[W. K. Lis]

If the doors close one minute before the departure time, they should change the schedule time to the time that the doors close, not when they leave the station.

 

[Richard White]

If the doors close one minute before the departure time, they should change the schedule time to the time that the doors close, not when they leave the station.

Would that not just put us right back where we started?

 

[Willybru21]

I'm pretty sure there was a fatality at Union when a person's bag got caught on a train and dragged them. So there is a precedent for passengers getting caught, and I assume this new policy is for liability purposes.

The bag was caught on a grab iron as the train was pulling into the station, didn’t have anything to do with the doors. That’s why the grab irons on all coaches were removed a few years ago:

 

[reaperexpress]

Would that not just put us right back where we started?

Yes and that's the point. To show the customers the accurate time they need to be on the platform. Behind the scenes GO can consider the departure time to be whatever they like

 

[reaperexpress]

most of their operating cost is fuel I believe, so shorter trains means less gas

https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/...22-23-Business-Plan-Final-English-Version.pdf

 

[turbanplanner]

View attachment 449509
https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/...22-23-Business-Plan-Final-English-Version.pdf

Thanks not sure where I heard that from but looks like it was wrong

 

[rbt]

If the doors close one minute before the departure time, they should change the schedule time to the time that the doors close, not when they leave the station.

Agreed. I wondered if there is some quirk in Alstom's operations contract (inherited from Bombardier) which prevented doing this: padding the running time (from the customers perspective) is the obvious change to make.

 

[Krypto98]

The bag was caught on a grab iron as the train was pulling into the station, didn’t have anything to do with the doors. That’s why the grab irons on all coaches were removed a few years ago:

View attachment 449475View attachment 449474

Noooooo now I can't ride the coach on the outside...


Actually they would probably be as bad to ride as a loaded lumber car... I've never liked riding those...

 

[Willybru21]

Noooooo now I can't ride the coach on the outside...


Actually they would probably be as bad to ride as a loaded lumber car... I've never liked riding those...

You can ride outside if you find an older coach with an unlocked upper level window, which I’ve found two of in the past month.

In all seriousness it’s a major safety concern to have those windows on the upper level unlocked, someone can easily fall out if they lean out the window to smoke or something.

 

[Krypto98]

You can ride outside if you find an older coach with an unlocked upper level window, which I’ve found two of in the past month.

In all seriousness it’s a major safety concern to have those windows on the upper level unlocked, someone can easily fall out if they lean out the window to smoke or something.

View attachment 449564

Haha yeah I've seen this too now


In all seriousness... don't ride the outside. I've been professionally trained on riding rail cars on the outside and if you don't know what you are doing you'll get hurt very badly...

 

[Richard White]

Haha yeah I've seen this too now


In all seriousness... don't ride the outside. I've been professionally trained on riding rail cars on the outside and if you don't know what you are doing you'll get hurt very badly...

Like this?

 

[crs1026]

In all seriousness... don't ride the outside. I've been professionally trained on riding rail cars on the outside and if you don't know what you are doing you'll get hurt very badly...

And even for those who are trained and experienced, it remains a very high-risk part of their jobs - roughly 10% of all rail worker fatalities are related to situations where they were riding the outside of railcars.

- Paul

 

[ARG1]

Passengers are entitled to safety at all times, even if their actions may annoy us. I personally don't see how sticking your hand in a vehicle doors is any different from doing it in an elevator door, which is something we all do. I should note that I appreciate your honesty about your views on whether passengers deserve safety at the doors.

Passengers aren't entitled to anything. At best they're entitled to efforts by Metrolinx to enforce reasonable safety standards, but at some point it falls to the passengers to not be idiots. If you want to get out of the train by walking on side of your feet, Metrolinx is under no obligation to deploy a mat under the door in the likely event you trip and hit your head on the concrete.

 

[MovingBlock]

Passengers aren't entitled to anything. At best they're entitled to efforts by Metrolinx to enforce reasonable safety standards, but at some point it falls to the passengers to not be idiots. If you want to get out of the train by walking on side of your feet, Metrolinx is under no obligation to deploy a mat under the door in the likely event you trip and hit your head on the concrete.

I understand that there is a reasonable person test for safety-related things. If passengers could reasonably believe something is safe to do, it needs to be safe.

The case I was referring to (sticking your hand in a door) is a scenario that passengers reasonably see as a safe thing to do, so Metrolinx is obligated to make it safe.

 

[ARG1]

I understand that there is a reasonable person test for safety-related things. If passengers could reasonably believe something is safe to do, it needs to be safe.

The case I was referring to (sticking your hand in a door) is a scenario that passengers reasonably see as a safe thing to do, so Metrolinx is obligated to make it safe.

Sounds like the goal should make passengers see it as unsafe and dangerous (which we should do). We shouldn't be enabling bad behaviour.