News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

While i haven’t been scientific about it, on my most recent GO trips I have been taking note of which stations are future proofed for higher platforms…. on the basis of light posts with extra-high bases, the number is getting better than one might think. There is, after all, a lot of station upgrading going on.
I would venture that the Bramalea stretch might be getting close. Unionville also.
Not saying it’s about to happen, but as Oncorr arrives, it’s getting doable.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
While i haven’t been scientific about it, on my most recent GO trips I have been taking note of which stations are future proofed for higher platforms…. on the basis of light posts with extra-high bases, the number is getting better than one might think. There is, after all, a lot of station upgrading going on.
I would venture that the Bramalea stretch might be getting close. Unionville also.
Not saying it’s about to happen, but as Oncorr arrives, it’s getting doable.

- Paul
Click to expand...
From what I've seen, most of the stations opened in the last 5 years have been future proofed. I know Downsview Park and Bloomington have at the very least, and from what I've seen from Unionville it seems to have as well.
 
ARG1 said:
From what I understand most of the GO network is actually fully capable of running at speeds higher than we currently run them at. The reason we don't is typically A) The slow acceleration of the trains means that it usually isn't worth accelerating all the way to the max speed (as seen on LSW), and B) Conservative speed limits that are set to assume worst case scenerios.
Click to expand...

And fuel conservation. I have seen a chart which is issued to GO crews which shows the maximum speed that they are to reach between each station. After they reach that speed, they are expected to effectively coast to the next braking point. The speeds are pretty conservative. (Obviously, express schedules aren’t included).

Now, string wires so that you can reclaim that acceleration energy, and it’s a new ballgame….

- Paul
 
ARG1 said:
From what I understand most of the GO network is actually fully capable of running at speeds higher than we currently run them at. The reason we don't is typically A) The slow acceleration of the trains means that it usually isn't worth accelerating all the way to the max speed (as seen on LSW), and B) Conservative speed limits that are set to assume worst case scenerios. A possibly good example of the latter is the Snider grade separation on the Barrie Line, which has a speed limit of 45 mph despite being straight with a long vertical curve transition and a relative tame grade. Apparently the reason for this (and this is hearsay so don't take this as gospel) is that the speed limit is in place for a worst case scenerio situation where the train loses most of its breaks at the top of the flyover. In practice if we didn't design our operations under such horrible worst case scenerios, we could easily be running much faster in these sections. There's also a few other points to bring up, that being track maintenance standards. Every so often GO will run an inspection train to grade the tracks and the result is usually a decrease in speed. This can be seen when you're comparing older time tables with services we have today.
Click to expand...
Those speed limits and train condition won't be changing with electrification or will they?
 
Deadpool X said:
Those speed limits and train condition won't be changing with electrification or will they?
Click to expand...
It likely won't change due to electrification directly, but likely as a byproduct of working with DB. The OnCorr works isn't just "electrification", but a summation of a ton of different requirements that relate to the train corridor as a whole, including electrification. Whilst we don't have the specifics of exactly what is in the DB contracts, considering how much of a stated goal improving travel times is, I find it likely that refurbishment works that allows them to bring the speeds back up to snuff, and making bringing in European expertise to snuff out NA inadequacies like hyper conservative speed limits will occur here - that's sort of what DB is here to do.
 
I'm kind of surprised CN/CP still have a 50/50 stake in TTR. It doesn't seem like a core business for them and hasn't it been the case that railways have generally divested from non-core operations? I guess there's still some positive cash flow for them? I assume TTC will be taken over by ONxpress? Any insight @smallspy @crs1026

"Mechanical-related congestion at Union Station made worse by strike, Metrolinx says"

 
ARG1 said:
Apparently the reason for this (and this is hearsay so don't take this as gospel) is that the speed limit is in place for a worst case scenerio situation where the train loses most of its breaks at the top of the flyover. In practice if we didn't design our operations under such horrible worst case scenerios, we could easily be running much faster in these sections.
Click to expand...
The PSO - Permanent Slow Order - was set there as the vertical curves are so tight as to require the restriction. This is also why the West Toronto Flyunder and Weston Tunnel also have PSOs lower than the zone speeds. It has nothing to do with any ballywho about brakes or "breaks".

Dan
 
Allandale25 said:
I'm kind of surprised CN/CP still have a 50/50 stake in TTR. It doesn't seem like a core business for them and hasn't it been the case that railways have generally divested from non-core operations? I guess there's still some positive cash flow for them? I assume TTC will be taken over by ONxpress? Any insight @smallspy @crs1026

"Mechanical-related congestion at Union Station made worse by strike, Metrolinx says"

Click to expand...
While TTR was largely a holdover from the original agreements leading to the Union Station's construction and use, it's since divested from that singular role and now provides rail operations number of freight terminals.

If it is making them money, why would they get rid of it?

Dan
 
smallspy said:
The PSO - Permanent Slow Order - was set there as the vertical curves are so tight as to require the restriction. This is also why the West Toronto Flyunder and Weston Tunnel also have PSOs lower than the zone speeds. It has nothing to do with any ballywho about brakes or "breaks".

Dan
Click to expand...
The later two are 70/75 mph rather than the 80 mph of the rest of the subdivision.
 
Allandale25 said:
I'm kind of surprised CN/CP still have a 50/50 stake in TTR. It doesn't seem like a core business for them and hasn't it been the case that railways have generally divested from non-core operations? I guess there's still some positive cash flow for them? I assume TTC will be taken over by ONxpress? Any insight @smallspy @crs1026

"Mechanical-related congestion at Union Station made worse by strike, Metrolinx says"

Click to expand...

Transferring all the institutional knowledge about the USRC, especially during the transition to new technologies, is a big task to take on. I'm sure ML is quite happy to keep the contract going so they don't have to manage all that stuff on top of everything else.

Plus, as the TTR Web Site indicates, TTR holds the Certificate of Fitness for the USRC. I'm sure it could be conveyed to Metrolinx, but it may contain its own amount of IP and thus have a price tag. And the conveyance would come with a whole lot of regulatory work that probably just isn't worth it..... but maybe the Oncorr proponent will look on that differently.

- Paul
 
reaperexpress said:
Honestly the article leaves me with more questions than answers. Metrolinx has a tendency to state frequencies in total, rather than per direction. For example when they add 1 new round trip, they say "2 new trips". So when in this article they say 8 to 18 trains per hour, I think they mean 4 to 9 trains per hour per direction.

But then they go on to talk about "trains every 6 to 15 minutes, and that's surely per direction.

Which numbers are total and which numbers are per direction?

Then they go on to say:


Everything about this statement is wrong. The top speed of GO trains is 150 km/h, as per GO's own website and my GPS readings aboard a Lakeshore West express train. And the average speed of GO train lines ranges from 41 km/h to 61 km/h, as I summarized on my blog (anyone can verify this by dividing the distances by the end-to-end travel times). I assume what they meant is that GO trains typically only reach around 95 km/h between stations (which is true for local trains) but that's not what they wrote.

The article seems to be including numbers just for aesthetic purposes, rather than for actually conveying accurate information.
Click to expand...

Does this help clarify or just adds to the confusion?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1517526421949792257
 
Allandale25 said:
Does this help clarify or just adds to the confusion?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1517526421949792257
Click to expand...
ya thats just quoting the blog post from yesterday, that does add up to up to 3 minute frequency, but as mentioned before its probably only for the stations with multiple lines, exhibition, east harbour, danforth, bloor

On Metrolinx’s busiest routes, between eight and 18 trains per hour will run, meaning customers can arrive at a station and be on a train within minutes.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top