News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

cplchanb said:
name calling and making childish statements like that wont make it return any faster....
Click to expand...
I doubt the PC's have legitimate plans to restore service, nice or not. We've waited 4 years, and they're setting it up to be an election promise in 2026.
In any case I am sure that DoFo would be the first to admit he is a stupid person, but we're not much smarter for having believed the false promises here.
 
I agree that the Ontario Northland service is a bit of the bait-and-switch we frequently see in politics. As far as I can tell though, the Ford government has been a lot more effective on delivering it's transit promises than any previous Ontario government I can think of - at least since the PC governments of the 1970s.
 
To return to the BCR issue in the business case, I wonder if it might be worth it to make the Northlander seasonal for the winter months.

The question of reliability for the bus in poor weather is valid. Seasonal service would be a way to maintain the link in the winter and spare the expense of operating the train when the bus is a sufficient substitute.

The only issue is the cost of an idle fleet for part of the year, however the service might then use existing locomotives with cars acquired second hand at a low cost. Perhaps VIA stainless steel cars as they are retired.
 
C_Johnson_1995 said:
To return to the BCR issue in the business case, I wonder if it might be worth it to make the Northlander seasonal for the winter months.

The question of reliability for the bus in poor weather is valid. Seasonal service would be a way to maintain the link in the winter and spare the expense of operating the train when the bus is a sufficient substitute.

The only issue is the cost of an idle fleet for part of the year, however the service might then use existing locomotives with cars acquired second hand at a low cost. Perhaps VIA stainless steel cars as they are retired.
Click to expand...
Why would you spend all that money building stations, acquiring rolling stock and only use the train 4 months of the year? What good is a parked train? Have you seen the traffic on the 400/11 on any weekend or weekday afternoon? That alone is a good reason to have the train running.
 
C_Johnson_1995 said:
To return to the BCR issue in the business case, I wonder if it might be worth it to make the Northlander seasonal for the winter months.

The question of reliability for the bus in poor weather is valid. Seasonal service would be a way to maintain the link in the winter and spare the expense of operating the train when the bus is a sufficient substitute.

The only issue is the cost of an idle fleet for part of the year, however the service might then use existing locomotives with cars acquired second hand at a low cost. Perhaps VIA stainless steel cars as they are retired.
Click to expand...
this is where the dmu will win out. you only will need 2/3 or even a single car operation for low times and no loco required.
 
cplchanb said:
this is where the dmu will win out. you only will need 2/3 or even a single car operation for low times and no loco required.
Click to expand...

But conversely, you need to remove every one of them from service every 92 days for its regulatory inspection.

With a loco, you simply shuffle it off to the shops and grab any other one that's ready to go.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
But conversely, you need to remove every one of them from service every 92 days for its regulatory inspection.

With a loco, you simply shuffle it off to the shops and grab any other one that's ready to go.

Dan
Click to expand...
Whether dmu or loco wouldn't you have spare cars either way in the yard? Surely they won't be running with only the exact number they need to maintain service available
 
cplchanb said:
Whether dmu or loco wouldn't you have spare cars either way in the yard? Surely they won't be running with only the exact number they need to maintain service available
Click to expand...
More engines, more maintenance, more cost. Do you want the service to go bankrupt before it even gets off the ground?

There are specific reasons why DMU's are used in certain situations. This doesn't require that.
 
cplchanb said:
Whether dmu or loco wouldn't you have spare cars either way in the yard? Surely they won't be running with only the exact number they need to maintain service available
Click to expand...
Sure, but with locomotives, there is flexibility. Other than yard switchers a railway can use pretty much any locomotive on any train. ONR doesn't even use passenger locomotives equipped to provide electrical power to the train; they use power units for that. With DMUs, they are one trick ponies that are of no other use to the fleet.
 
Saw this on Facebook. Either it is some insanely rare mileage or a typo.

5E895300-E5B9-491E-8170-A14338EC39B8.jpeg
 
lenaitch said:
Odd. If was just power I would suggest perhaps a lease, but the whole consist? There is a film shoot down there ('Handmaid's Tale'). Maybe it's a rental for the shoot (if that's the case, couldn't they find something closer?)
Click to expand...

York-Durham had damage from a tornado, otherwise I'd see it as a possibility for filming. There must be a reason why Waterloo Central or Guelph Junction isn't being used either. (A shame OBRY isn't an option anymore.)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top