessible. For example, if the carriage floor and platform surface are still level, and you have a just have a bigger gap (say 20cm), then all you’d need is a small ramp that folds down to rest on the platform. You could make it automatic (like the doors), and even put them all doorways so everyone benefits”.
Anything can be done if you are willing to spend enough money. Sometime you have to deal with reality and reality says that they are not going to rebuild 59 stations for high platform plus nearly 500 bi-level cars. The current gap is 30 cm and what happens when your folding platform gets caked in snow and ice and doesn’t fold down?
Come on guys deal with the possible or you’ll make Harper’s $50 billion debt well over $100 billion in no time. There is only a finite amount of money and I am afraid that the province is soon going to say “whoa we are spending too much” and start cancelling plans. This is not England we don’t have an “Up and Down Goods track, an Up and Down Local plus and Up and Down Express. We are lucky to get sections with two tracks let alone three except in the Weston Corridor where we will have eight tracks.
LikeLike
You don’t need every axle powered – Montréal’s MR90’s have every second car powered, and they are able to get up to 60mph in a tad over 60 seconds. Having 4 380hp motors certainly helps with this though.
As for the BiLevel design, it was designed to be able to form the starting point of an EMU – but not the way it looks now. The intermediate level at one end of the car would be extended inwards 1 “large” window (and concurrently, the upper and lower levels shortened by the same) to allow for enough space for things like control equipment, transformers, tap changers (if necessary), invertors, etc.
As for high speeds and high platforms – many trains in Europe also use a small step which folds or slides out, and helps cover the distance between the train and the platform. Something like this would be needed here because of the width of freight cars in North America. The other option is to do what Amtrak has done in places, and lay gauntlet track to allow trains stopping at that particular station to get a little closer to the platform.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
LikeLike
Thanks to David Arthur for pointing out that Bombardier already do build trains that do exactly as I described. As for the point about snow and ice – they use these trains in Sweden, a country certainly gets plenty of frozen water.
I only suggested raising the platform height in order to ensure the fold-out ramp doesn’t have to address any height difference (because a height difference means a slope, which can’t be too steep, which means a minimum length of the ramp bigger than the gap between train and platform).
Further, raising platform heights doesn’t require changing existing carraiges. The accecssability coach would have the current ramp arrangement, and everyone else would have a gap rather than a step up.
As for cost, does anyone have a ball-park figure for the cost of raising one platform to the current carriage (lower level) floor height?
LikeLike
David Arther says:
Wogster: Swapping in electric locomotives is perfectly possible, but harder to justify. For a commuter service that makes frequent stops, much of the benefit for electrification comes from the superior acceleration of electric multiple-unit trains over locomotive-drawn equipment.
Okay, we know that EMU is the best technology for this, however we also have to look at what is practical. A rail car is good for 30 years, so do we toss out perfectly good 5 or 10 year old cars. to buy EMU cars for however many millions of dollars each?
Practicality says an non-powered (NP) car is needed for use on non-electrified lines, a partly electrified line could run a diesel at one end and an electric at the other, using the appropriate engine for the condition of the line. Once you have lines that are all electric and cars ready to be retired, then you start replacing them with EMUs or NP cars based on what you need at the time.
So one line you might have 10 trains that are EMU’s and 5 more that are NP cars with an electric locomotive on another line you have 10 trains all NP with a diesel at one end and an electric locomotive at the other and on another line you have 5 trains with just a diesel. An EMU for use on a GO line would need to have a similar configuration to the existing bi-level car.
As for the airport train, Budd RDCs? are they mad, those cars are almost old enough to collect old age pension. They would need to completely disassemble them and rebuild them from the wheels on up, replacing most of the mechanical bits including the engines and transmissions. Probably a better idea is to build the line as electric from the get-go and figure a way to put a Pantograph on top of a T1 type car, which would probably just need a little reinforcement in the roof, probably cost about the same per car and you have rolling stock that is good for 30 years, if the line fails, resell the cars as the market for them would be pretty good. Resale of even a rebuilt Budd would not be high.
LikeLike
“They are because a train cannot pass a high platform at more than 10 mph because of the side to side swaying of the cars. The TTC subways that are dead heading have to slow down going through stations because of this.”
This has already been addressed but to further note subways cars when in service most certainly enter the platforms at speeds several times in excess of 10 mph. GO coaches only sway only slightly more than subways cars (due to their greater length).
“Ottawa does the opposite, with small extensions attached to the side of the platform, which can be removed when a wider freight train needs to pass – but this would be less practical on a larger scale, since it requires the stations to be built to match one specific type of train, and forces the driver to stop at the exact right position.”
Actually we do have to stop at a pretty precise spot – within 35 feet for a train 950 feet long and a platform 1200 feet long. It’s a space that constitutes 3% of the total length of the platform. My frequency for error is 1 in 1000, though I know of many engineers who have much higher rates o error. Constructing high level platforms would eliminate the absolute need to stop at this spot which. Thsi in turn would eliminate one reason for delays.
Either that or I suppose they can bring in ATC… at a cost of billions of dollars.
“The problem is not the high speed passenger trains but the high speed freights. Stand by the side of the track and watch one sway as it goes by at 60 mph. I got this from a railway track engineer. I do not think that the railways are going to rebuild all their equipment so GO can run high platforms with no gap.”
This is just one of the reasons why we should have dedicated lines just for passenger rail. The GO sub from Pickering to Oshawa is one such example. Freight trains are prohibited on this line all together. The rest of the Lakeshore eest line – the Kingston sub, from Pickering to Union has a grand total of 3 industrial switches. CN does not run any through trains on this sub at all. The Oakville sub, GO’s lakeshore west line is a little bit busier but not dramatically so.
A feasible option would be to have a single track that can accommodate passenger & freight equipment, perhaps with the use of gauntlet tracks. This would allow CN to run freights and provide their service to customers along the line, preferably night so that it does not interfere with passenger train. This would minimizes costs by not having to retrofit all the tracks, but only one. However I don’t this happening while CN still has ownership of the lines.
“Further, raising platform heights doesn’t require changing existing carraiges. The accecssability coach would have the current ramp arrangement, and everyone else would have a gap rather than a step up.”
Agreed. There is a aluminum step blotted on to the side of the bi-level coaches that can relatively easily be modified and raised to be level with the doors.
LikeLike
There are also electric bilevels on New Jersey Transit; I was just on one on Tuesday.
LikeLike
J.M. Says:
There are also electric bilevels on New Jersey Transit; I was just on one on Tuesday.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/New_Dual_Mode_Locomotive.jpg
NJT’s units are MultiLevel coaches, not the BiLevels as used in Toronto, or even EMU’s for that matter. They are hauled behind both diesel and electric locos.
By the way, that image you linked to is of a locomotive that doesn’t yet exist. Montréal is also getting a batch of them.
And to keep this on topic with a reference to Toronto – dual-mode locomotives are precisely what we don’t need, and we also have no use for the limited clearance MultiLevel design – the BiLevels will fit fine into Union even with catenary.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
LikeLike
Drew T Says
You say “Actually we do have to stop at a pretty precise spot – within 35 feet for a train 950 feet long and a platform 1200 feet long. It’s a space that constitutes 3% of the total length of the platform.”
A couple of Questions
1 Where do you get a 950 foot train length and a 1200 foot platform length? A 10 car go train is 850 feet plus locomotive while a 12 car train is 1020 feet plus locomotive. The platforms I have seen are about 100 feet longer than this at most.
2 Where doe the requirement for 35 feet come from? The requirement for stopping is to put the cab end door of the fifth car over the high platform and I thing that it is less than 35 feet long, especially if you subtract the width of the door from your error potential. These platforms seem to be at most 20 feet long and subtracting 4 feet for the door give about a a 2 foot cushion. I am not sure about the actual length. I will measure one tomorrow.
You also say: “This is just one of the reasons why we should have dedicated lines just for passenger rail. The GO sub from Pickering to Oshawa is one such example. Freight trains are prohibited on this line all together. The rest of the Lakeshore eest line – the Kingston sub, from Pickering to Union has a grand total of 3 industrial switches. CN does not run any through trains on this sub at all. The Oakville sub, GO’s lakeshore west line is a little bit busier but not dramatically so.”
3 DO they not run any intermodal trains along this line anymore? I thought that they had put intermodals from the east to Chicago back along here because they did not need to go to MacMillan Yard and this would reduce traffic on the York and Halton Subs.
I do not think that CN or CP, especially CP, will let GO put up structures that would limit the railways flexibility and ability to run freights when and where they want and the railways still own most of the tracks for the Lakeshore, line the Milton line, The Richmond Hill line and the proposed Bolton line and the cross town line.
LikeLike
And the only reason Montréal is getting dual-mode locomotives is that the Mount Royal Tunnel (through which the new route, which otherwise runs along non-electrified track, will access the Gare Centrale) does not have adequate ventilation to allow diesel equipment. For routes that are electric all the way, they use EMUs, while the routes running out of the above-ground Lucien L’Allier terminus are drawn by diesel locomotives just like in Toronto.
LikeLike
I was at the GO meeting in Weston this evening and I learned some interesting things.
1. GO seems to have been listening to the people as this meeting was a lot less confrontational than the last.
2. The Union Pearson Rail Link will run with three car trains of RDC’s that have a double width sliding in the middle at a height of 48” above the rail. They will use 48” high platforms set at a distance of 69” from the centre line of the track. UPRL is trying to talk CN into allowing it at a distance of 67” but so far CN is still saying no but they don’t own the track anymore. Maybe the loading gauge still has to accommodate the clearances for their three freights. The high platforms at Bloor and Weston will be at the end of the GO platforms. At Union it will supposedly be to the north of track one. A short stub track called track A. UPRL is looking at some sort of extending ramp to bridge the gap between the car and the platform as there will be a 9 to 10” gap.
3. There will be no level crossings between Union and the 427 or into the airport.
4. I said to one of the corridor designers that with all the trains going into Union it will be hard to handle with only 14 tracks. He said that’s why we’re looking at putting another set of tracks under the existing ones! I said are you serious and he said yes it was being studied.
5. One of the Metrolinx consultants said that the terms of reference would be drawn up in July or August. He did not think that it would be worth while to electrify without running EMU’s. He said that the costs would be high as you not only have to string wire over the tracks but also in the yards, Union Stations Maintenance areas as well as put in special feed lines and sub stations to balance the load across all three phases even though the cars only use a single phase.
I do not know what the Weston Coalition group thinks but most of the people at the meeting seem pleased with the changes that GO put in. A number of the residents and the consultants seemed to know each other and there was some good natured kibitzing going on but no in your face action. I wish that I could go to the Liberty Village meeting but I will be out of town. Some one please report on it.
Steve: If there is to be a lower level of tracks, it would have to be stub ended under the existing rail yard probably west of the station. It is physically impossible to run through under the existing station because (a) you would have to hold it up and (b) you would run smack into the lower concourse that will be built over the next few years. GO has been intimately involved in the Union Station project and has never mentioned adding tracks below the station. From other conversations, I believe they are looking at a second station west of downtown. How this would actually operate (passenger flow, transit connections, etc) I have no idea.
What’s frustrating is the thought this is seen as an engineering exercise — how can we build it — without looking at the larger picture of how it would work and affect the larger community. Hmmm. GO Transit has been there before!
LikeLike
The 950ft & 1200ft were just generalizations off the top of my head.
If you want me to be more specific, the lengths are 910ft for a 10 coach consist with an PH59 engine & 920ft for a 10 coach consist with a MP40 engine(give or take few feet for slack). For a 12 coach consist add another 170ft.
Platforms are not built to specific lengths. They vary from station to station, those that were extended to accommodate 12 car consist are over 1100ft in length with a few approaching 1200ft. Taking into account construction activities some are well over 1200ft (see Appleby – north platform or Clarkson – north platform).
35 ft(+/- 2 feet) is the standard size for all mini platforms (with 2 notable exceptions – Rouge Hill & Barrie South).
CN does not run any long haul freights on the Kingston subdivision between Durham Jct. mile 313.9 (connection wit the GO sub) and the USRC (Union Station Rail Corridor) limits mile 332.4.
“I do not think that CN or CP, especially CP, will let GO put up structures that would limit the railways flexibility”
Exactly, this can not happen without ownership of the corridors (those which are purchasable) something that is being negotiated right now.
LikeLike
Drew:
I agree that GO should own the corridors but it seems that CN still exerts some restrictions over the loading gauge of the corridors that they have sold to GO. The railway infrastructure engineer told me that CN would not let GO build the high platforms the the Union Pearson Rail Link any closer than 69″ from the centre line of the trackeven though GO owns the right of way. There must be some other restrictions in the agreement to “protect” all those freights the CN will still run on the line.
I thought that I measured the handicap platform at 30′ but I may have been wrong. They seem to do a pretty good job of putting the car exactly were they want it. Perhaps the short (compared to a freight train) length and tight lock couplers plus experience help.
LikeLike
Makes me wonder just what kind of restrictions were included in the deal. However I don’t see why this would preclude the use of gauntlet tracks on one of the outside tracks just at station locations. Sounds to me like Metrolinx is just making excuses…
For the mini, there are a few stations that are shorter than the standard 35ft. And when you include the space taken up by coach doors you’ve got just a little over 30ft to play with.
LikeLike