 |
Re: IJ Article on "Major Gaps" in SMART Service
Author: Max Wyss
Date: 05-20-2017 - 15:52
The rules have changed, and vehicles following the most recent UIC crashworthiness standards can concurrently operate with FRA-compliant vehicles (aka freight). The Siemens Sprinters are not up to that standard, but, for example, the eBart GTW (and the most recent FLIRTs) are.
That said, in a reasonable environment, planning the route would mean to set a base schedule and determine what is needed infrastructure-wise to implement it. For 30 minutes intervals, a passing siding must occur every 15 minutes. If it is strictly just that 30 minutes interval, any extra (aka freight) must fit into the same schedule, by using one time slot. If that has to be squeezed in, passing sidings would have to be extended to double track islands. In addition, the signalling system can be set up with shorter blocks, allowing two trains to follow in short succession.
This then can lead to a theoretical timetable, with a whole bunch of slots used only on demand. Freight would have to use such a slot, and therefore (hell, no) run following a schedule.
Of course, in order to operate at the target schedule, a sufficient number of trains has to be available. With good scheduling and planning of maintenance, the number of spares can be kept to a minimum (up to 6 in operation, 1 spare would be feasible).
The question is what happens when SMART gets popular… The current trains are no longer available. Theoretically, it would be possible to persuade Toronto to sell theirs (or to sell the SMART trains to Toronto, and do a complete fleet update with something in the GTW 2/8 or the FLIRT league).
And if instead of 30 minute intervals, 15 minute intervals become necessary, well, then infrastructure would have to be expanded, in form of a passing siding every 7.5 minutes (that, and even denser schedules are possible with single track; I am familiar with a line where there is a passing siding every 5 minutes (and that was still cheaper than complete double-tracking).
That said, in a reasonable environment, planning the route would mean to set a base schedule and determine what is needed infrastructure-wise to implement it. For 30 minutes intervals, a passing siding must occur every 15 minutes. If it is strictly just that 30 minutes interval, any extra (aka freight) must fit into the same schedule, by using one time slot. If that has to be squeezed in, passing sidings would have to be extended to double track islands. In addition, the signalling system can be set up with shorter blocks, allowing two trains to follow in short succession.
This then can lead to a theoretical timetable, with a whole bunch of slots used only on demand. Freight would have to use such a slot, and therefore (hell, no) run following a schedule.
Of course, in order to operate at the target schedule, a sufficient number of trains has to be available. With good scheduling and planning of maintenance, the number of spares can be kept to a minimum (up to 6 in operation, 1 spare would be feasible).
The question is what happens when SMART gets popular… The current trains are no longer available. Theoretically, it would be possible to persuade Toronto to sell theirs (or to sell the SMART trains to Toronto, and do a complete fleet update with something in the GTW 2/8 or the FLIRT league).
And if instead of 30 minute intervals, 15 minute intervals become necessary, well, then infrastructure would have to be expanded, in form of a passing siding every 7.5 minutes (that, and even denser schedules are possible with single track; I am familiar with a line where there is a passing siding every 5 minutes (and that was still cheaper than complete double-tracking).
