I am still not convinced I like overhead wires for metro systems. Metro systems are uniquely positioned to use third-rail (or even fourth-rail, hello London) power, so I think it should be used whereever possible. It allows for less optical clutter where tracks are exposed to the public, especially on elevated viaducts, smaller (and cheaper!) tunnel diameters, and how bad is the safety deficit really?
We have third-rail-powered S-Bahn tracks at surface level, even with a few level crossings, and there are very, very few accidents with Berlin U- and S-Bahn third rails.
I get that both light rail systems and mainline rail systems have to resort to overhead wires (for different reasons), but metros are fine with third rail power, IMHO.
London tube lines would not have been possible with overhead wires of any kind. And as I said, I just don't buy the safety argument, as I don't see a lot of problems arising from third wires in reality.
I’m very hesitant to accept the rationale from the era much of the underground was constructed as being a good one a century later. My safety concerns are less mine and those I talk to who work in maintenance etc.
Speaking of which, I recently had the opportunity to speak with a "zeroeth responder" -- at a scene of a railway accident, before the "first responders" (like the fire brigade or ambulance services) can operate, a "zeroeth responder" from the rail operator needs to secure the site so the first responders are not electrocuted by live wires or third rails. The railway incident manager I talked to operates both on the Berlin S-Bahn (750 V DC, third rail) and main line rail (15 kV AC, overhead wire). She extolled the virtues of the third-rail system when it comes to safety. (Of course we are comparing low-voltage DV to high-voltage AC in addition to third rail to overhead; I recognize that.)
To secure a track with third-rail power, she has a tool that takes seconds to deploy, and it doesn't even really matter if the power is already off; it will be afterwards. It's essentially a clamp you set down on the track rail and then slam into the third rail from below; I think it's spring-loaded to stay in place. If power is still on at deployment, there will be a very bright flash of light (don't look; not good for your eyes), but then the track is secure. Third rails very rarely become dislodged in accidents (although it does happen), and they don't dangle when damaged but still live, electrocuting everything in their path (and near vicinity).
Securing an overhead-wire-powered track is much more involved. First you need to make sure power is off before doing anything. (That's more because of the voltage of course.) Then you need to balance a probe on an extendable rod and check that the overhead wire is indeed off; and finally you use the same rod to attach a ground cable clamped to the track to the overhead wire, balancing the rod and the clamp (quite heavy BTW) several metres above your head. Only then can emegency crews get working.
Oh, and if you manage to dislodge a still-live wire somehow and have it crashing down on you, you're fried to a crisp instantly.
The rod needs to be extendable and light (and hence not very stable) because (a) it has to fit into the emergency response vehicle and (b) it needs to be light enough for a single person to balance.
So that's some first-hand opinion (for me, at least) from someone who actually deals with incidents on railways every day for a living. Her preference was clear: Third rail power all day, every day.
Light rail doesn't have to use wires. Sydney, Australia uses a type of 3rd rail for it's light rail, that is only powered in small sections when the light rail train is running over it, and is de-energised at all other times.
Also possible would be an arrangment where a metro train is powered only in parts of its track and runs on batteries where no power is available. That arrangement is ideally suited to third-rail systems, as the contact shoes that go on third rails can attach and detach while the vehicle is in motion. In fact, this feature is commonly used even for non-battery-powerd vehicles when the third rail changes sides, usually for safety reasons (third rails tend to be next to the inner rail of two-tracked sections out in the open but next to the outer rail where there are island platforms). Also, third rail contact shoes can detach before a level crossing and re-attach afterwards with no problem.
Can someone explain why Sydney chose this complex, if visually friendly system? Central Sydney is nice, but not so historic as to be damaged by overhead clutter.
I think the base level of Nimbyism that is becoming common has a lot to do with it. Sydney also has the climate needed for the Alstom APS system (no snow!)
Isn't the Alstom Metropolis checking all the cases? Automation, PSD, flexible seating, floor arrangement and door number, fully walkable... And from 2 to 9 cars to adapt.
Maybe just the cost is very expensive, but maintenance should be easy and low.
I find this obsession with standardization very weird, almost like a railfan's tunnel vision. (get it?)
If we standardized everything across Canada tomorrow, we'd still be left with ballooning construction costs. Why? Our politicians delay everything. Doesn't matter what kind of train you use when Doug Ford wants it buried 40 metres underground, you're still digging a 40 metre deep tunnel with 40 metre deep stations. Doug Ford wants a train to Ford City, you have to drop everything and start planning and building that instead (resulting in more delays from extra planning, inflation, etc.) Standard construction styles help, but it's tinkering around the edges rather than addressing poor planning that results in delays and increasing construction costs.
One could make the argument for a "central planning system" that plans railway lines and hands them to politicians to pick and choose. I agree that this would be better, but that just isn't how NIMBYism and politics works, they just have to pander to rich people with too much time on their hands.
I wouldn't call it an obsession, it is only one article. It's an important consideration that isn't given enough attention.
I don't concur with you that politics are the main problem for transit in Ontario, it's a popular idea especially in media but, it doesn't align with lots of the real problems we face in so many areas. I think standardization is orthogonal to all of that though, it's a worthwhile pursuit, especially at the continental level.
Standardization works in when there are enough new lines being built to justify a certain set of standards. Unless we decide to provide a steady stream of capital expansion projects over a long-term period (say, 30 years), I cannot see this happening, there simply aren't enough new systems being built.
Which projects could standardization have helped with in Ontario? Possibly Ottawa LRT?
Bravo ! A PCC car for the 21st century. But it may be hard to accomplish. Consultants and designers make their money by customization. Also, manufacturing automation for standardized modules would save costs. (I was appalled by the manual drilling shown in your rail car factory video.)
Where can we get the specs for the Chinese rail car standards?
Speaking of rail cars, I posted "Light Rail Vehicles Are Not the Best Choice for the Interborough Express" at bqrail.substack.com/ today.
Yes, something akin to the PCC would be good. I think its conceivable to quickly cut the cost of rolling stock in half on average (albeit thats easier because we overpay for everything in North America).
US transit used PCC technology for most transit cars ordered from WWII to the mid 1960s. This "toolkit" approach worked very well when public transit was operating under intense budget constraints, and political opposition. The exception was New York, which was big enough to set its own standards.
I agree with the Canada Line EMUs, I also think a cheaper version of the (very sleek) R211s on the NYC B Division would be a great start along those lines
The R211's have good technology which could be incorporated into the basic and affordable Canada Line bodies to create a really good all round solution.
It also makes construction much easier and cheaper!
Absolutely, since the train determines so many specifications.
Absolutely, since the train determines so many specifications.
Standardization is never negligeable when one wants to reduce cost and increase robustness and efficiency.
I absolutely concur!
I am still not convinced I like overhead wires for metro systems. Metro systems are uniquely positioned to use third-rail (or even fourth-rail, hello London) power, so I think it should be used whereever possible. It allows for less optical clutter where tracks are exposed to the public, especially on elevated viaducts, smaller (and cheaper!) tunnel diameters, and how bad is the safety deficit really?
We have third-rail-powered S-Bahn tracks at surface level, even with a few level crossings, and there are very, very few accidents with Berlin U- and S-Bahn third rails.
I get that both light rail systems and mainline rail systems have to resort to overhead wires (for different reasons), but metros are fine with third rail power, IMHO.
The tunnel diameter reason seems to be overplayed based on what I’ve seen on how that impacts cost. For me the main concern is safety yea
London tube lines would not have been possible with overhead wires of any kind. And as I said, I just don't buy the safety argument, as I don't see a lot of problems arising from third wires in reality.
I’m very hesitant to accept the rationale from the era much of the underground was constructed as being a good one a century later. My safety concerns are less mine and those I talk to who work in maintenance etc.
Speaking of which, I recently had the opportunity to speak with a "zeroeth responder" -- at a scene of a railway accident, before the "first responders" (like the fire brigade or ambulance services) can operate, a "zeroeth responder" from the rail operator needs to secure the site so the first responders are not electrocuted by live wires or third rails. The railway incident manager I talked to operates both on the Berlin S-Bahn (750 V DC, third rail) and main line rail (15 kV AC, overhead wire). She extolled the virtues of the third-rail system when it comes to safety. (Of course we are comparing low-voltage DV to high-voltage AC in addition to third rail to overhead; I recognize that.)
To secure a track with third-rail power, she has a tool that takes seconds to deploy, and it doesn't even really matter if the power is already off; it will be afterwards. It's essentially a clamp you set down on the track rail and then slam into the third rail from below; I think it's spring-loaded to stay in place. If power is still on at deployment, there will be a very bright flash of light (don't look; not good for your eyes), but then the track is secure. Third rails very rarely become dislodged in accidents (although it does happen), and they don't dangle when damaged but still live, electrocuting everything in their path (and near vicinity).
Securing an overhead-wire-powered track is much more involved. First you need to make sure power is off before doing anything. (That's more because of the voltage of course.) Then you need to balance a probe on an extendable rod and check that the overhead wire is indeed off; and finally you use the same rod to attach a ground cable clamped to the track to the overhead wire, balancing the rod and the clamp (quite heavy BTW) several metres above your head. Only then can emegency crews get working.
Oh, and if you manage to dislodge a still-live wire somehow and have it crashing down on you, you're fried to a crisp instantly.
The rod needs to be extendable and light (and hence not very stable) because (a) it has to fit into the emergency response vehicle and (b) it needs to be light enough for a single person to balance.
So that's some first-hand opinion (for me, at least) from someone who actually deals with incidents on railways every day for a living. Her preference was clear: Third rail power all day, every day.
Light rail doesn't have to use wires. Sydney, Australia uses a type of 3rd rail for it's light rail, that is only powered in small sections when the light rail train is running over it, and is de-energised at all other times.
Also possible would be an arrangment where a metro train is powered only in parts of its track and runs on batteries where no power is available. That arrangement is ideally suited to third-rail systems, as the contact shoes that go on third rails can attach and detach while the vehicle is in motion. In fact, this feature is commonly used even for non-battery-powerd vehicles when the third rail changes sides, usually for safety reasons (third rails tend to be next to the inner rail of two-tracked sections out in the open but next to the outer rail where there are island platforms). Also, third rail contact shoes can detach before a level crossing and re-attach afterwards with no problem.
Can someone explain why Sydney chose this complex, if visually friendly system? Central Sydney is nice, but not so historic as to be damaged by overhead clutter.
I think the base level of Nimbyism that is becoming common has a lot to do with it. Sydney also has the climate needed for the Alstom APS system (no snow!)
Isn't the Alstom Metropolis checking all the cases? Automation, PSD, flexible seating, floor arrangement and door number, fully walkable... And from 2 to 9 cars to adapt.
Maybe just the cost is very expensive, but maintenance should be easy and low.
Sort of, but I don’t have a single model that I find to be quite as generic as the Hyundai!
I find this obsession with standardization very weird, almost like a railfan's tunnel vision. (get it?)
If we standardized everything across Canada tomorrow, we'd still be left with ballooning construction costs. Why? Our politicians delay everything. Doesn't matter what kind of train you use when Doug Ford wants it buried 40 metres underground, you're still digging a 40 metre deep tunnel with 40 metre deep stations. Doug Ford wants a train to Ford City, you have to drop everything and start planning and building that instead (resulting in more delays from extra planning, inflation, etc.) Standard construction styles help, but it's tinkering around the edges rather than addressing poor planning that results in delays and increasing construction costs.
One could make the argument for a "central planning system" that plans railway lines and hands them to politicians to pick and choose. I agree that this would be better, but that just isn't how NIMBYism and politics works, they just have to pander to rich people with too much time on their hands.
I wouldn't call it an obsession, it is only one article. It's an important consideration that isn't given enough attention.
I don't concur with you that politics are the main problem for transit in Ontario, it's a popular idea especially in media but, it doesn't align with lots of the real problems we face in so many areas. I think standardization is orthogonal to all of that though, it's a worthwhile pursuit, especially at the continental level.
Standardization works in when there are enough new lines being built to justify a certain set of standards. Unless we decide to provide a steady stream of capital expansion projects over a long-term period (say, 30 years), I cannot see this happening, there simply aren't enough new systems being built.
Which projects could standardization have helped with in Ontario? Possibly Ottawa LRT?
In Canada we are building a ton, and even if you’re not it’s a useful thing to have for ongoing fleet renewals!
Bravo ! A PCC car for the 21st century. But it may be hard to accomplish. Consultants and designers make their money by customization. Also, manufacturing automation for standardized modules would save costs. (I was appalled by the manual drilling shown in your rail car factory video.)
Where can we get the specs for the Chinese rail car standards?
Speaking of rail cars, I posted "Light Rail Vehicles Are Not the Best Choice for the Interborough Express" at bqrail.substack.com/ today.
Yes, something akin to the PCC would be good. I think its conceivable to quickly cut the cost of rolling stock in half on average (albeit thats easier because we overpay for everything in North America).
US transit used PCC technology for most transit cars ordered from WWII to the mid 1960s. This "toolkit" approach worked very well when public transit was operating under intense budget constraints, and political opposition. The exception was New York, which was big enough to set its own standards.
It's quite interesting because we have enormous money being thrown around these days!
I agree with the Canada Line EMUs, I also think a cheaper version of the (very sleek) R211s on the NYC B Division would be a great start along those lines
The R211's have good technology which could be incorporated into the basic and affordable Canada Line bodies to create a really good all round solution.