[MovingBlock]

Second point: bringing up the crew shortage in a discussion about why refurbed rolling stock is not being used is a red herring. There is no link between having X amount of crews and being able to run Y rolling stock unless we subscribe to the frankly baffling line of thought here that Metrolinx cannot use the refurbished cars unless they have more service. For the third time, I am saying that it is entirely possible to use all the equipment, but using each car less frequently.

Shunting requires labour, which is in short supply. There IS a link between the number of shunting moves planned and the number of staff available for revenue service.

 

[crs1026]

There is no link between having X amount of crews and being able to run Y rolling stock unless we subscribe to the frankly baffling line of thought here that Metrolinx cannot use the refurbished cars unless they have more service.

They can theoretically use them in place of the equipment currently being used in service, sure - but read on.

For the third time, I am saying that it is entirely possible to use all the equipment, but using each car less frequently. There are cars currently in circulation that could be substituted with refurbished cab cars: the remaining cab cars, 251-257, are 10 years old and accordingly worn out, while the refurbished cab cars are newly refreshed; the earliest CEM cab cars are 7-8 years old and the same thing applies; the refurbished cab cars could be used to substitute Series II and III coaches as regular passenger stock, which have worn out, dusty seating (especially the Series II cars) that is unpleasant to me as a passenger. There are lots of non-enthusiast arguments to put the cars into service now.

This is quite wrongheaded. Every car has a maintenance schedule based in part on days or months and not on hours of use. The more cars are placed in service, the more monthly/quarterly/annual inspections have to be performed for a given service schedule. Using as few cars as possible to meet the overall service plan is just good management. Even having to switch cars in and out of rotation has a cost which ML is wise to avoid.

"GO currently DOES have a shortage of crews, but nobody here even considered that." - This is a self serving ad hominem attack.

"Instead of being a bunch of armchair enthusiasts complaining that you can’t ride the old coach yet..." - This is a self serving ad hominem attack.

"Would you all rather GO have to delay phase 2 of service expansion next year because they don’t have enough equipment? I think not." - This is a self serving ad hominem attack.

I have repeated infinitely that I do not understand the financial basis for refurbishing something and then not using it for several years. And setting that aside for the moment, bringing all of this up seems to miss a critical truth in this whole discussion:

Well, maybe repeating the point will make it sink in..... the lack of crews is one clear reason why GO can't implement service improvements more aggressively. Holding equipment in reserve until the service can be upgraded is not a root cause, it's a result. And it's not wrongheaded, it's just good economy.

As for me? I never like to share or justify my opinions on various transit vehicles, because it's tacky and irrelevant and no one cares, but since you have elected to use this line of argument: I am interested in finding out when the refurbs come back into service because within the next half a year or so, I will, in all likelihood, be moving out of Ontario. Therefore it is my personal interest to know if the cars will enter service before then. I'm sorry if that offended your sensibilities, I will now return to blindly beating the Metrolinx drum. Hooray for fluid, vaguely defined timelines that can fall apart at a moment's notice!

I'm sorry if you don't get any satisfaction from this particular ML investment. The reality is, trains are running just as well today without them. When they do go into service, I hope you will come back and visit and enjoy them.

This forum is more about understanding the state of ML's operation and its effectiveness in delivering to the transit needs of the GTA. Rolling stock matters are a part of that effectiveness, but having too many cars for this particular moment is not really a big problem. We mostly agree that ML ought to have been able to get expansion done better and sooner - but the endless overthinking of everything around these few cab cars is not representative of the broader system issues behind that. And there are many issues.

- Paul

 

[Willybru21]

I was going to write my own response but I think most of you covered everything I was going to mention, one thing I will say though is I do apologise for being so rude in my first message, while I stand by the points I made I should have phrased them in a more respectful manner, I was coming off of a rough morning so I blew my anger off here.

 

[T3G]

This is quite wrongheaded. Every car has a maintenance schedule based in part on days or months and not on hours of use. The more cars are placed in service, the more monthly/quarterly/annual inspections have to be performed for a given service schedule. Using as few cars as possible to meet the overall service plan is just good management. Even having to switch cars in and out of rotation has a cost which ML is wise to avoid.

Ah, that changes my understanding of the problem entirely.

I was not aware of the fact that GO's maintenance cycle counts the days like that. In that case I do see why cycling them into service does not make sense.

Is this common practice around these parts? I'll admit to not being intimately familiar with the maintenance practices of most transit agencies, but those that I am (chiefly central European ones), they run their maintenance cycle based only on mileage. If a vehicle is out of service, it's not working towards its next maintenance cycle, if there's 5 cars required for a service but they have 10, all else being equal, they would use each car every other day and take twice as long to reach the next maintenance milestone than they would if they only had 5 cars.

I was going to write my own response but I think most of you covered everything I was going to mention, one thing I will say though is I do apologise for being so rude in my first message, while I stand by the points I made I should have phrased them in a more respectful manner, I was coming off of a rough morning so I blew my anger off here.

Thank you.

 

[smallspy]

Ah, that changes my understanding of the problem entirely.

I was not aware of the fact that GO's maintenance cycle counts the days like that. In that case I do see why cycling them into service does not make sense.

Is this common practice around these parts? I'll admit to not being intimately familiar with the maintenance practices of most transit agencies, but those that I am (chiefly central European ones), they run their maintenance cycle based only on mileage. If a vehicle is out of service, it's not working towards its next maintenance cycle, if there's 5 cars required for a service but they have 10, all else being equal, they would use each car every other day and take twice as long to reach the next maintenance milestone than they would if they only had 5 cars.

It's not GO, it's regulatory. And if you would like some light reading to learn more, please feel free to peruse this: https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/...OTIVE_INSPECTION_AND_SAFETY_RULES_ENGLISH.pdf

All "controlling equipment" - locomotives, cab cars, etc. - need a fairly intensive inspection of all of its safety appliances every 92 days (although they're working towards extending that to 184 days if certain conditions are met). This inspection is so thorough that it frequently makes more sense to remove those pieces of equipment from the trainset and replace them with others that have just finished undergoing the same inspection.

Passenger cars need their brakes inspected every 2 weeks. This one is a little bit easier, and is frequently done with the train as a whole unit over a pit track.

There are other inspections that have their own schedules, but the 92 day inspection is so intensive that for years the loco manufacturers even designed and built the maintenance cycles of their locomotives around it.

Dan

 

[SaugeenJunction]

It’s funny you say that because GO currently DOES have a shortage of crews, but nobody here even considered that.

This thread has really been annoying me the past few days, it seems like some people here just want the old cab cars to be in service just because they haven’t been used yet, ignoring the fact that Metrolinx is building up a fleet for a significant service increase that’s imminent within a year.

Instead of being a bunch of armchair enthusiasts complaining that you can’t ride the old coach yet, we should be excited that GO is even seeing initiative and preparing their fleet to be able to handle more service one day. Would you all rather GO have to delay phase 2 of service expansion next year because they don’t have enough equipment? I think not.

“Restore it and run it on the mainline” (for folks who get the reference) lol.

 

[T3G]

Random question: in the days of the cyclops-eyed cab cars, were trains run with one person, or where was the second crew member located?

Also, if one day in the future, someone bought a retired cab car from GO and wanted to restore it back to its as built condition without the second window on the front (I know, we are veering into severe fantasy territory here), would this be possible to do without a great deal of expense?

 

[RS3488]

Random question: in the days of the cyclops-eyed cab cars, were trains run with one person, or where was the second crew member located?

Also, if one day in the future, someone bought a retired cab car from GO and wanted to restore it back to its as built condition without the second window on the front (I know, we are veering into severe fantasy territory here), would this be possible to do without a great deal of expense?

From what I've been told, there was a second crew member at some point, but they either had to stand, or lean on the door frame, or in some instances they'd tape off the seats near the cab so the conductor could sit there.

As for the rebuild to the original state, most of the currently decommissioned cab cars already had the partition wall on the conductor side removed, I'm not too sure but it doesn't seem it would be that hard or costly to have the window sealed up.

 

[drum118]

Random question: in the days of the cyclops-eyed cab cars, were trains run with one person, or where was the second crew member located?

Also, if one day in the future, someone bought a retired cab car from GO and wanted to restore it back to its as built condition without the second window on the front (I know, we are veering into severe fantasy territory here), would this be possible to do without a great deal of expense?

Have 2 people in the cab from my experience sitting behind them where that 2nd window was needed to see out it.

Seats were added at a later date for that person to sit down as well a table to write on.

 

[Willybru21]

The only thing that’s different between the decommissioned cabs and the very first ones GO had was the window in the cab door, and the extra window on the front, everything else is pretty much the same

 

[drum118]

The only thing that’s different between the decommissioned cabs and the very first ones GO had was the window in the cab door, and the extra window on the front, everything else is pretty much the same View attachment 522421

I stand to be corrected as it been too long since I been on one of the decommission cabs, but the door and wall were removed where the conduction sat with passengers seats replacing that area. The driver compartment was lock so the public could gain access to it.

What I remember is as time went on, the conductor got a seat and table that was follow by a wall and door that was closed to the public, even when the crew was at the other end. When the cab became coaches. the was removed and the conductor area block off until it was removed. Until that wall and door went up, you could hear the conversation of the crew and dispatch. I believe over time, seats behind the crew was place out service while the crew was there, but used by the riders when the crew was at the other end.

 

[smallspy]

Since it doesn't seem to be clear - the cab areas of the cars have had several iterations over the years.

As built, the cab allowed for only one crewman, the engineer. On the othe side of the car the seats backed against the solid wall, and the conductor would sit in those two seats. As seen in those photos, the cab doors originally opened outwards, blocking the end doors of the cars.

They then got a rebuild in the early 2000s, and had the second window placed there. The seats that backed to the wall were removed and replaced with a pair of seats the faced the window. But that area was still kept open for the public to use when the cab was trailing the trainset, or if it was marshalled in the middle. Around this time (or maybe even earlier), the cab doors were modified to open back into passenger compartment and latch against the cabinet behind the cab, rather than blocking off the end door (and more importantly, the emergency brake handle).

That only lasted a handful of years. A partition was put behind those two seats, and the door to the cab door was modified to allow for the entire front of the cab car to be blocked off by latching into the partition.

Dan

 

[RS3488]

Now GO has moved the rebuilt cab cars into this line, which includes 204, 206, 208, 211, and 212.

 

[T3G]

Is that photo from today?

 

[RS3488]

Is that photo from today?

Yes.