[Urban Sky]

How do you manage to get everything so factually wrong?

Trolls feed on attention and the engagement-harvested-per-braincell-used ratio is much higher when writing mindnumbingly dumb and misinformed posts than by trying to forumulate a valid argument, especially when they are generally uninformed persons which lacks any advanced understanding of the topics they obsess about…

 

[ssiguy2]

The reason I posted the last few comments is that there needs to be a bit of levity in what is a shockingly pathetic and sad situation.

Toronto will not see ANY electrification of any it's rail lines for at least a decade and that is being very optimistic. ML is a lying, incompetent, and corrupt institution that is accountable to no one and it will continue to be. 2032 is the new target for a couple of lines but how many ML projects have kept to their timelines little alone their budgets? 2032 is just a date they grabbed out of thin air and nothing more.

The point is that there are alternatives to catenary but ML will not even consider the possibility of exploring them. ML couldn't give a damn about electrifying their corridors because they don't give a damn about the long suffering Toronto commuters. What the public thinks of them is treated with supreme indifference. Anyone who thinks ML has now had an epiphany, quite frankly, is in need of professional help.

Unless ML & GO start looking at viable alternatives, whether you like the idea or not, the reality is that electrification will not take place on any of the lines for at least a decade. The sooner Torontonians accept this, the better they'll sleep.

 

[crs1026]

The reason I posted the last few comments is that there needs to be a bit of levity in what is a shockingly pathetic and sad situation.

Toronto will not see ANY electrification of any it's rail lines for at least a decade and that is being very optimistic. ML is a lying, incompetent, and corrupt institution that is accountable to no one and it will continue to be. 2032 is the new target for a couple of lines but how many ML projects have kept to their timelines little alone their budgets? 2032 is just a date they grabbed out of thin air and nothing more.

The point is that there are alternatives to catenary but ML will not even consider the possibility of exploring them. ML couldn't give a damn about electrifying their corridors because they don't give a damn about the long suffering Toronto commuters. What the public thinks of them is treated with supreme indifference. Anyone who thinks ML has now had an epiphany, quite frankly, is in need of professional help.

Unless ML & GO start looking at viable alternatives, whether you like the idea or not, the reality is that electrification will not take place on any of the lines for at least a decade. The sooner Torontonians accept this, the better they'll sleep.

And the point of many who are responding to you is..... electrification is not an end in its self. Not having it is not a pain point.
Torontonians are sleeping just fine without it.
It will be great when it happens - and it will - but nobody is suffering much in the meanwhile. Except you, it seems.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

I don't care if the trains are electric or diesel. What I care about is that they accelerate quickly and are affordable to operate at high frequencies.

The only battery trains I'm interested in for mainline use are the ones that match the acceleration of conventional electric trains (i.e. the ones with just a small battery for a modest off-wire range).

 

[Undead]

Frankly, station access is way more important than electrification.

Think about it: what's the point of fast and frequent trains if few people can easily access them by walking, biking and local public transit?

We will be leaving a lot of GO Expansion's ridership potential on the table if we don't address station access. And I always felt like this component was overlooked amid the grandiose capital spend plans.

 

[crs1026]

Frankly, station access is way more important than electrification.

Think about it: what's the point of fast and frequent trains if few people can easily access them by walking, biking and local public transit?

We will be leaving a lot of GO Expansion's ridership potential on the table if we don't address station access. And I always felt like this component was overlooked amid the grandiose capital spend plans.

By station access, do you mean first mile/last mile? (Whether by walking, bike, bus, or whatever?)

If so, I would very much agree.

The only higher priority I would argue for is trackage. And signalling. We need the capacity for more trains n closer headways. And we need the connectivity to get people to the stations to utilise that capacity.

Electrification then enables higher performance levels in support of that, but it can wait until we have those enablers - walk before we run.

- Paul.

 

[afransen]

I don't care if the trains are electric or diesel. What I care about is that they accelerate quickly and are affordable to operate at high frequencies.

The only battery trains I'm interested in for mainline use are the ones that match the acceleration of conventional electric trains (i.e. the ones with just a small battery for a modest off-wire range).

Is battery size really relevant to acceleration? EVs can accelerate pretty quickly-- do you think battery mass would be a serious impediment to acceleration? In an EMU with enough drive axles it shouldn't be an issue.

 

[afransen]

Frankly, station access is way more important than electrification.

Think about it: what's the point of fast and frequent trains if few people can easily access them by walking, biking and local public transit?

We will be leaving a lot of GO Expansion's ridership potential on the table if we don't address station access. And I always felt like this component was overlooked amid the grandiose capital spend plans.

A lot of GO stations are actively located in places that make for poor connections with bus and other rapid transit. Big problem that should be addressed sooner rather than decades from now.

 

[Urban Sky]

A lot of GO stations are actively located in places that make for poor connections with bus and other rapid transit. Big problem that should be addressed sooner rather than decades from now.

Sure, but selling the giant car parks to developpers for conversion to TODs will generate much more funds for further transit expansions once GO Expansion has reach that station. It therefore makes sense to hold on to this admittedly car-centric land use for now…

 

[afransen]

So build the TOD, then move the station?

Seems like a weird compromise on our decabillion regional rail buildout.

 

[reaperexpress]

Is battery size really relevant to acceleration? EVs can accelerate pretty quickly-- do you think battery mass would be a serious impediment to acceleration? In an EMU with enough drive axles it shouldn't be an issue.

Diesel trains can also be multiple units, and yet they also accelerate much more slowly than EMUs. The limiting factor seems to be the inferior power-to-weight ratio, and lower total power.

Nederlandse Spoorwegen and OC Transpo both operate 4-car Stadler FLIRT trains with 2000kW of power. The Dutch EMUs can reach 100 km/h in 33 seconds. The Canadian DMUs cannot. The difference is that the diesel trains need to lug around a power pack with four generators and fuel. If you swapped the generators for batteries, OC Transpo's trains would be even slower than they already are.

 

[Urban Sky]

So build the TOD, then move the station?

Seems like a weird compromise on our decabillion regional rail buildout.

More like:

1. Upgrade a rail corridor to GO Expansion standards
2. Watch land value rise around the stations served along these improved corridors
3. Sell the lands with the giant GO parking lots to developers, so that they can convert these car parks to transit-oriented developments
4. Use the proceeds of these property sales to help funding further GO expansion on other corridors
5. Rinse and repeat

 

[afransen]

More like:

1. Upgrade a rail corridor to GO Expansion standards
2. Watch land value rise around the stations served along these improved corridors
3. Sell the lands with the giant GO parking lots to developers, so that they can convert these car parks to transit-oriented developments
4. Use the proceeds of these property sales to help funding further GO expansion on other corridors
5. Rinse and repeat

Why not locate the stations where they be create the most value through improved network effects? That would make the land around all the stations more valuable.

 

[Urban Sky]

Why not locate the stations where they be create the most value through improved network effects? That would make the land around all the stations more valuable.

Because the multimodal facilities which unlock these „improved network effects“ already exist at the existing GO rail stations and moving rail stations to a different location just escalates the price tag of GO Expansion for rather small incremental benefits…?

 

[afransen]

I like the use of scare quotes for thinking 5+ minute walking transfers and permanent higher operating costs for connecting services as things to be avoided.