cplchanb
Senior Member
I guess one thing to note is that GO consists are twice the length to you would need a lot more power to propel the trains at those speeds.
or it could just be limited to speed limits due to poor track suitability.
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
or it could just be limited to speed limits due to poor track suitability.
Bojaxs
Active Member
MARC runs MP36's, which yes, would travel slower if they were pulling a 12 car consist. But back in the Dalton McGuinty days, GO transit specifically asked the manufacturer for locomotives with more powerful engines to help move the 12 car consist. They got MP40's. The newest locomotives they have are the MP54's which are even more powerful. 12 car consists should be no issue for the newest locomotives.
Yeah, my guess is the tracks are not suitable for trains to travel 125mp/h. The clip I posted, that's the track the Acela runs on.
drum118
Superstar
I have yet to see a commuter train longer than 8 cars using diesel power and haven't been to the west coast in decades.. MARC trains are 3 cars up with max being 5 and can't recall what Chicago max lengths were. Nashville are 2 cars long. Boston is 3-8 coaches
In my travel this summer, saw no system that could use any GO coaches and if so, very small numbers.
cplchanb
Senior Member
yea but most of the trains are still MP40s and they only have 400 more HP for double the weight...
i guess even for MP54s can 50% more power overcome 100% more mass to pull?
crs1026
Superstar
Because they need a thrill? Or because it gets them somewhere faster? You need to calculate how much time a GO train would save if it did accelerate further before beginning to brake. The math is not supportive of your argument. Big dollars in track and fuel costs, versus a few seconds shaved off the timings.
For balance, I am a bit surprised at how low the track speed limit is on some GO lines.... but I have seen the grid that tells engineers what speed to coast from after leaving each stop. The grid is more conservative than the track construction, and that's a deliberate calculation based on time versus fuel expense. the track isn't the limiting factor.
Not a good comparison. You are asking why we don't engineer and build highways to a higher standard. The answer - it costs a lot of money, and you can already do 120 fairly safely, if you choose to. And if your gas consumption were in the same range as a MP40, you might reconsider the choice.
- Paul
smallspy
Senior Member
GO regularly runs trains at 93mph - the maximum speed possible of the MP40s.
I believe that MARC is only allowed to operate at 100mph with their diesels.
I don't think that 7mph is of any major importance.
Dan
emphurent
Active Member
As a Kei truck enjoyer, I love that GO uses baby trucks in their yards. Even has a little GO logo.
Yes, I know it's a Might-E-Truck, so not really the same thing as a Kei truck, but the front really looks like one. It's electric too.
Yes, I know it's a Might-E-Truck, so not really the same thing as a Kei truck, but the front really looks like one. It's electric too.
Garuda
Active Member
Hello fellow Kei truck enthusiast! After living in Vancouver where they are almost normalized it's cool to see the popularity growing in the east. People I know who use them personally are so frustrated with get insurance due to RHD. Only after 25 years do they become easier to insurance.
Kei trucks with enclosed boxes would be prefect for urban deliveries but sadly I haven't seen any.
RU479
Active Member
2 GO Transit cars, 2612 and 2615, were seen on CPKC 421, heading up north to Thunder Bay, for refurbishment at Alstom. Interesting to note though that both cars were already in the two tone MX scheme.
Willybru21
Active Member
I’m pretty sure painting is being done down here for the series 7 coaches, many of them are already in the new livery
ryanandmagic
New Member
AFAIK 200-14 have been delivered back to GO. Is UTDC cabs getting the same treatment or converted to coaches?
RU479
Active Member
217 and 2205 have recently been sent to North Bay, so yes they will be next to be refurbished.
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
GO 214 leads a westbound LSW into Exhibition Station.
JSF-1
Active Member
I know this may not be this threads useaul thing but I thought you may appreciate this. I am currently working on my video for GO ALRT and made 3D models of the ALRT vehicles for use in the video (yes I am trying to upgrade my production values by using Blender models/Animations). Also for perspective ALRT platforms were to be 180m (590') in length
The bottom row is the OG model and the one we are most familiar with. These cars are 41' in length like the SRT cars but are configured into 3 car married sets with an open gangway in between and featured 2 doors per car. They could be chained together in 6, 9, and 12 car multiple units.
The middle row is the first revision which extended the train length to 59' and dropped the middle car in favour of a more traditional 2 car married pair with an open gangway and featured 4 doors per car. These trains could be chained together into 4, 6, 8, and 10 car trains (these would barely fit on the platform)
The second from last is the final revision which extended car lengths to 75' and featured 6 doors per car. By the time the project was cancelled this was the preferred version of the car. These trains could be chained together into 4 and 6 car multiple units.
Lastly at the back I included one with the TTC RT livery as at the time Metro was examining both the Etobicoke RT and DRL and both had overlap with the Provinces ALRT plans. The provinces hope was that the ERT and DRL would use ALRT spec trains so they could share the ALRT ROWs and interline service where it overlapped. (Also I must admit the TTC RT livery looks really good on the 75' variant compared to the smaller 41' variant the SRT got)
EDIT" Also all of the GO variants were to use commuter style forward/backward facing seats. The TTC variant would have almost certainly used the same transverse seating the SRT did since the TTC would be offering a subway style service (ample standing room required) while ALRT was to essentially be an S-Bahn (Commuter Comfort with Subway like frequency, standee's were to be kept to a minimum so less standing room than the TTC variant).
The bottom row is the OG model and the one we are most familiar with. These cars are 41' in length like the SRT cars but are configured into 3 car married sets with an open gangway in between and featured 2 doors per car. They could be chained together in 6, 9, and 12 car multiple units.
The middle row is the first revision which extended the train length to 59' and dropped the middle car in favour of a more traditional 2 car married pair with an open gangway and featured 4 doors per car. These trains could be chained together into 4, 6, 8, and 10 car trains (these would barely fit on the platform)
The second from last is the final revision which extended car lengths to 75' and featured 6 doors per car. By the time the project was cancelled this was the preferred version of the car. These trains could be chained together into 4 and 6 car multiple units.
Lastly at the back I included one with the TTC RT livery as at the time Metro was examining both the Etobicoke RT and DRL and both had overlap with the Provinces ALRT plans. The provinces hope was that the ERT and DRL would use ALRT spec trains so they could share the ALRT ROWs and interline service where it overlapped. (Also I must admit the TTC RT livery looks really good on the 75' variant compared to the smaller 41' variant the SRT got)
EDIT" Also all of the GO variants were to use commuter style forward/backward facing seats. The TTC variant would have almost certainly used the same transverse seating the SRT did since the TTC would be offering a subway style service (ample standing room required) while ALRT was to essentially be an S-Bahn (Commuter Comfort with Subway like frequency, standee's were to be kept to a minimum so less standing room than the TTC variant).
Last edited:
Willybru21
Active Member
Great Job! By any chance have you seen my GO ALRT maps? They might be useful for your video. Or this one from back then: