[AlchemisTO]

Re: S-bahns

Vancouver and Seattle both had extensive "interurban" railways (as distinguished from smaller streetcars, which each also had). They died in the 1950s with the rise of the auto.

True. Toronto had one, and LA had the mother of all systems, but interurbans would more likely be predecessors to light rail. S-bahns are a form of heavy rail, with a higher capacity that operate on track shared with freight and long distance passenger trains.

The Lakeshore line is the most developed of all the lines, and could probably be converted to S-bahn operation relatively easily. The eastern leg of the Lakeshore line from Pickering to Oshawa is pretty much only missing the electrification aspect; everything else is already in place.

One thing I salivate over is selling the oceans of parking space that GO owns over to high density transit-oriented development. Right now, GO trains are basically an extension of the 400-highway system in that they're meant to be driven to, and overshoot every regional downtown except Brampton, Toronto and Hamilton.

Sean, you're right. GO needs a massive overhaul in management, or else an S-bahn system should be overseen by another agency.

p5: yeah, I share your cynicism about Toronto's transit strategy (which is an oxymoron). When I hear that building an idiotic viaduct across lower downtown gets press time but something like building a regional rail network isn't even up for discussion, I get a feeling that, despite all the talk, we are not serious about solving our most pressing issue at all and are completely bankrupt at generating sustainable ideas.

 

[officedweller]

Re: S-bahns

S-bahns are a form of heavy rail, with a higher capacity that operate on track shared with freight and long distance passenger trains.

Sounds like the interurbans - apparently they also carried freight. The former interurban line in the Fraser Valley (east of Vancouver) is now the Southern Railway of BC. The Arbutus interurban line in Vancouver carried freight to industry in and around False Creek and was only decommissioned by CP a few years ago.
Although the interurban cars looked like streetcars, they were much bigger.

Not the most accurate source of course, but wiki says some German interurban-like systems were converted to the S-bahn.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interurban

You can see some pics here (incl electric freight locomotives and streetcar - BC Electric Railway also ran streetcars on separate track)

davesrailpix.com/bcer/bc.htm

 

[spmarshall]

Re: S-bahns

Sounds like the interurbans - apparently they also carried freight.

One of Chicago's interurban lines still exists as a true electric interurban - the South Shore Line, which also carries freight.

Parts of the North Shore Line remain as well, converted into part of the L system - the Skokie Swift and the Purple line to Evanston.

Chicago also has Metra Electric, which is a commuter service with limited off-peak/weekend service (ie every 1-2 hours).

I had no idea the Arbutus line was a former interurban, though I did know SRY was (part of that interurban between Vancouver and New Westminster is now the Skytrain Expo Line alignment)

 

[unimaginative2]

Re: S-bahns

The big difference between s-bahn lines and interurban lines is that the former run on existing rail corridors outside cities, while the interurban lines had specialized corridors outside city centres, though they may have also served freight, and used streetcar routes within the city. One of the major problems with the interurbans were long travel times (i.e. close to two hours from the far end of Kingston Road to downtown). The Toronto Suburban also took almost an hour longer than the parallel CN route, likely the main cause for its demise.

The dvelopment of S-Bahn/RER networks as we know them primarily occurred in European cities with multiple rail termini where a connecting tunnel was built, offering high-frequency service within the central area branching out to multiple routes in the suburbs. The Munich S-Bahn (the one with which I am most intimately familiar) operated with 20 minute standard headways on each of the suburban routes, running through about five downtown stations on a common route, creating subway-level frequencies. They're now looking at building a second common downtown tunnel to reduce frequencies. When I lived there, they operated primarily ET 420 single-level electric multiple unit vehicles, usually in trains of six. Congestion occurred quite frequently during peak periods (likely prompting the new tunnel project) and one was not guaranteed a seat at least as far as the inner suburbs. Still, the system worked well and offered quite a speedy service out to all the surrounding towns.

An interesting S-Bahn style option for Toronto would be a ring, like in Berlin. We could use the North Toronto line, the Weston/Galt Sub, the Lakeshore (Oakville/Kingston subs) route, and the Richmond Hill line (Bala Sub). While the locations aren't perfect, feeding all the GO lines into a high-frequency circle route would dramatically improve access to the greater downtown area.

It's important to note that all S-Bahn and RER services are completely fare-integrated with local transit within the urban area. They don't attempt to charge any kind of premium fare. They can serve as extra rapid transit routes within the city.

 

[adma]

Re: S-bahns

Tuffi the Elephant

 

[Darkstar416]

Re: S-bahns

Don't have much to add except to say that s-bahn style rail is the only thing that will save the G.T.A from impeding traffic chaos, but for whatever reason, it isn't even on the radar.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Re: S-bahns

Don't have much to add except to say that s-bahn style rail is the only thing that will save the G.T.A from impeding traffic chaos, but for whatever reason, it isn't even on the radar.

I agree with everyone else that regional rail a logical solution to regional transit in the GTA. Actually the more I learn about it and understand the technical details, the more sense it makes.

But, I can also understand why it isn't discussed. Primarily, because outside of transit geeks and those who have travelled by rail through Europe, how many people would know just what an S-Bahn style, regional rail, system would entail? It is difficult to talk about the idea when there isn't even a system in Canada like it that could be used as a point of reference. The fact that it isn't on anyones radar is really no surprise.

That also doesn't mean I don't think that could be changed rather quickly. All it would take is one line set up in the GTA, running EMU or DMU train sets, with 15 or 20 minute frequencies as a model line for people to see what differentiates S-Bahn style regional rail from subways, LRT and even the traditional GO model. With even just one line in place the idea could sell itself to the public. Of course that means GO is going to have to fire the half wits it currently employes and replace them with progressive thinking people, which, is a tough task in itself.

 

[Ed007Toronto]

Re: S-bahns

But, I can also understand why it isn't discussed. Primarily, because outside of transit geeks and those who have travelled by rail through Europe, how many people would know just what an S-Bahn style, regional rail, system would entail?

The general public doesn't need to understand it. But you would think the folks running the TTC, GO etc. would know something about it.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Re: S-bahns

The general public doesn't need to understand it.

I totally disagree. If you want an example of what happens when the general public and city council people don't understand a transit project take a look at Ottawa. Most people really had no idea what was being proposed. Some, like Alex Munter, seemed to think it was going to be a system of GO trains, others thought it was just streetcars, and any other number of misunderstandings regarding the project. While politics did play a role in the projects death, so to do did the ignorrance of the general public.

The general public ultimately pays for these projects with their taxes and place their votes on election days. If they don't understand what public money is being used for, then the chances of a project being voted down are that much greater.

And of course GO and the TTC should have some understanding about S-Bahn style regional rail. The lack of forward thinking, especially on the part of GO, no doubt plays a role in them ignoring the idea.

 

[socialwoe back with a vengence]

Re: S-bahns

And of course GO and the TTC should have some understanding about S-Bahn style regional rail. The lack of forward thinking, especially on the part of GO, no doubt plays a role in them ignoring the idea.

S-Bahn is quite confusing a concept to grasp. Even the wiki page sites GO as a type of S-Bahn. So if we don't already have it, why the vagueness?

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Re: S-bahns

S-Bahn is quite confusing a concept to grasp. Even the wiki page sites GO as a type of S-Bahn. So if we don't already have it, why the vagueness?

S-Bahn (more accurately called regional rail since S-Bahn is the name of the German system) is actually not that difficult to understand. The problem is it is never explained properly. Here is an overview of what regional rail is, starting with why the Wiki entry is wrong.

GO is not similar to regional rail (S-Bahn). GO is a commuter rail service. It's primary function is too move workers into the downtown core in the morning, and out of the core in the afternoon. The only line that doesn't follow this pattern is Lakeshore and even then frequencies are not high enough for it to consider on par with a typical regional rail system. Even if you lived near a GO train station outside of rush hour it is useless for getting across the city. You cannot simply walk to a station and wait 5 or 10 minutes for your train and be on your way.

Basically there are 4 elements that make regional rail what it is.

1. Frequencies - The average time between trains in a regional rail system is about 15 minutes. In the morning and afternoon rush hour periods this would probably decrease to 7 - 10 minute intervals. In late evening and early mornings perhaps 20 minute intervals. The time between trains may also change based on how far from the core you are. It is a shorter wait than GO trains (even on the lakeshore line), but not as frequent as a subway.

2. Distance - A good way of thinking about the distance served would be to take a subway line (anyone) and stretch it out to 3 times its length. A regional rail system is going to have stations that are about 3 times as far apart as a typical subway and is going to cover 3 times the distance (in many cases much further). A regional rail network in Toronto (if built to roughly equate Europeans standards) would cover be about 1.5 to 2 times larger in distance covered compared to the current GO network and many lines would have 1.5 - 2 times as many stations as well. Another way to think about this is that an average regional rail train is going to stop at a station every 4 or 5 minutes on average.

3. Infrastructure - Regional rail uses standard railway right of ways. However for it to function properly there are some key points. Each line must have a minimum of two sets of track so that bi-directional traffic and required frequencies can be maintained. It also must have no freight traffic interfering with passenger traffic. In Europe this is often dealt with by an additional track for freight if needed or by having freight companies operate mainly at night. Also diamond crossings between two rail lines are out and level crossings should be reduced as much as possible. In essence you are building rail lines that function the same way a freeway would.

4. The trains - The big, sluggish, bi-level trains that GO uses are not what regional rail is based on. Instead, the trains used (see the picture below) are shorter, one level, and quick. They have top speeds of around 130 km/h but will probably travel at 100 km/h most of the time when distances permit. They do not accelerate as fast as a subway, but they are closer to subway acceleration than current GO train acceleration (and the train shown below, called the Sprinter, is remarkably fast off the start). Train sizes can be changed at a moments notice. During afternoon or late evenings they may run sets only 2 - 4 cars in length, during rush hour this could become 6, 8, or 10 cars. Does this mean that GO trains would be replaced? No. For rush hour periods GO trains would basically be run in addition to the trains that run through out the day.

An over simplification of what a regional rail system would be like in the GTA would be to take the current GO train lines, make all of them double track, run trains every 15 minutes, and add more local stations. All that in addition to serving peak rush hour commuters with additional capacity.

Of course this leads to the question why would you want regional rail? There are a long list of reasons but here are the most important. It is cost effective. 1 km of double tracked (even electrified) rail is about 1/10th the cost of 1km of subway line. As mentioned before, it can better serve places that would be at the edge of Toronto and in the 905. Kipling is a good example. If you want to go to Union station you could take the GO train, but it is not frequent enough to be a serious option. The subway works fine, but regional rail would provide an even quicker, more direct route. With a proper regional rail system Kipling to Union would probably be about 10 minutes (perhaps a few minutes longer if there were another station or two along the way). Another example is Pearson. Yes you can serve it with a subway (or LRT) and it works, but if you wanted to go from Pearson to downtown, it would be tedious taking a subway along Eglinton and then again when you transferred to Spadina. With regional rail, Pearson - Union would have about 4 or 5 stops, have no transfers and be a far quicker, and more comfortable ride.

One other very important element to a regional rail network is that right of ways can also handle other passenger rail traffic. So VIA could use the tracks as well. If a city, such as Peterborough, wanted to run a commuter train to and from Toronto on its own it could do so. The system is designed so intracity, intercity, and intercity express services can all be handled on the same network.

It is also worth noting that the point of regional rail is NOT to replace subways or GO commuter trains. It is a new service, in addition too them that adds another option to public transit in Toronto and the GTA (or any large city like it for that matter).

Hopefully that helps clarify regional rail.

 

[AlchemisTO]

Re: S-bahns

Hopefully that helps clarify regional rail.

And how! Thanks for the crystal clear explanation, Antiloop.

 

[officedweller]

Re: S-bahns

Thanks for the info!

 

[unimaginative2]

Re: S-bahns

That's a fantastic explanation, antiloop! Thanks so much for putting all that information out there.

There are just a couple very, very minor points that I would like to address. I'm not sure that GO would really need to add very many stations to be comparable to a European regional rail system, except within the City of Toronto. I'm guessing that's probably what you meant anyway. You're absolutely right about the need for double track at a minimum, but it's important to note that all European regional rail lines do share their tracks with freight and limited-stop long distance passenger services. Though European railways don't really handle as much freight as those in North America, it still isn't at all unusual to pass a freight train while riding the S-Bahn or RER in the suburban sections. The lines are simply scheduled and dispatched more competently than Canadian railways, so that all trains are able to keep their schedules, likely with freight being the last on the priority list. I'm also not sure that GO trains would still have to run. Of course, it would be an option, but Paris and Berlin and every other European city is able to handle its peak period commuter traffic with the same vehicle types that they use off-peak, with the length of trains adjusted as you said based on the traffic at that time of day.

These are all just minor things that I'd also like to get out there about regional rail. I'm so glad that you've given this thorough explanation. I think that it will make our discussions a lot more fruitful.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Re: S-bahns

Those are all very valid points. I will briefly comment on each of them.

1. Stations - You are most likely right. I had originally thought most of the lines had stations laid out somewhat more sparsely then they actually are. Doubling the number of stations is probably not needed. But in some cases an increase of a 1/4 to 1/3 would probably be more than sufficient. It is also worth pointing out that not all trains have to stop at all the stations. It might be advantageous to add a few extra stations that only get used during peak commuting times (say a station built next to a parking lot) while being skipped over during off peak service. Regional rail stations can be built economically enough that a few extra strategic stations would not result in drastic expenditures.

2. Freight/Priority/Rail ownership - This is a topic unto itself. This is not only a concern for regional rail but also for VIA so it has rather important implications. The first problem is that rail freight transport does create a lot of traffic (train sets are also much longer in Canada compared to Europe as well which creates more issues on top of it all, not the least of which is safety). And the business is growing. Even if passenger rail where given priority (which it isn't) you would still have many rail corridors where space would be difficult to manage. Which leads to the issue of ownership. CN and CP own most of the rail lines. So in essence, they can do as they want. This leaves passenger rail services trying to find any space they can among the freight traffic. This has pretty much always been the case.

I am not sure what the ownership situation is for European rail lines. Especially since more countries are working towards privatized models. One day I will research all that since I am sure it would helpful and interesting to know. I would suspect the state plays a much larger role in ownership in most countries.

In the case of Canada (more specifically the GTA in this case), so long as freight companies own the lines, little can be done in terms of even minor efficiency gains. What is needed are rather extensive changes in ownership and management of lines and traffic. The basic structure would have the government owning the rail lines themselves. They would be in charge of expanding and upgrading the infrastructure as traffic dictates (both freight and passenger traffic). It would essentially be the same approach taken with freeways. The government constructs and maintains freeways which are then free for passenger and freight traffic to use. With rail corridors, anyone could use it but the government is responsible for providing adequate infrastructure for companies to operate on. With that ownership structure in place some massive work would be required to upgrade many corridors to handle current and future traffic effectively. But once that is done, as you said, both freight and passenger rail could be managed in a far more efficient (actually I would say with any sort of fairness and efficiency) manner and the two could live side by side.

That is a very basic summary of the issue which I will fully admit I still don't have a complete understanding of. Though perhaps once I learn more I will write something more detailed about the issue.

3. Current GO commuter trains - I fully agree that GO service as is could be abandoned and dealt with in other ways through train sets of varying length and increasing frequencies. If you wanted to. The reason I didn't, and probably wouldn't by and large, suggest this is as not to upset the parking lot commuters. That doesn't mean they would have to stick to their over sized bi-levels if it didn't make sense, but, to a certain degree recognize that there still would remain that group that want their parking lots and quick trips downtown and back. Over time this could well change, but, especially in the beginning, if you want to make sure that suburban commuters don't throw a temper tantrum its best just to let them go on as they are and build the regional rail system on top of what is already in place.

I would also add that The Netherlands is an example of a rail system that uses both smaller sets (the Sprinter pictured in the post above is an NS train), but also bi-level for commuter trips (or routes with heavy loads). Not only that, but their bi-levels look smashing! Just take a look below and see what I mean. Really whether you want to use one type of rolling stock or mix it up is more about preference than anything. The brilliance of a properly designed and implemented regional rail system is that it can adapted and used in so many ways.

Edit: Actually there are some cases where using bi-level train sets may be desireable. The first would on a very busy corridor (such as Lakeshore) where using bi-levels with higher load capacities than even long single levels could reduce the number of trains using the corridor which would make managing all the traffic easier (and benefit all users in the end). Another case would be on a line that perhaps had platform lengths that could not accomodate longer trains. In this case, bi-levels could be used instead of having to lengthen all the stations platforms right away to accomodate growth. Again, that is the beauty of regional rail, it provides for so many options.