lenaitch
Senior Member
Do you honestly think people make their commuting decisions based on what the the condition of the livery is in?
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
cplchanb
Senior Member
actually to a degre yes... theres a reason why most of the people arent taking transit over cars. although not a major reason this is also one minor reason.
the fact that theres still decrepit and old looking cars fuelled by the negative perception in the news of ML will turn people away from supporting transit.
so this is what our tax dollars have gone to. you underestimate how brand power drives emotion and public perception. you dont see the leafs reusing previous generations jerseys to save a nickel on the dollar just because the player
was part of the team in their previous generation of logo.
turbanplanner
Senior Member
No but OTOH I think the whole transport of last resort argument is easier to make in that case, alsooooo have you seen Via?
I think they had a wrap for spiderman 2 still up when 3 came out!
Amare
Senior Member
Huh?
First let's start off with your point about the Leafs. Their jerseys and logos could literally depict a pile of garbage and people would still go and support them en masse, that's just how it is with their fans.
Now to the actual point of discussion, a big reason why people are taking their cars over transit is simply because it's more convenient to and for decades, our politicians and transit agencies have failed to make it enticing for people to make the switch. Why would someone for instance, wait 15-20 minutes for a bus and then commute another 30 minutes once said bus arrives, when they can take their car and be at their destination in 1/5th of the time?
Let's get more specific, Metrolinx and the TTC both changed their liveries within the past 10-15 years. Do you think the demand on either agency has spiked up dramatically because of it? I'll give you a hint, the answer starts with a No. In the TTC's case, they've done an excellent job recently of driving away ridership thanks to their service cuts and maintenance practices. Or in other words, the TTC had a higher ridership when they had their "decrepit and old looking cars" compared to their brand new shiny vehicles.
People would use transit if it was more convenient to do so, but in many cases it isnt so they dont. Quite simple really.
RU479
Active Member
214 is still with 679, scheduled to go on the 19:12 to Mount Joy.
Seems that atleast one of the refurbs might be used in regular service now.
Seems that atleast one of the refurbs might be used in regular service now.
lenaitch
Senior Member
And is there a record of people saying, 'you know, I was going to take the train to Montreal, but then I saw that locomotive, so I drove'. Or, 'I really wanted to take the train, but I don't like Home Hardware'.
RU479
Active Member
And for the record, I’ve honestly heard of more people avoiding MX scheme cars because of them having the newer seats that people find uncomfortable.
Amare
Senior Member
Count me as one of them, the new/refurbished cars dont offer great a level of comfort.
crs1026
Superstar
Interior amenity is a whole different marketing proposition than exterior paint.
But to be fair, ML has one of the cleanest and best maintained interior fleet conditions of transit systems anywhere.
And some of the fleets we point to as models are awash in grafitti (inside and out) and worn-out seat coverings, walls, and flooring.
Look at photos from even a few years ago and you will see the steady transition of GO coaches from old to new paint schemes. Even two years ago, a typical consist was only 40-50% repaints where today it's closer to 80%. Commendably, the fleet is not being repainted faster than the old paint is fading, so there is little or no incremental cost.
ML standards may be slipping a little (yesterday's ride was in a coach that was a tad hot) but overall this is not one ofvthe many things I would criticise them for.
- Paul
But to be fair, ML has one of the cleanest and best maintained interior fleet conditions of transit systems anywhere.
And some of the fleets we point to as models are awash in grafitti (inside and out) and worn-out seat coverings, walls, and flooring.
Look at photos from even a few years ago and you will see the steady transition of GO coaches from old to new paint schemes. Even two years ago, a typical consist was only 40-50% repaints where today it's closer to 80%. Commendably, the fleet is not being repainted faster than the old paint is fading, so there is little or no incremental cost.
ML standards may be slipping a little (yesterday's ride was in a coach that was a tad hot) but overall this is not one ofvthe many things I would criticise them for.
- Paul
dowlingm
Senior Member
Count me among those who don’t understand the fascination with different liveries or with feeling the need to change them (as if my post re that yellow horror of VIA’s didn’t say it all)
That said, faded paint does look shabby particularly given that trainsets are not fixed and thus faded units are often cheek by jowl with newly painted ones.
Coming from Ireland and being of an age when railways still had a headcount sufficient to address paint upkeep, at least to a level where fade was relatively evenly distributed, it is still jarring to watch a GO consist go by and a faded coach or coaches among them. This is also true in particular of VIA’s LRC fleet which is now in a variety of faded schemes beside their more recent (and quite attractive) business class repaint.
For less engaged riders it might raise a question of what else has been left go on that coach. We live in a climate which is aggressive in both winter and summer to exterior finishes and upkeep should be part of the cost of doing business, and I daresay while not cheap is probably cheaper than some Metrolinx ideas for keeping customers happy but which because they come from a marketing budget and not a maintenance one (like that Leafs wrap) are nodded through.
PL1
Active Member
While I get that it's wasteful to paint cars before it's necessary, it seems they could try to put together consists with cars with the same liveries – or at least blocks of adjacent cars with the same livery. Honestly, it doesn't really matter.
I do find having different era cars in a consist a bit awkward when travelling from car to car. The other night, I took the 23:36 LSW GO from Exhibition to Danforth and I got on a car with old livery. The car had a manual mechanism to open the door, and the next car (new livery) had an electric/automatic mechanism. The next was manual, and then electric. As an infrequent rider of GO, I found that somewhat awkward, and I could imagine it to be problematic for new riders. Having consistent door mechanisms between cars would be better; grouping cars (by era/type) might make this less of an issue.
Probably not an issue to most riders, though
I do find having different era cars in a consist a bit awkward when travelling from car to car. The other night, I took the 23:36 LSW GO from Exhibition to Danforth and I got on a car with old livery. The car had a manual mechanism to open the door, and the next car (new livery) had an electric/automatic mechanism. The next was manual, and then electric. As an infrequent rider of GO, I found that somewhat awkward, and I could imagine it to be problematic for new riders. Having consistent door mechanisms between cars would be better; grouping cars (by era/type) might make this less of an issue.
Probably not an issue to most riders, though
lenaitch
Senior Member
Bojaxs
Active Member
MARC's diesel trains seem to travel faster than GO's trains. I was pretty amazed at how fast their MP36 locomotive was travelling. I'm assuming this has to do with the track. We could get so much more out of our existing fleet if we just laid down better track.
crs1026
Superstar
You do realise that's the Northeast Corridor, right? ie a line that is built to the standard needed by intercity trains, which MARC can take advantage of but isn't justifying itself ?
And those are not stopping trains.... GO express trains do move along pretty nicely also.
There are certainly spots where ML ought to upgrade turnouts for higher speed, and PSO's that ought to be rectified, but higher track speeds will not improve a system where distances between stations is decreasing. GO benefits from acceleration far more than high top speed. Speed can be a waste of fuel.
- Paul
Last edited:
Bojaxs
Active Member
Yes, I do realise it's the NE corridor. I saw the Acela train in the video. I think trains travelling at such a speed probably isn't justifiable for you, but I'm sure there's plenty people in the GTA who would love to see our trains travel faster.
I've watched videos of the Clarkson express travelling through Mimico, and it doesn't seem to travel as fast as these trains do. I could be wrong.
Which is exactly why I've never been a fan of packing more stations/ stops on existing lines.
Please... you sound like my coworker explaining to me why he never drives 120km/h in the left lane. Time is money.