C'mon now boys and girls....

I was about to ask if UPX was the official reporting mark, as I didn't see it in the pictures, but then I found this.

What are the requirements for displaying reporting marks? GO puts just numbers (not GOT), and these trains don't seem to have 'UPX' anywhere.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
C'mon now boys and girls....

I was about to ask if UPX was the official reporting mark, as I didn't see it in the pictures, but then I found this.

What are the requirements for displaying reporting marks? GO puts just numbers (not GOT), and these trains don't seem to have 'UPX' anywhere.
Click to expand...

It can't be UPX. The "X" as a final digit indicates that the owner of that equipment is not a railroad. For instance, the American railroad CSX has a reporting mark of CSXT - as they are a railroad, they are not allowed to use CSX.

GO and VIA don't need to use reporting marks on their equipment as their logo/branding is on each piece of equipment that they own. UPX will be the same as all of the DMUs will have their logo on it.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
None of this answers the question I asked ages ago and is crucial to the very existence of the line.............what if the line doesn't break even? Metrolinx has stated the line will not be subsidized meaning it's basically on it's own financially. If the fares aren't covering it [and especially with the mounting political pressure to make the line affordable} then what happens to the service?

If it's losing money after the first year will service stop and if not how in hell will they keep the trains rolling. One could raise fares but of course that scares off potential riders and the makes the fares uncompetitive with taking a taxi for 2 people. This question should be answered as taxpayers have the right to know if their $500 million has resulted in a nothing but a line for a year during the PanAm Games and then is no more.

Sound weird but the reality is that very few train services break even and seeing this one has to what is going to happen?
 
ssiguy2 said:
None of this answers the question I asked ages ago and is crucial to the very existence of the line.............what if the line doesn't break even? Metrolinx has stated the line will not be subsidized meaning it's basically on it's own financially. If the fares aren't covering it [and especially with the mounting political pressure to make the line affordable} then what happens to the service?

If it's losing money after the first year will service stop and if not how in hell will they keep the trains rolling. One could raise fares but of course that scares off potential riders and the makes the fares uncompetitive with taking a taxi for 2 people. This question should be answered as taxpayers have the right to know if their $500 million has resulted in a nothing but a line for a year during the PanAm Games and then is no more.

Sound weird but the reality is that very few train services break even and seeing this one has to what is going to happen?
Click to expand...
When you asked that ages ago (Aug 30) my reply (actually a clarifying question) was in post 4231.
 
salsa said:
There was an interesting paragraph toward the end of the article:

“For the UP Express we have stations at Weston and at Bloor. We’re protecting for a station at Mount Dennis to connect up with the Eglinton Crosstown and we’re protecting for a station at Woodbine as well,†he said.
Click to expand...

So what is Metrolinx's vision for UPX? It sounds like we're moving toward some awkward hybrid between a premium express and a suburban rail line, with the worst of both worlds: high price and low speed. As it stands, UPX already stops at all but one station en route - hardly "express" by any standard.

I'm as much in favour of a rapid transit route to the airport as anyone else, but UPX simply cannot be it. We are limited to 4, maybe 5 trains per hour by the single-track terminus at Union, and the trains are limited to 3 cars by Pearson station. Considering that the estimates were that a premium-priced service would already approach system capacity, there's no way we could handle the demand at public transit prices.

So I'd like us to let the premium express train be a premium express train at no net cost in the background as we focus on our actual regional transit system, which is GO Transit. With the Georgetown South Project wrapping up soon, I think an achievable short-term goal would be 2 trains per hour to at least Bramalea with connecting buses (route 34?) to the airport. Rather than fighting each other about whether we should have a premium link or a public transit link, we could be moving toward having both.
 
reaperexpress said:
So what is Metrolinx's vision for UPX? It sounds like we're moving toward some awkward hybrid between a premium express and a suburban rail line, with the worst of both worlds: high price and low speed. As it stands, UPX already stops at all but one station en route - hardly "express" by any standard.

I'm as much in favour of a rapid transit route to the airport as anyone else, but UPX simply cannot be it. We are limited to 4, maybe 5 trains per hour by the single-track terminus at Union, and the trains are limited to 3 cars by Pearson station. Considering that the estimates were that a premium-priced service would already approach system capacity, there's no way we could handle the demand at public transit prices.

So I'd like us to let the premium express train be a premium express train at no net cost in the background as we focus on our actual regional transit system, which is GO Transit. With the Georgetown South Project wrapping up soon, I think an achievable short-term goal would be 2 trains per hour to at least Bramalea with connecting buses (route 34?) to the airport. Rather than fighting each other about whether we should have a premium link or a public transit link, we could be moving toward having both.
Click to expand...

What I'm hoping is that the quasi-express like nature of UPX at the moment is just to appease the locals until a full-fledged GO REX system is operating on the corridor. When that's the case, the need for those UPX trains stopping there will virtually disappear. It's just that with no midday/night/weekend service on the Kitchener line, it's a tough pill to swallow to see trains passing by every 15 minutes and not stopping. But when you'll have GO REX trains running the same frequency or less, suddenly UPX trains stopping becomes much less important.

Even with non-electrified off-peak service on the Kitchener line, that should do the trick, although I think they'd need at least Lakeshore 30 min levels in order to really fill that gap.
 
TOareaFan said:
When you asked that ages ago (Aug 30) my reply (actually a clarifying question) was in post 4231.
Click to expand...

Yes, I read that.

The thing is, this line though being built 100% with public funds is being run more as a private railway. It is expected to cover 100% of it's operational costs but Metrolinx has "forgotten" to tell Ontarians what will happen if it doesn't.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Yes, I read that.

The thing is, this line though being built 100% with public funds is being run more as a private railway. It is expected to cover 100% of it's operational costs but Metrolinx has "forgotten" to tell Ontarians what will happen if it doesn't.
Click to expand...

But when you say:

ssisguy2 said:
Metrolinx has stated the line will not be subsidized meaning it's basically on it's own financially. If the fares aren't covering it [and especially with the mounting political pressure to make the line affordable} then what happens to the service?

If it's losing money after the first year will service stop and if not how in hell will they keep the trains rolling. One could raise fares but of course that scares off potential riders and the makes the fares uncompetitive with taking a taxi for 2 people. This question should be answered as taxpayers have the right to know if their $500 million has resulted in a nothing but a line for a year during the PanAm Games and then is no more.
Click to expand...

Where have they said that? That was my question when you first posed the question. I am aware they have stated the goal is to be break even/self sustaining.....but where have they said it must be? Where have they said they will not subsidize it?

Think of it this way....when they were building the Sheppard Subway were they projecting the low ridership that they have now? Were they projecting the level of passenger subsidy it takes now? I doubt it....but they still operate the line.

So, unless you can show where ML have actually stated that the line will/can receive no subsidy and unless you can show where they have said it must break even....your question is really just a double hypothetical and probably can't be answered.
 
Last edited:
Markster said:
I believe it was at the same press conference where they announced the $30 flat fare that has been argued over so much.
Click to expand...

nfitz said:
lol!
Click to expand...


That was precisely my point ;) So much of the debate here over this service has been based on things that ML are supposed to have said...that I can find no record of them saying them...then those get extrapolated into hard, indisputable, facts that we should be demanding answers about.
 
TOareaFan said:
That was precisely my point ;) So much of the debate here over this service has been based on things that ML are supposed to have said...that I can find no record of them saying them...then those get extrapolated into hard, indisputable, facts that we should be demanding answers about.
Click to expand...

I think there was some article years ago where someone from Metrolinx mentioned a possible price.

Through the magic of the internet, random prices have become hard, indisputable, facts and people are outraged about something that hasn't been announced.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top