Updated Nov. 2, 2017 at 2:50 pm: Typos corrected, notably “DBFOM”.
The Metrolinx Board met on October 26 with an agenda that was largely discussed in private. This article is a follow-up to the preview published before the meeting.
A major item on the confidential agenda concerned “Benefits Management and Realization”. Why this was handled at such great length in private is a mystery, and I attempted without success to clarify the topic of discussion with Metrolinx.
I asked:
Is this the issue of identifying, encouraging and capturing some of the benefits of transit expansion?
In a thoroughly opaque reply, Metrolinx stated:
Benefits management is a process to help us maximize project value as Metrolinx plans, builds, operates and connects transit projects in order to provide benefits to the region. [Email of Oct. 23 from Scott Money in Metrolinx Communications]
A major problem for Metrolinx and for the Regional Plan in general is the propensity to build stations surrounded by parking lots and structures (GO) or free-standing architectural sculptures that make integration with future development quite difficult. On a smaller scale, Metrolinx will have to get used to thinking smaller, in the sense that stops on BRT and LRT lines should not be planned around massive growth but depend on medium density locally plus intersecting feeder routes.
Metrolinx has committed to publishing information about its private sessions in the future, and it will be interesting to see how much we actually learn about evolving thoughts on this issue. After all, this meeting was billed as a “strategy session”.
The New CEO Introduces Himself
Metrolinx’ new CEO, Phil Verster, made a few remarks most of which were predictable as so much at Metrolinx meetings can be.
His focus since joining the agency has been on talking to customers and front line staff, especially those who do the invisible tasks that keep the system running. He has also been consulting with Metrolinx staff and management about the importance of positioning the agency to get the most out of the investment in the RER (Regional Express Rail) program over the coming years.
Among many projects, Verster spoke of the Kipling mobility hub (recently announced with a media event by sundry politicians), a project that has been brewing for over a decade.
Fare integration was another topic Verster focused on with the recently announced GO-TTC co-fare arrangement being the first step to region-wide integration. This will affect business case analyses, travel behaviours and patterns. New travel, of course, will depend not only on fares, but also on service, a topic on which Verster was silent.
In a telling comment, Verster observed that while Metrolinx has a lot of capital improvements underway, it is important to remember “the soft stuff” of organizational improvement, transparency to the community, and becoming an organization that represents transit in an objective and positive manner.
Being “objective” is a topic that returned in other discussions as the meeting went on.
Regional Transportation Plan Update
Antoine Belaieff presented an overview of the RTP consultations to date. He reported that reception to the draft plan as been generally positive, but that there is continued impatience for system improvements. Riders want seamless fares and service, have diverse opinions on parking and station access, and are interested in seeing how the plan will be staged and implemented. At the municipal level there were few surprises because local planners have been involved in developing the draft, although there is some interest in adding projects to the plan. Stakeholders want clarity about the first/last mile problem and how the growth in travel with RER will affect station access. There is continued interest in long and short haul goods movement by truck and rail.
There have been “fairly technical” discussions about roles and responsibilities for Metrolinx vs the provincial government, especially with respect to the provincial Growth Plan, and a desire for “crisp and concrete” language.
Phil Verster observed that the plan should not be “final” but should be open to changes. It should not be an “event” but an ongoing process.
Board member Upkar Arora asked whether people have been flagging omissions in the plan, have concerns about the environment and sustainability, or are split between an urban/suburban view of the plan.
Belaieff replied that, if anything, people are having to digest a “rich” plan that has a great deal to absorb. Feedback on environment issues has been supportive because of the plan’s “call to action”. Suburban areas tend to focus on how the plan will support growth both through new stations and with expansion that is timely relative to development.
Board member Rahul Bhardwaj asked whether “we hearing from the right people” or just those who are usually engaged, and using an unfortunate phrase, referred to the “silent majority”. Belaieff replied that he was pleased to see audiences not just of his planning friends, but that there was genuine input from “everyday” people. Getting attendees to meetings is hard, and Metrolinx is counting on local networks to help with this, but both “planning intellectuals” and “real people” were present. Leslie Woo, Chief Planning Officer, noted the need to reach marginalized communities.
Woo advised that there will be a report in December on the feedback Metrolinx has received and how it will affect the next version of the document. In parallel staff are working on economic information and will propose “a way forward” with the plan and its implementation. She proposed that the plan not be considered as finite, but as a generator of more specific studies.
One statement caught my ear, namely that this is a plan for ten years, after which there will be a new plan. That is technically correct, in that there is a legal mandate to review the plan every decade (the current review is triggered by that), but the RTP is intended to look forward a quarter century and given the lead time for the most complex projects, a ten year outlook simply won’t do.
As for the comments about “real people” at meetings, this cuts two ways. On one hand, it is vital that the plan be shaped by genuine public opinion as opposed to the “usual suspects” be they those of us who always comment on anything, or politicians who warp transit plans to suit their electoral goals. On the other hand, public opinion can be skewed by biased presentations, and some of the activism so familiar in transit circles arises directly from the need to provide contrary views to the official versions. Being “engaged” should not disqualify one from providing input to a vital plan, and engagement does not necessarily translate to agreement.
The finality of a plan, or its openness to change, is always a tug of war at the planning and political levels. Plans that are open to constant change can leave us with a situation where changing priorities and limited funding guarantee that nothing actually happens. On the other hand, the lack of published details behind many parts of the plan, specifically ridership projections, land use assumptions, project costs and priorities leave us with a full network for 2041 but no sense of how we will get there, or how subsets of the plan would perform.
Phil Verster introduced this report as an examination of an alternative “green” way to implement non-diesel propulsion for GO saying that there will be a very important feasibility study of the technology this fall. Mark Ciavarro, VP of RER Implementation, took the Board through the presentation (linked above) together with Peter Zuk, Chief Capital Officer.
Ciavarro noted that interest in hydrogen as a fuel goes back to 2012 when it was still a relatively new technology and, at the time, not worth further pursuit. In September 2016, Alstom unveiled a pilot and the vehicle is now in testing, although in a different, much smaller form than trains GO would use. The test train reaches a maximum speed of 140 km/h, and 60 trains are on order. Chief Operating Officer Greg Percy noted that GO’s top speed now is 90m/h or 150km/h. Greg Verster stated that speeds of 180-200km/h and up lie in High Speed Rail territory.
Chair Rob Prichard noted that there is a terminology issue in that all locomotives are electric, but the question is where the energy comes from. [Diesel locos generate their power on board while “electric” locos obtain power from an overhead wire. In both cases the actual propulsion is provided by an electric motor. However, truly electric trains give the option of powering all cars, not just the locomotive, and this changes a train’s performance.]
Zuk stated that GO is electrifying its network and the question is how this would be done. They are doing a feasibility study of hydrogen and other potential technologies. In Germany, commercial uses of hydrogen goes back to 2002, but there is a question here of the scale and applicability to large commuter rail operations.
Verster observed that the application of hydrogen trains in Germany would be to rural lines where electrification infrastructure is not cost effective. The train is small, and the issue is whether the technology can be scaled up. There will be challenges and that is why Metrolinx is conducting the feasibility study. There are hydrogen fuel cell applications in LRT and buses, but this is the first train. Surplus electricity can be used to create hydrogen, and that first stage is always expensive. This is a key part of the study.
Board member Carl Zehr asked whether the study will look at the transition to and integration of hydrogen technology. Verster replied only the technical feasibility is being studied in the immediate future. His main objective is to deliver RER at the best cost and time. With respect to using the technology on track that GO does not own [portions of some corridors are owned by CN and CP which operate freight traffic over them], hydrogen trains could avoid the need for overhead contact systems (OCS) on non-GO trackage but there is no regulatory framework for this yet in Canada.
Zuk noted that each component of hydrogen fuel cell technology has been around for years. What is new is their integration into a rail system. Metrolinx needs to determine if and how fuel delivery will work, and how the technology would fit into EMU (electric multiple unit) trains.
There will be a symposium to assess the state of the technology on November 16, 2017 (see p. 13 in the presentation deck) and this will be open to outside parties. Whether this means media and the general public is as yet uncertain.
Rob Prichard wondered whether GO Transit would be the last system to build an overhead based system. The obvious rejoinder is that the whole world is building these systems. Verster replied that Metrolinx should not engage in delivering a program that is dependent on research and development.
The study will likely be done by the end of 2017 with a report for the February 2018 Board meeting.
During the press scrum after the meeting, the Star’s Ben Spurr asked Chair Prichard and CEO Phil Verster what made them think hydrogen technology is even possible. Verster replied unambiguously that there are significant community ridership benefits in RER, and Metrolinx will not jeopardize this based on a technology that is not ready to market. He observed that the study will affect RER procurement – under a DBFOM scheme (where a bidder does everything from designing to operating and maintaining the system) there is a question of what technologies a provide might bid.
Spurr also asked about Metrolinx attempting to position Ontario as a global leader, and whether this is a transit agency’s role. Verster replied that Metrolinx should “scan the horizon” to know what is available.
The DBFOM reference raises the question of whether Metrolinx is planning to outsource its RER operations completely on a turnkey basis. I attempted to obtain clarification of this from Metrolinx later on (the scrum ran out of time), but replies yielded no information at all. As for hydrogen itself, it is clear that there is a tension between the basic action of getting an update on the technology, and a political stance that would provide Ontario (and its politicians) with yet another chance to show off advanced technology. Our experience in that regard is less than stellar.
This report is substantially the same as the one presented at the recent TTC Board meeting. It deals with the proposed agreement between Metrolinx and the City of Toronto/TTC to implement the first stage in a planned four-stage evolution of regional fares:
a) Discounts on double fares (GO-TTC)
b) Discounts on double fares (905-TTC)
c) Adjustments to GO’s fare structure
d) Fare Policy Harmonization
Leslie Woo expects to report to the December Board meeting on all of these.
During the scrum, Rob Prichard observed that although the GO-TTC co-fare is a three year agreement, he feels that unwinding it is unlikely because it is so clearly the right policy direction. If anything, it will be rolled into a more extensive set of integrated fares.
We can only hope that Metrolinx has moved beyond regarding the matter of time-based fares (the two-hour transfer) as a matter of local policy rather than as a potential key part of regional integration for non-GO services. All systems outside of Toronto now use this scheme, and York Region recently eliminated its zone fares. Only the TTC remains as an exception, and there will be a proposal in the coming Ridership Growth Strategy that Toronto move to the two-hour transfer.
This could leave Metrolinx in the position of trying to foist fare by distance, their long-favoured scheme, on local systems that have already standardized on a flat, time-based fare.
Governance
The agenda included a private session item on governance which will be public at the December meeting. This may deal with the issue of which items and reports are dealt with in private session, and which are made public, especially before rather than after they are massaged to fit political reaction.
Rob Prichard, after much prodding in the media scrum, allowed that the controversy over Kirby and Lawrence East Stations was a “catalyst for discussion”. Phil Verster took a shot at the issue by saying that there are four phases to the benefits case process and the station review is at stage 1. There will be more information later in the cycle. Ben Spurr challenged him on the sequence of a Ministerial announcement that appears to seal the decision. Verster replied that communities should get a sense of direction, but that Metrolinx has a long way to go in the maturity of how they work with benefits cases. These are not an absolute science but have strategic overlays leading to a policy decision.
The Globe’s Oliver Moore asked if the Ministerial intervention was appropriate. Verster replied that he cannot comment, but wants to look forward. Metrolinx will give informed advice and options, but it is up to the politicians to make decisions.
These statements dip and dive around the issue, and the comments about the uncertain nature of benefits cases beg the question of the value of the degree to which Metrolinx has relied on these in the past as definitive studies. Either they can hide behind studies as the work of “experts”, or they can recognize them as works in progress that might not be “mature”.
Steve Munro 
Exactly, and the notion of responsible development according to the province’s own declaration should be in increasing density generally, and not encouraging the broadening sprawl that has been a large portion of the 905 development for the last couple of decades, and much of the 416 development in the couple of decades before. Need to increase the areas that can be effectively used for higher density, while not requiring local areas of incredibly high density,
That is start looking to create large areas where the density over 50 per hectare, and substantial areas 100, that would support the notion of lots of errands and life being done on foot, not in car, creating communities of people, not isolated drivers. Creating opportunity for high streets and local restaurants, more than impersonal mega malls. Toronto is past the point where it is possible to build enough roadways to support effectively the growth it is having, and the scope it has created using cars. High Streets like Roncesvalles, in new areas would make life much more enjoyable for a large portion of the population, this while still supporting a reasonable commute to core, or other major commercial centers is quite feasible, with a greater focus on support local transit connections to commuter rail, as part of overall planning.
LikeLike
I am not going to discuss about hydrogen trains here. A more sensible option is to use a dual mode locomotives for lines like Milton where electrification may not happen for a while. If every train coming into Union emits zero green house emission, it is already a step towards better air. Amtrak already uses this type of equipment on the Empire Service when trains are heading to Penn Station.
RER service is useless without corresponding investment by local transit. The Stouffville [line] is already an all day 2 way service. Yet YRT only operates GO shuttles during rush hour. If one gets off at Milliken GO during midday, there will be no YRT shuttle anywhere. The closest YRT stop would be at Kennedy on the number 8 bus. GO stations are like desserts during the day. The easiest way to make GO stations better is to build better cycling infrastructure and a bike share within a 5 km radius. This way, people can still get around after getting off a RER train. Not everyone should have to rely on taxis or Uber at the end of the trip.
Fare integration is about money. If YRT collects $2 less from a TTC originated customer, it will be a big problem for them. All the province has to do is pick up the difference, but they do not.
On the subject of 120 minutes fare, Toronto has to move to it. Presto is like a straight jacket. There are very little flexibility in the system. Presto cannot act as a token or identifier like other IC cards. For example, Presto [does not have] an API that can report, “I am customer ID xxxxx with y dollars in the account” so that another backend system can calculate how much to debit or even login to a bike share. Presto tries to handle everything itself including calculating route charges and rules. If Presto can be used only as an identifier and a wallet, the TTC can create its own backend and implement an alternative to a 120 minutes fare. Bixi can even use it to apply a Metrolinx discount when customers unlock a bike.
Steve: Presto claims to be moving away from on-card fare storage and calculations in a future version, but that is a few years away. Only when they get all the calculation on the backend will they avoid the complexities and limitations of having the card do all the work, and move to a situation where a card (no matter what colour or brand) or mobile app is simply an identifier, not a calculator carrying the full tariff.
LikeLike
At a lot of GO stations, where large parking structures have now been built, I would love to see the other surrounding surface lots be infilled with high density developments, although I’m not holding my breath. I can understand the need for these parking garages in our current suburban layouts but the sprawling surface parking surrounding the stations is such a waste of incredibly valuable land. Vancouver is a great example where many of the SkyTrain stations are being surrounded by new developments helping to grow transit-oriented development.
LikeLike
How do you get all day 2 way service on a single line of track?
I really can’t take this bs.
Steve: Look at the schedule. There is hourly train service to/from Unionville on weekdays. The single track section forces the service to pass on the Lake Shore corridor at the south end and near Unionville at the north where there is double track.
There are trains leaving Unionville southbound on the :46 when there are northbound trains on the :47 at Milliken. Trains leave Union eastbound on the :15 and arrive westbound on the :27 passing while they are still on the LSE corridor. They get long layovers at each end. But there is all day, two way service.
If you’re going to call “bs”, the least you can do is to check your facts.
LikeLike
I love the Anglo-Canadian art of understatement. There is nothing like a major fiasco caused by the government taking its eye off the ball and being distracted by shiny new toys.
It is one thing to have someone in an organization whose job is to “scan the horizon” and insert cheap standards changes or other things to “future-proof” a project. It is totally another thing when the leaders get bored with the hard work of using actual technology to make things work and put real money, time and effort into some “toy train” that leaves millions stranded.
LikeLike
My apologies. I’ve been is so many arguments stating that Stouffville is single track that I got carried away. Maybe because there is 2 way service makes them were so adamant that there had to be double tracking. I hope my error has at least made some aware that Stouffville is single track and this is a major impediment to improved service.
Steve: Metrolinx is working on double tracking the line north of Ellesmere. From there south, they can’t do it until the RT is removed. However, the line does not have to be entirely single track as long as the double track is in the right locations for trains to pass.
LikeLike
I believe this raises the issue of cross purposes between SmartTrack (ST) and GO. ST is an urban service which requires high frequency. GO is a regional service, typical commuter requirements of high capacity trains at peak periods.
ST serving Agincourt, Finch, Lawrence could have busy local transit service (TTC) if there was frequent ST service and no extra transfer charge. ST does not provide frequent service and will have an up charge.
The GO service to Markham serves the automobile culture of Markham. As I understand it even the roadways accessing the GO stations are jammed. They will have to provide bus service from the high rise ghettos being built in Markham to the GO stations. It will be interesting to see how or if they deal with integrating the fares. However the rest of Markham is pure suburban sprawl which is even uneconomical for bus routes. Traffic congestion at rush hours complicates maintaining bus schedules. Markham never learned the mistakes of Mississauga.
GO service works with lumbering bi-level locomotive/coach trains because of the high volumes of passengers serviced in peak periods – a batch service.
ST would be better served with EMU’s running frequently – a stream service.
Metrolinx owns everything, Mayor Tory and Toronto lose.
Steve: But ST will not run a frequent service because the signal system is not being set up for this.
LikeLike
This comment has been purged because, although it makes a valid point about German technology, it contained the following comment, typical of one of the trolls who shows up on this site from time to time.
Some people manage to undermine their valid comments with throwaway lines like this that show they know nothing about my opinions.
Now piss off.
LikeLike
Yes, and even the 1 hour service is a low enough service density to discourage use, as missing by a few minutes becomes a big deal. The goal should be service integration and frequent enough service off peak as well as on, to make it a practical choice for many more trips, and reliable enough transit service into stations for it to be a choice beyond only the core. The idea of 30 minute service would be likely a service frequent enough to be attractive to a much larger target. Local transit service reasonably coordinated with that would also be really important to use and planning.
LikeLike
*Sigh*
1) Electification is only happening on GO owned tracks.
2) The freight by-pass is needed for all-day, two-way service to Kitchener.
3) High speed rail isn’t for Toronto. Either you are limited to the current track configurations (90 mph design speeds) or you take out whole neighbourhoods making new curves.
Let’s be clear here: Alstom. “Metrolinx isn’t wedded to any particular provider”, but Alstom is the only one with prototype technology. As a related aside, Whistler had a hydrogen powered bus system for the Olympics, but converted back to diesel as it was too expensive to maintain.
To be technically accurate, the term is actually liquefied gas.
To be clear, the argument for double tracking is that there cannot be any service increases without additional track (so much for the eastern half of Smart Track). Double tracking reduces conflict points and allows tighter headways.
ST is an election fantasy. The net result is Toronto is paying for a handful (6) of GO stations with a couple (2) that would not have otherwise been built (Lawrence & King-Liberty). Everything else was already in the RER plan. Metrolinx plans to electrify and have enhanced two-way service in the core area. EMU or Elec-loco hauled, you can run trains that are the length to best serve demand levels.
LikeLike
Mapleson said: EMU or Elec-loco hauled, you can run trains that are the length to best serve demand levels.
First and foremost, welcome back Mapleson. I personally appreciate your insights.
It’s sad to beat a dead horse but among other limiting factors are, a modern signalization system and a modernized Union Station which facilitates short dwell times and high speeds through the Union Station yard.
Appealing to Mapleson’s expertise, if the above shortcomings are addressed, I would like to see the Stouffville line be triple tracked as much as possible in the Toronto zone. Could we then run the GO loco trains with the EMU trains? EMU’s for Toronto and the loco’s for standard GO service?
Steve: The level of service implied by triple-tracking the Stouffville Line (leaving aside physical constraints at a few points) would chew up a lot of capacity on the Lake Shore corridor. There is a physical constraint on the number of tracks approaching Union from the east, and Stouffville has to share that capacity with the busier Lake Shore service. Also, the more trains you put on Stouffville, the more pressure you create for a grade separated Scarborough Junction which, with a three-track line branching off, would be quite substantial. Metrolinx hopes to avoid this grade separation if they can, but it depends on limiting the service up to Stouffville.
LikeLike
SmartTrack should be extended all the way to Stouffville. The best way to pay for SmartTrack will be by increasing the TTC fare. It is not fair to force drivers to pay for transit that they will never use.
Steve: When we start charging motorists alone for the cost of highways, I might agree with you. Meanwhile, Toronto is about to spend a ton of money on the Gardiner Expressway while motorists from Stouffville get to use it for free, thanks to Queen’s Park who won’t let us charge tolls.
LikeLike
Who is Hydrogenics? And what sort of contacts in government did they have that they were able to land this bizarre hydrogen deal from the government? The website CleanTechnica ran a whole article mocking the Ontario government for being provincial rubes for falling for such an obvious scam. The fuel cell people have had decades to prove their technology and they have consistently failed to deliver. It’s too expensive, too difficult, too inefficient, and too environmentally unfriendly. Already in 2009, the DOE was withdrawing funding for more research into using hydrogen for transportation, describing it as requiring “four [technology] miracles [to be practical]…saints only need three miracles.” Does the government somehow know more than a Nobel prize winner in physics?
A commuter network of frequent trains in a small region is exactly the situation best suited for traditional rail electrification. That’s exactly the network GO Transit is building. Infrequent trains in remote areas might benefit from hydrogen, but those trains will likely not be decarbonized for decades, specifically because the needed technology is far too immature. Hydrogen isn’t ready now, and it’s possible that it may never be ready. We might end up using batteries or biodiesel instead.
Like, I’m all for Metrolinx taking a look at different technologies and being open-minded and all, but this whole hydrogen business has gone way too far, and it’s not funny any more.
Steve: Ontario has never let technical practicality get in the way of a good ministerial announcement.
LikeLike
I think the most critical thing that Ontario needs to talk about in terms of rail is not high speed. It is service being offered at frequencies and speeds possible without high speed rail. High Speed rail is an utter distraction. What do we gain from speeds that are very high that we do not gain from operating without having to wait on freight? What issues are there from London that would not be reasonably addressed by focusing on the essential condition of the rails, and space to operate at the speeds a Via train is quite capable of operating anyway, as long as the rails are in a good state. How much time can actually be gained from very high speed operations really, versus simply being able to spend more time at closer to maximum speeds? How much merely from quicker acceleration?
Should this not be a discussion of what has to be done to remove the portions of very limited speed, which will be massive dollars, rather than spending energy on discussing the insane dollars involved in high speed rail. Would not Milton gain far more from frequent service, than faster service? What would be required to create a link to the Kitchener line for Milton? What would be required to electrify service as far as Georgetown, and provide frequent service that would make a shuttle from Milton to Georgetown make sense? Perhaps a BRT to the Bramalea GO instead? How much longer a trip is this really than from Milton today? What would the impact on general traffic be? Could this not be seen as an extension of the 407 BRT notion? That would be an extension of 20 km. We need to look at real service improvements, and not allow the distractions that come from pie in the sky ideas, but the series of base hits required to make the system work.
LikeLike
Welcome back Mapleson. You have been missed.
Some comments:
1. As Mapleson said Smart Track is an ill-conceived election promise dreamed up by Tory’s election team. It will never be built. It may have the name applied to a couple of stations on GO’s RER lines but that will be so Tory can say he achieved something.
2. There are two chances of HSR being built and Slim is quickly riding out of town. The proposed line would not be high speed until it is past Kitchener. The way it is being proposed would require high platforms at each station which would make the current GO stations obsolete. Its maintenance costs are, according to California High Speed Rail 2012 business study, in the neighbourhood of $200,000 per km per year.
3. GO will have at the end of its current order with Bombardier around 900 bi-level cars so there will be locomotive hauled trains around for a long time. EMUs are usually designed as a motor-trailer-trailer-motor set as only half the axles need to be powered and the maintenance requirements on trailers are much less than for motors, locomotives or cab cars.
4. EMUs are best at frequent stop services because of their quick acceleration. Locomotive hauled trains are preferred for longer trains because of their lower maintenance costs.
5. There is no reason to triple track the Stouffville line because it will eventually be run with EMU service as it is entirely owned by GO and it is not long enough to require a mixture of express and local services.
6. Greg Percy told me that he can think of more productive ways to waste money than by building a grade separation at Scarborough Junction. If you look at topographical maps of the area you can see it would be extremely difficult. A better way would be to keep the Stouffville trains on their own pair of tracks along the north side of the right of way and let the Lakeshore and VIA trains use the southern 2 or 3 tracks but that would require a fourth or even fifth track along the right of way which would be difficult.
7. GO is being converted to Communications Based Train Control (CBTC) which will allow headways between EMUs down to every 2 or 3 minutes. The problem becomes if non CBTC equipped trains also run on the line because the CTC signal spacing requires a much larger block between trains. When GO trains run on CN or CP lines they will need to use the railways CTC signals.
8. Union Station cannot handle the levels of service that CBTC will allow. Fortunately, Verster realizes this and wants to raise the platforms to the level of the accessibility platform throughout the station and remove some tracks and platforms to let the remaining ones be wide enough to handle the level of service.
Mapleson, a question, have you heard anything of the rumour that Metrolinx wants to divide the operating and maintenance contracts on a line by line basis. I don’t know if this is true but if it is it would be total stupidity.
Steve: Re that rumour: I have been unable to get a straight answer from Metrolinx to my query about Verster’s DBFOM comment regarding RER during the scrum at the last Board meeting. I am going to try again.
LikeLike
How much money has been sunk into building and making the Scarborough RT go over the years above what either subways or LRT would have cost form the outset? That money would have been more effectively spent on proven, known quantity existing technology.
Steve: I have not been tracking this recently, and some of the costs are buried in the operating budget making them almost impossible to split out. However, there was a time when various capital projects related to improving the SRT technology and keeping it running were consuming a few million dollars a year. Some of these clearly dealt with shortcomings in the technology such as the need to heat the power rails, and clearance issues between the LIM motors and the reaction rails.
I can see the same opportunity costs happening all over again but on far larger scale if Metrolinx decides/is forced to decide to go with hydrogen trains. The purchase costs, operating costs, maintenance costs will eat up money that could be better spent running more service and installing a proper electrification system. Metrolinx was happily increasing GO fares around 7% a year every year until 2017. If they invest heavily in hydrogen, the fare increases to pay for the operating costs of running the same service as now will be extremely heavy. The other possibility is a combination of slightly less heavy fare increases combined with a service cut. Either way, going with hydrogen most likely means paying a lot more for the same or less service than we have now.
Kathleen Wynne and the rest of the provincial government just engaged in some creative accounting to kind of, sort of mitigate runaway electricity costs. Will another round of accounting trickery have to be used to contain runaway GO fares if hydrogen costs are allowed to get out of hand?
Is he truly that divorced from reality or did someone from Queen’s Park provide him with a cue card telling him to say that? Every heavy mainline operation in the world, current, under construction, or planned, is either powered by diesel or overhead wires. Under normal circumstances, this level of wilful ignorance in a professional environment would contribute to a case for non-performance termination.
Unfortunately, the Union-Pearson Express was a wasted opportunity to build frequent service rapid transit and begin electrification on a small scale that would have gotten Metrolinx valuable experience and several years head start on scaling up and expanding to the rest of the network. Equally unfortunately, the degree of opacity that affects Metrolinx transparency as an organization allows time, money, and resources to be expended on this with no recourse. This foolishness needs be stopped like the proposal that Glen Murray floated to ban natural gas a few years ago.
LikeLike
Thanks for the welcome back everyone.
Steve covered off the track/property issue well. On the vehicle side, yes, there is no limitation to mixing where you put the motor(s). xMUs (EMU, DMU, HMU) are generally preferred nowadays as they have distributed tractive power (a motor for every or most axles). That’s accounts for the lion’s share of the time savings (the whole train starts moving at the same time, rather than front to back). The main downside is passenger circulation area and motor maintenance on every unit (rather than a limited loco fleet). You could even have an EMU train with a diesel loco in front to carry it beyond the limits of electrification (past Bramalea, Burlington, or Oshawa). The downside of this is carrying “dead” weight of whichever motor you aren’t using, but you get the same under a dual power system with the added complications of system interactions.
Poor Lincolnville. I don’t quite follow this logic though. It should be more expensive and fewer people should be paying for it all?
This all swings around to the level Metrolinx independence. John Jensen was acting CEO at the time of the announcement and it was suggested to me he learned of the Hydrogen investigation request through the Ministerial announcement, just like everyone else.
Steve: Yet another example of a Minister who is fair game to any charlatan who drops by his office with a scheme to sell.
If you’ve looked at the nuts and bolts of the timetables and budget estimates, the idea is to build a new greenfield ROW between London and Kitchener. Nothing between Kitchener and Union is projected to be beyond what is already in place or in the works. I don’t like “High Speed Rail” as a title, because it’s so malleable that it can mean 80mph or 180mph trains. Their whole concept of operations is limited stations, express service to the point that they are looking at a Guelph by-pass rather than looking for a Guelph station.
Steve: An option I am sure will endear QP to the folks in Guelph which is an important part of the Tech Corridor.
Milton isn’t getting any more trains until the Galt sub is doubled to 4 tracks, which is beyond the 2025 construction window, and a few elections away from here. To connect to the Kitchener line, you’d need to build a station on the Halton sub near Maplehurst Prison and then run in mixed traffic to Silver junction. With the “407 freight by-pass” subdivision, this is possible, but I’m not sure it’s cost or time effective for the commuters.
The block between electrification to Bramalea and electrification to Kitchener is the Halton subdivision. The 407 sub lets you go all the way.
Basically, this is an idea to build a Bus ROW rather than a Rail ROW along the 407. Then the planning question becomes what type of vehicle do you like and which route has the greater demand.
Basically, the 407 Transitway is just missing an EA for the Winston Churchill to Hurontario segment. We’ll see who wins out or what the space division is between transit and freight.
There was a period of consideration for breaking O&M off the infrastructure procurement, but the dust has settled on the more sensible everything-under-the-sun approach. That’s why the Ops Technical Advisor RFQ was cancelled earlier in the year. The only corridor specific items I’ve seen is that Milton and Richmond Hill have kind of fallen out of the picture.
The current procurement strategy is “Package 1” for “early works” (basically everything going on now); “Package 2” for “off corridor works”; and “Package 3” for “Electrified RER”. There is talk that some parts might not be ready in time and a “Package 4” “late works” (my term) would been to be hived off with the Package 3 contractor having oversight of/input to the Package 4 construction.
Honestly, I don’t think anyone actually knows and the elephants in the room are elections in June and October.
Steve: Your comments here are intriguing considering that Phil Verster was talking about the interaction between the hydrogen study and DMFOM discussions/RFP now in progress (with a submission deadline later this month). I am chasing Metrolinx for info about this.
LikeLike
I am a novice to public transit. I have learned a lot from experts here. I’m going to bring up conceptions that I currently have and ask the experts to clear up any misconceptions.
I wish to make clear, I am not stating any of the following as fact, nor has anyone from Metrolinx officially commented. I go to Metrolinx presentations and meet consultants employed by Metrolinx, who have told me that despite “entire ownership”, there is a grandfather clause, in which GO must grant a Railroad access to the Stouffville line, at a mutually agreed time. There is one active siding on the Stouffville line and thus, the rail signals are the only signals permitted. The only way GO runs a modern set of signals is if the line is de-commissioned.
This ties into:
Is this dilemma solvable? Metrolinx is officially a railroad and owns considerable track. There are sections of CP or CN track that are critical routes for GO trains. Conversely, there are sections of Metrolinx tracks that are critical routes for CP and CN. Are rail signals are the only signals permitted through the GTA?
Second question:
I’m sorry but this is not obvious to me. I guess it means it doesn’t make economic sense. SmartTrack and the Scarborough Subway Extention (SSE) don’t make economic sense but both are the steaming ahead. It looks like Toronto will be paying for the RER stations in Toronto. If we install a third line for local service, could SmartTrack contribute to rapid transit for Scarborough?
Steve: The big problem with “SmartTrack” is that it assumes everyone in Scarborough wants to go downtown and nowhere else. It is useless for local trips within Scarborough, and at the planned service levels, the wait for a train could well offset much of the travel time saving especially for someone whose destination is not right at Union Station.
LikeLike
There is a lot of development around Ellesmere and Kennedy as well as around Ellesmere and Midland and therefore, a stop at Ellesmere is warranted which will also serve a Centennial College campus at Ellesmere and Morningside as well as UTSC (both with a single connecting bus).
LikeLike
@ Bill R:
CN and CP maintain trackage rights on their former lines but Metrolinx controls access times within reason. There is still a lot of industry on the portion of the Oakville sub that GO owns, Ford plant and oil refineries but CN has to work around the GO trains and not the reverse. The Stouffville line is only accessible from the Lakeshore line, I believe, because the connection to the York sub was removed when the under pass went in.
The Metrolinx consultant for re-signalling and electrification told me that the Communication Based Train Control will eventually be used on all the lines that Metrolinx owns but that the standard CTC signalling system will remain for trains that are not CBTC equipped, CN, CP and VIA though VIA might be persuaded to put it on the locomotives used for the Lakeshore corridor if it would improve their access.
CBTC will not be used on the lines still owned by the railways but a friend who is working for a consulting company has told me his firm is working on a bid to establish a cab signalling system into GO’s loco and cab cars that will display the CTC signalling. This will be done at Metrolinx’ cost. On Metrolinx tracks when only CBTC trains are operating that will be the control system. On CN and CP tracks and when non CBTC trains are operating on GO’s line CTC train control will be used.
CBTC will be like the TTC’s new system and would allow, theoretically, automatic train control but with the exposed rights of way the engineer will probably retain control with the CBTC enforcing speed restrictions and stops. When only CBTC equipped trains are on Metrolinx tracks the CBTC will function fully allowing much closer headways. When a non CBTC train is on the line then CTC signalling system will govern the operations of that train and probably the one behind it. If VIA wants to get more access to Union then they will probably need to equip their locomotives with CBTC.
The distance from Lincolnville to Union is about 29 miles and there is no possibility of running trains past Uxbridge which is about 2 or 3 miles farther out. EMUs could probably cut 15 minutes off the running time of the line so there is no realistic need for a third track and for much of the line no physical space.
Metrolinx has reporting markings and does own most of the track on which it operates but it is NOT an operating railway and does not have authority to run trains on its own. That is why they contract the operations, train control and authorization, on the former CN lines to CN. I have been told, but have not verified it, that Metrolinx is building a train control centre near Oakville that will eventually take control of their own lines.
Metrolinx is actually doing some smart things on its own without making splashy press releases because no one would get excited about the fact that they are re-doing the electrical power feeds to the entire signalling and switching system on track on which they operate. All control system is being divided into power segments that will have two separate utility feeds at one end and a utility feed plus backup generator at the other end. When this is done the trains will still be able to operate during a massive power failure. When the system is electrified there will NOT be any backup power for train operation but they will be able recover trains and eventually get every one home using their fleet of diesel locomotives.
LikeLike
I am really uncomfortable with the logic of fare by distance, as it does not seem anchored in either cost of delivery, or the benefit to others, or the rider, time, etc. I would say, for instance that there is a real cost in operating a vehicle that is heavily time related, that is not perforce related to distance. Changing the method of calculating fares may also have some substantial unwanted side effects in terms of inducing people to change modes, who are now on trips, that would use routes highly subject to congestion. That is, we should also be considering the social good they are doing by choosing to travel by transit not auto, on some of these longer trips, where they are paying a premium in terms of their lost time.
It seems to me to be an artifice to assert distance and costs are that tightly related. Time is perhaps a better proxy, as it speaks to the time a seat cannot be used for moving others.
Steve: Time may be a proxy, but by your scheme we would charge more for slow trains than for fast ones, on the grounds that people spend more time between “A” and “B”. It really gets messy if we try to account for the many variables that affect train costs especially if we are trying to distinguish between marginal and fully allocated costs. It is easy, depending on the assumptions, to create all sorts of distortions which, if imported into the fare system, will have unpleasant consequences. The whole point of a transportation system like GO is that it is a network, and it is the network’s service that is on offer, not individual seat miles or hours.
LikeLike
The UPX Pearson subdivision was built with footings for future overhead electrification poles. The UPX Electrification EA was approved in June 2014, but the major hold-up from a construction perspective is/was the USRC. It’s also been complicated by more mundane things, like SmartTrack.
As for Rob Prichard, he’s a lawyer, not an engineer, so I listen when it’s a legal matter.
Coming from Network Rail, I would suggest Phil Verster knows the allure and risk of pretty new ways instead of industry proven, mature technology.
Steve: I have additional info on this now that I will add to the article in due course.
You are talking about Running Rights or Freight Trackage Rights. It’s not just Stouffville, but the whole network, and has two parts: scheduled freight deliveries (on a given timetable) and emergency diversions. It was a key reserved right in the federal railroads to divest the lands, and the key reason why GO will always need to be FRA crash compliant, unless there is some large cash investments (infrastructure or buying out the rights) and/or a special FRA-exemption.
Like the TTC, a parallel signal system can be built and then a direct switch from one to the other.
Yes, it’s solvable, but it’s a bottleneck for providing higher service levels. Metrolinx is not a railroad, as that’s a federal classification and Metrolinx is a provincial agency. There are many types of signal systems, but generally, you either run your data through the rails or parallel cables. If the rails are electrified, you can still use them for data transfer, but you need to ‘adjust’ a few things.
You need to look at it the other way around. Can ST/RER contribute to rapid transit significantly more with a third track? Just like you can run two-way service on single track sections, you can have mixed express/local service with two tracks, if your switches and signal blocks are at the right places. For example, you could probably build a Lawerence subway stop for the same price or less as a third track.
Huh? Looking just at those intersections, you have 3 car dealerships, 4 strip malls (one being developed now), and 1 gas station. There is a business case looking at the potential and upstream impacts of a station.
LikeLike
I don’t really get the story about high speed rail in a purely Ontario context. To me, HSR means Toronto to Montreal in 3 – 3.5 hours, reliably. If this backbone were up and running, it would make sense to extend HSR to the entire Windsor – Quebec City corridor. This would all do wonders for the economy, the environment, oil dependence and even national unity. As such it should be a primarily national (federal) project with appropriate input from ON and QC provincial governments. Ontario doing HSR on its own just doesn’t make sense to me … I don’t really see the economic case for it. Unless they’re going to call electric trains running at 120-150 km/h “high speed” but generally “high speed” these days means trains are travelling above 200 km/h peak speed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Drivers benefit from more people using transit, because it means less cars on the road. Especially if you are someone who *has* to drive (i.e. public transit is not a viable option for you for whatever reason), you should be extremely happy when people who don’t have to drive shift over from their cars to the bus/train.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank-you for your clarifications.
Another question.
Notwithstanding the comprehensive explanation of station dwell time that Mapleson generously shared in an earlier post, I’m still interested in the tradeoffs in transit rolling stock. I truly don’t know what to think.
The first issue is how significant is a raised platform versus track level access. I thought it was obvious but was told (by consultants working for Metrolinx) that an extensive study had been conducted on commuter trains and that the difference in insignificant. Commuter trains are ones used to move large numbers of passengers in peak periods, which suggests that the profile of passengers sampled is not a representative sample of transit users (mothers with strollers, wheel chair etc)
Robert Wightman has pointed out that raised platforms interfere with the volume envelope profile for freight trains. Will this be an issue on shared tracks?
The second issue has not yet been mentioned. The GO bi-level coach cars have two doors whereas most EMU cars have more doors. Intuitively, I sense that EMU’s with more doors would reduce station dwell time.
But the issue of station dwell time applies only for urban service where there is high frequency. Apart from the hoax of SmartTrack, Metrolinx isn’t providing high frequency service in the GTA.
So when GO replaces their bi-level coaches, it seems to me, that to meet the requirement of high capacity trains at peak periods, they will be looking at bi-level EMU’s. There will be increased dwell times but these are not high frequency trains.
Please discuss.
LikeLike
@ Bill R:
I think that he means platforms that are all at the height of the accessibility platform so people would just step straight of the train. Not needing to go down the step may only save a second per passenger but when 100+ passengers get off the train at each door that becomes a significant amount of time. If you raise the platforms to the level of the VIA equipment or the UPX trains then it is a problem with freight car envelopes. The GO accessibility platforms also need to be set back because of this. This necessitates the use of the ramp. If you do not run freight trains by the platform at speeds in excess of 10 mph then it is not a problem.
There are many types of EMUs. The TTC subway cars are EMUs and so are a lot of the METRA commuter trains in Chicago. The subway cars have many doors because station dwell time is a major constraint of service. Commuter trains put a premium on seating capacity at the expense of dwell time. If the doors were in the midlevel section over the trucks it would reduce dwell time by about 1/4 to 1/3 because the flow through the low level doors drops to single file after the lower level empties out. With doors over the trucks the same number of passengers are on both level and exit in the mid level, but this is impractical on GO because all the stations would need to be re-built and the stations where main line freights would pass would need to be set back from the main line. This is done either by putting the platforms on a siding or on a gauntlet track that moves the train over slightly.
GO will probably start with electric locomotive hauled trains because they will have around 900 bi-level coaches, but they might be able to put 2 bi-levels between two powered cars in a 4 car unit because only half the trucks are powered on most modern EMUs. The Richmond Hill, the Milton, Niagara falls, Hamilton and Courtice trains will stay diesel locomotive hauled because CN and CP will probably not allow electrification. Kitchener will only be electrified if Metrolinx gets that 407 by-pass of the Bramalea to Georgetown line built.
I don’t think HSR will ever get built because its capital costs for construction are unbelievably high as the turning radii are about 2.8 miles, ALL level crossing need to be eliminated, track tolerances are extremely tight and with their stupid decision to use high platform coaches all the existing stations will need to be rebuilt. Also the track maintenance cost according to California High Speed Rail and EU studies are around $200,000 to $300,000 per km per year. Those costs will never be covered by fares.
LikeLike
I was not actually suggesting that time be used as the basis for charge, but rather that the logic behind charges for distance were about costs, and time is as good a proxy for costs as distance. If we were really looking to do things based on direct costs of service delivery, we would not involve government agencies. Clearly there must be an understanding of a general broader impact on others given that we are offering this as a publicly provided service. Therefore, we need to ask question about other effects. The reality that the further someone travels on transit, the fewer lane miles of road they are using, is a clear public effect, that should be offsetting the costs charged to the rider. The reality is that the current system is no worse than charging by distance, needs to be clear, that is in effect a broad charge by time as I get 2 seat hours for my fare. That should be long enough to make nearly any reasonable trip on a single fare.
LikeLike
@Bill R:
In Toronto, all tracks lead to Union Station. When talking about the efficiency of high-floor platforms for GO, you need to clarify if you are talking about a generic line station or Union. Let’s break your points down.
1) Doors vs Seats vs Stairs
At a generic station, more doors does mean faster lighting/alighting, but it also means fewer seats. Since we are talking xMUs, I’ll use the UPX cars as my example. There is 11.8m between the two sets of doors plus 5.1m at the back and 2.7m at the front. Each set of doors is 1.3m wide.
If you increased this to four sets of doors, you end up with space for 19.64 seats (by 4 wide) for a total of 76 seats (with no stairs, bathroom, luggage space, or handicap seating). In comparison, you could have 88 (22.65×4) seats on the UPX, but they only have 60.
However, if you’ve ever been to Union, there are queues to get down the stairs even after all the people have gotten off the train. More doors then allow you to reduce dwell time upstream for faster service, but without Union you can’t actually reduce headways.
You should look into “station dwell time equations”. I would recommend the Weston Model and the Douglas Model as they consider volume, mixed flow, and crowding.
2) High-platforms vs Low-platforms vs Freight Clearance
Do you notice how the GO mini-platforms are set back from the edge of the regular platform? That’s due to freight clearance. Try looking at Transport Canada E-05. The higher the platform, the farther from the doors it needs to be. Normally, when you talk about high platforms, you talk about a 1″ gap between the platform and the train (I don’t recall the actual number, but it’s to allow a 3″ caster wheel to pass over it without needing excessive force). This wouldn’t be the case on any line station, so you’d need the ramp. You could get away with it at Union, but it would require removing the step from the carriage, and thus all the stations would need to be high level.
A typical station platform rehab (including snowmelt system) costs at least $20M, so multiplied by 60 stations makes this a $1.2B project. That’s enough for a whole LRT line, so the question is if the marginal improvement in the GO system outweighs, say the ECLRT extension to UTSC. To me it doesn’t.
The main design alternative is a gauntlet track down the middle for freight to pass the station without actually going adjacent to a platform. This also allows for express trains to bypass a station. It just needs to be built into the system. This gives you more track, more service options, and generally more flexibility in the future.
Steve: For clarity, when Mapleson talks of gauntlet track allowing express trains to bypass a station, the reference is not to a full third track, but to an arrangement where only trains that stop at a station use the “outer” track close to the platform and everything else uses the “inner” track that is further away. This adds a safety margin for an express train passing at high speed.
LikeLike
That is correct. Also, CN runs a daily freight train as far as Mile 54, which complicates matters for any grade separations.
This is correct the GTCC.
Might as well look at “Fare by velocity”… All of this is a great reason why flat fares (up to a certain distance or time) are the best solution. That’s why I prefer a 2-hour transfer (take your pick at the optimum base time) plus a cheaper “extension” window.
LikeLike
The thing is that speeds of 140 kph (or even considerably more) are not usually considered to be high speed rail. So if you think of just running at speeds of 140 kph (still regular rail) with a high degree of reliability you achieve nearly all the gains people are seeking without the same level of investment. Also it is diverting resources from solving problems that regularly eat up massive amounts of peoples time. I look at the congestion on the 401 caused around Kitchener, that is so much of the delay from Mississauga to London or other way, caused because the highway 8 corridor is overloaded, and that due to a lack of a quality alternative in transit. How much of this would be solved by the coming busway/LRT for that region? How much of the Milton zone issue would be resolved by a better feed through Mississauga, and into Toronto, for those who would prefer to not drive? Oddly solving the commuter issues may just go a long ways to helping other ones.
LikeLike
Again thanks for taking the time to educate.
Here’s another question.
I am concerned about jamming two passenger trains in one block and the lead train slows down. This scheme seems touchy. Is it feasible?
Steve: I think that what you will actually see is trains on a schedule something like this: through service to Lincolnville on the 00, 15, 30 and 45 intermixed with Unionville “SmartTrack” trains sandwiched into three of the available slots between the four through trains. This means that there will be a 15 minute gap once an hour. I do not believe that there will be any attempt to fudge headways shorter than what the signals can handle, and GO will figure out a way to manage this. Of course by the time they actually have to run the service, neither Tory nor many other enablers of SmartTrack are likely to be around, and the scheme may be “adjusted”.
It’s really important to remember that SmartTrack is a political fantasy, but the staff have to pretend that it’s a real thing and that they can operate it somehow.
LikeLike
Robert, removing all level crossings are very expensive, but it is not a prerequisite for HSR. There are places on the Northeast Corridor where if the crossings were removed, people would lose access to the sea. Alternatively, one can build a super long guideway (like the Shinkansen) which would eliminate the crossings. However, it would be extremely costly. The FRA allows for 95MPH speeds on level crossings with four quadrant gates and vehicle detection sensors. This is better than the 80MPH limit with conventional crossings. 95MPH is considered higher speed train, but not HSR. The good thing with HSR like the Acela is that it can be rolled out continually. As ridership increases, one can straighten the curves, remove a level crossings or make tracks better.
CN should be persuaded to allow for electrification especially on the Grimsby, Niagara section. The Empire Corridor will be eventually upgraded to an Acela like service. If electrification is continuous from Penn Station to Union Station, the Maple Leaf could probably make a trip in less than 10 hours before any track upgrades. I am aware that CN has shareholders to please, but they should still try to make a deal. If they make a deal with Ms. Wynne, it will probably be better than one made with Mr. Brown.
LikeLike
The ideal situation would be for CN to sell the Grimsby subdivision (maintaining trackage rights) and the last portion of the Oakville subdivision (Burlington GO to West Harbour GO) with a segregated parallel corridor built from Hamilton Junction to Burlington West Junction nearer the 403.
That way CN shareholders get a payday and improved service to Niagara is better secured against election results.
LikeLike
If GO switches to CBTC, then there are no longer fixed blocks to worry about but rather a moving block system as is being installed on TTC’s line 1. The system would automatically keep the second train from getting too close to the first. It does not maintain a fixed distance so much as it maintains a safe stopping distance between trains based on speed. The faster the trains the greater the distance between them.
The only time that it will operate as a fixed block system would be when the CN freight switches the line. Hopefully this would be at night.
LikeLike
Yes, however based on what happened during the election cycle it has become incredibly clear that Toronto is not really ready to vote for someone who will promise something that can be delivered, and try and make sense. The candidates seemed to finish in reverse order of the sensibility of their promises.
It is time for the voter to take responsibility. Vote for what can be done and makes sense for the entire city not just their backyard.
What does the best 4 billion spent in Scarborough look like? What about elsewhere?
Where will the city get the biggest impact from a moderate investment?
What projects promise the largest improvement for functionality of the larger city? Which ones are required to maintain functioning of the network, and continued growth?
LikeLike
The problem with transit in Ontario is that we keep pouring in all the money on Toronto even though that Toronto has declining ridership when that money can be better spent in places where ridership is actually increasing such as Brampon, Mississauga, York Region, etc.
Steve: Actually, the majority of spending planned by Metrolinx and Queen’s Park over coming years is aimed at transit riders in the 905, although a great deal is to add capacity for commuting into Toronto rather than travel within and between 905 regions. A major problem with provincial plans is that they refuse to improve local transit subsidies without which it is unlikely that the regions will substantially improve transit service.
LikeLike
How so?
Steve: SmartTrack was concocted as an election ploy by people who (a) knew little about the constraints of adding service to the existing rail system, (b) included a proposed heavy rail link along Eglinton West that was impossible to build, and (c) made claims about its contribution to the overall network that simply were not true. It’s entire purpose was to give Tory the image of someone who “had a plan” on a city-wide scale. Tory claimed that no other transit improvements were needed because ST would do everything. He later realized the importance of the surface route network and the effect that cuts in the Ford era had brought on service.
Although it claimed to aid inside-Toronto travel, SmartTrack was descended from an earlier proposal whose purpose was to improve access to land in Markham and southwest of Pearson Airport.
As it has evolved, ST now consists of minor additions to GO Transit and a few new stations whose benefits are in many cases dubious, as well as the revived Eglinton West LRT to the airport. Internally, Metrolinx has never taken ST seriously because the scheme never made sense, but they keep the idea alive by talking of some parts of their own planned improvements as “SmartTrack” so as not to undercut the Mayor.
There will be no “SmartTrack” trains, only GO trains.
Still to be resolved is Tory’s claim that ST will operate with “TTC fares” meaning that you could transfer to and from ST at no extra cost. More recently this has evolved at Metrolinx to having TTC fares (possibly in a modified form) on all GO trains within the 416. That will cost a lot of money, and will consume capacity that GO may not be able to provide. However, it’s good fodder for the election campaign as long as nobody has to put a price tag on the idea.
LikeLike
Dear God, not hydrogen again. Kill this idiotic idea now. Hydrogen is not a fuel, it’s a terrible energy storage method, and it makes no sense. A debunking of the idea of hydrogen for automobiles.
If they want to seriously consider trains which “go off the overhead lines”, there is an obvious solution, and it’s already being implemented in the UK: batteries. Battery locomotives are tried and tested. Battery-catenary dual-modes are being purchased in the UK right now for through service from the electrified mainline to the non-electrified branch line. Sure, batteries can’t store a huge energy capacity on board (neither can hydrogen), but it’s sufficient to run along low-density branch lines — or across a short stretch of tracks owned by CN or CP if they’re unwilling to have catenary over the lines they own.
LikeLike
How about using dual mode diesel/electric locomotives? Such a thing exists and would let Go run straight electric under the wires and diesel in unelectrified territory. Both AMT and NJ Transit have them and the bonus is – they’re made by Bombardier, so there’s an opportunity to buy from every government’s favourite transit vendor.
Steve: They are also heavy, and require carrying two separate technologies. We seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to get rid of every last diesel locomotive when the real culprits are the highways full of cars.
LikeLike
They require 2 diesel engines to produce enough power to run only one 8 car train. They cost about 2.5 times the cost of a straight diesel or electric locomotive and they are very heavy. CN and CP banned them for a while because they were damaging the tracks in certain locations, especially in the downtown station.
It would be a lot cheaper and more efficient to put a diesel locomotive at one end and an electric at the other end. This would add about 125 tonnes of dead weight to each train but you would still be able to run 12 car trains.
The ideal solution would be to keep the electric cars only on electrified territory and then run the diesel hauled trains on the the service outside electric territory. The dual mode locomotives are very expensive turkeys.
LikeLike