Stouffville Light Rail Feasbility Study

Stouffville Corridor Light Rail Feasibility StudyFinal Report

D R A F T September 2008Page i of 210

Consulting Services for a Light Rail FeasibilityStudy on the Stouffville Corridor

Contract Number RFP-2006-ED-010

Final Report

March 12, 2009

Prepared forGO Transit

20 Bay StreetToronto, Ontario

Prepared ByJacobs Engineering Group

343 Congress StreetBoston, Massachusetts

In Association WithInterfleet Technology

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania


F I N A L March 2009i

GO TRANSIT STOUFFVILLE BRANCH OFFPEAK SERVICE STUDY SUMMARY

GO Transit is investigating the feasibility of expanding the frequency, scope and nature of serviceoffered on GO Transit lines. In particular, GO Transit is considering a possible two seat ride toToronto during the offpeak periods on the Stouffville Corridor. The proposed service would beoperated between the stations of Scarborough Junction and Stouffville or Unionville. Passengerswould transfer to and from Lakeshore trains at Scarborough Junction for the remainder of their trip.It is envisioned that the offpeak service would be operated with a small fleet of self powered railcars using on-board diesel engines to provide the service with less noise, vibration, and fuel thanwith locomotive hauled equipment. These vehicles are often called diesel multiple units (DMUs).

The study team developeda total of 32 build optionsfor analysis andevaluation. The largenumber of alternativesallows GO Transitstakeholders to explicitlyconsider how choicesrelated to rollingstock,terminal, servicefrequency, maximumallowable speeds, andmainline schedules willaffect the economicperformance of theproposed offpeak service.Offpeak service isexpected to stimulate bothpeak and offpeakridership.

Since the offering ofoffpeak service isexpected to stimulate peakservice, all capital costsand operating costsinclude the incrementalPeak Build costsassociated with additionalridership. Forecastrevenue estimates alsoinclude the incrementalpeak ridership.

9,898

13,714

15,586

15,586

15,586

15,586

15,586

15,586

15,586

15,586

17,828

17,828

17,828

17,828

17,828

17,828

17,828

17,828

15,586

15,586

15,586

15,586

15,586

15,586

15,586

15,586

17,828

17,828

17,828

17,828

17,828

17,828

17,828

17,828

2,969

2,969

3,039

3,039

1,113

1,113

1,140

1,140

6,921

6,921

7,036

7,036

2,595

2,595

2,638

2,638

2,897

2,897

2,999

2,999

1,086

1,086

1,125

1,125

6,684

6,684

6,893

6,893

2,506

2,506

2,585

2,585

0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 27,500

Current Ridership (2006)

2015 Baseline (No Build)

DMU U 30 50 Existing

DMU U 30 50 Modified







DMU S 30 50 Existing

DMU S 30 50 Modified







PP U 30 50 Existing

PP U 30 50 Modified

PP U 30 60 Existing

PP U 30 60 Modified

PP U 60 50 Existing

PP U 60 50 Modified

PP U 60 60 Existing

PP U 60 60 Modified

PP S 30 50 Existing

PP S 30 50 Modified

PP S 30 60 Existing

PP S 30 60 Modified

PP S 60 50 Existing

PP S 60 50 Modified

PP S 60 60 Existing

PP S 60 60 Modified

Peak BoardingsOffpeak Boardings


F I N A L March 2009ii

With offpeak rail service, it is possible to adjust the bus services currently offered along theStouffville Branch to provide a similar array of travel options for corridor residents with fewer bustrips. Service plans were devised to substitute rail travel for bus travel wherever practical, whilepreserving the general mobility options offered by the current mix of peak rail and offpeak busservice. In no circumstance would it be possible to eliminate all bus service while maintaining theequivalent service frequencies and options provided by the bus.

After review of options relative to GO Transit’s evaluation criteria, the study team tentativelyrecommends that hourly offpeak DMU service to Stouffville be implemented as an initialdemonstration and test of offpeak service on the GO Transit branch lines. As the demonstrationproves successful, infrastructure improvements and fleet expansion would allow the service toexpand to half-hourly service. Hourly offpeak service to Stouffville would entail 24 daily offpeaktrips between Stouffville and Scarborough and require approximately $140 million in capitalinvestment. The estimated annual operating costs, net of bus service reduction savings, is $4.9million. The service is forecast to carry 17,828 peak riders and approximately 2,600 offpeakpassengers. The forecast allocated fare revenue impact is estimated to be $6.7 million.


F I N A L March 2009iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GO Transit Stouffville Branch Offpeak Service Study Summary ............................................... i

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1Ridership..................................................................................................................................... 3Capital Costs ............................................................................................................................... 4Annual Operating Costs and Savings From Bus Service Reduction ............................................. 5Forecast Passenger Revenue........................................................................................................ 6Evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 7Recommendation ........................................................................................................................ 9Fall Back Plan ........................................................................................................................... 10

Chapter 1: Goals and Objectives................................................................................................ 11Background............................................................................................................................... 11Establishing Project Goals......................................................................................................... 13

Chapter 2: Stouffville Branch Operations and Infrastructure ................................................. 17Passenger Train Operations ....................................................................................................... 17GO Ridership ............................................................................................................................ 23Future Ridership........................................................................................................................ 28Passenger Train Capacity and Demand...................................................................................... 30Railroad Infrastructure .............................................................................................................. 32Potential for Increased Line Speed ............................................................................................ 42Freight CN Operations .............................................................................................................. 49

Chapter 3: Review of Rollingstock Alternatives ........................................................................ 54Category One DMUs................................................................................................................. 54Category Two DMUs................................................................................................................ 55Category Three DMUs .............................................................................................................. 55

Chapter 4: Noncompliant DMUs: Safety Concerns and Required Safeguards........................ 58Background............................................................................................................................... 58Crashworthiness ........................................................................................................................ 58Addressing Other Safety Concerns ............................................................................................ 63Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 66

Chapter 5: Opportunities and Constraints ................................................................................ 67Project Goals............................................................................................................................. 67General Service Design Goals ................................................................................................... 67Vehicle Technology Specific Goals........................................................................................... 70

Chapter 6: Offpeak Service Options and Required Capital Investments................................. 74Introduction............................................................................................................................... 74


F I N A L March 2009iv

Offpeak Service Alternatives..................................................................................................... 74Equipment Options.................................................................................................................... 77Outer Terminal.......................................................................................................................... 77Service Headway....................................................................................................................... 77Speed ........................................................................................................................................ 78Mainline Schedule..................................................................................................................... 81Forecast Passenger Boardings ................................................................................................... 82Consist Sizes and Fleet Requirements........................................................................................ 84Railway Infrastructure............................................................................................................... 87

Chapter 7: Costs and Revenues ................................................................................................. 91Introduction............................................................................................................................... 91Capital Costs ............................................................................................................................. 91Infrastructure Costs ................................................................................................................... 91Step 1. Estimated Quantities ..................................................................................................... 91Step 2. Unit Costs..................................................................................................................... 97Step 3. Contingency and Support Costs .................................................................................... 97Bus Service ............................................................................................................................. 111Forecast Passenger Revenue.................................................................................................... 121Revenue Allocation ................................................................................................................. 122

Chapter 8: Evaluation and Tentative Recommendations....................................................... 125Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1258.1 Mobility Measures............................................................................................................. 1268.2 Energy and Environmental Measures................................................................................. 1318.3 Efficiency Measures .......................................................................................................... 1348.4 Financial Measures............................................................................................................ 140Summary and Recommendations............................................................................................. 148Integration and Tentative Recommendation............................................................................. 149Fall Back Plan ......................................................................................................................... 150

Appendix A. Review of Rolling Stock Alternatives................................................................. 151Inventory of Rollingstock Options........................................................................................... 152Maintenance, Staffing, and Facilities ....................................................................................... 176

Appendix B. High Level Platforms & Freight Clearances ..................................................... 193High Level Platforms: Balancing Freight Clearance with Disabled Access and Shortened DwellTimes ...................................................................................................................................... 193

Appendix C. Forecast Ridership Adjustments and Implications on Revenue and VehicleRequirements ............................................................................................................................ 197


F I N A L March 2009Page 1 of 205

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

With explosive population and employment growth in suburban Toronto, interest in expanding thefrequency, scope and nature of service offered on GO Transit lines is increasing. The population ofMarkham in the Stouffville corridor has grown approximately 30% since the start of the 21st

century. This growth has included a large fraction of foreign immigrants further contributing to thedemand for expanded transit services. In 2005, the Stouffville Branch was GO Transit’s fastestgrowing service with 13% ridership growth. The increased population has added to highwaycongestion and increased the population density, creating new opportunities for transit to competefor riders.

One consideration for transit to compete for riders is to offer residents living in the StouffvilleCorridor a two seat ride to Toronto during the offpeak periods using self powered rail carscommonly called diesel multiple units (DMUs). The proposed service would be operated betweenthe stations of Stouffville or Unionville and Scarborough Junction. Passengers would transfer atScarborough Junction station to Lakeshore trains for the remainder of their trip into Toronto UnionStation.

GO TRANSIT SYSTEM, OPERATIONS AND EXISTING CONDITIONSThe GO Transit Stouffville corridor is the southernmost of 21.9 route miles (35 route kilometers) ofa 61.3-mile (98-kilometer) rail corridor extending between Scarborough Junction and the End ofTrack in Durham Region. The line is owned and operated by GO Transit based in Toronto.

Overall, GO Transit operates a predominantly peak-period only commuter rail service with sevenlines and 56 rail stations focusing on travel to downtown Toronto with its hub at Toronto UnionStation. Figure ES.1 shows a system map of the GO Transit network, with the Stouffville Branchhighlighted yellow.

At present, GO Transit operates 196 daily push-pull commuter rail trains on seven branches as partof its overall 223.8 mile (358 kilometer) system with service stretching east from the City ofHamilton to Oshawa. Of the seven GO Transit lines that are currently operated, only three lines(Lakeshore East and Lakeshore West, Georgetown) receive all-day train service. The Lakeshoreservices operate between Burlington and Oshawa in the offpeak (Trains 4xx and 9xx). TheGeorgetown service operates between Bramalea and Union Station in the offpeak (Trains 2xx).

Analysis of the existing conditions along the Stouffville branch from Stouffville to ScarboroughJunction stations indicates that infrastructure improvements to the corridor track and/or minorschedule adjustments for the Lakeshore trains are possible. From this information, an array ofoffpeak service options was developed by the study team in consultation with GO Transit projectmanagement.



Figure ES.1: GO Transit System Map

A total of 32 build options were developed for analysis and evaluation. This large number ofalternatives allows GO Transit stakeholders to explicitly consider how choices related torollingstock, terminal, service frequency, maximum allowable speeds, and mainline schedules willaffect the economic performance of the proposed offpeak service. Each of the variables aredescribed below.

1. Offpeak Rollingstock – Offpeak service would be provided by Category One DMUs, fullycompliant with regulations regarding operation on track shared with conventionaloperations. Operational options using short push-pull trains were also developed tocompare the economic and operational performance of the DMUs with a status quoalternative. For the purposes of this study, the short push-pull trains would be newequipment. Deploying existing push-pull equipment to offer offpeak service would entailmuch lower rolling stock costs.

2. Limits of Offpeak Service – Two outer terminals for the offpeak service were considered:Unionville approximately 10 miles north of Scarborough, and Stouffville approximately 20miles north of the junction station.

3. Frequency of Service – Two service frequencies were considered: a 30-minute headwayoption with 48 weekday offpeak trains to or from Scarborough, and a 60-minute headwayoption with 24 weekday offpeak revenue trains to or from Scarborough.



4. Branchline Speeds – Two speed profiles were considered: a Status Quo option with amaximum allowable speed of 50 mph with a long stretch of 40 mph speeds, and a Class 3option with a maximum allowable speed of 60 mph, which is generally consistent with thespeeds typically allowed for track maintained in the condition presently found on the branch.In some instances, higher speeds would reduce the costs of developing and operating theoffpeak service by reducing the number of trains and crews required to make all desiredconnections.

5. Mainline Schedules – Two mainline schedule regimes were to be considered: a Status Quooption with offpeak outbound (west bound) trains from Toronto scheduled to call onScarborough seven (7) minutes after the departure of inbound (east bound) trains to Toronto,and an Adjusted schedule option where the inbound and outbound mainline services wouldbe rescheduled so that the trains would meet at Scarborough station. This change inscheduling would enhance the operating efficiency of the branchline service. In someinstances, it was found that the schedule adjustment would reduce the costs of developingand operating the offpeak service by reducing the number of trains and crews required tomake all desired connections.

RIDERSHIPRidership on the Stouffville Branch has increased significantly since the beginning of the century.Continued growth is forecast in ridership projections provided by GO Transit Planning Staff.1 Inthe absence of any improvements to offpeak service, Stouffville Branch ridership is expected togrow to 13,714 passengers per day by 2015 (see Figure ES.2).

The addition of offpeak service on the Stouffville Branch is expected to stimulate both peak andoffpeak ridership. Offpeak service to Unionville is projected to attract 15,586 daily peak boardingsand offpeak service to Stouffville is forecast to attract 17,828 daily peak passengers.

1 Forecasts based on study forecast prepared in 2005 by Peter Dalton Consulting, Summary provided by Dan Francey,GO Transit Planning June 15, 2007 with adjustments by Jacobs to reflect differences in travel times and other servicecharacteristics.



Hourly offpeak service toUnionville is forecast toattract approximately1,100 offpeakpassengers. Half-hourlyservice to Unionvillewould attract roughly3,000. Hourly service toStouffville is projected tohave 2,500 passengers.Half-hourly service toStouffville is projected toattract approximately7,000 daily offpeakriders.

CAPITAL COSTSPreliminary estimates ofthe capital costs,operating costs, andpassenger revenues foreach of 32 offpeakStouffville branchservice options weredeveloped. Estimates ofthe costs and revenuesassociated with the 2015Baseline (No Build)option and the PeakBuild requirementsassociated with alloffpeak rail serviceoptions was determined.

Estimates of capital costs for each alternative include investments in track, signals, grade crossings,stations, storage and maintenance facilities, and the rollingstock necessary for each service option.Chapter 7 provides a detailed analysis of the derivation of these costs. All costs developed includethe incremental Peak Build costs needed to accommodate the additional peak passengers attracted toGO Transit service by the availability of offpeak service. Table ES.1 shows the capital costs foreach proposed option.

Figure ES.2: Typical Weekday Stouffville Branch Boardings

9,89813,714

15,58615,58615,58615,58615,58615,58615,58615,586

17,82817,82817,82817,82817,82817,828

17,82817,828

15,58615,58615,58615,58615,58615,58615,58615,586

17,82817,82817,82817,82817,82817,82817,82817,828

2,9692,9693,0393,039

1,1131,1131,1401,140

6,9216,9217,0367,036

2,5952,595

2,6382,638

2,8972,8972,9992,999

1,0861,0861,1251,125

6,6846,6846,8936,893

2,5062,5062,5852,585

0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 27,500



















PP U 30 50 Existing

PP U 30 50 Modified

PP U 30 60 Existing

PP U 30 60 Modified

PP U 60 50 Existing

PP U 60 50 Modified

PP U 60 60 Existing

PP U 60 60 Modified

PP S 30 50 Existing

PP S 30 50 Modified

PP S 30 60 Existing

PP S 30 60 Modified

PP S 60 50 Existing

PP S 60 50 Modified

PP S 60 60 Existing

PP S 60 60 Modified




Table ES.1:Forecast Total Capital Costs for 2015 Offpeak Service, including incremental Peak

Build Capital Costs ($ millions)DMU Push Pull

Service Option Unionville Stouffville Unionville Stouffville30 50 Existing2 $126.4 $264.9 $145.3 $256.930 50 Modified $119.3 $264.9 $145.3 $256.930 60 Existing $119.3 $260.0 $145.3 $256.930 60 Modified $119.3 $245.9 $133.4 $256.960 50 Existing $87.1 $138.1 $99.0 $147.860 50 Modified $77.4 $138.1 $97.7 $147.860 60 Existing $77.4 $138.1 $97.7 $147.860 60 Modified $77.4 $138.1 $85.8 $147.8

ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS AND SAVINGS FROM BUS SERVICE REDUCTIONForecasts of 2015 annual operating costs for all service options were developed by summingestimates of transportation (fuel and crew), mechanical maintenance, maintenance of way, trackagefees, and administration. Like Capital Costs, all annual operating costs include the incrementalPeak Build operating costs. Please see Chapter 7 for more detailed information on derivation ofoperating costs.

Furthermore, the introduction of offpeak rail service on the branch would make it possible to adjustthe bus services currently offered along the Stouffville Branch to provide a similar array of traveloptions for corridor residents with fewer bus trips. To facilitate the economic evaluation of thevarious offpeak rail service options, the study team prepared rough service plans for the busservices designed to integrate with the four families of offpeak service alternatives:

1. Unionville 60 minute service2. Unionville 30 minute service3. Stouffville 60 minute service4. Stouffville 30 minute service

The service plans were devised to substitute rail travel for bus travel wherever practical, whilepreserving the general mobility options offered by the current mix of peak rail and offpeak busservice. In no circumstance would it be possible to eliminate all bus service while maintaining theequivalent service frequencies and options provided by the bus. Table ES.2 provides a summary ofestimated annual bus savings associated with each family of offpeak service options.

2 30 50 Existing indicates 30 minute headways, 50 mph maximum allowable speed and existing mainline schedule.



Table ES.2:Estimated Annual Bus Savings

per Offpeak Rail OptionUnionville 60 Minute Headway $ 642,526Unionville 30 Minute Headway $1,215,381Stouffville 60 Minute Headway $1,371,544Stouffville 30 Minute Headway $1,939,935

Table ES.3 shows the estimated annual operating costs for offpeak service and include the costsavings associated from reducing bus service along the Stouffville Corridor.

Table ES.3: Estimated Annual Operating Costs with Savingsfrom Reduced Bus Service ($ millions)

DMU Push PullService Option Unionville Stouffville Unionville Stouffville30 50 Existing $5.48 $8.71 $7.99 $11.4230 50 Modified $4.63 $8.71 $7.95 $11.4030 60 Existing $4.63 $8.71 $7.95 $11.3730 60 Modified $4.63 $7.60 $6.46 $11.3560 50 Existing $5.00 $4.91 $6.49 $6.7360 50 Modified $4.14 $4.91 $6.47 $6.7360 60 Existing $4.14 $4.91 $6.47 $6.7360 60 Modified $4.14 $4.91 $5.05 $6.73

FORECAST PASSENGER REVENUEThe revenue projections rely on incremental peak and offpeak ridership forecasts provided by GOTransit. Using GO Transit conventions, the estimated revenue associated with each incremental tripwas based on 85% of the current one-way fare from each station to Toronto Union Station. Thisapproach to revenue estimation is consistent with GO Transit Planning’s approach to other similarstudies.

Fare revenues vary depending on forecast passenger ridership, which differs according to terminallocation, service frequency, equipment type and branch line speeds. The scheduled meet ofLakeshore trains at Scarborough Junction, does not affect forecast passenger ridership. Allestimates of fare revenues include the incremental Peak Build fare revenues.

A percentage of each passenger fare revenue is allocated to the Stouffville Branch based upon thepassenger travel distance on the branch and mainline, respectively. With this allocation,approximately 61% to 71% of all passenger revenues are allocated to the Stouffville Branch.

Unsurprisingly, the 60 mph DMU Stouffville 30 minute service frequency options are forecast toattract the most riders and have the highest forecast revenue of all the proposed options atapproximately $10.9 million. The 50 mph Unionville 60 minute options are forecast to carry the



fewest passengers of all options, and therefore the lowest passenger revenue at $4.1 million. SeeTable ES.4 for each the estimated annual fare revenue for each service option.

Table ES.4:Allocated Estimated Annual Passenger

Revenue, including Incremental Peak BuildRevenue ($ millions)

Service Option DMU Push-PullU 30 50 Existing $4.16 $4.10U 30 50 Modified $4.16 $4.10U 30 60 Existing $4.21 $4.18U 30 60 Modified $4.21 $4.18U 60 50 Existing $2.74 $2.71U 60 50 Modified $2.74 $2.71U 60 60 Existing $2.76 $2.74U 60 60 Modified $2.76 $2.74S 30 50 Existing $10.83 $10.59S 30 50 Modified $10.83 $10.59S 30 60 Existing $10.93 $10.79S 30 60 Modified $10.93 $10.79S 60 50 Existing $6.65 $6.56S 60 50 Modified $6.65 $6.56S 60 60 Existing $6.69 $6.63S 60 60 Modified $6.69 $6.63

EVALUATIONA systematic comparison of the alternative approaches to expanding the scope, frequency, anddirectness of the offpeak services GO Transit currently offers along the Stouffville corridor wasused to evaluate each service option. The metrics used in evaluation of the offpeak Stouffvillebranch service were related to:

Mobility MeasuresEnergy and Environmental MeasuresEfficiency MeasuresFinancial Measures

Please see Chapter 8 for more detailed information. Also, unless otherwise stated, whereapplicable, all metrics include the incremental Peak Build values and cost savings from reduction ofbus service.

In general, the evaluation of offpeak rail service on the Stouffville branch was very positive:

Mobility – All of the options are forecast to have a substantial positive impact on ridership. Themore extensive options are forecast to generate the greatest mobility impact.



Energy and Environment – Forecast energy and environmental impacts of the DMU options aregenerally favorable. The forecast impacts of offering offpeak service with push-pull equipment aremuch less favorable.

Efficiency – The findings with respect to economic efficiency are slightly more complicated.

All options are forecast to require the same approximate capital investment per new GOTransit passenger.

The forecast incremental operating cost per GO Transit passenger drops substantially witheach improvement in the extent and frequency of service. The incremental operating costsfor the DMU options are always forecast to be lower than for the corresponding push-pulloption.

The forecast farebox recovery ratios for the longer and more frequent options are expectedto be higher with the most attractive farebox recovery rates forecast for half-hourlyStouffville service.

Finance – The financial metrics are also slightly complicated.

The total forecast capital costs increase substantially with the extent and frequency ofservice. The capital cost forecasts for 30 minute Stouffville service are approximately threetimes the forecasts for hourly Unionville services.

The forecast incremental net operating subsidies are greater for the push-pull options arethan for the DMU options.

With higher average fares earned from longer distance trips, the incremental net operatingrevenue forecasts for Stouffville DMU options are more attractive than for the UnionvilleDMU options.

Among the DMU options, the spread in incremental operating costs between the mostextensive and frequent service and the less frequent and shorter options is not especiallygreat due to a large constant cost for expansions in peak service common to all offpeakservice options. Because operating costs can generally be more accurately forecast thanoperating revenues, options with lower forecast operating costs tend to entail less risk.

Among the DMU options, the 30-minute Stouffville service options are expected to have thegreatest positive impact on overall net operating revenue. The impact of hourly DMU toStouffville is also forecast to generate positive net revenue.



Evaluation of the abovementioned metrics is guided by the recognition that the development andoperation of more modest services can used as an interim step towards the eventual development ofmore extensive services as GO Transit’s level of comfort with the new service offering grows. Keyconsiderations and assumptions in developing our recommendations include:

1. DMU service would have more positive impacts on energy, environmental, efficiency andfinancial considerations.

2. Stouffville service would generate more positive mobility impacts than Unionville service.

3. Hourly services would require more modest infrastructure (track, stations and signals) than30-minute services.

RECOMMENDATIONGuided by these three key considerations, hourly offpeak DMU service to Stouffville would be anattractive initial demonstration and test of offpeak service on the GO Transit branch lines. As theservice proves itself to be successful, infrastructure improvements and fleet expansion would allowthe service to expand to half-hourly service.

Hourly offpeak service to Stouffville would entail 24 daily offpeak trips between Stouffville andScarborough and require approximately $138 million in capital investment. Table ES.5 summarizesthe capital costs associated with hourly service to Stouffville.

Table ES.5:Capital Costs for Hourly Offpeak Service to Stouffville

(including Peak Build incremental costs)

Item Units QuantityTotal Costs

($ mil.)Peak Build Coaches Coaches 17 $ 43.9Peak Build Locomotives Locos 1 $ 4.9DMU Power Cars Cars 3 $ 17.2DMU Trailers Coaches 3 $ 6.4Total Rollingstock Cost $ 65.8

New Track3 Miles 1.50 $ 2.3Track Upgrade Miles 20.1 $ 0.2Crossing Upgrade Unit 36 $ 3.6Crossing Re-signaling Unit 36 $ 6.3CTC Signals Miles 21.6 $ 21.6High-Level Platforms Unit 11 $ 6.1Offpeak M-of-E Facility Unit 9 $ 4.8Peak M-of-E Facility Unit 18 $ 9.7Contingency, etc $ 20.3

3 Includes terminal stub and passing siding.



Table ES.5:Capital Costs for Hourly Offpeak Service to Stouffville



($ mil.)Total Infrastructure $ 73.3

Total Capital Cost $138.1

With respect to maximum allowable speeds and main line schedules, the team’s analysis indicatesthat either increased speeds or adjustments in mainline schedules would be sufficient to reduce thenumber of crews and equipment assigned to the service.

The estimated annual operating costs for hourly DMU service to Stouffville, including the busservice reduction savings is $4.9 million. It is forecast to carry 17,828 peak riders andapproximately 2,500 offpeak passengers. The forecast fare revenue is estimated to be $6.7 million,and give the service would a farebox recovery ratio of 1.36.

FALL BACK PLANIf capital finance for a $138 million investment in offpeak service to Stouffville or some otherconsideration poses a substantial short/intermediate term obstacle for GO Transit, 30-minuteUnionville service would be a more modest starter service.

The forecast capital investment for half-hourly service to Unionville is in the vicinity of $119million, including the Peak Build rolling stock acquisition. With respect to maximum allowablespeeds and main line schedules, either increased speeds or an adjustment in mainline schedules willbe sufficient to reduce the number of crews and equipment assigned to the service.

The estimated annual operating costs, including savings from reduced bus service ranges from $4.6to $5.5 million. The introduction of offpeak service is forecast to increase peak ridership to 15,586passengers, and carry approximately 3,000 offpeak passengers every weekday. The forecast farerevenue is estimated to be $4.2 million, and give the service would a farebox recovery ratio ofranging from 0.76 to 0.91.



CHAPTER 1: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

With explosive population and employment growth in suburban Toronto, interest in expanding thefrequency, scope and nature of service offered on GO Transit lines is increasing. For instance, thepopulation of Markham in the Stouffville corridor has grown approximately 30% since the start ofthe century. In the Stouffville corridor this growth has included a large fraction of foreignimmigrants further contributing to the demand for expanded transit services. In 2005, the StouffvilleBranch was GO Transit’s fastest growing service with 13% ridership growth. Increased populationhas added to highway congestion and increased population density, creating new opportunities fortransit to compete for riders.

Against this backdrop of explosive population and ridership growth, especially in the Stouffvillecorridor, GO Transit is conducting a study to evaluate expanding the scope, frequency anddirectness of its services in that corridor with self-powered rail cars, commonly called DMUs –short for “diesel multiple units”. A DMU is a passenger rail car with a self-contained, on-boardsource of motive power, making reliance on a locomotive or electric power distribution systemunnecessary. While motive power may be a diesel internal combustion engine or an alternativeself-contained, on-board source, all DMUs in common use rely on diesel propulsion.

BACKGROUNDDMUs are commonly used in Europe on lines where service operates with short trains and theinfrastructure for electric traction is not available. In the last two decades, European transit officialshave been very actively exploring the flexibility offered because a DMU can operate across aspectrum of operating environments.

In the 1950’s, DMUs were growing in popularity for conventional railway service in North Americauntil market, technological and regulatory forces undermined the viability of low-density passengerservices. With recent increased interest in urban and regional rail passenger transport, DMUs havebeen reintroduced in North America over the last ten years in Ontario, Texas, New Jersey andFlorida. New systems are in advanced states of development in California, Oregon, Texas andVermont.

North American regulatory agencies that ensure safe operations on the continent’s interconnectedrailway network oversee the use and design of all rail cars on general purpose railways such as theStouffville Branch. One key area of regulation involves each car’s ability to withstand collisionswith other rail cars on the network. No DMUs currently used for overseas operations are fullycompliant with North American standards. All are restricted regarding when and where they can beused on this continent. Ottawa’s O-Train is of German origin and cannot be operated on tracksshared with conventional railroad equipment without extraordinary precautions.

Over the last five years, the rail car manufacturing industry has made tangible progress inresponding to the growing North American interest in DMUs. New DMUs fully compliant withNorth American standards are in service in south Florida. Other new fully compliant units have



been delivered for service slated to start in Oregon in late 2008. Units for a new regional servicebased in Vermont may soon be ordered.

Interest in DMUs is great because they fill a niche between diesel-locomotive hauled coach trainsand the various electric railway technologies.

Compared to push-pull locomotive hauled trains, DMUsare more economic to own and operate when trainlengths are short,generate less noise and vibration, andprovide better acceleration resulting in shorter trip times for service areaswith close station spacing.

Compared with electric powered railcars, DMUsdo not require any electric infrastructure,generally have lower energy costs, andprovide comparable acceleration resulting in nearly equivalent trip times forservice areas with frequent stops.

DMUs provide an environmentally friendlier option to locomotives. At less than half the weight ofa locomotive hauled train, DMU’s designed for use on the North American general purpose railwaynetwork all operate at noise and emissions levels well below the standards for locomotives. Theengines in the North American DMUs all operate at or below the more stringent EPA emissionsstandards for Non-Road Compression-Ignition Engines. The noise from a DMU is well less thanhalf the noise from a diesel locomotive. A moving DMU on well-maintained track makes noiseequivalent to a large automobile passing at highway speed. Standing, the noise from a new DMU isequivalent to a home air conditioning unit.

DMUs generally consume only a quarter of the fuel used by a standard locomotive and have verylow particulate emissions. A diesel DMU also operates with much lower energy costs and fuelconsumption than a car powered with electric traction provided by overhead catenary or third rail.North American DMU energy costs per vehicle mile are less than half the average energy cost pervehicle mile for light rail and approximately one seventh of comparable costs for heavy rail rapidtransit.

The DMU requires neither the overhead wire nor “third rail” needed for electric powered light rail,rapid transit or electric multiple unit operation. By using DMUs, operators avoid both the capitaland maintenance cost for this electric infrastructure. Some promoters of lightweight DMUs refer tothem as “Cordless Light Rail”.

Perhaps the most important feature of DMUs is their flexibility. They provide the ability to initiateand operate passenger rail services in circumstances where the use of alternative technologies wouldbe daunting. They require no electrification, have the ability to share existing tracks with otherrailway uses and make it possible to operate successfully with short trains while preserving the



ability to add cars as ridership grows. This flexibility could prove particularly attractive on GOTransit’s Stouffville Branch.

ESTABLISHING PROJECT GOALSTo determine and confirm GO Transit’s goals and objectives for the development of a possibleoffpeak diesel light rail service on the Stouffville Branch, JEG senior project management met witha spectrum of GO Transit managers in May 2007. Managers providing direct input to the projectteam regarding project goals and objectives included:

Hui, Francis GO Transit’s Stouffville Light Rail FeasibilityStudy Project Manager and Manager ofEquipment Development

Wolczyck, Michael Chief of Rail OperationsKeachie, Lester Manager, EngineeringCattani, Terry Manager of Railway Corridors, Rail ServicesBailie, Grant Project Coordinator, Rail Corridors

In the course of discussion concerning goals and objectives, various rolling stock alternatives werereviewed as possible options for the Stouffville branch:

“Category One DMUs” – Self-powered rail cars that meet all specifications necessary forfull unrestricted operation on the North American conventional railway network.

“Category Two DMUs” - Self-powered rail cars of generally overseas design andmanufacture that fail to meet all specifications necessary for full unrestricted operation onthe North American conventional railway network.

“Category Three DMUs” - Diesel light rail cars suitable for operation as street cars inurban applications.

The study team discussed why transit agencies have chosen to use noncompliant DMUs. Reasonshave included:

• No compliant units available• Require specialized equipment for street running• Technical maturity of European offerings

It was noted why many North American transit agencies are presently avoiding noncompliantDMUs for shared track operations. Reasons for avoidance include:

• Safety concerns• Reduced flexibility• High cost of European rolling stock due to currency conversion• New availability of compliant units and competition among manufacturers to build

compliant units



Mr. Hui held subsequent interviews with various senior staff to review and refine the goals forpossible improvements in the scope, frequency and directness of its Stouffville Branch services.

The agency’s vision for offpeak service on the line entails a connecting service that would providemidday and evening service on the branch timed to connect with Oshawa trains to and from Torontofor a two-seat ride to the region’s employment, entertainment and retail hub. It is anticipated thatoffpeak service would provide new mobility options for intra-corridor trips along the StouffvilleBranch. The service vision does not include:

Operation off the Stouffville BranchStreet runningNew right of wayExtensions of TTC service from Kennedy or Ellsemere rapid transit stationsDirect offpeak service to Union Station in downtown Toronto.

None of the circumstances listed above require the use of Category Two or Category Three DMUs.Consequently, the study team focused on Category One DMUs. The perspectives and inputprovided by the GO Transit managers are summarized in the ten topics listed below.

1. Respond to official inquiries concerning the feasibility of operating a light rail service on theStouffville branch when GO trains to Union Station are not operating.

2. Respond to provincial oversight inquiries regarding plans for future services on GO Transitbranch lines.

3. Explore technologies that reduce noise, vibration and pollution associated with push-pullservice.

4. Explore options to improve service delivery and service economics with trains that:a. consume less fuel,b. require smaller crews, andc. offer superior acceleration and braking.

5. Explore potential to reduce offpeak service cost by replacing several buses with one train.

6. Explore potential synergies between new equipment and new operations contractor to improvecrew utilization in 2008 and beyond.

7. Explore strategies to tie expanded offpeak Lake Shore services with offpeak service on thebranches.

8. Improve shoulder peak and evening service offerings. Ridership on buses arriving in Torontoshortly after 9 am and on the buses departing Toronto shortly after the last train has left eachafternoon is growing larger and larger.



9. Explore and document options for expanding rail service to include midday, evening andweekend services on all its five branches. The Stouffville line is the most logical first branchfor expansion because it is owned by the transit agency and has very light freight utilization.Stouffville would be the subject line for this study as a possible model for other branches.

10. Explore opportunities for intermodal coordination at the joint TTC/GO Transit passengerfacility at Kennedy.

Study team review and analysis of these ten topics distilled the general list of topics into eightproject goals listed in Table 1.1. The relationship between these goals and the topics discussed withGO Transit managers is mapped in parenthetical numbers found in the Table 1.1.

It is notable that goals 1 through 5 relate to general service design considerations while goals 6through 8 specifically relate to the use of DMU or light DMU technologies.

Table 1.1:Project Goals and Objectives

1 Improve Offpeak Service:Explore and document options for expanding rail service to include midday, evening and weekend serviceon the Stouffville line as a prototype for all five GO Transit branches.(9)

Inform GO Transit and it stakeholders concerning its options for developing offpeak service on theStouffville Branch (and by extension other services). (2)

2 Improve Shoulder Peak ServiceImprove shoulder peak and evening service offerings. Bus ridership on late shoulders of the morning andafternoon peaks is expanding and may eclipse the capacity of buses currently assigned to these services.(8)

3 Streamline OperationsExplore potential to reduce offpeak service cost by replacing several buses with one train. (5)

4 Improve Intermodal ConnectionsExplore opportunities for intermodal coordination at the joint TTC/GO Transit passenger facility atKennedy. (10)

5 Improve Service CoordinationExplore strategies to tie expanded offpeak Lake Shore services with offpeak service on the branches. (7)

6 Explore Technical Feasibility of Light Rail ServiceExplore the feasibility of operating a light rail service on the Stouffville branch when GO trains to UnionStation are not operating. (1)

7 Reduce Costs and Improve EfficiencyExplore options to improve service delivery and service economics with trains that: consume less fuel,require smaller crews, and offer superior acceleration and braking (4)

Explore potential synergies between new equipment and new operations contractor to improve crewutilization in 2008 and beyond. (6)

8 Reduce Environmental Impacts:Explore technologies that reduce noise, vibration and pollution associated with push-pull service.(3)



Table 1.2:Project Goals and Objectives by Type

General Service Design Goals1 Improve Offpeak Service

2 Improve Shoulder Peak Service3 Streamline Operations4 Improve Intermodal Connections5 Improve Service Coordination

Vehicle Technology Specific Goals6 Explore Technical Feasibility of Light Rail Service7 Reduce Costs and Improve Efficiency8 Reduce Environmental Impacts:



CHAPTER 2: STOUFFVILLE BRANCH OPERATIONS AND INFRASTRUCTURE

This chapter describes the present operations and facilities along GO Transit’s Stouffville Branchcorridor stretching 61.3 miles (98 kilometers) from Scarborough Junction in the City of Toronto tothe End of Track in Durham Region. This study focuses on the portion of the corridor currentlyreceiving GO Transit Commuter Rail service, the southernmost 21.9 miles (35 kilometers) betweenScarborough Junction and Stouffville. The chapter describes the operations and traffic volumes ofthe railway within the study area limits. It also provides speed profiles and stringlines reflectingcurrent conditions and services.

Railroad infrastructure information presented includes: right-of-way width, grade crossings,ownership, maximum allowable speeds, number of tracks, track conditions, signal technology,interlockings, sidings and turnouts, dispatching and control, and terminals and yards. The data areassembled to provide the physical and operational information necessary to discern the conflicts,constraints, and opportunities present in the infrastructure, and the operational details of therailwayi.

The information presented in this report was developed with considerable assistance andcooperation from GO Transit management. Their contributions, essential to the success of theproject, are gratefully acknowledged.

The GO Transit Stouffville corridor is the southernmost of 21.9 route miles (35 route kilometers) ofa 61.3-mile (98-kilometer) rail corridor extending between Scarborough Junction and the End ofTrack in Durham Region. Scarborough Junction is at Milepost 61.0 with milepost numbersdecreasing as the line runs north. The town of Stouffville is at Milepost 40.6. North of Stouffville,the alignment continues to the town of Uxbridge at Milepost 28.5. The line is owned and operatedby GO Transit based in Toronto. Overall, GO Transit operates a predominantly peak-period onlycommuter rail operation with seven lines and 56 rail stations focusing on travel to downtownToronto with a hub at Toronto Union Station.

PASSENGER TRAIN OPERATIONSGO Transit operates 196 daily push-pull commuter rail trains. The Stouffville corridor train crewsand operating services are provided by the Canadian National Railway. Equipment maintenanceservices are provided by Bombardier.

Of the seven GO lines, only three lines (Lakeshore East and Lakeshore West, Georgetown) receiveall-day train service. The Lakeshore services operate between Burlington and Oshawa in theoffpeak (Trains 4xx and 9xx). The Georgetown service operates between Bramalea and UnionStation in the off-peak (Trains 2xx). Service Groups are listed in Table 2.1.



Table 2.1:GO Transit Service Groups and Their Characteristics

Outer Train Terminal Daily Train TripsServiceGroup

TrainNumbers

BusNumbers Peak Offpeak (AM) (Offpeak) (PM)

Milton 15x, 16x 21xxx Milton No OffpeakService

6 0 6

LakeshoreWest

4xx, 9xx 15xxx,18xxx

Hamilton Burlington 15 7 9

LakeshoreEast

4xx, 9xx 90xxx,91xxx

Oshawa Oshawa 12 8 12

Georgetown 20x, 21x,25x, 26x

31xxx,33xxx

Georgetown Bramalea 7 3 6

RichmondHill

83x 61xxx RichmondHill

No OffpeakService

4 0 5

Bradford 80x 65xxx,68xxx

Bradford No OffpeakService

4 0 4

Stouffville 86x, 87x 71xxx Stouffville No OffpeakService

5 0 5

GO Transit currently uses double-deck rail cars built by Bombardier, and passenger locomotivesbuilt by EMD and Wabtec MotivePower. In fares effective Saturday, October 21, 2006, an adultsingle one-way trip from Stouffville to Toronto Union Station costs Cdn$ 6.90. A day pass isavailable for Cdn$ 13.80. There is no weekend rail service on the Stouffville branch.



Figure 2.1:GO Transit System Map

Table 2.2:Fares from Stouffville Corridor GO Stations to Toronto Union

StationOriginating

Station Fare (Cdn$)Originating

Station Fare (Cdn$)Stoufville $6.90 Unionville $5.40Mount Joy $6.05 Milliken $5.20Markham $5.55 Agincourt $4.50Centennial $5.55 Kennedy $3.70

GO Train Service – GO Transit operates five morning inbound trips from Stouffville to Toronto.The trains make seven intermediate station stops: Mount Joy, Markham, Centennial, Unionville,Milliken, Agincourt, and Kennedy. The inbound trips depart Stouffville at 5.25 am, 6.04 am, 6.42am, 7.14 am, and 7.49 am, arriving in Toronto Union Station one hour and one minute later.



Figure 2.2A:GO Transit Stouffville Inbound Train and Bus Schedule

Five trains return from Union Station in the evening rush period. The outbound trips depart TorontoUnion Station at 4.18 pm, 4.48 pm, 5.20 pm, 6.00 pm, and 6.30 pm, arriving in Stouffville GOStation one hour and two minutes to one hour and six minutes later.



Figure 2.2B:GO Transit Stouffville Outbound Train and Bus Schedule

Between Kennedy Station, the southern-most stop on the Stouffville Branch, and Stouffville, GOTransit trains operate with a commercial velocity of 25mph (40 km/h).4 The commercial velocitybetween Stouffville and Toronto Union Station is 27.8 mph (45 km/h). The Stouffville trains travelexpress between Kennedy and Toronto, skipping two stops (Scarborough and Danforth) on theKingston Subdivision. Stouffville trains do not presently call at Scarborough Junction, making itimpossible to transfer to a Lakeshore East Line train at Scarborough.

4 The commercial velocity of most North American commuter rail services tend to range from a low of 25mph to a highof 35mph.



Nine trainsets operate Stouffville corridor service. Five train sets each operate one inboundStouffville train in the morning. Each starts at the Stouffville layover facility, travels to downtownToronto, and only one of the five returns in the evening peak period. The first and fourth trainsetsto leave Stouffville (at 5.25 am and 7.14 am) are re-cycled at Toronto Union Station to makeanother morning inbound trip on the Georgetown Line before laying over for the midday. In orderto operate the second inbound peak trip, these train sets must deadhead to Bramalea Station on theGeorgetown Line. The other three sets each make one inbound revenue trip every morning.

In the evening peak period five train sets each operate one outbound Stouffville trip. Only one ofthese five trains also operates a Stouffville trip in the morning, the other four sets are used for otherservices during the morning. Once a train returns to Stouffville, at the end of a pm peak outboundtrip, it is stored there overnight. Two of the trainsets are used for different services during the daybefore being sent out on its final trip of the day to Stouffville. From examination of equipmentcycles and revenue schedules, the study team concluded that the train operating Stouffville trip 864provides service on the Georgetown Line between 9:30 am and 3:57 pm before deadheading toToronto to operate trip 864. The last Stouffville train to leave Toronto operates an outbound trip onthe Richmond Hill Line before deadheading to Toronto to begin Stouffville trip 870.

The trainset turns are shown in Table 2.3.

Table 2.3:Stouffville Branch Trainset Turns

Stouffville

TrainNumber Direction

Pull OutTime

Pull OutLocation Turn Train Numbers (if any)

Consist(cars)

861 Inbound 0515 Stouffville 270 (Georgetown Line - Inbound) 8

863 Inbound 0554 Stouffville 8


867 Inbound 0704 Stouffville 252 (Georgetown Line - Inbound) 10


StouffvilleTrain

Number DirectionPull Out

TimePull OutLocation Prior Turn Train Numbers (if any)

Consist(cars)

862 Outbound 1535 Toronto 8

864 Outbound N/A Toronto 281 (Georgetown Line - Outbound) 8



870 Outbound 1610 Toronto 831 (Richmond Hill Line - Outbound) 8



GO Bus Service – At present, offpeak and weekend service on GO Transit’s commuter railnetwork is provided with buses. The commuter buses provide peak service between Uxbridge andStouffville, and offpeak service from Uxbridge to Toronto.

GO RIDERSHIPFigures 2.3 and 2.4 show the total number of passengers by inbound (southbound) or outbound(northbound) trip, respectively. Rail trips attract much higher ridership than bus trips.

Figure 2.3:Number of Passengers by Inbound Trip

GO Transit Stouffville ServicesInbound Passengers by Trip

-

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

7105

0

861

863

865

867

869

7121

0

7130

0

7136

0

7137

0

7139

0

7139

2

7140

0

7141

0

7143

0

7147

0

7150

0

7155

0

7157

0

7164

0

7166

0

7170

0

7178

0

7185

0

Trip Number

Pass

enge

rs

Bus PassengersRail Passengers

Figure 2.4:Number of Passengers by Outbound Trip

GO Transit Stouffville ServicesOutbound Passengers by Trip

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

7111

171

141

7117

1

7120

171

241

7128

1

7130

171

331

7135

1

7140

171

411

7142

1

7143

186

2

864

866

868

870

7166

1

7172

1

7174

171

751

7178

1

7179

171

823

7182

1

7184

371

841

7186

1

7187

1

7189

1

7191

1

7193

1

7196

1

Trip Number

Pass

enge

rs

Bus PassengersRail Passengers



Table 2.4 illustrates cumulative weekday inbound ridership as a percentage of total daily inboundridership for selected cities. The graph is intended to demonstrate the impact of offpeak rail serviceon ridership patterns. The green line shows observed GO Transit Stouffville-Toronto ridership withthe current service plan. It is clear that most of the ridership arrives at Toronto Union Station on thefive morning inbound trains; although a small number continue to trickle in on the buses throughoutthe remainder of the day, the five peak trains together account for 92% of the total daily ridership.

In Boston, where the offpeak train service is predominantly either hourly or two-hourly, the peakinbound ridership still account for almost all of the total daily inbound ridership. However, theoffpeak ridership is much more substantial than the 8% in Toronto. The inbound ridership after themorning peak period accounts for 16% of the daily total.

Table 2.4:Ratios of Peak and Offpeak Inbound Ridership in Selected Cities

CityStouffville-

Toronto Boston Philadelphia

Typical Peak Train Frequency Half hourly Half hourly Half hourly

Typical Offpeak Train Frequency NoneHourly or bi-

hourly Half hourly or hourly

Peak Inbound Ridership as % ofDaily Total 92% 84% 65%

Offpeak Inbound Ridership as % ofDaily Total 8% 16% 35%

In Philadelphia, where the offpeak train service is half-hourly or hourly, the peak inbound ridership,while still dominant, is no longer an overwhelming part of the total daily ridership. Trains arrivingbetween 6:30 am and 9:30 am at one of the three Center-City stations account for 65% of total dailyridership. The remaining 35% of inbound ridership arrive after the morning rush hours.



Figure 2.5:Inbound Commuter Rail Riders in Selected Cities by Time of Day

Figures 2.6 and 2.7 illustrate cumulative ridership over the day for inbound and outbound service,respectively. From these graphs it is evident that the majority of all Stouffville corridor transitpassengers travel during the peaks on the five morning inbound and five afternoon outbound trains.

Figure 2.6:Cumulative Inbound Boardings by Time

GO Transit Stouffville ServicesInbound Weekday Passenger Travel

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

5:00

6:00

7:00

8:00

9:00

10:0

0

11:0

0

12:0

0

13:0

0

14:0

0

15:0

0

16:0

0

17:0

0

18:0

0

19:0

0

20:0

0

21:0

0

22:0

0

Time at Union Station

Cum

ulat

ive

Wee

kday

Boa

rdin

gs

Cumulative PassengersRail Passengers

Inbound Commuter Rail Ridersin Selected Cities by Time of Day

(Arrival Times at City Center)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 9:00 10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00 21:00 22:00 23:00 0:00

Time of DayCum

ulat

ive

Dai

ly R

ider

s

BostonPhiladelphiaStouffville-Toronto



Figure 2.7:Cumulative Outbound Boardings by Time

GO Transit Stouffville ServicesOutbound Weekday Passenger Travel

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

7:30

8:30

9:30

10:3

0

11:3

0

12:3

0

13:3

0

14:3

0

15:3

0

16:3

0

17:3

0

18:3

0

19:3

0

20:3

0

21:3

0

22:3

0

23:3

0

0:30

Time at Union Station

Cum

ulat

ive

Wee

kday

Boa

rdin

gs

Cumulative PassengersRail Passengers

Rail Ridership by Station – Table 2.5 shows the number of boardings per station for inboundtrains. Table 2.6 presents alighting passengers per station for outbound trains. Approximately 25 %of all Stouffville GO Transit rail passengers access the service through the Unionville GO Station.

Table 2.5:Inbound Rail Boardings by Station

Trip #StartTime St

ouffv

ille

Mou

nt J

oy

Mar

kham

Cen

tenn

ial

Uni

onvi

lle

Mill

iken

Agi

ncou

rt

Ken

nedy

Toronto Total861 5:25 AM 9 22 22 17 33 6:20 AM 103863 6:04 AM 37 94 93 75 141 72 57 3 7:05 AM 572865 6:42 AM 85 213 209 169 320 162 130 12 7:43 AM 1300867 7:14 AM 111 281 276 222 421 213 170 17 8:16 AM 1711869 7:49 AM 90 227 222 180 341 172 138 20 8:50 AM 1390

Total 332 837 822 663 1256 619 495 52 5076Percent of Total 7% 17% 17% 14% 26% 13% 10% 1% 100%



Table 2.6:Outbound Rail Disembarkations by Station

Trip # Toronto Ken

nedy

Agi

ncou

rt

Mill

iken

Uni

onvi

lle

Cen

tenn

ial

Mar

kham

Mou

nt J

oy

Stou

ffvill

e

EndTime Total

862 4:18 PM 8 94 117 232 122 152 154 61 5:20 PM 940864 4:48 PM 13 109 137 270 143 177 180 71 5:50 PM 1100866 5:20 PM 22 149 186 367 194 241 245 97 6:26 PM 1501868 6:00 PM 11 81 101 201 106 131 134 53 7:06 PM 818870 6:30 PM 3 45 57 112 59 73 75 30 7:32 PM 454

Total 57 478 598 1182 624 774 788 312 4813Percent of Total 1% 10% 12% 25% 13% 16% 16% 6% 100%

Not documented above is that nearly all (98%) but 93 (2%) inbound passengers are destined forToronto. All 93 exceptions alight at Kennedy Station where they can transfer to the TTC subwayservice. Over 50% of rail passengers board in the towns of Markham and Unionville.

Bus Ridership by Fare Zone – Table 2.7 presents information on the number of inboundpassengers boarding buses in each fare zone. Uxbridge and Goodwood, in fare zones 76 and 75respectively, receive only bus service. Stouffville, Mount Joy, Markham, Centennial, andUnionville (fare zones 74 through 71) receive rail service in the peak periods, and bus services atother times. Milliken, Agincourt, and Kennedy (fare zones 70, 7, and 77) are train stops during thepeak period, but do not receive offpeak bus service.



Table 2.7:Bus Ridership by Fare Zone

Bus

Tri

pN

umbe

r

Star

t Tim

e

Fare

Zon

e 76

Uxb

ridg

e

Fare

Zon

e 75

Goo

dwoo

d

74 Stou

ffvill

e

73 Dic

kson

’s H

illM

ount

Joy

72 Mar

kham

Cen

tenn

ial

71 Mar

kvill

e M

all

Uni

onvi

lle

Tor

onto

Arr

ival

Tim

e

Total71050 4:55 4 6 6 10 5:53 2671090 5:29 9 0 1 Transfer to rail service 7:05 1071130 6:07 13 0 1 Transfer to rail service 7:43 1471160 6:39 7 0 3 Transfer to rail service 8:16 1071180 7:14 14 1 1 Transfer to rail service 8:50 1671210 8:05 5 1 7 5 4 9:40 2271300 8:45 30 1 9:40 3171360 9:00 7 9 5 10:06 2171370 9:20 15 19 10:17 3471390 9:30 10 9 5 10:25 2471392 9:53 4 9 10:36 1371400 9:45 5 0 6 6 7 11:00 2471410 10:28 14 9 11:11 2371430 10:30 3 3 8 8 11:36 2271470 11:00 4 3 20 6 12:06 3371500 11:45 1 0 4 6 13 14 13:11 3871550 13:00 2 5 7 4 14:11 1871570 13:30 3 1 0 3 10 10 15:01 2771640 15:15 5 3 8 6 16:32 2271660 15:45 7 0 10 1 10 2 17:27 3071700 16:45 6 5 10 10 18:28 3171780 18:35 3 0 4 1 1 1 20:16 1071850 20:20 0 0 2 1 21:41 3

Total 67 3 78 65 179 110 502% of Total 13% 1% 16% 13% 36% 22% 100%

The data relates that over 50% of bus passengers board in the towns of Markham and Unionville(fare zone 71 and 72). It is notable that no bus operates above normal seating capacity.

FUTURE RIDERSHIPProjections of future ridership along the Stouffville Branch have been prepared by GO TransitPlanning Staff5. Regardless of improvements in offpeak service for the branch, ridership isexpected to grow by 35% in the next decade.

5 Forecasts based on study forecast prepared in 2005 by Peter Dalton Consulting, Summary provided byDan Francey, GO Transit Planning June 15, 2007



Stouffville BranchRidership Projections by Station

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

5,000

5,500

6,000

6,500

Stouffville Mount Joy Markham Centennial Unionville Milliken Agincourt Kennedy

2006 Actual2015 BaselineHourly Off Peak Service (2015)Half Hourly Off Peak Service (2015)

Table 2.8:Forecast Ridership by Station

2006Actual

2015Baseline

HourlyOffpeakService(2015)

Half HourlyOffpeakService(2015)

Stouffville 664 921 1,437 1,677Mount Joy 1674 2,606 4,065 4,742Markham 1644 1,935 3,018 3,521Centennial 1326 2,013 3,141 3,664Unionville 2512 3,486 5,438 6,344Milliken 1238 1,443 2,250 2,625Agincourt 990 1,154 1,800 2,099Kennedy 104 157 245 286Total 10,152 13,714 21,394 24,960

With the hourly direct offpeak rail service to Toronto Union Station, GO Transit’s forecast expectsthat overall 2015 daily ridership on the line will increase by 111% compared with current ridershipand 56% compared with the future baseline. Offpeak service is expected to stimulate both peak andoffpeak ridership. With hourly direct offpeak service the ridership on offpeak trains is forecast tobe 3,566. Just as importantly the availability of offpeak service is expected to attract 4,114 newpeak riders, representing a 30% increase in peak ridership.

Figure 2.8:Stouffville Branch Ridership Projections by Station



With the possible addition of half-hourly offpeak rail service, GO Transit forecasts that offpeakridership in 2015 would swell to 7,131 offpeak passenger trips with no appreciable impact on peakridership.

Figure 2.9:Stouffville Branch Ridership Forecasts by Time of Day

Stouffvillle BranchRiderhip Forecasts by Time of Day

10,152

13,714

17,829 17,829

0

0

3,566 7,131

0

2,500

5,000

7,500

10,000

12,500

15,000

17,500

20,000

22,500

25,000

2006 Actual 2015 Baseline Hourly Off PeakService (2015)

Half Hourly Off PeakService (2015)

Off PeakPeak

These forecasts have several implications concerning line capacity and the costs of providingoffpeak service on the branch.

First, in the absence of any improvements to offpeak service, ridership is expected to growin the next eight years to generate demand for 1,781 more peak seats each morning andafternoon.Second, the provision of offpeak connecting service using DMUs on the branch will requirethe acquisition and maintenance of a small fleet of self-powered vehicles for the StouffvilleBranch.Third, the offpeak service enhancements would generate demand for additional 2,057 peakseats on trains to Toronto each morning and each evening, that would not be present withoutthe offpeak service enhancements.

PASSENGER TRAIN CAPACITY AND DEMANDAt present, Train 865 and Train 867 are over capacity, with load factors of 102% and 107% at peakload point respectively. The remaining trains have excess capacity. The capacity utilizationdiagram is shown in Figure 2.10. Trains 861 and 870 operate with especially high levels of excesscapacity.



Figure 2.10:Capacity Utilization at Peak Load Point

Capacity Utilization at Peak Load Point (AM)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

Train 869

Train 867

Train 865

Train 863

Train 861

Passengers

Occupied SeatsAvailable Seats

Standees

Capacity Utilization at Peak Load Point (PM)

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

Train 870

Train 868

Train 866

Train 864

Train 862

Passengers

Occupied SeatsAvailable Seats

Standees

Trains 861, 863, and 870, which provide service on the fringe of the peak, operate with substantialexcess capacity. These trips may be good candidates for DMU service, which is typically operatedin shorter trains.



Table 2.9:Peak Load Point Capacity Table

TrainNumber

Arrival Timein Toronto

Number ofCoaches

SeatsAvailable

Peak PointRidership

CapacityUtilization

861 6:20 8 1,263 103 8%863 7:05 8 1,263 569 45%865 7:43 8 1,263 1,288 102%867 8:16 10 1,585 1,694 107%869 8:50 10 1,585 1,370 86%

TrainNumber

DepartureTime from

TorontoNumber of

CoachesSeats

AvailablePeak PointRidership

CapacityUtilization

862 16:18 8 1,263 940 36%864 16:48 10 1,585 1,100 65%866 17:20 10 1,585 1,501 95%867 18:00 8 1,263 818 69%870 18:30 8 1,263 454 74%

RAILROAD INFRASTRUCTUREOwnership and Control – GO Transit is the current owner and operator of the Stouffville corridoras part of its overall 223.8 mile (358 kilometer) system with 196 daily trains stretching from theCity of Hamilton to the West, Oshawa in Durham Region to the East, and Bradford in SimcoeCounty to the North. The Toronto area commuter rail started in 1967 with the Lakeshore corridorand has been expanding ever since. GO Transit began operating service on the Stouffville Line in1982, when the formerly once-daily VIA service was abandoned. GO Transit purchased theStouffville corridor from the Canadian National Railway in 2002.

Headquartered in Toronto, Ontario in Canada, the GO Transit today serves about 48 million peopleper year. Much of GO Transit’s operation (about 70%) is outsourced to private contractors.Services as diverse as train operation; train maintenance; track and signal operations andmaintenance; design; construction; and snow removal are provided by contractors.

GO Transit trains are operated under contract by Canadian National Railway (CNR) and CanadianPacific Railway (CPR) personnel.6 The railways own two-thirds of the rail corridors and tracks thatGO Transit operates on. The remaining one-third is owned by GO Transit. The railways have along-standing relationship with GO Transit. The Stouffville service is operated by the CanadianNational Railway.

Right of Way – Within the limits of the study area, Scarborough Junction to Stouffville, thecorridor generally consists of a 50-foot (15.3-meter) wide railway right of way. The verticalprofile of the line has a ruling mainline grade of 2.0% near the crossing of the CN York Subdivision

6 CN is no longer interested in operating GO services. GO Transit is presently soliciting for a contractor to replace thetrain operations functions that had been historically provided by CN.



near Unionville GO Station (MP 51.2). The typical grade on the line is between 1.0% and 1.5%,with 11 segments where 1.5% is exceeded.

Track and Signal – The present track configuration of the Stouffville corridor is primarily a singletrack 50 mph (80 km/h) railway. There is one short siding at Underwood (MP 52.1), presumablyused as a CN local freight train run-around.

There are no train control signals on the Stouffville Branch.Between Scarborough Junction and Reeves Way in Markham (MP 41.3), the railway iscontrolled using Occupancy Control System (OCS), or Régulation de l’Occupation de laVoie (ROV). The maximum permissible passenger speed is 50 mph (80 km/h). Themaximum permissible freight speed is 25 mph (40 km/h).

North of Reeves Way MP 41.3 (Kilometerpost 66.1), the railway is governed underCanadian Railway Operating Rule 105.7 The maximum permissible passenger speed is 30mph (48 km/h). The maximum permissible freight speed is 15 mph (24 km/h). All trainmovements are controlled by CNR dispatchers. Between Toronto and Scarborough Junctionon the main line, Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) is in use.

7 “Unless otherwise provided by signal indication, a train or engine using other than a main track mustoperate at reduced speed and be prepared to stop short of the red flag or the red light”.



Track Configuration MP Feature

38.50 Storage Tracks

38.90 GO/YDHR Boundary38.93 10th Line38.95 Bethesda Road39.40 Farm Crossing40.30 Millard St.40.39 Stouffville Creek

40.60 GO Stouffville40.72 Main Street41.73 Reeves Way42.04 19th Avenue42.25 Farm Xing42.35 9th Concession Rd.42.47 Private Crossing43.40 Creek42.91 Private Crossing43.46 Elgin Mills Rd. E.43.65 Farm Crossing44.40 Farm Crossing44.70 Little Rouge River44.97 Major Mackenzie Drive45.74 Bur-Oak Road45.80 GO Mount Joy46.31 16th Avenue46.95 Highway 4847.00 GO Markham47.17 Snider Drive47.30 Snider Creek48.17 Creek48.38 Markham Rd.48.50 GO Centennial48.80 Drain49.10 Creek49.42 Kennedy Rd. 349.60 Rouge River49.85 Main St., Unionville49.94 Eureka St.50.10 Stream50.15 Highway 750.30 Creek50.70 Stream50.70 GO Unionville51.05 Farm Crossing51.10 Stream

Track Configuration MP Feature51.10 CN Hagerman

No Access to York Sub.51.50 14th Avenue51.80 Stream51.98 Denison Ave52.01

CN Underwood52.2152.3452.40 Kennedy Rd. 352.82 Steeles Avenue52.70 GO Milliken53.20 Passmore Avenue

53.34 Kennedy Logistics53.89 H.E.P.C.54.06 Atlantic Packaging53.61 McNicoll Avenue54.41 Finch Ave.54.88 Huntingwood Drive55.16 Havendale Road55.44 Marilyn Avenue55.50 GO Agincourt55.73 Sheppard Avenue55.99 West Highland Creek

56.00 CP Belleville Sub.

56.60 West Highland Creek

56.65 Atlantic Packaging56.66 West Highland Creek56.74 Progress Avenue

56.87 TTC Ellesmere56.99 Sunoco

57.86 Scepter Manufacturing57.90 Shah Trading (Inactive)57.93 Shah Trading57.97 SW Highland Creek

58.29 TTC Lawrence

59.50 GO KennedyTTC Kennedy

59.65 GECO Branch59.94 Corvette Avenue60.18 Danforth Avenue60.66 St. Clair Avenue E.

60.70 GO Scarborough Jct.61.00 CN Scarborough

Jct. Kingston Sub.



All but 0.5-miles of study area mainline track is constructed with continuous welded rail (CWR)using rail in the general range of 100 to 132 pounds per linear yard (50 to 66 kilograms per linearmeter) of rail. There is a short section of 132 pounds (66 kilograms per linear meter) jointed railbetween MP 60.5 and MP 61 near Scarborough Junction. North of Stouffville, where GO does notprovide service, the line is jointed rail. All ties are fabricated with wood.

A passenger speed profile for the corridor is found in Figure 2.11. For the purposes of developing alight rail service competitive with automobile travel it is very notable that the current maximumallowable speed along the line never exceeds 50 mph (80 km/h). It is especially notable that speedsalong the potentially critical segment between Unionville and Scarborough Junction arepredominantly 40 mph (64 km/h). The segment between Agincourt and Scarborough Junction is themost heavily patronized portion on this route (the peak load point). All passengers bound forKennedy or Toronto from all points on the Stouffville Branch must pass through this section. Yetthis is the longest ‘slow’ section on the entire line, requiring nine minutes to traverse 5.2 miles (8.3km). For many passenger service options that may be considered in this study, track, signal andcrossing improvements may be desirable to raise the maximum allowable speeds for passengertrains.

The horizontal profile of the track is generally curvaceous with many mainline curves exceedingthree degrees. There are 42 discrete curves between Scarborough Junction at MP 61 and end of GOTransit territory in Stouffville at MP 39, or two curves per mile (1.25 curves/km).8

The speed profile was developed using the track safety standards as defined in the U.S. Code ofFederal Regulations, Title 49, Part 213 (49 CFR 213). Curvature information was derived from theCN Great Lakes Region Engineering Data (February 18, 2002). The curvature data was translateddirectly into a curvature speed constraint using Table 2.10, at three inches of elevation and threeinches of cant deficiency. (Actual design speeds may vary depending on the actual outer railelevation achieved and length of transition available.) The maximum speed was further constrainedto 60 mph based on the assumption that track would be maintained to standards equivalent to FRAClass 3 track. The FRA Track Classification Standards (as per Subpart 9) are detailed in Table2.11.

8 Between Stouffville (MP 39) and Uxbridge (MP 28.5), the mainline is curvaceous, with curvature exceeding fivedegrees in many places. The line is particularly tortuous in this segment, where 13 curves of more than six degrees arefound in a 10-mile (16-kilometer) stretch. North of Uxbridge (MP 28.5), the horizontal profile of the track is generallytangent with no mainline curve exceeding three degrees, in the northernmost part of the line. The impacts of many ofthese turtuous curves are easily identified in the speed profile below.



Table 2.10:Maximum Permissible Curving Speeds as per 49

CFR 213, Subpart 57

Degrees ofCurvature

MaximumAuthorized

Speed(mph) 9

Degrees ofCurvature

MaximumAuthorized

Speed(mph)

0.00 150 2.50 590.25 131 2.75 560.50 113 3.00 540.75 101 3.25 511.00 93 3.50 501.25 83 3.75 481.50 76 4.00 461.75 70 4.50 442.00 66 5.00 412.25 62 5.50 40

The two constraints interact to give rise to the maximum speeds shown in red in Figure 2.11. Ontangent track Class 3 track maintenance standards constrain safe operating speed to 60 mph. Ontrack where curvature exceeds 2.5 degrees, trains must slow down to reduce the lateral forces whilecurving, thereby preventing overspeed derailments.

Table 2.11:FRA Track Class and Associated Maximum Permissible Speeds

FRATrackClass

MaximumFreightSpeed

MaximumPassenger

Speed

FRATrackClass

MaximumFreightSpeed

MaximumPassenger

SpeedExcepted 10 Not Permitted Class 3 40 60Class 1 10 15 Class 4 60 80Class 2 25 30 Class 5 80 90

Inspection of the speed profile relative to station location suggests that raising the maximumallowable speed (exclusive of curve restrictions) on the branch south of Mount Joy might be afruitful strategy to improve overall service velocity and mobility on the GO Transit service. Inparticular, lifting the civil restriction of 40 mph south of Agincourt may be especially attractive inspeeding service for the highest volume of passengers. Restrictions due to curvature near MPs 51,52, 54 and 58 were explored to determine if further travel time improvements could be made.

9 As per 49 CFR Part 213, Subpart 57(b)(2), at 3” Unbalance and 3” Elevation.



Figure 2.11:Speed Profile

Line Curvature

-6.0

-4.0

-2.0

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

Degrees of Curvature

Maximum Allowable Speeds

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Class 3 Maximum PermissibleCurrent GO SpeedsPassenger StationGrade Crossing

Stou

fville

Moun

t Joy

Mar

kham

Cente

nnial

Union

ville

Millik

en

Aginc

ourt

Kenn

edy

Scar

burg

h

For the Stouffville Branch, 41 distinct curves totaling 5.6 miles (9.0 km) in length, constrain themaximum speed to below 60 mph. These 41 curves represent 26% of the total 21.9 miles (35 km)of track on the active passenger service portion of the Stouffville Branch.



Bridges – The line crosses over 17 bodies of water in the 21.9-mile (35-km) stretch currentlyoperated by GO Transit. Of these water crossings, seven are bridges. Others are an assortment ofbox culverts, channels, and other types of water crossings. There are no drawbridges or movablebridges on this line.

Grade Crossings – There are 39 locations over the 21.9-mile (35-kilometer) stretch operated byGO Transit where highways or paths cross the railway at grade. Overall, the density of gradecrossings is 1.76 crossings per mile (1.1 crossings per km). The density of crossings is generallyequally distributed, except in the section where GO Transit shares the right-of-way with TorontoTransit Commission’s subway line (Between MP 56.8 and MP 59.9). There are no grade crossingsin this 3.1-mile (5 km) stretch of railroad.

Table 2.12:Grade Crossing Counts by Section

BeginMilepost

EndMilepost

Distance(Kilometers)

Number ofCrossings

Crossing Density(per Kilometer)

38.8 40.0 1.7 3 1.840.0 45.0 8.0 14 1.845.0 50.0 8.0 14 1.850.0 55.0 8.0 13 1.755.0 60.0 8.0 7 0.960.0 61.0 1.6 1 0.6

Grade crossings provide opportunities for conflict between railroad operations and other traffic.Increasing the density of trains on the rail corridor without reducing the number of crossings, takingmeasures to modify motorist behavior or improving crossing safety would likely increase thefrequency of collisions, accidental injuries and fatalities.

All public highway and pedestrian crossings in the GO Transit service area on the Stouffville Lineare protected with Flashers, Lights, Bells, and Gates (FLBG). Four of the forty crossings featureincreased traffic volumes and an upgraded Cantilever Gate protection device (FLBCG). Seven ofthe forty crossings are private farm crossings equipped with other types of protection devices.



Table 2.13:List of Grade Crossings

MP Name Type

# ofTrks

# ofTrfc

Lanes

Max.Auth.Speed(Psgr) Whistles

Deg. ofNearestCurve

Dist.from

NearestCurve(feet)

Directionfrom

Curve toCrossing

38.93 Tenth Line FLBG 1 2 15 Yes 4.75 6705 SB38.95 Bethesda Rd FLBG 1 2 15 Yes 4.75 6705 SB39.40 Private Xing Farm 1 1 30 Yes40.20 Millard St. FLBG 1 2 30 Yes 4.75 0 On curve40.72 Main St. FLBG 1 2 Stop and

ProceedYes 1.50 950 SB

41.73 Reeves Way FLBG 1 0 50 Yes42.04 19th Avenue FLBG 1 2 50 Yes 3.37 0 On curve42.25 Farm Xing Farm 1 1 50 Yes42.35 9th

ConcessionRd

FLBG 1 2 50 Yes 3.37 0 Crossingon Curve

42.47 Private Xing Farm 1 1 50 Yes42.91 Private Xing Farm 1 1 50 Yes43.46 Elgin Mills FLBG 1 2 40 Yes43.65 Farm Xing Farm 1 1 40 Yes44.40 Farm Xing Farm 1 1 50 Yes44.97 Major

MackenzieFLBG 1 4 50 Yes 4.00 0 NB

45.74 Bur-Oak Road FLBG1 4

RadioActivated

(50)

Yes 2.00 420 NB

46.31 16th Ave.,Markham

FLBG 1 4 50 Yes 2.00 1430 SB

46.95 Highway 48 FLBCG1 4

PlungerActivated

(25)

Yes 5.62 0 Crossingon Curve

47.17 Snider Drive FLBG1 2

RadioActivated

(25)


48.38 Markham Rd. FLBG1 4

RadioActivated

(50)

Yes 0.50 950 SB

49.42 Kennedy Rd. FLBG 1 4 50 Yes 1.63 260 SB49.85 Main Street FLBG 1 2 50 Yes 4.12 420 NB49.94 Eureka St. FLBG 1 2 50 Yes 4.12 0 Crossing

on Curve50.15 Highway 7 FLBCG 1 4 50 Yes 4.12 260 SB51.05 Farm Xing Farm 1 1 35 Yes 3.25 790 NB51.50 14th Avenue FLBG 1 4 50 Yes 3.25 740 SB51.98 Denison Ave FLBG 1 4 50 Yes 2.50 630 SB52.40 Kennedy Rd. FLBG 1 4 50 Yes 4.00 1380 NB52.82 Steeles Ave FLBG 1 4 Plunger No 4.00 0 Crossing



Table 2.13:List of Grade Crossings

MP Name Type

# ofTrks

# ofTrfc

Lanes

Max.Auth.Speed(Psgr) Whistles

Deg. ofNearestCurve

Dist.from

NearestCurve(feet)

Directionfrom

Curve toCrossing

Activated(50)

on Curve

53.20 Passmore Ave FLBG 1 4 50 No 4.00 1690 SB53.61 McNicoll

AvenueFLBG 1 4 50 No 2.62 2960 NB

54.41 Finch Ave. FLBCG 1 4 50 No 2.12 0 NB54.88 Huntingwood

DriveFLBG 1 4 50 No 2.12 1380 SB

55.16 Havendale Rd FLBG 1 2 50 No 2.12 2800 SB55.44 Marilyn Ave FLBG 1 Ped. 50 Yes55.73 Sheppard Ave FLBCG

1 4Radio

Activated(40)


56.74 Progress Ave FLBG 1 4 40 Yes 2.25 950 NB59.94 Corvette Ave FLBG 1 Ped. 40 Yes 3.62 0 Crossing

on Curve60.18 Danforth Ave FLBG 1 4 40 Yes 3.62 260 SB60.66 Unknown FLBG 1 Not

found 40 Yes 3.87 790 SB

Sight Lines on Curves – To improve the sight lines at grade crossings, several strategies arepossible:

1. Curvature of the line may be reduced through curve realignment, which would also improveoperating speeds.

2. Visibility can be improved by reducing visual obstruction (such as trees and man-madestructures).

Figure 2.12 shows an example at Millard Street (MP 40.20) where the railway curves 4.75 degreecurve immediately south of the grade crossing. The potential to realign the curve is constrained byresidences on Ironwood Crescent, making it difficult to relax the curve to less than 4.75 degreeswithout introducing reverse curvature further south. However, the wooded area in the south-westquadrant could be trimmed, allowing the operator full visibility of crossing traffic up to 800 ft southof the fouling point.



Figure 2.12:Eliminating Wooded Areas Can Improve Visibility

200 ft200 ft200 ft

Whistles at Grade Crossings – Canadian Railway Operation Rules (CROR), Rule 14(l) requires astandard whistle pattern of long-long-short-long to be sounded at the following locations:

i. At every whistle post.ii. At least one-quarter of a mile from every public crossing at grade, (except within limits as

may be prescribed in special instructions) to be prolonged or repeated according to the speedof the movement until the crossing is fully occupied by the engine or cars.

iii. At frequent intervals when view is restricted by weather, curvature or other conditions.

Six grade crossings are governed by special whistle rules under By-law 25009. These specialcrossings are: McNicoll Avenue, Steeles Avenue, Passmore Avenue, Finch Avenue, HuntingwoodDrive, and Havendale Road. CROR Rule 14(l) Part (iv) reportedly applies at these crossings. It isunderstood that these crossings are located within municipal quiet zones and therefore are exemptfrom routine whistle blowing.10

Seven crossings have special instructions that enginepersons must follow:

10 Telephone Interview with GO Transit Chief of Rail Operations, July 11, 2007 at 15:34 hours.



Table 2.14:Special Instructions for Grade Crossings on the Stouffville Line

Milepost Crossing Name NearbyStation Special Instruction

40.72 Highway 47 Stouffville All movements must STOP and manually protectcrossing unless the crossing devices are activated.

45.74 Bur Oak Road Mount Joy Northbound movements stopping at Mount Joy mustactivate crossing by radio.

46.95 Highway 48 Markham Northbound movements making station stop must usethe START push button on platform to activatecrossing.

47.17 Snider Drive Markham Southbound movements must activate crossing by radio.48.38 McCowan Road Centennial Northbound movements making station stop at

Centennial must activate crossing via radio.52.82 Steeles Avenue Milliken Southbound movements must use START button on

station platform to activate crossing.55.73 Sheppard Avenue Agincourt Southbound movements must activate crossing using

radio.

All special instructions relate to activation of crossings either by push button, radio, or throughmanual crossing protection procedures. Radio or plunger activated crossings occur at all but twostations in at least one direction. Kennedy and Unionville do not feature manually activated gradecrossings.

POTENTIAL FOR INCREASED LINE SPEEDThe existing passenger speed profile was used to simulate current Stouffville operations. Afterdeveloping running times based on the current GO transit speed limits and equipment, JEG exploredopportunities to increase speeds and reduce travel times. In general, several techniques can be usedto reduce passenger rail journey times:

Improving acceleration and deceleration characteristics of vehiclesReducing the number of station stops or reducing station dwell timesIncreasing track speed:

o Reevaluate civil speed restrictions,o Reduce curves that limit speeds through minor track realignment,o Relax speed restrictions by increasing elevation,ii lengthening spirals, and generally

redesigning track structure without realigning a curve,o Relax speed restrictions for certain classes of vehiclesiii by allowing higher

underbalance (cant deficiency),iv

o Upgrade track class to improve operating speeds,o Upgrade switches and turnouts, oro Upgrade signaling equipment to reduce signal-related delays.

Some of the techniques for reducing passenger rail journey time listed above are not applicable tothis project. For example, station stops cannot be reduced without affecting the existing Go Transit



patrons. Operations on the line call for a plant designed in line with typical commuter/freightrailroad shared-track practice. An increase in elevation, for example, could cause difficulty forheavy freight cars. Increased cant deficiency and acceleration/braking characteristics haveimplications for passenger comfort due to higher g-forces experienced by customers. Signalequipment is not a substantial issue as the Stouffville Line is managed through Occupancy ControlSystems (OCS).

To assess possible journey time reductions, JEG reviewed current operations and created eightexploratory scenarios. The nine alternatives evaluated (baseline plus eight exploratory scenarios)investigate three types of passenger rail vehicles and three Stouffville line speed profiles.

Equipment Types Evaluated - Two types of vehicles were considered: existing push-pull consistsand train sets comprised entirely of DMUs.

1. Push-Pull – Stouffville GO Transit service is currently operated by eight and ten car push-pull consists. Of the three types of equipment assessed, these diesel locomotive hauled trainsets would achieve the slowest rate of acceleration and deceleration.

2. DMU Only– Stouffville offpeak service could be operated by train sets of all DMUs. Of thethree equipment scenarios, this alternative would require the greatest investment in newrolling stock and would achieve the fastest rates of acceleration and deceleration.

Table 2.15:Sample Acceleration/Deceleration Characteristics of Different Train

ConsistsTime to accelerate to and then decelerate from:

20 mph(mm:ss)

40 mph(mm:ss)

60 mph(mm:ss)

Push-pull 00:45 01:40 02:50DMU Only 00:20 00:47 01:31



Stouffville Line Speed Profiles Evaluated - JEG evaluated three speed profiles for the Stouffvillebranch.

1. Current GO Speeds – A passenger speed profile for the corridor is found in Figure 2.11. Itis notable that the current maximum allowable speed between Stouffville and ScarboroughJunction never exceeds 50 mph. It is especially notable that speeds along the high trafficsegment between Unionville and Scarborough Junction are predominantly 40 mph.

2. Current Class 3 Speeds – Because current Stouffville line speeds are restricted below themaximum speeds typically allowed on Class 3 track, JEG investigated raising the civil speedrestrictions to the maximum allowed by Class 3 standards11. The maximum speed allowedby a specific class of track, is mainly determined by the track’s curvature. The horizontalprofile of the Stouffville track is generally curvaceous with many mainline curves exceedingthree degrees. There are 42 discrete curves between Scarborough Junction at MP 61 and theend of GO Transit territory in Stouffville at MP 39, or two curves per mile.

In cases where the curvature of the line causes speed limits to rise and fall considerablywithin a short distance, for example between MP 43 and MP 44, it was assumed that speedswould be capped at the lowest allowable speed for that short section of track. The resultingspeed profile is presented in Figure 2.13.

11 For three sections of track, the current line speed allowed by GO Transit is higher than those allowed under assumedClass 3 standards. In these cases (MP 48.9-49, MP 49.8-49.94 and MP 52.7) the current, higher speed limit wasassumed for the Class 3 profile. In this way the relative benefit of raising the civil speed restrictions on the Stouffvillebranch can be apparent.



Figure 2.13: Current Class 3 Speed ProfileMaximum Allowable Speeds

10

20

30

40

50

60

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Class 3 Maximum PermissibleCurrent GO SpeedsPassenger StationGrade CrossingAssumed Class 3 Operating Speeds

Stou

ffville

Moun

t Joy

Markh

am

Cent

ennia

l

Union

ville

Millik

en

Aginc

ourt

Kenn

edy

Scar

boro

ugh

A significant advantage of the Class 3 speed profile over the current speed profile iselimination of the 40 mph speed limit that stretches from Agincourt Station to ScarboroughJunction. Typical Class 3 safety standards would allow speeds between Agincourt andKennedy stations to be 10 to 20 mph higher. Current speeds may be limited to 40 mph dueto the density of grade crossings and development along this section of track. Because 99%of all inbound trips include the section between Agincourt and Kennedy Stations, raisingthis 40 mph speed restriction would reduce travel times for the highest volume of riders.

3. Realigned Class 3 Speeds – Preliminary inspection of speed profiles relative to stationlocation suggested that realignment of track curves could be a fruitful strategy to improvingoverall service velocity. Because trains must travel slowly into and out of stations,improving the curvature on portions of track adjacent to stations would have little effect onservice velocity. JEG identified three curves, South of Unionville, where realignment couldpotentially improve running times on the Stouffville Line:

I. MP 51.6 – 51.8: Replacing this 2.5 degree curve with a two degree curve wouldincrease the maximum allowable speed to 60 mph on this section.

II. MP 54.2: Replacing this 2.617 degree curve with a two degree curve wouldincrease the maximum allowable speed to 60 mph on this section.

III. MP 58.1: Replacing this 2.867 degree curve with a two degree curve wouldincrease the maximum allowable speed to 60 mph on this section.



Because realignment of track curvature can be expensive and detrimental to service, onlycurves that impact substantial volumes of passengers were considered for realignment.According to survey data, 56% of all inbound riders board at, or south of, Unionville station.Therefore, no curves north of Unionville were evaluated for potential running time savings.

Figure 2.14 illustrates a potential enhanced speed profile for the Stouffville line, assumingclass three track and two degree curves on the three sections listed above.

Figure 2.14: Realigned Class 3 Speed ProfileMaximum Allowable Speeds

10

20

30

40

50

60

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61

Class 3 Maximum PermissibleCurrent GO SpeedsPassenger StationGrade CrossingRealigned Class 3 Speeds

Stou

ffville

Moun

t Joy

Markh

am

Cente

nnial

Union

ville

Millik

en

Aginc

ourt

Kenn

edy

Scar

boro

ugh

Methodology - Running times were determined for the three alternatives (Current GO Speeds,Current Class 3 speeds, and Enhanced Class 3 speeds) for both Push-Pull and DMU equipment (seeTable 2.16).

Table 2.16: Stouffville Running Times Evaluation - Operations AlternativesAlternative Equipment Type Speed Profile1 PP Current Push-pull Current GO Speeds2 PP Class 3 Push-pull Current Class 3 Speeds3 PP Realigned Push-pull Enhanced Class 3 Speeds4 DMU Current DMU Current GO Speeds5 DMU Class 3 DMU Current Class 3 Speeds6 DMU Realigned DMU Enhanced Class 3 Speeds



Acceleration and deceleration characteristics of DMU vehicles were supplied by Colorado Rail Car.JEG’s acceleration and deceleration profile for typical push-pull vehicles was utilized foralternatives with current GO Transit equipment.12 The vehicle performance and speed profileassociated with each alternative was input into JEG’s scheduling tool to estimate running times.Dwell times were held constant across the nine alternatives during running time calculation.

Using push-pull performance characteristics and the current speed profile, the study team was ableto model current operations on the Stouffville line. Using schedule information and 2006 data onthe number of passengers boarding and alighting at each station, a formula was derived forallocation of dwell time. According to this formula, a constant of 25 seconds of dwell was allottedto each station stop plus 0.4 seconds for each passenger boarding or alighting. Assuming thatscheduled dwell time does not vary by trip, data for the train with the highest ridership13, Train 867,was employed to determine scheduled dwell time at each station. Table 2.17 presents the dwelltimes assumed at each station.

Table 2.17:Assumed Stouffville Station

Dwell Times

StationDwell Time

(mm:ss)Mount Joy 02:17Markham 02:15Centennial 01:54Unionville 03:13Milliken 01:50Agincourt 01:33Kennedy 00:44Total 13:47

From comparison of modeled running times and current Stouffville schedules, the study teaminferred that additional time was scheduled onto the end of trips to allow for recovery from scheduledisruptions. For this reason, three minutes of “pad” time were scheduled onto the end of eachsimulated trip.

Findings - The running times calculated for the three scenarios and two the equipment types arepresented in Figures 2.15 and 2.16. Significant reductions in running time would be achieved byusing DMU equipment or by raising the civil speed restrictions. However, realigning trackcurvature on the three curves evaluated south of Unionville offers negligible improvement inservice velocity.

12 The actual acceleration of GO Transit trains may not be as favorable as the typical values used here due to GO Transitlong train length.13 GO Transit Marketing and Planning (October 2006). Stouffville Rail Cordon Counts, Survey Date: Tuesday 19Septmber 2006.



Figure 2.15:Estimated Travel Times: Stouffville to Union Station

Estimated Travel Times:Stouffville to Union Station

with Alternative Speed Profilesand Rollingstock

(GO Train 867)

01:02:33

0:58:090:57:57

0:52:20

0:57:56

0:52:18

00:00

00:05

00:10

00:15

00:20

00:25

00:30

00:35

00:40

00:45

00:50

00:55

01:00

01:05

Push Pull DMU

Run

ning

Tim

e (h

:mm

)

Current (50 mph MAS)

Class 3 (60 mph MAS)

Class 3 with some curveadjustments

Figure 2.16:Estimated Travel Times: Stouffville to Scarborough

Estimated Travel Times:Stouffville to Scarboroughwith Alternative Speed Profiles

and Rollingstock(GO Train 867)

0:44:00

0:48:23

0:40:02

0:45:39

0:40:00

0:45:38

00:00:00

00:05:00

00:10:00

00:15:00

00:20:00

00:25:00

00:30:00

00:35:00

00:40:00

00:45:00

00:50:00

Push Pull DMU

Run

ning

Tim

e (h

:mm

)

Current (50 mph MAS)

Class 3 (60 mph MAS)

Class 3 with some curveadjustments



Table 2.18 shows the reduction in running time for each alternative as compared to currentoperations. Operation of offpeak DMU service constrained by the same speed profiles would saveapproximately 4.5 minutes.

Increasing the speed limit to those allowed for Class 3 track would substantially reduce runningtimes. Using existing GO Transit equipment, travel times would be reduced by approximately 4.5minutes. Employing DMUs instead would reduce current travel times to Union Station by tenminutes.

Realigning the three curves selected for evaluation would result in a one to two second time savingsover raising line speeds to the maximum allowed for Class 3 track.

Table 2.18:Running Time Reductions Relative to Current Running

Time to Union Station (mm:ss)CurrentSpeed

CurrentClass 3 Speed

RealignedClass 3 Speed

Push-Pull - 04:36 04:37DMU 04:24 10:13 10:15

FREIGHT CN OPERATIONSOn a typical day a single local freight train operates over the Stouffville Branch. The schedule ofthe passenger service provides the Canadian National freight train with two operating windows:

1. 7 hours and 50 minutes between end of morning passenger service, 08:39, and the start ofafternoon passenger service, at 16:29.

2. 9 hours and 53 minutes between end of afternoon passenger service, 19:32, and the start ofmorning passenger service, at 05:25.

Taken together, the Stouffville Corridor is available for freight operations for 17 hours and 43minutes each day, and the remainder of the time is used for commuter rail operations.

The one freight train per day serves Stouffville Corridor from the south, typically during themidday.14 The train accesses the CN Uxbridge Subdivision at Scarborough Junction. It travelsnorth, serves the customers on the branch, reverses direction at the CN Underwood runaround (MP52.1), and then returns to Scarborough Junction and rejoins the CN passenger main line (KingstonSubdivision). The typical daily train length is one locomotive with 4-8 freight cars.

14 Telephone Interview with Terry Mitchell, Greater Toronto Transit Authority conducted on June 25, 2007.



Figure 2.17A:CN Local Freight Train on Branch in Scarborough

Reportedly only two freight turnouts, Shah Trading (Milepost 57.93) and the Geco Spur (MP59.65), are currently active. However, as many as eight turnouts still offer track connections to theStouffville Branch. In a 2002 feasibility study, seven of the eight turnouts were shown as ‘active’.

At this time, it appears that only two of these turnouts remain active for customer deliveries. ShahTrading has one active siding with capacity to spot approximately 4-6 railcars. The commodityshipped is apparently farm products. Shah is located on the east side, on the portion of the right-of-way shared with the Toronto Transit Commission subway (on the west).

Figure 2.17B:Shah Trading and MP 57.9 Site Layout

Shah Trading

ScepterManufacturing

MP 57.9

To Stouffville

To Scarborough

Shah Trading(Inactive)

Shah Trading

ScepterManufacturing

MP 57.9

To Stouffville

To Scarborough

Shah Trading(Inactive)



Figure 2.17C:Hoppers at Shah Trading

The Geco Spur extends away from the mainline, some distance to the west. It branches off from theStouffville Line at MP 59.65, with the switch facing the northbound direction. The spur snakes pasta Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) Park and Ride facility, and shoots ¾ miles through aresidential area before encountering any industries. However, in the industrial zone bounded byBirchmount Road to the east, and Pharmacy Ave to the west, it serves six discrete industrial parcelsconnected by a labyrinth of industrial sidings. It is not clear which of these industrial parcels arecurrently generating rail traffic. All of these industries may be stakeholders in any discussion torestructure or reschedule the rail freight service.

The maximum authorized speed on the Geco Branch is 10 mph (16 km/h) throughout.

East West



Figure 2.18:The Geco Spur, Aerial Photograph and Map

To Oshawa

To Toronto

To Stouffville

Industry 1

Industry 2

Industries 3, 4

Industry 5

Industry 6

TTC P&R

MP 59.65

Kennedy GO

Scarborough GO

King

ston

Sub

divi

sion

Geco

Spur

1,000 ft

To Oshawa

To Toronto

To Stouffville

Industry 1

Industry 2

Industries 3, 4

Industry 5

Industry 6

TTC P&R

MP 59.65

Kennedy GO

Scarborough GO

King

ston

Sub

divi

sion

Geco

Spur

1,000 ft

Figure 2.19:The Geco Spur, as seen from Kennedy GO Station

Geco SpurTo Scarborough

East West

Geco SpurTo Scarborough

East West

Current and former freight customers are listed in Table 2.20.



Table 2.19:Stouffville Branch Freight Connections, North to South

Milepost Name StatusTrain DirectionWhen Switching

Side ofROW

53.34 Kennedy Logistics Inactive Southbound East53.89 H.E.P.C. Removed Southbound West54.06 Atlantic Packaging Inactive Northbound West56.65 Atlantic Packaging Inactive Southbound East56.99 Sunoco and Atlantic

PackagingInactive Southbound East

57.86 ScepterManufacturing

Inactive Southbound East

57.90 Shah Trading Inactive Northbound East57.93 Shah Trading Active Northbound East59.65 Geco Branch Active Southbound West

GO Transit is currently constructing a grade separated junction at the Hagerman Diamond, wherethere was a north-to-east and west-to-south track connections between the York and UxbridgeSubdivisions at one time. The north-to-east connection had been spiked out of use for some time.As part of the grade separation project, both connections will be severed. The south-to-westconnection was used by the one daily freight train until approximately 2005. The train has beenrerouted to access Uxbridge Subdivision by the way of Kingston Subdivision as of early 2007.

Figure 2.20:The Hagerman Diamond Grade Separation, Under Construction



CHAPTER 3: REVIEW OF ROLLINGSTOCK ALTERNATIVES

This chapter provides more detail concerning the three types of DMUs introduced in Chapter 1. Formore detailed rolling stock information, see Appendix A.

CATEGORY ONE DMUSCategory One DMUs are self-powered rail cars that meet all specifications necessary for fullunrestricted operation on the North American conventional railway network. These so-called“compliant vehicles” meet all US FRA, AAR, APTA, and Transport Canada regulations andstandards for operation in mixed traffic with freight and commuter railroad equipment. Until 2005,no vehicle meeting this standard had been built in North America for several decades. In the lastseveral years, various public agencies have received bids and placed orders for new Category OneDMUs.

Three cars have been delivered to SFRTA in South Florida. Three power cars and two trailers havebeen delivered to Portland Tri-Met. North Carolina’s TTA placed an order for 14 cars that was latercancelled. New Jersey Transit has advertised for a small fleet of DMU on conjunction withprocurement for other MU cars that has not been awarded by Summer 2008.15 The State ofVermont is interested in purchasing three new Category One DMUs and two trailers for use on itsstate-supported Amtrak services. However, there has been controversy surrounding their purchaseand no units have been ordered. It is anticipated that the units will be delivered 18 months after theorder has been placed.

Five vendors are currently supplying or actively marketing fully compliant DMUs. Only one smallfleet is in current operation. Five units have been delivered to Portland, Oregon for service tobegin later this year.

ColoradoRailcar

(Single Level)16

UnitedTransit

Systems

Sumitomo/NipponSharyo

BombardierDMU (2 Cars)

SiemensDesiro USA

(2 cars)

Configuration Single Unit Single Unit Single Unit Married-Pair Married-PairSeated with 2 x 3 Seating 116 96 104 199 160Capital Cost ($ millions) $3.7 $3.5 $3.6 N/A $8.5

15 NJTransit notes that the market for DMUs remains thin. With small scattered order quantities NJTransit questionswhether the operating economics of DMUs can fully offset the initial higher capital cost of these types of trains. Theagency is interested in teaming with other transit operators that might also be interested in DMUs to determine if theycan develop some economies of scale with a possible joint order.16 Colorado Railcar suspended operations in December 2008 due to financial problems



CATEGORY TWO DMUSCategory Two DMUs are self-powered rail cars of generally overseas design and manufacture thatfail to meet all specifications necessary for full unrestricted operation on the North Americanconventional railway network. These so-called “non-compliant vehicles” are not designed for theNorth American market and do not meet key regulations and standards for North Americanoperation in mixed traffic with freight and commuter railroad equipment. The principal designdiscrepancy relates to crash-worthiness with no overseas car capable of meeting safety standardsrelating to the ability to withstand impacts from possible collisions with heavier North Americanconventional passenger and freight rolling stock.

The Category Two DMU provides only one feature and function that is not available with aCategory One unit – low floor entry with low level boarding.17 Category Two units have beenfavored by some agencies by virtue of their technical maturity developed over years of operation onoverseas railways. The low floor Bombardier cars that have proven so successful on Ottawa’s O-Line are Category Two vehicles18. With the emergence of Category One options, only one neworder for a Category Two vehicle has been placed in the last several years – (Six cars for AustinTexas).

CATEGORY THREE DMUSCategory Three DMUs diesel or electric light rail cars suitable for operation as street cars in urbanapplications. Diesel light rail cars operate on one line in New Jersey. Several electric light railservices in Utah, California, and New Jersey share track with freight trains on a time of dayseparation basis. Category Three operations are not under consideration for GO Transit. The studyteam was informed that Toronto is not interested in extending TTC light rail operations onto tracksshared with GO Transit trains.

Two small fleets or Category Two or Three DMUs are currently operating and two more have beendelivered or are on order for North American application.

17 See Appendix B for a discussion concerning how level boarding can be achieved for compliant DMUs sharing trackwith freight operations.18 The operational context of the O-Line and the Stouffville branches are very different making it difficult, ifnot impossible to directly implement the stand-alone Ottawa approach onto Toronto GO lines with peakservice offered by conventional push-pull equipment.



Beyond these four small fleets, no other purchases of non-compliant equipment are planned byNorth American transit agencies at this time.

North American operation of Category Two and Three rolling stock sharing track with conventionalrailway equipment generally requires a commitment to strict temporal separation between lightpassenger rail car operations and conventional20 operations, with the light passenger rail carsoperating 16 to 19 hours per day and the freight operations restricted to the overnight period.However, San Diego Trolley and New Jersey Transit have made some recent progress towardconcurrent operations at the fringe of the daily light passenger/freight transition period and for shortfreight occupancies during the midday period.

No North American transit agency has, yet, seriously considered or proposed shared track lightpassenger rail operations on a line with current conventional passenger rail operations. Use ofmainline passenger tracks by urban transit cars is also rare overseas with only one prominentexample in Karlsruhe Germany.

US regulators and research agencies have commissioned several studies nearing completion onpossible mechanisms to safely expand concurrent operations of light passenger and branch line

19 Standee capacity figures are based on vendor reports which may vary in the perception of acceptable levelsof passenger crowding

20 Currently now all freight operations.

Table 3.1:North American Light DMU Fleets

Category 2 Category 3

Bombardier Siemens Stadler Stadler

Talent BR643 VT 642Desiro

GTW 2/6DMU 2 GTW 2/6

(Ottawa) (Calif) (Austin TX) (NJTransit)First Year ofService 2002 2007 2008? 2004

Fleet Size 3 12 6 20

Configuration MarriedTriplet

Single Car(Articulated)



SeatingCapacity 135 139 108 90

Standees19 150 90 96 94Total PassengerCapacity 285 229 204 184

Approx. CapitalCost (millions) $3.90 $4.22 $5.30 $3.60



freight operations on shared track. Some general relaxation of the strict time of day restriction maybe forthcoming. However, a key recommendation of these reports is most relevant to the GOTransit Stouffville case.

“Concurrent track sharing between light transit vehicles and conventional railroad rollingstock provides an economically attractive mechanism to provide transit mobility options usingan existing rail line when:

the new rail service must integrate with an existing light rail transit servicestreet running is necessary to directly access and service major trip destinationscommunity concerns about noise, vibration, and visual impact disfavor use of larger,heavier compliant vehicles.

In addressing urban transportation challenges, concurrent shared-track with light transit andconventional railroad vehicles should be considered a fall-back if service requirements cannotbe economically satisfied with a compliant fleet of passenger cars”21

It is not clear that concurrent shared track light transit and conventional railway operations arenecessary to economically satisfy the GO Transit service requirements for the Stouffville Branch.

21 ITS Technologies for Integrated Rail Corridors: Volume I: Executive Summary and StaffRecommendation. Federal Railroad Administration Office ofResearch & Development, Washington, DC. November 1, 2006; Prepared by: ENSCO, Inc. Springfield,VA; ICF Consulting, Lexington, MA; Jacobs Engineering Group, Boston, MA; Booz Allen and Hamilton,Newark, NJ; and New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, NJ. Page 16. Emphasis added



CHAPTER 4: NONCOMPLIANT DMUS: SAFETY CONCERNS AND REQUIREDSAFEGUARDS

This chapter reviews the safety concerns and likely safeguards that GO Transit would need toaddress should it elect to provide midday and possible evening service on the Stouffville line usingrolling stock that does not comply with North American standards for conventional rail car design.The agency will need to address these safety concerns and take safeguarding measures to receivenecessary approvals from regulatory authorities. No cars of European design and manufacturecompletely conform to all North American standards for operation on the general system ofrailroads. The principal safety deficiency that is most difficult to overcome relates tocrashworthiness since all European rail cars – freight and passenger - are generally much lighterthan their North American counterparts. This chapter describes those safety concerns and likelysafeguarding measures that would be required to operate services using rolling stock that is not fullycompliant with North American safety standards for operation on the general system of railways.The chapter first describes measures that are taken to address crashworthiness issues. It laterdescribes all other safety concerns that must be addressed in the development of track system thatwould be shared by light and conventional rail equipment.

BACKGROUND“Light passenger rail cars” operate on relatively long stretches of track shared with conventionalrailroad operations in several North American cities including: San Diego, Salt Lake City, Trenton-Camden, and Ottawa. In all of these cities, extraordinary measures have been taken to avoidcollisions between the light passenger rail cars and conventional freight equipment that are sharingthe track. Regulators in both North America and Europe require mechanisms that ensure “fail-safetrain separation” between light and conventional rail cars to help ensure that no circumstancewould allow a catastrophic collision between a light passenger car and heavier freight rolling stockon the shared-track route.

It should be anticipated that similar measures would be required by Transport Canada, CN and otherstakeholders before light cars would be allowed to operate on the tracks presently used by GOTransit and CN for conventional operations.

CRASHWORTHINESSSafe operations of light passenger rail cars on a shared track present many challenges to addressconcerns about the potential for a catastrophic collision between light and conventional equipment.Negotiating approval from Transport Canada and other stakeholders to share track would requireextensive liaison and careful planning of various safety measures. Safety measures that would berequired, based on experience elsewhere in North America, include temporal separation, safetydevices and fail-safe operating procedures22. The discussion covers temporal, physical and

22 Information on required safety measures is drawn from three recent studies prepared by the study team forvarious regulatory and research agencies involved in North American rail safety. Ensco, Incorporated ITSTechnologies for Integrated Rail Corridors. Prepared for US DOT Federal Railroad Administration, Officeof Research and Development, Washington DC 2006. Paul Stangas, David Nelson, Alan Bing and



operational strategies that could be utilized to mitigate safety concerns related to crashworthinessconcerns

Temporal Separation - The simplest, and most common method, of gaining regulatory permissionto operate a passenger service with cars that are too light to meet general railroad crashworthinessstandards entails strict temporal separation of railroad and light rail vehicle use. Ottawa’s O-Trainused this approach while CP freight operation were still found on the shared track corridor. (Freightservice on the O-Train line was eliminated due to diminished demand). For all other NorthAmerican shared track operations, temporal separation provides the primary means of ensuring thatlight passenger rail cars cannot collide with heavier rollingstock.

To implement temporal separation on the Stouffville line, all CN freight services would shift tonight-time only operation, reducing CN’s current daily window for freight operations. Presently,CN enjoys sole use of the Stouffville Line to operate its low density local freight service for morethan 17 hours each weekday. CN also has sole use of the line on weekends and holidays. If GOTransit were to provide evening light rail service following the afternoon peak commuter railservice, freight use of the track would likely be pushed into the overnight period.

While freight demand can almost certainly be satisfied during this time period, overnight localfreight operations can pose a nuisance to residential communities like those that exist along theStouffville corridor. Operations on the GECO spur and at the Shah Trading facility are bothproximate to homes where late night switching operations would create noise that might annoyneighbors. Shifting freight service to the overnight period may pose a political and environmentalchallenge if affected residents protest.

From a crashworthiness perspective, GO Transit’s ten daily commuter trains fall into the samesafety category as CN’s freight trains. No light passenger rail cars would be allowed on the linewhen GO Transit trains are operating on the branch; approximately between 5:20 am and 8:40 amin the morning and between 4:30 pm and 7:45 pm in the afternoon.

Presently no other transit agencies operate, or plan to operate, light passenger rail cars on tracksshared with commuter rail operations. Such a shared track operation would require four formalturnovers of track operations between light rail and conventional rail operations each weekday.Midday light rail service could not begin until the last morning commuter train passed ontomainline at Scarborough Junction at approximately 8:40 am. Following the midday light railservice, a second changeover would take place at or before 4:30 pm when the first outboundcommuter train from Toronto to Stouffville would be arriving at Scarborough Junction. If planswere to include evening light rail service, a similar turnover from conventional rail to light rail

Alexander Lu, Shared Use of Railroad Infrastructure with Non-Compliant Public Transit Rail VehiclesTCRP Project Number A-27 Transportation Research Board Washington DC Unpublished draft 2007. Ensco,Incorporated Safety of Non-Compliant Passenger Rail Equipment. Prepared for US DOT Federal RailroadAdministration, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC 2005.



Figure 4.3 : Split Point Derail

Figure 4.2: Hop ToadDerail

operations would take place at approximately 7:45 pm when the last outbound Toronto train of thenight was safely stored in the Stouffville layover yard. Each night, once evening light rail servicewas complete, the light rail car(s) would need to be safely stored before the track would be availablefor CN freight operations. CN freight would need to be completely clear of the line byapproximately 6:00 am allowing commuter operations to run southward to Scarborough. This extentof daily hand-offs between light and conventional operations would be unprecedented, since allother North American shared track operations schedule “hand-offs” no more often than twice daily.

Figure 4.1: Potential Temporal Separation Plan Summary

US regulators and transit agencies are beginning to explore options for relaxing the constraint ofstrict temporal regulation between light and conventional rollingstock sharing the same track. Earlyprogress in this area has been made by New Jersey Transit where short longitudinal crossings oftheir shared transit lines by freight trains during the midday period are allowed with considerableoperational and physical barriers. No relaxations of temporal separation where conventional andlight equipment would share long stretches of track at the same time are presently contemplated.

Physical Barriers - Temporal separation is only part of a fail-safeoperating plan. Some manner of physical or operational barrier isrequired to enforce the temporal separation between light andconventional rollingstock to ensure that one class of rollingstock does notencroach on the other. Physical barriers are used to ensure that cars donot roll out of sidings or storage yards. Physical or operational barrierscan also be used to ensure that the operators of light and conventionalrollingstock do not exceed the limits of their operating authority, runninginto track reserved for the other class of rollingstock.

The most common type of physical barrier employed to ensure separation of classes of rollingstockis a “derail”. Derails, as their name implies, are devices that cause a train that is about to rollbeyond the limits of its operating authority to derail before it can foul tracks where it is not allowed.Two types of derail are commonly used for theseapplications. The split point derail employs aswitch that guides the path of errant trains onto adead end track where the train derails andeventually stops. The less elaborate “hop toad”derail is simple iron device set on the top of arunning rails which guides an errant train, or car,off the rails and onto the ground where is slowsand stops before it can encroach on territory whereit could collide with another train.

GO Commuter ServiceCN Freight ServiceLight DMU Service

12:00 18:006:00



Barriers, such as derails, would be required to enforce temporal separation at the followinglocations along the Stouffville branch.

Scarborough Junction, west of the main line turnout - but east of the passenger station, to ensurethat main line trains are not routed onto the branch during offpeak hours and to ensure that lightcars do not run out onto the main line. This arrangement would create the potential to derail aloaded passenger train in the event of compounding human errors. However the consequencesof such an accident are somewhat diminished by the fact that the turnout in question is rated foronly 10-mph.

South of Stouffville Layover to ensure that conventional trains do not run south to StouffvilleStation while light rail trains are operating on the branch and to ensure that light cars do not runnorth into the conventional train layover yard.

At the entrance to the light rail car storage/maintenance facility to ensure that the light cars donot run out onto the branch when light rail service is not allowed and to keep conventionalrollingstock from inadvertently running into this territory reserved for light transit car operationand maintenance.

At active freight sidings, where necessary, to ensure that freight cars do not accidentally rolloutinto the path of light rail cars on the branch. Derails would not be required where the slopesand grades of freight sidings make the roll-out of unattended freight cars impossible or unlikely.

Any derails at Scarborough Junction, Stouffville Layover and the light car storage/maintenancefacility would likely need to be remote controlled by the dispatcher responsible for line control toensure that temporal separation is enforced. If the derails were not remote controlled, the dispatcherwould require some mechanism, other than a verbal report, to ensure that all trains are clear of theshared track territory and derails applied before the light rail cars would be allowed on the branch.Perhaps a surveillance camera could be employed to ensure derails are set and locked in theappropriate position at each change in operational regime from light rail to conventional rail or viceversa.

Operational Barriers - Operational barriers tied into the train control system can be employed tosupplement or replace some brute physical barriers used to ensure fail-safe train separation. (Note:most North American shared track systems operate without the especially sophisticated train controlsystems described in this section.) Two broad classes of safeguards can be considered using a traincontrol system developed to provide a especially high level of shared track safety for the branch;

a continuous cab signal system that would enforce all limits on train speed and locationrequired by the train control system oran intermittent system that would automatically interface with the train at key points alongthe route to automatically ensure that the train is operating within its authority as it passeseach key point.



Figure 4.4: Indusi Trackside Unit seen inAustria

Where such systems are fully operational they would replace the need for physical barriers such asderails.

In considering continuous or intermittent train control system options for the Stouffville Branch it isimportant to note that no automatic train control or signal system is currently operational on thebranch. All branch operations are managed under a manual method known as OCS.

A cab signal system provides for continuous automatic communication between the train controlsystem and the train. In a cab signal system, wayside block signals are replaced with a console inthe operator’s cab that displays the signal aspect appropriate for current operations and switchalignments on the segment of track currently occupied by each train. If the operator fails to respondto the signals displayed on the console the system automatically brakes the train to a safe stopbefore it can overrun any signals. All trains using the line must be equipped with consoles in theoperator’s cab.

Where a line can be used by a large fleet of locomotives and cab cars such as those in the GOTransit and CN fleets it can be very expensive to implement such a system. Consequently cabsignals are most often deployed on lines where trains operate speeds in excess of 80 mph or wheretraffic densities are very high. Cab signals are seldom deployed on low density branch lines like theStouffville line. It is understood that no signal system of this type is employed on lines operated byGO Transit.

Intermittent train control systems are more commonly used in Europe than in the North America.Like the cab signal system, trains using the system must be properly equipped with specializedcommunication and control hardware. The on-board equipment receives information from shortrange wayside transmitters located at strategic locations23 along the rail route. Each transponder isconnected to train control network under control of the train dispatcher. As trains pass over thetransponder it transmits information concerning the current maximum allowable speed for trainsentering its segment of track. Trains with speedsexceeding the maximum allowable areautomatically braked by the on-board equipment.Like the cab signal approach, the on-boardequipment must be installed on all trains sharingthe line to be most effective. All trains sharing thegeneral system of railways in Germany (and soonEurope) are required to be equipped with on boardequipment that responds to standard waysidecontrol transponder devices. The generic name ofthis system of operation in Germany is “Indusi”.The universal presence of such a system has

23 Usually at the entrances to interlockings, in advance of permanent speed restrictions and in advance ofblock signals.



greatly facilitated the relatively rapid spread of track sharing by conventional and light rail transitcars in Germany.

Such systems are seldom employed in North America. Transponder based train control systems aregenerally restricted to standalone urban transit networks. The Siemens cars used in Ottawa weremanufactured in Germany with the onboard Indusi equipment installed. Wayside Indusitransponders were installed and connected to the signal system at the two points where the O-Linecrosses mainline freight lines. The systems prevent O-Trains from entering these diamondcrossings while freight trains are occupying a conflicting path. No freight trains in Ottawa arecontrolled by a corresponding system to prevent them from colliding with an O-Train that is usingthe diamond crossing. New Jersey’s RiverLINE uses Indusi technology on its Swiss-built lightDMUs to prevent them from overrunning stop signals. Freight equipment on shared and adjacentNew Jersey tracks is not comparably equipped.

The implementation of signal system improvementsto enforce the separation of light passenger rail carsand conventional rolling stock is a potential area ofconsiderable expense for the Stouffville Branchsince the line presently has no automated traincontrol system and because neither GO Transit norCN Railways has invested in a suitable systemelsewhere that could be replicated on the StouffvilleBranch. If a suitable system were operatingelsewhere on the GO Transit network the agencycould potentially avoid the cost of equipping manyor most GO trains and local CN locomotives withonboard equipment that would be compatible withthe new Stouffville system.

ADDRESSING OTHER SAFETY CONCERNSNot all safety concerns relating to the operations of a light passenger rail service on a line sharedwith conventional rail cars stem from crashworthiness issues. A recent survey of U.S. railroadregulation (49 CFR Parts 200-299) compliance status shows that transit agencies that operate light-rail derived designs over shared-track ask for and are exempted from various standard railway rulesand regulations (see Table 4.1). In the US they are most likely to be exempted from 49 CFR Parts219, 221, 223, 229, 231, 238, 239, and 240.

Figure 4.5: Indusi Control Panel in an O-Train Operators Console



Table 4.1:49 CFR Compliance Status for Shared-Track Properties

49 CFRPart Brief Description Sa

n D

iego

Tro

lley,

Inc.

Uta

h T

RA

X

NJ

Tra

nsit

Riv

erLI

NE

Notes210 Railroad Noise Emission213 Track Safety Standards

213 C Bridge Policy214 B Bridge Worker Safety214 C Roadway Worker Protection215 Freight Car Safety Standards217 Railroad Operating Rules218 Railroad Operating Practices219 Control of Alcohol and Drug220 Railroad Communications221 Rear End Marking Device223 Safety Glazing Standards225 Accident & Injury Reporting228 Hours of Service Reporting P229 Locomotive Safety Standards231 Railroad Safety Appliances232 Brake System for Freight233 Signal System Reporting234 GX Signal System Safety

235Instruction Approval/Discontinuance

236 Signal & Train Control238 Passenger Equip. Standards239 Passenger Emergency Prep240 Locomotive Eng. Certification

Source: Christopher Schulte,US Federal RailroadAdministration May 9, 2006.

Legend: = Fully FRA compliant. = Compliance waived

with restrictions. = Not compliant.

P = Hours of Service Pilot Project underway.

Focusing on circumstances where relief from standard regulations were sought and have beengranted to most common waivers of standard rules are discussed below and listed in Table 4.1.

Typically, 49 CFR 219 concerning Alcohol and Drug control is delegated to state oversight. Asshown in Table 4.1, the light-transit designs from 49 CFR 223 are typically required to conformwith or exceed motorcoach glazing standards. §229 Locomotive Safety Standards24 and §231

24 Such as grab irons, event recorders, headlights, snow plows, requirement for periodic inspection, etc.



Railroad Safety Appliances25 typically do not apply to transit cars. Alternative safety mechanismsare in place. Passenger Equipment Standards26 and Emergency Preparedness are dealt with in theframework of state oversight of light-rail vehicle designs, and the state safety program plan.Exemption from §240 is required to allow non-FRA certified trolley operators to operate §229-exempt “locomotives”.

As noted in Table 4.1, New Jersey’s RiverLINE shows a lower level of exemption requirement asthe infrastructure was originally designed for commingled operations leading various “railroad-like”practices to be in place. The RiverLINE applied for the least number of exemptions out of all NorthAmerican shared-track properties.

GO Transit would likely ask for relatively few exemptions from standard railroad practice becauseit is a commuter railroad. No North American commuter railroad, with the exception of New JerseyTransit (a multimodal agency) presently operates light passenger rail cars. All light passenger railcars are operated on behalf of urban public transit agencies, closer to Toronto’s TTC in generalorientation than Toronto’s GO Transit.

Collisions at Highway Grade Crossings - One area of critical and increasing safety concern forrailway regulators relates to grade-crossing safety. In considering applications to operate lightpassenger rail cars on tracks that are part of the general purpose railway network, regulators haveshown increasing recent concern about the consequences of a possible grade-crossing collisioninvolving a heavily loaded light passenger rail car and a heavy roadway vehicle, such as a dumptruck or cement mixer. No light passenger rail car system has been exempted from any standardregulations relating to highway grade-crossing safety. Concerns about general safety and exposureto the risk of casualty in the event of a catastrophic grade crossing accident are a growing area ofsafety concern related to shared track transit regulation.

Signal Shunting - Self-powered rail cars have been operating on conventional railway lines aroundthe world for a number of decades. One concern relating to signal shunting by this class of cars hasbeen persistent for many years. Because these cars tend to be lighter and have fewer axles/wheelsthan longer conventional locomotive-hauled trains there have occurrences where the self-poweredrail cars fail to register (“shunt”) on the track circuits that provide train occupancy information toautomatic highway crossing warning devices and the automatic block signal system. A recent JEGsurvey of North American operators using self-powered rail cars in shared track operations foundthat such problems persist only where the cars and resulting axle loads are especially light. Amongthe operations surveyed only one, NJT’s RiverLINE, reported problems with signal shunting. TheRiverLINE uses a very light six-axle car in one- or two-car trains. Operations in Florida and Texasusing heavier four-axle cars in three car trains have experienced no shunting problems. The studyteam expects that the prospects of shunting problems at the 32 grade-crossings with automatic

25 This section concerns mainly freight-car specific issues such as handbrakes, hopper hatches, boxcar doors,etc.26 Including the 800,000-pound buff strength crashworthiness requirement, collision posts, anticlimbers,brake tests, etc.



warning devices on the Stouffville Branch would increase if light passenger cars were used foroffpeak service.

CONCLUSIONThe operation of light passenger rail cars on track shared with conventional railway equipmentposes safety concerns and regulatory hurdles that are not easy to address or overcome. As a recentresearch report has recommended “concurrent shared-track with light transit and conventionalrailroad vehicles should be considered a fall-back if service requirements cannot be economicallysatisfied with a compliant fleet of passenger cars”.27

The study team has seen no indication that GO Transit’s objectives for offpeak Stouffville servicecannot be satisfied with a fleet of DMUs that fully comply with railway safety regulations. Typicalvalid justifications for the use of non-compliant rolling stock include:

New rail service must integrate with an existing light rail transit service;Street running is necessary to directly access and service major trip destinations; andCommunity concerns about noise, vibration, and visual impact disfavor use of larger,heavier compliant vehicles.

None of these concerns have been noted for the Stouffville corridor.

The consultant team recommends that operation of non-compliant DMUs on the Stouffville Branchshould be avoided. Avoiding the use of light passenger rail cars will streamline the implementationprocess. It will also eliminate costly distractions and uncertainty in the implementation of offpeakservice on the branch. It will also avoid future second-guessing and scrutiny should a catastrophicincident occur on the line despite the stringent and expensive measures taken to address the safetydeficiencies of the light cars in shared track operations.

27 Ensco, Incorporated ITS Technologies for Integrated Rail Corridors. Prepared for US DOT FederalRailroad Administration, Office of Research and Development, Washington DC 2006. Volume 1 page 17.



CHAPTER 5: OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS

This chapter presents JEG’s initial assessment of opportunities and constraints related thedevelopment of use of DMUs (and existing push-pull equipment) to expand the scope, frequencyand directness of the services offered in the Stouffville corridor. The chapter integrates the findingspresented in chapters 1 through 4 to describe how existing and future conditions provideopportunities and present constraints affecting the feasible implementation of offpeak services onthe Stouffville branch.

This “check point” is intended to inform GO Transit on the correspondence between project goalsand existing conditions. The chapter also recommends evaluation criteria to be used in thequantitative ranking and qualitative assessment of service options in developing the business casefor offpeak rail service on the line. The chapter will be revised after a meeting with GO Transitmanagement to review how existing and future conditions provide opportunities and presentconstraints affecting the feasible implementation of DMU services on the Stouffville branch.

PROJECT GOALSEight general goals have been identified relating to the study and operation of offpeak service onthe Stouffville Branch. This chapter reviews how existing and future conditions affect GO Transit’sability to achieve each goal, as shown in Table 1.1.

Based on the information developed in Chapters 1 through 4, Chapter 5 reviews both theopportunities to improve offpeak service in the corridor and the constraints that limit the GOTransit’s ability to expand and adjust offpeak service offerings. The narrative of opportunities andconstraints is organized by goal/objective.

GENERAL SERVICE DESIGN GOALSThe study has identified five service design goals for the project. All five goals relate to theoperation of more local passenger trains on the Stouffville branch making connections atScarborough during the midday and evening time periods with Oshawa trains to and from Toronto.

Goal 1: Improve Offpeak ServiceGO Transit management is interested in exploring and documenting options for expanding railservice to include midday, evening and weekend service on the Stouffville line as a prototype for allfive GO Transit branches. GO Transit expects to use this information to educate its stakeholdersconcerning options for developing offpeak service on the Stouffville Branch (and by extension otherservices).

Several factors enhance GO Transit’s opportunities to provide midday, evening and weekendservice on the Stouffville Branch.

1. The line is owned by GO Transit.2. The branch’s railroad infrastructure is in generally good condition.



3. The level of freight business on the line is very modest providing options to route passengertrains between freight operations or to move local freight trains into the overnight period.

4. GO Transit is currently completing a project that will eliminate the principal source ofconflict between passenger and freight operations on the branch by eliminating theHagerman Diamond Crossing.

5. GO Transit’s forecasts of 3,500 to 7,000 offpeak boardings indicates favorable marketeconomics to support the new service.

6. GO Transit’s forecasts that offpeak service would also stimulate a 30% increase in peakperiod traffic are also favorable.

7. GO Transit owns railroad equipment and contracts for staff that could be made available foroffpeak operations.

8. GO Transit’s new operations contractor should improve GO’s options to economically offeroffpeak services by reducing crewing requirements and improving crew flexibility. (Thestudy has reviewed no “hard” information concerning this emerging opportunity and basesthis assertion on only a general impression of the goals of the contracting initiative.)

9. Much of the corridor is experiencing intense development/redevelopment pressure providingthe impetus and opportunity to develop transit supportive land uses creating synergies withimproved offpeak services.

10. The low density of grade crossings on the southern end of the line limits opportunities forconflicts between frequent all day train operation and other transportation activities in thesouthern study area.

11. It appears technologically and physically possible to substantially reduce running times onthe branch with only a modest investment in infrastructure upgrades.

Other factors constrain GO Transit’s capacity in the area of midday, evening and weekend serviceofferings on the branch.

1. The line is single tracked. Passing sidings would be required to economically offerattractive, offpeak service that uses more than one consist.

2. The line is dark with no signaling system. The operation of offpeak service with more thanone consist to provide relatively frequent bi-directional service on the line will almostcertainly require investment in a train control and signal system to help ensure safeguardsagainst train-train collisions.

3. The line is controlled and maintained by PNR. CN’s willingness and ability to monitor andcontrol closely coordinated all day services on the line may be limited.

4. The cost to maintain railway infrastructure on the branch will increase if the current longweekday midday windows to provide track maintenance are absorbed by frequent offpeakpassenger train movements.

5. CN’s operating rights may limit GO Transit’s capacity to expand its service window on theline. (Information on CN”s operating rights and fees has not been reviewed by the studyteam.)

6. Parking at many, or most, stations on the branch is completely absorbed by morning peakoperations. Insufficient parking for passengers boarding midday trains will limit the utilityof midday trains for many travelers.



Goal 2: Improve Shoulder Peak ServiceGO Transit management is interested in improving shoulder peak and evening service offerings.Bus ridership on late shoulders of the morning and afternoon peaks is expanding and may somedayeclipse the capacity provided by the current system of operation. In eleven time slots each day, GOprovides two bus trips to provide the capacity that could be offered with a single short train.

Factors that enhance GO Transit’s opportunities to generally improve offpeak service also favor theprospects of improving shoulder peak service. Specifically, the fact that the line is owned by GOTransit; the railroad infrastructure is in generally good condition; the level of freight business isvery modest; and that GO Transit is grade separating the Hagerman Diamond Crossing all favoroptions to economically offer improved shoulder service. A new operations contractor withpotentially more flexibility in assigning crew duties may also be advantageous to the developmentof shoulder peak rail services.

The development of shoulder peak service would also increase the number of train movementssharing the branch. The ability to economically and safely add more trains to the branch will beconstrained by circumstance that the line is single tracked and dark. For instance, with appropriatecapacity for passing, one or more of the earlier afternoon trains arriving in Stouffville could cycleback to Scarborough for a connection with an eastbound late shoulder peak train to Oshawa. If afleet of specialized equipment is employed for offpeak service, facilities for trains headed inopposite directions to safely meet and pass would be required for all but the most rudimentary ofone-train operations.

Goal 3: Streamline OperationsGO Transit is interested in exploring the potential to reduce offpeak service cost by replacingseveral buses with one train.

GO Transit operates 56 weekday buses along the Stouffville corridor. Twenty-two of these tripsuse two buses to serve a single arrival or departure time at Union Station. With a higher capacityrail service many of these trips that currently require two buses could be served with a single localtrain trip. A local train on the Stouffville branch would connect with trains to and from Oshawa onthe mainline. By coordinating branch line service with the Lake Shore main line one or two shorttrains could conceivably provide equivalent service to as many as four current bus trips.

The same factors that present opportunities to achieve goals relating to improved offpeak andshoulder peak service create opportunities to streamline operations.

Factors that constrain GO Transit’s capacity to improve offpeak and shoulder peak service are alsoobstacles to offpeak rail initiatives that would streamline operations.

Goal 4: Improve Intermodal ConnectionsGO Transit is interested in potential opportunities for enhanced intermodal coordination at the jointTTC/GO Transit passenger facility at Kennedy. Presently 2% of Stouffville Branch passengers endtheir southbound trip at Kennedy, presumably for connections with TTC rapid transit service.



Frequent midday and evening service between Stouffville Branch stations and Kennedy wouldcreate new mobility options for residents of the corridor. By increasing the current limitedopportunities for intermodal connectivity between the TTC and GO at Kennedy the attractiveness ofthis intermodal connection could be increased greatly.

Improving the intermodal connection at Kennedy would require more extensive and frequentoffpeak GO Transit service. Consequently the general factors that enhance the prospects forimproved offpeak service create opportunities to improve intermodal coordination. Conversely,circumstances that constrain capacity to improve offpeak service also restrict the options forimproved intermodal coordination.

Goal 5: Improve Service CoordinationA key element of the offpeak service vision for the Stouffville branch is coordinated connections atScarborough between mainline Oshawa trains and offpeak services on the branch. It is envisionedthat offpeak branch line trains would meet hourly offpeak trains to and from Toronto for a crossplatform transfer at Scarborough Station.

The platforms and track facilities necessary for such a timed transfer exist at Scarborough. Theopportunities and constraints affecting the general implementation of offpeak service on the branchare the principal factors affecting the viability of this option to improve service coordination.

VEHICLE TECHNOLOGY SPECIFIC GOALSIn addition to the general service design goals reviewed above, three project goals relate to vehicletechnology options for proposed off peak service enhancements.

Goal 6: Explore Technical Feasibility of Light Rail ServiceGO Transit and its various stakeholders wish to explore the feasibility of operating a “light rail”service on the Stouffville branch when GO trains to Union Station are not operating. The servicevision entails the operation of midday and evening trains on the branch timed to connect withOshawa trains to and from Toronto. This offpeak service would also provide new intra-corridormobility options along the Stouffville Branch. The service vision does not include: operation off ofexisting Stouffville Branch right of way; extension of TTC service onto GO Transit tracks; or directservice to Union Station.

Information developed in Chapters 3 and 4 show several North American transit agencies areoperating light passenger rail cars on track shared with conventional railway equipment. Amongthese agencies, two presently operate light DMUs; two more have purchased light DMUs with plansto start operations in the near future. The remaining agencies all operate traditional electric light railcars.

All conventional railway operations on the shared track lines are low density freight operations. Noshared track operation runs light passenger rail cars sharing track with commuter or intercitypassenger rail trains.



0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

4 Cars 5 Cars 6 Cars 7 Cars 8 Cars

Train Length

Gal

lons

/Tra

in M

ile

Diesel Push-Pull

DMU

Figure 5.1:Miles per Gallon by Train Length & Equipment Type

All the shared track operations required waivers from national regulatory authorities to run theirintegrated service. All the waivers specify strict measures to ensure that the light rail cars cannotcollide with heavier conventional railway equipment. All of the operations provide for strict timeseparation between light and conventional operations on the shared tracks. Three of these agenciesare working with regulators for some flexibility in the time separation arrangement to allow forsome overlap at the boundary of the passenger and freight service days. Two agencies are workingwith regulators to allow freight trains to use short portions of the shared track during the midday toreach customers that could only otherwise be served during the overnight freight period.

Regulatory agencies are reviewing their position on shared track operations, but note that shared-track operations with light transit and conventional railroad vehicles should be considered a fall-back if service requirements cannot be economically satisfied with compliant passenger cars.

The Stouffville branch offpeak service vision does not include elements that favor the use of typicallight rail passenger rail cars to achieve service objectives. Specifically the vision does not entailany street running where fully compliant DMUs could not operate, nor does it specify through-running of non-compliant cars from TTC’s light rail or rapid transit services adjoining the corridor.

All articulated objectives for the offpeak service initiative can be satisfied with a fleet of cars thatconform to all North American safety standards for operation on the conventional railway network.

Should GO Transit elect to use light DMUs for the offpeak service initiative, it will face regulatorysafety concerns that will add to the cost of developing and operating the offpeak service.

The safeguards required to operate the non-compliant cars will also reduce the utility of the offpeakservice. Using non-compliant cars will make it much more difficult to integrate peak and offpeakoperations. The value of the GO Transit passenger services portfolio in the corridor would likely bediminished by the use of segregated peak and offpeak fleets that require different safety andoperating regimes for safe operation.

In contrast, there are no regulatorybarriers, obstacles or hurdles to overcomeshould GO Transit elect to employ compliantDMUs to operate offpeak service on theStouffville Branch.

Goal 7: Reduce Costs and ImproveEfficiencyGO Transit wishes to explore options toimprove service delivery and serviceeconomics with trains that: consume less fuel,require smaller crews, and offer superioracceleration and braking. It is also interested in potential synergies between new equipment and anew operations contractor to improve crew utilization in 2008 and beyond.



Notwithstanding the discussion of “light rail” equipment under Goal Six, DMUs – compliant ornon-compliant – offer opportunities to operate services that consume less fuel, require smallercrews and operate faster than current services on the Stouffville Branch.

Recent JEG work for Boston’s MBTA diesel push-pull commuter rail operation indicated that theuse of compliant DMUs would reduce fuel consumption on all services where trains are less thansix cars. (See Figure 5.1)

Information developed in Chapter 3 indicates that DMUs – compliant and non-compliant - are wellsuited for one person train operations to reduce crewing costs.

Information developed in Chapter 2 indicates that running times along the Stouffville Branch couldbe reduced by raising maximum allowable speeds to the levels customarily operated for the class oftrack installed on the line. With push-pull equipment the preliminary estimate of savings betweenStouffville and Scarborough is approximately3 minutes (6%) The estimate of savings betweenUnionville and Scarborough is 2 minutes (9%).

With DMU equipment (compliant) and higher maximum allowable speeds the travel time fromStouffville to Scarborough could be further reduced to approximately 40 minutes from the present48 minutes with current speeds and rolling stock. This represents a 17% travel time savings. FromUnionville to Scarborough the travel time with DMUs and high speed limits would be 17 minutesinstead of today’s 22 minutes – representing a 22% travel time savings.

Faster travel times on the line will attract more riders and marginally reduce operating costs as staffand rollingstock can make more trips over the course of the service day compared with 20% longerrunning times.

Information presented in Chapter 3 suggests that the use of DMUs to operate short trains on theStouffville branch could reduce equipment maintenance and ownership costs especially if extensiveoffpeak service is operated. Clearly, the use of compliant or non-compliant DMUs to provideoffpeak service on the Stouffville branch provides opportunities to reduce operating costs throughlower fuel consumption and reduced crewing. DMUs would also reduce trip times stimulatingridership and marginally reducing crew and equipment hours.



Goal 8: Reduce Environmental Impacts:GO Transit wishes to explore technologies that reduce noise, vibration and pollution associated withpush-pull service.

Information presented in Chapter 3 indicates that the use of DMUs instead of push-pull equipmentwould tend to reduce the environmental impact of service operation by:

substantially reducing the noise of operation with smaller engines and lighter cars;reducing vibrations by running lighter rollingstock; andreducing emissions by using smaller, cleaner burning engines to provide motive power.



CHAPTER 6: OFFPEAK SERVICE OPTIONS AND REQUIRED CAPITAL INVESTMENTS

INTRODUCTIONThis chapter describes an array of offpeak service options developed by the study team inconsultation with GO Transit project management. A total of 32 build options were developed foranalysis and evaluation. The large number of alternatives allows GO Transit stakeholders toexplicitly consider how choices related to rollingstock, terminal, service frequency, maximumallowable speeds, and mainline schedules will affect the economic performance of the proposedoffpeak service. The chapter also describes the development of the 2015 Baseline (No Build)option, which indicates how much future peak service will be required in the absence of offpeakservice. The chapter then describes how the rolling stock and infrastructure required to supporteach option. Furthermore, a Peak Build option is included, which indicates how much additionalfuture peak service will be required to respond to peak ridership growth stimulated by theintroduction of offpeak rail service.

OFFPEAK SERVICE ALTERNATIVESAfter preparation of Chapters 1 through 5, the study team consulted with GO Transit managementto review and recommend options for the development of offpeak rail service on the StouffvilleBranch. All options were developed to provide connections with midday and evening Oshawatrains to and from Toronto. The branchline service would provide convenient transfers for inboundand outbound passengers at the Scarborough station. Peak service would continue and expandusing the current Push-Pull bi-level rollingstock and includes upgrades and additional equipmentpurchases. Offpeak service would be offered with a fleet of equipment separate from the fleet ofequipment assigned to peak service. A brief summary of the offpeak service options are shownbelow:

1. Offpeak Rollingstock – Offpeak service would be provided by Category One DMUs, fullycompliant with regulations regarding operation on track shared with conventionaloperations. Operational options using short push-pull trains were also developed tocompare the economic and operational performance of the DMUs with a status quoalternative.

2. Limits of Offpeak Service – Two outer terminals for the offpeak service were considered:Unionville approximately 10 miles north of Scarborough, and Stouffville approximately 20miles north of the junction station.

3. Frequency of Service – Two service frequencies were considered: a 30-minute headwayoption with 48 weekday offpeak trains (24 daily roundtrips) to and from Scarborough, and a60-minute headway option with 24 weekday offpeak revenue trains (12 daily roundtrips) toand from Scarborough.

4. Branchline Speeds – Two speed profiles were considered: a Status Quo option with amaximum allowable speed of 50 mph with a long stretch of 40 mph speeds, and a Class 3option with a maximum allowable speed of 60 mph, which is generally consistent with the



speeds typically allowed for track maintained in the condition presently found on the branch.In some instances, higher speeds would reduce the costs of developing and operating theoffpeak service by reducing the number of trains and crews required to make all desiredconnections.

5. Mainline Schedules – Two mainline schedule regimes were to be considered: a Status Quooption with offpeak outbound (west bound) trains from Toronto scheduled to call onScarborough seven (7) minutes after the departure of inbound (east bound) trains to Toronto,and an Adjusted schedule option where the inbound and outbound mainline services wouldbe rescheduled so that the trains would meet at Scarborough station. This change inscheduling would enhance the operating efficiency of the branchline service. In someinstances, it was found that the schedule adjustment would reduce the costs of developingand operating the offpeak service by reducing the number of trains and crews required tomake all desired connections.

When combined, the five binary service design options yielded a total of 32 service alternatives fordevelopment and evaluation, which are shown in Table 6.1. The basis for the notation used in thischapter is shown below:

1. Equipment (DMU vs. Push-Pull)2. Location of Outer Terminal (Stouffville vs. Unionville)3. Service Headway (30 Minutes vs. 60 minutes)4. Speed (50 mph maximum vs. 60 mph maximum)5. Mainline Schedule (Existing vs. Modified)

Table 6.1:Service Options Developed for Evaluation

No. Name Equipment TerminalHeadway

(Min.)SpeedProfile

MainlineSchedule

1 DMU U 30 50 Existing DMU Unionville 30 Existing Existing2 DMU U 30 50 Modified DMU Unionville 30 Existing Modified3 DMU U 30 60 Existing DMU Unionville 30 Class 3 Existing4 DMU U 30 60 Modified DMU Unionville 30 Class 3 Modified5 DMU U 60 50 Existing DMU Unionville 60 Existing Existing6 DMU U 60 50 Modified DMU Unionville 60 Existing Modified7 DMU U 60 60 Existing DMU Unionville 60 Class 3 Existing8 DMU U 60 60 Modified DMU Unionville 60 Class 3 Modified9 DMU S 30 50 Existing DMU Stouffville 30 Existing Existing

10 DMU S 30 50 Modified DMU Stouffville 30 Existing Modified11 DMU S 30 60 Existing DMU Stouffville 30 Class 3 Existing12 DMU S 30 60 Modified DMU Stouffville 30 Class 3 Modified13 DMU S 60 50 Existing DMU Stouffville 60 Existing Existing



Table 6.1:Service Options Developed for Evaluation

No. Name Equipment TerminalHeadway

(Min.)SpeedProfile

MainlineSchedule

14 DMU S 60 50 Modified DMU Stouffville 60 Existing Modified15 DMU S 60 60 Existing DMU Stouffville 60 Class 3 Existing16 DMU S 60 60 Modified DMU Stouffville 60 Class 3 Modified17 PP U 30 50 Existing Push Pull Unionville 30 Existing Existing18 PP U 30 50 Modified Push Pull Unionville 30 Existing Modified19 PP U 30 60 Existing Push Pull Unionville 30 Class 3 Existing20 PP U 30 60 Modified Push Pull Unionville 30 Class 3 Modified21 PP U 60 50 Existing Push Pull Unionville 60 Existing Existing22 PP U 60 50 Modified Push Pull Unionville 60 Existing Modified23 PP U 60 60 Existing Push Pull Unionville 60 Class 3 Existing24 PP U 60 60 Modified Push Pull Unionville 60 Class 3 Modified25 PP S 30 50 Existing Push Pull Stouffville 30 Existing Existing26 PP S 30 50 Modified Push Pull Stouffville 30 Existing Modified27 PP S 30 60 Existing Push Pull Stouffville 30 Class 3 Existing28 PP S 30 60 Modified Push Pull Stouffville 30 Class 3 Modified29 PP S 60 50 Existing Push Pull Stouffville 60 Existing Existing30 PP S 60 50 Modified Push Pull Stouffville 60 Existing Modified31 PP S 60 60 Existing Push Pull Stouffville 60 Class 3 Existing32 PP S 60 60 Modified Push Pull Stouffville 60 Class 3 Modified

In addition to the offpeak service options, the operational characteristics and equipmentrequirements for two future peak services were developed in order to facilitate the overall economicevaluation. These two services are:

2015 Baseline (No Build) scenario that defines the capacity and service adjustmentsnecessary to respond to the forecast branchline ridership growth of 2,000 morning peakpassenger boardings in the absence of any improvement to offpeak service.

2015 Peak Build scenario that defines further 2015 improvements in capacity that would berequired to accommodate the additional morning peak passengers. For offpeak serviceoriginating in Unionville, peak service is forecast to attract an additional 1,300 passengers.For offpeak service originating in Stouffville, peak service is forecast to attract an additional2,500 passengers.

The balance of this chapter describes the development of the 32 service options following adiscussion of how each service design feature was “modeled” by the planning team.



EQUIPMENT OPTIONS - Two equipment alternatives were considered: DMU trains (comprised of amix of powered cars and unpowered trailers) and Push-Pull trains using GO Transit standardlocomotives and coaches. The Push-Pull option is included to demonstrate the economicefficiencies that can be achieved by employing DMUs instead of Push-Pull train sets.

The performance characteristics (e.g., acceleration and deceleration) of typical Push-Pull trains andDMUs were used to estimate running times between stations. Dwell times were estimated usingfactors derived from the Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual with the assumption that16% of the heaviest forecast offpeak ridership were boarding or alighting each train. This approachprovided a generous allowance for human factors and other perturbations in the operation of thetrains. A three-minute pad is added to the arrival time of each train at its destination terminal.

Forecast running times for each service option are discussed in conjunction with the maximumallowable speeds.

OUTER TERMINAL – GO Transit is interested in offering offpeak service to each station along theStouffville Branch, but recognizes that it may be operationally or economically more feasible tooffer a shorter service terminating at Unionville. Two outer terminal options were developed by theteam for evaluation:

Table 6.2:Service Terminal and Stations Served

Offpeak Service Offered

Stations MilepostStouffville

ServiceUnionville

ServiceStouffville 40.6 x -Mount Joy 45.8 x -Markham 47.0 x -Centennial 48.5 x -Unionville 50.7 x xMilliken 52.9 x xAgincourt 55.5 x xKennedy 59.5 x x

Stations Served

Scarborough 60.7 x x

SERVICE HEADWAY – Two service frequencies were considered: a 30-minute headway option with48 offpeak weekday trains to and from Scarborough (24 daily round trips) and a 60-minuteheadway option with 24 offpeak weekday revenue trains to and from Scarborough (12 daily roundtrips). Presently, the Oshawa-Toronto service operates with a very regular hourly clockfaceschedule of weekday offpeak operations. It was assumed that this schedule could be marginallyadjusted to put the one “off-pattern” train (Train 921) into the same regular pattern of all other



offpeak trains, and that the Stouffville offpeak service would meet all Oshawa trains operating inboth directions between the hours of 9:00 am - 4:00 pm and 7:00 pm to 1:00 am.

After 4:00pm, there is “positioning” trip from the outer terminal to Scarborough station for all 60minute frequency service options. All of these positioning trips are regular revenue trips from theouter terminal to Scarborough, with the exception of:

PP U 60 50 ModifiedPP U 60 60 Modified

The purpose of this trip is to place a consist at Scarborough station so that outbound offpeak servicecan be offered starting at approximately 7:30 pm. Without this trip, several passing sidings wouldrequired to meet the 869 outbound train from Toronto or evening offpeak service originating inScarborough would not be able to begin before 8:30 pm.

The 60-minute Stouffville service option was developed to correspond to this slightlymodified pattern of offpeak service currently provided with 24 weekday offpeak trainsbetween Oshawa and Toronto.

The 30-minute option would not be employed unless offpeak Oshawa service is alsoincreased to provide a 30-minute service frequency with 48 weekday offpeak trains betweenOshawa and Toronto. In this scenario, the “positioning trip” would not be necessary sincethe route would be double tracked.28

SPEED – As discussed in Chapter 2, GO Transit is interested in exploring the possibility of raisingthe maximum allowable speeds on the Stouffville Branch. The analysis presented in Chapter 2recommends that GO Transit consider raising the speeds to the maximum allowable under Class 3track standards, with superelevation on curves of up to three inches between the inner and outerrails. This would entail up to four classes of improvements along the existing line.

First, increased superelevation would be introduced at 24 curves along the route. Thiswould be accomplished with a “surfacing gang” working much of the length of the existingroute and by rebuilding up to 7 highway grade crossings that are found on curves wheresuperelevation would be introduced. Table 6.3 lists the curves to be modified and Table 6.4lists the highway grade crossings on curves to be superelevated.

28 It would also be possible with double tracking to offer some reverse peak local service on the branch usingthe offpeak equipment. This potential has not been explored by the study team.



Table 6.3:Curves to be Superelevated

CurveNo.

MPStart

MPEnd

Length ofCurve (mi.)

Curvature(Deg.)

1 41.40 41.50 0.10 2.502 41.80 42.10 0.30 2.503 42.20 42.35 0.15 3.374 42.90 43.10 0.20 -3.505 43.60 43.65 0.05 2.506 43.80 44.00 0.20 -5.507 44.20 44.40 0.20 3.128 44.50 44.60 0.10 -3.159 45.00 45.20 0.20 4.0010 46.70 46.80 0.10 -5.2511 46.90 46.95 0.05 5.6212 47.10 47.30 0.20 -4.7513 48.90 49.00 0.10 3.5014 49.80 50.00 0.20 4.1215 51.10 51.20 0.10 3.2516 51.60 51.80 0.20 2.5017 52.70 52.70 0.00 -4.0018 54.20 54.20 0.00 2.6219 55.60 55.60 0.00 3.1220 55.70 55.73 0.03 -2.7521 58.10 58.10 0.00 2.8722 59.50 59.70 0.20 4.5023 59.80 60.00 0.20 -3.6224 60.30 60.40 0.10 -3.87

Table 6.4:Crossings on Curves to be

ResurfacedMP Name

42.35 9th Concession Rd46.95 Highway 4847.17 Snider Drive49.94 Eureka St.52.82 Steeles Ave55.73 Sheppard Ave59.94 Corvette Ave



Second, some realignment may be required on up to four reverse curves along the segmentbetween Kennedy (Mile Post 55.5) and Agincourt (Mile Post 59.5) Stations. In two casesnear the Ellesmere and Lawrence Avenue overpass bridges the ability to realign tracks maybe constrained by the proximity of bridge supports.

Third, the track circuitry of up to 30 public highway grade crossings along the route wouldbe adjusted to provide for the faster operation of passenger trains across the roadways.Seven of the 36 route crossings along the route are private crossings without gates, bells, orflashers. (See Table 2.13 for a complete list of all crossings from Stouffville layover facilityto Scarborough station.)

Fourth, automatic block (ABS) or centralized traffic control (CTC) type signaling would berequired to raise speeds above 50 mph in zones where facing point turnouts to industrialcustomers are located29. (CTC signals are recommended in any event to safely manage thedensity of bidirectional offpeak trains considered in this feasibility study.)

The higher speeds would result in substantial travel time savings when compared with the statusquo speed profile.

Prototypical service schedules were developed to show how raising speeds on the branch wouldaffect offpeak branchline travel times for DMU and Push-Pull equipment.30 Table 6.5 showsforecast travel times with existing speed limits and the Class 3 speed limits that could be achievedwithout any realignment of curves or right-of-way. End-to-end travel time estimates were derivedusing dwell times based on loads of 14431 to 37232 offpeak passengers on the heaviest ridershipoffpeak train. The time savings are generally 2 to 4 minutes, approximately 10% of the totalrunning time.

Table 6.5:Estimated One-Way Travel Times to Scarborough

Travel Times withExisting Speeds

(minutes)

Travel Times withClass 3 Speeds

(minutes)Outer Terminal DMU Push Pull DMU Push Pull

Unionville 18:57 20:59 16:13 17:58Stouffville 37:19 41:43 33:23 39:01

29 Under CROR 104 (q): Unless or until the switch is seen to be in normal position, passenger trainsapproaching a main track hand operated switch in a facing point move direction in OCS territory, unlessotherwise governed by signal indication, must not exceed the 50 mph. With the recommended introductionof CTC signalling this limiting factor on speed is eliminated.30 Summaries of these schedules can be found in the Appendix of this report.31 60-minute Unionville service.32 30-minute Stouffville service.



MAINLINE SCHEDULE – The present offpeak Oshawa schedule has westbound trains departingScarborough consistently seven minutes after the corresponding eastbound trains. This sevenminute disparity can pose problems for efficient scheduling of equipment if it is desired to provideconvenient connections in both the inbound and outbound direction at all times of the offpeakservice day.

Analysis of the current schedules indicates that it should be possible to coordinate eastbound andwestbound Oshawa services so that they meet at Scarborough. If this adjustment is made, theefficiency and reliability of the branchline service will be enhanced. Table 6.6 shows the number ofconsists (train sets) required to provide each offpeak service option under consideration with andwithout adjustment of the mainline service at both 30 and 60 minute headways.

Table 6.6:Number of Branchline Trainsets Required for Offpeak Service

Service Option

WithoutMainlineSchedule

Adjustment

With MainlineSchedule

Adjustment

Savings fromSchedule

AdjustmentDMU U 30 50 3 2 1DMU U 30 60 2 2DMU U 60 50 2 1 1DMU U 60 60 1 1DMU S 30 50 4 4DMU S 30 60 4 3 1DMU S 60 50 2 2DMU S 60 60 2 2PP U 30 50 3 3PP U 30 60 3 2 1PP U 60 50 2 2PP U 60 60 2 1 1PP S 30 50 4 4PP S 30 60 4 4PP S 60 50 2 2PP S 60 60 2 2



In five of the 16 options under consideration, an adjustment to the mainline schedules saves oneconsist and two train crews from the costs of developing offpeak service. The DMU and Push-Pullservice options where schedule adjustments are forecast to yield substantial operating efficienciesinclude:

1. Service to Unionville with a 30 minute service frequency and existing track speeds2. Service to Unionville with a 60 minute service frequency and existing track speeds3. Service to Stouffville with a 30 minute service frequency and Class 3 track speeds4. Service to Unionville with a 30 minute service frequency and Class 3 track speeds5. Service to Unionville with a 60 minute service frequency and Class 3 track speeds

FORECAST PASSENGER BOARDINGS – The growth rates shown in Table 6.7 were provided by theGO Transit Planning Department and are pertinent to the 2015 ridership forecasts. Table 6.7 showsthe projected growth rate for boardings at each branchline station over the next seven years.

In addition to the general growth rates, GO Transit also provided forecasts of future ridership from a200533 study that contemplated all-day direct service between Stouffville and Toronto UnionStation. The forecasts indicated that implementation of offpeak service would stimulate anadditional 30% increase in peak ridership. The 2005 study further forecast that hourly offpeakservice would attract offpeak ridership equal to approximately 15% of the peak while half-hourlyoffpeak service will attract offpeak ridership equal to 40% of the peak boardings.

Jacobs adjusted the forecasts provided GO Transit to reflect that a two-seat ride would be requiredfor the service under consideration in this report. The forecasts were further adjusted to reflectdifferences in speed among the various options. Details on the adjustments are provided inAppendix C of this report.

Table 6.7:Projected Station Growth Rates

Station NameMilePost

ProjectedGrowth Rate

Stouffville 40.6 4%Mount Joy 45.8 5%Markham 47.0 2%Centennial 48.5 5%Unionville 50.7 4%Milliken 52.9 2%Agincourt 55.5 2%Kennedy 59.5 5%

33 Forecasts based on study forecast prepared in 2005 by Peter Dalton Consulting. Summary provided by Dan Francey,GO Transit Planning, June 15, 2007.

35 Consists in service do not reflect spare equipment requirements. All other equipment numbers include thespare equipment necessary for an extra consist.



As noted above, forecast ridership is sensitive to operating considerations relating to frequency,outer terminal, maximum allowable speeds (50 vs. 60), and the type of rolling stock used to providethe offpeak service. The forecasts were also adjusted to reflect the five-minute timed transfer atScarborough Station for Lakeshore service. Jacobs forecast that service options with shorter traveltimes to Scarborough (e.g., DMU equipment and/or 60 mph track speeds) would have more dailyboardings than their comparable slower alternatives (e.g., Push-Pull equipment and/or 50 mph trackspeed).

Table 6.8:Stouffville Branch: Current and Forecast 2015 Weekday Boardings

(A) (B) (C) = (A) + (B) (D) (C) + (D)

Service Option

PeakRiders

IncrementalPeak BuildBoardings

Peak BoardingsW/Offpeak

Service

Off PeakBoardings

TotalWeekdayBoardings

Current Ridership (2006) 9,898 N/A N/A - 9,8982015 Baseline (No Build) 13,714 N/A N/A - 13,714DMU U 30 50 Existing 13,714 1,872 15,586 2,969 18,555DMU U 30 50 Modified 13,714 1,872 15,586 2,969 18,555DMU U 30 60 Existing 13,714 1,872 15,586 3,039 18,625DMU U 30 60 Modified 13,714 1,872 15,586 3,039 18,625DMU U 60 50 Existing 13,714 1,872 15,586 1,113 16,699DMU U 60 50 Modified 13,714 1,872 15,586 1,113 16,699DMU U 60 60 Existing 13,714 1,872 15,586 1,140 16,726DMU U 60 60 Modified 13,714 1,872 15,586 1,140 16,726DMU S 30 50 Existing 13,714 4,114 17,828 6,921 24,749DMU S 30 50 Modified 13,714 4,114 17,828 6,921 24,749DMU S 30 60 Existing 13,714 4,114 17,828 7,036 24,864DMU S 30 60 Modified 13,714 4,114 17,828 7,036 24,864DMU S 60 50 Existing 13,714 4,114 17,828 2,595 20,423DMU S 60 50 Modified 13,714 4,114 17,828 2,595 20,423DMU S 60 60 Existing 13,714 4,114 17,828 2,638 20,466DMU S 60 60 Modified 13,714 4,114 17,828 2,638 20,466PP U 30 50 Existing 13,714 1,872 15,586 2,897 18,483PP U 30 50 Modified 13,714 1,872 15,586 2,897 18,483PP U 30 60 Existing 13,714 1,872 15,586 2,999 18,585PP U 30 60 Modified 13,714 1,872 15,586 2,999 18,585PP U 60 50 Existing 13,714 1,872 15,586 1,086 16,672PP U 60 50 Modified 13,714 1,872 15,586 1,086 16,672PP U 60 60 Existing 13,714 1,872 15,586 1,125 16,711PP U 60 60 Modified 13,714 1,872 15,586 1,125 16,711PP S 30 50 Existing 13,714 4,114 17,828 6,684 24,512PP S 30 50 Modified 13,714 4,114 17,828 6,684 24,512PP S 30 60 Existing 13,714 4,114 17,828 6,893 24,721



Table 6.8:Stouffville Branch: Current and Forecast 2015 Weekday Boardings

(A) (B) (C) = (A) + (B) (D) (C) + (D)

Service Option

PeakRiders

IncrementalPeak BuildBoardings

Peak BoardingsW/Offpeak

Service

Off PeakBoardings


PP S 30 60 Modified 13,714 4,114 17,828 6,893 24,721PP S 60 50 Existing 13,714 4,114 17,828 2,506 20,334PP S 60 50 Modified 13,714 4,114 17,828 2,506 20,334PP S 60 60 Existing 13,714 4,114 17,828 2,585 20,413PP S 60 60 Modified 13,714 4,114 17,828 2,585 20,413

CONSIST SIZES AND FLEET REQUIREMENTS – The ridership forecasts presented in Table 6.8 wereused to determine required train lengths for each of the 32 offpeak service development options.

The passenger forecasts were also used to determine the additional locomotives and coaches thatwould be required for peak service in the 2015 Baseline (No Build) circumstance, and also todetermine how much more peak rolling stock would be required to accommodate the 30% increasein peak boardings expected from the introduction of offpeak service.

In sizing peak trains for growth in ridership, the future distribution of boardings in the peak waspresumed to mirror the current temporal pattern of boardings across peak trains. In the future, peaktrains of up to 12 cars would be allowed on the branch.

Based on offpeak travel patterns observed in Boston and Philadelphia, hourly offpeak trains weresized to carry 16% of all inbound offpeak passengers based on the heaviest offpeak train ridershiplevels observed on other commuter rail networks. Half–hour frequency offpeak trains were sized tocarry 10% of all inbound offpeak passengers. As noted earlier, it was assumed that the fleet ofequipment used to provide the offpeak service would be separate and distinct from the peak serviceequipment for the both the DMU and short Push-Pull train equipment options. Furthermore, thefollowing assumptions were used in developing consist sizes:

1. DMUs would be operated with a mix of powered cars and unpowered trailers such that thenumber of trailers does not exceed the number of powered cars on any train. All DMUequipment would seat 100 passengers per unit.

2. An average value of 152 seats per bi-level coach was assumed for Push-Pull trains.

3. All offpeak trains would have a minimum train length of two cars to ensure signal shuntingand provide braking capacity.

4. All offpeak trains within any offpeak service regime would have the same train length toprovide flexibility in the scheduling and management of peak equipment.



In considering the growth in peak equipment requirements, the planning team determined thatabsent any changes in offpeak service, forecast growth in Stouffville branch boardings wouldrequire a sixth train and 13 additional coaches in the peak to offer seats to all passengers.

The 30% growth in Baseline (No Build) peak boardings expected from offering offpeak rail serviceon the branch would require GO Transit to add a seventh train and more coaches to its peak service.For offpeak service to Unionville, GO Transit would need to add 11 more coaches during the peak.Offpeak service to Stouffville would require 17 additional coaches above the Baseline during thepeak.

Table 6.9:Current and Forecast Morning Peak Trains, Boardings and Coach Requirements

2006 2015 2015 2015

Base LineUnionville Build

CaseStouffville Build

CaseTrainNo.

CurrentTorontoArrivalTime Boardings Coaches Boardings Coaches Boardings Coaches Boardings Coaches

861 6:20 103 8 140 8 168 8 191 8863 7:05 569 8 771 8 168 8 191 8865 7:43 1,288 8 1,052 8 1,348 8 1,775 10

865 A TBD 0 0 1,212 9 1,340 9 1,847 12867 8:16 1,694 10 1,964 12 1,835 12 1,920 12

867A TBD 0 0 0 0 1,843 12 1,810 12869 8:50 1,370 10 1,894 12 1,675 11 1,791 12

Totals 5,024 44 7,033 57 8,377 68 9,525 740 13 11 17

To determine the required offpeak fleet size for each option, the study team used the number ofrequired consists and the required consist size to derive the number of DMUs, trailers, locomotivesand coaches that would be required to field offpeak service for each service option. A spare consistwas added to each fleet to provide units for maintenance and reserves.

Based on the assumptions previously listed for consist sizing, Table 6.10 shows the numbers ofDMU units (powered cars and trailers) and bi-level coaches that would be required for eachcombination of outer terminal and service frequency.

For the offpeak 60 minute DMU service to Stouffville at 50 mph track speed, the forecast heaviestridership was calculated to be 208. For 60 mph track speeds, the heaviest ridership was calculatedto be 211. Since these forecasts are close to 200 (the capacity of a two unit DMU consist), itassumed that only one DMU and one trailer are needed and two DMUs and one trailer.

Table 6.10:Forecast Train Lengths by Service Characteristics and Equipment Type



No. Service Option

TotalOffpeak

Psgrs

TotalOffpeakInbound

Psgrs

ForecastRidership

on HeaviestTrain

Unitsper

DMUTrain

Bi-Level

Coaches1 DMU U 30 50 Existing 2,969 1,484 148 22 DMU U 30 50 Modified 2,969 1,484 148 23 DMU U 30 60 Existing 3,039 1,519 152 24 DMU U 30 60 Modified 3,039 1,519 152 25 DMU U 60 50 Existing 1,113 557 89 26 DMU U 60 50 Modified 1,113 557 89 27 DMU U 60 60 Existing 1,140 570 91 28 DMU U 60 60 Modified 1,140 570 91 29 DMU S 30 50 Existing 6,921 3,460 346 4

10 DMU S 30 50 Modified 6,921 3,460 346 411 DMU S 30 60 Existing 7,036 3,518 352 412 DMU S 30 60 Modified 7,036 3,518 352 413 DMU S 60 50 Existing 2,595 1,298 208 214 DMU S 60 50 Modified 2,595 1,298 208 215 DMU S 60 60 Existing 2,638 1,319 211 216 DMU S 60 60 Modified 2,638 1,319 211 217 PP U 30 50 Existing 2,897 1,449 145 218 PP U 30 50 Modified 2,897 1,449 145 219 PP U 30 60 Existing 2,999 1,499 150 220 PP U 30 60 Modified 2,999 1,499 150 221 PP U 60 50 Existing 1,086 543 87 222 PP U 60 50 Modified 1,086 543 87 223 PP U 60 60 Existing 1,125 562 90 224 PP U 60 60 Modified 1,125 562 90 225 PP S 30 50 Existing 6,684 3,342 334 326 PP S 30 50 Modified 6,684 3,342 334 327 PP S 30 60 Existing 6,893 3,446 345 328 PP S 30 60 Modified 6,893 3,446 345 329 PP S 60 50 Existing 2,506 1,253 201 230 PP S 60 50 Modified 2,506 1,253 201 231 PP S 60 60 Existing 2,585 1,292 207 232 PP S 60 60 Modified 2,585 1,292 207 2

Table 6.11 lists the number of required DMUs, DMU trailers, locomotives and bi-level coachesrequired for each of the 32 offpeak service options. The fleet requirements range between 20 unitsfor the DMU S 30 50 Existing option and 4 units for the DMU U 60 60 Modified option.



Table 6.11:Stouffville Branch: Forecast Offpeak Fleet Requirements by

Service Development Option

No. Service Option

ConsistsIn

Service35 DMUsDMU

Trailers Loco'sBi LevelCoaches

Total Unitsin Offpeak

Fleet1 DMU U 30 50 Existing 3 4 4 82 DMU U 30 50 Modified 2 3 3 63 DMU U 30 60 Existing 2 3 3 64 DMU U 30 60 Modified 2 3 3 65 DMU U 60 50 Existing 2 3 3 66 DMU U 60 50 Modified 1 2 2 47 DMU U 60 60 Existing 1 2 2 48 DMU U 60 60 Modified 1 2 2 49 DMU S 30 50 Existing 4 10 10 20

10 DMU S 30 50 Modified 4 10 10 2011 DMU S 30 60 Existing 4 10 10 2012 DMU S 30 60 Modified 3 8 8 1613 DMU S 60 50 Existing 2 3 3 614 DMU S 60 50 Modified 2 3 3 615 DMU S 60 60 Existing 2 3 3 616 DMU S 60 60 Modified 2 3 3 617 PP U 30 50 Existing 3 4 8 1218 PP U 30 50 Modified 3 4 8 1219 PP U 30 60 Existing 3 4 8 1220 PP U 30 60 Modified 2 3 6 921 PP U 60 50 Existing 2 3 6 922 PP U 60 50 Modified 2 3 6 923 PP U 60 60 Existing 2 3 6 924 PP U 60 60 Modified 1 2 4 625 PP S 30 50 Existing 4 5 15 2026 PP S 30 50 Modified 4 5 15 2027 PP S 30 60 Existing 4 5 15 2028 PP S 30 60 Modified 4 5 15 2029 PP S 60 50 Existing 2 3 6 930 PP S 60 50 Modified 2 3 6 931 PP S 60 60 Existing 2 3 6 932 PP S 60 60 Modified 2 3 6 9

RAILWAY INFRASTRUCTURE – Frequent offpeak service on the Stouffville Branch will requireimprovements to the railway infrastructure on the line. Presently, the line is an unsignalled singletrack branch. Operation of frequent offpeak service would require:

Installation of CTC signals for safety, train control, speed, and bidirectional operation for alloptions.



Potential curve re-alignment at up to four locations36.Installation of 1 mile long passing sidings for 60 minute Stouffville options centered nearCentennial station.Double tracking for half-hourly headway options.Crossovers for double track service options to provide capacity for Maintenance of Way (M-of-W) activities and to overtake standing freight and passenger trains.Upgrades to highway crossing systems where a second track would run across the roadway.Additional (second) station platforms where stations would be in double track territory or inpassing sidings.High level platforms for all DMU options to provide for shorter dwell times, handicappedaccess and reduced train crew requirements.Upgrades to track and selected crossings for options with 60 mph maximum speeds, asdescribed earlier in this chapter.Maintenance and storage capacity for the offpeak service fleet including the spare consist.½ mile stub track and platform at the outer terminal for all 60 minute service frequencies.37

Passing Sidings and Double Track – The number of required passing sidings for each 60 minuteheadway option was determined by inspection of the prototypical train schedules. Hourlyoffpeak service to Unionville would not require any passing sidings. Hourly offpeak serviceto Stouffville would require one passing siding in the vicinity of Centennial station. Formore details on meet points, please consult the prototypical schedules and stringlines foundin the Appendix. Passing sidings in the 30 minute frequency options were not consideredbecause it was assumed that the entire branch would be double tracked.

Outer Terminal Configuration – A double track station at the outer terminal would be requiredfor all options requiring more than one consist in service. Given the scheduling dynamics ofthe Unionville and Stouffville services, outbound trains from Scarborough would tend toarrive at the outer terminal shortly before the corresponding inbound train would depart.

Crossovers – On double track railroads, crossovers provide the mechanism to overtake disabledtrains and to run around M-of-W crews working on the track. One or more universalcrossovers are recommended for any track configuration with double track. The density ofcrossovers recommended for each double track option was derived based on running times,route length, and service frequency as described below. A commonly used formula to

36 It is believed but not known that one or more reverse curves in the vicinity of Kennedy (Mile Post 55.5)and Agincourt (Mile Post 59.5) stations may limit maximum allowable speeds to 40 mph. It may be possibleto realign the tracks relieving this restriction. Preliminary analysis indicates that the extent of requiredrealignment may be as little as 30cm allowing the realignment to be achieved at a manageable cost.37 Inbound trains would still be standing at the outer terminal as outbound trains arrive for all 60-minuteservice frequency options.



determine the optimal distance between crossovers along a double track route is shownbelow: 38

Crossovers Between DistanceOptimal8.02

HeadwayBase60

SpeedOperatingAverage

The estimated optimal distance between crossovers is reported in Table 6.12.

Table 6.12: Estimated Optimal Distance between Crossovers

Avg. Time toScarborough (min)

Avg. Speed toScarborough

(MPH)

Optimal Distancebetween Crossovers

(miles)Service Option

Distance toScarborough

(mi.) DMU PP DMU PP DMU PPUnionville Class III 10 16:13 17:58 37.0 33.4 7.4 6.7Unionville Current Speed 10 18:57 20:59 31.7 28.6 6.3 5.7Stouffville Class III 20.1 33:23 39:01 36.1 30.9 7.2 6.2Stouffville Current Speed 20.1 37:19 41:43 32.3 28.9 6.5 5.8

Considering the overall length of the route and the optimal distance between crossovers, the teamrecommends that GO Transit consider installing up to three universal crossovers along the entireStouffville branch should GO Transit operate 30 minute frequency offpeak service. Table 6.13shows the optimal distance between crossovers and the number of crossovers for each terminal,equipment, and speed option.

Table 6.13:Recommended Number of Universal Crossovers

Optimal Distancebetween

Crossovers (miles)

Number ofUniversal

CrossoversService Option

Distance toScarborough

(mi.) DMU PP DMU PPUnionville Class 3 10 7.4 6.7 1 1Unionville Current Speed 10 6.3 5.7 1 1Stouffville Class 3 20.1 7.2 6.2 2 3Stouffville Current Speed 20.1 6.5 5.8 3 3

Table 6.14 (shown on the proceeding page) summarizes the infrastructure improvementsrecommended for each option, over and above the CTC signal system that would be required forany option.

38 Recently cited by Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas (December 2003). MOS-3 Northern Branch &Northern Branch Extension Operations Planning Report, page 7. Submitted to the NJ Transit CorporationOffice of New Rail Construction. Newark, NJ.



Table 6.14:Stouffville Branch: Recommended Infrastructure Improvements by Service Development Option

NameNo. of

TerminalStubs

No. ofPassingSidings

Miles ofDoubleTrack

RecommendedNo. of

Universal X-Overs

No. of RebuiltCrossings for

Superelevationor Double track

No. ofAdd'lLowLevel

PassengerPlatforms

No. ofHighLevel

Platforms

Units ofMaint.

&Storage

Capacity

DMU U 30 50 Existing 10 1 3 10 8DMU U 30 50 Modified 10 1 3 10 6DMU U 30 60 Existing 10 1 3 10 6DMU U 30 60 Modified 10 1 3 10 6DMU U 60 50 Existing 1 3 6 6DMU U 60 50 Modified 3 5 4DMU U 60 60 Existing 3 5 4DMU U 60 60 Modified 3 5 4DMU S 30 50 Existing 20.1 3 7 18 20DMU S 30 50 Modified 20.1 3 7 18 20DMU S 30 60 Existing 20.1 2 7 18 20DMU S 30 60 Modified 20.1 2 7 18 16DMU S 60 50 Existing 1 1 7 11 6DMU S 60 50 Modified 1 1 7 11 6DMU S 60 60 Existing 1 1 7 11 6DMU S 60 60 Modified 1 1 7 11 6PP U 30 50 Existing 10 1 3 5 12PP U 30 50 Modified 10 1 3 5 12PP U 30 60 Existing 10 1 3 5 12PP U 30 60 Modified 10 1 3 5 9PP U 60 50 Existing 1 3 9PP U 60 50 Modified 1 3 9PP U 60 60 Existing 1 3 9PP U 60 60 Modified 1 3 6PP S 30 50 Existing 20.1 3 7 9 20PP S 30 50 Modified 20.1 3 7 9 20PP S 30 60 Existing 20.1 3 7 9 20PP S 30 60 Modified 20.1 3 7 9 20PP S 60 50 Existing 1 1 7 2 9PP S 60 50 Modified 1 1 7 2 9PP S 60 60 Existing 1 1 7 2 9PP S 60 60 Modified 1 1 7 2 9



CHAPTER 7: COSTS AND REVENUES

INTRODUCTIONThis chapter provides preliminary estimates of the capital costs, operating costs, and passengerrevenues for each of 32 offpeak Stouffville branch service options. The chapter also providessummary estimates of the costs and revenues associated with the 2015 Baseline (No Build) optionand the Peak Build requirements associated with all offpeak rail service options.

CAPITAL COSTSEstimated capital costs for each alternative include investments in track, signals, grade crossings,stations, storage and maintenance facilities, and the rollingstock necessary for each service option.

INFRASTRUCTURE COSTSTo understand the economic feasibility of the various offpeak service options, the planning teamdeveloped estimates of the costs needed to construct the fixed railway improvements that would benecessary to operate each option. Estimates were developed using a simple three-step process:

Step 1: Estimated QuantitiesStep 2: Unit CostsStep 3: Continuing and Support Costs

STEP 1. ESTIMATED QUANTITIES – The study team established current conditions via site visits,inspection of track charts, review of previous studies, and advice from the GO Transit staff.Necessary improvements to operate the various service options were enumerated as summarized inTable 6.14 and listed in the following sections of this chapter.

Track Speed Improvements (Surfacing) – Half of the offpeak rail service options underconsideration entail upgrades to the existing Continuous Welded Rail (CWR) track via resurfacingto provide enhanced superelevation at curves. It was conservatively estimated that this upgradewould entail resurfacing the existing track for the entire route on segments where offpeak servicewould be offered. Table 7.1 lists the route lengths to be resurfaced to allow for Class 3 track speeds.

Table 7.1:Miles of Required Surfacing for

Existing Track for Class 3 SpeedsUnionville Service 10.0Stouffville Service 20.1

Track Speed Improvements (Crossing Signals) – As noted from Chapter 6, half of the offpeakrail service options entail raising speeds along the route to allow speeds up to 60 mph wherephysically feasible, and within the existing roadbed. Raising speeds would entail adjustments tocrossing circuits at all highway crossings to ensure adequate warning time for motorists. It isconservatively estimated that this upgrade would require adjustments at every crossing along the



route where offpeak service would be offered. Table 7.2 lists the number of grade crossings to beupgraded.

Table 7.2:Number of Grade Crossings

Requiring Speed Adjustments forClass 3 Speeds

Unionville Service 16Stouffville Service 36

Track Speed Improvements (Rebuilt Crossings) – Where superelevation would be introduced oncurves through grade crossings, the affected crossings would need to be rebuilt to account for thenew cross-level of the track. All crossings on curves that would require superelevation wereidentified for the Unionville and Stouffville terminal options. Table 7.3 lists the number of gradecrossings to be rebuilt for superelevation.

Table 7.3:Number of Grade Crossings to be

Rebuilt for Superelevation forClass 3 Speeds

Unionville Service 3Stouffville Service 7

CTC Signaling – Considerations related to safety, train control, and bi-directional operationsindicate that CTC signals should be installed for all offpeak service options. Table 7.4 lists the milesof track to be upgraded to CTC signaling.

Table 7.4:Miles of Track to Upgrade to CTC Signaling

(including Double Track, Passing Sidings, andTwo-Track Terminals)

Terminal

60minute

headway

30minute

headwayUnionville Service39 10.0 20.0Stouffville Service 21.6 40.2

Passing Sidings – It would be possible to operate the 60 minute headway service options withpassing sidings. (Double track would be preferred to enhance service reliability and maintenance ofway, but is not strictly necessary.) The number of required passing sidings for 60 minute servicevaries with the length of service, maximum allowable speeds, and possible adjustments to mainlineschedules.

39 For cases where Unionville service requires more than one consist, the miles of track to upgrade would be10.5 instead of 10.0, due to the two-track terminal at Unionville station.



All Stouffville trains were scheduled to meet in the vicinity of Centennial station, and require a one-mile long siding. Table 7.5 shows the number of required passing sidings needed for offpeak hourfrequency.

Table 7.5:Number of Required Passing Sidings for 60

Minute Frequency(excluding Two-Track Terminals)Service Option No. of Sidings

DMU U 60 50 ExistingDMU U 60 50 ModifiedDMU U 60 60 ExistingDMU U 60 60 ModifiedDMU S 60 50 Existing 1DMU S 60 50 Modified 1DMU S 60 60 Existing 1DMU S 60 60 Modified 1PP U 60 50 ExistingPP U 60 50 ModifiedPP U 60 60 ExistingPP U 60 60 ModifiedPP S 60 50 Existing 1PP S 60 50 Modified 1PP S 60 60 Existing 1PP S 60 60 Modified 1

Passing Sidings (Rebuilt Crossings) – With 60 minute frequency, a passing siding would beneeded for the Stouffville terminal options, and would be installed through the two public gradecrossings in the vicinity of Centennial station. The crossings themselves and the related signalsupport would need to be rebuilt. Table 7.6 lists the number of grade crossings to be rebuilt due tothe construction of passing sidings and the two-track Stouffville terminal station.



Table 7.6:Crossings Rebuilt

to Support 60-Minute Offpeak Frequency

Service Option No. ofSidings

No. ofCrossings

DMU U 60 50 ExistingDMU U 60 50 ModifiedDMU U 60 60 ExistingDMU U 60 60 ModifiedDMU S 60 50 Existing 1 3DMU S 60 50 Modified 1 3DMU S 60 60 Existing 1 3DMU S 60 60 Modified 1 3PP U 60 50 ExistingPP U 60 50 ModifiedPP U 60 60 ExistingPP U 60 60 ModifiedPP S 60 50 Existing 1 3PP S 60 50 Modified 1 3PP S 60 60 Existing 1 3PP S 60 60 Modified 1 3

Double Track – To provide reliable bi-directional service, it is recommended that double track beinstalled for all services featuring a 30-minute headway. Table 7.7 shows the route length to bedouble tracked for 30 minute frequency service.

Table 7.7:Miles of Double Track

Recommended for 30-MinuteHeadway Services

Unionville Service 10.0Stouffville Service 20.1

Double Track (Rebuilt Crossings) – Where double track would be installed through gradecrossings, the crossings and related signal support would need to be rebuilt. Table 7.8 lists thenumber of grade crossings to be rebuilt for 30 minute frequency service.

Table 7.8:Grade Crossings Rebuilt for

Double Track 30-minute ServiceUnionville Service 16Stouffville Service 36



Universal Crossovers in Double Track – As discussed in Chapter 6, one or more universalcrossovers are recommended for any track configuration with double track. The number ofcrossovers recommended for each double track option is listed below in Table 7.9.

Table 7.9:Recommended Numbers of Universal Crossovers

Service Option DMU PPUnionville Class 3 1 1Unionville Current Speed 1 1Stouffville Class 3 2 3Stouffville Current Speed 3 3

New Passenger Platforms for Double Track or Passing Sidings – Where double track or passingsidings run through passenger stations, new passenger platforms would be required. Table 7.10 liststhe number of additional low level platforms required for all Push-Pull service options.

Table 7.10:New Low Level Passenger Platforms

Required (includes Double Track, PassingSidings, and Two-Track Terminals)

No. Service Option

No. of Add'lLow Level

StationPlatforms

1 PP U 30 50 Existing 52 PP U 30 50 Modified 53 PP U 30 60 Existing 54 PP U 30 60 Modified 55 PP U 60 50 Existing 16 PP U 60 50 Modified7 PP U 60 60 Existing8 PP U 60 60 Modified9 PP S 30 50 Existing 910 PP S 30 50 Modified 911 PP S 30 60 Existing 912 PP S 30 60 Modified 913 PP S 60 50 Existing 214 PP S 60 50 Modified 215 PP S 60 60 Existing 216 PP S 60 60 Modified 2



High Level Platforms for DMU Operations – As discussed in Chapter 6, North American rail transitauthorities are increasingly focused on providing level boarding platforms for all types of transitservice in order to:

Provide access to transit for persons with disabilitiesReduce station/stop dwell times for all passengersReduce crew requirement for commuter rail operations

The study team recommends that GO Transit consider level boarding for DMU service to help meetall of these objectives. Unfortunately, no manufacturer currently offers a low floor DMU that meetsNorth American structural standards for unrestricted operation in mixed traffic with conventionalrailway trains. A high-level passenger platform would be the preferred solution for operation ofDMUs on the Stouffville Branch. Table 7.11 lists the number of high level platforms that need to beconstructed for DMU service.

Table 7.11:New High-Level Passenger Platforms Required

for DMU Service

No. Service OptionNo. of High

Level Platforms1 DMU U 30 50 Existing 102 DMU U 30 50 Modified 103 DMU U 30 60 Existing 104 DMU U 30 60 Modified 105 DMU U 60 50 Existing 66 DMU U 60 50 Modified 57 DMU U 60 60 Existing 58 DMU U 60 60 Modified 59 DMU S 30 50 Existing 18

10 DMU S 30 50 Modified 1811 DMU S 30 60 Existing 1812 DMU S 30 60 Modified 1813 DMU S 60 50 Existing 1114 DMU S 60 50 Modified 1115 DMU S 60 60 Existing 1116 DMU S 60 60 Modified 11

Vehicle Maintenance and Storage Facilities – It is clear that new capacity to store and maintainthe offpeak vehicle fleet would be required for any offpeak service option. The fleet requirementsrange between 4 units for the DMU U 60 60 Modified option and 20 units for the DMU S 30 50Existing option. Details on the numbers of units and compositions of the various fleets are found inTable 6.10 and Table 6.11.

Cost estimates of required maintenance and storage capacity for all 16 Unionville service optionsincludes an allowance of 13 units (1 locomotive and 11 coaches) required to transport the additional



peak riders that would be attracted to the GO Transit service by the introduction of peak service. Alarger allowance of 18 units (1 locomotive and 17 coaches) is allotted for the greater increment ofpeak ridership that would be attracted to the 16 Stouffville service options.

STEP 2. UNIT COSTSThe unit costs used to estimate the capital construction costs for each infrastructure element werederived from a variety of sources. The majority of cost estimates were achieved throughconsultation with JEG’s railway engineering group. However, some information was gatheredthrough the planning team’s survey efforts and previous studies. The unit cost estimates and theirsources are listed in Table 7.12.

Table 7.12:Infrastructure Cost Components for Various Track Improvements

Category Cost Item(s) Unit Unit $Source for Unit

CostsNew Track Track Mile $1,500,000 JEGTrack Resurfacing Track Mile $10,800 JEGSiding Each $3,200,000 JEGCrossovers + Interlocking Plant Each $3,500,000 JEGSignaling Track Mile $1,000,000 JEG

Track andSignal

Terminal Stub (excluding Platform) Each $1,350,000 JEGUpgrade Single Track Crossing Each $100,000 JEGBuild Double Track Crossing Each $250,000 JEGCrossingsSignal Crossing Each $175,000 JEGHigh Level Platforms (w/Canopy) Car Length $278,000 JEGStationsLow Level Platform (w/Mini High) Each $1,000,000 JEG

Misc. Maintenance Facility Vehicle $538,00040 NJ Transit41

Note: due to the fluctuations of the US dollar and Canadian dollar, an exchange rate of $1.00 CDN= $1.00 USD was used in all cost calculations.

STEP 3. CONTINGENCY AND SUPPORT COSTSA 15% contingency factor was applied to all track and signal infrastructure costs for each option. Inaddition to the contingency, various engineering and support costs were added to all estimates. Abreakdown of the various support costs are shown in Table 7.13.

40 Adjusted to 2007 value.41 KKO and Associates and New Jersey Institute of Technology. (2005). Northern Branch Case Study:Strategic Analysis of the Application of Self-Powered Railcars in New Jersey. Prepared for New JerseyTransit.



Table 7.13: Support Costs

Cost Item Budgeted AmountEngineering and construction management 15% of construction costAdministration 4% of construction costInsurance and permitting 3% of construction cost

Assuming the operational and infrastructure needs described in the Chapter 6 and specified underStep 1 of the cost estimation process, the study team was able to calculate the expected capital costsfor all infrastructure upgrades. The findings for the infrastructure costs for each option are shown inTable 7.14. The average infrastructure cost per route mile for each of the service options is shownin Table 7.15.

Note: the infrastructure costs reported in Table 7.14 include the incremental Peak Buildinfrastructure costs for both the Unionville and Stouffville alternatives. For Unionville, the PeakBuild incremental cost is $6.5 million and for Stouffville this cost is $9.7 million.

Table 7.14:Forecast Total Infrastructure Costs for 2015 Offpeak Service,

including Peak Build Costs ($ millions)DMU Push Pull

Service Option Unionville Stouffville Unionville Stouffville30 50 Existing $70.3 $159.0 $72.2 $145.630 50 Modified $68.9 $159.0 $72.2 $145.630 60 Existing $68.9 $154.1 $72.2 $145.630 60 Modified $68.9 $151.4 $70.2 $145.660 50 Existing $36.7 $72.3 $35.8 $69.360 50 Modified $32.8 $72.3 $34.6 $69.360 60 Existing $32.8 $72.3 $34.6 $69.360 60 Modified $32.8 $72.3 $32.6 $69.3

As noted in Chapter 6, there are up to four reverse curves that may require realignment to achievethe desired 60 mph passenger train speed. Under established engineering best practices it isdesirable to provide and maintain at least 100 feet of tangent track between the ends of spirals onreverse curves. A 25% reduction in spiral length can be allowed in order to achieve this tangentdistance. Two of these curves pass beneath overhead bridges carrying Ellesmere and Lawrenceavenues across the railway. A reduction of curvature at these four reverse curves particularly at thetwo bridge locations may pose a challenge to raising speeds. It is understood at the two bridgelocations best practice may be just achievable, or most likely reduced slightly, for a 40 mphpassenger train speed. Factors limiting the ability to realign these curves include the relativelynarrow 50-foot right of way in this vicinity and side clearances to bridge supports.



At the conceptual level of engineering appropriate for this feasibility study it seems that therestriction could be relieved with a relatively minor track realignment in the vicinity of 30 cm orless. For the time being, the costs of these possible realignments which could cost less than $50,000in engineering and construction costs are carried in the 15% contingency element of the overallinfrastructure cost estimate.

On a route mile basis, the infrastructure costs for 30 minute service are consistently higher than for60 minute service, reflecting the additional costs of double tracking the route and the associatedimprovements at stations and crossings.

Table 7.15:Average Infrastructure Cost per Route Mile ($ millions)

DMU Push PullService Option Unionville Stouffville Unionville Stouffville

30 50 Existing $7.03 $7.91 $7.22 $7.2430 50 Modified $6.89 $7.91 $7.22 $7.2430 60 Existing $6.89 $7.91 $7.22 $7.2430 60 Modified $6.89 $7.78 $7.02 $7.2460 50 Existing $3.67 $3.60 $3.58 $3.4560 50 Modified $3.28 $3.60 $3.46 $3.4560 60 Existing $3.28 $3.60 $3.46 $3.4560 60 Modified $3.28 $3.60 $3.26 $3.45

Rollingstock CostsTwo equipment alternatives were considered: DMU trains (comprised of a mix of powered cars andunpowered trailers) and two-car Push-Pull trains using GO Transit’s standard locomotives andcoaches. The Push-Pull option is included in this report to demonstrate the economic efficienciesthat can be achieved by employing DMUs instead of Push-Pull train sets. The fleet requirements ofDMUs, trailers, locomotives, and bi-level coaches for each alternative (including spares) aresummarized in Table 6.14.

The costs to acquire rollingstock were derived from a combination of industry and GO Transitsources, and are shown in Table 7.16.

Table 7.16:Rollingstock Unit Cost Estimates

Unit Type Cost ($ millions)DMU Power Car $3.6042

DMU Trailer $2.1443

42 Derived from data complied and published in the Transportation Research Board SPRC TechnologiesSubcommittee, on May 11, 2007.43 Reported by American Public Transportation Association website at

http://www.apta.com/research/stats/rail/railcost.cfm

http://www.apta.com/research/stats/rail/railcost.cfm



Table 7.16:Rollingstock Unit Cost Estimates

Unit Type Cost ($ millions)Locomotive $4.8644

Bi-level Coach $2.5745

The rollingstock acquisition costs for all 32 offpeak service options includes the costs forrollingstock to carry the additional Peak Build ridership that would use the GO Transit network ifoffpeak service was offered, and is shown in Table 7.17. As noted in Chapter 6, this increment ofequipment costs includes additional locomotives and coaches for growth peak service ridershipstimulated by offpeak service. One additional locomotive and 11 coaches totaling to $33.1 millionwould be required for the 16 Unionville options. One additional locomotive and 17 coaches totalingto $48.6 million would be required for the 16 Stouffville options.

Table 7.17:Rollingstock Acquisition Cost Estimates, including Peak Build Equipment

($ millions)DMU Push Pull


The average cost per unit is shown in Table 7.18. This table shows that DMUs have marginallylower average equipment costs for all options when compared to Push-Pulls.

44 Reported by GO Transit Equipment Department, Francis Hui, 11/5/2007.45 Ibid.



Table 7.18:Average Cost Per Unit of Rollingstock Acquired, not including

Peak Build Equipment ($ millions)DMU Push Pull


The sum of the forecast infrastructure and rollingstock costs for each service option are shown inTable 7.19.

Table 7.19:Forecast Total Capital Costs for 2015 Offpeak Service, including incremental Peak

Build Capital Costs ($ millions)DMU Push Pull


Operating and Maintenance CostsForecasts of 2015 operating costs for all service options were developed by summing separateforecasts of transportation, mechanical maintenance, maintenance of way, trackage fees, andadministration.



Derivation of Baseline and Peak Build Operating and Maintenance CostsUsing information provided by GO Transit staff, the planning team was able to derive estimates ofthe current (2006) avoidable operating and maintenance costs for the Stouffville branch.Specifically, the following information was provided by GO Transit46:

Current trains crews on the Stouffville branch are staffed by two engineers, and oneconductor

Annual cost for train crews range from $1.5 million to $1.8 million

Annual cost for maintenance of equipment, range from $3.5 million to $3.8 million

Annual Maintenance of Way (M-of-W) costs range from $500,000 to $800,000

Annual dispatching and quality incentive costs are both provided by CN, and range from$220,000 to $250,000

No other avoidable costs are associated with running Stouffville branch service

No change in current crew size

Based on this information, the study team estimated that present service has an avoidable cost in theneighborhood of $6.7 million, as detailed below:

Table 7.20:Annual 2006 Operating Costs

Operational ActivityAnnual Cost($ millions)

Train Crews $1.80Maintenance of Equipment $3.80Maintenance of Way $0.80Dispatching $0.30Total $6.70

Estimated fuel costs were derived from three data elements provided by GO Transit.47

Traction Power: 8.8 liters per train mileHead End Power: 10 liters per coach hourFuel Cost: $0.74 per liter

46 Reported by GO Transit, Mike Napolitano, 10/26/2007.47 Reported by GO Transit Equipment Department, Francis Hui, 11/30/2007.



Analysis of the current schedule indicates that current annual fuel expenditures for Stouffvilleservice are $1.1 million per year as detailed in Table 7.21.

Table 7.21:2006 Fuel Consumption

Traction PowerWeekday Train Miles 294Liters per Train Mile 8.8Cost per Liter $0.74Weekday Traction Power Expense $1,914Annual Traction Power Expense $480,546

Head End Power (HEP)Weekday Car Hours 10.2Liters per Car Hour 10Cost per Liter $0.74Weekday HEP Expense48 $662Annual Weekday HEP Expense $166,162Total Annual Fuel Expense $646,708

Offpeak rail service would stimulate peak ridership. This additional peak ridership would requirean additional locomotive and 11 coaches for Unionville offpeak service, or one additionallocomotive and 17 coaches for Stouffville offpeak service. The costs for additional crew,maintenance of equipment and fuel for the additional peak service termed “Peak Build” aresummarized below in Table 7.22.

Table 7.22:Peak Build Incremental Operating Costs

Unionville StouffvilleTrain Crews $311,254 $311,254Maintenance of Equipment $868,147 $1,244,911Fuel $137,653 $160,313Total $1,179,401 $1,716,478

Estimating Transportation Expense – Transportation costs incorporate the direct costs for serviceprovision including train crews, supervisors and dispatchers, fuel, and train supplies. Although onlyweekday schedules were developed, the costs for weekend services were estimated assuming thateach weekend and holiday service day would cost approximately half as much as weekday service.The following assumptions were used to arrive at transportation cost estimates:

48 Calculated using the current 44 coaches used by GO Transit and the time to travel from Stouffville toUnion Station, and the return trip time in the evening.



Typical year includes 251 weekdays, and 116 Sundays, Saturdays and holidays. This isestimated by using a multiplier of 300 to convert weekday costs to annual costs, assumingthat costs for weekend and holiday service would be approximately half the costs ofweekday service on a daily basis.

Saturday, Sunday, and holiday service will carry the same number of passengers as offpeakweekday service.

DMU trains would be operated with a two person crew – one engineer and one conductor.

Push-Pull trains would be staffed with a typical GO Transit three-person crew of twoengineers and one conductor.

Different crews would be assigned to midday and evening duties. In effect, two crewswould staff each train set each weekday; one in the midday and a different crew in theevening.

One transportation supervisor would be added for the Stouffville service.

Estimated fully loaded annual rate for GO Transit Engineman’s position and extraboard staffis $116,248.49

Estimated fully loaded annual rate for GO Transit Conductor’s position and extraboard staff$97,503.

The estimated fully loaded annual rate for the transportation supervisor would be equivalentto adding another engineer to the daily roster ($116,248).

Push-Pull fuel consumption for traction power is 8.8 liters per mile.

Push-Pull Head End Power (HEP) is 10 liters per coach per hour.

The DMU fuel consumption rates shown in Table 7.23:

49 Based on $1,650,000 reported annual crew costs for existing service that requires 10 engineers and 5conductors and an industry typical ratio of engineer/conductor compensation rates.



Table 7.23:DMU Fuel Consumption Rates50

CompositionNo.

DMU’sNo.

Trailer’sConsumptionRate (L/mi.)

1 1 3.82 1 6.12 2 7.4

CN charges for dispatching would not change with the new service and is not included in thecosts of providing offpeak rail service.

Go Transit fuel costs remain constant at $0.74 per liter.

Administration is estimated at 15% of the total maintenance and operation.

Table 7.24 lists the annual crew costs for offpeak service. The annual Peak Build staffing costs forall offpeak service options is estimated at $311,254. With Two Person Train Operation (TPTO) ofthe DMU options, the transportation staffing costs for DMU service are less than for Push-Pullservice.

Table 7.24:Estimated Annual Transport Staffing Costs for 2015 Offpeak Service,

not including Annual Peak Build Staffing Costs ($ millions)DMU Push Pull

Service Option Unionville Stouffville Unionville Stouffville30 50 Existing $ 1.72 $ 2.25 $ 2.58 $ 3.3930 50 Modified $ 1.19 $ 2.25 $ 2.58 $ 3.3930 60 Existing $ 1.19 $ 2.25 $ 2.58 $ 3.3930 60 Modified $ 1.19 $ 1.72 $ 1.77 $ 3.3960 50 Existing $ 1.19 $ 1.19 $ 1.77 $ 1.7760 50 Modified $ 0.67 $ 1.19 $ 1.77 $ 1.7760 60 Existing $ 0.67 $ 1.19 $ 1.77 $ 1.7760 60 Modified $ 0.67 $ 1.19 $ 0.95 $ 1.77

If GO Transit were to consider operation of DMU service with one person crews, the transportationstaffing costs would be further reduced as shown in Table 7.25.

50 Jacobs Engineering Group. (2005). Fairmount Line Service Improvements: Potential Use of DMUs. Prepared forthe Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.



Table 7.25:Estimated Annual DMU Transport Staffing Costs for 2015 Offpeak Service

($ millions)One Person Crews Two-Person Crews

Service Option Unionville Stouffville Unionville Stouffville30 50 Existing $ 1.24 $ 1.53 $ 1.72 $ 2.2530 50 Modified $ 0.95 $ 1.53 $ 1.19 $ 2.2530 60 Existing $ 0.95 $ 1.53 $ 1.19 $ 2.2530 60 Modified $ 0.95 $ 1.24 $ 1.19 $ 1.7260 50 Existing $ 0.95 $ 0.95 $ 1.19 $ 1.1960 50 Modified $ 0.67 $ 0.95 $ 0.67 $ 1.1960 60 Existing $ 0.67 $ 0.95 $ 0.67 $ 1.1960 60 Modified $ 0.67 $ 0.95 $ 0.67 $ 1.19

One person train operations (OPTO) employs a single person on each train as opposed to a moretypical crew size of two or more people. Every commuter railroad in North America operates with asingle engineer in the control cab. The engineer controls the movement of the train, responds totraffic control signals and stops short of obstructions. In addition to the engineer at the throttle,most systems operate with a conductor and one or more assistant conductors in the passengercompartments. The primary responsibilities of these staff are to verify/collect passenger revenue,operate doors to enter and exit the train, supervise boarding and alighting passengers, maintaindecorum in the passenger cabins and respond to passenger emergencies.

The practical factors that have been keeping large train crews on North American commuter trainsare revenue collection and passenger boarding. GO Transit operates with a proof of payment farescheme. DMUs could be procured that allow for level boarding on offpeak trains. Under theseconditions, it might be possible to operate offpeak DMU service with OPTO on the StouffvilleBranch.

Table 7.26 shows the estimated annual fuel costs for offpeak service. The incremental cost for PeakBuild annual fuel is estimated at $137,653 for Unionville and $160,313 for Stouffville. It is notablethat the estimated fuel costs shown in Table 7.26 are substantially lower if DMU equipment is used.



Table 7.26:Estimated Annual Fuel Costs for 2015 Offpeak Service,not including Annual Peak Build Fuel Costs ($ millions)

DMU Push PullService Option Unionville Stouffville Unionville Stouffville

30 50 Existing $0.42 $1.64 $1.40 $3.2030 50 Modified $0.42 $1.64 $1.37 $3.1830 60 Existing $0.42 $1.64 $1.36 $3.1630 60 Modified $0.42 $1.64 $1.18 $3.1460 50 Existing $0.21 $0.42 $0.67 $1.1860 50 Modified $0.21 $0.42 $0.66 $1.1860 60 Existing $0.21 $0.42 $0.66 $1.1860 60 Modified $0.21 $0.42 $0.54 $1.17

Estimated annual transport costs are consistently lower for DMU services with a low estimate of$880,000 for hourly DMU service to Unionville, and a high estimate of $6.59 million for a 30minute Push-Pull service to Stouffville. These results are summarized in Table 7.27.

Table 7.27:Estimated Annual Transport Costs for 2015 Offpeak Service: Staffing and Fuel,

not including Annual Peak Build Costs ($ millions)DMU Push Pull


Estimating Mechanical Expense (M-of-E) – The mechanical costs include labor and materials forvehicle maintenance. It is assumed GO Transit’s vehicle maintenance contractor would maintainthe additional rolling stock with new staff added to the workforce. Table 7.28 lists the estimatedannual unit maintenance costs for the equipment. Table 7.29 shows the estimated annual costs ofDMU maintenance and Table 7.30 shows the cost for Push-Pull maintenance.



Table 7.28:Estimated Annual Maintenance of Equipment

Unit Costs51

Vehicle Type Annual CostDMU $155,03052

Push-pull locomotive $177,41353

Bi-level Coach $ 62,79454

Unpowered DMU Trailer $ 62,79455

Table 7.29:Estimated Annual DMU Maintenance, not including Peak Build Equipment Maintenance Costs

Unionville Stouffville Unionville Stouffville

Service OptionNo. ofDMUs

No. ofTrailers

No. ofDMUs

No. ofTrailers

DMUCost

TrailerCost

DMUCost

TrailerCost

30 50 Existing 4 4 10 10 $620,120 $251,176 $1,550,300 $627,94030 50 Modified 3 3 10 10 $465,090 $188,382 $1,550,300 $627,94030 60 Existing 3 3 10 10 $465,090 $188,382 $1,550,300 $627,94030 60 Modified 3 3 8 8 $465,090 $188,382 $1,240,240 $502,35260 50 Existing 3 3 6 3 $465,090 $188,382 $465,090 $188,38260 50 Modified 2 2 3 3 $310,060 $125,588 $465,090 $188,38260 60 Existing 2 2 3 3 $310,060 $125,588 $465,090 $188,38260 60 Modified 2 2 3 3 $310,060 $125,588 $465,090 $188,382

Table 7.30:Estimated Annual Push-Pull Maintenance, not including Peak Build Equipment Maintenance Costs


Service OptionNo. ofLocos

No. ofCoaches

No. ofLocos

No. ofCoaches

Loco.Cost

CoachesCost

Loco.Cost

CoachesCost

30 50 Existing 4 8 5 15 $709,651 $502,352 $887,063 $941,91030 50 Modified 4 8 5 15 $709,651 $502,352 $887,063 $941,91030 60 Existing 4 8 5 15 $709,651 $502,352 $887,063 $941,91030 60 Modified 3 6 5 15 $532,238 $376,764 $887,063 $941,91060 50 Existing 3 6 3 6 $532,238 $376,764 $532,238 $376,76460 50 Modified 3 6 3 6 $532,238 $376,764 $532,238 $376,764

51 It is assumed that the cost of maintaining a DMU Trailer is the same as maintaining a bi-level coach.52 Jacobs Engineering Group, 2007, Quakertown Rail Restoration Alternatives Analysis, Submitted to Bucks CountyPlanning Commission, pp. 3.53 Based on $3,650,000 reported annual M-of-E costs for existing service that requires 5 locomotives and 44 coachesand an industry typical ratio of locomotive/coach maintenance cost rates.54 Ibid.55 Ibid.



Table 7.30:Estimated Annual Push-Pull Maintenance, not including Peak Build Equipment Maintenance Costs


Service OptionNo. ofLocos

No. ofCoaches

No. ofLocos

No. ofCoaches

Loco.Cost

CoachesCost

Loco.Cost

CoachesCost

60 60 Existing 3 6 3 6 $532,238 $376,764 $532,238 $376,76460 60 Modified 2 4 3 6 $354,825 $251,176 $532,238 $376,764

The estimated mechanical Peak Build costs are $0.86 million for Unionville service and $1.2million for Stouffville service. Using the unit vehicle maintenance costs, the estimated annualmaintenance of equipment cost for each offpeak service option is reported in Table 7.31. Themaintenance of equipment costs for DMU services using a single DMU power car tend to be lowerthan the comparable Push-Pull option. However, the total vehicle maintenance costs for DMUservices tend to be higher than Push-Pull service when a second DMU is added to the train.

Table 7.31:Estimated Annual Equipment Maintenance, not including Peak Build

Equipment Maintenance ($ millions) DMU Push-Pull


Estimating Maintenance of Way Expense – M-of-W costs include the direct costs for inspectionand maintenance of the infrastructure, including both labor and materials.

GO Transit currently reports that their contractor, PNR maintains the track along the branch at an annualexpenditure of up to $800,000 per year.

With the introduction of offpeak service and additional trackage, the complexity and cost of linemaintenance would increase primarily due to reduced track time in the midday for M-of-W activities. JEGrailway engineers very roughly estimate that the cost premium for the reduction in track time and increasein assets to be maintained would be almost double the current costs at $700,000 per year, bringing theannual costs for M-of-W up to $1.5 million for all alternatives.



Estimating Administrative Expense – Administrative costs include revenue collection andaccounting, marketing, personnel, training, and safety. These costs are estimated at 15% of theTransportation, M-of-E and M-of-W costs.

Total Annual Operating Costs – A summary of the incremental Peak Build operating costs foreach offpeak service option is shown in Table 7.32. Adding these incremental costs to the overalloffpeak operating costs leads to the total operating costs for each offpeak service option, shown inTable 7.33. The estimates of total annual operating costs range from a high of $13.4 million for PPS 30 50 Existing to a low of $4.8 million for DMU U 60 60 Modified.

Table 7.32:Peak Build Incremental Operating Costs ($ millions)

Service Option Transport MechanicalUnionville $0.45 $0.9Stouffville $0.47 $1.2

Table 7.33:Forecast Annual Operating Costs for 2015 Offpeak Rail Service,

including Peak Build Costs ($ millions)

No. Service Option TransportMechanical

MaintenanceMaintenance

of WayAdmin.(15%) Total

1 DMU U 30 50 Existing $ 2.60 $ 1.74 $ 1.50 $ 0.88 $ 6.722 DMU U 30 50 Modified $ 2.08 $ 1.52 $ 1.50 $ 0.76 $ 5.863 DMU U 30 60 Existing $ 2.08 $ 1.52 $ 1.50 $ 0.76 $ 5.864 DMU U 30 60 Modified $ 2.08 $ 1.52 $ 1.50 $ 0.76 $ 5.865 DMU U 60 50 Existing $ 1.87 $ 1.52 $ 1.50 $ 0.73 $ 5.636 DMU U 60 50 Modified $ 1.34 $ 1.30 $ 1.50 $ 0.62 $ 4.777 DMU U 60 60 Existing $ 1.34 $ 1.30 $ 1.50 $ 0.62 $ 4.778 DMU U 60 60 Modified $ 1.34 $ 1.30 $ 1.50 $ 0.62 $ 4.779 DMU S 30 50 Existing $ 4.37 $ 3.42 $ 1.50 $ 1.39 $ 10.69

10 DMU S 30 50 Modified $ 4.37 $ 3.42 $ 1.50 $ 1.39 $ 10.6911 DMU S 30 60 Existing $ 4.37 $ 3.42 $ 1.50 $ 1.39 $ 10.6912 DMU S 30 60 Modified $ 3.85 $ 2.99 $ 1.50 $ 1.25 $ 9.5813 DMU S 60 50 Existing $ 2.10 $ 1.90 $ 1.50 $ 0.83 $ 6.3314 DMU S 60 50 Modified $ 2.10 $ 1.90 $ 1.50 $ 0.83 $ 6.3315 DMU S 60 60 Existing $ 2.10 $ 1.90 $ 1.50 $ 0.83 $ 6.3316 DMU S 60 60 Modified $ 2.10 $ 1.90 $ 1.50 $ 0.83 $ 6.3317 PP U 30 50 Existing $ 4.44 $ 2.08 $ 1.50 $ 1.20 $ 9.2318 PP U 30 50 Modified $ 4.41 $ 2.08 $ 1.50 $ 1.20 $ 9.1919 PP U 30 60 Existing $ 4.41 $ 2.08 $ 1.50 $ 1.20 $ 9.1920 PP U 30 60 Modified $ 3.41 $ 1.78 $ 1.50 $ 1.00 $ 7.6921 PP U 60 50 Existing $ 2.91 $ 1.78 $ 1.50 $ 0.93 $ 7.1122 PP U 60 50 Modified $ 2.90 $ 1.78 $ 1.50 $ 0.93 $ 7.10



Table 7.33:Forecast Annual Operating Costs for 2015 Offpeak Rail Service,

including Peak Build Costs ($ millions)

No. Service Option TransportMechanical

MaintenanceMaintenance

of WayAdmin.(15%) Total

23 PP U 60 60 Existing $ 2.90 $ 1.78 $ 1.50 $ 0.93 $ 7.1024 PP U 60 60 Modified $ 1.96 $ 1.47 $ 1.50 $ 0.74 $ 5.6725 PP S 30 50 Existing $ 7.08 $ 3.07 $ 1.50 $ 1.75 $ 13.4026 PP S 30 50 Modified $ 7.06 $ 3.07 $ 1.50 $ 1.75 $ 13.3827 PP S 30 60 Existing $ 7.04 $ 3.07 $ 1.50 $ 1.74 $ 13.3528 PP S 30 60 Modified $ 7.02 $ 3.07 $ 1.50 $ 1.74 $ 13.3329 PP S 60 50 Existing $ 3.44 $ 2.15 $ 1.50 $ 1.06 $ 8.1530 PP S 60 50 Modified $ 3.43 $ 2.15 $ 1.50 $ 1.06 $ 8.1531 PP S 60 60 Existing $ 3.43 $ 2.15 $ 1.50 $ 1.06 $ 8.1532 PP S 60 60 Modified $ 3.43 $ 2.15 $ 1.50 $ 1.06 $ 8.15

SAVINGS FROM DISCONTINUATION OF BUS SERVICECurrently, GO Transit operates an offpeak bus service making stops along the proposed offpeakStouffville route. It makes 58 revenue trips which carry approximately 432 passengers eachweekday. If GO Transit implements offpeak rail service, it could discontinue some operation of busservice along the route. GO Transit estimates that the “avoidable cost” of discontinuing the entireStouffville bus service will save approximately $2.15 million in operational costs. This cost savingsdoes not reflect a reduction in the number of mechanics, supervisors, and bus cleaners currentlyemployed by GO Transit.

BUS SERVICEGO Transit Stouffville service includes a mix of rail and bus trips to provide mobility for residentsof the corridor. Presently, the service entails 10 train trips and 58 revenue bus trips. The bus tripsencompass a varied set of origins and destinations as summarized in Table 7.34.

Table 7.34:Current Weekday Bus Service Summary

Trips Inbound OutboundUxbridge - Toronto 7 12Markham - Toronto 1 0Centennial - Toronto 3 7Stouffville - Toronto 8 11Stouffville - Uxbridge 4Stouffville - UnionvilleUxbridge - Mount Joy 5Uxbridge - UnionvilleTotals 23 35 58



Table 7.35 provides additional detail on the nature of the various bus services in the corridor.

Table 7.35: Summary of Current Weekday Bus ServiceDescription No. Trips

InboundEarly AM shoulder trips from Stouffville to Toronto 1Peak feeder service between Uxbridge and Stouffville for connections to peak trains 4Mid-morning peak shoulder trip from Uxbridge to Toronto 1Late AM shoulder trips from stations north of Milliken to Toronto arriving by noon atToronto Union station

9

Bi-hourly afternoon trips from Stouffville through Unionville to Toronto 2Bi-hourly service from Uxbridge through Unionville to Toronto 3Reverse peak trips from Uxbridge to Toronto 2Evening trip from Stouffville to Toronto 1Total Inbound Trips 23

OutboundMid-AM reverse peak trip to Uxbridge 1Late morning trips from Toronto to Stouffville arriving in Stouffville before noon 2Bi-hourly late AM departing trips to Uxbridge 2Early afternoon trips to Stouffville 4Afternoon trips to Uxbridge 1Afternoon trip to Uxbridge making stops from Markham north 2Late afternoon trips to stations north of Milliken 2Peak feeder service meets GO Trains at Mount Joy for service to Uxbridge 5Evening trips to Stouffville, making stops from Markham north 3Late evening trips to Uxbridge, making stops from Markham north 2Evening trips to Centennial 5Evening bus service trips to Uxbridge 1Evening trips to Stouffville 5Total Outbound Trips 35

With introduction of offpeak rail service on the branch, it would be possible to adjust the busservices to provide a similar array of travel options for corridor residents with fewer bus trips. Tofacilitate the economic evaluation of the various offpeak rail service options, the study teamprepared rough service plans for the bus services designed to integrate with the four families ofoffpeak service alternatives:

5. Unionville 60 minute service6. Unionville 30 minute service7. Stouffville 60 minute service8. Stouffville 30 minute service



The service plans were devised to substitute rail travel for bus travel wherever practical, whilepreserving the general mobility options offered by the current mix of peak rail and offpeak busservice. In no circumstance would it be possible to eliminate all bus service while maintaining theequivalent service frequencies and options provided by the bus.

For example, present services include bi-hourly offpeak service between Uxbridge and Toronto.Where possible, this would be replaced with bi-hourly offpeak service between Uxbridge orStouffville and Unionville, but would not completely eliminate the need for bus services. Similarly,the present service entails nine post-peak morning inbound buses between Toronto and stationsnorth of Milliken. With a Unionville rail shuttle some or all of these bus routes could be shortenedwith a connection to offpeak rail services at Unionville.

Unionville 60 Offpeak Rail Service - Implementation of hourly offpeak rail service betweenUnionville and Scarborough would not create many opportunities to completely replace bus tripswith the new rail service. However, it would be possible to truncate many bus trips that presentlyrun through to Toronto at Unionville station. Of the current 47 trips daily weekday trips betweenToronto and Stouffville / Uxbridge (out of 58 daily corridor trips), 25 trips still need to be run inorder to provide the same level of service currently offered. The remaining 22 daily trips could berescheduled to feed into and out of the Unionville station and would allow for three Toronto trips tobe eliminated.56 The five evening peak rail feeder buses could be truncated at Stouffville station inorder to meet the peak rail service, instead of meeting at Mount Joy GO Station. A trip summary ofthe new service is shown in Table 7.36 below.

Table 7.36:Unionville 60 Weekday Bus Service Summary

Trips Inbound OutboundUxbridge - Toronto 5 8Markham - TorontoCentennial - TorontoStouffville - Toronto 5 7Stouffville - Uxbridge 4 5Stouffville - Unionville 5 14Uxbridge - Mount JoyUxbridge - Unionville 2Totals 21 34 55

In total, the approximate number of revenue bus trips required to support an hourly offpeakUnionville rail service would be 55, a 5% reduction when compared to current service. However,22 of these trips which once ran to Toronto would now terminate at Unionville. Details on the

56 Assuming the 11 daily trips between Markham / Centennial and Toronto Union Station could berescheduled to run from Uxbridge / Stouffville to Unionville on a bi-hourly basis.



anticipated bus service required to support an hourly offpeak Unionville rail shuttle are listed inTable 7.37.

Table 7.37:Summary of Unionville 60 minute offpeak rail bus services

Description No. TripsInbound

Early AM shoulder trip from Uxbridge to Toronto 1Peak feeder service between Uxbridge and Stouffville for connections to peak trains 4Mid-morning peak shoulder trip from Uxbridge to Toronto 1Late AM peak shoulder trip from Uxbridge to Toronto 1Trips from Uxbridge feeder to offpeak rail service at Unionville before noon 1Trips from Stouffville feeder to offpeak rail service at Unionville before noon 2Trips from Stouffville to Toronto before noon 2Bi-hourly trips from Uxbridge feeder to Unionville 1Trips made after noon from Stouffville to Toronto 2Feeder trips from Stouffville to Unionville 2Reverse peak shoulder trips from Uxbridge to Toronto 2Evening feeder trips from Stouffville to Unionville 1Evening trip from Stouffville to Toronto 1Total Inbound Trips 21

OutboundMid-AM reverse peak trip from Toronto to Uxbridge 1Bi-hourly AM trips from Toronto to Stouffville arriving in Stouffville before noon 2Bi-hourly late AM trips from Toronto to Uxbridge, departing before noon 2Feeder trips from Unionville offpeak to Stouffville before PM peak 8Early afternoon trip from Toronto to Stouffville 1Hourly afternoon trips from Toronto to Uxbridge 2Peak shoulder trip from Toronto to Stouffville 1Peak service meets all outbound trains from Toronto at Stouffville and runs shoulder serviceto Uxbridge

5

Hourly Evening to night shoulder trips from Toronto to Uxbridge 2Night trips from Toronto to Stouffville 3Feeder trips from Unionville offpeak to Stouffville in night offpeak service 6Night trip from Toronto to Uxbridge 1Total Outbound Trips 34

Unionville 30 Offpeak Rail Service - An offpeak Unionville shuttle operating at a 30 minuteservice frequency would provide more opportunities to replace bus services. The total number ofbus trips could be reduced to approximately 44, a 24% reduction from the status quo, with 31 bustrips truncated to terminate at Unionville instead of running through to Toronto.57 See Table 7.38for a summary of the bus trips to be made and Table 7.39 for a more detailed synopsis of the trips.

57 Ibid.



Table 7.38:Unionville 30 Weekday Bus Service Summary

Trips Inbound OutboundUxbridge - Toronto 1 2Markham - TorontoCentennial – TorontoStouffville - Toronto 1Stouffville - Uxbridge 4 5Stouffville - Unionville 7 13Uxbridge - Mount JoyUxbridge - Unionville 5 6Totals 17 27 44



Table 7.39:Summary of Unionville 30 minute offpeak rail bus services


Early AM shoulder trip from Uxbridge to Toronto 1Peak feeder service between Uxbridge and Stouffville for connections to peak trains 4Mid-morning peak shoulder trip from Uxbridge to Unionville 1Trips from Uxbridge feeder to offpeak rail service at Unionville before noon 2Trips from Stouffville feeder to offpeak rail service at Unionville before noon 5Bi-hourly trips from Uxbridge feeder to Unionville 2Trips made after noon from Stouffville to Unionville 2Total Inbound Trips 17

OutboundMid-AM reverse peak trip from Toronto to Uxbridge 1Mid-AM trip from Toronto to Stouffville 1Feeder trips from Unionville offpeak to Stouffville before PM peak 7Feeder trips from Unionville offpeak to Uxbridge before PM peak 3Peak service meets all outbound trains from Toronto at Stouffville and runs shoulderservice to Uxbridge

5

Night feeder trips from Unionville offpeak to Uxbridge 3Feeder trips from Unionville offpeak to Stouffville in night offpeak service 6Night trip from Toronto to Uxbridge 1Total Outbound Trips 27

Stouffville 60 Offpeak Rail Service - Extension of offpeak rail service to Stouffville would furtherreduce demand for supporting bus services. The rough bus service plan to supplement hourlyoffpeak Stouffville rail service would require only 29 total daily bus trips, a 50% reduction from thestatus quo. Of the remaining 29 total trips, the number running through to Toronto would bereduced to only 17 revenue trips, compared with 47 in the baseline condition. All other trips wouldrun between Uxbridge and Stouffville. For more detail, please see Table 7.40 and Table 7.41

Table 7.40: Stouffville 60 Weekday Bus Service SummaryTrips Inbound OutboundUxbridge - Toronto 5 7Markham - TorontoCentennial - TorontoStouffville - Toronto 5Stouffville - Uxbridge 7 5Stouffville - UnionvilleUxbridge - Mount JoyUxbridge - UnionvilleTotals 12 17 29



Table 7.41:Summary of Stouffville 60 minute offpeak rail bus services


Early AM shoulder trip from Uxbridge to Toronto 1Peak feeder service between Uxbridge and Stouffville for connections to peak trains 4Mid-morning peak shoulder trip from Uxbridge to Toronto 1Late morning shoulder trip from Uxbridge to Toronto 1Trips from Uxbridge feeder to offpeak rail service at Stouffville before noon 1Bi-hourly afternoon trips from Uxbridge feeder to Stouffville 2Reverse Peak Trips from Uxbridge to Toronto 2Total Inbound Trips 12

OutboundMid-AM reverse peak trip from Toronto to Uxbridge 1Mid- AM reverse peak trip from Toronto to Stouffville 1Late morning bi-hourly trips from Toronto to Uxbridge arriving before noon 2Afternoon trips from Toronto to Stouffville 2Hourly afternoon trips from Toronto to Uxbridge 1Feeder service from Stouffville to Uxbridge 5Evening shoulder trip from Toronto to Uxbridge 2Night trips from Toronto to Stouffville 2Night trips from Toronto to Uxbridge 1Total Outbound Trips 17

Stouffville 30 Offpeak Rail Service - An offpeak Stouffville rail shuttle operating at a 30 minuteservice frequency would provide a few more opportunities to replace supporting bus services withthe new rail service. The total number of bus trips could be reduced to 25, approximately a 60%reduction from the status quo, with 11 additional bus trips truncated at Stouffville instead of runningthrough to Toronto or Uxbridge. See Table 7.42 and Table 7.43 for more details.

Table 7.42:Stouffville 30 Weekday Bus Service Summary

Trips Inbound OutboundUxbridge - Toronto 3Markham - TorontoCentennial - TorontoStouffville - Toronto 1 1Stouffville - Uxbridge 9 11Stouffville - UnionvilleUxbridge - Mount JoyUxbridge - UnionvilleTotals 10 15 25



Table 7.43:Summary of Stouffville 30 minute offpeak rail bus services


Early AM shoulder trip from Stouffville to Toronto 1Peak feeder service between Uxbridge and Stouffville for connections to peak trains 4Mid-morning to noon shoulder trip from Uxbridge to Stouffville to meet 1st inboundoffpeak train

3

Bi-hourly afternoon trips from Uxbridge to Stouffville to meet offpeak trains 2Total Trips 10

OutboundMid-AM reverse peak trip from Toronto to Uxbridge 1Mid-AM reverse peak trip from Toronto to Stouffville 1Bi-hourly feeder service to Uxbridge from outbound offpeak trains after AM peak 3Early afternoon trips from Toronto to Uxbridge 2Peak service meets all outbound trains from Toronto at Stouffville and runs peak shoulderservice to Uxbridge

5

Late evening hourly evening bus service trips from Stouffville to Uxbridge 2Late night bus service trip from Stouffville to Uxbridge 1Total Trips 15

Derivation of “Avoidable” Cost Savings - With the implementation of offpeak rail shuttle service,GO Transit will be able to lower some of its operating costs reconfiguring or eliminating someoffpeak and peak bus trips. Specifically, the following information was provided by GO Transitand used in estimating the avoidable cost savings that could be achieved with bus servicereductions:58

GO Transit will not reduce the number of supervisors, mechanics, cleaners, etc as a result ofthe reduction of service on the corridor.

GO Transit spends approximately $42 per bus driver hour (including fringe benefits,premiums, overtime, vacation, extraboard staff, etc)Direct cost to operate each bus is approximately $.07 per kilometer.

Weekday operation requires a substantial amount of deadheading (placement costs), whichmakes the weekday cost per trip higher than a weekend trip (typically one trip in and onetrip out).

58 Reported by GO Transit, Ken Armstrong, 12/13/2007.



There are 48 weekday trips between Toronto and Uxbridge/Stouffville. The cost per trip is$143.65, and results in an annual cost avoidance of $1.75 million.

There are 36 weekend trips between Toronto and Uxbridge/Stouffville. The cost per trip is$97.61 for an annual cost avoidance of $400,000.

Total variable operating costs for Uxbridge/Stouffville train-bus trips are roughly $2.15million per year.59

Buses operate up to 30 minute headways on weekdays. The offpeak rail shuttle should offera high frequency of service to avoid bus-train trips (e.g., Georgetown branch).

Including 10 weekday bus trips that do not run through to Toronto, the study teamdetermined that the average avoidable cost per trip regardless of origin or destination is$123.56.60

For the rough purposes of this screening analysis, each Toronto bus trip completely eliminated fromthe timetable would be worth $123.56 in daily savings. Each trip truncated to Unionville wouldsave half of the avoidable costs, or $61.78 per day, and each trip truncated to Stouffville would savetwo thirds of the avoidable costs at $82.37 per day. All daily savings were annualized with amultiplier of 300. Table 7.44 summarizes the approximate number of daily trips that could beeliminated or shortened under each service option.

Table 7.44:Adjusted Weekday Bus Schedule for Stouffville Corridor

Service Option

EliminatedToronto

Trips

TripsTruncated to

Unionville

TripsTruncated to

StouffvilleUnionville 60 minute Frequency 3 22 5Unionville 30 minute Frequency 14 31 5Stouffville 60 minute Frequency 29 0 12Stouffville 30 minute Frequency 45 0 11

The annualized savings for each eliminated Toronto bus trip would be $37,068. For trips truncatedto Unionville, the annualized savings would be $18,534 per trip, and trips shortened to Stouffvilleresult in yearly savings of $28,730 per trip. A summary of these results is shown in Table 7.45below.

59 $1.75 million + $0.40 million = $2.15 million60 ($2.15 million in avoidable costs / 58 bus corridor trips per day x 300 service days per year).



Table 7.45:Estimated Annual Bus Savings

per Offpeak Rail Family OptionUnionville 60 Frequency $ 642,526Unionville 30 Frequency $1,215,381Stouffville 60 Frequency $1,371,544Stouffville 30 Frequency $1,939,935

An hourly offpeak shuttle to Unionville would save approximately $650,000 in annual avoidablecosts. Many shoulder peak and midday trips to Toronto would still be required. A half-hourlyshuttle to Unionville would save almost twice the amount in bus service expenses at approximately$1.2 million, with substantial savings from the eliminated Toronto trips.

An hourly offpeak shuttle to Stouffville would save roughly the same amount as the 30 minuteUnionville service, at $1.3 million. The Stouffville 30 minute shuttle would provide the mostsavings in avoidable costs due to the elimination of most Toronto bound direct bus service trips, at$1.9 million per year.

An updated table of annual operating costs, including the savings from eliminating or shortening thebus services is shown in Table 7.46.

Table 7.46:Estimated Annual Operating Costs

(with Estimated Savings From Reduced Bus Service) ($ millions)DMU Push-Pull

Service Option

RailOperating

Cost

RailOperatingCost less

Bus Savings

RailOperating

Cost


Bus SavingsU 30 50 Existing $ 6.72 $ 5.48 $ 9.23 $ 7.99U 30 50 Modified $ 5.86 $ 4.63 $ 9.19 $ 7.95U 30 60 Existing $ 5.86 $ 4.63 $ 9.19 $ 7.95U 30 60 Modified $ 5.86 $ 4.63 $ 7.69 $ 6.46U 60 50 Existing $ 5.63 $ 5.00 $ 7.11 $ 6.49U 60 50 Modified $ 4.77 $ 4.14 $ 7.10 $ 6.47U 60 60 Existing $ 4.77 $ 4.14 $ 7.10 $ 6.47U 60 60 Modified $ 4.77 $ 4.14 $ 5.67 $ 5.05S 30 50 Existing $ 10.69 $ 8.71 $ 13.40 $ 11.42S 30 50 Modified $ 10.69 $ 8.71 $ 13.38 $ 11.40S 30 60 Existing $ 10.69 $ 8.71 $ 13.35 $ 11.37S 30 60 Modified $ 9.58 $ 7.60 $ 13.33 $ 11.35S 60 50 Existing $ 6.33 $ 4.91 $ 8.15 $ 6.73S 60 50 Modified $ 6.33 $ 4.91 $ 8.15 $ 6.73



Table 7.46:Estimated Annual Operating Costs

(with Estimated Savings From Reduced Bus Service) ($ millions)DMU Push-Pull

Service Option

RailOperating

Cost


Bus Savings

RailOperating

Cost


Bus SavingsS 60 60 Existing $ 6.33 $ 4.91 $ 8.15 $ 6.73S 60 60 Modified $ 6.33 $ 4.91 $ 8.15 $ 6.73

FORECAST PASSENGER REVENUEForecasts of passenger revenue are critical to the economic evaluation of offpeak rail serviceoptions. The revenue projections rely on incremental peak and offpeak ridership forecasts. Theoffpeak ridership forecasts vary with regards to outer terminal, service frequency, equipment, andtrack speed.

Using GO Transit conventions, the estimated revenue associated with each incremental trip wasbased on 85% of the current one-way fare from each station to Toronto Union Station. Thisapproach to revenue estimation is consistent with GO Transit Planning’s approach and to othersimilar studies. Table 7.46 shows the current GO Transit fares and average passenger revenues ateach station in the study area.

Estimated daily revenues were converted to annual revenues using a multiplier of 300. Thisassumes that revenues on Saturdays, Sundays and Holidays would average 50% of typical weekdayreceipts, as previously stated.

Forecasts of annual passenger revenues for each offpeak service option includes the incrementalfare revenue generated from the additional passengers riding in the peak and are shown in Table7.47. The incremental peak fare revenues for Unionville service is $2.0 million and $4.9 million forStouffville.

Table 7.47:Forecast Incremental Passenger Trips and Revenues61

(A) (B) (A) + (B) (C) (D) (C) + (D)

No. Service OptionNew PeakBoardings

OffpeakBoardings

Total NewBoardings

OffpeakRevenue

Peak BuildRevenue

TotalRevenue

1 DMU U 30 50 Existing 1,872 2,969 4,841 $4,786,205 $2,054,466 $6,840,6712 DMU U 30 50 Modified 1,872 2,969 4,841 $4,786,205 $2,054,466 $6,840,6713 DMU U 30 60 Existing 1,872 3,039 4,911 $4,898,512 $2,054,466 $6,952,9784 DMU U 30 60 Modified 1,872 3,039 4,911 $4,898,512 $2,054,466 $6,952,9785 DMU U 60 50 Existing 1,872 1,113 2,985 $1,794,827 $2,054,466 $3,849,293

61 Ibid.



Table 7.47:Forecast Incremental Passenger Trips and Revenues61

(A) (B) (A) + (B) (C) (D) (C) + (D)

No. Service OptionNew PeakBoardings

OffpeakBoardings

Total NewBoardings

OffpeakRevenue

Peak BuildRevenue

TotalRevenue

6 DMU U 60 50 Modified 1,872 1,113 2,985 $1,794,827 $2,054,466 $3,849,2937 DMU U 60 60 Existing 1,872 1,140 3,012 $1,836,942 $2,054,466 $3,891,4088 DMU U 60 60 Modified 1,872 1,140 3,012 $1,836,942 $2,054,466 $3,891,4089 DMU S 30 50 Existing 4,114 6,921 11,035 $12,047,611 $4,872,805 $16,920,416

10 DMU S 30 50 Modified 4,114 6,921 11,035 $12,047,611 $4,872,805 $16,920,41611 DMU S 30 60 Existing 4,114 7,036 11,150 $12,244,210 $4,872,805 $17,117,01512 DMU S 30 60 Modified 4,114 7,036 11,150 $12,244,210 $4,872,805 $17,117,01513 DMU S 60 50 Existing 4,114 2,595 6,709 $4,517,854 $4,872,805 $9,390,65914 DMU S 60 50 Modified 4,114 2,595 6,709 $4,517,854 $4,872,805 $9,390,65915 DMU S 60 60 Existing 4,114 2,638 6,752 $4,591,579 $4,872,805 $9,464,38416 DMU S 60 60 Modified 4,114 2,638 6,752 $4,591,579 $4,872,805 $9,464,38417 PP U 30 50 Existing 1,872 2,897 4,769 $4,668,815 $2,054,466 $6,723,28118 PP U 30 50 Modified 1,872 2,897 4,769 $4,668,815 $2,054,466 $6,723,28119 PP U 30 60 Existing 1,872 2,999 4,871 $4,833,868 $2,054,466 $6,888,33420 PP U 30 60 Modified 1,872 2,999 4,871 $4,833,868 $2,054,466 $6,888,33421 PP U 60 50 Existing 1,872 1,086 2,958 $1,750,806 $2,054,466 $3,805,27122 PP U 60 50 Modified 1,872 1,086 2,958 $1,750,806 $2,054,466 $3,805,27123 PP U 60 60 Existing 1,872 1,125 2,997 $1,812,701 $2,054,466 $3,867,16624 PP U 60 60 Modified 1,872 1,125 2,997 $1,812,701 $2,054,466 $3,867,16625 PP S 30 50 Existing 4,114 6,684 10,798 $11,625,075 $4,872,805 $16,497,87926 PP S 30 50 Modified 4,114 6,684 10,798 $11,625,075 $4,872,805 $16,497,87927 PP S 30 60 Existing 4,114 6,893 11,007 $11,987,103 $4,872,805 $16,859,90728 PP S 30 60 Modified 4,114 6,893 11,007 $11,987,103 $4,872,805 $16,859,90729 PP S 60 50 Existing 4,114 2,506 6,620 $4,359,403 $4,872,805 $9,232,20830 PP S 60 50 Modified 4,114 2,506 6,620 $4,359,403 $4,872,805 $9,232,20831 PP S 60 60 Existing 4,114 2,585 6,699 $4,495,163 $4,872,805 $9,367,96832 PP S 60 60 Modified 4,114 2,585 6,699 $4,495,163 $4,872,805 $9,367,968

Fare revenues vary depending on the forecast passenger ridership, which vary according to terminallocation, service frequency, equipment, and track speed. Not surprisingly, the DMU Stouffville 30minute frequency options have the highest forecast revenue of all the proposed options atapproximately ($16.9 million to $17.1 million). The Push-Pull Unionville 60 minute options havethe lowest forecast revenue ($3.8 million to $3.9 million).

REVENUE ALLOCATION

A portion of total revenue generated by offpeak service (including the incremental Peak Build) wasallocated to the Lakeshore service by means of a distance based algorithm. The distance-based



revenue allocation distributes the revenue between the mainline and branch line services based onmiles traveled on each service for a one-way trip to Toronto (see Table 7.48). The fraction of totaldistance traveled on the Stouffville Corridor (Column C) was multiplied by the estimated one-wayToronto fare revenue at each station (Column D) to determine the passenger revenue allocated tothe Stouffville branch (Column E).

Table 7.48:Percent of Fare to Toronto Based on Travel to Scarborough

(A) (B) (C) = (B)/(A) (D)(E) = 0.85 x

(D) (C) x (E)

StationMiles toToronto

Miles toScarborough

% of Dist toScarborough

1-WayFare

1-WayFare Rev

Fare Revto Scar. by

MilesStouffville 29.4 20.1 68% $ 6.90 $ 5.87 $ 4.01Mount Joy 24.2 14.9 62% $ 6.05 $ 5.14 $ 3.17Markham 23 13.7 60% $ 5.55 $ 4.72 $ 2.81Centennial 21.5 12.2 57% $ 5.55 $ 4.72 $ 2.68Unionville 19.3 10 52% $ 5.40 $ 4.59 $ 2.38Milliken 17.1 7.8 46% $ 5.20 $ 4.42 $ 2.02Agincourt 14.5 5.2 36% $ 4.50 $ 3.83 $ 1.37Kennedy 10.5 1.2 11% $ 3.70 $ 3.15 $ 0.36Scarborough 9.2 0 0% $ 3.71 $ 3.15 $ 0.00

The allocated revenue per passenger at each station shown in Table 7.48 was multiplied by theforecast ridership per station to generate the total revenue allocated to the Stouffville Corridorshown in Table 7.48 (Column B). Using the fare based revenue allocation method approximately61% to 71% of all generated revenue from the offpeak service will be allocated to the StouffvilleBranch.

Table 7.49:Summary of Incremental Stouffville Branch Revenue Allocation

(A) (B) (A) – (B) (B) / (A)

No. Service Option

PassengerRevenue(Without

Allocation)

AllocatedStouffville

BranchRevenue

Difference(LakeshoreEast Service

Revenue)

PercentRevenue

Allocated toStouffville

Branch1 DMU U 30 50 Existing $ 6,840,671 $ 4,155,310 $ 2,685,361 61%2 DMU U 30 50 Modified $ 6,840,671 $ 4,155,310 $ 2,685,361 61%3 DMU U 30 60 Existing $ 6,952,978 $ 4,207,732 $ 2,745,246 61%4 DMU U 30 60 Modified $ 6,952,978 $ 4,207,732 $ 2,745,246 61%5 DMU U 60 50 Existing $ 3,849,293 $ 2,735,666 $ 1,113,627 71%6 DMU U 60 50 Modified $ 3,849,293 $ 2,735,666 $ 1,113,627 71%7 DMU U 60 60 Existing $ 3,891,408 $ 2,755,324 $ 1,136,083 71%8 DMU U 60 60 Modified $ 3,891,408 $ 2,755,324 $ 1,136,083 71%



Table 7.49:Summary of Incremental Stouffville Branch Revenue Allocation

(A) (B) (A) – (B) (B) / (A)

No. Service Option

PassengerRevenue(Without

Allocation)

AllocatedStouffville

BranchRevenue

Difference(LakeshoreEast Service

Revenue)

PercentRevenue

Allocated toStouffville

Branch9 DMU S 30 50 Existing $ 16,920,416 $ 10,829,495 $ 6,090,921 64%

10 DMU S 30 50 Modified $ 16,920,416 $ 10,829,495 $ 6,090,921 64%11 DMU S 30 60 Existing $ 17,117,015 $ 10,934,081 $ 6,182,934 64%12 DMU S 30 60 Modified $ 17,117,015 $ 10,934,081 $ 6,182,934 64%13 DMU S 60 50 Existing $ 9,390,659 $ 6,649,087 $ 2,741,572 71%14 DMU S 60 50 Modified $ 9,390,659 $ 6,649,087 $ 2,741,572 71%15 DMU S 60 60 Existing $ 9,464,384 $ 6,688,307 $ 2,776,077 71%16 DMU S 60 60 Modified $ 9,464,384 $ 6,688,307 $ 2,776,077 71%17 PP U 30 50 Existing $ 6,723,281 $ 4,097,788 $ 2,625,493 61%18 PP U 30 50 Modified $ 6,723,281 $ 4,097,788 $ 2,625,493 61%19 PP U 30 60 Existing $ 6,888,334 $ 4,177,633 $ 2,710,701 61%20 PP U 30 60 Modified $ 6,888,334 $ 4,177,633 $ 2,710,701 61%21 PP U 60 50 Existing $ 3,805,271 $ 2,714,095 $ 1,091,176 71%22 PP U 60 50 Modified $ 3,805,271 $ 2,714,095 $ 1,091,176 71%23 PP U 60 60 Existing $ 3,867,166 $ 2,744,037 $ 1,123,129 71%24 PP U 60 60 Modified $ 3,867,166 $ 2,744,037 $ 1,123,129 71%25 PP S 30 50 Existing $ 16,497,879 $ 10,585,480 $ 5,912,399 64%26 PP S 30 50 Modified $ 16,497,879 $ 10,585,480 $ 5,912,399 64%27 PP S 30 60 Existing $ 16,859,907 $ 10,785,138 $ 6,074,770 64%28 PP S 30 60 Modified $ 16,859,907 $ 10,785,138 $ 6,074,770 64%29 PP S 60 50 Existing $ 9,232,208 $ 6,557,581 $ 2,674,626 71%30 PP S 60 50 Modified $ 9,232,208 $ 6,557,581 $ 2,674,626 71%31 PP S 60 60 Existing $ 9,367,968 $ 6,632,453 $ 2,735,515 71%32 PP S 60 60 Modified $ 9,367,968 $ 6,632,453 $ 2,735,515 71%



CHAPTER 8: EVALUATION AND TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTIONThis chapter provides a systematic comparison of the alternative approaches to expanding thescope, frequency, and directness of the offpeak services GO Transit currently offers along theStouffville corridor. At the end of Task 3, the study team reviewed the project goals and tentativelyrecommended a battery of evaluation measures for the various offpeak service alternatives. Thesemeasures relate to GO Transit’s goals concerning Mobility, Efficiency, Energy and Environment,and Financial considerations. Specifically, the following metrics were used in evaluation of theoffpeak Stouffville branch service:

Mobility MeasuresTotal weekday boardingsAverage branch line passenger per branch line tripOffpeak branch line passengersAverage offpeak boardings per offpeak trip

Energy and Environmental MeasuresIncremental liters of transit fuel per new weekday branch line passenger tripTotal liters of transit fuel per total weekday branch line boarding

Efficiency MeasuresCapital cost per new weekday branch line passenger boardingIncremental operating cost per new annual weekday branch line passenger boardingIncremental farebox recovery ratio

Financial MeasuresTotal capital costNet incremental operating revenueNet Incremental Operating SupportNet Total Stouffville Branch Operating Support, (including all peak and offpeakservices)

Note: Unless otherwise stated, where applicable, all metrics include the incremental Peak Buildvalues and cost savings from reduction of bus service.



8.1 MOBILITY MEASURESThe mobility metrics measure the ridership and travel impacts of the proposed service options.Obviously, mobility is the principal reason for providing public transport services. The mostsuccessful services have the greatest overall impact on mobility. All four mobility measures rely onpassenger forecasts provided by GO Transit:

Total Weekday BoardingsAverage Branch Line Passengers per Branch Line TripOffpeak Branch Line PassengersOffpeak Branch Line Passengers per Branch Line Trip

GO Transit passenger forecasts vary with the location of outer terminal, the frequency of service,equipment, and track speed. Only the mainline schedule does not influence forecast ridership.Table 8.1 provides a summary of the calculated mobility metrics.

Table 8.1:Mobility Metrics

(A) (B) (C ) (D) (E) (A) / (D) (C ) / (E)

Service Option


NewWeekdayBoardings

OffpeakBoardings

TotalWeekdayBranch

LineTrips

TotalWeekdayOffpeak

Trips

AverageBranch

Line Psgrsper BranchLine Rail

Trip

OffpeakBoardings

perOffpeak

TripCurrent Ridership (2006) 9,898 N/A 432 10 N/A 990 N/A2015 Baseline (No Build) 13,714 3,816 520 12 N/A 1,143 N/ADMU U 30 50 18,555 4,841 2,969 62 48 299 62DMU U 30 60 18,625 4,911 3,039 62 48 300 63DMU U 60 50 16,699 2,985 1,113 38 24 439 46DMU U 60 60 16,726 3,012 1,140 38 24 440 48DMU S 30 50 24,749 11,035 6,921 62 48 399 144DMU S 30 60 24,864 11,150 7,036 62 48 401 147DMU S 60 50 20,423 6,709 2,595 38 24 537 108DMU S 60 60 20,466 6,752 2,638 38 24 539 110PP U 30 50 18,483 4,769 2,897 62 48 298 60PP U 30 60 18,585 4,871 2,999 62 48 300 62PP U 60 50 16,672 2,958 1,086 38 24 439 45PP U 60 60 16,711 2,997 1,125 38 24 440 47PP S 30 50 24,512 10,798 6,684 62 48 395 139PP S 30 60 24,721 11,007 6,893 62 48 399 144PP S 60 50 20,334 6,620 2,506 38 24 535 104PP S 60 60 20,413 6,699 2,585 38 24 537 108



Total Weekday Boardings – The sum of forecast inbound and outbound passenger boardings is thesimplest and most intuitive measure of overall mobility impact. As would be expected, the serviceoptions with the greatestcoverage and frequencyalso carry the mostpassengers. It is interestingin terms of overall mobilitythat hourly offpeak serviceto Stouffville is projectedto attract more overallriders then 30 minuteservice to Unionville.Half-hour service toStouffville clearly has thegreatest overall ridershipimpact nearly doubling the2015 weekday ridershipprojections from thebaseline condition.

Figure 8.1: TypicalWeekday Boardings

9,89813,714

15,58615,58615,58615,586

15,58615,58615,586

15,58617,82817,828

17,82817,82817,82817,828

17,82817,828

15,58615,586

15,58615,58615,586

15,58615,58615,586

17,82817,82817,82817,828

17,82817,82817,82817,828

2,9692,9693,0393,039

1,1131,1131,140

1,1406,9216,921

7,0367,036

2,5952,595

2,6382,638

2,8972,897

2,9992,999

1,086

1,0861,1251,125

6,6846,6846,8936,893

2,5062,5062,5852,585

0 2,500 5,000 7,500 10,000 12,500 15,000 17,500 20,000 22,500 25,000 27,500



















PP U 30 50 Existing

PP U 30 50 Modified

PP U 30 60 Existing

PP U 30 60 Modified

PP U 60 50 Existing

PP U 60 50 Modified

PP U 60 60 Existing

PP U 60 60 Modified

PP S 30 50 Existing

PP S 30 50 Modified

PP S 30 60 Existing

PP S 30 60 Modified

PP S 60 50 Existing

PP S 60 50 Modified

PP S 60 60 Existing

PP S 60 60 Modified




Average Branch Line Passengers per Branch Line Trip – The average passengers per tripmeasurement includes both peak and offpeak trips to determine the “average” passenger totals onthe average train.Average passenger totalswould be greater with thehourly offpeak servicessince fewer overall trainswould operate on thebranch. Averagepassenger totals for theStouffville options wouldbe greater than Unionvilleservice because the samenumber of trains servemore stations.

It is notable that with thelimited number of currentpeak-only trains operatedon the Stouffville branch,that the average passengertotals per train are 990.The 2015 Baseline (NoBuild) option is forecastedaverage 1,143 passengerson each branch line trip.

Figure 8.2: Average Branch LinePassengers per Branch Line Trip

9901,143

299299300300

439439440

440399399

401401

537537

539539

298298

300300

439

439440440

395395399399

535535537537

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200



















PP U 30 50 Existing

PP U 30 50 Modified

PP U 30 60 Existing

PP U 30 60 Modified

PP U 60 50 Existing

PP U 60 50 Modified

PP U 60 60 Existing

PP U 60 60 Modified

PP S 30 50 Existing

PP S 30 50 Modified

PP S 30 60 Existing

PP S 30 60 Modified

PP S 60 50 Existing

PP S 60 50 Modified

PP S 60 60 Existing

PP S 60 60 Modified



Offpeak Branch Line Boardings – The total number of offpeak passenger boardings (in and out)reflects each option’soverall impact on offpeaktravel on the Stouffvillecorridor. The 30 minuteStouffville option clearlyhas the greatest overallimpact on offpeak travel inthe corridor. It is notablethat the 30-minuteUnionville service isexpected to attract moreoverall offpeak riders thanthe hourly service toStouffville. The offpeakmobility impact of hourlyservice to Unionville is verymodest compared with theother options.

Figure 8.3: Offpeak BranchLine Boardings

2,969

2,969

3,039

3,039

1,113

1,113

1,140

1,140

6,921

6,921

7,036

7,036

2,595

2,595

2,638

2,638

2,897

2,897

2,999

2,999

1,086

1,086

1,125

1,125

6,684

6,684

6,893

6,893

2,506

2,506

2,585

2,585

0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 6,000 6,500 7,000

















PP U 30 50 Existing

PP U 30 50 Modified

PP U 30 60 Existing

PP U 30 60 Modified

PP U 60 50 Existing

PP U 60 50 Modified

PP U 60 60 Existing

PP U 60 60 Modified

PP S 30 50 Existing

PP S 30 50 Modified

PP S 30 60 Existing

PP S 30 60 Modified

PP S 60 50 Existing

PP S 60 50 Modified

PP S 60 60 Existing

PP S 60 60 Modified



Average Offpeak Boardings per Offpeak Trip – The average offpeak passengers per trip metricincludes only offpeak tripsto determine the “average”passenger totals on offpeaktrains.

As would be anticipated, theoptions with the greatestspeed and frequency alsocarry the most passengersper train. The forecastaverage loads for the offpeakoptions range fromapproximately 45 to 150passengers. These levels ofridership are veryappropriate for service withshort DMU trains operatingwith two person crews.

Figure 8.4: Offpeak Boardings perOffpeak Branch Line Trip

62

62

63

63

46

46

48

48

144

144

147

147

108

108

110

110

60

60

62

62

45

45

47

47

139

139

144

144

104

104

108

108

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

















PP U 30 50 Existing

PP U 30 50 Modified

PP U 30 60 Existing

PP U 30 60 Modified

PP U 60 50 Existing

PP U 60 50 Modified

PP U 60 60 Existing

PP U 60 60 Modified

PP S 30 50 Existing

PP S 30 50 Modified

PP S 30 60 Existing

PP S 30 60 Modified

PP S 60 50 Existing

PP S 60 50 Modified

PP S 60 60 Existing

PP S 60 60 Modified



8.2 ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURESFuel consumption is a primary measure of energy efficiency and is also a reasonable screeningsurrogate for environmental air quality impacts. All service options use diesel fuel for traction,light, heating and cooling. Options that use less fuel will also generate fewer emissions includinggreenhouse gases. The two energy and environmental metrics relate the fuel consumption inputs tomobility outputs. These metrics are:

Incremental Liters of Transit Fuel per New Weekday Branch Line BoardingTotal Liters of Transit Fuel per Total Weekday Branch Line Boarding

The measures of fuel consumption include estimates of the fuel consumed on the offpeak branchline trips, and the fuel estimates for the additional peak trains needed to transport the extra growthin passenger boardings. Table 8.2 provides information concerning the derivation of the energyconsumption metrics.

It is estimated that the overall peak service associated with options that provide offpeak rail serviceto Unionville will consume 5,005 liters of diesel each weekday. The overall peak service associatedwith options that provide offpeak rail service to Stouffville consume 5,127 liters a day.

Table 8.2:Energy and Environmental Measures

(A) (B) (C) (D) (D) / (A) (C) / (B)

Service Option

NewWeekdayBoardings


Total BranchWeekday FuelConsumption

(Liters)

IncrementalWeekday FuelConsumption

(Liters)

IncrementalLiters per New

WeekdayBoarding

Total Litersper TotalWeekdayBoardings

Current Ridership (2006) N/A 9,898 3,482 N/A N/A 0.342015 Baseline (No Build) 3,562 13,714 4,264 782 0.21 0.31DMU U 30 50 4,841 18,555 6,822 2,558 0.53 0.37DMU U 30 60 4,911 18,625 6,822 2,558 0.52 0.37DMU U 60 50 2,985 16,699 5,913 1,650 0.55 0.35DMU U 60 60 3,012 16,726 5,913 1,650 0.55 0.35DMU S 30 50 11,035 24,749 12,287 8,023 0.73 0.50DMU S 30 60 11,150 24,864 12,287 8,023 0.72 0.49DMU S 60 50 6,709 20,423 6,953 2,689 0.40 0.34DMU S 60 60 6,752 20,466 6,953 2,689 0.40 0.34PP U 30 50 4,769 18,483 11,121 6,857 1.44 0.60PP U 30 60 4,871 18,585 10,973 6,709 1.38 0.59PP U 60 50 2,958 16,672 7,947 3,684 1.25 0.48PP U 60 60 2,997 16,711 7,898 3,634 1.21 0.47PP S 30 50 10,798 24,512 19,121 14,857 1.38 0.78PP S 30 60 11,007 24,721 18,937 14,673 1.33 0.77PP S 60 50 6,620 20,334 10,289 6,026 0.91 0.51PP S 60 60 6,699 20,413 10,279 6,015 0.90 0.50



Incremental Liters of Transit Fuel per New Weekday Branch Line Boarding – The measure ofincremental fuel used to serve each new passenger provides guidance relative to the energyefficiency of service optionsin diverting travelers fromautomobiles and othermodes. It is notable that thecurrent peak only railservice is estimated toconsume 0.34 liters of fuelper passenger boarding.The DMU Unionvilleservice options add manyvehicle trips to the line,operating with lowerpassenger loadings.Nonetheless these optionsstill slightly under performthe current peak servicerelative to fuel efficiency.The Stouffville DMUservices, with even moreoffpeak vehicle miles, areforecast to slightly underperform the fuel efficiencyof current peak service.The use of push-pullequipment to offer offpeakservice is much lessefficient than the currentservice and the DMUoptions.

Figure 8.5: Incremental Liters per New Weekday Boarding

1.44

1.41

1.38

1.21

1.25

1.23

1.21

1.03

1.38

1.37

1.33

1.33

0.91

0.91

0.90

0.90

0.53

0.53

0.52

0.52

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.55

0.73

0.73

0.72

0.72

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.40

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 1.50

U 30 50 Existing

U 30 50 Modified

U 30 60 Existing

U 30 60 Modified

U 60 50 Existing

U 60 50 Modified

U 60 60 Existing

U 60 60 Modified

S 30 50 Existing

S 30 50 Modified

S 30 60 Existing

S 30 60 Modified

S 60 50 Existing

S 60 50 Modified

S 60 60 Existing

S 60 60 Modified

Push-Pull

DMU



Total Liters of Transit Fuel per Total Weekday Branch Line Boarding – The measureconsidering the rate of fuel consumption for all Stouffville Branch line passengers indicates how theoffpeak service options affectthe overall energy andenvironmental impact of GOTransit service in thecorridor. For all of the DMUoptions, operation of offpeakservice will not have a netimpact of improving theline’s overall fuel efficiencycompared with the 2015Baseline. The 60 minuteDMU Stouffville options willmatch the 2006 Baseline fuelefficiency. All push-pulloffpeak service options tendto adversely affect theinternal energy andenvironmental efficiency ofthe overall Stouffvilleservice.

Figure 8.6: Total Liters per Weekday Branch Line Boarding

0.34

0.31

0.60

0.59

0.59

0.55

0.48

0.47

0.47

0.44

0.78

0.78

0.77

0.76

0.51

0.51

0.50

0.50

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.37

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.35

0.50

0.50

0.49

0.49

0.34

0.34

0.34

0.34

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

2006 Current

2015 Baseline

U 30 50 Existing

U 30 50 Modified

U 30 60 Existing

U 30 60 Modified

U 60 50 Existing

U 60 50 Modified

U 60 60 Existing

U 60 60 Modified

S 30 50 Existing

S 30 50 Modified

S 30 60 Existing

S 30 60 Modified

S 60 50 Existing

S 60 50 Modified

S 60 60 Existing

S 60 60 Modified

Push-Pull

DMU



8.3 EFFICIENCY MEASURESAll public transportation agencies are concerned with the efficient use of their capital and operatingresources. Two efficiency measures were calculated for the 32 offpeak service options to comparehow the various options and families of options perform in the efficient use of capital and operatingfunds. A third efficiency measure considers the fraction of new operating costs that would becovered by passenger revenue. This fare box recovery ratio metric is an important efficiency andfinancial metric to consider in making transit investment decisions. These estimated efficiencymetrics include:

Capital Cost per New Weekday Branch Line Passenger BoardingAnnual Operating Cost per New Annual Passenger BoardingIncremental Farebox Recovery Ratio

Tables 8.3 and 8.4 provide information concerning derivation of the efficiency measures.

Table 8.3:Efficiency Measures

(A) (B) (C) (D) (C) / (A) (D) / (B)

No. Service Option

NewWeekdayBoardings

IncrementalForecastGrowth

in AnnualRidership62

CapitalInvestmentRequired($ mil.)

IncrementalAnnual

OperatingExpenses63

($ mil.)

CapitalCost per

newWeekdayBoarding

IncrementalOperatingCost per

new AnnualBoarding

Current Ridership (2006) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A2015 Baseline (No Build) 3,562 957,816 $ 45.8 $ 2.0 $ 12,858 $ 2.091 DMU U 30 50 Existing 4,841 1,559,431 $ 126.4 $ 5.5 $ 26,101 $ 3.522 DMU U 30 50 Modified 4,841 1,559,431 $ 119.3 $ 4.6 $ 24,644 $ 2.973 DMU U 30 60 Existing 4,911 1,585,101 $ 119.3 $ 4.6 $ 24,292 $ 2.924 DMU U 30 60 Modified 4,911 1,585,101 $ 119.3 $ 4.6 $ 24,292 $ 2.925 DMU U 60 50 Existing 2,985 878,427 $ 87.1 $ 5.0 $ 29,168 $ 5.696 DMU U 60 50 Modified 2,985 878,427 $ 77.4 $ 4.1 $ 25,943 $ 4.727 DMU U 60 60 Existing 3,012 888,054 $ 77.4 $ 4.1 $ 25,711 $ 4.678 DMU U 60 60 Modified 3,012 888,054 $ 77.4 $ 4.1 $ 25,711 $ 4.679 DMU S 30 50 Existing 11,035 3,572,551 $ 264.9 $ 8.7 $ 24,008 $ 2.44

10 DMU S 30 50 Modified 11,035 3,572,551 $ 264.9 $ 8.7 $ 24,008 $ 2.4411 DMU S 30 60 Existing 11,150 3,614,805 $ 260.0 $ 8.7 $ 23,320 $ 2.4112 DMU S 30 60 Modified 11,150 3,614,805 $ 245.9 $ 7.6 $ 22,055 $ 2.1013 DMU S 60 50 Existing 6,709 1,985,141 $ 138.1 $ 4.9 $ 20,583 $ 2.4714 DMU S 60 50 Modified 6,709 1,985,141 $ 138.1 $ 4.9 $ 20,583 $ 2.4715 DMU S 60 60 Existing 6,752 2,000,986 $ 138.1 $ 4.9 $ 20,452 $ 2.45

62 Includes forecast annual weekend ridership.63 The values of incremental annual operating expenses include the savings from rescheduling the Stouffvillecorridor bus service.



Table 8.3:Efficiency Measures

(A) (B) (C) (D) (C) / (A) (D) / (B)

No. Service Option

NewWeekdayBoardings

IncrementalForecastGrowth

in AnnualRidership62

CapitalInvestmentRequired($ mil.)

IncrementalAnnual

OperatingExpenses63

($ mil.)

CapitalCost per

newWeekdayBoarding

IncrementalOperatingCost per

new AnnualBoarding

16 DMU S 60 60 Modified 6,752 2,000,986 $ 138.1 $ 4.9 $ 20,452 $ 2.4517 PP U 30 50 Existing 4,769 1,533,110 $ 145.3 $ 8.0 $ 30,474 $ 5.2118 PP U 30 50 Modified 4,769 1,533,110 $ 145.3 $ 8.0 $ 30,474 $ 5.1919 PP U 30 60 Existing 4,871 1,570,382 $ 145.3 $ 8.0 $ 29,836 $ 5.0620 PP U 30 60 Modified 4,871 1,570,382 $ 133.4 $ 6.5 $ 27,379 $ 4.1121 PP U 60 50 Existing 2,958 868,557 $ 99.0 $ 6.5 $ 33,456 $ 7.4722 PP U 60 50 Modified 2,958 868,557 $ 97.7 $ 6.5 $ 33,043 $ 7.4523 PP U 60 60 Existing 2,997 882,534 $ 97.7 $ 6.5 $ 32,613 $ 7.3324 PP U 60 60 Modified 2,997 882,534 $ 85.8 $ 5.0 $ 28,620 $ 5.7225 PP S 30 50 Existing 10,798 3,485,699 $ 256.9 $ 11.4 $ 23,795 $ 3.2726 PP S 30 50 Modified 10,798 3,485,699 $ 256.9 $ 11.4 $ 23,795 $ 3.2727 PP S 30 60 Existing 11,007 3,562,320 $ 256.9 $ 11.4 $ 23,343 $ 3.1928 PP S 30 60 Modified 11,007 3,562,320 $ 256.9 $ 11.3 $ 23,343 $ 3.1929 PP S 60 50 Existing 6,620 1,952,571 $ 147.8 $ 6.7 $ 22,329 $ 3.4530 PP S 60 50 Modified 6,620 1,952,571 $ 147.8 $ 6.7 $ 22,329 $ 3.4531 PP S 60 60 Existing 6,699 1,981,304 $ 147.8 $ 6.7 $ 22,065 $ 3.4032 PP S 60 60 Modified 6,699 1,981,304 $ 147.8 $ 6.7 $ 22,065 $ 3.40



Table 8.4:Incremental Fare Box Recovery Ratio

(A) (B) (A) / (B)

No. Service Option

AllocatedForecast Annual

IncrementalRevenue ($ mil.)

ForecastIncremental

Annual OperatingCosts64 ($ mil.)

IncrementalFare BoxRecoveryRatio (%)

1 DMU U 30 50 Existing $ 4.16 $ 5.48 76%2 DMU U 30 50 Modified $ 4.16 $ 4.63 90%3 DMU U 30 60 Existing $ 4.21 $ 4.63 91%4 DMU U 30 60 Modified $ 4.21 $ 4.63 91%5 DMU U 60 50 Existing $ 2.74 $ 5.00 55%6 DMU U 60 50 Modified $ 2.74 $ 4.14 66%7 DMU U 60 60 Existing $ 2.76 $ 4.14 66%8 DMU U 60 60 Modified $ 2.76 $ 4.14 66%9 DMU S 30 50 Existing $ 10.83 $ 8.71 124%

10 DMU S 30 50 Modified $ 10.83 $ 8.71 124%11 DMU S 30 60 Existing $ 10.93 $ 8.71 126%12 DMU S 30 60 Modified $ 10.93 $ 7.60 144%13 DMU S 60 50 Existing $ 6.65 $ 4.91 136%14 DMU S 60 50 Modified $ 6.65 $ 4.91 136%15 DMU S 60 60 Existing $ 6.69 $ 4.91 136%16 DMU S 60 60 Modified $ 6.69 $ 4.91 136%17 PP U 30 50 Existing $ 4.10 $ 7.99 51%18 PP U 30 50 Modified $ 4.10 $ 7.95 52%19 PP U 30 60 Existing $ 4.18 $ 7.95 53%20 PP U 30 60 Modified $ 4.18 $ 6.46 65%21 PP U 60 50 Existing $ 2.71 $ 6.49 42%22 PP U 60 50 Modified $ 2.71 $ 6.47 42%23 PP U 60 60 Existing $ 2.74 $ 6.47 42%24 PP U 60 60 Modified $ 2.74 $ 5.05 54%25 PP S 30 50 Existing $ 10.59 $ 11.42 93%26 PP S 30 50 Modified $ 10.59 $ 11.40 93%27 PP S 30 60 Existing $ 10.79 $ 11.37 95%28 PP S 30 60 Modified $ 10.79 $ 11.35 95%29 PP S 60 50 Existing $ 6.56 $ 6.73 97%30 PP S 60 50 Modified $ 6.56 $ 6.73 97%31 PP S 60 60 Existing $ 6.63 $ 6.73 99%32 PP S 60 60 Modified $ 6.63 $ 6.73 99%

64 Ibid.



Capital Cost per New Weekday Branch Line Passenger Boarding – The capital expenditurerequired to attract and carry each new rider is a common indicator of the efficiency of transitinvestments. Values in the range of $20,000 to $34,000 per new passenger are not uncommonamong projects thatauthorities choose tofund and develop. Itshould be noted that thecapital investmentrequired to respond togrowth in the Baselineservice is expect to costapproximately $12,000per new daily boardingwith no generalimprovement in thescope of the service. Itis forecast that all of theDMU options for bothStouffville andUnionville offpeakservices will cost $20 to$29 thousand perpassenger to fund anddevelop. The push-pulloptions tend to besomewhat moreexpensive on a perpassenger basis rangingfrom $22 to $33thousand per passenger.The capital costs ofDMU and push-pulloffpeak services toStouffville are roughlyequivalent.

Figure 8.7: Capital Cost per New Boarding ($ Thousands)

$ 30.47

$ 30.47

$ 29.84

$ 27.38

$ 33.46

$ 33.04

$ 32.61

$ 28.62

$ 23.79

$ 23.79

$ 23.34

$ 23.34

$ 22.33

$ 22.33

$ 22.07

$ 22.07

$ 26.10

$ 24.64

$ 24.29

$ 24.29

$ 29.17

$ 25.94

$ 25.71

$ 25.71

$ 24.01

$ 24.01

$ 23.32

$ 22.05

$ 20.58

$ 20.58

$ 20.45

$ 20.45

$ 0.00 $ 5.00 $ 10.00 $ 15.00 $ 20.00 $ 25.00 $ 30.00 $ 35.00

U 30 50 Existing

U 30 50 Modified

U 30 60 Existing

U 30 60 Modified

U 60 50 Existing

U 60 50 Modified

U 60 60 Existing

U 60 60 Modified

S 30 50 Existing

S 30 50 Modified

S 30 60 Existing

S 30 60 Modified

S 60 50 Existing

S 60 50 Modified

S 60 60 Existing

S 60 60 Modified

Push-Pull

DMU



Incremental Annual Operating Expense per New Annual Weekday Boarding – The operatingexpense per passenger is a key indicator of the ongoing efficiency of any transport service. In thisarea the offpeak service options show definite economies of scale. The more frequent 30-minuteStouffville services offerthe lowest incrementalcost per new passenger.The half-hourlyUnionville service andthe hourly Stouffvilleservice both offerroughly the same level ofoperating efficiency.The hourly Unionvilleservice options offer thelowest level of operatingefficiency. With largercrews and greater fuelconsumption, theincremental operatingefficiency of the push-pull options are lowerthan the forecasts of theDMU options.

Figure 8.8: Incremental Annual Operating Cost per NewAnnual Weekday Boardings

$ 5.21

$ 5.19

$ 5.06

$ 4.11

$ 7.47

$ 7.45

$ 7.33

$ 5.72

$ 3.27

$ 3.27

$ 3.19

$ 3.19

$ 3.45

$ 3.45

$ 3.40

$ 3.40

$ 3.52

$ 2.97

$ 2.92

$ 2.92

$ 5.69

$ 4.72

$ 4.67

$ 4.67

$ 2.44

$ 2.44

$ 2.41

$ 2.10

$ 2.47

$ 2.47

$ 2.45

$ 2.45

$ 0.00 $ 2.00 $ 4.00 $ 6.00 $ 8.00

U 30 50 Existing

U 30 50 Modified

U 30 60 Existing

U 30 60 Modified

U 60 50 Existing

U 60 50 Modified

U 60 60 Existing

U 60 60 Modified

S 30 50 Existing

S 30 50 Modified

S 30 60 Existing

S 30 60 Modified

S 60 50 Existing

S 60 50 Modified

S 60 60 Existing

S 60 60 Modified

Push-Pull

DMU



Incremental Farebox Recovery Ratio – The farebox recovery ratio is a key indicator of efficiencyand financial performance indicating the fraction of operating costs that are covered with passengerrevenues. On an overallbasis few, if any, NorthAmerican transportagencies cover all theircosts with user fees,although GO Transitreportedly comes close.The forecast incrementalfarebox recovery rates forthe various service optionsare generally impressivewith many of the optionsrecovering most theirincremental operatingcosts. The DMUStouffville options areforecast to more thancover their addedoperating costs with therevenue from newpassengers. The DMUUnionville options areforecast to roughly coverbetween 66% to 90% oftheir incrementaloperating costs.

Figure 8.9: Incremental Farebox Recovery Ratio

51%

52%

53%

65%

42%

42%

42%

54%

93%

93%

95%

95%

97%

97%

99%

99%

76%

90%

91%

91%

55%

66%

66%

66%

124%

124%

126%

144%

136%

136%

136%

136%

0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150%

U 30 50 Existing

U 30 50 Modified

U 30 60 Existing

U 30 60 Modified

U 60 50 Existing

U 60 50 Modified

U 60 60 Existing

U 60 60 Modified

S 30 50 Existing

S 30 50 Modified

S 30 60 Existing

S 30 60 Modified

S 60 50 Existing

S 60 50 Modified

S 60 60 Existing

S 60 60 Modified

Push-Pull

DMU



8.4 FINANCIAL MEASURESFinancial considerations are critical to evaluating any transport investment. Key indicators relate tooverall capital cost of the project, the incremental operating cost of the project, the net operatingrevenue of the project, and the project’s impact on the net operating revenue of the overallenterprise. Four metrics relating to these considerations were calculated for 32 offpeak serviceoptions:

Total Capital CostTotal Incremental Operating CostNet Incremental Operating SupportNet Total Stouffville Branch Operating Support, (including all peak and offpeak services)

Tables 8.5, 8.6, 8.7 and 8.8 provide detail concerning the derivation of these measures.

Table 8.5:Total Capital Costs ($ millions)

No. Service OptionInfrastructureImprovements Rolling Stock

TotalCapital Cost($ millions)

Current Operation (2006) N/A N/A N/A2015 Baseline (No Build) N/A $45.8 $45.81 DMU U 30 50 Existing $ 70.3 $ 56.1 $ 126.42 DMU U 30 50 Modified $ 68.9 $ 50.4 $ 119.33 DMU U 30 60 Existing $ 68.9 $ 50.4 $ 119.34 DMU U 30 60 Modified $ 68.9 $ 50.4 $ 119.35 DMU U 60 50 Existing $ 36.7 $ 50.4 $ 87.16 DMU U 60 50 Modified $ 32.8 $ 44.6 $ 77.47 DMU U 60 60 Existing $ 32.8 $ 44.6 $ 77.48 DMU U 60 60 Modified $ 32.8 $ 44.6 $ 77.49 DMU S 30 50 Existing $ 159.0 $ 106.0 $ 264.9

10 DMU S 30 50 Modified $ 159.0 $ 106.0 $ 264.911 DMU S 30 60 Existing $ 154.1 $ 106.0 $ 260.012 DMU S 30 60 Modified $ 151.4 $ 94.5 $ 245.913 DMU S 60 50 Existing $ 72.3 $ 65.8 $ 138.114 DMU S 60 50 Modified $ 72.3 $ 65.8 $ 138.115 DMU S 60 60 Existing $ 72.3 $ 65.8 $ 138.116 DMU S 60 60 Modified $ 72.3 $ 65.8 $ 138.117 PP U 30 50 Existing $ 72.2 $ 73.1 $ 145.318 PP U 30 50 Modified $ 72.2 $ 73.1 $ 145.319 PP U 30 60 Existing $ 72.2 $ 73.1 $ 145.320 PP U 30 60 Modified $ 70.2 $ 63.1 $ 133.421 PP U 60 50 Existing $ 35.8 $ 63.1 $ 99.0



Table 8.5:Total Capital Costs ($ millions)

No. Service OptionInfrastructureImprovements Rolling Stock

TotalCapital Cost($ millions)

22 PP U 60 50 Modified $ 34.6 $ 63.1 $ 97.723 PP U 60 60 Existing $ 34.6 $ 63.1 $ 97.724 PP U 60 60 Modified $ 32.6 $ 53.1 $ 85.825 PP S 30 50 Existing $ 145.6 $ 111.4 $ 256.926 PP S 30 50 Modified $ 145.6 $ 111.4 $ 256.927 PP S 30 60 Existing $ 145.6 $ 111.4 $ 256.928 PP S 30 60 Modified $ 145.6 $ 111.4 $ 256.929 PP S 60 50 Existing $ 69.3 $ 78.5 $ 147.830 PP S 60 50 Modified $ 69.3 $ 78.5 $ 147.831 PP S 60 60 Existing $ 69.3 $ 78.5 $ 147.832 PP S 60 60 Modified $ 69.3 $ 78.5 $ 147.8

Table 8.6:Net Incremental Operating Revenue

(A) (B) (A – B)

No. Service Option

IncrementalFare Rev.

($ mil.)

IncrementalO & M($ mil.)

NetIncrementalOperatingSupport($ mil.)

1 DMU U 30 50 Existing $ 4.2 $5.5 ($1.3)2 DMU U 30 50 Modified $ 4.2 $4.6 ($0.5)3 DMU U 30 60 Existing $ 4.2 $4.6 ($0.4)4 DMU U 30 60 Modified $ 4.2 $4.6 ($0.4)5 DMU U 60 50 Existing $ 2.7 $5.0 ($2.3)6 DMU U 60 50 Modified $ 2.7 $4.1 ($1.4)7 DMU U 60 60 Existing $ 2.8 $4.1 ($1.4)8 DMU U 60 60 Modified $ 2.8 $4.1 ($1.4)9 DMU S 30 50 Existing $ 10.8 $8.7 $ 2.1

10 DMU S 30 50 Modified $ 10.8 $8.7 $ 2.111 DMU S 30 60 Existing $ 10.9 $8.7 $ 2.212 DMU S 30 60 Modified $ 10.9 $7.6 $ 3.313 DMU S 60 50 Existing $ 6.6 $4.9 $ 1.714 DMU S 60 50 Modified $ 6.6 $4.9 $ 1.715 DMU S 60 60 Existing $ 6.7 $4.9 $ 1.816 DMU S 60 60 Modified $ 6.7 $4.9 $ 1.817 PP U 30 50 Existing $ 4.1 $8.0 ($3.9)18 PP U 30 50 Modified $ 4.1 $8.0 ($3.9)



Table 8.6:Net Incremental Operating Revenue

(A) (B) (A – B)

No. Service Option

IncrementalFare Rev.

($ mil.)

IncrementalO & M($ mil.)

NetIncrementalOperatingSupport($ mil.)

19 PP U 30 60 Existing $ 4.2 $8.0 ($3.8)20 PP U 30 60 Modified $ 4.2 $6.5 ($2.3)21 PP U 60 50 Existing $ 2.7 $6.5 ($3.8)22 PP U 60 50 Modified $ 2.7 $6.5 ($3.8)23 PP U 60 60 Existing $ 2.7 $6.5 ($3.7)24 PP U 60 60 Modified $ 2.7 $5.0 ($2.3)25 PP S 30 50 Existing $ 10.6 $11.4 ($0.8)26 PP S 30 50 Modified $ 10.6 $11.4 ($0.8)27 PP S 30 60 Existing $ 10.8 $11.4 ($0.6)28 PP S 30 60 Modified $ 10.8 $11.3 ($0.6)29 PP S 60 50 Existing $ 6.6 $6.7 ($0.2)30 PP S 60 50 Modified $ 6.6 $6.7 ($0.2)31 PP S 60 60 Existing $ 6.6 $6.7 ($0.1)32 PP S 60 60 Modified $ 6.6 $6.7 ($0.1)

Table 8.7:Total Branch Line Operating and Financial Measures

(A) (B) (A+B) (C) (D) (C+D)(A+B) -(C+D)

No. Service Option

AllocatedAnnualOffpeak

FareRev.

($ mil.)

AllocatedAnnual

PeakFareRev.

($ mil.)

TotalStouffville

BranchFare

Revenue($ mil.)

AnnualOffpeakO&M

($ mil.)65

AnnualPeakO&M($ mil.)

TotalAnnualO&M($ mil.)

RequiredLine

OperatingSupport($ mil.)

Current Operation (2006) N/A $2.0 $2.0 N/A $ 7.8 $ 7.8 ($1.4)2015 Baseline (No Build) N/A $5.4 $5.4 N/A $ 9.3 $ 9.3 ($0.4)1 DMU U 30 50 Existing $ 2.3 $ 9.9 $ 12.2 $ 3.3 $ 10.5 $ 13.8 ($1.6)2 DMU U 30 50 Modified $ 2.3 $ 9.9 $ 12.2 $ 2.5 $ 10.5 $ 13.0 ($0.8)3 DMU U 30 60 Existing $ 2.3 $ 9.9 $ 12.2 $ 2.5 $ 10.5 $ 13.0 ($0.8)4 DMU U 30 60 Modified $ 2.3 $ 9.9 $ 12.2 $ 2.5 $ 10.5 $ 13.0 ($0.8)5 DMU U 60 50 Existing $ 0.9 $ 9.9 $ 10.8 $ 2.9 $ 10.5 $ 13.4 ($2.7)6 DMU U 60 50 Modified $ 0.9 $ 9.9 $ 10.8 $ 2.2 $ 10.5 $ 12.7 ($1.9)7 DMU U 60 60 Existing $ 0.9 $ 9.9 $ 10.8 $ 2.2 $ 10.5 $ 12.7 ($1.9)

65 Includes savings from bus service reduction along the Stouffville corridor.



Table 8.7:Total Branch Line Operating and Financial Measures

(A) (B) (A+B) (C) (D) (C+D)(A+B) -(C+D)

No. Service Option

AllocatedAnnualOffpeak

FareRev.

($ mil.)

AllocatedAnnual

PeakFareRev.

($ mil.)

TotalStouffville

BranchFare

Revenue($ mil.)

AnnualOffpeakO&M

($ mil.)65

AnnualPeakO&M($ mil.)

TotalAnnualO&M($ mil.)

RequiredLine

OperatingSupport($ mil.)

8 DMU U 60 60 Modified $ 0.9 $ 9.9 $ 10.8 $ 2.2 $ 10.5 $ 12.7 ($1.9)9 DMU S 30 50 Existing $ 6.7 $ 11.6 $ 18.3 $ 5.6 $ 11.3 $ 16.9 $ 1.4

10 DMU S 30 50 Modified $ 6.7 $ 11.6 $ 18.3 $ 5.6 $ 11.3 $ 16.9 $ 1.411 DMU S 30 60 Existing $ 6.8 $ 11.6 $ 18.4 $ 5.6 $ 11.3 $ 16.9 $ 1.512 DMU S 30 60 Modified $ 6.8 $ 11.6 $ 18.4 $ 4.6 $ 11.3 $ 15.9 $ 2.513 DMU S 60 50 Existing $ 2.5 $ 11.6 $ 14.1 $ 2.3 $ 11.3 $ 13.6 $ 0.514 DMU S 60 50 Modified $ 2.5 $ 11.6 $ 14.1 $ 2.3 $ 11.3 $ 13.6 $ 0.515 DMU S 60 60 Existing $ 2.5 $ 11.6 $ 14.2 $ 2.3 $ 11.3 $ 13.6 $ 0.516 DMU S 60 60 Modified $ 2.5 $ 11.6 $ 14.2 $ 2.3 $ 11.3 $ 13.6 $ 0.517 PP U 30 50 Existing $ 2.2 $ 9.9 $ 12.1 $ 5.5 $ 10.5 $ 16.0 ($3.8)18 PP U 30 50 Modified $ 2.2 $ 9.9 $ 12.1 $ 5.4 $ 10.5 $ 15.9 ($3.8)19 PP U 30 60 Existing $ 2.3 $ 9.9 $ 12.2 $ 5.4 $ 10.5 $ 15.9 ($3.7)20 PP U 30 60 Modified $ 2.3 $ 9.9 $ 12.2 $ 4.1 $ 10.5 $ 14.6 ($2.4)21 PP U 60 50 Existing $ 0.8 $ 9.9 $ 10.7 $ 4.2 $ 10.5 $ 14.7 ($4.0)22 PP U 60 50 Modified $ 0.8 $ 9.9 $ 10.7 $ 4.2 $ 10.5 $ 14.7 ($4.0)23 PP U 60 60 Existing $ 0.9 $ 9.9 $ 10.8 $ 4.2 $ 10.5 $ 14.7 ($3.9)24 PP U 60 60 Modified $ 0.9 $ 9.9 $ 10.8 $ 3.0 $ 10.5 $ 13.5 ($2.7)25 PP S 30 50 Existing $ 6.4 $ 11.6 $ 18.1 $ 7.9 $ 11.3 $ 19.2 ($1.2)26 PP S 30 50 Modified $ 6.4 $ 11.6 $ 18.1 $ 7.9 $ 11.3 $ 19.2 ($1.1)27 PP S 30 60 Existing $ 6.6 $ 11.6 $ 18.3 $ 7.9 $ 11.3 $ 19.2 ($0.9)28 PP S 30 60 Modified $ 6.6 $ 11.6 $ 18.3 $ 7.9 $ 11.3 $ 19.2 ($0.9)29 PP S 60 50 Existing $ 2.4 $ 11.6 $ 14.0 $ 3.9 $ 11.3 $ 15.2 ($1.2)30 PP S 60 50 Modified $ 2.4 $ 11.6 $ 14.0 $ 3.9 $ 11.3 $ 15.2 ($1.2)31 PP S 60 60 Existing $ 2.5 $ 11.6 $ 14.1 $ 3.9 $ 11.3 $ 15.2 ($1.1)32 PP S 60 60 Modified $ 2.5 $ 11.6 $ 14.1 $ 3.9 $ 11.3 $ 15.2 ($1.1)



Table 8.8:Estimated Peak Service Operating Expenses and Revenues

Peak Service

No. ofPeak

Trainsets

EstimatedFare Rev.

($ mil)

EstimatedAllocatedRevenue($ mil)

TransportCosts($ mil)

M-of-W($ mil)

M-of-E($ mil)

Admin($ mil)

Total($ mil)

2006 Current 5 $11.6 $6.4 $2.5 $0.8 $3.7 $0.8 $7.82015 Baseline (No Build) 6 $16.2 $8.9 $2.7 $0.8 $4.6 $1.2 $9.3

Unionville 7 $18.3 $9.9 $3.1 $0.8 $5.5 $1.1 $10.52015 Peak-BuildStouffville 7 $21.1 $11.6 $3.1 $0.8 $5.9 $1.5 $11.3

Total Capital Costs – Thecapacity of public transportagencies to finance capitalprojects is limited. Regardless oftheir overall benefit, larger moreexpensive projects tend to bemore difficult to develop duetheir overall impact on thepublic coffers. The overallcapital cost of the variousoffpeak service options istherefore a key financialconsideration. The forecastcapital costs for the variousoffpeak rail services rangebetween $77 and $265 million.66

The shorter and less frequentservice options have a lowerforecast capital expense, withthe DMU options to Unionvilleoffering some savings in capitalexpenditure compared withpush-pull options. The capitalcost of hourly offpeak DMUservice to Stouffville is roughlyequivalent to 30-minute serviceto Unionville. The forecastcapital cost for the 30-minute

66 Note: The 2015 Baseline (No Build) capital costs are forecast at approximately $45.8, for the acquisitionof additional rolling stock and related facilities to transport the forecast increase in baseline ridership.

Figure 8.10: Total Capital Costs ($ millions)

$ 145.3

$ 145.3

$ 145.3

$ 133.4

$ 99.0

$ 97.7

$ 97.7

$ 85.8

$ 256.9

$ 256.9

$ 256.9

$ 256.9

$ 147.8

$ 147.8

$ 147.8

$ 147.8

$ 126.4

$ 119.3

$ 119.3

$ 119.3

$ 87.1

$ 77.4

$ 77.4

$ 77.4

$ 264.9

$ 264.9

$ 260.0

$ 245.9

$ 138.1

$ 138.1

$ 138.1

$ 138.1

$0 $25 $50 $75 $100 $125 $150 $175 $200 $225 $250

U 30 50 Existing

U 30 50 Modified

U 30 60 Existing

U 30 60 Modified

U 60 50 Existing

U 60 50 Modified

U 60 60 Existing

U 60 60 Modified

S 30 50 Existing

S 30 50 Modified

S 30 60 Existing

S 30 60 Modified

S 60 50 Existing

S 60 50 Modified

S 60 60 Existing

S 60 60 Modified

Push-Pull

DMU



services to Stouffville is approximately $100 million greater than the next most costly options.There is no substantial difference in the capital costs of DMU and push-pull options for Stouffvilleservice options.

Net Incremental Operating Support – Given the strong forecast ridership response to the offeringof offpeak rail service on the Stouffville Branch, some of the DMU options are predicted togenerate positive net operating revenue (e.g., the forecast incremental passenger revenue exceedsforecast operating costs). This circumstance is relatively rare among North American transitoperations.

All Push-Pull options areforecast to require anoperating subsidy between$0.1 and $3.9 million. For theDMU, all Unionville serviceswould require operatingsupport ranging between $0.4and $2.3

Half-hourly DMU service toStouffville is forecast togenerate the greatest positivestream of operating revenue inthe neighborhood of $2.1 to$3.3 million per year.

Hourly DMU service toStouffville is also forecast togenerate a positive annual netrevenue cash flow ofapproximately $1.8 millionper year.

Figure 8.11: Net Incremental Operating Support($ millions)

($3.9)

($3.9)

($3.8)

($2.3)

($3.8)

($3.8)

($3.7)

($2.3)

($.8)

($.8)

($.6)

($.6)

($.2)

($.2)

($.1)

($.1)

($1.3)

($.5)

($.4)

($.4)

($2.3)

($1.4)

($1.4)

($1.4)

$ 2.1

$ 2.1

$ 2.2

$ 3.3

$ 1.7

$ 1.7

$ 1.8

$ 1.8

($4) ($3) ($2) ($1) $0 $1 $2 $3

U 30 50 Existing

U 30 50 Modified

U 30 60 Existing

U 30 60 Modified

U 60 50 Existing

U 60 50 Modified

U 60 60 Existing

U 60 60 Modified

S 30 50 Existing

S 30 50 Modified

S 30 60 Existing

S 30 60 Modified

S 60 50 Existing

S 60 50 Modified

S 60 60 Existing

S 60 60 Modified

Push-Pull

DMU



Total Incremental Operating Cost – The overall incremental costs of developing the offpeakservices are an important consideration in evaluating options. Forecasts of transit operating costscan be more reliable than forecast passenger revenues. Consequently, there may be somewhatmore risk among the options with higher forecast incremental costs.

The incrementaloperating costs for push-pull services areuniformly forecast to behigher than the costs forcorresponding DMUservices.

The forecast incrementaloperating costs of the 30-minute Unionville serviceare substantially the sameas hourly DMU service tothe same terminal.

The incrementaloperating costs of serviceto Stouffville are higherthan for the Unionvilleoptions.

Figure 8.12: Total Incremental OperatingCosts ($ millions)

$8.0

$8.0

$8.0

$6.5

$6.5

$6.5

$6.5

$5.0

$11.4

$11.4

$11.4

$11.3

$6.7

$6.7

$6.7

$6.7

$5.5

$4.6

$4.6

$4.6

$5.0

$4.1

$4.1

$4.1

$8.7

$8.7

$8.7

$7.6

$4.9

$4.9

$4.9

$4.9

$0 $1 $2 $3 $4 $5 $6 $7 $8 $9 $10 $11 $12

U 30 50 Existing

U 30 50 Modified

U 30 60 Existing

U 30 60 Modified

U 60 50 Existing

U 60 50 Modified

U 60 60 Existing

U 60 60 Modified

S 30 50 Existing

S 30 50 Modified

S 30 60 Existing

S 30 60 Modified

S 60 50 Existing

S 60 50 Modified

S 60 60 Existing

S 60 60 Modified

Push-Pull

DMU



Net Total Stouffville Branch Operating Support, Including All Services – The total netoperating revenue metric includes all peak and offpeak services forecast to the baseline year of2015. Total forecast operating support is presented less forecast total operating costs. On a totalservice basis, allStouffville DMU optionsare forecast to yield apositive net operatingrevenue stream between$0.5 to $2.5 million.

The total net operatingsupport associated withthe hourly DMUUnionville options isrelatively modestcompared to its push-pullcounterparts.

The forecast total netoperating revenue fromhalf-hourly DMU serviceto Stouffville is forecastto be in the neighborhoodof $1.4 to $2.5 million.

Figure 8.13: Net Total Operating Support for All StouffvilleBranch Services ($ millions)

($1.4)

($.4)

($3.8)

($3.8)

($3.7)

($2.4)

($4.0)

($4.0)

($3.9)

($2.7)

($1.2)

($1.1)

($.9)

($.9)

($1.2)

($1.2)

($1.1)

($1.1)

($1.6)

($.8)

($.8)

($.8)

($2.7)

($1.9)

($1.9)

($1.9)

$ 1.4

$ 1.4

$ 1.5

$ 2.5

$ .5

$ .5

$ .5

$ .5

($4) ($3) ($2) ($1) $0 $1 $2 $3

2006 Current

2015 Baseline

U 30 50 Existing

U 30 50 Modified

U 30 60 Existing

U 30 60 Modified

U 60 50 Existing

U 60 50 Modified

U 60 60 Existing

U 60 60 Modified

S 30 50 Existing

S 30 50 Modified

S 30 60 Existing

S 30 60 Modified

S 60 50 Existing

S 60 50 Modified

S 60 60 Existing

S 60 60 Modified

Push-Pull

DMU



SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONSIn general, the evaluation of offpeak rail service on the Stouffville branch is very positive.

Mobility - All of the options are forecast to have a substantial positive impact on ridership. Themore extensive options are forecast to generate the greatest mobility impact.

Energy and Environment – Forecast energy and environmental impacts of the DMU options aregenerally favorable. The forecast impacts of offering offpeak service with push-pull equipment aremuch less favorable.

Efficiency – The findings with respect to economic efficiency are slightly more complicated.

All options are forecast to require the same approximate capital investment per new GOTransit rail passenger.

The forecast incremental operating cost per GO Transit passenger drops substantially witheach improvement in the extent and frequency of service. The incremental operating costsfor the DMU options are always forecast to be lower than for the corresponding push-pulloption.

The forecast farebox recovery ratios for the longer and more frequent options are expectedto be higher with the most attractive farebox recovery rates forecast for half-hourlyStouffville service.

Finance – The financial metrics are also slightly complicated.

The total forecast capital costs increase substantially with the extent and frequency ofservice. The capital cost forecasts for 30 minute Stouffville service are approximately threetimes the forecasts for hourly Unionville services.

The forecast incremental net operating subsidies are greater for the push-pull options arethan for the DMU options.

With higher average fares earned from longer distance trips, the incremental net operatingrevenue forecasts for Stouffville DMU options are more attractive than for the UnionvilleDMU options.

Among the DMU options, the spread in incremental operating costs between the mostextensive and frequent service and the less frequent and shorter options is not especiallygreat due to a large constant cost for expansions in peak service common to all offpeakservice options. Because operating costs can generally be more accurately forecast thanoperating revenues, options with lower forecast operating costs tend to entail less risk.



Among the DMU options, the 30-minute Stouffville service options are expected to have thegreatest positive impact on overall net operating revenue. The hourly DMU to Stouffville isalso forecast to generate positive net revenue.

INTEGRATION AND TENTATIVE RECOMMENDATIONIntegration of these findings is guided by the recognition that the development and operation ofmore modest services can used as an interim step towards the eventual development of moreextensive services as GO Transit’s level of comfort with the new service offering grows. Keyconsiderations and assumptions in developing our recommendations include:

1. DMU Service would have more positive impacts on energy, environmental, efficiency andfinancial considerations.

2. Stouffville service would generate more positive mobility impacts than Unionville service.

3. Hourly services would require more modest infrastructure (track, stations and signals) than30-minute services.

Guided by these three key considerations, it would seem that hourly offpeak DMU service toStouffville would be an attractive initial demonstration and test of offpeak service on the GOTransit branch lines. As the service proves itself to be successful, infrastructure improvements andfleet expansion would allow the service to expand to half-hourly service.

Hourly offpeak service to Stouffville would entail 24 daily offpeak trips between Stouffville andScarborough and require approximately $138 million in capital investment.



Table 8.9:Capital Costs for Hourly Offpeak Service to Stouffville



($ mil.)Peak Build Coaches Coaches 17 $ 43.9Peak Build Locomotives Locos 1 $ 4.9DMU Power Cars Cars 3 $ 17.2DMU Trailers Coaches 3 $ 6.4Total Rollingstock Cost $ 65.8

New Track67 Miles 1.50 $ 2.3Track Upgrade Miles 20.1 $ 0.2Crossing Upgrade Unit 36 $ 3.6Crossing Re-signaling Unit 36 $ 6.3CTC Signals Miles 21.6 $ 21.6High-Level Platforms Unit 11 $ 6.1Offpeak M-of-E Facility Unit 9 $ 4.8Peak M-of-E Facility Unit 18 $ 9.7Contingency, etc $ 20.3Total Infrastructure $ 73.3

Total Capital Cost $138.1

With respect to maximum allowable speeds and main line schedules, the analysis indicates thateither increased speeds or adjustments in mainline schedules would be sufficient to reduce thenumber of crews and equipment assigned to the service. Further consultation with GO Transit willallow the planning team to make a firm recommendation regarding tradeoffs between increasedmaximum allowable speeds and adjustments in mainline schedules.

FALL BACK PLANIf capital finance for a $138 million investment in offpeak service to Stouffville or some otherconsideration poses a substantial short/intermediate term obstacle for GO Transit, a 30-minuteUnionville service would be a more modest starter service with a forecast capital investment in thevicinity of $119 million.

67 Includes terminal stub and passing siding.



APPENDIX A. REVIEW OF ROLLING STOCK ALTERNATIVES

This chapter, prepared by Interfleet Technology, reviews three classes of rolling stock options foroffpeak Stouffville Branch service.68 For each option the chapter provides documentationconcerning:

Current and planned North American fleets;Historical and likely future purchase costs for small fleets69;Typical fuel consumption rates and fuel capacity, typical fuelling cycleTypical crewing requirements (prospects of One Person Train Operations)Typical noise and air quality impacts of operationTypical passenger door/station platform interface; provisions required for handicappedaccessibilityTypical car width and floor heightTypical emergency braking rateTypical 0 to 100 kph acceleration curveTypical maintenance and overhauls requirements including costs for labor and materials;Typical maintenance staffing level requirementsTypical maintenance facility requirementsTypical part inventory requirements

The chapter is based on market data available in the summer of 2007.

As previewed in Chapter 1, the rolling stock options include:

Compliant Category 1 DMU;Non-Compliant Category 2 or 3 DMU;Compliant Push-Pull Rolling Stock.

The “Compliant Category 1 DMU” is defined as a self-propelled, heavy diesel multiple unitdesigned to meet all North American requirements for rail passenger cars operating unrestricted inthe general railroad network. Essentially, the determining factor in the design of these vehicles isthe ability to withstand an 800,000lbf buff load, per 49 CFR 238.203 and, in some cases, theequivalent Transport Canada standard. Until recently, North American experience with this type ofequipment was with vehicles built as a variant of a standard passenger coach, referred to as “raildiesel cars” or RDC’s. Although the selection is slim, the North American market now offersoptions for a CFR compliant diesel multiple unit.

The second class of diesel multiple unit includes any and all DMUs that do not meet the federalrequirements. Category 2 DMUs are defined in TCRP Report 52 Joint Operation of Light Rail

68 Estimates of maintenance costs and staffing requirements in this chapter are subject to continued refinement by theproject team.69 All costs in this chapter are presented in US dollars.



Transit or Diesel Multiple Unit Vehicles with Railroads70 as light rail, railroad or bus technologyderivative designs. Category 3 DMUs are vehicles capable of negotiating streetcar track geometryinvolving tight curves. Category 3 units tend to be lighter than their Category 2 counterparts. Ashas been the case with several North American operators, these vehicles may be allowed to operateon the general railway network under an established waiver process to allow operation through timeor spatial separation from trains designed and manufactured to meet the federal regulations. Theagencies that have successfully taken this path with non-compliant DMUs include NJ TRANSIT’sRiverLINE, Ottawa’s O-Train, and the North County Transit District’s Oceanside Sprinter.Austin’s Capital Metro is presently negotiating for a waiver to operate a small fleet of Category 3units in Texas. San Diego Trolley, New Jersey Transit’s Newark Subway, and Utah TransitAuthority’s TRAX System currently operate electric light rail services on significant lengths oftrack shared with conventional railway equipment.

The current “order book” and projected equipment order forecast through 2012 for these types ofpassenger equipment are also presented.

INVENTORY OF ROLLINGSTOCK OPTIONSThis section of the chapter reviews the general characteristics and operational performance of thethree classes of equipment options. Examples of each class of equipment are provided.

Compliant DMU, Category 1There are several available options for a “compliant” DMU, including two options from ColoradoRailcar, a third, yet to be produced, vehicle from Rotem and three vehicles that have been proposedby other manufacturers. Colorado Railcar offers both a single level and double-deck version oftheir FRA compliant DMU, as well as matching coaches. Southern Florida’s Tri-Rail operation hasbeen using the CRC double-deck equipment in service since 2006. CRC is presently building asmall fleet of single level cars for Portland Tri-Met in Oregon. The State of Vermont has alsoordered a small fleet of single level cars for regional Amtrak service in Vermont, Massachusetts andConnecticut. Rotem’s compliant DMU product offering, originally proposed for Triangle TransitAuthority in consortia with Tokyo-based Sojitz as United Transit Systems, has yet to be produced.Bombardier, Siemens, and Sumitoma/Nippon Sharyo have also proposed to build compliant DMUsfor North American clients in the last several years.

The list of vehicles in current operation or manufacture includes two vintage legacy fleets of 1950’sBudd RDCs operating in Alaska and Texas.

70 S. David Phraner with Others. Joint Operation of Light Rail Transit or Diesel Multiple Unit Vehicles with Railroads:TCRP Report 52. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, National Academy Press, WashingtonDC 1999 page 14



Table A.1Current Compliant DMU Operator’s

Operator # ofVehicles Type Builder

Pompano Beach, FLA (South FloridaRTA, Tri-Rail) 3 Single/Double Level

DMU Colorado Railcar

Alaska Railroad Corporation 4 Diesel Rail Car Pullman-StandardPortland (Tri-Met, Washington CountyCommuter Rail Project) 3 DMU Colorado Railcar

Trinity Railway Express (TRE) 13 RDCs Budd Company

The list of vehicles expected to be delivered within the next two years includes units for Florida andVermont.

Table A.2Current Compliant DMU Orders/Deliveries for 2007-2008

Purchaser # ofVehicles Type Builder

Pompano Beach, FLA (South FloridaRTA) 2 Bi-Level DMU Commuter Colorado Railcar

Vermont DOT (VTrans) 3 Single Level DMU Colorado Railcar

Over the next five years new orders for non-compliant units may be expected from agencies in NewJersey, Alaska, Illinois and North Carolina.

Table A.3Compliant DMU Likely Orders 2007-2012

Purchaser # of Vehicles Type2007

Newark (NJ TRANSIT) 8 DMU CommuterAlaskan Railroad 1 Bi-Level DMU

2008-2012Chicago (Metra) 0-135 DMU CommuterNorth Carolina (Triangle Transit Authority) TBD DMU Commuter



Category 1

Budd/AMFUnited Transit

Systems Colorado Rail CarRemanufactured

1950’s RDCSingle Level

DMU Single Level DMU Double Deck DMU Single Level DMUWith 2 cabs per power car

Table A.4Characteristics ofCategory 1 DMUs inNorth American UrbanTransit Systems (Dallas) (Triangle

Transit) (Fla.Tri-Rail) (Fla.Tri-Rail) (PortlandTri-Met)

First Year of Service 1997 Cancelled 2005 2006 2009

Fleet Size 13 14 1 Power Car71 3 Power Cars2 Trailer Cars

3 Power Cars2 Trailer Cars

Configuration Single Car Pairs Single Car(Power car)

Pairs(Power +Trailer)

Single Car(Power car)


Single Car(Power car)


Seating Capacity 96 160 92 190 188 406 76 160

Standees72 NA 320 148 296 75 154 148 296

Total Passenger Capacity NA 480 240 486 263 560 224 456

Approx. Capital Cost (US millions) $1.80 $5.28 $2.90 $5.00 $4.20 $6.90 $3.60 $5.80

Total Horsepower 600 1,900 1,200 1,200 1,200

Engines 2 4 2 2 2

Drive System DieselMechanical

DieselMechanical

DieselMechanical

DieselMechanical

DieselMechanical

Weight (tons) 68 130 82 154 98 180 77.5 145

Length (feet) 85 170 85 170 89 178 85 170

Height (feet) 14.6 14.5 14.9 19.8 14.6

Width (Inches) 120? 120 120 120

Floor Height (Inches) 48? 51 51 51 & 25 51

Min. Curve Radius (feet) NA 300 250 250 250

Tons/Seat 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.9

Capital Cost/Seat (US) $18,800 $33,000 $31,500 $26,300 $22,300 $17,000 $47,400 $36,300

Capital Cost/Passenger (US) NA $11,000 $12,000 $10,300 $16,000 $12,300 $16,000 $12,700

HP/Ton 9 15 15 8 12 7 15 8

Source: Transportation Research Board SPRC Technologies Subcommittee May 11, 2007

Colorado Railcar DMUsThe first to offer a vehicle of this kind meeting 49 CFR 238, Colorado Railcar offers both a singlelevel and double deck DMU in their product line. Traditionally, CRC’s version of DMU would bereferred to as a “rail diesel car” or “RDC” for short. Not necessarily marketed as a “platform”vehicle, contact with CRC shows they are willing to tailor vehicle design to meet the specific needsof each particular operator. Changes to characteristics such as seating and door configuration arepossible. CRC’s line of compliant DMUs is totally new equipment. All CRC DMU vehicles are

71 Destroyed by accidental fire in late 200572 Standee capacity figures are based on vendor reports which may vary in the perception of acceptable levelsof passenger crowding



equipped with MU capability. Both versions are advertised as having a design speed of 100MPHand a service speed of 90MPH.

Figure A.1 Colorado Railcar Single-Level DMU

The single level DMU is a uni-directional passenger vehicle with a full width cab and can also beused in push-pull service with trailer coaches. Existing versions of the single level are in a 2x2seating configuration providing 94 seat locations and four flips seats or two wheelchair spots. ThisDMU is a high floor vehicle with one set of bi-parting center doors on either side of the vehicle andis powered by two, underfloor mounted, 600HP Detroit Diesel engines. Power transmissionbetween engine and driven axle is via a Voith transmission/cardan shaft/gearbox arrangement. Athird diesel engine is used for generating HEP. The matching, unpowered coach is also a centerdoor, high floor vehicle with 102 seat locations in the 2x2 configuration.

Figure A.2 Colorado Railcar Double Deck DMU



The CRC double deck DMU seats 188 passengers based on a 32in seat pitch and a 2x2 seatingconfiguration on both levels. Both the DMU and unpowered coaches are outfitted with two sets oflow-floor, bi-parting doors on each side. Therefore this vehicle is a low platform usage car, only.

CRC is the North American leader in DMU manufacture, with one small fleet in revenue serviceand two more fleets in manufacture or on-order. Small order sizes, which have seemed to be adeterrent for other potential manufacturers are not a problem for this Colorado-based enterprise.

Rotem DMU (United Transit Systems)Several other carbuilders have proposed, or continueto express an interest in developing an FRAcompliant diesel multiple unit for the NorthAmerican market. One such builder is South Koreabased Rotem. Rotem has produced and delivereddiesel multiple units around the world for customerssuch as Iran, Ireland – Ianrod Eireann, Thailand andKorail, South Korea. With the intention of breakinginto the North American passenger rolling stockmarket, Rotem has established a manufacturingcenter in the Philadelphia Shipyard in Pennsylvania.Rotem has won two major contracts with SEPTAand SCRRA since organizing in North America.

Working in a consortium with Tokyo-based Sojitz under the name United Transit Systems, Rotemhad proposed an FRA compliant DMU for Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) in North Carolina andeventually won the contract. However, questionable funding had put this project on potentiallypermanent hold. UTS did not receive a signed contract from TTA. A similar situation developedwith NJ TRANSIT with what started as a demonstration project and is now being prepared forcompetitive bid. Given the fact that the NJ TRANSIT order size would be small, and UTS does notyet have a design that has been manufactured, economies of producing a first generation compliantDMU for the North American market may be counter to UTS’s tolerance for profitability and wouldessentially be unable to recoup engineering costs. Contacts at Rotem have indicated that theycannot deliver vehicles to NJ TRANSIT at the anticipated price in the quantities requested and thatpossibly a builder that has a product that has already been designed and delivered elsewhere wouldbe a stronger possibility73.

The United Transit Systems (UTS) DMU, was considered to be a “concept” car at the time of theTTA bid. The car is a single level, high-platform vehicle with two sets of bi-parting passengerdoors on either side of each car at the quarter point location just inboard of the trucks. Rotem’sproposal indicated that modification of the car to incorporate a trap door/step arrangement for lowlevel boarding capability is also possible. With 2x2 seating, the UTS DMU would seat 80/160passengers and 96/192 passengers in a 3x2 configuration for individual coach/married pair.

73e.g. Colorado Rail Car



The intended operation for TTA was for a 65MPH operation and this concept vehicle would havehad a 79MPH design speed with full acceleration capability of 1.5mphps. The married pair wouldhave included four 475hp Detroit Diesel Series 60, EPA Tier II certified engines with a total outputof 1900hp per married pair. The configuration is such that the inboard axle of each vehicle is drivenvia a hydraulic transmission. The transmission is listed as being equipped with a “retarder” whichallows fluid, hydrodynamic braking – a mechanical “dynamic” brake. A third diesel engine wouldprovide power to drive a HEP generator delivering 140kVA at 60Hz. Similar to the CRC DMUs,this vehicle is based on undercarriage mounted diesel engines using a mechanical transmissionbetween the propulsion engines and driven axles.

Since the UTS proposed vehicle has no service history and has not been completely designed, theparticulars of performance have not been proven. Rotem seems willing to tailor its design to meet aprospective customer’s needs and demands based on their apparent interest to break into the NorthAmerican market. The concept vehicle, a married pair, was projected to have a total weight ofapproximately 286,000lb, would be capable of accelerating at a rate of 1.45 mphps and servicebraking at 2mphps.

The table below lists technical and performance information for the Colorado Railcar and Rotemcompliant DMUs.

Table A.5Category 1 “Compliant DMU” Vehicle Information

Manufacturer and Product CRC Bi-Level CRC Single Level

Rotem Concept(United Transit

Systems)Price (M$USD) 4.2 3.2 – 3.6 5.6 per pairOrder Qty. 3 3 12 pairConsist Makeup Single car Single car Married PairEngine 2 - Detroit Series 60 2 - Detroit Series 60 4 - Detroit Series 60Horsepower 1,200 (600ea) 1,200 1,900 (475ea)Fuel Consumption 1.2 gpm 1.2 gpm 1.45 gpmFuel Capacity (gallons) 600 600 1020 per pairOperating Range 500 500 700Emissions Compliance EPA 2005 EPA 2005 EPA Tier IIDoors Per Side 2 1 4Car Width 10ft 10ft 10ft-1.7inFloor Height (inches) 51/18 51 51Service BrakeRate(mphps) 2 2 2

Emergency BrakeRate(mphps) 2.5 2.5 2.5

Acceleration (mphps)(0 to 100kph) 1 1.2 1.4

Noise (dBA) 77dBA 80dBA 83 at 60mph



Other Category 1 DMU vehicles that have been offered in the North American market over the lastseveral years are described below.

Bombardier DMUBombardier had conceptualized a DMU schemebased on the M-774 platform and eventuallyproposed this concept for Triangle TransitAuthority and UTA procurements. This DMUversion had three sets of passenger doors, twoquarter point doors, and a vestibule end doorthat could be designed for low platformboarding. In a 3x2 configuration the marriedpair seating capacity was199.

Performance of the Bombardier “M-7” DMUproposed a maximum operating speed of80MPH, maximum acceleration of 1.5mphpswith 1320HP through a diesel-electric propulsion package.

Interest in this vehicle type was also supplemented by the pooled interest of several other agenciesincluding Metro-North and Virginia Railway Express. Bombardier had prepared marketinginformation based on this concept in the hopes of attracting order sizes justifying design andproduction of a DMU. The intent was, using the M-7 as a platform, that this vehicle meet thestringent structural requirements and would be capable of meeting FRA requirements for mixed,commuter operations. Bombardier has not been successful in generating orders for the car.

Bombardier has produced a number of differing DMU vehicles in Europe, such as the Flexliner and“Talent” trains operating in Ottawa, as well as several other versions in places such as the UnitedKingdom and Germany. Bombardier has stated that without appropriate order sizes and areasonable assurance that their products would be purchased in North America, further developmentof a compliant-DMU will not progress past the conceptual stage of design.

Siemens Desiro Compliant DMUSiemens has and continues to express an interest in the development of a compliant DMU in thehopes of securing an order for design and manufacture. Siemens proposed a compliant version ofthe Desiro DMU for both the Washington County Commuter Rail Project, Portland, Oregon andTTA in 200375.

74 NYMTA’s LIRR and MetroNorth.75 In August of 2006, San Diego North County began receiving the first of 12 “Sprinter” vehicleswhich is a non-compliant version of the Desiro vehicle.



Figure A.3 Siemens Compliant DMU Concept

The FRA-compliant DMU Siemens had proposed for TTA in 2003 was a high-floor version of theDesiro, operating in Europe, Mexico and Iran, configured as a married pair. A primary differencebetween these versions was the fact that the compliant vehicle was to have two trucks per passengercarrying coach, whereas the European version was configured as an articulated vehicle with theintercar connection being supported by a center truck – the entire consist having three trucks asopposed to four for the complaint vehicle. Each car of the pair would be powered at the inboardtruck by a 750HP diesel engine and hydraulic transmission arrangement. These engines would alsodeliver auxiliary power for each car via a hydrostatic alternator leaving approximately 560HPavailable for tractive effort per car. Of the compliant DMUs for which there is performanceinformation available, the Siemens proposal has been among the least powerful. It performs on thelow end of the comparative scale with a maximum acceleration of 1.4mphps. Service braking wasdesigned to deliver 2mphps of braking effort. The curve shown below shows what was conceivedas being the performance for the compliant Desiro at the concept stage.

Figure A.4Siemens Desiro Compliant DMU Performance Curve

Level boarding for a 51in platform was proposed for TTA as well as a trap-step arrangementcompatible with an 8in low platform height. The married pair was outfitted with four, bi-partingdoors located at the quarter points each having a 50in doorway opening. Seating capacity in a 2x2



configuration was to be 160 passengers. The married pairs were to be capable of multipleoperation, but there did not appear to be any plans to increase passenger seating capacity byincluding uncontrolled coaches in the consist.

Sumitomo/Nippon-Sharyo DMUSumitomo in partnership with Nippon-Sharyo has offered an FRA compliant,DMU to the TTA in2003. This offering was a self-propelled version of the “MARC Coach” referred to as the “RD 95”DMU. This “first build” type of DMU is not yet in use in North America.

Sumitomo has produced single and bi-level commuter coaches for Maryland MTA, Metra andNICTD in Chicago, CalTrain in San Francisco, and Virginia Railway Express in Virginia.Sumitomo’s compliant DMU was based on the car body used for Northern Indiana CommuterTransit District’s EMUs and Maryland Transit Administration’s MARC commuter rail services. Itwould have been an end vestibule style vehicle possibly having trap steps for both high and lowboarding capabilities. Passenger capacity was to be 87 or 104 in 2x2 or 3x2 seating configurations,respectively. The proposed configuration used two diesel engines to generate a total of 690HP for avery low horsepower-to-weight ratio. Consequently, acceleration performance was predicted to bein the area of 0.8mphps.

Information concerning all five Category 1 DMU offerings is summarized in Table A.6.

Table A.6Five Current Compliant

DMU Offerings

ColoradoRailcar

(Single Level)United Transit

SystemsSumitomo/

Nippon Sharyo

BombardierDMU

(2 cars)

SiemensDesiro USA (2

cars)

Configuration Single Unit Single Unit Single Unit Married-Pair Married-PairFirst Year of Service 2006 200? NA NA NAPassenger Capacity (Seats)

Seated with 2 x 2 Seating 92 80 87Seated with 2 x 3 Seating 116 96 104 199 160Standees76 148 120 NA 174 210Total 240 200 NA 373 370

Capital Cost (US millions) $3.7 $3.5 $3.6 NA $8.5Capital Cost/Seat (3 x2) (US) $31,900 $36,500 $34,600 NA $53,100Engines 2 2 2 4 2Total Horsepower 1,200 950 690 1,320 1,120Drive Train Diesel-

HydraulicDiesel-

HydraulicDiesel-

Hydraulic Diesel-Electric Diesel-ElectricMax Operating Speed (mph) 70 65 80 100 79Max Acceleration (mphps) 2.4 1.5 0.8 1.5 1.3

76 Standee figures are those reported by manufacturers (and are generally those for 2 x 2 seating) and are higher thanthose that are used by most transit systems, including the MBTA.



Table A.6Five Current Compliant

DMU Offerings

ColoradoRailcar

(Single Level)United Transit

SystemsSumitomo/

Nippon Sharyo

BombardierDMU

(2 cars)

SiemensDesiro USA (2

cars)Weight (tons) 74 65 71 129 134Tons/Seat 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.8HP/Ton 15 16 10 10 8Length (feet) 85 85 85 170 167Height (feet) 15.1 14.4 13.1 13.0 14.4Source: Jacobs Engineering Group. Fairmount Line Service Improvements: Potential Use of DMUs: Final Report.Prepared for Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Executive Office of Transportation, August 2007 page 18

It is notable that all the single level compliant cars described above are high floor cars where themain passenger compartment sits above the trucks. Passenger access to the car is provided byboarding from a high level platform 48 to 51 inches above top of rail or via a set of three or foursteps from a low level platform. Access for persons in wheelchairs and with other mobilityimpairments is provided via a high level platform or via a mechanical lift. High level platforms canpose horizontal clearance problems for freight cars on tracks shared with freight services.

Non-Compliant DMU, Category 2 and 3At present two North American transit properties are operating with non-compliant DMU fleets.Ottawa’s O-Train operates with a fleet of three Category 3 units. NJTransit’s RiverLine operateswith a fleet of 20 Category 3 units over a 34 mile route that includes more than a mile of streetrunning. The North County Transit District in Oceanside California will begin operation of 12Category 2 units late in 2007. In Texas, Austin’s Capitol Metro expects to operate a fleet of sixCategory 3 DMUs in the next few years.

Table A.7Current Non-Compliant DMU Fleets

Operator # ofVehicles Model Builder

Ottawa Rapid Transit, O-Train 3 Talent BR643 BombardierNJ TRANSIT RiverLINE 20 GTW 2/6 StadlerOceanside, Calif. (NCTD) 12 Desiro SiemensCapital Metro, Austin, TX 6 GTW-4 Stadler

A thorough scan of the marketplace does not show any operators considering purchase of Category2 or 3 DMUs in the foreseeable future.



Table A.8Category 2 and 3 “Non-Compliant DMU” Vehicle Information

Manufacturerand Product

Siemens Desiro“Sprinter”

Stadler GTW-2RiverLINE

Stadler GTW-4CapMetro

BombardierTalentBR643

Price (M$USD) $3.7 $4.3 $5.4 $3.9Order Qty. 12 20 6 3Consist Makeup Married Pair Articulated Articulated 3 car setEngine 2 - MTU 6V

1800H1 – MTU 12V

183 TD132 – Cummins

QSM112 – MTU 6R183 TD 13H

Horsepower 420 ea 740 800 840Fuel Consumption(gallons per mile) Unknown Unknown .5 Unknown

Fuel Capacity(gallons) 2/200 Unknown 396 Unknown

Operating range(miles) Unknown Unknown 790 Unknown

EmissionsCompliance

EPA Tier II, EuroIII Euro II EPA Tier III Euro II

Doors Per Side 2 2 2 3Car Width 9ft 3in 9ft 6in 9ft 8in 9ft 7inFloor Height 22/49in 23/39in 23/39in 23Service Brake Rate(mphps) 2.5 2.25 2.9 2.2

Emergency BrakeRate (mphps) Unknown 4.5 4.8 Unknown

Acceleration(mphps)(0 to 100kph)

2.5 2.3 2.0 1.9

Noise (dBA) 81dBA at 40mph 73 – 83dBA 73 – 83dBA 77 – 86 dBASources: Interfleet Technology Capital Metro DMU Analysis prepared for Capital MetropolitanTransportation Authority of Austin, TX, dated August 31, 2004 and “Vehicle AlternativesReport,” by Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit, December 28, 2001,

Siemens Non-Compliant DesiroRecently delivered to San Diego, North County Transit District will operate the non-compliantDesiro in its new “Sprinter” Service due to open in late 2007. Purchase price for this order was$3.7M per unit for 12 vehicles and the Oceanside Escondido service is due to begin December2007. The German Railway purchased 230 of the Desiros in a single order to be used in regionaland suburban service. Siemens openly compares this vehicle to the NJ TRANSIT, RiverLINEDMU manufactured by Swiss-based Stadler.

The Sprinter vehicle is configured as an articulated trainset having a center truck supporting theintercar connection for the married pair with carshells manufactured from aluminum. Powered bytwo Mercedes MTU, 420HP diesel engines with mechanical transmission, this vehicle is capable of



a top speed of 55MPH. The engines comply with “Euro III” and EPA Tier II off-road emissionstandards. Although specific acceleration information could not be found, comparing thehorsepower to weight ratio with other similar vehicles, acceleration performance, on average forthis vehicle could be estimated to be approximately 2.5mphps. Fuel capacity for the vehicle is 400gallons total.

The passenger seating area with a capacity of 136 seat positions, is divided between low and highfloor sections. Approximately 60% of the seating area is low floor and the boarding locations are atthis level as well, at a height of 22 inches above Top of Rail (TOR). The high floor area is 49inches above TOR.

Stadler GTW-4Successful with now two contracts in North America,Stadler will begin delivering the GTW-4 in Octoberof 2007 to Capital Metro in Austin, TX to be used in“Metro Rail” urban commuter service. The first setof North American vehicles produced by Stadler,contract order of 20 vehicles, was delivered to NJTRANSIT in 2004 at $3.6M per copy. The CapMetrobase contract value for six DMUs was approximately$32M with options available for up to 12 additionalvehicles. The configuration of both GTWs is virtually the same and referred to as a GTW-2/6 fortwo passenger seating areas and six axles (three trucks) per vehicle. Stadler also offers a “2/8”configuration which includes an additional 56 seats beyond the capacity of 108 for the CapMetrodesign.

The GTW configuration provides two endcars with operating cabs allowing bi-directionaloperation. The endcars are joined via a short center car “power module” which houses twoCummins QSM11 diesel engines riding on a fully powered truck. Power transmission is performedthrough a diesel-electric drive train, no mechanical transmission other than the axle gearbox is usedin the Stadler DMUs. Advantages of the twin engine arrangement are the “limp home” capability ifby chance one engine fails. Each engine is mounted into a “skid” which can easily be removedfrom the power module with a forklift or crane. The overall power module configuration, with aninterior walkway joining passenger areas, provides good maintenance access for servicing. Also,HEP facility can be provided through one engine as long as fuel is available. CapMetro choseCummins as the engine supplier based on the fact that local customer service is readily available inNorth America, not to mention the fact that Cummins was willing to test their products to complywith US EPA Tier III regulations. Auxiliary power for the train is provided through an ABBconverter. No separate HVAC power generating diesel engine is used. The interior of the moduleis also equipped with a foam fire suppression system, one for each engine package.

Fuel capacity for the CMTA DMU is approximately 400gals per vehicle and fuel consumption isapproximated at an average of 2Miles/gallon. The Cummins QSM11 is also capable of operatingon low sulfur fuels as well. At gross weight acceleration performance is 2.0mph/s and full service



braking with blending is 2.9mph/s. Propulsion control is also tailored for street running mode witha controller position restricting speed to a maximum of 30MPH and allowing full braking capabilityto 4.8mph/s.

Figure A.5Stadler GTW-4 Performance Curve

v-t-diagram

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150time [sec.]

spee

d [k

m/h

]

The plot above shows the acceleration performance of the CapMetro DMU. For all intents andpurposes, this curve could be considered as representative of Category 3 DMUs.

Figure A.6 CapMetro GTW-4

The CapMetro vehicle is referred to as a “Carbody 4,” also fabricated of aluminum, but with designimprovements required to surpass structural requirements and new European crash energymanagement standards77 . This accounts for some of the weight differential when compared to the

77 BS EN 12663 “Railway applications – Structural requirements of railway vehicle bodies” and prEN 12663 “Railwayapplications – Crashworthiness requirements for railway vehicle bodies”



RiverLINE vehicle at 58tons. The CapMetro vehicle weighs 72tons (157,305lb). The light vehicledoes not meet North American crashworthiness standards for operation on the general railwaynetwork. However, crash energy management is a feature of the GTW-4 design. The moreadvanced crash energy management features and greater structural strength of the GTW-4 explainsmuch of the greater weight of this vehicle compared with the similar GTW 2/6 car.

The Stadler GTW allows an additional passenger-carrying compartment to be added to the consistwith little or no impact on performance. Therefore fuel consumption costs are for estimationsconsidered to be “constant” for a train having seat capacity of 100 to 150, approximately. However,the added passenger compartment a second power module would be required to provide theperformance comparable to the 100 seat unit.

The passenger seating area is both mid-level and high floor, low floor in the area of the doorwaysand toward the power module, and high floor over the truck area and to the operating cabs. Thelower floor area is considered to be at a mid-level height of 23 inches. Boarding is done in this areathrough two, wide, bi-parting door openings on each side of the vehicle.

Bombardier TalentCharacterized by its introduction into North America as the“O-Train” as part of the Ottawa Rapid Transit and started as apilot project with three trainset, the Talent is in wide usethroughout Europe with operators in Germany, Austria,Norway and Hungary. In total 260 Talents have been producedin varying dimensions and configurations. Considered to be alow-floor DMU having 70% of the passenger floor area at aheight of 23in., the O-Train version (Talent BR643) of theTalent operates as a three car set with a 137 passenger capacity.

Figure A.7OC Transpo O-Train Schematic

Entry to the passenger compartments is made at the 23in. level through three 51in. bi-partingdoorways along each side of the train. Other configurations of the vehicle are available. The O-Train is similar to the DB 643.2 shown above, however with an additional passenger coach added asthe center car of the three car set. Several differing door configurations are also available from twosets per passenger car, to single doors per passenger compartment as with Ottawa’s vehicle, as wellas combinations of the same.



Figure A.8DB Regionalbahn Talent 643.2

(Note two-cars instead of O-Train’s three-cars)

The BR643 is configured as an articulated set, with the center passenger car supported, andconnected to the adjacent endcars by “Jacobs bogies.” Essentially this articulated truck supportsboth ends of adjacent cars, as well as acts as the coupler between these adjacent cars. The three carBR643 measures just over 160ft in length, 9ft-7in in width, and 12.5ft tall. Design of the BR643did not consider any North American standards for smoke, flame and toxicity.

Performance of the Talent is provided by two Mercedes (MTU) diesel engines providing 840hp forthe trainset through mating mechanical transmissions. Though accurate data on fuel consumptionand emergency braking rates could not be collected for the Talent operating in Ottawa, it would besafe to assume emergency braking could be provided at more than 3.0mphps and fuel consumptionwould be approximately 1.8 to 2.2 gallons/mile on average. The three car set BR643 operating inOttawa is advertised as being capable of a maximum operating speed of 75MPH.


Bombardier Siemens Stadler StadlerTalentBR643

VT 642Desiro


Table A.9Characteristics ofCategory 2 and 3 DMUsin North American UrbanTransit Systems (Ottawa) (Calif) (Austin TX) (NJTransit)

First Year of Service 2002 2007 2008 2004

Fleet Size 3 12 6 20

Configuration MarriedTriplet




Seating Capacity 135 139 108 90




Bombardier Siemens Stadler StadlerTalentBR643

VT 642Desiro


Table A.9Characteristics ofCategory 2 and 3 DMUsin North American UrbanTransit Systems (Ottawa) (Calif) (Austin TX) (NJTransit)

Standees78 150 90 96 94

Total Passenger Capacity 285 229 204 184

Approx. Capital Cost (US millions) $3.90 $4.22 $5.40 $3.60

Total Horsepower 845 864 800 753

Engines 2 2 2 1

Drive System DieselMechanical

DieselMechanical

DieselElectric

DieselElectric

Weight (tons) 80 75 78 58

Length (feet) 160 137 134 103

Height (feet) 13.2 12.5 12.8 12.8

Width (Inches) 114 112 116 118

Floor Height (Inches) 23 23.5 23

Min. Curve Radius (feet) 328 393 132

Tons/Seat 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.6

Capital Cost/Seat (US) $28,900 $30,400 $55,300 $40,000

Capital Cost/Passenger (US) $13,700 $18,400 $26,000 $19,600

HP/Ton 11 12 10.1 13

Source: Transportation Research Board SPRC Technologies Subcommittee May 11, 2007

It is notable that all the non compliant cars described above are low floor cars where the mainpassenger compartment is approximately 23 inches above the top of rail. Passenger access to thecar is provided by climbing up into the car via a signal step above a 8-10 inch high passengerplatform or via level boarding from a 23 inch high platform similar to that as currently used by GOTransit. Access for persons in wheelchairs and with other mobility impairments is provided via a23 inch high level platform. These lower platforms generally do not pose substantial horizontalclearance problems for freight cars on tracks shared with freight services.

Bombardier MeridianBombardier has many different varieties of DMU operating throughout Europe. With roots in theUnited Kingdom, the Meridian class (Category 2) DMU is configured more like a North Americanrail diesel car. It operates in 4, 5 or 8 car sets. Each set is capable of 125MPH operation. TheMeridians were produced with the intent of replacing the popular Turbostar equipment in the UK.To achieve an operating speed of 125 mph, each coach is designed with a diesel-electric drive with

78 Standee capacity figures are based on vendor reports which may vary in the perception of acceptable levelsof passenger crowding



two Cummins QSK19 engines driving two axles. Fuel capacity is such that a train can travel 1200miles between fuelings.

Figure A.9 Bombardier Meridian (Class 222 DMU)

The Meridian does have some exposure in the Pacific Northwest, Transmax had evaluated thisequipment for the DesertXpress High Speed Rail system in comparison to a Bombardier “Concept2008” EMU. The Meridian equipment is used in multi-class applications in Europe.

North American Push-Pull Fleet Overview and Market ActivityIn contrast to the limited number of DMUs operating in North America, the US/Canadian fleet ofpush-pull commuter rail rolling stock consists of approximately 6,750 push-pull coaches and 800locomotives owned/operated by 21 agencies, railroads and transit authorities. These totals reflectthree large operators in Canada with the remaining located in the US. Amtrak equipment andpending orders for equipment are not included. The table below shows the breakdown by operatorand push-pull equipment as of January 1, 2007.

On the whole, the procurement and delivery activity for the year 2007 is projected to be more activethan 2006. Rapid transit, light rail and electric multiple units are not included in the tables below.

Table A.10 shows passenger push-pull rolling stock contracts and orders in process with deliveriesto continue through and/or into years 2006 and 2007.



Table A.10North American Commuter Push-Pull

Orders/Deliveries for 2006-2007

Purchaser # ofVehicles

Price$M Type Builder

Boston (MBTA) 9 2.1 Bi-Level Commuter KawasakiCalifornia (Caltrans) 22 Unknown Rebuilt Intercity Bi-Level SiemensNJ TRANSIT 234 2.4 Bi-Level Commuter BombardierNew Mexico RailRunner Express (Mid-Region Council of Gov’t/DOT) 12 N/A Bi-Level Commuter Bombardier

California, (SCRRA/Metrolink) 87 2 Bi-Level Commuter Rotem *Pompano Beach, FLA (South FloridaRTA) 2 1.9 Commuter Rotem

Salt Lake City (UTA) 22 2.4 Bi-Level Commuter BombardierToronto (GO Transit) 20 2.57 Bi-Level Commuter BombardierPortland (Tri-Met, Washington CountyCommuter Rail Project) 1 Single Level Commuter Colorado Railcar

Vermont DOT (VTrans) 2 N/A Single Level Commuter Colorado RailcarVirginia (VRE) 11 1.9 Bi-Level Commuter Nippon-Sharyo*** Consortium of Tokyo-based Sojitz and Seoul-based Rotem** Partnership with Sumitomo Corporation of America

It should also be understood that Table A.10 represents a snapshot of the market and includescontracts that were awarded during 2006, and/or underway with equipment being delivered during2006/2007.

The majority of the orders listed include both push-pull coaches, as well as a requisite number ofcontrol coaches particular to each operator’s service requirements.

To further expand on the state of the marketplace and the forecasted activity, Table A.11 showslikely passenger push-pull rolling stock orders for the time period 2007 thru 2012 categorized byoperator and equipment type.

Table A.11North American Commuter Push-Pull Coach

Contract Outlook 2007-2012Purchaser # of Vehicles Type

2007Amtrak 304 Rebuilt IntercityBoston (MBTA) 75 Bi-Level CommuterMinneapolis (Northstar) 18 CommuterMontreal (AMT) 30 Bi-Level CommuterPompano Beach, FLA (South Florida RTA) 8-22 CommuterSalt Lake City (UTA) 30 CommuterSCRRA (Metrolink) 10 Multi-Level CommuterStockton, Calif. (ACE) 4 Bi-Level CommuterVirginia Railway Express (VRE) 11 Bi-Level Commuter



Purchaser # of Vehicles Type2008-2012

California (Caltrans) 35-75 Bi-Level IntercityCharlotte Area Transit System (CATS) 10-22 TBDDenver (RTD) 25-50 CommuterIrving, TX (Trinity Railway Express) 6-10 Bi-Level CommuterMaryland (MTA) 30-55 Multi-Level CommuterMontreal (AMT) 28-108 Bi-Level CommuterNashville (East Corridor Commuter Rail) 7-11 Bi-Level CommuterNewark (NJ TRANSIT) 99 Rebuilt CommuterOceanside, Calif. (NCTD) 6-12 Bi-Level CommuterSCRRA (Metrolink) 90-110 Multi-Level CommuterStockton, Calif. (ACE) 10-16 Bi-Level CommuterVancouver (West Coast Express) 0-5 Bi-Level CommuterVIA Rail Canada 100-150 Intercity

The activity presented above dictates availability of a wide selection of rolling stock even within thecategories being reported. Many of the contracts listed incorporate options for the prime over andabove the base orders, as well as additional car options earmarked for operators other than the initialpurchaser.

Push-Pull Rolling Stock Options and CharacteristicsMost coaches shown on Table A.10 and A.11 can be designed for both high and low platformboarding using a trap step. Or, as in the case of the Bombardier Multi-Level, two low level, quarterpoint doors are provided, as well as vestibule end doors that can be used at either low or highboarding locations.

Table A.12 Locomotive Orders/Deliveries for 2006-2007

Purchaser # of Vehicles Type Builder PriceSouthern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) 15 MP36PH/3C MPI $2.9MNJ TRANSIT 33 PL42AC Alstom $4.4MUtah Transit Authority (UTA) 11 MP36 MPI $2.6MGO Transit 27 MP40 MPI $4.1M

The MP36 orders shown are a portion of a multi-agency procurement including base orders andoptions for “Frontrunner” UTA, and SCRRA, as well as options for MBTA (Boston) and NorthstarCorridor Development Authority (NCDA), Minneapolis, Minnesota. The base order total of 22units was priced at $60M and 45 options units are valued at $60M. Also referred to as MPXpressunits, the MP36’s are currently being used by Caltrain, Metra, and Railrunner of New Mexico.

MPI news releases in 2005 report the total contract value for GO’s 27 MP40’s at $112 millon USDwith an option for 26 additional units at $105 million USD.



CoachesBombardier TransportationAs GO Transit is well aware, Bombardier has had great success in North America carrying 1000’sof people for several commuter railroads. Other North American operators of this aluminum bi-level commuter car are Altamont Commuter Express, Northern, CA, Southern California Regional

Rail Authority, CA, AMT, Montreal, QC, Sound TransitCentral Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority, Seattle,WA, San Diego and San Joaquin Regional RailCommission, CA, and Vancouver, BC. Based on thesuccess of this equipment, several of these operator’shave made multiple orders of this car. At the time of thispublication we understand GO was completing deliveryof 20 more of these cars from Bombardier.

Bombardier has been successful at working with this caras a “platform” offering the same vehicle dimensions to all, and varying passenger amenities tomeet the expectations of customers and their riding public. Each version of this car measures 85ft.coupler face to coupler face, 9ft.-10in. in width, and 15ft.-11in. maximum height of the carshell.GO Transit’s vehicles offer the greatest seating capacity of between 142 and 162 passengersdepending on the car configuration, cab, trailer car, etc. All car versions are boarded at the quarterpoint location through a doorway having a 17in. threshold height, with two doors per side for thetrailer cars. The specified speed of operation varies between 84mph as is the case for GO Transit’scar, to 93mph for West Coast operators.

NJ TRANSIT has ordered 231 stainless steel “multi-level” coaches from Bombardier, conforming to theclearance profile of the popular bi-level Kawasaki cars.The new cars come in three different configurations, cabcar with toilet, trailer car with toilet, and a trailer car allcapable of 100mph revenue service speed. Averageprice per copy for this order was $1.9 million with thebase order vehicles priced at $2.4 million per. Therewere discussions of qualifying this car to operate at125mph, however the outcome of these considerations isunknown. Seating capacities range from 136 to 144dependent upon the type of car. This is a 10ft wide carand 14ft-6in height to allow compliance with the

Northeast Corridor clearance envelope, allowing operation on the electrified railroad. Excludingthe cab car, each car has four doors per side, two vestibule end doors and two quarter point doors.In comparison to the GO Transit car, the quarter point doors on this car only allow high platformboarding, vestibule end doors can be used for high or low platform boarding. This is a fully ADAcompliant car.



Performance information on the Bombardier Bi and Multi-Level cars, and what could be consideredas typical for other similar cars are as follows:

Full service braking = 1.8 to 2.0mphpsEmergency brake rate = 2.1 to 2.5mphpsExterior noise level = 75-83dBA at 50ft, tangent track, with full service braking at 40mph

Kawasaki RailcarKawasaki has manufactured and delivered bi-level coaches to many North American railroads andauthorities including Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA), Maryland Mass TransitAdministration (MTA),Virginia Railway Express (VRE), and Long Island Railroad (LIRR). Allstainless steel cars, delivered in trailer car, cab car, and trailer car with toilet configurations withmaximum operating speeds from 140kph (87MPH) to 200kph (125MPH). An average price for thecars purchased by these operators is $2.1M per car.

The Kawasaki bi-level fits within the clearance profile of Amtrak’s North East Corridor and istherefore favored by all commuter railroads that operate services on that alignment. Two versions ofthe Kawasaki bi-level, Maryland MTA and Virginia Railway Express were the first type of vehicleof this kind to be certified by the FRA as capable to operate safely at 125mph on the NortheastCorridor. Door entry configurations vary across this fleet from trap step end vestibule arrangementsallowing both high and low level boarding as on the MTA cars to quarter point pocket door designsas on the LIRR cars. Passenger capacities range from 122 for the LIRR C-3 to 185 for the MBTAcab car. Specific dimensions of cars are also varied dependent upon the operator’s clearanceenvelope.

Figure A.10MBTA and LIRR Kawasaki Bi-Levels

Colorado Railcar ManufacturingAs mentioned earlier in the study, CRM does make unpowered, FRA compliant trailer coaches intheir single-level and double deck product line to match the DMUs within both categories. Thedouble deck version is marketed as a high capacity car having 218 seat locations on two separatelevels with a maximum operating speed of 90mph. This car makes use of every available inch of



floor space, the second floor seating area extends the full length of the car, as does the lower level.Seats are laid out on a 32in. pitch. The overall dimensions of the double-deck are broad, 89ft. inlength over coupler faces, 10ft. wide, and 19ft.-9½in. The low floor and the door threshold heightare 25in., potentially requiring special consideration for certain operators. Information from 2006shows a price of $2.7M per car for an order of two.

Figure A.11 Colorado Railcar Double Deck Layout

The single level has a seating capacity of 102 with a maximum operating speed of 90mph. Theoverall dimensions of the single level are 85 or 89ft. in length over coupler faces, 10ft. wide, and14ft.-11in. tall. Passenger boarding is through a center door from a high level platform. CRM alsostates that door configurations can be modified to suit the specific needs of customers. Floorheights of 25 and 51in. can be put into a single car with boarding at the low floor level. Pricinginformation for the Tri-Met, Portland, Oregon order, for three single level power cars and twotrailers to be delivered in 2009, was $3.6M for each power car and $2.2M for each trailer car.



Figure A.12 Colorado Railcar Single Level Coach

LocomotivesMotive Power IndustriesAs GO Transit is well aware, the new, powerful MP40 will be delivered to Toronto startingSeptember of 2007. MPI has added the MP40 to its “MPXpress” line of customizable locomotives.The study team understands that a prototype unit was unveiled in June 2007 at GO’s Willowbrookmaintenance facility. Complete delivery of the base order was forecasted to be complete in 2008.Planning information states a likelihood that the MP40 will eventually replace GO’s entire fleet ofaging F59PH’s.

Figure A.13GO Transit’s New MP40PH-3C

To meet passenger demand this locomotive has been designed with the capability to haul up to 12bi-level coaches on a revenue service schedule. Current motive power and operation is with amaximum of 10 bi-level coaches. Therefore, a significant increase in passenger capacity is realized.The engine selection and power equipment onboard have been designed to allow such operation.

The MP40PH-3C uses a proven, highly reliable EMD 16-cylinder-710GB engine capable ofproducing 4000hp for traction. This will be the first passenger locomotive produced to meet 2010



Tier 2 emissions standards in North America. Train power is provided by a separate CaterpillarC27 V-12 diesel genset delivering 600kW and is also a Tier 2 compliant engine. Therefore, theprime mover provides all of its power to the alternator for traction power. Another improvement isthe speed capability and gearing for maximum operating speed of 93mph compared to the F59’s83mph.

Figure A.14Caltrain (CTX) “Baby Bullet” MP36PH-3C

MPI offers two other locomotives in the MPXpress line in use in North America. The MP36PH-3Sand MP36PH-3C both use a 16-cylinder, 3600hp, MPI 645F3B diesel engine as their prime mover.The difference between the two models is with the HEP package. The “-3S” version stands for“static inverter” providing the train power (500kW) which is driven by the prime mover resultingin 2900hp left over for traction power. Metra of Chicago operates 27 MP36-3S’s. The “-3C”version is the configuration used in GO’s MP40’s with a separate Caterpillar diesel engine andgenerator. In this configuration the full 3600hp from the prime mover is available for traction andthe prime mover can be allowed to idle, while the train is under full power from the CAT generator.

ALSTOMNJ TRANSIT has purchased 33 PL42AC diesel-electric locomotives from Alstom Transportation.NJ TRANSIT’s needs for this particular locomotive are similar to those of GO Transit’s with thenew MP40, primarily to allow operation of up to 12-car trains (in both push and pull) to meet agrowing passenger demand. It is unknown whether this locomotive was successfully tested to allowthis operational flexibility.

This is a 100mph locomotive with an EMD 16-710G3C-T1 engine producing 4200hp. The HEPpackage delivers 800kW of power for the train. Locomotive height is 15ft-5¾in. and can carry aminimum of 2500gals of fuel. Braking performance is 1.6-1.75mphps for service braking and 1.0-2.2mphps for emergency braking. Acceleration is limited to 1.5mphps. The PL42AC is required tomeet 40 CFR 201, 49 CFR 210 and 229.121 for noise. Propulsion is provided through alternating-current (AC) drive.



Figure A.15 NJ TRANSIT PL4A2C

Vossloh EspanaThe pool of passenger locomotive builders has remainedfairly constant. However, a new player has begun to expressan interest in breaking into the North American passengerlocomotive market. Vossloh, Espana, S.A. of Valencia,Spain has within the last 12 months made proposals withseveral operating agencies to offer their diesel electricpassenger locomotives in North America. Vossloh hadpurchased the Alstom locomotive plant in Valencia that hadproduced the NJ TRANSIT PL42AC. In so doing Vossloh has also inherited the engineering staffthat was in place to design and deliver the PL42AC. Considering this, Vossloh is well aware of theconstraints in terms of regulation for entry into the North American market and continues to markettheir product to prospective US customers.

Vossloh’s passenger locomotive is built around an EMD 16-710-G3C engine supported by amonocoque carbody design. The North American passenger locomotive would be built for anoperating speed of 100MPH. Vossloh also has internal truck design and manufacturing capability.

MAINTENANCE, STAFFING, AND FACILITIESThis portion of the chapter reviews maintenance requirements, maintenance costs, staffing andfacilities required for each class of rollingstock. Costs estimates are based on a 2003 methodologydeveloped by Colorado Rail Car, using two service scenarios for potential offpeak service on thebranch. The push-pull options assume that new equipment would be purchased and maintained forthe new offpeak service. Obviously, if a portion of GO Transit’s extensive existing push-pull fleetwere used to operate the offpeak service the costs to own and maintain the push-pull rollingstockwould be much less than estimated here. Estimates of incremental costs to operate offpeak servicewith the existing fleet can be developed with GO Transit’s cooperation if desired.

DMU Maintenance CostsThe following discussion presents estimations for maintenance costs for the two major classes ofDMUs presented in this study and for two service scenarios. Given the limited number of North



American operations using DMU fleets, information regarding maintenance costs is not necessarilyreadily available. Considering this, the estimations below are based on a study Colorado Railcarhad published in 200379 regarding maintenance costs of their own single level DMU, as well ascomparative costs incurred by two push-pull operators for a 30 year vehicle life.

In collaboration with several agencies, Colorado Railcar published, “Economics of FRA-CompliantDiesel Multiple Units (DMUs),” in which DMU costs are compared to those of operating andmaintaining locomotive hauled rolling stock. Tri-Rail, operating service between Miami and WestPalm Beach, Florida and Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) operating service between Stocktonand San Jose, California both participated by contributing route information for their services aswell as maintenance budget data. Using this information, the paper compares forecast maintenancecosts for the Colorado Railcar DMU for both of the Florida and California services against those ofthe existing push-pull equipment.

Due to the fact that the maintenance required to be performed is influenced by the duty cycle of theequipment in a particular service, route characteristics for that particular service must be taken intoconsideration to make a more accurate estimation of maintenance costs. Given the fact that the Tri-Rail duty cycle is through flat terrain, the estimates for maintenance costs will be based on thefigures published for ACE’s service. It is also necessary to assume operating time per day, idle timeper day, and make a determination of how many hours each engine will operate annually todetermine the total costs for sustaining and supporting a particular service. For the purposes of thisportion of the overall study, maintenance hours are assumed to be a function of equipment mileagealone, effects and costs for periods of engine idling are not considered as the total operationalenvelope has not yet been defined.

Base on prelimary GO Transit service plans, for the Stouffville Corridor, two distinct Stouffvilleoffpeak service scenarios were derived by JEG operations planners. The two scenarios representthe range of offpeak services that might be considered for the Stouffville Branch.

79 ”Economics of FRA-Compliant Diesel Multiple Units (DMUs),” by Christina Rader, Colorado RailcarManufacturing, LLC, 2003



Table A.13Stouffville Branch Offpeak ServcieScenarios

Scenario One Scenario Two

Service Description 30-minute headway offpeakservice between Stouffvilleand Scarborough

Hourly offpeak servicebetween Unionville andScarborough

Approx Trip Distance (Miles) 20 10Approx Trip Time (Minutes) ~45 ~20Approx Service Velocity (mph) 27 30Weekday Train Trips 40 20Weekend Train Trips 56 28Forecast Weekday Offpeak Ridership 7,131 1,217Average Ridership per Train Trip 178 61Required Train Length (Weekday Cars) 2 1Typical Consist One DMU and One Cab Car One DMUPeak Consist Requirement 4 1Required Fleet (with Reserves) Five DMUs, Five Cab Cars Two DMUsAnnual Train Miles 328,160 82,040Annual DMU Miles 328,160 82,040Annual Cab Car Miles 328,160 NAAnnual Miles per Vehicle in Fleet 65,632 41,020

Estimated maintenance costs for both scenarios are presented below, as well as equivalent costs forthree specific equipment types: Compliant DMU, Non-compliant DMU and a push-pull consist.

The following are the assumptions used to determine maintenance costs for DMU and push-pullequipment operating in the Stouffville Corridor:

There is a relation of the amount of maintenance required as a function of equipmentmileage and hours of operation;Where applicable, maintenance costs are based on operation of the HEP generator set whilethe prime mover is shutdown. Using the ACE information, this represents an operating timeof 2.7 times the service operating time – essentially the time the prime mover is operating;There is some level of outsourcing of work to OEM suppliers. For the compliant DMUexample, generator, transmissions, and prime movers include some level of outsourcedmaintenance over the life cycle. The ratio of outsourced to in-house work cannot be brokendown within the labor figures being used. However, is some cases a high hourly wage isused reflecting some level of outsourced labor;Composite wage rate of $31/hr used for agency’s provided labor. There is no recognition ofthe wage difference between a cleaner versus a mechanical maintainer;No difference in part usage between operating scenarios;Annual labor and part usage is determined by dividing the life cycle costs by 30;No overhead costs included for overhead such as management, facility, track usage, etc.



For a better understanding of the numbers, a few clarifications are required:To preserve the accuracy of the figures published, data is used is as of 2003 and has not beenadjusted to 2007 totals;The estimates for labor cost do not account for the differences caused by using outsourcedlabor, as a supplement in cases, to the agency’s labor. Therefore, the labor cost wheresourced labor is used is an aggregate and the individual contributions of labor classes couldnot be accurately determined from the information provided;Assumes equipment is serviced based on FRA prescribed intervals and FRA rules;No facility or managerial costs are included.

Category One, Compliant DMU Maintenance CostsThe table below shows the estimated annual maintenance costs using Colorado Railcar single-levelDMUs and single level cab cars where necessary. The estimates were derived using the assumptionslisted above, and adjusting maintenance levels based on the equipment mileage accrued annually forservice on the Stouffville Corridor. The overall costs shown were broken down from the 30-yr lifecycle costs published by Colorado Railcar and include preventative maintenance, defect repair,cleaning, servicing and overhauls. Scenario 1 (powered DMU with cab car) is shown first in eachcell followed by the Scenario 2 (single DMU) estimate in parentheses.

Table A.14Maintenance Costs – Compliant DMU Trailer (Colorado Railcar, Single Level)

System/ComponentAnnual

Labor HoursAnnual Labor Cost

(USD)Annual Part Cost

(USD)

Annual TotalLabor + Part Cost

(USD)Generator 361 (162) $11,677 (5,255) $1,856 (928) $13,533 (6,183)Prime Movers 287 (258) $10,245 (9,221) $3,134 (3,134) $13,379 (12,355)Transmissions 43 (39) $2,190 (1,971) $2,059 (2,059) $4,249 (4,030)Drive Shafts 5 (4) $168 (152) $183 (183) $351 (334)Final Drive Units 62 (56) $2,562 (2,306) $1,349 (1,349) $3,911 (3,655)Engine Cooling 63 (56) $1,944 (1,750) $4,815 (4,815) $6,759 (6,565)Glazing 70 (31) $2,151 (968) $6,366 (3,183) $8,516 (4,151)Exterior finish 168 (76) $5,209 (2,344) $572 (286) $5,781 (2,630)Trucks/Wheels 109 (49) $3,374 (1,518) $9,073 (4,537) $12,447 (6,055)Brakes 142 (64) $4,412 (1,986) $13,953 (6,976) $18,365 (8,962)End of carappurtenances

15 (8) $460 (230) $0 (0) $460 (230)

Interior 154 (70) $4,786 (2,154) $2,857 (1,428) $7,642 (3,582)Cab 30 (15) $930 (465) $0 (0) $930 (474)Interior Systems &Components

595 (268) $18,444 (8,300) $483 (242) $18,927 (8,542)

Fire suppression 3 (3) $93 (93) $0 (0) $93 (81)FRA Inspections 386 (330) $11,966 (10,230) $0 (0) $11,966 (10,230)Cleaning &Servicing 966 (483) $29,946 (14,958) $0 (0) $29,946 (14,958)Annual Unit Totals 3,459 (1,490) $110,558 (63,889) $46,700 (29,120) $157,258 (93,018)



Cost Summary Scenario One Scenario TwoAnnual Maintenance Expense per Train Set $157,258 $93,018

Anticipated Equipment Life (Years) 30 30Lifetime Maintenance Expense per Train Set $4,717,740 $2,790,540

Number of Train Sets 5 2Fleet Lifetime Maintenance Expense $23,588,700 $5,581,080

Capital Cost per Train Set $5,600,000 $5,600,000Capital Cost for Fleet $28,000,000 $11,200,000

Lifetime Maintenance Expense + Capital Cost $51,588,700 $16,781,080Annualized Equipment Cost $1,719,623 $559,369

Annual Train Miles 328160 82,040Maintenance Cost/Train Mile $2.40 $2.27

Total Equipment Cost/Train Mile $5.24 $6.82

The summary costs for Scenario One includes purchase of five CRM DMU and trailer trains at $5.6millon per copy, a total of $28 million . Scenario 2 requires purchase of two self-powered DMUs at$3.6 million each, $7.2 million total. The total life cycle costs include the cost of the equipmentrequired for the service scenario, and the maintenance required. This total is then presented as anannualized cost, simply dividing the total life cycle cost by 30 years.

To determine the maintenance cost per mile, dividing the lifetime maintenance costs by the lifetimemileage results in $2.40/mile maintenance cost for Scenario 1 (powered DMU with one unpoweredtrailer) and $2.27/mile for Scenario 2 (one powered DMU) including preventative maintenance,defect repair, cleaning, servicing and overhauls.

Overall equipment costs including both vehicle acquisition and maintenance expenses is estimatedat $5.24 per train mile for Scenario One and $6.82 for Scenario Two.

Whether a compliant DMU or not, Table A.14 can be considered as a representative outline formaintenance on DMUs with similar configurations to that of the Colorado Railcar Single-LevelDMU, ie. two powered axles, two diesel propulsion engines, diesel generator, mechanical/hydraulictransmissions, etc. There does appear to be some correlation of mileage and maintenance per milecosts – higher mileage vehicles have a lower per mile maintenance cost.

Staffing Requirements to Support Category One DMUTo be comparatively consistent, the maintenance hours in the above determination will also be usedto determine minimum staffing levels. The estimations provided will not consider the influence oforganized labor rules, coverage requirements based on daily hours of operation, weekendrequirements, excess personnel economies of scale, or protect coverage at outlying points.



To account for vacation, sick leave and overall shop efficiency, a productivity of 60% is assumedper service person. For simplicity, the labor pool is divided into three categories, first being a“mechanical/elec-tech” worker who could be either a machinist or an electrician withtroubleshooting skills. In some areas this would be considered a “composite mechanic.” Both skillsets would be trained and capable of performing any and all required regulatory inspections andtests required to support the operation. The second class would be a carman or car repairmanresponsible for maintaining the passenger compartment, cabs, interior systems and components aswell as exterior finish of the vehicle. The third classification is a cleaner, responsible for the upkeepand cleaning of the passenger area and operating cabs.

For the compliant DMU, Scenario 1 (ten vehicle fleet) labor demand requires the following:

4 – Mech/Elec-Techs (calculation using hours labor needed shows 3.75 persons req’d)2 – Car repairmen (calculation using hours labor needed shows 1.7 persons req’d)2 – Cleaners (calculation using hours labor needed shows 1.6 persons req’d)

For the compliant DMU, Scenario 2 (two vehicle fleet) labor demand requires the following:

2 – Mech/Elec-Techs (calculation using hours labor needed shows 1.4 persons req’d)1 – Car repairmen (calculation using hours labor needed shows .6 persons req’d)1 – Cleaners (calculation using hours labor needed shows .6 persons req’d)

The workforce for both scenarios shows some degree of underutilization of workforce. Thissupports the use of existing maintenance forces at one of GO’s current facilities, such asWillowbrook. Also to consider in this case, a “compliant” DMU would have unrestricted ability tomove about the rail system. Therefore, it is possible to transport this equipment to a facility notnecessarily local to the Stouffville Corridor. Since the compliant DMUs and coaches would not bephysically segregated from the balance of the GO Transit fleet, it should be possible to gain someworkforce utilization efficiencies by integrating some, or all DMU, maintenance work into thegeneral push-pull maintenance processes currently conducted at Stouffville Layover Yard and atWillowbrook Shop.

From project experience, we have seen maintenance staffing levels vary widely based oncondition/age of equipment, size of fleet, service patterns dictating number of shifts to be staffed,etc. Historically, rules of thumb of one person per vehicle have been used and our experienceshows that this number fluctuates up and down based on the influences mentioned.

For newer equipment, we have seen ratios as high as 1.6 persons per vehicle for a new,technologically advanced fleet of EMUs, eventually settling down to 1.3 persons per vehicle for thesame fleet after the learning curve had been negotiated. As fleets grow, we have seen the ratio dipas low as .75 persons per vehicle. It consistently seems that the larger fleet grows the lower theratio becomes.



Non-Compliant DMU Maintenance CostsFor a non-compliant DMU the maintenance operations are similar, but must be adjusted based onthe equipment configuration. For the non-compliant DMU maintenance costs, we will use theStadler GTW-4 being purchased by CapMetro of Austin, TX as the representative DMU. Since theGTW-4 does not use a mechanical drive system, those components and the maintenance allocated tothem can be removed and replaced by the work required on the traction motors. Also, this vehiclehas an additional truck over the CRM DMU that will be adjusted and does not use a separategenerator for HEP. Work for a second cab will also have to be added as well as an increase incleaning as there are more seats on the GTW-4. For Scenario 1, the base vehicle configuration ismaintained, however, a middle passenger compartment is added, as is a fourth truck to make up theconsist. Stadler refers to this configurations as a “2/8” configuration, two passenger compartmentsand eight axles for the entire vehicle.

Table A.16Maintenance Costs – Non-Compliant DMU (Stadler GTW-4 :2/8)

System/Component AnnualLabor Hours

Annual Labor Cost(USD)

Annual Part Cost(USD)

Annual TotalLabor + Part Cost

(USD)Prime Movers andTraction Generator

287 (258) $10,327 (10,327) $3,134 (3,134) $13,461 (12,429)

Traction MotorsGear box

45 (40) $1,390 (1,390) $2,059 (2,059) $3,449 (3,310)

Intercar Connection 10 (5) $310 (185) $194 (183) $518 (350)Engine Cooling 62 (56) $1,923 (1,731) $4,815 (4,815) $6,738 (6,546)Glazing 68 (31) $2,110 (950) $5,183 (3,183) $7,293 (4,132)Exterior finish 170 (77) $5,275 (2,374) $462 (286) $5,737 (2,660)Trucks/Wheels 107 (48) $3,316 (1,492) $6,052 (4,537) $9,368 (6,029)Brakes 141 (64) $4,371 (1,967) $9,301 (6,976) $13,672 (8,943)End of carappurtenances(automatic coupler)

7 (7) $229 (229) $0 (0) $230 (230)

Interior 111 (70) $3,438 (2,154) $1,543 (1,428) $4,981 (3,582)Cab 30 (30) $930 (930) $0 (0) $930 (930)Interior Systems &Components

397 (268) $12,303 (8,301) $652 (242) $12,955 (8,542)

Fire suppression 3 (3) $93 (93) $0 (0) $93 (93)FRA Inspections 386 (330) $11,966 (10,230) $0 (0) $12,365 (10,230)Cleaning &Servicing 664 (498) $20,584 (15,438) $0 (0) $21,270 (15,438)

Annual Totals $78,581 (56,602) $34,482 (26,843) $113,063 (83,453)



Cost Summary Scenario One Scenario TwoAnnual Maintenance Expense per Train Set $113,063 $83,453

Anticipated Equipment Life (Years) 30 30Lifetime Maintenance Expense per Train Set $3,391,890 $2,503,590

Number of Train Sets 5 2Fleet Lifetime Maintenance Expense $16,959,450 $5,007,180

Capital Cost per Train Set $7,400,000 $7,400,000Capital Cost for Fleet $37,000,000 $14,800,000

Lifetime Maintenance Expense + Capital Cost $53,959,450 $19,807,180Annualized Equipment Cost $1,798,648 $660,239

Annual Train Miles 328,160 82,040Maint Cost/Train Mile $1.72 $2.03

Equipment Cost/Train Mile $5.48 $8.05

For the representative non-compliant DMU the maintenance costs are estimated to be $1.72/milemaintenance cost for Scenario 1 and $2.03/mile for Scenario 2 including preventative maintenance,defect repair, cleaning, servicing and overhauls.

Overall equipment costs including both vehicle acquisition and maintenance expenses is estimatedat $5.48 per train mile for Scenario One and $8.05 for Scenario Two.

One reason for selecting the Stadler DMU for comparison was to show the difference and theinfluence the propulsion drive package makeup has on maintenance and consequently costs. Thereare advantages and disadvantages of both a diesel hydraulic drive in comparison to a diesel electricdrive package. From project experience and information gathered in the United Kingdom whereDMUs of all kinds are popular, it is common knowledge that the diesel-electric is less costly tomaintain. Most of this difference is due to the need to overhaul the transmission at a prescribedinterval. However, a diesel-electric drive will cost, in some cases, significantly more than anequivalent diesel hydraulic system.

Staffing Requirements to Support Category Two and Three DMUIn developing the maintenance model for the non-compliant DMU, an attempt was made to reflectthe characteristics of this vehicle that promote more efficient maintenance such as:

Propulsion equipment and prime movers mounted in separate power module havingmaintenance access from a center aisleway, as well as from the side of the vehicle from aflat floor;Elimination of separate HEP generator allowing an incremental reduction in the amount ofmaintenance required;Fully suspended passenger seats allowing easier floor cleaning;



Low floor access to vehicle;More equipment roof mounted as opposed to undercar mounted.

There are other factors that cannot be equivalently compared between the non-compliant andcompliant DMUs. For instance, the Stadler DMU in Scenario 1 has a seating capacity of 186 whilethe CRM single level of the same scenario has 196 seats. This has a cascading affect on the costs ofnot only labor to maintain, but the part inventory required to support maintenance. Therefore,further consideration of comparative information would need to more closely distinguish these areasof “comparative inequivalence” between any number of DMUs of differing configuration if beingcompared over the life cycle.

Considering this, the estimated labor requirements for the Category 2/3 DMU would be as follows:

For the non-compliant DMU, Scenario 1 (five vehicle fleet) labor demand requires the following:3 – Mech/Elec-Techs2 – Car repairmen (calculation using hours labor needed shows 1.7 persons req’d)2 – Cleaners (calculation using hours labor needed shows 1.7 persons req’d)

For the compliant DMU, Scenario 2 (two vehicle fleet) labor demand requires the following:2 – Mech/Elec-Techs (calculation using hours labor needed shows 1.12 persons req’d)1 – Car repairmen (calculation using hours labor needed shows .6 persons req’d)1 – Cleaners (calculation using hours labor needed shows .7 persons req’d)

DMU Maintenance Facility ConsiderationsFor the most part, program DMU maintenance, whether for a compliant or non-compliant design,can be performed in an ordinary service & inspection facility, running repair shop or locomotiveshop. Enhancements to a typical service & inspection facility such as adding crane capacity, rooftop inspection platforms, and a track level service area could allow maintenance up throughoverhaul to be performed in such a facility at a progressive pace if shop space is scarce. Thearrangements of most of the DMUs listed in this report lend themselves to unit exchange types ofprograms since a fair amount of “modularization” is used within the various designs making removeand replace type of maintenance scenarios more realistic. Because engines can be more easilyremoved, when compared to a push-pull locomotive, a spare “pool” engine can be used in place ofan engine removed for off site overhaul (possibly by the maker of the engine) to reduce or eliminatethe out-of-service time during overhaul.

The specific vehicle arrangements within each class of DMU would have to be further considered todetermine the exact requirements for an overall maintenance facility plan. Perhaps most important,and the primary requirement driver, would be the engine arrangement and/or floor height whichdetermines the available space for other components.

The majority of the DMUs discussed here use underfloor mounted engines, and either a generator ormechanical/hydraulic transmission to deliver power to the driven wheels. Stadler’s vehicles havesomewhat of a unique arrangement where the engines and power conversion equipment are



mounted in the middle car called a power module in an upright configuration. Underfloor mountedengines and the ease with which maintenance can be performed would need to be considered for anumber of the vehicles presented in this paper. The Stadler arrangement mounts the engine inside arack that can easily be removed from the power module with a forklift (or appropriately sizedoverhead crane) and does not require maintenance personnel to get under the vehicle. Tractionmotor leads are accessed through a sealed panel in the floor of the power module.

A low floor vehicle design, or a DMU with engines mounted underfloor, can restrict the amount ofequipment that would be able to be mounted underneath the vehicle. This may dictate the need foran overhead crane and servicing platform of some kind for roof work. Many of the vehiclesreviewed locate HVAC units, air compressors, brake grids and air reservoirs on the roof. In somecases cooling equipment for the diesel engines are roof mounted as well.

If building a new facility strictly for DMU maintenance, cost can be saved due to the fact that theseare lighter vehicles when compared to locomotives and such a facility would not require as robust astructure and foundation. However, added flexibility would be created if a DMU facility were builtwith a substantial foundation to allow servicing of locomotives as well.

Overhaul work requiring truck removal can be performed using “Whiting” style car jacks to removetrucks. Other more expensive and elaborate lifting/jacking equipment could also be used, such asdrop tables and overhead cranes. As mentioned above, special provisions may be required forundercar mounted diesel engines to allow expedient and safe removal from the vehicle.

A prevailing, logistical concern affecting the possible purchase is that a non-compliant DMU wouldbe captive to the Stouffville Corridor. Therefore, all maintenance would have to be in accessibleproximity to this portion of the operating railroad. Efficiencies available from integrating thecompliant DMU into the overall GO Transit fleet equipment maintenance operation would likelynot be available for the Category 2 or 3 vehicle. It is likely that staff and facilities for themaintenance of the small fleet of non-compliant units would be isolated and stand-alone.Conceivably, a waiver could be made to allow operation of a non-compliant DMU to a maintenancefacility outside the Stouffville Corridor, allowing operation through areas of mixed traffic duringspecific times of the day under temporally separated conditions. However, this could prove to be aburdensome operational constraint, not to mention a costly task in preparing, and shepherding sucha waiver through the approval process.

DMU Operational Savings and ConsiderationsFurther savings in operating DMUs can be achieved in fuel consumption savings and, potentially, increw savings.

For the most part, the DMUs discussed within this study can operate efficiently in the commuterenvironment and could potentially be used in “single-person operations.” Understandably, there aremany other factors to consider in instituting one person train operations, not the least of which aresafety and current labor agreements, however, the configuration of the equipment does make thepossibility of this type of operating scenario a realistic consideration. With a full width operating



cab, a DMU allows the driver, either by camera or rearview mirror, to see the length of the vehicleand view all passenger doorways.

Also, in several of the vehicles studied here, the rear of the cab is outfitted with a lockable door thatleads directly into the passenger seating area. This can make for swift turnarounds and allow anengineer to change ends quickly.

DMU Part InventoryThere will no doubt be an opportunity for some level of commonality between GO’s current fleet ofrolling stock and a new DMU fleet. Commonality and interchangeability requirements could bebuilt into a new equipment specification as well.

Areas of part inventory common to GO’s current fleets could include:

Floor coveringCab equipment - brake and propulsioncontrollers HVACOperator’s seats Communications equipmentLighting Event recorderTruck mounted brake gear BatteriesWheels Brake valvesPassenger seating (potentially, based onheavy or light DMU)

The majority of the mechanical systems on a DMU will be unique and difficult to consider ascommon to GO’s existing fleet. Parts and components unique to a DMU could be as follows:

Diesel engine and parts TrucksDiesel generator and parts Fiberglass cab noseTraction motors HVACTransmission and drive train Passenger seatingPassenger side and cab glazing Automatic couplerDoor components

The following is a sample of a spare parts list of larger, major components for a new DMU beingdelivered to North America. Spares required:

Complete powered truck Energy absorbing anti-climbersWindshield Passenger side windowsDiesel engine (prime mover) Intercar bellowsDiesel engine (generator) Traction generatorAutomatic coupler Hydraulic pumpsPassenger bi-parting doors Disc brake unit



Without the opportunity to build commonality into a specification, a spare part inventory for aDMU will likely be “special” and unique to that piece of equipment. Depending on the propulsiondrive selected, there could be an opportunity for commonality between a diesel-electric drive DMUand the part inventory for GO Transit’s current fleet of motive power.

Push-Pull Maintenance Costs and StaffingThe methodology employed to derive the DMU maintenance cost estimates above also includesmaintenance cost for locomotives and Bombardier Bi-Levels considered in the original 2003analysis. Although the equipment differs marginally from what GO would use for offpeak push-pull service on the Stouffville Corridor, the study team has provided estimates of push-pull costshere, based on this methodology, to provide a “comparable” for the DMU maintenance costestimates provided above.

To provide equivalent service to the DMU scenario, we assume that a DMU is functionallyequivalent to a locomotive, one trailer coach and one cab car. The study team assumes that twocoaches would be required to provide adequate braking for commuter service.

Maintenance and overhaul costs for an ACE’s F40 locomotive was budgeted to be $3.27/mile and$1.26/mile for a Bombardier Bi-Level coach operating 34,900 and 43,688 annual miles,respectively. Assuming the maintenance costs (on a per mile basis) would be slightly lower for theACE push-pull equipment if used in Scenario 1, based on higher annual mileage, a generalstatement could be made that equivalent service would require approximately $5.79/mile for aconsist of one locomotive and two bi-level coaches operating 65,632 or 41,020miles annually forthe Stouffville service. These factors compare well with others found in similar studies comparingpublished maintenance costs per mile of $3.40/mile for a diesel-electric locomotive and as much as$1.44 for a bi-level coach including overhaul, inspection, preventative maintenance, servicing,defect repair and annual maintenance required for both pieces of rolling stock. Of course if GOTransit used rollingstock from its extensive existing fleet to offer offpeak service on the StouffvilleBranch at least some of these maintenance expenses would be avoided.

The total, estimated costs for the push-pull scenarios are based on figures provided for an existingfleet of bi-level coaches and older EMD F40 locomotives. However, the overall life costs for thesescenarios include purchase of new equipment to operate these services. Therefore, there is adiscrepancy in the analysis that may not represent a realistic scenario for GO Transit, but allowscomparison to the two DMU cases above using data from the same source. It should also berecognized that use of newer equipment would likely reduce the maintenance budget required basedon, hopefully, reduced unscheduled repairs and defects – higher level of reliability.

Lifecycle costs for the push-pull scenarios are based on purchase of the requisite number oflocomotives and bi-level coaches for the particular scenario, $4.1M and $2.4M, respectivelyyielding $8.9 million capital investment per train. Of course if GO Transit used rollingstock fromits extensive existing fleet to offer offpeak service on the Stouffville Branch most, or all, of thesecapital costs would be avoided.



If it is assumed that GO Transit would operate the offpeak service with a portion of its existing fleetof equipment presently dedicated to peak service, any capital costs for rollingstock would beavoided and the $5.79 per train mile maintenance cost would represent an upper bound onmaintenance expense.

Scenario 1 uses five, two car trains and Scenario 2 uses two, two car trains, each with onelocomotive. As was the case with the DMU scenarios, the overall costs for the push-pull scenarios,with and without new rollingstock, are presented in the table below.

Table A.17Estimated Push-Pull Maintenance Costs by Scenario (USD)

Scenario 1 Scenario 2If new push-pull train sets are purchased for offpeak service

Annual Train Miles 328,160 82,040 30-year Life Maintenance Cost per Train @$5.79/mile $11,400,278 $7,125,174

Maintenance Cost per Fleet $57,001,392 $14,250,348Equipment Capital investment Required (millions) $44.5 $17.8

Total Life Cycle Costs (millions) $101.5 $32.1Annualized Cost for Scenario (millons) $3.4 $1.1

If existing rollingstock is used for offpeak serviceUpper bound annual cost maintenance @$5.79 /mile $1,900,046 $475,012

Upper bound Total Life Cycle Costs (millions) $57.0 $14.2Upper bound Annualized Cost for Scenario (millions) $1.9 $0.5

New Push-Pull Sets Existing EquipmentCost SummaryScenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2

Annual Maintenance Expense per Train Set $380,009 $237,506 $380,009 $237,506Anticipated Equipment Life (Years) 30 30 30 30

Lifetime Maintenance Expense per Train Set $11,400,278 $7,125,174 $11,400,278 $7,125,174Number of Train Sets 5 2 5 2

Fleet Lifetime Maintenance Expense $57,001,390 $14,250,348 $57,001,390 $14,250,348Capital Cost per Train Set $8,900,000 $8,900,000 0 0

Capital Cost for Fleet $44,500,000 $17,800,000 $0 $0Lifetime Maintenance Expense + Capital Cost $101,501,390 $32,050,348 $57,001,390 $14,250,348

Annualized Equipment Cost $3,383,380 $1,068,345 $1,900,046 $475,012Annual Train Miles 328,160 82,040 328,160 82,040

Maint Cost/Train Mile $5.79 $5.79 $5.79 $5.79Equipment Cost/Train Mile $10.31 $13.02 $5.79 $5.79

Making assumptions similar to those used in DMU estimations and making an additionalcalculation where the labor cost is between 60 and 65% of the overall maintenance costs, themanpower requirements for each scenario can be “backed out” from the budget numbers available.



Again, the estimations are made for a single locomotive and bi-level coach operating as a train to beequivalent to the DMU scenarios discussed above.

For the new push-pull equipment Scenario 1 (five, loco-trailer-trailer train fleet, five locomotivesand 10 bi-level coaches) labor demand requires the following, shown as:

Add both together, assuming this is permissible by labor agreements and facility locations, and theworkforce required to maintain a fleet of five locomotives and five bi-level coaches for Scenario 1on the Stouffville Corridor is as follows:

6 – Mech/Elec-Techs (biased toward machinist due to locomotive)4 to 5 – Car repairmen3 – Cleaners

For the new push-pull equipment Scenario 2 (two, loco-trailer-trailer train fleet, two locomotivesand four bi-level coaches) labor demand requires the following:

For locomotive maintenance: For car maintenance:1.67 – Mech/Elec-Techs 0.68 – Mech/Elec-Techs0.72 – Car repairmen 1.6 – Car repairmen0.42 – Cleaners 0.83 – Cleaners

Add both together and the workforce required to maintain a fleet of two locomotives and two bi-level coaches for Scenario 2 on the Stouffville Corridor is as follows:

2 to 3 – Mech/Elec-Techs (one electrical technician and two machinists)2 to 3 – Car repairmen1 to 2 – Cleaners

Maintenance staffing requirements for a scenario where existing rollingstock would be employedfor the new offpeak service have not been estimated.

Part inventory for push-pull equipment would merely be an extension of what GO Transit keeps instock currently. If this is a new fleet of equipment, changes to the source of supply may berequired, however the parting would be very similar, if not identical to current stock.

For locomotive maintenance: For car maintenance:4.17 – Mech/Elec-Techs 1.71 – Mech/Elec-Techs1.79 – Car repairmen 4 – Car repairmen1.04 – Cleaners 2.08 – Cleaners



Comparison of Maintenance and Life Cycle Equipment costsTable A.18 compares the Scenario One forecasts of annual maintenance expense and life cycleequipment costs across the various rollingstock options. These costs, especially the operatingestimates for Push Pull equipment, merit further scrutiny in the second phase of this project.

Table A.18Scenario One:

Forecasts of Vehicle Maintenance and Acquisition Costs ($US millions)

AnnualVehicle

MaintenanceCost

EquipmentAcquisition

Cost

30-Year VehicleAcquisition and

MaintenanceCost

Compliant DMU $786,290 $28,000,000 $51,588,700Non-compliant DMU $565,315 $37,000,000 $53,959,450Push-pull (all new equipment) $1,900,046 $44,500,000 $101,501,390Push-pull (existing equipment) $1,900,046 $0 $57,001,390

The analysis suggests that annual maintenance expense for either DMU alternative would besubstantially less than for push-pull equipment.

Compliant DMUs would be the least expensive vehicles to acquire.

When equipment acquisition costs are added to maintenance expense to estimate 30-year fleet costsfor Scenario One offpeak service, the DMU alternatives are less expensive to acquire and operatethan the push-pull equipment that is already in the GO Transit fleet.

Table A.19 compares the Scenario Two forecasts of annual maintenance expense and life cycleequipment costs across the various rollingstock options. These costs, especially the operatingestimates for Push Pull equipment, merit further scrutiny in the second phase of this project.

Table A.19Scenario Two:

Forecasts of Vehicle Maintenance and Acquisition Costs ($US millions)AnnualVehicle

MaintenanceCost

EquipmentAcquisition

Cost

30-Year VehicleAcquisition and

MaintenanceCost

Compliant DMU $186,036 $11,200,000 $16,781,080Non-compliant DMU $166,906 $14,800,000 $19,807,180Push-pull (all new equipment) $475,012 $17,800,000 $32,050,348Push-pull (existing equipment) $475,012 $0 $14,250,348



As with Scenario One, the analysis suggests that annual maintenance expense for either DMUalternative would be substantially less than for push-pull equipment.

Also as with Scenario One, compliant DMUs would be the least expensive vehicles to acquire.

When equipment acquisition costs are added to maintenance expense to estimate 30-year fleet costs,the analysis indicates that it would be more economical to operate extra mileage on existing push-pull rolling stock than to acquire and maintain two DMUs for the modest Scenario Two hourlyoffpeak service.

Table A.20 summarizes the forecast vehicle maintenance staffing requirement for each of theclasses of equipment for Scenario One.

It is notable that the five diesel electrical units representing the non-compliant DMU option areforecast to require the fewest maintainers. Each married pair Stadler train set would require 1.1maintenance FTEs but when craft distinctions are considered the five units would require a staff ofsix maintainers. These six employees would be segregated at a small stand alone DMUmaintenance facility especially constructed for the non-compliant DMU fleet.

Unlike the non-compliant rolling stock, the diesel-hydraulic compliant DMUs and push-pullequipment could be maintained in a manner better integrated with the balance of the GO Transitfleet since these units would be free to move on the overall GO Transit track network.Consequently it might be possible to employee “fractional” staff for some or all maintenancefunctions.

Each compliant DMU-control cab train set would require 1.42 maintainers. Each new push-pullconsist with a locomotive and two coaches could require 2.96 maintainers. It is not clear how muchnew maintenance staff would be required if existing push-pull equipment were employed for thenew offpeak service.

Table A.20Scenario One: Forecasts of Vehicle Maintenance Staffing Requirements

FleetSize

Mechanicaland

ElectricalTechnicians

CarRepairers Cleaners Total

Compliant DMU (FTEs) 10 3.8 1.7 1.6 7.1Non-compliant DMU (FTEs) 5 2.0 1.7 1.7 5.4

Push-pull (FTEs) 15 5.9 5.8 3.1 14.8

Compliant DMU (Staff) 10 4 2 2 8Non-compliant DMU (Staff) 5 2 2 2 6

Push-pull (Staff) 15 6 6 4 16



Table A.21 summarizes the forecast vehicle maintenance staffing requirement for each of theclasses of equipment for Scenario Two.

It is notable that the two diesel electrical units representing the non-compliant DMU option areforecast to require the fewest maintainers. Each married pair Stadler train set would require 1.1maintenance FTEs but when craft distinctions are considered the two units would require a staff offour maintainers. As with Scenario One, the four employees would be segregated at a small standalone DMU maintenance facility especially constructed for the non-compliant DMU fleet.

The compliant DMUs and push-pull equipment could be maintained as part of the integrated GOTransit fleet since these units could freely move on the GO Transit network. Consequently it mightbe possible to employee “fractional” staff for some or all maintenance functions.

Each compliant DMU-control cab train set would require 2.3 maintainers. Each new push-pullconsist with a locomotive and two coaches could require 2.95 maintainers. It is not clear how muchnew maintenance staff would be required if existing push-pull equipment were employed for thenew offpeak service.

Table A.21Scenario Two:

Forecasts of Vehicle Maintenance Staffing Requirements

FleetSize

Mechanicaland

ElectricalTechnicians

CarRepairers Cleaners Total

Compliant DMU (FTEs) 4 1.4 0.6 0.6 2.6Non-compliant DMU (FTEs) 2 1.1 0.6 0.6 2.3

Push-pull (FTEs) 6 2.4 2.3 1.3 5.9

Compliant DMU (Staff) 4 2 1 1 4Non-compliant DMU (Staff) 2 2 1 1 4

Push-pull (Staff) 6 3 3 2 8



APPENDIX B. HIGH LEVEL PLATFORMS & FREIGHT CLEARANCES

HIGH LEVEL PLATFORMS: BALANCING FREIGHT CLEARANCE WITH DISABLED ACCESS ANDSHORTENED DWELL TIMES - As modern societies are evolving, particularly in North America,increasing public policy attention has been directed toward expanding mobility options for personswith disabilities. Also, transit agencies, independently of disabled access considerations, are alsofocused on increasing service velocity and reducing staff requirements. As a result of theseconsiderations, North American rail transit properties are increasingly interested in providing levelboarding for all types of transit service to:

1. Provide access to transit for persons with disabilities2. Reduce station/stop dwell times for all passengers3. Reduce crew requirements on commuter rail operations

Figure B.1Plans for Retractable Platform Edge



Level boarding for North American rail systems is typically achieved in either one of two ways.First, by building 48+” high station platforms adjacent to the track to allow passengers to wait forthe train at the same level as the passenger floor of a traditionally designed commuter rail car. Orsecond, by purchasing a low floor rail car that is designed to meet with a lower passenger platformapproximately 24” above Top Of Rail (TOR). No manufacturer presently offers a low floor DMUthat meets North American structural standards for unrestricted operation in mixed traffic withfreight trains. Consequently, a high platform passenger boarding approach seems to be thepreferred solution for the Stouffville Branch.

For a myriad of reasons relating to horizontal clearance, freight operators are typically loath tooperate freight cars on tracks equipped with traditional high-level passenger platforms. They areconcerned about losing the flexibility tocarry wide loads, potential problems withshifted loads, potential damage if doors onmoving freight cars are inadvertently leftopen, and the serious hazard created by theplatform for train crews that may be ridingon the side of a car during local switchingoperations. These concerns all favor a lowplatform solution, since at 24” above TORthe low platform do not present potentialobstacles for freight operations.

In 2005, NJ TRANSIT began considerationof a novel strategy to balance theseconflicting considerations, providing levelboarding to high floor cars while alsoproviding ample horizontal clearance forfreight trains and crews to traverse thecorridor without striking passengerplatforms.

On corridors under consideration for newDMU services, NJ TRANSIT is evaluatingthe feasibility of widening the track centersin double track territory to allow theoperation of passenger cars that require a13+ foot clearance envelope80.Conventional 120" wide, high floor (48" to51" above TOR) DMUs would be operated.

80 Instead of the typical 10’ 8” AAR Plate C clearance profile.

Figure B.2Close–up of retractable platform edge



Passengers would board trains from high-level platforms with a manually retractable edge. Thenormal resting position for the retractable edge would be extended for passenger use. In thisposition, the edge of the platform would be 76" from centerline of track (16" from side of DMU).See Figures B.1 and B.2.

Centered below the passenger doors on each passenger car, is a permanently affixed (butremovable) tapered flange would extend from the side of the car. At its widest point, the flangewould extend 15" from the side of the car and provide a fixed bridge plate for the gap between thestation platform and the car door. At its center, the flange would extend 15" from the car side for alinear distance of approximately three door widths and taper towards the car body for the rest of itslength. The leading and trailing edges of the flange are constructed from an energy absorbentmaterial (rubber bumper) and marked conspicuously with bright colors, light reflective materialsand running lights. The flange would be constructed to tear away from the side of the car withminimum damage to the car cladding and structure, in the event that the flange drags against a fixedobstacle.

Without the flange, the gap between the edge of the passenger platform and the floor of the carwould be 16 inches. This 16 inch gap would be spanned with a manually deployed bridge platerequiring a crew person to attend each passenger door. The operating costs of such a staff-intensiveapproach to handling passenger access and egress were not attractive to NJ Transit.

It is expected that cars equipped with the flanges would be restricted to only operate within projectlimits where the track centers and horizontal clearances have been designed or determined safe foroperations of the specially equipped cars. In the event that a car must run outside project limits, itsflanges would be removed.

This approach would leave a 12" clearance buffer around the standard freight car clearance profile(AAR Plate C = 128”) for freight trains to clear the high level platform with the retractable platformedge in its normal deployed position.

Should a wider freight load be operated on the line, the retractable edge of the platform could beraised to provide approximately 20" of additional clearance to accommodate a 192” wide load. Theouter 9" inches of the retractable edge could be built with a "breakaway" edge allowing freightloads of up to 170" wide to run through the line without major structural damage to the freight caror station, although the "breakaway" edge would need to be replaced.

Car access and egress when the unit is not positioned at a high platform could be provided throughan operator access door with a grab irons and ladder steps. The operator access door would be nearthe control console at the end of the car. Figure B.3 depicts plans for a typical DMU configuration.



Figure B.4 DMU (right) coupled with a single level control coach (left)

As noted earlier the the DMU vehicle configuration recommended for the Stouffville Branchservice consists of one or more compliant high floor DMUs mated with one or more unpoweredcontrol coaches. The two types of units, DMUs and unpowered trailers, would operate in a Push-Pull configuration. Figure B.4 shows a profile of a possible two-car configuration using imagessupplied by Colorado Railcar Manufacturing. Each DMU could pull up to two coaches. TheseDMU-Trailer combinations could be outfitted with a 15” flange below the passenger doors to allowfor freight clearance and unassisted level boarding from a high level platform.

Figure B.3Plans for Typical DMU



APPENDIX C. FORECAST RIDERSHIP ADJUSTMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS ONREVENUE & VEHICLE REQUIREMENTS

Base forecasts provided by GO Transit81 for the Stouffville Branch assumed a one-seat ride toToronto Union Station and did not take into account the five-minute timed transfer at ScarboroughStation (see Table C.1 and Table C.2). These forecasts vary only according to the outer terminallocation and offpeak headway. They not vary by track speed, equipment type, or the LakeshoreEast schedule.

Table C.1:GO Transit Offpeak Service Ridership Forecasts82

StationNew Peak

Riders

HourlyOffpeakRiders

TotalHourlyRidersAbove

Baseline

Half-HourlyOffpeakRiders

Total Half-HourlyRidersAbove

BaselineStouffville 276 180 456 479 755Mount Joy 782 508 1,290 1,355 2,137Markham 580 378 958 1,006 1,586Centennial 604 393 997 1,047 1,651Unionville 1,046 680 1,726 1,813 2,859Milliken 433 281 714 750 1,183Agincourt 346 225 571 600 946Kennedy 47 31 78 82 129Stouffville Total 4,114 2,674 6,789 7,131 11,246Unionville Total 1,872 1,217 3,089 3,245 5,117

Jacobs adjusted the initial forecasts to reflect the additional travel time necessary to make theplanned five-minute scheduled transfer at Scarborough. From the new ridership forecasts, theoffpeak ridership forecasts for the DMU options were revised upward to reflect shorter travel timesexpected using DMU equipment as compared with the Push-Pull base case.

Since the base forecasts varied only with respect to terminal and service frequency offered, theywere updated to reflect the equipment type used (DMU vs. Push-Pull) and the branch line trackspeed, as both affect over travel time to Toronto.

Forecast offpeak one-way travel times to Toronto Union Station which include the 5 minute transferat Scarborough are shown in Table C.2.

81 Forecasts based on study forecast prepared in 2005 by Peter Dalton Consulting. Summary provided by Dan Francey,GO Transit Planning, June 15, 2007.82 Ibid.



Table C.2:Estimated One-Way Travel Times to Toronto

(minutes)Travel Times

with NoTransfer

ForecastTravel Time

with Transfer

Outer Terminal Push Pull DMUPushPull

Unionville 36 39 41Stouffville 58 59 63

The new passenger forecasts are derived using a travel time demand elasticity of -0.59 and areshown in Table C.3.83

Table C.3:Adjusted Passenger Forecasts Accounting for the Five Minute

Transfer At Scarborough

ServiceOption

BaseForecast

TransferPenalty

Forecast

DMUAdjustedForecast

ChangefromBase

ForecastPercentChange

DMU S 60 50 2,674 2,595 -79 -3.0%DMU S 60 60 2,674 2,638 -36 -1.3%DMU S 30 50 7,131 6,921 -211 -3.0%DMU S 30 60 7,131 7,036 -96 -1.3%DMU U 60 50 1,217 1,113 -103 -8.5%DMU U 60 60 1,217 1,140 -77 -6.3%DMU U 30 50 3,244 2,969 -276 -8.5%DMU U 30 60 3,244 3,039 -206 -6.3%PP S 60 50 2,674 2,506 -168 -6.7%PP S 60 60 2,674 2,585 -90 -3.5%PP S 30 50 7,131 6,684 -448 -6.7%PP S 30 60 7,131 6,893 -239 -3.5%PP U 60 50 1,217 1,086 -130 -12.0%PP U 60 60 1,217 1,125 -92 -8.2%PP U 30 50 3,244 2,897 -347 -12.0%PP U 30 60 3,244 2,999 -246 -8.2%

Unionville service has a higher passenger percentage loss than the comparable Stouffville service,as illustrated in C.3. DMU Stouffville service has the lowest percent loss of all options, ranging

83 Patrick Mayworm et al. Patronage Impacts of Changes in Transit Fares and Services. United States Department ofTransportation. (1980). Washington, D.C., pp. 69.



from 1.3% to 3.0%, whereas Push-Pull Unionville service has the highest percent loss ofpassengers, ranging from 8.2% to 12%.

Table C.4 shows a summary of the adjusted offpeak passenger forecasts which reflect the fiveminute transfer at Scarborough. Note, there are no passenger losses in the forecast peak buildridership.

Table C.4:Adjusted Passenger Forecasts, Including Peak Build

Ridership(A) (B) (A) + (B)

Service OptionPeak BuildRidership

ModifiedOffpeak

RidershipNew TotalRidership

DMU S 60 50 4,114 2,595 6,709DMU S 60 60 4,114 2,638 6,752DMU S 30 50 4,114 6,921 11,035DMU S 30 60 4,114 7,036 11,150DMU U 60 50 1,872 1,113 2,985DMU U 60 60 1,872 1,140 3,012DMU U 30 50 1,872 2,969 4,841DMU U 30 60 1,872 3,039 4,911

PP S 60 50 4,114 2,506 6,620PP S 60 60 4,114 2,585 6,699PP S 30 50 4,114 6,684 10,798PP S 30 60 4,114 6,893 11,007PP U 60 50 1,872 1,086 2,958PP U 60 60 1,872 1,125 2,997PP U 30 50 1,872 2,897 4,769PP U 30 60 1,872 2,999 4,871

From the adjusted passenger forecasts, the adjusted annual revenue was derived. An example of thecalculation of the adjusted annual revenue is shown for the DMU S 30 60 option. The step-by-stepprocess is shown in Table C.5, Table C.6, and Table C.7.

Table C.5 shows the forecast weekday Peak Build, Offpeak, and weekend ridership for each station.

Table C.5:Weekday and Weekend Ridership

(A) (B) (C) = (A) + (B) (D)

StationWeekday

Peak BuildWeekday30 Min. Total Weekday

WeekendRiders

Stouffville 276 485 761 485Mount Joy 782 1,422 2,204 1,422



Table C.5:Weekday and Weekend Ridership

(A) (B) (C) = (A) + (B) (D)

StationWeekday

Peak BuildWeekday30 Min. Total Weekday

WeekendRiders

Markham 580 1,031 1,611 1,031Centennial 604 1,059 1,663 1,059Unionville 1,046 1,762 2,807 1,762Milliken 433 702 1,135 702Agincourt 346 514 861 514Kennedy 47 61 108 61Total 4,114 7,036 11,150 7,036

From the data in Table C.5, the annual Peak Build, Offpeak, and weekend passengers are calculatedfor each station. Note, it is assumed that there are 251 days for weekday service and 116 days forweekend service. Table C.6 shows the adjusted annual total ridership.

Table C.6:Annual Weekday and Weekend Ridership

(E) = 251 x (A) (F) = 251 x (B) (G) = (E) + (F) (H)=116 x (D) (I) = (G)+(H)

Station

AnnualWeekday

Peak Build

AnnualWeekday 30

MinuteTotal Annual

WeekdayAnnual

Weekend Annual TotalStouffville 69,385 121,634 191,019 56,213 247,233Mount Joy 196,196 356,975 553,170 164,976 718,147Markham 145,689 258,770 404,459 119,591 524,050Centennial 151,600 265,823 417,423 122,851 540,274Unionville 262,494 442,155 704,648 204,342 908,991Milliken 108,623 176,150 284,773 81,408 366,181Agincourt 86,863 129,135 215,999 59,680 275,679Kennedy 11,845 15,324 27,169 7,082 34,251Total 1,032,695 1,765,966 2,798,661 816,144 3,614,805

Using the data in Table C.6, the annual Peak Build, Offpeak, and weekend revenue is calculated foreach station and is shown in Table C.7. The total revenue from each station was summed to arriveat estimated revenue for the service.



Table C.7:Annual Revenue for 30 Minute DMU service to Stouffville at Modified Track Speed

(J) (K) = 0.85 x (J) (L) = (J) x (E) (M) = (J) x (F) (N) = (J) x (G) (O) = (J)+(K)+(L)

Station

One-WayFare

Avg. Rev. perPsgr

Annual PeakBuild

AnnualWeekday

AnnualWeekend

Annual TotalRevenue

Stouffville $6.90 $ 5.87 $ 406,945 $ 713,384 $ 329,691 $ 1,450,020Mount Joy $6.05 $ 5.14 $ 1,008,936 $ 1,835,743 $ 848,391 $ 3,693,070Markham $5.55 $ 4.72 $ 687,286 $ 1,220,748 $ 564,170 $ 2,472,204Centennial $5.55 $ 4.72 $ 715,172 $ 1,254,022 $ 579,548 $ 2,548,743Unionville $5.40 $ 4.59 $ 1,204,847 $ 2,029,489 $ 937,931 $ 4,172,268Milliken $5.20 $ 4.42 $ 480,114 $ 778,583 $ 359,823 $ 1,618,520Agincourt $4.50 $ 3.83 $ 332,252 $ 493,943 $ 228,277 $ 1,054,472Kennedy $3.70 $ 3.15 $ 37,253 $ 48,193 $ 22,273 $ 107,719Total $4,872,805 $8,374,105 $3,870,105 $ 17,117,015

This process was repeated for each service option under consideration. A summary of the loss inrevenue for each option is shown in Table C.8. Since the Unionville service options has a higherpercent loss of passengers than the comparable Stouffville service, it is not surprising thatUnionville service also has the higher percentage loss in annual revenue, as shown in Table C.8.

Table C.8:Estimated Gross Passenger Revenue, Including Peak

Build Revenue ($ millions)84

(A) (B) (A) + (D)

Service Option

PeakBuild

Revenue

AdjustedOffpeakRevenue

TotalModifiedRevenue

DMU S 60 50 $ 4.87 $ 4.52 $ 9.39DMU S 60 60 $ 4.87 $ 4.59 $ 9.46DMU S 30 50 $ 4.87 $ 12.05 $ 16.92DMU S 30 60 $ 4.87 $ 12.24 $ 17.12DMU U 60 50 $ 2.05 $ 1.79 $ 3.85DMU U 60 60 $ 2.05 $ 1.84 $ 3.89DMU U 30 50 $ 2.05 $ 4.79 $ 6.84DMU U 30 60 $ 2.05 $ 4.9 $ 6.95PP S 60 50 $ 4.87 $ 4.36 $ 9.23PP S 60 60 $ 4.87 $ 4.5 $ 9.37PP S 30 50 $ 4.87 $ 11.63 $ 16.5PP S 30 60 $ 4.87 $ 11.99 $ 16.86PP U 60 50 $ 2.05 $ 1.75 $ 3.81

84 Does not include any allocation to the Stouffville Branch.



Table C.8:Estimated Gross Passenger Revenue, Including Peak

Build Revenue ($ millions)84

(A) (B) (A) + (D)

Service Option

PeakBuild

Revenue

AdjustedOffpeakRevenue

TotalModifiedRevenue

PP U 60 60 $ 2.05 $ 1.81 $ 3.87PP U 30 50 $ 2.05 $ 4.67 $ 6.72PP U 30 60 $ 2.05 $ 4.83 $ 6.89

II. Equipment Requirements

Decreases in forecast ridership due to the transfer at Scarborough may decrease the capital costs forhourly DMU service to Stouffville. Table C.9 shows the consist requirements for offpeak servicebased on the original GO Transit forecasts.

Table C.9:Forecast Train Lengths by Service Characteristics and Equipment Type, Based on Original

GO Transit Ridership Forecasts85

Service Option

TotalOffpeak

Boardings

OffpeakInbound

Boardings

ForecastRidership on

HeaviestOffpeak

Train

Unitsper

DMUTrain

Bi-levelCoaches

perPush-Pull

TrainUnionville 30 minute Headway 3,543 1,772 177 2 2Unionville 60 minute Headway 1,797 899 144 2 2Stouffville 30 minute Headway 7,430 3,715 372 4 3Stouffville 60 minute Headway 2,786 1,393 223 3 2

Applying the methodology from Chapter 6, in Section Consist Sizes and Fleet Requirements, thenew capacity requirements for each service option are shown in Table C.10Table .

Table C.10:Adjusted Consist Capacity for Offpeak Service Options

Service Option

Total AdjustedOffpeak

Passengers

Total AdjustedOffpeakInbound

Max.HourlyOffpeak(16%)

Max.Half-Hourly

Offpeak(10%)

DMU S 60 50 2,595 1,298 208DMU S 60 60 2,638 1,319 211

85 Jacobs Engineering Group. (2008). Draft Final Report for Consulting Services for a Light Rail Feasibility Study onthe Stouffville Corridor. Prepared for GO Transit, pp. 83.



Table C.10:Adjusted Consist Capacity for Offpeak Service Options

Service Option

Total AdjustedOffpeak

Passengers

Total AdjustedOffpeakInbound

Max.HourlyOffpeak(16%)

Max.Half-Hourly

Offpeak(10%)

DMU S 30 50 6,921 3,460 346DMU S 30 60 7,036 3,518 352DMU U 60 50 1,113 557 89DMU U 60 60 1,140 570 91DMU U 30 50 2,969 1,484 148DMU U 30 60 3,039 1,519 152PP S 60 50 2,506 1,253 201PP S 60 60 2,585 1,292 207PP S 30 50 6,684 3,342 334PP S 30 60 6,893 3,446 345PP U 60 50 1,086 543 87PP U 60 60 1,125 562 90PP U 30 50 2,897 1,449 145PP U 30 60 2,999 1,499 150

Hourly DMU service to Stouffville is estimated to have a capacity near 200 passengers (assumingall passengers have a seat), which is the capacity of a two car DMU train set. It may be possible torun this service with a two car consist instead of a three car consist, which would reduce the totalequipment costs for this option.

Table C.11 shows the original offpeak equipment requirements, and the adjusted offpeak equipmentrequirements. The modified consist sizes are based on the capacity requirements shown in TableC.11. With the one exception of hourly DMU service to Stouffville, the offpeak consistrequirements for the other options do not change.

Table C.11:Base and Adjusted Offpeak Options Consist Requirements

Original Equipment Requirements Based on GOTransit Ridership Forecasts Adjusted Equipment Requirements

Changes in EquipmentRequirements

ServiceOption

OriginalDMUs

OriginalTrailers

OriginalLoco's

OriginalCoaches

AdjustedDMUs

AdjustedTrailers

AdjustedLoco's

AdjustedCoaches DMUs Trailers Loco's Coaches

DMU S 60 50 2 1 1 1 -1 0

DMU S 60 60 2 1 1 1 -1 0

DMU S 30 50 2 2 2 2 0 0

DMU S 30 60 2 2 2 2 0 0

DMU U 60 50 1 1 1 1 0 0

DMU U 60 60 1 1 1 1 0 0

DMU U 30 50 1 1 1 1 0 0

DMU U 30 60 1 1 1 1 0 0



Table C.11:Base and Adjusted Offpeak Options Consist Requirements

Original Equipment Requirements Based on GOTransit Ridership Forecasts Adjusted Equipment Requirements

Changes in EquipmentRequirements

ServiceOption

OriginalDMUs

OriginalTrailers

OriginalLoco's

OriginalCoaches

AdjustedDMUs

AdjustedTrailers

AdjustedLoco's

AdjustedCoaches DMUs Trailers Loco's Coaches

PP S 60 50 1 2 1 2 0 0

PP S 60 60 1 2 1 2 0 0

PP S 30 50 1 3 1 3 0 0

PP S 30 60 1 3 1 3 0 0

PP U 60 50 1 2 1 2 0 0

PP U 60 60 1 2 1 2 0 0

PP U 30 50 1 2 1 2 0 0

PP U 30 60 1 2 1 2 0 0



ENDNOTES

i Information concerning GO operating costs, GO crewing requirements, CN operating rights, CN clearancerequirements, CN fees, and highway grade crossing traffic volumes and safety records were not obtained oranalyzed in this phase of the study. The study team and GO Transit may elect to collect and evaluateadditional data on some or all of these topics during later phases of this study.

ii Elevation, superelevation, or cant, refer to the track design practice whereby the outer rail of curves areconstructed higher than the inner rail on tie laid out on a sloping plane. This allows a component of the car’sweight to provide forces required for the curving acceleration, resulting in higher maximum permittedcurving speeds. The need to provide accelerating forces whilst in motion is carefully balanced against theneed to maintain full stability of rolling stock if a car should come to a complete stop while resting within thecurve for any reason. For this reason, freight railroads generally limit the maximum elevation on any curveto 1.5”, resulting in balancing speeds in the range typical for road freight operations. The balancing speed isthe speed at which a car traversing around the curve feels no force. The component of weight providesexactly the force required to provide the acceleration towards the center of the curve at the balancing speed.

iii The limits of speed for a given curve radii for commuter rail equipment is defined in FRA Track SafetyStandards Part 213, Subpart 57, Section (b)(1). The FRA limit for maximum underbalance for generalrailroad equipment is 3”, as per Section (b)(1). However, a cant-deficiency of less than 1.5” for newconstruction is considered desirable under typical commuter railroad practice. For rolling stock meetingcertain requirements, the FRA permits 4” of underbalance as per the alternative formula in Section (c)(1).Each specific class of equipment must be approved by the FRA pursuant to Section (d).

iv Unbalance, underbalance, or cant-deficiency refer to a condition in which a piece of rolling stock isoperating at speeds lower than or in excess of the balancing speed. Under these conditions, the rolling stockwould experience a reaction force from the inner rail (if speed is too low) or from the outer rail (if speed istoo high). If this force is too high, derailment would result. The inner rail would roll if it cannot providesufficient reaction force to counter the excess weight from a heavy car traveling at low speeds. The outerflange would climb if it the reaction force at the interface is too high. The amount of additional elevationbeyond the elevation physically present in the track structure to provide for balancing speed is termed theunderbalance or cant-deficiency. In the formula given FRA Track Safety Standards Part 213, Subpart 57,Section (b)(1), the elevation and cant-deficiency is shown as two separate additive terms. The resultingmaximum speed is a combination of elevation physically present and cant-deficiency permitted for theequipment operating.

Stouffville Light Rail Feasbility Study

Documents

Transcript of Stouffville Light Rail Feasbility Study