Union Pearson Express

[TomW]

And it's 19 litres in displacement too. This engine's rated at 567kW and can put out 3,084 Nm of torque. How's that for trackside motoring?

567kW = 760hp. Each car wears less than 72 tonnes, giving 10.5hp/tonne - which is a lot of power! In the UK, 5hp/tonne is typical.

However, as I recall (and I'm sure someone will correct me), the third (middle) car is unpowered, dropping things t0 ~7hp/tonnne... still pretty nippy!

[smallspy]

567kW = 760hp. Each car wears less than 72 tonnes, giving 10.5hp/tonne - which is a lot of power! In the UK, 5hp/tonne is typical.

However, as I recall (and I'm sure someone will correct me), the third (middle) car is unpowered, dropping things t0 ~7hp/tonnne... still pretty nippy!

The Cummins QSK-19 is a pretty common engine for high-speed DMUs in Europe. Which makes me quite confused as to why they are using them here.

The third, middle cars are powered as well. They are able to operate separately if necessary.

Dan

[dowlingm]

These DMUs are supposed to be good for 90mph and perhaps Cummins didn't want to certify another engine to Tier 4 yet? Maybe they will be derated in 79mph Metrolinx use?

I wonder how modular they will end up being. Irish Rail's 100mph DMUs (22000 class, Rotem, MTU power) have rafts combining engine, transmission, hydraulics etc which are swapped to minimise downtime.

http://www.irrs.ie/Journal%20170/170%2022000%20Class.htm

[drum118]

Here is a photo of the first car for Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit that will be the same as ours, but different colours out in the yard in Japan

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20140514/articles/140519778

[crs1026]

This signal bridge went up on the Georgetown Corridor at Wallace Ave this past week.

My question is.....the UPE/Georgetown GO plan is said to be three tracks, with the ability to add a fourth track easily when need and funds permit. Earlier documents suggest that the fourth track would be built on the north side of the line, next to the bike path.

This signal bridge sure appears to limit the line to three Georgetown tracks and two Milton tracks.

Elsewhere on the line (eg at the 401) GO has roughed in 4 track signal bridges even where the current line is only to be 3 tracks. I guess it's possible to rebuild this bridge later, but that seems like a waste.

Is there a story here?

- Paul

[Articulated]

This signal bridge went up on the Georgetown Corridor at Wallace Ave this past week.

My question is.....the UPE/Georgetown GO plan is said to be three tracks, with the ability to add a fourth track easily when need and funds permit. Earlier documents suggest that the fourth track would be built on the north side of the line, next to the bike path.

This signal bridge sure appears to limit the line to three Georgetown tracks and two Milton tracks.

Elsewhere on the line (eg at the 401) GO has roughed in 4 track signal bridges even where the current line is only to be 3 tracks. I guess it's possible to rebuild this bridge later, but that seems like a waste.

Is there a story here?

- Paul

Looks to me like from the perspective of your photo, the left footing of the signal bridge is in the middle of the platform to the left. Without knowing the physical layout of the site, it appears that there is room for another track on left (east) side of the current platform, between the platform and the bike path. It would be outside of the signal bridge, but enough room to put one through and have it connect with the existing station platform.

[crs1026]

I thought about that, but it would be a tight fit.

Also, the electrical wiring and the ladder to the bridge would be exposed to the added track....I would think that the safety codes would forbid that....too hazardous when maintainers have to go up top.

Can't think of anyplace where I have seen a similar approach, and it's an exception to the rest of the design.

- Paul

[drum118]

There is no room on the east side of the future track 1 for a footing without going into the Railpath area and having the ladder easy accessible from it there.

The current footing is in the middle of track 2 and Future 1 with safety clearance for 1. A signal mast will go in for 1 when the track is needed as a stand alone and in front of the new bridge.

The bridge was already up about 2 weeks ago when I was last there. The footings are north of the new platforms There will be 6 tracks at this location.

[smallspy]

I thought about that, but it would be a tight fit.

Also, the electrical wiring and the ladder to the bridge would be exposed to the added track....I would think that the safety codes would forbid that....too hazardous when maintainers have to go up top.

Can't think of anyplace where I have seen a similar approach, and it's an exception to the rest of the design.

- Paul

You're absolutely right Paul - I had thought that they might just cantilever the signal heads off of the bridge for track #1, but the location of the ladder leading to an active track is a valid safety issue.

Like you, I'm confused by this.

Dan

[Guest]

Not an expert on electrification here, but it appears that things will be electrified on the east side of the platform, and Metrolinx thinks it is fine. Schematic and satellite overlay from the EPR:

[smallspy]

Not an expert on electrification here, but it appears that things will be electrified on the east side of the platform, and Metrolinx thinks it is fine. Schematic and satellite overlay from the EPR:

Except that we're not dealing with electrification here, and the standards may very well be very, very different between the two. For one, you may not be allowed to string overhead catenary from signal bridges. And now that I think about it, I can't recall a single overhead signal structure on the Deux Montagnes line in Montreal, which would be the nearest parallel.

Dan

[Guest]

Except that we're not dealing with electrification here, and the standards may very well be very, very different between the two. For one, you may not be allowed to string overhead catenary from signal bridges. And now that I think about it, I can't recall a single overhead signal structure on the Deux Montagnes line in Montreal, which would be the nearest parallel.

Dan

I see. Well the overlay shows that the east track is clearly sitting near or on top of the current Metrolinx ROW, so this suggests to me the railpath would need to be shifted anyway. Perhaps they will be making room for a signal mast in the midst of property acquisition and bikepath relocation. But indeed, looks like a tight fit.

[crs1026]

There's no question the railpath will need a new retaining wall when the final track is built. And likely a noise wall design of some sort will be proposed. Some encroachment of the bike path is likely - hopefully not a lot. The path, along with some other changes, has made a real impact on this district.

I suspect there will have to be some further tree harvesting when the final track and electrification come along, too. Trees and power lines don't mix!

All of this will likely be controversial in the local community. Hanging out at Wallace Ave, one hears a fair bit of grumbling from the locals about GO not being transparent about impacts and not consulting until too late in the design process.

Sure has been a long haul since the first survey and clearing work started in 2007!

- Paul

[2044]

Photo of one of the DMUs at the factory in the US.

[skyfirenet]

Nice to see that the GTAA has such confidence in the future success of the UPX.

[DavidH]

Nice to see that the GTAA has such confidence in the future success of the UPX.

I disagree; it shows they are confident UPX will attract significant numbers of riders. That's what they are concerned about - with fewer people parking they will get less in parking revenues. Like many organizations, their parking prices are set to not only cover their direct parking costs but to also offset some portion of their general operating costs. With fewer people parking, they are looking to make sure that they don't lose revenue as a result.

I agree the optics are poor, and I think Metrolinx should have been more aggressive in resisting this charge, but nothing in this says that the GTAA thinks UPX will fail.

[IRT_BMT_IND]

Nice to see that the GTAA has such confidence in the future success of the UPX.

These fees are fairly common with airport rail services, Vancouver and Chicago have them as well.

[Guest]

These fees are fairly common with airport rail services, Vancouver and Chicago have them as well.

Why did it have to be framed as making up for parking revenue though? Just call it a 'passenger surcharge'.

[TomW]

Why did it have to be framed as making up for parking revenue though? Just call it a 'passenger surcharge'.

Technically, it's an "access fee", and has been called something like that. It includes the cost of maintaining the station etc, as well as off-setting loss of revenue from other sources (parking, taxis).

[dowlingm]

But according to the Island Airport opponents Pearson's going to be flooded with new passengers because the train makes YTZ redundant... It's almost like GTAA doesn't believe that

[crs1026]

UPE could haul 1,000 people a day at $30 or 10,000 people per day at. $3.....it's disappointing to see them take the boutique route instead of maximising their contribution to the overall transit picture.

Vancouver charges a $5 surcharge for the Airport segment of their system, without any lame excuse about parking revenue......they simply need to cover construction and operating costs for the Canada Line somehow and air travel has a more elastic supply/demand profile.

In contrast, Boston's Silver Line bus shuttle from Logan Airport to South Station is FREE.

I don't recall paying more than about 9 euros to get to the airport in Paris or Rome. New York Chicago and Boston (among others) only charge the standard transit fare.

- Paul

[skyfirenet]

UPE could haul 1,000 people a day at $30 or 10,000 people per day at. $3.....it's disappointing to see them take the boutique route instead of maximising their contribution to the overall transit picture.

More to the point, it raises the question of whether the GTAA would demand a similar fee if the Eglinton and Finch LRT lines are extended to the airport.

[smallspy]

UPE could haul 1,000 people a day at $30 or 10,000 people per day at. $3.....it's disappointing to see them take the boutique route instead of maximising their contribution to the overall transit picture.

Vancouver charges a $5 surcharge for the Airport segment of their system, without any lame excuse about parking revenue......they simply need to cover construction and operating costs for the Canada Line somehow and air travel has a more elastic supply/demand profile.

In contrast, Boston's Silver Line bus shuttle from Logan Airport to South Station is FREE.

I don't recall paying more than about 9 euros to get to the airport in Paris or Rome. New York Chicago and Boston (among others) only charge the standard transit fare.

- Paul

Those are not premium express services. The closest comparison would the be the various Express services to the airports surrounding London (Heathrow, Stansted, Gatwick), all of which are in the neighbourhood of £20 for a one-way fare.

Dan

[TomW]

I feel UP Express has ended up in its position because of its history. It started as privately-financed, privately-operated, for-profit business (with the rights to build/run it put out to tender and won SNC Lavelin). The finances only worked if it was premium service (high fares) with small trains (lower construction, vehicle and operating costs).

Then SNC did some more in-depth study (post-2008 recession), and decided the numbers didn't stack up. Metrolinx took it over in 2010 - but by then, things were too advanced to change. In particular, there was no sensible way of getting a larger (longer) station alongside Terminal 1. (The station is between LINK tracks, which only leave a gap big enough for a short station... the original thinking was for LRT). (That the tracks could be threaded into T1 is a minor miracle, given the spaghetti of ramps). Short platforms = short trains = limit on the number of users. The 3-car DMUs can carry 150 people total, which means 14,400 people/day if they were spread out evenly over 24 hours. In the AM peak (2 hours), it would/will struggle to carry as many people as one GO Train.

Should it have been designed for the mass market from day 1, rather than trying to get the private sector to do it all for profit? I think many people here would answer "yes"...

[dowlingm]

The trains can be extended to 4 car and (I understand) can be reduced to 12min headway.

According to the UPExpress twitter capacity will be 60 per car.

https://mobile.twitter.com/UPexpress/status/495309532449763328

So that's a starting theoretical capacity of 180x4x24 (assuming 100pc OTP and all sets with 3 cars...) for 17280 pax/direction/day, maxing at 240x5x24 (28800 ppdpd).