Yesterday, I wrote about the Metrolinx calculations purporting to show improvements in pollution due to all the new diesel trains that will run in the corridor. In that article, I concentrated on the GO services and the off-the-scale error in estimates of trips that would be taken.
This error — assuming all trains would be completely full, all day, both ways — dilutes the pollution per trip assigned to each passenger, and also inflates the pollution “saved” by auto trips that are diverted to transit.
A comment in that thread came in from John Galeazza:
Re. Pearson traffic growth.
Come now are we saying that Pearson has not seen a 4 fold increase in traffic over the past 20 odd years? Take a look at Pearson’s reports (they’re available on the GTAA’s website) in both passenger volume and aircraft movements there has been a steady increase.
To say that we shouldn’t use a piece of infrastructure because it has steadily fallen into disuse is farcical in my humble opininion. If that were the case GO would never have gotten started on the old freight/passenger lines that became “useless” with the arrival of the airplane and the car.
In my original reply (which has been hidden from the thread), I questioned the estimated ridership in the corridor for the air-rail link. Thanks to an arithmetic error (yes, even I make them, but at least I admit it when they happen), my comment would up addressing a false premise. That’s why I pulled it.
In a second comment, Mr. Galeazza went on to say:
Come now are we saying that Pearson has not seen a 4 fold increase in traffic over the past 20 odd years? Take a look at Pearson’s reports (they’re available on the GTAA’s website) in both passenger volume and aircraft movements there has been a steady increase.
To say that we shouldn’t use a piece of infrastructure because it has steadily fallen into disuse is farcical in my humble opininion. If that were the case GO would never have gotten started on the old freight/passenger lines that became “useless” with the arrival of the airplane and the car.
My comment wasn’t in respect to potential ridership on the UPRL. It was to previous posters (michael) who had claimed that expansion plans along this stretch of rail are unseen elsewhere (be it in other rail or other modes of transit). The idea that the airport has not seen an increase in aircraft and passengers is absolutely false, the fact is that the airport has seen traffic nearly double every 20 years. How should Malton residents who moved there in the 70’s feel about a quadrupling of the traffic at Pearson?
The passenger and aircraft statistics are available on the GTAA website. Between 2000 and 2008, passenger traffic went from 28.8 to 32.3-million. Aircraft movements went from 429 to 431-thousand, dipping to 371-thousand in 2003. This is not a fourfold increase, and the trend seems to be at best for modest growth. Stats for earlier years are not visible on the site, at least not on the “statistics” page. If, in fact, traffic has grown fourfold since 1989, that may have been a cause for concern by Malton residents (and others living under affected flight paths), but this does not excuse what is proposed for the Georgetown corridor.
If we look at the pollution calculations provided by Metrolinx (I am not making this stuff up), you will see on page 3 that the calculated pollution from the UPRL trains for CO2, NOX and PM are all higher than for the road traffic they replace. When these figures are corrected to allow for Tier 4 rather than Tier 3 specifications used in that table, the PM values fall below those for autos, but NOX is still higher. CO2 is unaffected by Tier 4 and so remains higher than the auto trips. [That correction is shown in my first post on this issue.]
All of this depends on assumptions about ridership versus the level of service. Metrolinx projects an average of 56 passengers per trip for every trip, all day, even though the airport has peaks and valleys in demand. That 56 may seem low, but the reconditioned RDCs for this service will be outfitted with generous seating space as a premium fare service, and that number represents a good portion of a two-car train’s capacity. That this space would be well-used on every trip is not credible. Any reduction in the projected ridership increases the pollution per trip because the same trains are serving fewer passengers.
To put the UPRL in context, Pearson handles about 32-million passengers a year. Some of these are actually transfers between flights and they generate no external transportation demand, but I will not attempt to correct for that. From other sources, we know that only 17% of Pearson’s demand comes from downtown, or about 5.4-million trips. Now that Bloor and Weston stations have been added to the proposed UPRL operation, the possible market may be bigger, although why someone who is already on a subway or LRT line headed west would transfer to the premium-fare UPRL defies logic.
Metrolinx projects 7840 riders per day times 365 days, or about 2.9-million per year. Depending on the assumptions we make about the enlarged catchment area of the UPRL, it would only be handling a small portion of the potential airport-bound traffic. Conversely, if a change in service design or fare levels makes the line more attractive, then more and/or longer trains would have to operate and this would change the base for pollution calculations.
To be fair to Metrolinx, one big problem here is the assumption of 2,000hp for “locomotives” on the UPRL. The ratio of horsepower to passengers is immense compared with the numbers used in the GO calculations. For the UPRL, the value is about 36hp per passenger (2000hp/56), while for GO (where ridership is inflated as noted above), the value is 2.6hp per passenger (5000hp/1900). No wonder the calculated emissions are so bad for the UPRL.
At this point, I don’t really know which numbers to believe, but it is clear that none of them makes any sense. This has not prevented various Poo-Bahs from dishing out all sorts of misinformation based on this faulty data. Public officials frequently are not in full possession of the facts, but when erroneous information is used to rebut legitimate community concerns, we have a problem.
It is entirely possible that there are credible figures, coupled with a reasonable rollout plan for service in the Georgetown corridor, that would address both the buildup of new service and a transition to a different technology. That’s not what we are seeing from Metrolinx, and they do us all a disservice by clinging to a badly flawed position.
Much of the spin cites the air-rail link, likely because a decision on the Pan Am Games bid is due on November 6, 2009. If Toronto gets the nod, many projects will go into overdrive to support this event. If Toronto is not selected, then the pressure to have an airport link running by 2015 evaporates, and the issues can be reviewed without the artificial crisis atmosphere of “supporting the bid”.
I do not counsel infinite delay, but equally do not believe that major policy and spending decisions should be forced to meet the deadlines of an ephemeral event.
Steve Munro 
Steve, I knew I’d seen a graph of long-term traffic numbers at Pearson somewhere, and I found it: the airport’s 2008 Master Plan, Chapter 3 (1.2 MB PDF), page 3.7.
Traffic was 15 million in 1980, reached 20 million 1988ish, and hit 25 million in 1997 (and again in 2003). For 4-fold growth you’d have to go back almost 40 years.
LikeLike
“For the UPRL, the value is about 36hp per passenger (2000hp/56)” which for a current 2-car set (1100hp, 19.6hp/pax) is an overstatement of ~80%. Let’s assume an RDC-2 layout (baggage plus 70 passengers) for each. This is 140 all-economy, and in a VIA1 LRC 4 across seat pitch we could probably take that number down to 110, or 220 in a 4 car set.
The assumption of 2000hp for 56 passengers therefore assumes that someone is going to purchase refurbished Budds (at least 5 or 6 sets I suppose to keep a 15 minute peak schedule on a 22 minute trip plus loading/unloading/maintenance) to move people on a ~25% load factor on an intensive schedule. That’s not a plan that will last long.
LikeLike
Hang on, seriously 2000hp for a 2-car train? No wonder per passeneger emissions are so terrible… the short (two to four car, single deck) DMUs I’ve had experience with typically had a 350hp engine in each car, which would result in 700hp. So, these trains are going to be way over-powered.
You point out 5.4m trips to Pearson come from downtown, and Metrolinx predict 2.9m trips on this service, which works out as 53%. I don’t think this is unrealistic as a long-term aspiration, particularly as your average downtown-airport traveller is a buisnessman with hand luggage or an overnight bag only.
Steve: That 2.9m trips would make sense if they all came and went evenly distributed over the days and weeks. However, there are peak and slack times for both inbound and outbound travel, and much of the operated capacity on the UPRL will not actually be useful to many travellers. Achieving 50% of the possible market share under such conditions is a real challenge.
LikeLike
Thank you Steve for the calculations about the UPRL and its effect on emissions levels.
It really amazes me that this project will get the go-ahead just for the sake of having that rail link.
I hope that the Weston Residents can change their approach quickly, replacing “electrify the whole corridor now” with “electrify the inefficient, highly-polluting UPRL now because it is going to cause massive emissions levels!”
Followed by “and while you are at it………”
As if we needed more evidence that Blue 22 was not the best solution for a UPRL.
Express Rail Sdn. Bhd. which operates the (electrified, 4-carriage EMU trainset) air-rail link services (KLIA Express and KLIA Transit) here in Kuala Lumpur Malaysia is now trumpeting their role in reducing greenhouse emissions and removing cars from the road. (See ERL Goes Green)
Can Blue 22 say that it is going to have such a positive impact? Because that is clearly important to many of us today.
Moaz Yusuf Ahmad
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
LikeLike
Metrolinx figures for hp are incorrect for both GO and the UPRL. The claim had been that their argument holds true for even overestimated values. That argument has clearly fallen on its face. I recall earlier statements that said the UPRL would be ~1200hp or something like that. GO MP40s are 4200hp, not 5000hp. Both are inflated by 800hp, unless the UPRL is using a third car.
LikeLike
October 12, 2009 at 9:09 am
“Metrolinx figures for hp are incorrect for both GO and the UPRL. The claim had been that their argument holds true for even overestimated values. That argument has clearly fallen on its face. I recall earlier statements that said the UPRL would be ~1200hp or something like that. GO MP40s are 4200hp, not 5000hp. Both are inflated by 800hp, unless the UPRL is using a third car.”
Do not forget the Hotel Power or head end power unit in each MP40. It will be about 700 kW so it will easily bring the power up to 5000 hp. It uses a diesel engine and creates pollution. Their figures are not wrong but inclusive. They actually got something correct.
I bet that the UPRL link includes the third car because they intend to get there fairly soon after starting service. They will have four train sets of three cars running, one set on hot standby and one set out for maintenance. Having 660 hp for an 80 tonne self propelled car is actually below the 10 hp per ton ball park.
LikeLike
If GO pulls a 10-car train with 3000hp in the F59s (HEP excluded), then they need 3600hp for a 12-car train. As MP40s have 4200hp, 600hp is left for the hotel power. The 4200hp is hotel power inclusive from what I understand.
LikeLike
Karl Junkin says:
October 13, 2009 at 4:29 pm
“If GO pulls a 10-car train with 3000hp in the F59s (HEP excluded), then they need 3600hp for a 12-car train. As MP40s have 4200hp, 600hp is left for the hotel power. The 4200hp is hotel power inclusive from what I understand.”
The FP 59’s have a 3000 or 3300 hp prime mover plus a 500 kW (640 hp) head end power unit. The MP 40’s have a 4000 hp, I believe prime mover plus enough head end power for 12 cars in a separate generator. In the past they have been about 50 kw per car or 600 kW for a 12 car train. This translates into about 800 hp for the head end generator. This comes out to about 5000 hp for the locomotive. GO does not use the same engine for motive power and head end power anymore as the prime mover is always running at 1800 rpm which makes them scream. This is why they sold the old unit they had that had one engine for tractive effort and head end power; they were too noisy.
While the locomotive does have more hp per ton it does not have any more tractive effort so its initial acceleration is less than with a 10 car train. To compensate it needs more hp per tonne to keep up the acceleration longer. Each car requires about 50 kW of head end power and since 1 hp = 0.75 Kw it would seem that 600 hp would only give 450 kW; this is only enough power for 9 cars not 12. The 5000 hp figure may be a little high but it is not a lot high. GO’s locomotives have 2 engines, one for tractive power and one for head end power. The pollution from the head end power must be included.
LikeLike
I went on to Motive Power Industry’s web site and the MP 403C has a 4000 hp prime mover plus a separate diesel for head end power with optional size from 425 to 800 kW (just under 600 hp to just over 1000 hp.) Therefore, as I said the total hp for both diesels in the MP 40-3C is about 5000 hp. The MP 36 hs two options for head end power, a separate head end diesel generator of a solid state inverter that converts power from the prime mover for head end power. This option limits the train to 8 bilevels. I have not kept up with the times and it is possible to get head end power from the prime mover with out having it scream at 1800 rpm’s all the time. I believe that most VIA and Amtrack locomotives run at a constant 1800 rpm’s.
So, as I said the value of 5000 hp that Metrolinx uses it essentially correct. It is nice to know that they got at least one thing correct.
LikeLike
Hmm… I forgot about HEP. Makes the 5000hp plausible all right, and are HEP units governed by Tier standards when they don’t provide motive power?
Running HEP off the prime mover can be an engine wrecker – Irish Rail’s class 201s (built by GM) provide HEP to the Belfast-Dublin Enterprise service and eventually the number of breakdowns forced loco rotation from other parts of the network which operated using separate generators.
LikeLike
Mark Dowling says:
October 14, 2009 at 9:00 am
“Hmm… I forgot about HEP. Makes the 5000hp plausible all right, and are HEP units governed by Tier standards when they don’t provide motive power?”
Since they run at a constant rpm and load it should be easier to meet tier 4 standards than for an engine with a constantly changing demand upon it. I hope that the HEP units need to meet the same standards as the prime movers since they are running at full load all the time that they are out while the prime movers will spend a good portion of their time idling during coasting, breaking, stations stops and turn around.
I would bet that the HEP units are a bigger source of pollution than the prime movers are as they would be at 80% to 90% of rated power for 100% of the time while the prime movers would only put our 100% power for about 20% of the time and would spend 30% to 40% of their time idling.
LikeLike
My understanding of the US emissions regulations is that they count all emissions from the units when operating. This in part explains the current trend to “genset” switching units – each “genset” will turn on and off as necessary.
The MP40’s have a 1000hp HEP powerplant. In theory, they operate at about 75% of their rated output at best.
And yes Robert, it is now possible to have a unit where the prime mover provides HEP and doesn’t have to run at a constant RPM. Metra’s MP36’s have this.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
LikeLike