Union Pearson Express

[skyfirenet]

Short platforms = short trains = limit on the number of users.

I'd say that the real limiting factor is the design of the corridor. The lack of consideration for adding a future "milk run" service when designing & building the corridor is going to come back to haunt the UPX.

[dowlingm]

Would a shuttle between YYZ (particularly T3) and Malton GO satisfy the demand for a milk run?

[skyfirenet]

I was referring to the proposal to incorporate a subway like service, the one other than Tory's smarttrack plan, along the route.

[smallspy]

I'd say that the real limiting factor is the design of the corridor. The lack of consideration for adding a future "milk run" service when designing & building the corridor is going to come back to haunt the UPX.

How do you figure, exactly?

Dan

[Guest]

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.

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"...

Sorry, are any of you guys economists? I can't believe the pile-ons I see in social media and forums of so many people convinced this thing will be a failure because it is express vs. local.

In the speculated price range (~$25 from Union), it will be used mostly by businesspeople and high income individuals that are frequent flyers, its just no one in the government or bureaucracy wants to say it. But it will be rounded out by people who travel occasionally, and will pay for the convenience. It's all being studied through Metrolinx's analysis of the market: what people are willing to pay for the value the service offers. I haven't heard anything from you guys that convinces me you know more that the experts at Metrolinx.

People who still can't afford it will use the Eglinton Crosstown westward extension. That will be the local/cheap option (not trying to open the can of worms of when that will be built; let's keep on topic here). The only failure here is the lack of understanding of value in an express service.

Actually, that recent terrible promo video could also be counted as a failure too.

[crs1026]

I don't disagree that the economics of a premium service are favourable. That's why the service got serious consideration as a private-public venture.

What I disagree with is investment of public funds for a premium service, in preference to investing in something that benefits the greatest number of transit users. The Eglinton Crosstown extension is a decade or more away. As others noted, the UPE line as being built (three tracks only) does not have the capacity for an integrated express/local high frequency service.

Taking all the Airport Limos off the 427/Gardiner combo won't ease traffic congestion, but building a good airport link integrated with other transit routes will.

(OK now I'm ranting) Can you say "Metrolinx' and 'experts' in the same sentence? The absence of a UPE stop at Mount Dennis, to connect to the Crosstown, is a travesty....and that's all within the same agency so ought to be easily planned and approved.

(OK, got that out of my system) On a related note, I spent the weekend in Rochelle IL and made a number of forays past the plant where these cars are being completed. All I could spot were a couple of inbound body shells still in their blue shrink-wrap. A number of bilevel cars were visible. The plant is a huge compound with berms and fences, and is located mostly away from any public roads, so I came away without any photos. But I saw little evidence that the fleet is being completed as yet. I'm speculating that the set that was the subject of recent publicity are the pre-production demos, and that similar to how TTC 4400-4403 came early, the timing of the rest of the order is still a bit aways.

- Paul

[smallspy]

I don't disagree with your points Paul. In my mind, the only way to "rescue" the line is to integrate it with the GO fare system between Union and Weston, and then charge a premium fare to get to the airport - sort of like how the Canada Line in Vancouver operates. And that would only slightly improve over what it should have originally been: a people mover out to a location somwehre on the Weston Sub near the 427 to allow GO and VIA to service the station and thus airport.

Of course, that ship has long since sailed. And so we need to make the best of what we've got.

As for no stop at Mount Dennis, says who? Last I checked, the Eglinton line is at least 6 years (and probably more like 8 years) away from completion, and there will be a GO stop there when it opens. I can't see why they wouldn't also locate a UPX stop there as well - or perhaps move the current Weston stop there.

Dan

[crs1026]

Dan, it's so hard for us guys in the bleacher seats to know what is approved/committed and what is a notional project that is on the list simply to woo the voters!

I can't find any clear confirmation that the Mount Dennis stop is a go....the documents on the Metrolinx site show it as a "potential" or "future" thing. Same with the timeline for the Eglinton extension....the in-service date for the initial segment is so far off it's hard to imagine that the next leg will come anytime soon.

On that topic, there is new construction going up on Eglinton around Kipling which will significantly narrow the Eglinton corridor in that section. I'm concerned that there may no longer be room for a dedicated ROW for surface LRT in that area. Considering that this is the Fords' back yard ( gee I almost typed back pocket) I'm just cynical enough to wonder if there may be an agenda to force an underground solution in this area.

Railroad.net is reporting that the new DMU's are being tested on Metra's Blue Island line this weekend.

- Paul

[smallspy]

Dan, it's so hard for us guys in the bleacher seats to know what is approved/committed and what is a notional project that is on the list simply to woo the voters!

I can't find any clear confirmation that the Mount Dennis stop is a go....the documents on the Metrolinx site show it as a "potential" or "future" thing. Same with the timeline for the Eglinton extension....the in-service date for the initial segment is so far off it's hard to imagine that the next leg will come anytime soon.

On that topic, there is new construction going up on Eglinton around Kipling which will significantly narrow the Eglinton corridor in that section. I'm concerned that there may no longer be room for a dedicated ROW for surface LRT in that area. Considering that this is the Fords' back yard ( gee I almost typed back pocket) I'm just cynical enough to wonder if there may be an agenda to force an underground solution in this area.

- Paul

I know, and it's really disappointing that an agency that supposedly prides itself on transparency has proven itself to do everything in its power to be anything but. (But of course, we've all known that for a while too.)

I seem to recall that the EA documents for the Eglinton Line specifically called for a GO station there, much in the same way that the EA documents for the York U subway extension called for a GO station at the Downsview Park Station (and how the same Eglinton EA documents called for a GO station by Caledonia). And considering that the Georgetown South EA documents called for a "future station" allowance to be built at Eglinton, well......perhaps I'm reaching a bit, but it certainly seems to me to be a case of putting two and two together.

Despite the City selling off the Richview Expressway Corridor lands, there is still more than enough room left in the ROW for Eglinton to allow for 3 lanes of traffic each way AND the LRT ROW in the middle. They've specifically made sure of that as an eventuality.

Dan

[lip]

Despite the City selling off the Richview Expressway Corridor lands, there is still more than enough room left in the ROW for Eglinton to allow for 3 lanes of traffic each way AND the LRT ROW in the middle. They've specifically made sure of that as an eventuality.

Dan

At least there's some common sense over at City Hall. Although I wish there was some kind of motion put in place in the past that specifically restricted what could be done with the lands to prevent a RoFo incident (ie:selling off the lands) from occurring. If someone convinced him that a "surface subway" could be built there things would have turned out differently.

[Guest]

Dan, it's so hard for us guys in the bleacher seats to know what is approved/committed and what is a notional project that is on the list simply to woo the voters!

I know, and it's really disappointing that an agency that supposedly prides itself on transparency has proven itself to do everything in its power to be anything but. (But of course, we've all known that for a while too.)

It's all because the agency is still too dependent on political masters, and is afraid of stepping on toes. If the Investment Strategy goes ahead and Metrolinx is given control of the funds, I'm willing to bet you won't see this behaviour as much.

[skyfirenet]

How do you figure, exactly?

Dan

Since the UPX is no longer a private sector entity, it is now vulnerable to the whims of the voting public. When it comes to the costs for capacity upgrades to accommodate future local service along the corridor, maintaining the level of service on a government run premium service won't be seen as being that important. As a result, it would have been in their best interest to incorporate this reality into the design and construction of the route. Of course, I don't mean building bridges and grading the right of way for future local service in the corridor now, but rather designing major components like the Humber bridge to accommodate an additional track in the future.

If someone convinced him that a "surface subway" could be built there things would have turned out differently.

Considering how hard he is trying to be the mayor of Scarborough, I doubt it.

[smallspy]

Since the UPX is no longer a private sector entity, it is now vulnerable to the whims of the voting public. When it comes to the costs for capacity upgrades to accommodate future local service along the corridor, maintaining the level of service on a government run premium service won't be seen as being that important. As a result, it would have been in their best interest to incorporate this reality into the design and construction of the route. Of course, I don't mean building bridges and grading the right of way for future local service in the corridor now, but rather designing major components like the Humber bridge to accommodate an additional track in the future.

Hold on, you were talking about how it was unfortunate that the line couldn't be configured to be some sort of "milk run". There is nothing inherent about how the equipment is designed to preclude it from offering a frequent-stop type of service in the sense that the equipment is quite capable of it, as it the corridor itself for much of its length (with some exceptions at the ends). Platforms are cheap in the grand scheme of things. More rolling stock can be purchased. Staff can be hired and trained.

That they are running the equipment in that particular service has nothing to do with its other potential usages. It's like saying any old transit bus can't run an express service on the highway - of course it physically can.

As you accurately pointed out, the service itself is being dictated by political means. And as you also pointed out, it is "vulnerable to the whims of the voting public" (which while is a bit simplistic, is the right sentiment), which means that there is no reason why in the future it couldn't be transformed into, say, the western DRL.

Dan

[skyfirenet]

Hold on, you were talking about how it was unfortunate that the line couldn't be configured to be some sort of "milk run". There is nothing inherent about how the equipment is designed to preclude it from offering a frequent-stop type of service in the sense that the equipment is quite capable of it, as it the corridor itself for much of its length (with some exceptions at the ends). Platforms are cheap in the grand scheme of things. More rolling stock can be purchased. Staff can be hired and trained.

That they are running the equipment in that particular service has nothing to do with its other potential usages. It's like saying any old transit bus can't run an express service on the highway - of course it physically can.

As you accurately pointed out, the service itself is being dictated by political means. And as you also pointed out, it is "vulnerable to the whims of the voting public" (which while is a bit simplistic, is the right sentiment), which means that there is no reason why in the future it couldn't be transformed into, say, the western DRL.

Dan

It's true that there is nothing stopping the UPX from turning into a western DRL. However, if you want to keep the express component of the route, you will need additional infrastructure on the route if you add a local service/"milk run" component. That's what I was getting at when I was saying the lack of foresight with the corridor would come back to haunt the UPX. Also, it was the person who I was responding to that was talking about the issues with platforms and equipment.

[D. DeLarge]

Well, that overproduced UPE video everyone saw recently was taken down...

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/08/06/metrolinx_pulls_embarrassing_up_express_video_off_the_web.html

[smallspy]

However, if you want to keep the express component of the route, you will need additional infrastructure on the route if you add a local service/"milk run" component. That's what I was getting at when I was saying the lack of foresight with the corridor would come back to haunt the UPX. Also, it was the person who I was responding to that was talking about the issues with platforms and equipment.

No, you don't any more infrastructure. We're not talking about converting it to a subway, it's heavy rail and will stay that. It will be 4 tracks wide up to and beyond Weston Station, which is more than adequate for the amount of local and express service that anyone can envision running on the line at any point in the future, and the rest of the line to the north can be made wider if necessary when the time comes in any case.

Dan

[crs1026]

The initial trainset left Rochelle IL today at 13:45 CTS, likely bound for Chicago.

- Paul

[D. DeLarge]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=493058&nseq=5

[lip]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=493058&nseq=5

The train itself looks quite dashing, the paint scheme on the other hand...not so much. I think it wouldve looked better without paint actually.

[IRT_BMT_IND]

Will these be delivered under their own power from Illinois? It would make for interesting railfanning if so.

[TheAverageJoe]

Will these be delivered under their own power from Illinois? It would make for interesting railfanning if so.

No, they will be towed in a freight consist. Most likely behind the motive power.

[crs1026]

The DMU's were delivered to Metra in Chicago with idler flat cars on either ends. One car number was OTTX 93343.

I couldn't tell from the photos going around whether they have standard railroad couplers or something that might have restrictions for marshalling in freight consists. Nonstandard couplers would explain why the idler flats were used.

Also not sure whether the cars will proceed on to Toronto, or back to Rochelle for tweaking.

- Paul

[smallspy]

The DMU's were delivered to Metra in Chicago with idler flat cars on either ends. One car number was OTTX 93343.

I couldn't tell from the photos going around whether they have standard railroad couplers or something that might have restrictions for marshalling in freight consists. Nonstandard couplers would explain why the idler flats were used.

Also not sure whether the cars will proceed on to Toronto, or back to Rochelle for tweaking.

- Paul

They are equipped with standard FRA/APTA couplers, so I have no idea why they needed idlers unless the railways down there require them to separate occupied units from DIT ones.

Dan

[TomW]

Sorry, are any of you guys economists? I can't believe the pile-ons I see in social media and forums of so many people convinced this thing will be a failure because it is express vs. local.

I meant "should" in the sense of "wider public good" rather than "maximising financial return".

(OK now I'm ranting) Can you say "Metrolinx' and 'experts' in the same sentence? The absence of a UPE stop at Mount Dennis, to connect to the Crosstown, is a travesty....and that's all within the same agency so ought to be easily planned and approved.

I will say this: based on everything I've heard, I would be drop dead astonished if a Mt Dennis stop isn't added when the Eglinton LRT opens. UP Express is all about the premium service, which means connections to the rapid transit network... which means a stop at Eglinton.

If a 'milk run' service is added, then it would be hardly be branded 'UP Express', because it's not an express service. I'd place my money on it being run under the GO Transit brand.

I know, and it's really disappointing that an agency that supposedly prides itself on transparency has proven itself to do everything in its power to be anything but. (But of course, we've all known that for a while too.)

Given how horribly politicised transit in this region, it fails to surprise me that Metrolinx err on the side of keeping things very close to their chest.

[smallspy]

Given how horribly politicised transit in this region, it fails to surprise me that Metrolinx err on the side of keeping things very close to their chest.

And yet, most of the other transit agencies - TTC, YRT, Brampton Transit, to name but three - manage to keep at least the outward appearance of "transparency", even if we all suspect (and usually predict) that the outcome is already pre-ordained. Metrolinx doesn't even try to do that much.

Dan