[RU479]

What I am more surprised on is that fact that the F59s will still live on.

They were supposed to all be retired in 2011, but have continued service on GO for more than a decade after.

I was sure that with this new order, they would be withdrawn.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

What I am more surprised on is that fact that the F59s will still live on.

They were supposed to all be retired in 2011, but have continued service on GO for more than a decade after.

I was sure that with this new order, they would be withdrawn.

F59s forever

 

[drum118]

What I am more surprised on is that fact that the F59s will still live on.

They were supposed to all be retired in 2011, but have continued service on GO for more than a decade after.

I was sure that with this new order, they would be withdrawn.

Assuming "ALL" bridges can support MP40's Plus. Until all bridges can support Mp40's up, the F49 will be around for sometime.

They can be use to work the yards considering you can find 1959's loco's today doing that on a number of RR systems as will local on line service.

Still can be use on 6-8 car trains.

 

[cplchanb]

i really cant see them buying anything other than more mp40s. that would require parts services and different maintenance contracts.

would be so easy for them to add mp40s than to get a different brand.

it would be the mp54s in this case but yea it will be mpi almost certainly. no reason to jump to a different supplier just for a few years of diesel ops.

 

[reaperexpress]

Assuming "ALL" bridges can support MP40's Plus. Until all bridges can support Mp40's up, the F49 will be around for sometime.

They can be use to work the yards considering you can find 1959's loco's today doing that on a number of RR systems as will local on line service.

Still can be use on 6-8 car trains.

By "all" bridges, you mean the one bridge in St. Mary's which supposedly can't support an MP40? Apart from London-Kitchener, MP40s already run everywhere in the network.

As far as I can tell, the diesel commuter rail locomotives currently on the market at the moment are:

Siemens Charger - up to 4400 hp

Image by GranolaBranBorg via Wikimedia

MPI MPXpress - up to 5400 hp

Image by Milan Suvajac via Wikimedia

EMD F125 - up to 4560 hp

Image by Andrew via Wikimedia

Assuming that the F125 is out of the running given that nobody else other than Metrolink seems to be buying them, the MPI MPXpress does seem to have the advantege given that GO already has a tons of them, and that they already offer a 5400hp model, versus Siemens' 4400hp. I'm sure Siemens could design a more powerful Charger, but MPI has already done that R&D, so at this point they have a cost advantage.

I hope that GO will continue getting the most powerful locomotives on the market, especially given that a core premise of GO Expansion is that faster service can be provided with existing BiLevel coaches by improving the power-to-weight ratio of the consists.

 

[drum118]

By "all" bridges, you mean the one bridge in St. Mary's which supposedly can't support an MP40? Apart from London-Kitchener, MP40s already run everywhere in the network.

As far as I can tell, the diesel commuter rail locomotives currently on the market at the moment are:

Siemens Charger - up to 4400 hp

Image by GranolaBranBorg via Wikimedia

MPI MPXpress - up to 5400 hp

Image by Milan Suvajac via Wikimedia

EMD F125 - up to 4560 hp

Image by Andrew via Wikimedia

Assuming that the F125 is out of the running given that nobody else other than Metrolink seems to be buying them, the MPI MPXpress does seem to have the advantege given that GO already has a tons of them, and that they already offer a 5400hp model, versus Siemens' 4400hp. I'm sure Siemens could design a more powerful Charger, but MPI has already done that R&D, so at this point they have a cost advantage.

I hope that GO will continue getting the most powerful locomotives on the market, especially given that a core premise of GO Expansion is that faster service can be provided with existing BiLevel coaches by improving the power-to-weight ratio of the consists.

St Mary's is the current non support for MP40's, but there could be others the way ML is expanding system.

Seen the Chargers in the US a few time in operation using various types of coaches under 10 cars train, but will they pull/push 12-14 bilevels as it not my field??

I can see ML staying with the MP54 if Siemens can't offer something similar for diesels. If going EMU, then it will be Alstom vs Siemens or X

 

[smallspy]

By "all" bridges, you mean the one bridge in St. Mary's which supposedly can't support an MP40? Apart from London-Kitchener, MP40s already run everywhere in the network.

And even then, there's no reason why - if the specs were written as such - that MPI couldn't offer a lighter-weight version of their MPX line of locos for the purpose.

I mean, it would negate part of the reason why GO has spec'd the units they already are using, but it could happen.

I hope that GO will continue getting the most powerful locomotives on the market, especially given that a core premise of GO Expansion is that faster service can be provided with existing BiLevel coaches by improving the power-to-weight ratio of the consists.

The thing is that the horsepower number is almost irrelevant when it comes to commuter operations. Not totally irrelevant sure, but it's not really that important. It's handy for long-distance express runs. But the shorter station-to-station stretches? Not nearly as much.

In commuter operations, you want the trains to get up and get away from each stop quickly. That requires traction (tractive effort), not horsepower. (This is also the same reason why multiple units are so good for this, as lots of powered axles means that they have a great grip on the rail at low speed.) Depending on gearing, most passenger locos can't use their full available horsepower until give-or-take 32mph.

This is why the MP40s and MP54s in GO service are so heavily ballasted - more weight on the powered axles means that they can develop more traction. There are, of course, disadvantages to this approach, but at the time that the original specs were come up with there were no locations on the network that had any major weight limits to them.

Dan

 

[reaperexpress]

The thing is that the horsepower number is almost irrelevant when it comes to commuter operations. Not totally irrelevant sure, but it's not really that important. It's handy for long-distance express runs. But the shorter station-to-station stretches? Not nearly as much.

In commuter operations, you want the trains to get up and get away from each stop quickly. That requires traction (tractive effort), not horsepower. (This is also the same reason why multiple units are so good for this, as lots of powered axles means that they have a great grip on the rail at low speed.) Depending on gearing, most passenger locos can't use their full available horsepower until give-or-take 32mph.

This is why the MP40s and MP54s in GO service are so heavily ballasted - more weight on the powered axles means that they can develop more traction. There are, of course, disadvantages to this approach, but at the time that the original specs were come up with there were no locations on the network that had any major weight limits to them.

This was my understanding as well, and it matches my acceleration measurements of trains here in the Netherlands: EMUs accelerate faster from a standstill due to better traction, but locomotive-hauled trains can accelerate faster at high speeds since they have a higher total power output.

But then, how is ONXpress proposing to drastically cut travel times for local services, without using any EMUs? Those local services would spend very little time at high speeds where they actually make use of the greater power of an electric locomotive (8000-9000 hp, vs 4400-5400 hp for diesel).

 

[generalcanada]

This was my understanding as well, and it matches my acceleration measurements of trains here in the Netherlands: EMUs accelerate faster from a standstill due to better traction, but locomotive-hauled trains can accelerate faster at high speeds since they have a higher total power output.

But then, how is ONXpress proposing to drastically cut travel times for local services, without using any EMUs? Those local services would spend very little time at high speeds where they actually make use of the greater power of an electric locomotive (8000-9000 hp, vs 4400-5400 hp for diesel).

remember, the future plan is no longer to use 12 car trains, theese electric locomotives will be hauling 4 or 6 car consists.
how big is the difference in acceleration with an emu compared to small trains like those? while saving 3 minutes in travel time between union and scarborough would be great, the more important feature of Go Expansion is according to metrolinx, trains more often than every 5 minutes to scarborough

 

[reaperexpress]

remember, the future plan is no longer to use 12 car trains, theese electric locomotives will be hauling 4 or 6 car consists.
how big is the difference in acceleration with an emu compared to small trains like those? while saving 3 minutes in travel time between union and scarborough would be great, the more important feature of Go Expansion is according to metrolinx, trains more often than every 5 minutes to scarborough

One of the Dutch "EMU" types, the DDZ, is actually more of a loco-hauled consist since all of the traction equipment and motors are in a single coach. But that coach was built with a really complicated 3-bogie arrangement in order to increase traction - even though it only ever propels 3 or 5 other coaches.

Personally I find this third bogie to be an overcomplicated solution, given that it needs to be able to slide sideways as the train rounds bends. It seems like it would be cheaper to just install a motorised bogie in the first coach adjacent to the locomotive, with power fed directly from the locomotive. This would also provide 2 additional powered axles, but would make use of the weight of that coach, rather than dividing the weight of the locomotive among more axles.

If GO added a powered bogie to the coach adjacent to the locomotive, the trains could potentially provide EMU-like acceleration with the existing BiLevel fleet, without the cost of converting them to actual EMUs. Almost all of the electrical equipment (pantograph, transformers, control system) are already provided in the locomotive itself, and wouldn't be needed in the powered coach.

This would be similar in concept to a railroad slug, which is a sort of locomotive which doesn't have any power generation of its own, it just provides additional powered axles for an adjacent locomotive. They are often used in yards in order to improve tractive effort at low speeds.

This railroad slug has doubled the number of powered axles of this diesel-electric locomotive.

Image by Oaktree_b via Wikimedia

 

[smallspy]

This was my understanding as well, and it matches my acceleration measurements of trains here in the Netherlands: EMUs accelerate faster from a standstill due to better traction, but locomotive-hauled trains can accelerate faster at high speeds since they have a higher total power output.

This is basically how it works, yes. Below a certain speed (approximately 32mph, but also dependent on things like the final drive gearing), the traction systems simply can't put all of their power down to the rail, so they are limited by the traction available. Above that speed, the full amount of power becomes available, and so the higher the horsepower available, the faster the equipment will accelerate.

This only applies to electric transmissions, for the record.

But then, how is ONXpress proposing to drastically cut travel times for local services, without using any EMUs? Those local services would spend very little time at high speeds where they actually make use of the greater power of an electric locomotive (8000-9000 hp, vs 4400-5400 hp for diesel).

Slight of hand?

As a somewhat more serious response, there are a couple of ways of achieving this. My theory is that they will be running more-frequent-but-shorter trains. Unless they ballast the electric locos to match the current diesels - to the best of my knowledge no one operates electric locos like that right now - any electric loco currently available or projected to be available in the near-term simply doesn't have the same tractive effort because they are so much lighter. Modern AC traction motors and computerized, individual axle control have increased the amount of tractive effort that a loco can make, but they're not exclusive to electric locos - the traction motors of the MP54s are so powerful that there have been a number of instances of motors breaking pinion keys. A lighter loco would prevent that from happening, but a lighter loco would also therefore not have as much grip on the rail.

Dan

 

[rbt]

My theory is that they will be running more-frequent-but-shorter trains. Unless they ballast the electric locos to match the current diesels - to the best of my knowledge no one operates electric locos like that right now - any electric loco currently available or projected to be available in the near-term simply doesn't have the same tractive effort because they are so much lighter.

The Metrolinx spec was for a specific performance envelope (not disclosed publicly AFAIK) and that required performance is better than today but possibly not as high as we desire.

That said, they'll also have the option of running a pair of locomotives if they do keep larger trains for some runs. Electric loco's are relatively cheap (cheaper than buying 6 EMU cars).

 

[superelevation]

By "all" bridges, you mean the one bridge in St. Mary's which supposedly can't support an MP40? Apart from London-Kitchener, MP40s already run everywhere in the network.

As far as I can tell, the diesel commuter rail locomotives currently on the market at the moment are:

Siemens Charger - up to 4400 hp

Image by GranolaBranBorg via Wikimedia

MPI MPXpress - up to 5400 hp

Image by Milan Suvajac via Wikimedia

EMD F125 - up to 4560 hp

Image by Andrew via Wikimedia

Assuming that the F125 is out of the running given that nobody else other than Metrolink seems to be buying them, the MPI MPXpress does seem to have the advantege given that GO already has a tons of them, and that they already offer a 5400hp model, versus Siemens' 4400hp. I'm sure Siemens could design a more powerful Charger, but MPI has already done that R&D, so at this point they have a cost advantage.

I hope that GO will continue getting the most powerful locomotives on the market, especially given that a core premise of GO Expansion is that faster service can be provided with existing BiLevel coaches by improving the power-to-weight ratio of the consists.

To be fair Mlinx wants to run shorter consists and that's kind of the point of the order, so long trains are probably less a concern.

This was my understanding as well, and it matches my acceleration measurements of trains here in the Netherlands: EMUs accelerate faster from a standstill due to better traction, but locomotive-hauled trains can accelerate faster at high speeds since they have a higher total power output.

But then, how is ONXpress proposing to drastically cut travel times for local services, without using any EMUs? Those local services would spend very little time at high speeds where they actually make use of the greater power of an electric locomotive (8000-9000 hp, vs 4400-5400 hp for diesel).

Well, it helps that Metrolinx is putting way less infill stations in than they probably should.

 

[RU479]

This may be something trivial to most, but for me, I hope that when ONR is done with refurbishing the Series II cab cars, MX puts the reflector stripes back on the front. That makes them look even better in my opinion.

 

[RU479]

Here is this video of three of the refurbished Series II cab cars, video is not mine.