[This comment was submitted by Robert Wightman and has been moved to this new thread by Steve.]
While probably totally unrelated to this topic, the latest two topics on Jarrett Walker’s web site, contain information that might be interesting to your readers. The topic about a proposed transit tax in Vancouver has two tables that are of interest. One shows the subsidy per rider for many transit systems in Canada, the US and Australia and TTC is by far the lowest. The second shows that the TTC operates the most passenger kms per capita of any system.
The next article on the Heathrow Express train service says it is overpriced and under used. Jarrett also says, ” I have similar concerns about overspecialized airport train projects in Toronto, and others proposed elsewhere in the world.”
While the TTC may have many faults it still does carry a lot of people for very little subsidy.
Steve: Something that we will all have to be careful with is the way that some transit “operating” budgets also include a capital component. In Toronto, there has always been a small depreciation charge as part of the ops budget to cover capital costs borne directly by the TTC without subsidy, or with only partial subsidy. The amount is small enough that it doesn’t make a lot of difference, and it’s fairly consistent from year to year.
Starting in 2015, there is a “capital from current” amount in the budget that comes from the last minute addition of a new transit spending by John Tory. This was slapped together in a way that leaves the City’s capital budget untouched, but shifts the cost of 50 new buses onto the operating budget to be paid for with current funds over 2015-16. Therefore the actual operating subsidy is lower than the amount one gets simply by dividing subsidy dollars by passengers, and the difference is about 8 cents per rider. This is an important distinction the next time someone crows about how Council has added more support for TTC service.
As for the UPX, it is a travesty, and only its relatively low cost (under half a billion) keep it from being an outright scandal. Dalton McGuinty had the chance to say “no thanks” when both the Feds, and the original “private partner”, SNC Lavalin, walked away from the scheme as uneconomic. Instead, he and now Kathleen Wynne trumpet this almost as a second coming. Money that could have been spent on needed transit improvements has been wasted on a bauble. Everyone connected to this project should be deeply ashamed.
[This comment was submitted by Robert Wightman and has been moved to this new thread by Steve.]
Steve:
“As for the UPX, it is a travesty, and only its relatively low cost (under half a billion) keep it from being an outright scandal. Dalton McGuinty had the chance to say “no thanks” when both the Feds, and the original “private partner”, SNC Lavalin, walked away from the scheme as uneconomic. Instead, he and now Kathleen Wynne trumpet this almost as a second coming. Money that could have been spent on needed transit improvements has been wasted on a bauble. Everyone connected to this project should be deeply ashamed.”
“The total budget for the Union Pearson Express is $456 million (in 2010 dollars). This investment includes $355 million in construction infrastructure and contingency costs, and approximately $100 million for service development and business and operations planning. To date, Metrolinx has awarded three contracts. One contract is for the new passenger station at Toronto Pearson plus the 3km spur line connecting Toronto Pearson and the GO Kitchener line, awarded to AirLINX Partners Inc. for $128.6 million. The second contract is for the trains, or Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs), 18 of which are being commissioned from Sumitomo Corporation of America for US$75 million. The third contract is for the UP Express station at Union Station, the $23.8 million contract with EllisDon Corporation includes the construction of the UP Express station and platform at Union Station. All the components of the project construction are now underway.”
• Total capital costs: $1.2 billion ($2010)
• On opening day in 2015, there will be up to an additional 10 GO Trains for a total of 29 trains on the Kitchener line
• The Union Pearson (UP) Express service will operate every 15 minutes between Union Station and Pearson Airport
• For 2015, addition of 2 tracks resulting in a total of 3 tracks in the north half of the GO Georgetown South Corridor; and 1 additional track to the south, for a total of 5 tracks
• Construction is underway and is expected to be substantially complete by end of 2014
As UP express will be operating more trains, though carrying fewer passengers, than the GO trains one can argue that a large portion of the cost for this line was incurred to add the capacity required for UPX. This would probably bring the true cost to $1 billion in 2010 dollars. Of course Metrolinx will argue that these improvements would eventually be needed to run more GO trains they would not be needed so soon. They will probably need to add another track to handle RER trains but this will be charged to GO operations and not UP Express.
CN has installed new signal gantries east of Georgetown Station at Metrolinx’ expense and installed the signal heads for a new third track on the south side but have not even started grading for the extra track. If I remember correctly they only doubled the bridge across the Credit River so are they going to need a third track before can implement service improvements? Sometimes I wonder if they are planning on the fly or do they really have a completed plan?
First – thanks Steve, I wanted to comment on the these comments before, but well.
Robert – I really think that UPX is a complete waste, and as I have said before – this right of way needs to be re-tasked. Use it to support the needs of Brampton, tie it to the east west BRTs and the Hurontario-Maine LRT, and convert it to as high a frequency as can be reasonably supported (just don’t run it down Eglinton).
If you could run EMU in 6 car trains every 5 minutes I am sure that fairly quickly they would be full. However, this would also represent a substantial improvement in connection for the northwest of the city.
For me, it’s the fare for the UPX that I personally have an issue with. Otherwise, the service is what Toronto needs. Other cities have a train service from downtown to the airport, and Toronto has needed this for years.
If you could run EMU in 6 car trains every 5 minutes I am sure that fairly quickly they would be full. However, this would also represent a substantial improvement in connection for the northwest of the city.
The choice to go with DMUs initially is something I still don’t understand. I can’t imagine any real cost savings vs electric propulsion since the trainsets were so expensive. When these trains ply a 50 minute round trip in regular service in diesel mode then I’ll be impressed but right now I don’t buy it. (Partly because I can’t afford it either!)
Since we’re talking about UPX and its DMU trainsets, perhaps I could ask a question that hasn’t fit in any previous article. (And admittedly only fits loosely here. 🙂
All of the propoganda/promotional material I’ve seen for the UPX depicts 3-car trainsets, but the trainsets delivered (thus far) have only been 2-car trainsets. IIRC, the stations are all designed for 3-car sets, so does the delivery of 2-car sets represent a scaling back on the original design? (Perhaps a tacit admission that it’s not likely to see the projected demand.) Or was the service always intended to start with 2-car trainsets and expand to 3 as demand warranted?
Steve: Yes, the intent is to ramp up capacity as needed.
“Yes, the intent is to ramp up capacity as needed.”
Which really does kind of make the point … It only merits a 2 car trainset as an Airport only service, whereas we have discussed in the past that a multi-car LRT on a much more shorter headway in this corridor would be overloaded in the core bound direction before it ever got to Liberty Village. So there is real concern with regards to filling a service of 720 passenger per hour as an airport exclusive, but that a service at TTC prices, and serving the points between and just beyond at 12 or 18k capacity could easily be overwhelmed.
Yes, the route should be offered at a lower price, to actually have a meaningful impact on congestion, and also offer real service from Bloor, but also more points between, and at a rapid transit or at least GO price. That Toronto does not offer rapid transit connection to the airport is an issue, that it is not an exclusive service to the core, well, why is that important? Seems to me that any high quality out of traffic connection to the airport would be good. It does not need to be its only stop, and it does not need to only run towards downtown either.
If UPX breaks even operationally, it’ll be hailed as a successful investment in providing a premium airport train to business travelers. I’ll definitely be a customer (15 minute walk from my office, 1/3 the cost of a cab/town car) where it makes sense. I don’t know if the price point will make it viable, but $19 is.
If UPX consistently loses money, I’d expect it be be absorbed into RER service as an airport branch for the GT South all-day service. Add stops at North Etobicoke, Eglinton, St. Clair, and Liberty Village to better integrate with the local TTC network, and we’ve got a pretty solid express service to downtown. Basically.. an alternate SmartTrack West.
My money’s on the latter.
Steve: Yes, and both UPX and SmartTrack would have been better served as proposals if they had started out this way. As it is, we have to wait for advocates of both “solutions” to pull back from their blind loyalty to their pet projects.
Regarding ticket price, it seems a pretty standard price for a premium fast service to an airport. Of all the issues with the project this might be the least bad thing.
I expect this was brought up all the time but Heathrow Express is £21, which is around $39. The slower ‘local’ option, Heathrow Connect, is £10 = $19, which lines up with the UPX Presto price.
Of course Piccadilly line does the same for local-transit price (£3, £5 in rush hours) but that takes an hour to central London – comparable to TTC’s 192 to Bloor subway service which is a fair bit cheaper.
You can point to places like Vancouver where it’s a local two-zone fare and 24 minutes to the airport, and having lived there yes it’s very nice, but YVR is geographically a lot closer to downtown Vancouver than YYZ to downtown Toronto. Any takers for moving Pearson to Downsview?
Toronto Union Station to YYZ is ~25 km
London Charing Cross to LHR T1 is ~26 km
Vancouver Granville & Georgia to YVR is ~13 km
Toronto Union Station to Downsview is ~14 km
Whether UPX should have been the top priority service to be built out to YYZ, or whether should it have been built like it was (short DMUs) is another topic…
Money that could have been spent on needed transit improvements has been wasted on a bauble. Everyone connected to this project should be deeply ashamed.
It is a sad waste of a precious corridor – it should have been far more of a sub-regional semi-express route and the diagonal route makes most of it quite attractive. Now that yet another big project is waay over-budget, will we have the ability to spend for retrofitting the UPX corridor, or will there by nothing to be done but ongoing subsidizings?
As for the UPX, it is a travesty, and only its relatively low cost (under half a billion) keep it from being an outright scandal. Dalton McGuinty had the chance to say “no thanks” when both the Feds, and the original “private partner”, SNC Lavalin, walked away from the scheme as uneconomic. Instead, he and now Kathleen Wynne trumpet this almost as a second coming. Money that could have been spent on needed transit improvements has been wasted on a bauble. Everyone connected to this project should be deeply ashamed.
Surely, Dalton McGuinty had a chance to say NO as did the voters have a chance to say NO to the Liberals in last year’s election but instead, the electorate promoted them from minority to majority and so now STOP complaining and live with it.
Steve:
Everyone connected to this project should be deeply ashamed.
Fact: The Liberal government has been in power throughout the entire lifespan of the UPX approval and construction.
Steve: And it has been a vanity project from the beginning. Do you stop opposing Liberal policies just because they never embrace your philosophy? No, you continue to say they are wrong in the hope that someone is listening. As for UPX, we’re stuck with it and the issue now is to see that it is incorporated into a wider network eventually.
In ‘TTC Board Meeting March 26, 2016’ thread, Steve stated:
The amount of money earmarked by the NDP for transit two elections back was trivial, and it was contingent on a fare freeze. Most of the funding would go not to better service, but to frozen fares, and even that would run out in a few years because there was no indexation. They talked about the money available from corporate tax loopholes, but announced the same money as the funding source for every promise, and their draft budget showed that they could not actually stretch the new revenue to cover all of their proposed spending. … I will continue to vote NDP because I am in an NDP riding and have known my MPP since his days on City Council.
Well, there you go. According to Steve, the Liberals are wasting money on UPX, etc; the NDP have ZERO improvements for transit and their (NDP) numbers don’t add up (according to Steve, see quote above); and yet he would not even consider voting for the allegedly right wing extremist Progressive Conservatives. He/She who votes for someone just because he has known his MPP “since his days on City Council” has no right to complaint because if you have a complaint, then please complain with your vote next time.
Steve: I consider the Tories only slightly above the Visigoths considering their attitude to public services and their history of anti-Toronto attitudes. The Liberals and the NDP, for all their faults, are preferable by a long shot over the alternative.
By the way, 4406 was seen on the streets of Toronto several days ago and I thought that you would be the first one to report it but let me hereby have that honour.
Steve: You’re welcome. We have reached the point where daily reports on arrivals of new streetcars can be left to @StreetcarTO on Twitter.
To all those complaining about the high price of UPX, let us organize a protest blocking the UPX train tracks. It is outrageous that so much taxpayer dollars are being used to construct ultra-luxurious train rides for the wealthy business visitors when the average taxpayer can’t even afford to ride the same. Instead of on-board Wi-Fi, etc; would it not have been better to use that money to lower the fare a bit? Besides, these wealthy business tycoons whom UPX is meant for can easily afford to roam on their cellphone data-plans.
“To all those complaining about the high price of UPX, let us organize a protest blocking the UPX train tracks. It is outrageous that so much taxpayer dollars are being used to construct ultra-luxurious train rides for the wealthy business visitors when the average taxpayer can’t even afford to ride the same. Instead of on-board Wi-Fi, etc; would it not have been better to use that money to lower the fare a bit? Besides, these wealthy business tycoons whom UPX is meant for can easily afford to roam on their cellphone data-plans.”
But you would labeled a terrorist under bill C51 and banned from all commercial air craft, jobs with any outfit remotely related to any government and you and all your descendants would have a scarlet T carved into their foreheads to warn away good god fearing people.
As for the wifi, I believe that it is “no cost” to UP Express because the provider would be able to bombard the clients with adds.
Let’s see, about 30-plus years ago, the Scarborough Rapid Transit line was being built, and the provincial government of the day rejigged the whole project to run ICTS vehicles, “lightweight welded aluminum cars are designed to be acceptable for elevated operation”. Today, the UPX is a project of the provincial government of the day.
The SRT line runs alongside a railway corridor, and then makes a 90-degree turn to run the elevated track to its destination the Scarborough Town Centre, the transit hub of the east end. The UPX line runs alongside a railway corridor, and then makes a 90-degree turn to run the elevated track to its destination the Pearson International Airport, the transit hub of the west end.
The SRT trains and the UPX trains look very, very similar.
Oh, wow! I just thought of something else! In about 3 to 5 years, we’ll see how the UPX line works out. Maybe it doesn’t do too well.
At that range of time in the near future, we’ll see also how the SSE project is shaping up. Maybe it isn’t getting anywhere fast, maybe it got cancelled. Maybe it is getting built with a completion date another 10 years ahead, so perhaps 12-15 years from now.
Soooo, we might have all these UPX trains gathering dust. Here is what I thought – regauge the SRT line to standard gauge and rip out the 3rd and 4th rails as they will no longer be necessary. The UPX trains are DMU’s, they run on their own power.
In fact, the UPX trains could run in a giant U-shape from Pearson to Union to STC. Voila, SmartTrack!
Solves a whole bunch of transit problems, yes?
Steve: There a more than a few problems with clearances at existing stations on the SRT elevated, and the brain trust behind SmartTrack regard Markham as the place to go, not STC which is beyond its best before date and not worthy of their attention. The really astounding part about the ST bafflegab is that most people don’t realize its primary purpose is to make land in the 905 more valuable. Why Toronto should contribute $2.8b to this is a mystery.
“To all those complaining about the high price of UPX, let us organize a protest blocking the UPX train tracks. It is outrageous that so much taxpayer dollars are being used to construct ultra-luxurious train rides for the wealthy business visitors when the average taxpayer can’t even afford to ride the same. Instead of on-board Wi-Fi, etc; would it not have been better to use that money to lower the fare a bit? Besides, these wealthy business tycoons whom UPX is meant for can easily afford to roam on their cellphone data-plans.”
I would put to you, if you are flying from the core, it is either you are flying for business, or if you are flying solo, it is not more expensive than the other reasonably quick alternatives. This is really a question of why not a rapid transit connection? I would love to have wi-fi on all the trains – but let me ride it to Bramalea, and the CrossTown, and Bloor, oh for a TTC token.
If I remember correctly they only doubled the bridge across the Credit River so are they going to need a third track before can implement service improvements? Sometimes I wonder if they are planning on the fly or do they really have a completed plan?
Parts of the detailed track alignment are still under development due to local complications, but Metrolinx intends to proceed with corridor expansion in parts first and let that section catch up. Specifically, there is more capacity constraint between Kitchener and Georgetown than Georgetown and Malton, so they will do that section first. There is a quite detailed plan and it all revolves around doing what you they can to protect for future expansion work (easy to build the signal bridge for the future track) while focusing on the worst bottleneck points that can be solved with the available budget.
Giancarlo said:
The choice to go with DMUs initially is something I still don’t understand. I can’t imagine any real cost savings vs electric propulsion since the trainsets were so expensive.
It might have changed since I last heard, but the DMU are convertable to EMU. The three main problems are timetable, overall track use, and cost. It is much smarter to electrify the whole corridor and not just what the UPX needs, capital costs are only slightly higher with significantly better value. Next, it’s inefficient to electrify UPX before Lakeshore West. It’s like taking a glass of water out of a swimming pool and saying you’ve reduced the total volume of urine. Finally, there is a political deadline for a UPX opening for the Pan/Am Games, while system wide electrification is going to be a decade in implementing.
As for speed, EMUs general benefit from better acceleration, whereas the UPX line has few stops. The DMU/EMU choice was never about service speed, but being green.
Malcolm N said:
It only merits a 2 car trainset as an Airport only service, whereas we have discussed in the past that a multi-car LRT on a much more shorter headway in this corridor would be overloaded in the core bound direction before it ever got to Liberty Village.
This is completely about what the mission goals of Metrolinx are. If we’re lucky with the 2016 renewal, they’ll be mandated to improve local transit as well as regional. Until then, wishing for Metrolinx to do local, is just pissing in the wind.
Mike C said:
If UPX consistently loses money
From all the forecasts that I’ve seen, UPX is going to be underwritten for a long time. It’s not easy to be re-absorbed by mainline GO service as they have dedicated platform styles. Just like Heathrow Express, it’ll keep on eating up track space to provide that “world class” feeling.
Jarek said:
Of course Piccadilly line does the same for local-transit price (£3, £5 in rush hours) but that takes an hour to central London – comparable to TTC’s 192 to Bloor subway service which is a fair bit cheaper.
The problem with the 192 is that it’s regularly packed (need to wait for a second or sometimes third bus) and there is limited capacity for luggage. The Piccadilly line at least minimizes the number of transfers you need to do. As for UPX vs Heathrow Express costs, Heathrow Express definitely is more luxurious, but the main difference it that Heathrow Express turns a profit.
hamish said:
Wwill we have the ability to spend for retrofitting the UPX corridor, or will there by nothing to be done but ongoing subsidizings?
Retrofitted to what? GO trains definitely not. EMU definitely. To break out of the universal condemnation of the UPX (which I generally agree with), I will point out that it’s been a useful lever getting funding for other needed corridor improvements like GTS.
Steve:
I consider the Tories only slightly above the Visigoths
I think this is a slight on the Visigoths. I would place the OPC nearer to the Mongols, sweeping in on a wave of power and strong political networking, tearing down all that came before, and evaporating once their leader disappears.
It’s the political reality, when given the choice between sometimes wasteful, backhanded neglect, and outright hostility, my vote goes to sometimes wasteful. As the scales tip between sometimes to usually, then it’s time to reconsider.
Steve: I was waiting for someone to rise to defend the Visigoths who are, no doubt, much more deserving of our sympathy that the Tories.
Adam said:
To all those complaining about the high price of UPX, let us organize a protest blocking the UPX train tracks.
On average 30 people a year are killed in Ontario by trespassing on rail lines. Entering onto railway property is an offense under the federal Railway Safety Act with maximum fine of $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to one year. It’s also an Ontario offense under the Trespass to Property Act of Ontario with up to an additional $2,000.00 fine.
If you want to protest, try picking something that’s not illegal and dangerous.
“Parts of the detailed track alignment are still under development due to local complications, but Metrolinx intends to proceed with corridor expansion in parts first and let that section catch up. Specifically, there is more capacity constraint between Kitchener and Georgetown than Georgetown and Malton, so they will do that section first. There is a quite detailed plan and it all revolves around doing what you they can to protect for future expansion work (easy to build the signal bridge for the future track) while focusing on the worst bottleneck points that can be solved with the available budget.”
Putting in the signal bridge for future expansion is a minimal cost but putting up signals long before they are needed is carrying capital costs before they are necessary. There have been articles in local papers about extra tracks east of Georgetown. If they have to go back to 2 at the Credit River then the benefit is minimal unless they are going to make the North track a dedicated track into the through platform and Silver Junction to the Kitchener line. I am O.K. with that but I would like to know what exactly they are planning.
It only merits a 2 car trainset as an Airport only service, whereas we have discussed in the past that a multi-car LRT on a much more shorter headway in this corridor would be overloaded in the core bound direction before it ever got to Liberty Village.
This is completely about what the mission goals of Metrolinx are. If we’re lucky with the 2016 renewal, they’ll be mandated to improve local transit as well as regional. Until then, wishing for Metrolinx to do local, is just pissing in the wind.”
My issue is that I would really like to see it run at least as far as Bramalea (which I think you could do), so that it could be integrated with Brampton services, better still would be to run to the Brampton GO station and tie in with the Hurontario-Maine LRT project – suspect this would require some expropriation in terms of corridor width (I am not under the impression there is room for 4 tracks that far west – and it is a fair stretch beyond Bramalea). However, to me this is “regional service”. If you stay within Toronto only well then there is no chance, however, getting into Brampton with high frequency service is important for regional transit.
What I’ve heard through a number of my advocacy initiatives is that Rapid Transit to the airport is very high on Prem. Wynne’s wish list, and right now they are playing the waiting game until the Fall when more about the SmartTrack west-end EA is ironed out.
My hope is that the ST West-side gets turfed (or instead goes the long way around to the airport area), and that Eg. Phase 2 gets kicked off before phase 1 is operational…
The UpEx fare discussion has been beaten to death and I don’t have a huge opinion on this at the moment. The fare in isolation seems high to me, however when factoring in the premium nature and time savings, some of the price points are competitive. I think that the discounts for more than 1 traveller should be more substantial, otherwise a taxi is still cheaper from downtown (even with the guaranteed time savings), however the key piece that’s been negated is the cost/time to get to Union. If with PRESTO, the idea is that if you tap TTC and then tap UpEx, you get the TTC fare rebated, then this may be OK…
I realize that it maybe should not have been built with public funds, and I get that a cheaper/RT service should have come first.
Honestly, the more I talk to Metrolinx people, the more I hear that they are trying to bring the concept of transportation economics into the fold. Implicitly, this to me says that the GO Lakeshore E/W & TTC fare “co-share” at $60per month and the UpEx Fares are a bit experimental…
Steve: I think that there are a lot of well-meaning people at Metrolinx, but there is still a fundamental problem with funding and short-term planning. Until we move to a multi-year plan with funding in place that will not be derailed by political gerrymandering, Metrolinx cannot have the kind of discussion it needs to have in public for fear of pre-empting the Minister’s latest photo op.
Putting in the signal bridge for future expansion is a minimal cost but putting up signals long before they are needed is carrying capital costs before they are necessary. There have been articles in local papers about extra tracks east of Georgetown. If they have to go back to 2 at the Credit River then the benefit is minimal unless they are going to make the North track a dedicated track into the through platform and Silver Junction to the Kitchener line. I am O.K. with that but I would like to know what exactly they are planning.
Mobilization and track occupancy costs are higher than the hardware costs for the signal heads.
Plans are for a 3rd southern track between Huttonville Creek (Mile 18.94, near Mississauga Road) and John St. (Mile 23.64, near Silver Creek). The twinning of the Guelph subdivision will extend slightly further east (Mile 24.04, east of Main St./Hwy 7), but the official designation for Silver Junction will remain the same as Mile 24.1/30.0. The closest cross-over route between these two new sections would be Track 3 to 2 near Maple Ave. (Mile 22.89), Track 2 to 1 and Track 1 to Georgetown Station near Mountainview Rd. (Mile 23.10). West of Mountainview Rd. there is no reason for CN to be on the northern track.
Crossing the Credit River will be a new south span.
Malcolm N said:
My issue is that I would really like to see it run at least as far as Bramalea (which I think you could do).
The issue here is Halwest Junction and occupation of the Halton subdivision. There is no right-hand switch between Track 2 and Track 3 between Bramalea and Halwest, and the last signal on Weston is at Torbram Rd (Mile 16.17), so currently it’d be 2.2km of two-way same track occupation.
Bramalea has two platforms accessed by Track 2/3 and a pocket track. So at minimum, you’re looking at full occupation of one mainline freight track and probably two for some redundancy.
You can add the switch and possibly build a new mainline between Bramalea and Halwest, but it’s not simply a matter of doing the station and running the trains.
Malcolm N said:
Better still would be to run to the Brampton GO station and tie in with the Hurontario-Maine LRT project – suspect this would require some expropriation in terms of corridor width (I am not under the impression there is room for 4 tracks that far west – and it is a fair stretch beyond Bramalea). However, to me this is “regional service”. If you stay within Toronto only well then there is no chance, however, getting into Brampton with high frequency service is important for regional transit.
You can get four mainline tracks as far as Centre St. (Mile 14.78) without an issue, but from there to McLaughlin Rd. (Mile 16.26) is a big problem, considered adding the third track is already a matter of concern.
Rishi said:
Honestly, the more I talk to Metrolinx people, the more I hear that they are trying to bring the concept of transportation economics into the fold. Implicitly, this to me says that the GO Lakeshore E/W & TTC fare “co-share” at $60 per month and the UpEx Fares are a bit experimental…
The issue with GO/TTC co-fare has been who pays how much. GO has co-fares with every other agency, but the problem between GO/TTC is one of size as well as per rider cost. Maybe this will be sorted in the regional fare integration talks, but basically the issue is that neither side is willing to pay enough to get it done.
Steve:
I think that there are a lot of well-meaning people at Metrolinx, but there is still a fundamental problem with funding and short-term planning. Until we move to a multi-year plan with funding in place that will not be derailed by political gerrymandering, Metrolinx cannot have the kind of discussion it needs to have in public for fear of pre-empting the Minister’s latest photo op.
I think a great example of how well this might work is Highways England (formerly Highways Agency), which became a publicly owned company yesterday. There capital budget is about twice that of Metrolinx, and they service a much wider range of infrastructure, but even as a Crown Agency/Corporation, they were subject to political interference.
The DMU/EMU choice was never about service speed, but being green.
I disagree. They want to run a 25 minute trip to the airport. 50 minutes round trip. I think diesels will struggle to keep that schedule. Then again maybe these trains are much lighter and swifter than I’m imagining. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Also as for electrifying before Lakeshore west, I would think that’s a good idea. Allows GO to iron out any kinks before they attempt to convert the busiest line in the system.
Yes, and both UPX and SmartTrack would have been better served as proposals if they had started out this way. As it is, we have to wait for advocates of both “solutions” to pull back from their blind loyalty to their pet projects.
I can only wonder if, after this happens, Smart Track and UP Ex will join the SRT in Toronto’s “what not to do” transit history book. Not that any decision makers will read it, but….
They want to run a 25 minute trip to the airport. 50 minutes round trip. I think diesels will struggle to keep that schedule. Then again maybe these trains are much lighter and swifter than I’m imagining. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Diesel GO trains currently run from Union to Malton in 23 minutes.
Steve: I believe the service is 4 trains on a 15 minute headway, and so there’s 10 minutes for layover/recovery at each terminal.
Giancarlo said:
Also as for electrifying before Lakeshore west, I would think that’s a good idea. Allows GO to iron out any kinks before they attempt to convert the busiest line in the system.
Lakeshore West has the most ridership, 90% as much as Milton/Kitchener/Barrie combined.
Outbound trains are pretty much the same except 267 which manages to do it in 30 flat.
Steve: It’s worth noting the current schedules have padding for construction delays, but an 11 minute reduction will be interesting to see. Does anyone “out there” have a preconstruction GO timetable for this corridor as a comparison?
It’s worth noting the current schedules have padding for construction delays, but an 11 minute reduction will be interesting to see. Does anyone “out there” have a preconstruction GO timetable for this corridor as a comparison?
For those commenting on the Malton Union times with comparison to UPX. Please remember that GO runs 10 car trains with a locomotive and UPX will run 2 or 3 car trains with at least the 2 cab cars being DMUs. DMUs will have at least 4 of 6 axles powered on 3 car trains. (It depends if the middle car is powered or is only a trailer.) GO trains have one powered locomotive and 10 unpowered coaches behind it which means that only 4 out of 44 axles are powered. Acceleration rate, which is the most important factor in determining travel time depends on the ratio of powered to unpowered axles. The transfer speed from constant tractive effort to constant power point depends on the power to weight ratio for MU consists. Diesel power versus electric power is not as important as the power to weight ratio. If it is high enough then either is capable of going from Malton to Union in 25 minutes.
Er, no they don’t. There are five inbound trains and they take 28 minutes from Malton to Union.
Oops. Absolutely right. Getting a little too excited.
Robert Wightman writes:
Diesel power versus electric power is not as important as the power to weight ratio.
I thought the power to weight ratio favored electric. For example, since we’re talking MUs. Two stainless steel Bo-Bos from the same manufacturer with similar dimensions:
“I thought the power to weight ratio favored electric. For example, since we’re talking MUs.”
Of course the limits to traction mean that as Robert pointed out there is a limit to the amount of traction that a locomotive can in fact get, so tractive force is a limiting factor, and the fewer the stops (hence starts) the less of an issue that would be. The amount of force that can be applied, especially from a standing start is greater in a DMU than a locomotive driven train, simply because you have more powered axles. If each car was powered it would be a huge difference. This is also true for EMU, however, I believe what Robert is saying here, is that the difference from locomotive to DMU is likely greater than from DMU to EMU.
“I thought the power to weight ratio favored electric. For example, since we’re talking MUs.”
The Budd RDCs were designed in the late 1940’s to take advantage of large supply of tank engines that were surplus from WWII and that had simple hydraulic transmissions. The Silverliners were from the early 60s so had the benefit of more modern weight reducing construction methods. The power to weight ratio is determined by what you are willing to spend for the engine and how much space you will let it have.
Electric motors have better torque speed characteristics than diesels but good transmissions can compensate some. Electric motors are lighter than diesel engines but require a step down transformer to reduce the 25kV ac for use on the train and much more complex control circuitry. On the Montreal EMUs the transformers weigh about 2 tonnes if my source is correct.
The RDCs only had 2 powered axles, the inside one in each truck due to an archaic rule that locomotives with less than 44 tons (88,000 lbs) on drivers did not need a fireman while those over 44 tons did. Powering all 4 axles would have increased their acceleration. I don’t know if this rule was still in effect for the Silverliners. In railway rules all MU passenger equipment are locomotives and so are the GO cab cars.
The early RDCs only had 250 hp engines but later ones had 275 hp ones. In the 60s and 70s CN used to run a Friday Sunday only advanced train from Toronto to London with one stop in Brantford. This train normally had 2 RDC 1s and a single engine RDC 9 in between. This train could get to Brantford in 65 minutes from Toronto. One night the RDC 9 was dead so CN replaced it with 2 RDC 2s, twin engine baggage passenger combines. This train with 8 engines made the run to Brantford in just over 50 minutes. This significant increase in the power to weight ratio over the normal consist cut almost 20% off the regular running time.
EMUs are probably more efficient than DMUs but if you’re willing to spend the money, the DMUs should be able match the EMUs in acceleration and top speed. You can read more about the RDCs here.
Outbound trains are pretty much the same except 267 which manages to do it in 30 flat.
My bad, I must have looked at the 250 train from Bloor and not noticed.
So the question really is the time to break and accelerate, as maximum speed is capped by the corridor design. From the 2011, USRC Capacity Study, the following data were used as typical permformance of the rolling stock options:
Elec Loco – 2.5mph/s acc, 2.0 mph/s dec
EMU – 2.25mph/s acc, 2.5 mph/s dec
DMU (hydrodynamic) – 2.5 mph/s acc, 2.5 mph/s dec
DMU (diesel elec) – 2.1 mph/s acc, 2.5 mph/s dec
Giancarlo said:
I thought the power to weight ratio favored electric.
From the same source:
Elec Loco – 7100 hp nominal power rating, empty weight 198,400 lbs, loaded weight 198,400 lbs, rotating weight 19,800 lbs
EMU – 1100 hp nominal power rating, empty weight 145,000 lbs, loaded weight 175,000 lbs, rotating weight 17,400 lbs
DMU (hydrodynamic) – 1200 hp nominal power rating, empty weight 160,000 lbs, loaded weight 190,000 lbs, rotating weight 19,200 lbs
DMU (diesel elec) – 750 hp nominal power rating, empty weight 160,000 lbs, loaded weight 190,000 lbs, rotating weight 19,200 lbs
So the difference in power to weight ratio between the EMU and hydrodynamic DMU is 0.5% in favour of the DMU.
Malton to Toronto GO times from schedule. The first 2 inbound trains take 33 min, the next 3 take 36 min., then 1 at 38 min then 2 at 36 min. The outbound trains all take 33 min. except the 17:00 train which takes 30 min. After 48 years GO has finally learned that passengers have mass and fully loaded trains are slower than ones with lower loads.
I thought it was more or less downhill from Malton to Toronto which begs the question as to why inbound trains are slower than outbound trains. I think that it is slack built into the schedule for getting through any delays in the throat tracks inbound. No one is going to complain if they get in 3 minutes early.
A couple of questions for Matthew Phillips:
1) Are the acceleration rates for fully loaded trains, 10 or 12 cars? If so why do the EMUs accelerate at a lower rate than the electric locomotive hauled trains? This does not make sense as the EMUs should have a higher tractive effort to weight ratio and thus a higher acceleration.
2) Do you know at what speed the electric locomotive reach their constant power point at which time the acceleration rates drop off and how does this compare with the EMUs?
3) Is there a document that shows the predicted travel times for fully loaded trains for the different types of equipment?
The values for the electric locomotive do not make sense for a 10 car train of fully loaded cars at 160 passengers per car. The total mass of the 10 cars plus locomotive would be 1,630,000 pounds using a load of 30,000 pounds for the passengers in each car while the tractive effort from a 198,400 pound locomotive assuming a coefficient of friction of 0.4 for a good ac motored locomotive would be just under 80,000 pounds of force. This would give an initial acceleration rate of less than 1.6 mphps which would drop off once the constant power point was reached at about 30 mph.
An EMU with a mass of 175,000 pounds and 1100 hp would have a theoretical, but totally impractical acceleration rate of about 13 mphps. This would be governed back to something in the 2.2 to 3.5 mphps range depending on the level of passenger comfort desired and possible wheel track damage from slipping wheels. From a basic Physics point of view the numbers do not seem to add up. The EMUs could maintain an acceleration over 1.6 mphps up to 40 mph.
To what does the term “rotating weight” refer? Is it similar to unsprung weight from my ancient times?
1) Are the acceleration rates for fully loaded trains, 10 or 12 cars? If so why do the EMUs accelerate at a lower rate than the electric locomotive hauled trains? This does not make sense as the EMUs should have a higher tractive effort to weight ratio and thus a higher acceleration.
12 car consists.
From the numbers, the main difference is only that EMU have a much smaller maximum auxiliary power supply.
robertwightman said:
2) Do you know at what speed the electric locomotive reach their constant power point at which time the acceleration rates drop off and how does this compare with the EMUs?
Not exactly, there is a table of Tractive Effort and Efficiency, but it is only every 5 mph. In this, the elec loco and EMU are equal across the board.
robertwightman said:
3) Is there a document that shows the predicted travel times for fully loaded trains for the different types of equipment?
This document is specifically USRC limited. There is a few figures that compare diesel locomotives to elec locomotives. One as speed vs distance and the other as time vs distance. From a rough measurement of the picture, an electric locomotive is 24 seconds faster to reach the the Don River from Union and 8 seconds faster to reach Strachan Ave from Union. However, most of this is limited by track speeds.
robertwightman said:
To what does the term “rotating weight” refer? Is it similar to unsprung weight from my ancient times?
Rotating weight is basically your axles. Basically, it’s used for dynamic braking calculations.
Steve Munro 
[This comment was submitted by Robert Wightman and has been moved to this new thread by Steve.]
While probably totally unrelated to this topic, the latest two topics on Jarrett Walker’s web site, contain information that might be interesting to your readers. The topic about a proposed transit tax in Vancouver has two tables that are of interest. One shows the subsidy per rider for many transit systems in Canada, the US and Australia and TTC is by far the lowest. The second shows that the TTC operates the most passenger kms per capita of any system.
The next article on the Heathrow Express train service says it is overpriced and under used. Jarrett also says, ” I have similar concerns about overspecialized airport train projects in Toronto, and others proposed elsewhere in the world.”
While the TTC may have many faults it still does carry a lot of people for very little subsidy.
Steve: Something that we will all have to be careful with is the way that some transit “operating” budgets also include a capital component. In Toronto, there has always been a small depreciation charge as part of the ops budget to cover capital costs borne directly by the TTC without subsidy, or with only partial subsidy. The amount is small enough that it doesn’t make a lot of difference, and it’s fairly consistent from year to year.
Starting in 2015, there is a “capital from current” amount in the budget that comes from the last minute addition of a new transit spending by John Tory. This was slapped together in a way that leaves the City’s capital budget untouched, but shifts the cost of 50 new buses onto the operating budget to be paid for with current funds over 2015-16. Therefore the actual operating subsidy is lower than the amount one gets simply by dividing subsidy dollars by passengers, and the difference is about 8 cents per rider. This is an important distinction the next time someone crows about how Council has added more support for TTC service.
As for the UPX, it is a travesty, and only its relatively low cost (under half a billion) keep it from being an outright scandal. Dalton McGuinty had the chance to say “no thanks” when both the Feds, and the original “private partner”, SNC Lavalin, walked away from the scheme as uneconomic. Instead, he and now Kathleen Wynne trumpet this almost as a second coming. Money that could have been spent on needed transit improvements has been wasted on a bauble. Everyone connected to this project should be deeply ashamed.
LikeLike
[This comment was submitted by Robert Wightman and has been moved to this new thread by Steve.]
From Metrolinx’ own website:
Since the costs are in 2010 $ the final cost will be higher. What is not added to the cost is any of the upgrades to Georgetown South Expansion, 2010 Metrolinx fact sheet
As UP express will be operating more trains, though carrying fewer passengers, than the GO trains one can argue that a large portion of the cost for this line was incurred to add the capacity required for UPX. This would probably bring the true cost to $1 billion in 2010 dollars. Of course Metrolinx will argue that these improvements would eventually be needed to run more GO trains they would not be needed so soon. They will probably need to add another track to handle RER trains but this will be charged to GO operations and not UP Express.
CN has installed new signal gantries east of Georgetown Station at Metrolinx’ expense and installed the signal heads for a new third track on the south side but have not even started grading for the extra track. If I remember correctly they only doubled the bridge across the Credit River so are they going to need a third track before can implement service improvements? Sometimes I wonder if they are planning on the fly or do they really have a completed plan?
LikeLike
First – thanks Steve, I wanted to comment on the these comments before, but well.
Robert – I really think that UPX is a complete waste, and as I have said before – this right of way needs to be re-tasked. Use it to support the needs of Brampton, tie it to the east west BRTs and the Hurontario-Maine LRT, and convert it to as high a frequency as can be reasonably supported (just don’t run it down Eglinton).
If you could run EMU in 6 car trains every 5 minutes I am sure that fairly quickly they would be full. However, this would also represent a substantial improvement in connection for the northwest of the city.
LikeLike
For me, it’s the fare for the UPX that I personally have an issue with. Otherwise, the service is what Toronto needs. Other cities have a train service from downtown to the airport, and Toronto has needed this for years.
LikeLike
The choice to go with DMUs initially is something I still don’t understand. I can’t imagine any real cost savings vs electric propulsion since the trainsets were so expensive. When these trains ply a 50 minute round trip in regular service in diesel mode then I’ll be impressed but right now I don’t buy it. (Partly because I can’t afford it either!)
LikeLike
Since we’re talking about UPX and its DMU trainsets, perhaps I could ask a question that hasn’t fit in any previous article. (And admittedly only fits loosely here. 🙂
All of the propoganda/promotional material I’ve seen for the UPX depicts 3-car trainsets, but the trainsets delivered (thus far) have only been 2-car trainsets. IIRC, the stations are all designed for 3-car sets, so does the delivery of 2-car sets represent a scaling back on the original design? (Perhaps a tacit admission that it’s not likely to see the projected demand.) Or was the service always intended to start with 2-car trainsets and expand to 3 as demand warranted?
Steve: Yes, the intent is to ramp up capacity as needed.
LikeLike
Which really does kind of make the point … It only merits a 2 car trainset as an Airport only service, whereas we have discussed in the past that a multi-car LRT on a much more shorter headway in this corridor would be overloaded in the core bound direction before it ever got to Liberty Village. So there is real concern with regards to filling a service of 720 passenger per hour as an airport exclusive, but that a service at TTC prices, and serving the points between and just beyond at 12 or 18k capacity could easily be overwhelmed.
Yes, the route should be offered at a lower price, to actually have a meaningful impact on congestion, and also offer real service from Bloor, but also more points between, and at a rapid transit or at least GO price. That Toronto does not offer rapid transit connection to the airport is an issue, that it is not an exclusive service to the core, well, why is that important? Seems to me that any high quality out of traffic connection to the airport would be good. It does not need to be its only stop, and it does not need to only run towards downtown either.
LikeLike
There’s really two scenarios here:
If UPX breaks even operationally, it’ll be hailed as a successful investment in providing a premium airport train to business travelers. I’ll definitely be a customer (15 minute walk from my office, 1/3 the cost of a cab/town car) where it makes sense. I don’t know if the price point will make it viable, but $19 is.
If UPX consistently loses money, I’d expect it be be absorbed into RER service as an airport branch for the GT South all-day service. Add stops at North Etobicoke, Eglinton, St. Clair, and Liberty Village to better integrate with the local TTC network, and we’ve got a pretty solid express service to downtown. Basically.. an alternate SmartTrack West.
My money’s on the latter.
Steve: Yes, and both UPX and SmartTrack would have been better served as proposals if they had started out this way. As it is, we have to wait for advocates of both “solutions” to pull back from their blind loyalty to their pet projects.
LikeLike
Regarding ticket price, it seems a pretty standard price for a premium fast service to an airport. Of all the issues with the project this might be the least bad thing.
I expect this was brought up all the time but Heathrow Express is £21, which is around $39. The slower ‘local’ option, Heathrow Connect, is £10 = $19, which lines up with the UPX Presto price.
Of course Piccadilly line does the same for local-transit price (£3, £5 in rush hours) but that takes an hour to central London – comparable to TTC’s 192 to Bloor subway service which is a fair bit cheaper.
You can point to places like Vancouver where it’s a local two-zone fare and 24 minutes to the airport, and having lived there yes it’s very nice, but YVR is geographically a lot closer to downtown Vancouver than YYZ to downtown Toronto. Any takers for moving Pearson to Downsview?
Toronto Union Station to YYZ is ~25 km
London Charing Cross to LHR T1 is ~26 km
Vancouver Granville & Georgia to YVR is ~13 km
Toronto Union Station to Downsview is ~14 km
Whether UPX should have been the top priority service to be built out to YYZ, or whether should it have been built like it was (short DMUs) is another topic…
LikeLike
It is a sad waste of a precious corridor – it should have been far more of a sub-regional semi-express route and the diagonal route makes most of it quite attractive. Now that yet another big project is waay over-budget, will we have the ability to spend for retrofitting the UPX corridor, or will there by nothing to be done but ongoing subsidizings?
Beam me up, or at least away from Moronto….
LikeLike
Surely, Dalton McGuinty had a chance to say NO as did the voters have a chance to say NO to the Liberals in last year’s election but instead, the electorate promoted them from minority to majority and so now STOP complaining and live with it.
Fact: The Liberal government has been in power throughout the entire lifespan of the UPX approval and construction.
Steve: And it has been a vanity project from the beginning. Do you stop opposing Liberal policies just because they never embrace your philosophy? No, you continue to say they are wrong in the hope that someone is listening. As for UPX, we’re stuck with it and the issue now is to see that it is incorporated into a wider network eventually.
In ‘TTC Board Meeting March 26, 2016’ thread, Steve stated:
Well, there you go. According to Steve, the Liberals are wasting money on UPX, etc; the NDP have ZERO improvements for transit and their (NDP) numbers don’t add up (according to Steve, see quote above); and yet he would not even consider voting for the allegedly right wing extremist Progressive Conservatives. He/She who votes for someone just because he has known his MPP “since his days on City Council” has no right to complaint because if you have a complaint, then please complain with your vote next time.
Steve: I consider the Tories only slightly above the Visigoths considering their attitude to public services and their history of anti-Toronto attitudes. The Liberals and the NDP, for all their faults, are preferable by a long shot over the alternative.
By the way, 4406 was seen on the streets of Toronto several days ago and I thought that you would be the first one to report it but let me hereby have that honour.
Steve: You’re welcome. We have reached the point where daily reports on arrivals of new streetcars can be left to @StreetcarTO on Twitter.
LikeLike
To all those complaining about the high price of UPX, let us organize a protest blocking the UPX train tracks. It is outrageous that so much taxpayer dollars are being used to construct ultra-luxurious train rides for the wealthy business visitors when the average taxpayer can’t even afford to ride the same. Instead of on-board Wi-Fi, etc; would it not have been better to use that money to lower the fare a bit? Besides, these wealthy business tycoons whom UPX is meant for can easily afford to roam on their cellphone data-plans.
LikeLike
But you would labeled a terrorist under bill C51 and banned from all commercial air craft, jobs with any outfit remotely related to any government and you and all your descendants would have a scarlet T carved into their foreheads to warn away good god fearing people.
As for the wifi, I believe that it is “no cost” to UP Express because the provider would be able to bombard the clients with adds.
LikeLike
Let’s see, about 30-plus years ago, the Scarborough Rapid Transit line was being built, and the provincial government of the day rejigged the whole project to run ICTS vehicles, “lightweight welded aluminum cars are designed to be acceptable for elevated operation”. Today, the UPX is a project of the provincial government of the day.
The SRT line runs alongside a railway corridor, and then makes a 90-degree turn to run the elevated track to its destination the Scarborough Town Centre, the transit hub of the east end. The UPX line runs alongside a railway corridor, and then makes a 90-degree turn to run the elevated track to its destination the Pearson International Airport, the transit hub of the west end.
The SRT trains and the UPX trains look very, very similar.
Oh, wow! I just thought of something else! In about 3 to 5 years, we’ll see how the UPX line works out. Maybe it doesn’t do too well.
At that range of time in the near future, we’ll see also how the SSE project is shaping up. Maybe it isn’t getting anywhere fast, maybe it got cancelled. Maybe it is getting built with a completion date another 10 years ahead, so perhaps 12-15 years from now.
Soooo, we might have all these UPX trains gathering dust. Here is what I thought – regauge the SRT line to standard gauge and rip out the 3rd and 4th rails as they will no longer be necessary. The UPX trains are DMU’s, they run on their own power.
In fact, the UPX trains could run in a giant U-shape from Pearson to Union to STC. Voila, SmartTrack!
Solves a whole bunch of transit problems, yes?
Steve: There a more than a few problems with clearances at existing stations on the SRT elevated, and the brain trust behind SmartTrack regard Markham as the place to go, not STC which is beyond its best before date and not worthy of their attention. The really astounding part about the ST bafflegab is that most people don’t realize its primary purpose is to make land in the 905 more valuable. Why Toronto should contribute $2.8b to this is a mystery.
LikeLike
I would put to you, if you are flying from the core, it is either you are flying for business, or if you are flying solo, it is not more expensive than the other reasonably quick alternatives. This is really a question of why not a rapid transit connection? I would love to have wi-fi on all the trains – but let me ride it to Bramalea, and the CrossTown, and Bloor, oh for a TTC token.
LikeLike
Parts of the detailed track alignment are still under development due to local complications, but Metrolinx intends to proceed with corridor expansion in parts first and let that section catch up. Specifically, there is more capacity constraint between Kitchener and Georgetown than Georgetown and Malton, so they will do that section first. There is a quite detailed plan and it all revolves around doing what you they can to protect for future expansion work (easy to build the signal bridge for the future track) while focusing on the worst bottleneck points that can be solved with the available budget.
It might have changed since I last heard, but the DMU are convertable to EMU. The three main problems are timetable, overall track use, and cost. It is much smarter to electrify the whole corridor and not just what the UPX needs, capital costs are only slightly higher with significantly better value. Next, it’s inefficient to electrify UPX before Lakeshore West. It’s like taking a glass of water out of a swimming pool and saying you’ve reduced the total volume of urine. Finally, there is a political deadline for a UPX opening for the Pan/Am Games, while system wide electrification is going to be a decade in implementing.
As for speed, EMUs general benefit from better acceleration, whereas the UPX line has few stops. The DMU/EMU choice was never about service speed, but being green.
This is completely about what the mission goals of Metrolinx are. If we’re lucky with the 2016 renewal, they’ll be mandated to improve local transit as well as regional. Until then, wishing for Metrolinx to do local, is just pissing in the wind.
From all the forecasts that I’ve seen, UPX is going to be underwritten for a long time. It’s not easy to be re-absorbed by mainline GO service as they have dedicated platform styles. Just like Heathrow Express, it’ll keep on eating up track space to provide that “world class” feeling.
The problem with the 192 is that it’s regularly packed (need to wait for a second or sometimes third bus) and there is limited capacity for luggage. The Piccadilly line at least minimizes the number of transfers you need to do. As for UPX vs Heathrow Express costs, Heathrow Express definitely is more luxurious, but the main difference it that Heathrow Express turns a profit.
Retrofitted to what? GO trains definitely not. EMU definitely. To break out of the universal condemnation of the UPX (which I generally agree with), I will point out that it’s been a useful lever getting funding for other needed corridor improvements like GTS.
I think this is a slight on the Visigoths. I would place the OPC nearer to the Mongols, sweeping in on a wave of power and strong political networking, tearing down all that came before, and evaporating once their leader disappears.
It’s the political reality, when given the choice between sometimes wasteful, backhanded neglect, and outright hostility, my vote goes to sometimes wasteful. As the scales tip between sometimes to usually, then it’s time to reconsider.
Steve: I was waiting for someone to rise to defend the Visigoths who are, no doubt, much more deserving of our sympathy that the Tories.
On average 30 people a year are killed in Ontario by trespassing on rail lines. Entering onto railway property is an offense under the federal Railway Safety Act with maximum fine of $10,000 and/or imprisonment for up to one year. It’s also an Ontario offense under the Trespass to Property Act of Ontario with up to an additional $2,000.00 fine.
If you want to protest, try picking something that’s not illegal and dangerous.
LikeLike
Putting in the signal bridge for future expansion is a minimal cost but putting up signals long before they are needed is carrying capital costs before they are necessary. There have been articles in local papers about extra tracks east of Georgetown. If they have to go back to 2 at the Credit River then the benefit is minimal unless they are going to make the North track a dedicated track into the through platform and Silver Junction to the Kitchener line. I am O.K. with that but I would like to know what exactly they are planning.
LikeLike
My issue is that I would really like to see it run at least as far as Bramalea (which I think you could do), so that it could be integrated with Brampton services, better still would be to run to the Brampton GO station and tie in with the Hurontario-Maine LRT project – suspect this would require some expropriation in terms of corridor width (I am not under the impression there is room for 4 tracks that far west – and it is a fair stretch beyond Bramalea). However, to me this is “regional service”. If you stay within Toronto only well then there is no chance, however, getting into Brampton with high frequency service is important for regional transit.
LikeLike
What I’ve heard through a number of my advocacy initiatives is that Rapid Transit to the airport is very high on Prem. Wynne’s wish list, and right now they are playing the waiting game until the Fall when more about the SmartTrack west-end EA is ironed out.
My hope is that the ST West-side gets turfed (or instead goes the long way around to the airport area), and that Eg. Phase 2 gets kicked off before phase 1 is operational…
The UpEx fare discussion has been beaten to death and I don’t have a huge opinion on this at the moment. The fare in isolation seems high to me, however when factoring in the premium nature and time savings, some of the price points are competitive. I think that the discounts for more than 1 traveller should be more substantial, otherwise a taxi is still cheaper from downtown (even with the guaranteed time savings), however the key piece that’s been negated is the cost/time to get to Union. If with PRESTO, the idea is that if you tap TTC and then tap UpEx, you get the TTC fare rebated, then this may be OK…
I realize that it maybe should not have been built with public funds, and I get that a cheaper/RT service should have come first.
Honestly, the more I talk to Metrolinx people, the more I hear that they are trying to bring the concept of transportation economics into the fold. Implicitly, this to me says that the GO Lakeshore E/W & TTC fare “co-share” at $60per month and the UpEx Fares are a bit experimental…
Steve: I think that there are a lot of well-meaning people at Metrolinx, but there is still a fundamental problem with funding and short-term planning. Until we move to a multi-year plan with funding in place that will not be derailed by political gerrymandering, Metrolinx cannot have the kind of discussion it needs to have in public for fear of pre-empting the Minister’s latest photo op.
LikeLike
Mobilization and track occupancy costs are higher than the hardware costs for the signal heads.
Plans are for a 3rd southern track between Huttonville Creek (Mile 18.94, near Mississauga Road) and John St. (Mile 23.64, near Silver Creek). The twinning of the Guelph subdivision will extend slightly further east (Mile 24.04, east of Main St./Hwy 7), but the official designation for Silver Junction will remain the same as Mile 24.1/30.0. The closest cross-over route between these two new sections would be Track 3 to 2 near Maple Ave. (Mile 22.89), Track 2 to 1 and Track 1 to Georgetown Station near Mountainview Rd. (Mile 23.10). West of Mountainview Rd. there is no reason for CN to be on the northern track.
Crossing the Credit River will be a new south span.
The issue here is Halwest Junction and occupation of the Halton subdivision. There is no right-hand switch between Track 2 and Track 3 between Bramalea and Halwest, and the last signal on Weston is at Torbram Rd (Mile 16.17), so currently it’d be 2.2km of two-way same track occupation.
Bramalea has two platforms accessed by Track 2/3 and a pocket track. So at minimum, you’re looking at full occupation of one mainline freight track and probably two for some redundancy.
You can add the switch and possibly build a new mainline between Bramalea and Halwest, but it’s not simply a matter of doing the station and running the trains.
You can get four mainline tracks as far as Centre St. (Mile 14.78) without an issue, but from there to McLaughlin Rd. (Mile 16.26) is a big problem, considered adding the third track is already a matter of concern.
The issue with GO/TTC co-fare has been who pays how much. GO has co-fares with every other agency, but the problem between GO/TTC is one of size as well as per rider cost. Maybe this will be sorted in the regional fare integration talks, but basically the issue is that neither side is willing to pay enough to get it done.
I think a great example of how well this might work is Highways England (formerly Highways Agency), which became a publicly owned company yesterday. There capital budget is about twice that of Metrolinx, and they service a much wider range of infrastructure, but even as a Crown Agency/Corporation, they were subject to political interference.
LikeLike
I disagree. They want to run a 25 minute trip to the airport. 50 minutes round trip. I think diesels will struggle to keep that schedule. Then again maybe these trains are much lighter and swifter than I’m imagining. I’ll believe it when I see it.
Also as for electrifying before Lakeshore west, I would think that’s a good idea. Allows GO to iron out any kinks before they attempt to convert the busiest line in the system.
LikeLike
To Matthew Phillips:
Thanks for all the information. I am glad someone is keeping us informed.
LikeLike
I can only wonder if, after this happens, Smart Track and UP Ex will join the SRT in Toronto’s “what not to do” transit history book. Not that any decision makers will read it, but….
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
Diesel GO trains currently run from Union to Malton in 23 minutes.
Steve: I believe the service is 4 trains on a 15 minute headway, and so there’s 10 minutes for layover/recovery at each terminal.
Lakeshore West has the most ridership, 90% as much as Milton/Kitchener/Barrie combined.
LikeLike
Matthew Phillips writes:
Diesel GO trains currently run from Union to Malton in 23 minutes.
Not according to GO’s latest schedule:
Train 250: 33 minutes
Train 260: 37 minutes
Train 204: 36 minutes
Train 206: 36 minutes
Train 210: 36 minutes
Train 212: 36 minutes
Train 256: 36 minutes.
Outbound trains are pretty much the same except 267 which manages to do it in 30 flat.
Steve: It’s worth noting the current schedules have padding for construction delays, but an 11 minute reduction will be interesting to see. Does anyone “out there” have a preconstruction GO timetable for this corridor as a comparison?
LikeLike
Times look the same in 2001. Exactly the same.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011207212119/http://www.gotransit.com/schedule/pubsched.asp?table=31&direction=0&day=1&page=1
Steve: Er, no they don’t. There are five inbound trains and they take 28 minutes from Malton to Union.
LikeLike
For those commenting on the Malton Union times with comparison to UPX. Please remember that GO runs 10 car trains with a locomotive and UPX will run 2 or 3 car trains with at least the 2 cab cars being DMUs. DMUs will have at least 4 of 6 axles powered on 3 car trains. (It depends if the middle car is powered or is only a trailer.) GO trains have one powered locomotive and 10 unpowered coaches behind it which means that only 4 out of 44 axles are powered. Acceleration rate, which is the most important factor in determining travel time depends on the ratio of powered to unpowered axles. The transfer speed from constant tractive effort to constant power point depends on the power to weight ratio for MU consists. Diesel power versus electric power is not as important as the power to weight ratio. If it is high enough then either is capable of going from Malton to Union in 25 minutes.
LikeLike
Oops. Absolutely right. Getting a little too excited.
I thought the power to weight ratio favored electric. For example, since we’re talking MUs. Two stainless steel Bo-Bos from the same manufacturer with similar dimensions:
The Budd RDC (diesel): 550hp/113120lb
The Budd Silverliner (electric): 550hp/101400lb (1.7mph/s)
Figures from their respective Wikipedia pages. No posted acceleration for the RDC.
LikeLike
Of course the limits to traction mean that as Robert pointed out there is a limit to the amount of traction that a locomotive can in fact get, so tractive force is a limiting factor, and the fewer the stops (hence starts) the less of an issue that would be. The amount of force that can be applied, especially from a standing start is greater in a DMU than a locomotive driven train, simply because you have more powered axles. If each car was powered it would be a huge difference. This is also true for EMU, however, I believe what Robert is saying here, is that the difference from locomotive to DMU is likely greater than from DMU to EMU.
LikeLike
The Budd RDCs were designed in the late 1940’s to take advantage of large supply of tank engines that were surplus from WWII and that had simple hydraulic transmissions. The Silverliners were from the early 60s so had the benefit of more modern weight reducing construction methods. The power to weight ratio is determined by what you are willing to spend for the engine and how much space you will let it have.
Electric motors have better torque speed characteristics than diesels but good transmissions can compensate some. Electric motors are lighter than diesel engines but require a step down transformer to reduce the 25kV ac for use on the train and much more complex control circuitry. On the Montreal EMUs the transformers weigh about 2 tonnes if my source is correct.
The RDCs only had 2 powered axles, the inside one in each truck due to an archaic rule that locomotives with less than 44 tons (88,000 lbs) on drivers did not need a fireman while those over 44 tons did. Powering all 4 axles would have increased their acceleration. I don’t know if this rule was still in effect for the Silverliners. In railway rules all MU passenger equipment are locomotives and so are the GO cab cars.
The early RDCs only had 250 hp engines but later ones had 275 hp ones. In the 60s and 70s CN used to run a Friday Sunday only advanced train from Toronto to London with one stop in Brantford. This train normally had 2 RDC 1s and a single engine RDC 9 in between. This train could get to Brantford in 65 minutes from Toronto. One night the RDC 9 was dead so CN replaced it with 2 RDC 2s, twin engine baggage passenger combines. This train with 8 engines made the run to Brantford in just over 50 minutes. This significant increase in the power to weight ratio over the normal consist cut almost 20% off the regular running time.
EMUs are probably more efficient than DMUs but if you’re willing to spend the money, the DMUs should be able match the EMUs in acceleration and top speed. You can read more about the RDCs here.
LikeLike
My bad, I must have looked at the 250 train from Bloor and not noticed.
So the question really is the time to break and accelerate, as maximum speed is capped by the corridor design. From the 2011, USRC Capacity Study, the following data were used as typical permformance of the rolling stock options:
Elec Loco – 2.5mph/s acc, 2.0 mph/s dec
EMU – 2.25mph/s acc, 2.5 mph/s dec
DMU (hydrodynamic) – 2.5 mph/s acc, 2.5 mph/s dec
DMU (diesel elec) – 2.1 mph/s acc, 2.5 mph/s dec
From the same source:
Elec Loco – 7100 hp nominal power rating, empty weight 198,400 lbs, loaded weight 198,400 lbs, rotating weight 19,800 lbs
EMU – 1100 hp nominal power rating, empty weight 145,000 lbs, loaded weight 175,000 lbs, rotating weight 17,400 lbs
DMU (hydrodynamic) – 1200 hp nominal power rating, empty weight 160,000 lbs, loaded weight 190,000 lbs, rotating weight 19,200 lbs
DMU (diesel elec) – 750 hp nominal power rating, empty weight 160,000 lbs, loaded weight 190,000 lbs, rotating weight 19,200 lbs
So the difference in power to weight ratio between the EMU and hydrodynamic DMU is 0.5% in favour of the DMU.
LikeLike
Malton to Toronto GO times from schedule. The first 2 inbound trains take 33 min, the next 3 take 36 min., then 1 at 38 min then 2 at 36 min. The outbound trains all take 33 min. except the 17:00 train which takes 30 min. After 48 years GO has finally learned that passengers have mass and fully loaded trains are slower than ones with lower loads.
I thought it was more or less downhill from Malton to Toronto which begs the question as to why inbound trains are slower than outbound trains. I think that it is slack built into the schedule for getting through any delays in the throat tracks inbound. No one is going to complain if they get in 3 minutes early.
A couple of questions for Matthew Phillips:
1) Are the acceleration rates for fully loaded trains, 10 or 12 cars? If so why do the EMUs accelerate at a lower rate than the electric locomotive hauled trains? This does not make sense as the EMUs should have a higher tractive effort to weight ratio and thus a higher acceleration.
2) Do you know at what speed the electric locomotive reach their constant power point at which time the acceleration rates drop off and how does this compare with the EMUs?
3) Is there a document that shows the predicted travel times for fully loaded trains for the different types of equipment?
The values for the electric locomotive do not make sense for a 10 car train of fully loaded cars at 160 passengers per car. The total mass of the 10 cars plus locomotive would be 1,630,000 pounds using a load of 30,000 pounds for the passengers in each car while the tractive effort from a 198,400 pound locomotive assuming a coefficient of friction of 0.4 for a good ac motored locomotive would be just under 80,000 pounds of force. This would give an initial acceleration rate of less than 1.6 mphps which would drop off once the constant power point was reached at about 30 mph.
An EMU with a mass of 175,000 pounds and 1100 hp would have a theoretical, but totally impractical acceleration rate of about 13 mphps. This would be governed back to something in the 2.2 to 3.5 mphps range depending on the level of passenger comfort desired and possible wheel track damage from slipping wheels. From a basic Physics point of view the numbers do not seem to add up. The EMUs could maintain an acceleration over 1.6 mphps up to 40 mph.
To what does the term “rotating weight” refer? Is it similar to unsprung weight from my ancient times?
LikeLike
12 car consists.
From the numbers, the main difference is only that EMU have a much smaller maximum auxiliary power supply.
Not exactly, there is a table of Tractive Effort and Efficiency, but it is only every 5 mph. In this, the elec loco and EMU are equal across the board.
This document is specifically USRC limited. There is a few figures that compare diesel locomotives to elec locomotives. One as speed vs distance and the other as time vs distance. From a rough measurement of the picture, an electric locomotive is 24 seconds faster to reach the the Don River from Union and 8 seconds faster to reach Strachan Ave from Union. However, most of this is limited by track speeds.
Rotating weight is basically your axles. Basically, it’s used for dynamic braking calculations.
LikeLike