[Willybru21]

Honestly I don’t see the issue with different types of engines, I’m sure GO isn’t like Metra and is open to being able to have locomotives from different manufacturers, if not then GO will one day back themselves into a corner and do something like this:

 

[crs1026]

Honestly I don’t see the issue with different types of engines, I’m sure GO isn’t like Metra and is open to being able to have locomotives from different manufacturers, if not then GO will one day back themselves into a corner and do something like this:

While I have heard many people express upset over Metra buying such rebuilds, I’m still baffled why anyone would care.
I get that six-axle units may be an odd choice and might have cost con’s (extra wheels and motors) - but these units are slated for service on mixed use corridors where all the freight units are very similar.
Presumably there was an economic analysis that said that this purchase made sense in terms of operability, maintainability, reliability, life cycle costs, etc.
I’m sure GO Transit would never consider recycling worn out freight units if they were cheaply available and matched the underlying technology and servicing/ operating expertise in their own organization and existing fleet.
Except - they already did that, and it worked for a couple of decades.
- Paul

 

[SaugeenJunction]

While I have heard many people express upset over Metra buying such rebuilds, I’m still baffled why anyone would care.
I get that six-axle units may be an odd choice and might have cost con’s (extra wheels and motors) - but these units are slated for service on mixed use corridors where all the freight units are very similar.
Presumably there was an economic analysis that said that this purchase made sense in terms of operability, maintainability, reliability, life cycle costs, etc.
I’m sure GO Transit would never consider recycling worn out freight units if they were cheaply available and matched the underlying technology and servicing/ operating expertise in their own organization and existing fleet.
Except - they already did that, and it worked for a couple of decades.
- Paul

Part of the reason I don’t want GO to get the SD70MACHs is that they only meet Tier 3 EPA standards, not Tier 4. Evidently only 2 of the 3 axels are powered, so that helps with efficiency.

There is a less logical part of me that just doesn’t like the idea of a mainline freight-looking loco working for GO, a system which is moving towards a “surface subway” model of service. That’s an emotional argument however, not a fact-based one.

 

[RS3488]

Part of the reason I don’t want GO to get the SD70MACHs is that they only meet Tier 3 EPA standards, not Tier 4. Evidently only 2 of the 3 axels are powered, so that helps with efficiency.

There is a less logical part of me that just doesn’t like the idea of a mainline freight-looking loco working for GO, a system which is moving towards a “surface subway” model of service. That’s an emotional argument however, not a fact-based one.

Considering the fact that GO at one point put their foot down and prevented the YDHR from operating freight services along the Stouffville line with a big 6 axle ALCO years ago. I am confident that GO will not get the SD70MACH or anything similar.

What I would NOT rule out however is used locos in general, such as older retired passenger locos.

 

[crs1026]

Part of the reason I don’t want GO to get the SD70MACHs is that they only meet Tier 3 EPA standards, not Tier 4. Evidently only 2 of the 3 axels are powered, so that helps with efficiency.

There is a less logical part of me that just doesn’t like the idea of a mainline freight-looking loco working for GO, a system which is moving towards a “surface subway” model of service. That’s an emotional argument however, not a fact-based one.

Tier 3 is a good reason not to buy. I am certain GO will buy Tieyr 4 or nothing.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

Part of the reason I don’t want GO to get the SD70MACHs is that they only meet Tier 3 EPA standards, not Tier 4. Evidently only 2 of the 3 axels are powered, so that helps with efficiency.

If GO's tenders specifically call for new locomotives - and it sounds like they are - than this is a non-issue.

There is a less logical part of me that just doesn’t like the idea of a mainline freight-looking loco working for GO, a system which is moving towards a “surface subway” model of service. That’s an emotional argument however, not a fact-based one.

At least you concede that it's pretty silly.

It's also less silly than not having enough locos to run the service.

Considering the fact that GO at one point put their foot down and prevented the YDHR from operating freight services along the Stouffville line with a big 6 axle ALCO years ago. I am confident that GO will not get the SD70MACH or anything similar.

I have no idea where you would have heard this. YDHR has never had a 6-axle locomotive.

Metrolinx also does not prevent CN or CP from operating 6-axle locos on their tracks.

Dan

 

[cplchanb]

Considering the fact that GO at one point put their foot down and prevented the YDHR from operating freight services along the Stouffville line with a big 6 axle ALCO years ago. I am confident that GO will not get the SD70MACH or anything similar.

What I would NOT rule out however is used locos in general, such as older retired passenger locos.

How does that make sense? Would you buy a 15 year old used car? In most cases theres a good reason why the locos are retired and its not because of surplus. Why waste the money on something that
is already near or at the end of its service life and would just cost more to keep running like the walking dead?

 

[smallspy]

How does that make sense? Would you buy a 15 year old used car? In most cases theres a good reason why the locos are retired and its not because of surplus. Why waste the money on something that
is already near or at the end of its service life and would just cost more to keep running like the walking dead?

You have a finite amount of money.

Do you buy a used car that is in good condition with the expectation that you will be replacing it, or do you buy a new one? Keeping in mind that buying the new one will cause you to not be able to eat for a month.

Dan

 

[RS3488]

I have no idea where you would have heard this. YDHR has never had a 6-axle locomotive.

My apologies, I should have worded my phrasing a bit more accurately. YDHR at one point did want to operate freight services on the Uxbridge Sub using ex CP 4500, an ALCO, however due to the combination of GO apparently not wanting the big 6 axle loco operating on the line + some falling out between upper management at YDHR, the deal fell through.

 

[RS3488]

Here is 206 facing the wrong way at Willowbrook (the cab in this image is facing east)

The image is not mine

 

[lenaitch]

My apologies, I should have worded my phrasing a bit more accurately. YDHR at one point did want to operate freight services on the Uxbridge Sub using ex CP 4500, an ALCO, however due to the combination of GO apparently not wanting the big 6 axle loco operating on the line + some falling out between upper management at YDHR, the deal fell through.

Off topic, but what customer were the YDHR planning on servicing as a heritage railway? Just curious as I had not heard that when we lived in the area back when it was getting started.

 

[cplchanb]

Here is 206 facing the wrong way at Willowbrook (the cab in this image is facing east)

The image is not mine
View attachment 446259

This would cause some people here to start foaming.

 

[smallspy]

My apologies, I should have worded my phrasing a bit more accurately. YDHR at one point did want to operate freight services on the Uxbridge Sub using ex CP 4500, an ALCO, however due to the combination of GO apparently not wanting the big 6 axle loco operating on the line + some falling out between upper management at YDHR, the deal fell through.

Sooooo........

No, that's not quite what happened, at least as I understand it.

This is going back 30-some-odd years or more, but my understanding is that there was a customer who wanted to remain to be rail-served even as/after CN pulled off of the line. They tried to work out an agreement between the three parties - CN, the customer and YDHR - and it was YDHR that nixed the whole process, as switching this customer on behalf of CN (under a for-profit basis) would have greatly complicated their charitable status.

This same situation is happening right now north of Waterloo on the Waterloo - St Jacobs. The difference there is that WSJR has formed a for-profit entity specifically to handle the switching on behalf of CN.

Dan

 

[Bordercollie]

Sooooo........

No, that's not quite what happened, at least as I understand it.

This is going back 30-some-odd years or more, but my understanding is that there was a customer who wanted to remain to be rail-served even as/after CN pulled off of the line. They tried to work out an agreement between the three parties - CN, the customer and YDHR - and it was YDHR that nixed the whole process, as switching this customer on behalf of CN (under a for-profit basis) would have greatly complicated their charitable status.

This same situation is happening right now north of Waterloo on the Waterloo - St Jacobs. The difference there is that WSJR has formed a for-profit entity specifically to handle the switching on behalf of CN.

Dan

Thinking outside of the box! For once!

 

[RS3488]

Considering that the steps at the doors of the BiLevels is what’s preventing GO from having the 610 mm ATR platforms, is there any plan in place to re-place the steps? Kind of surprised the recent ONR and Alstom refurbishments do not address these issues.