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 

The MR90 fleet just got prematurely retired and is sitting in storage. Maybe we can nab them up for cheap
 
innsertnamehere said:
people's obsession with train type is overblown in general. If it delivers the services proposed, who cares what the trains look like.
Click to expand...

it's more for the future

they could set themselves up to massively expand the station count but are choosing not to. while it would have a higher up front cost (trains + stations), they'd be able to create very good local service on par with TTC subway on top of being a regional network.

like upwards of twice as many stops in urban areas with little to no reduction in service times due to much better acceleration.
 
Adding infill stations and switching from locos to EMUs is "relatively" easy.

Even if ML doesn't want to switch to EMUs now, that decision can be easily reversed in the future.
 
MrGoose said:
Adding infill stations and switching from locos to EMUs is "relatively" easy.

Even if ML doesn't want to switch to EMUs now, that decision can be easily reversed in the future.
Click to expand...
Yeah people are acting like we're making it impossible to ever use EMUs in the future. Whereas it's more likely it'll be more of a transitional process as not to waste the massive fleet of bilevel railcars we have now. Probably easier in the future to sell off a few unneeded electric locomotives every now and then (as the bilevels are replaced by EMUs as the bilevels reach the end of their service life) than trying to sell off the entire fleet of bilevel cars all at once.

Also worth noting metrolinx has a pretty extensive list of potential future station locations, so there's at least some loose groundwork for infill stations in the future.
 
One can hardly be surprised at the increased frequency although admittedly it much more than I thought. Forgetting about the inner city where the lines merge, 15 per-direction was the base line service level. There is no way they were going to run as many trips in rush hour or even during the day Monday to Friday as they would at 11:00 PM on a Sunday night.

This investment is truly going to turn Toronto's GO into the premier suburban train system in NA, bare none. If fact it will probably be the best in the America's save possibly Sao Paulo. This is transforming GO into a system that will be able to lock horns with the some of the best European systems.
 
TossYourJacket said:
Yeah people are acting like we're making it impossible to ever use EMUs in the future. Whereas it's more likely it'll be more of a transitional process as not to waste the massive fleet of bilevel railcars we have now. Probably easier in the future to sell off a few unneeded electric locomotives every now and then (as the bilevels are replaced by EMUs as the bilevels reach the end of their service life) than trying to sell off the entire fleet of bilevel cars all at once.

Also worth noting metrolinx has a pretty extensive list of potential future station locations, so there's at least some loose groundwork for infill stations in the future.
Click to expand...

I think Metrolinx should simply stop ordering bi-levels after this last batch and run them into the ground with the electric locos. Then, when the oldest batch of bilevels need replacement, replace with EMU's as needed.
 
Krypto98 said:
The later two are 70/75 mph rather than the 80 mph of the rest of the subdivision.
Click to expand...
It's 80mph now. When the work was completed, it was limited to 90mph, and the alignment of the corridor - save for the several PSOs - can in theory still allow for it.

Dan
 
innsertnamehere said:
people's obsession with train type is overblown in general. If it delivers the services proposed, who cares what the trains look like.
Click to expand...
Ultimately you'll get higher acceleration and therefore shorter travel times with EMUs than electric locomotives. Wasn't there a GO report that showed travel times with the current diesel locomotives, electric locomotives, and EMUs?

I'd think wear and tear on the track would be lower with the power for one trainset distributed over a lot more powered axles. I'm not sure how significant that is though.

Allandale25 said:
In @Reecemartin 's video he argued that EMUs at this stage could be difficult because the GO MSFs aren't really designed to handle them and this could add complexity and cost.
Click to expand...
What, as opposed to the lack of catenary and power stations!?!?
 
nfitz said:
What, as opposed to the lack of catenary and power stations!?!?
Click to expand...
I think the issue with the yards is that they aren't set up to maintain EMUs. They are however configured to repair bilevels and locomotives. Obviously there are some changes needed for the change in locomotive model, but it's less of a change than redoing the entire maintenance yard for an entirely new vehicle type, as all the facilities for the bilevel passenger cars can remain untouched for now. And unless the entire fleet is switched at once, there will still need to be a yard to repair bilevels. Now all of these things are things that can be dealt with in time, particularly if GO were to dedicate one yard initially to EMUs (either existing or new) and then convert the others over time. However, a full fleet transition right now would add a huge cost in terms of converting all the yards to service EMUs. Given it seems we can achieve the desired service levels without EMUs, I can see why they didn't want to spend a massive amount of money having to replace the fleet, renovate all the service yards to repair the new trains, and then try and sell the existing fleet. Nothing precludes EMUs in the future, it's just not cost-effective to do right now.
 
On the lines with only partial electrification (ie Kitchener) does this mean they'll be running diesel trains in between the electric trains for the longer routes? Would this affect the speed of the electric trains, or the frequency, or both?
 
TossYourJacket said:
I think the issue with the yards is that they aren't set up to maintain EMUs. They are however configured to repair bilevels and locomotives. Obviously there are some changes needed for the change in locomotive model, but it's less of a change than redoing the entire maintenance yard for an entirely new vehicle type, as all the facilities for the bilevel passenger cars can remain untouched for now. And unless the entire fleet is switched at once, there will still need to be a yard to repair bilevels. Now all of these things are things that can be dealt with in time, particularly if GO were to dedicate one yard initially to EMUs (either existing or new) and then convert the others over time. However, a full fleet transition right now would add a huge cost in terms of converting all the yards to service EMUs. Given it seems we can achieve the desired service levels without EMUs, I can see why they didn't want to spend a massive amount of money having to replace the fleet, renovate all the service yards to repair the new trains, and then try and sell the existing fleet. Nothing precludes EMUs in the future, it's just not cost-effective to do right now.
Click to expand...
Could probably start with EMUs on one line as it becomes necessary to buy new rolling stock , and build a new MSF when the time comes... maybe somewhere on the Barrie line?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top