[drum118]

I've come to believe that's not even the problem, at least not anymore, it's just the excuse now.

It's one thing when your starting up an operation and for the first few 3-4 years there after. With the two year requirement, plus additional training periods, yup that can definitely hamper things. But they've had over 6 years to get enough personal now. The problem is either poor planning, or they're just being stingy(talking about GO/the province here for they're the ones that control the purse strings). It's shouldn't be all that hard to hire a suffice number of personal well in advance of future service increases. Personal leaving does complicate things but that's why you have to go over and above your anticipated requirements. But more likely they're just using a lack of crews as an excuse to delay future service increases for budgetary reasons. It's coming right down to the wire for a sufficient number of crews just for the Milton & UPX service nevermind anything after that, least not right away. Too early to tell at this point how many they'll be able to train for service increases thereafter.

It boils down to a funding issue and how long due you want to have people on the payroll not doing what they are supposed to be doing in the first place.

If trains are going to run every 15 minutes in off peak time in 10 years, you are going to need X crews to do it and a easy number to come up with. You then look at the peak service level to see how many more trains will be on line to get X crews needed 5 days a week. You look at your retirement list to see how many could retire over the 10 year cycle to see how many crews that will have to be replace. You now know the X number of crews that will be require within 10 years to develop a hiring and training process to full fill the needs.

The unknown lost of crews is very hard to plan for and one reason for the spare board. Something I forgot is the spare board and it requires 10-15% of all crews and that must be added to X crew numbers.

Over the next 10 years, funding must be in place for the new X crews, new rolling stock, track expansion and upgrade, with the list going on to the point there is less money to cover it to the point you got to cut back on something. What becomes a hard choice with service being number 1 cut.

Lack of service has always been GO position over the years because running fees to CN and CP, but not the case for most of the system today.

 

[TOareaFan]

It boils down to a funding issue and how long due you want to have people on the payroll not doing what they are supposed to be doing in the first place.

Hiring crews too early probably does have a cost (I think that is what you are saying...sorry if i got it wrong) but what is the cost of spending $1.3B on a piece of valuable infrastructure and then not using it to its fullest?

If trains are going to run every 15 minutes in off peak time in 10 years, you are going to need X crews to do it and a easy number to come up with. You then look at the peak service level to see how many more trains will be on line to get X crews needed 5 days a week. You look at your retirement list to see how many could retire over the 10 year cycle to see how many crews that will have to be replace. You now know the X number of crews that will be require within 10 years to develop a hiring and training process to full fill the needs.

The unknown lost of crews is very hard to plan for and one reason for the spare board. Something I forgot is the spare board and it requires 10-15% of all crews and that must be added to X crew numbers.

So you agree if there was a will/desire to have more than the 29 planned train movements in place after the GTS project is finished it is something could have been planned and budgeted for? As Vegeta said, it just seems like an excuse now. (I should say, it is an excuse that is not being used by GO/ML in their communications with me....they are just saying that is all they are planning for.....period).

 

[smallspy]

It beats me why would they still use wood ties... for brand new tracks! It looks (to me) as things from the past. I understand that historically they were primary material used in railroad construction, but isn't it time to make a change to concrete? It does not make any sense--economical, environmental or aesthetic.... I found an article on how US is on its way to switching to pre-cast

As has been written either in this thread or another one of the GO threads, they have huge up-front costs for installation, and no one is really sure that there will be maintenance savings over the long run.

In the US, they are mandated if the track is to be classified at Class 6 or higher. There is no such regulation in Canada.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Geekaroo]

Pic Update from today

 

[ssiguy2]

I don't get that pic of the UPX Union station.

That doesn't look wide enough to handle 2 trains at the platform or are they one on top of the other?

 

[salsa]

I don't get that pic of the UPX Union station.

That doesn't look wide enough to handle 2 trains at the platform or are they one on top of the other?

 

[Conrad Black]

Thanks for the photo updates.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I think it will be a single platform, with the second train likely waiting just outside the station to pull in once the first train leaves.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

I think it will be a single platform, with the second train likely waiting just outside the station to pull in once the first train leaves.

Does this leave enough space for GO trains to use the remaining platform 3? I used to jump on 10-packs heading to Kitchener there, I can't see there being enough space in my mind.

 

[Markster]

My understanding is that the Union end of UPX can only hold one train at a time.
It has been discussed previously in this thread that this restriction sets the conditions of operation. Namely that trains will only be able to layover at the Pearson end, where there are two platforms. When they arrive at Union, they will off-load, load, and resume their trip back to Pearson within the 15 minute window before the next UPX train arrives.

 

[W. K. Lis]

My understanding is that the Union end of UPX can only hold one train at a time.
It has been discussed previously in this thread that this restriction sets the conditions of operation. Namely that trains will only be able to layover at the Pearson end, where there are two platforms. When they arrive at Union, they will off-load, load, and resume their trip back to Pearson within the 15 minute window before the next UPX train arrives.

And where would Tory's SmartTrack go?

 

[Markster]

I think it's far too early to discuss the finer details of how SmartTrack fits in to anything.

 

[smallspy]

Does this leave enough space for GO trains to use the remaining platform 3? I used to jump on 10-packs heading to Kitchener there, I can't see there being enough space in my mind.

It does, although they will only access track 1 from the east end.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[EnviroTO]

And where would Tory's SmartTrack go?

Nowhere. SmartTrack has less promise than Obama's high-speed rail plan did. Expect to see GO Transit RER on Unionville to Bramalea and expect to see Tory take credit for it.

 

[dowlingm]

I think it's far too early to discuss the finer details of how SmartTrack fits in to anything.

JT doesn't even want to discuss the headline stuff, never mind the finer details.