News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.2K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

This is indeed a problem, but can easily avoided without needing to run unnecessarily long trains.

Most importantly, the station needs to announce the size of the train before it arrives, so people can arrange themselves accordingly. Like you said, with a 6-car train, the cab car is 150 metres from the end of the platform, so it could take up to 2 minutes to walk to the nearest door if someone's waiting at the wrong end of the platform. Which is longer than the trains typically stop. Here in the Netherlands, the length of the next train is displayed on the screens, as you can see below. Dutch platforms are also 12 cars long like ours, yet it's no problem that this particular train is only 4 cars long. As in Ontario, you can see the stopping markers along the platform, so you just need to make sure you are between the <4> signs in either direction (you can see the blue <4> sign in the background).
View attachment 439566

Additionally, the accessibility car doesn't really need to always be the 5th car back from the locomotive. With a 6-car train, it could easily be the 3rd car back from the locomotive, allowing those trains to stop near the middle of the platform rather than all the way down at one end. It makes no difference to someone using the accessibility coach where in the train it is. Wherever it is, it will stop at the mini-platform at the station where you board, and also at the station where you alight. The only change required would be to install a second set of stopping markers for 6-car trains in the direction where the locomotive is leading. There are already separate stopping markers for 6-car trains while the cab car is leading.

As I mentioned in my reply to smallspy, I doubted our networks ability to do this right now. I figured putting signs at parts of the platform that say something like "Off-peak trains may be shorter and not reach this end of the platform - please walk towards the accessibility area".

I definitely agree that for 6 car consists it makes absolutely no sense to have the 5th car be the accessibility one. That's an easy fix. I can guess why they don't do that already, simpler and less error prone, but it can't be that big of a deal to change that.

Also I understand that eventually this will be moot when we get level boarding.
 
Speaking of level boarding, why don't we have that to begin with? Is there some design consideration that precludes level boarding currently?
 
Speaking of level boarding, why don't we have that to begin with? Is there some design consideration that precludes level boarding currently?

There is a clearance problem with the current car steps. It's solvable, but.... there's an old Larson comic showing a heap of cattle that is captioned something like "A stampede is something you have to organize, you don't just let it happen".

Level boarding is one more ball than ML ought to juggle while it is getting RER off the ground. It requires an extensive attention to detail, each and every station needs a survey and a modification plan. There are lots of devils in those details.

When I ride GO, I sometimes watch for signs as to whether level boarding has been roughed into each station. It's getting to a tipping point where more often than not, I can spot how a station has been prepped for eventual transition to a different platform spec. With so many stations being upgraded or replaced, the amount of this roughing-in is impressive.

So while I'm impatient with ML on other things, on this one I would counsel patience. It's coming - when the time is right. In the meanwhile, time and attention is better spent getting more track laid and getting to service on closer headways.

- Paul
 
It never happened. I thought about announcements/displays as reaperexpress suggested, but I guessed that might require a version of electronic train info communication that the network might not have right now. Can you provide any info on whether or not it is feasible to do that with the current network?

It could certainly be done very easily on a station-by-station basis today using the tools that already exist - the only change would be that the dispatching sheets would have to be shared with the Station Ops staff (or at least, some form thereof). They could then disseminate that data locally in a manual manner.

In terms of some sort of automated system to be displayed, I can't even see that being a particularly difficult thing. There is already a ton of information being sent to and from each station - this would be a pretty small addition to it. And at least to start, it would be unnecessary for the train itself to communicate that data.

Dan
 
The weekend Niagara train runs in service for 9 hours per day, similar to other trains in the network. It's a single trainset which does two daily round trips with a one-way travel time just over two hours.

And besides, a train with 2 F59s has more power than an MP40 (6400 hp vs 4000 hp) and more traction (8 powered axles vs 4). So it will definitely accelerate faster. The only downside is that there's a lower top speed (134 km/h vs 150 km/h). So you'd think that they'd put the F59 sets on a run which doesn't reach 134 km/h anyway, which is nearly every other run in the network.
The top speed on the Oakville Sub is 90 mph but on the Grimsby it's only 60 meaning that you can use a mp40 all you want on the Grimsby but the timetable speed is the limiting factor...

On most Kitchener line train rides I've been on we barely hit 75 between stations..
 
The top speed on the Oakville Sub is 90 mph but on the Grimsby it's only 60 meaning that you can use a mp40 all you want on the Grimsby but the timetable speed is the limiting factor...
The CN timetable I have (admittedly several years old) indicates that the passenger track speed is 95 mph (153 km/h) for the Oakville sub from mile 6.5 (near TMC/Willowbrook) to 36.4 (beyond Aldershot).
The track speed for the Grimsby sub is 65 mph (112 km/h) from mile 2.8 to 39.0 (Niagara Falls to Hamilton), and 30 mph from 39.0 to 43.7 (through Hamilton).

Anyway, regardless of whether the Oakville sub track speed is 90 mph or 95 mph, the Niagara trains definitely did exceed 134 km/h when they were run by 8-car MP40s.

It's not the end of the world, but it's odd that they are scheduling F59s on one of the only runs which actually exceeded the top speed of an F59. Perhaps there's a weight-related reason they are putting them on the Niagara train? They are currently doing maintenance on the Welland Canal lift bridge, maybe GO/CN is hoping that the F59s are gentler on the bridge?

On most Kitchener line train rides I've been on we barely hit 75 between stations.
The Kitchener line doesn't have any speed limits above the 83 mph top speed of an F59. The Lakeshore Lines do.
 
Last edited:
The CN timetable I have (admittedly several years old) indicates that the passenger track speed is 95 mph (153 km/h) for the Oakville sub from mile 6.5 (near TMC/Willowbrook) to 36.4 (beyond Aldershot).
The track speed for the Grimsby sub is 65 mph (112 km/h) from mile 2.8 to 39.0 (Niagara Falls to Hamilton), and 30 mph from 39.0 to 43.7 (through Hamilton).
I just double checked my current timetable and it is still 95 zone speed for the same mileage you gave. 50 mph for 36.4 to 36.9 and 30 mph for 36.9 to 39.3

On the Grimsby it's also the same as you stated with some 50-40 psos scattered around...

I'm not super familiar with the Oakville/Grimsby territory because I don't operate there...
 
Hey does anyone remember MSTS GO Transit Route? or just MSTS in general.
Yes but the trackage on there is now completely outdated...

The Kitchener line doesn't have any speed limits above the 83 mph top speed of an F59. The Lakeshore Lines do.
Actually as far as I know only the Lakeshore lines have above 90 mph speed limits... Stouffville if you count the section on the Kingston sub... even the GO sub has a maximum of around 60-80
 
Yes but the trackage on there is now completely outdated...


Actually as far as I know only the Lakeshore lines have above 90 mph speed limits... Stouffville if you count the section on the Kingston sub... even the GO sub has a maximum of around 60-80
I would think that they would be the same classification as HEP cars. So that would be 90-95MPH on the Kingston Sub.
 
It's so sad. My G. Grandfather drove an express steam train on a 225.5 miles (~ 360 km) run, which was scheduled for 4 hours, and they weren't allowed to be late! That's an average of 90 km/h and that included letting the passengers on and off, taking on water etc. He finished driving in 1952. GO and VIA can't hold a candle to the GWR 70+ years later.

AmJ
 
It's so sad. My G. Grandfather drove an express steam train on a 225.5 miles (~ 360 km) run, which was scheduled for 4 hours, and they weren't allowed to be late! That's an average of 90 km/h and that included letting the passengers on and off, taking on water etc. He finished driving in 1952. GO and VIA can't hold a candle to the GWR 70+ years later.
Fun fact: every train in the Toronto - Ottawa - Montréal triangle averages more than 90 km/h, except for the westbound Ottawa-Montréal trains which reverse out of Montréal and do a three point turn en route.

I assume your 225.5 mile run on the GWR was the Toronto - Windsor route. VIA continues to cover that route in under 4 hours today, while still stopping at most of the stations.

Capture1.PNG
 
Last edited:
Actually as far as I know only the Lakeshore lines have above 90 mph speed limits... Stouffville if you count the section on the Kingston sub... even the GO sub has a maximum of around 60-80
GO Sub is 85.

I would think that they would be the same classification as HEP cars. So that would be 90-95MPH on the Kingston Sub.
There are now 3 passenger equipment speeds on portions of the CN network.

Passenger (P) is the "standard" passenger speed allowed. This is to be followed by HEP, HEP2, Amtrak, etc. until it exceeds the equipment's top speed.
LRC is an enhanced passenger speed for specific types of equipment.
Passenger Plus (P+) is a new-ish speed limit for GO's equipment on their own lines.

It's so sad. My G. Grandfather drove an express steam train on a 225.5 miles (~ 360 km) run, which was scheduled for 4 hours, and they weren't allowed to be late! That's an average of 90 km/h and that included letting the passengers on and off, taking on water etc. He finished driving in 1952. GO and VIA can't hold a candle to the GWR 70+ years later.

AmJ
I love anecdotal stories like this.

Mainly because they show just how wrong many of these views that "things were much better back in the day!". And doesn't give any of the details - like the fact that trains back then didn't stop as often. Or that the frequency of service in many cases is actually better today.

Rose-coloured glasses are a funny thing. And so is memory - collective or otherwise.

Dan
 

Back
Top