Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Actually since we're on the subject, here's a great summary of where funding for recent projects have come from. With the exception of the scarborough subway extention (which I dont think anyone thought the feds would fund, and the only reason they did so is due the late finance minister Flaherty) I think its safe to say that most of the feds funding for transit is stimulus related.

Funding Sources

Nfitz I could agree with you on everything you said up till the point about the Harper govt, and stepping up to the plate for transit fnding. Those two things are mutually exclusive.

I was listening to Harper's speech at Flahery's funeral on Wednesday, and he was talking about how they made a deliberate decision to run a deficit, using the stimulus program. However, Harper made it clear than anything they did was always intended as a one-off, not as on-going project. (he was sounded quite proud of this!). In other words, whatever happened under stimulus program will not be repeated while Harper is PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was listening to Harper's speech at Flahery's funeral on Wednesday, and he was talking about how they made a deliberate decision to run a deficit, using the stimulus program. However, Harper made it clear than anything they did was always intended as a one-off, not as on-going project. (he was sounded quite proud of this!). In other words, whatever happened under stimulus program will not be repeated while Harper is PM.

Fortunately most of the the federal funding for transit in Toronto hasn't been under the stimulus programme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately most of the the federal funding for transit in Toronto hasn't been under the stimulus programme.

Yes, it's been a series of one-off announcements....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a train, but rather a railcar/DMU/autorail/call-it-what-you-will-but-not-a-train, as it is not intended to be tracted by a locomotive.

I am currently writing a paper on FRA-compliant DMUs and am interested in that picture. The renderings on Nippon Sharyo website are horrible. Is it yours?

Here is a recent picture of a SMART train, UPX will be similar:

mS1LgFG.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a train, but rather a railcar/DMU/autorail/call-it-what-you-will-but-not-a-train, as it is not intended to be tracted by a locomotive.

Actually, by current FRA/TC regulations, it is most definitely a locomotive. Much as RDCs are.

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a train, but rather a railcar/DMU/autorail/call-it-what-you-will-but-not-a-train, as it is not intended to be tracted by a locomotive.

I am currently writing a paper on FRA-compliant DMUs and am interested in that picture. The renderings on Nippon Sharyo website are horrible. Is it yours?

Photographs can be found in the SMART General Manager's Report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a train, but rather a railcar/DMU/autorail/call-it-what-you-will-but-not-a-train, as it is not intended to be tracted by a locomotive.

It may not fall under the literal definition of a train, but it certainly falls under the common and legal definitions. Even the dictionaries don't agree on a literal definition:

Google: "a series of railroad cars moved as a unit by a locomotive or by integral motors." So it depends if you call a DMU a series of cars or one car. I think most people could agree it is a series of cars.

Dictionary.com: "a self-propelled, connected group of rolling stock." Comes back to the is a DMU more than one car or not.

Merriam-Webster: "a connected line of railroad cars with or without a locomotive." Back to the cars question again, but the locomotive doesn't matter.

Cambridge Dictionary: "a railroad engine and the connected, wheeled containers it pulls along the tracks in carrying goods or people." By this definition the DMU probably isn't a train.

Oxford: "a series of connected railway carriages or wagons moved by a locomotive or by integral motors." Similar to the Google one. Integral Motors makes it clear that MUs were thought of when the definition was made.

In terms of common definitions, Wikipedia says "A train is a form of rail transport consisting of a series of vehicles propelled along a rail track to transport cargo or passengers. Motive power is provided by a separate locomotive or individual motors in self-propelled multiple units." This definitely includes DMUs. A multiple unit is often referred to as a Trainset, implying that it is a semipermanently coupled train (but a trainset doesn't have to be powered, see Cascades' Talgos).

The only thing that makes that picture not a train is that there is only one car, in which case I would probably call it a "train car," until it is coupled to the rest of the unit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may not fall under the literal definition of a train, but it certainly falls under the common and legal definitions. Even the dictionaries don't agree on a literal definition:

Google: "a series of railroad cars moved as a unit by a locomotive or by integral motors." So it depends if you call a DMU a series of cars or one car. I think most people could agree it is a series of cars.

Dictionary.com: "a self-propelled, connected group of rolling stock." Comes back to the is a DMU more than one car or not.

Merriam-Webster: "a connected line of railroad cars with or without a locomotive." Back to the cars question again, but the locomotive doesn't matter.

Cambridge Dictionary: "a railroad engine and the connected, wheeled containers it pulls along the tracks in carrying goods or people." By this definition the DMU probably isn't a train.

Oxford: "a series of connected railway carriages or wagons moved by a locomotive or by integral motors." Similar to the Google one. Integral Motors makes it clear that MUs were thought of when the definition was made.

In terms of common definitions, Wikipedia says "A train is a form of rail transport consisting of a series of vehicles propelled along a rail track to transport cargo or passengers. Motive power is provided by a separate locomotive or individual motors in self-propelled multiple units." This definitely includes DMUs. A multiple unit is often referred to as a Trainset, implying that it is a semipermanently coupled train (but a trainset doesn't have to be powered, see Cascades' Talgos).

The only thing that makes that picture not a train is that there is only one car, in which case I would probably call it a "train car," until it is coupled to the rest of the unit.

The FRA and Transport Canada don't worry about things like dictionaries. They have made up more precise meanings for these things.

From the current CROR:

TRAIN: A train:

(a) is an engine which is intended to operate at speeds greater than 15 MPH;

i. without cars; or

ii. with cars and equipped with a TIBS or remote control locomotive at the rear; or

iii. with cars including a caboose occupied by a crew member; or

iv. with cars in passenger service,

(B) is a track unit when so designated.

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FRA and Transport Canada don't worry about things like dictionaries.

Fortunately this forum isn't regulated by Transport Canada.

Metrolinx refers to it them as trains. Common usage is train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FRA and Transport Canada don't worry about things like dictionaries. They have made up more precise meanings for these things.

Well of course, that point had already been made, and I mentioned that the legal definition may differ from the literal (dictionary) definition. I wouldn't say the CROR universally defines what a train is and isn't, only that it defines a category called "train" for the purpose of regulating the operation of Canadian railways. I wouldn't call a hy-rail truck a train, but for the purpose of regulating a railway it makes sense that it fall into the same legal definition when it's on a railway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Not a train, but rather a railcar/DMU/autorail/call-it-what-you-will-but-not-a-train, as it is not intended to be tracted by a locomotive.

I am currently writing a paper on FRA-compliant DMUs and am interested in that picture. The renderings on Nippon Sharyo website are horrible. Is it yours?

Railcar would have worked. I was going to say "SMART car" but you know...

Picture is from a website called Petaluma360.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Out of curiosity, I wonder if there is any evidence that if the Union Pearson Express trains are made - with foreign components, even though that they are built in the USA.

I remembered when Vancouver's Canada Line trains were built by Rotem in South Korea (along with Los Angeles' Metrolink Bi-Level trains). Any idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My actual guess is carbodies are assembled in Japan with finishing completed in the US, since SMART units are still overseas (but UP needs theirs prior to SMART needing them).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trimet have purchased 2 of SMART's options (similar to Metrolinx' purchase of 18) in order to cover expected growth needs on WES. I think that constitutes good news for Metrolinx since the more agencies that buy, the better the commitment from Nippon Sharyo to the platform plus future resale potential - compare to Colorado Railcar who made three DMU variants and sold to one agency each before collapsing. It will be interesting to see if MBTA goes there too for Fairmount and Track 61 - would mean a longer production run giving more time for Metrolinx to decide on committing a 4th car per set before the line runs out of other orders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trimet have purchased 2 of SMART's options (similar to Metrolinx' purchase of 18) in order to cover expected growth needs on WES. I think that constitutes good news for Metrolinx since the more agencies that buy, the better the commitment from Nippon Sharyo to the platform plus future resale potential - compare to Colorado Railcar who made three DMU variants and sold to one agency each before collapsing. It will be interesting to see if MBTA goes there too for Fairmount and Track 61 - would mean a longer production run giving more time for Metrolinx to decide on committing a 4th car per set before the line runs out of other orders.

The Trimet WES presentation also said MBTA has already committed to 18 units - can anybody elaborate?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trimet WES presentation also said MBTA has already committed to 18 units - can anybody elaborate?

I hadn't even heard that they were interested in buying any - and I can't find anything in any Massachusetts State budget documents that reference the purchase.

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting re MBTA - maybe they paid for the options out of petty cash so that if $ appeared to exercise them they could have certainty of price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And it's 19 litres in displacement too. This engine's rated at 567kW and can put out 3,084 Nm of torque. How's that for trackside motoring?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where the heck did that GO logo on the rendering come from? Something that the site did on their own, and if so, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Where the heck did that GO logo on the rendering come from? Something that the site did on their own, and if so, why?

I would think the site did it, because that is an old rendering at that.

A:

20121122162132%21Toronto_ARL.jpg

B:

20121130162734%21Toronto_ARL.jpg

C:

Toronto_ARL.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where the heck did that GO logo on the rendering come from? Something that the site did on their own, and if so, why?

An older version of the rendering of the DMU cars simply added the GO logo to the front of the units dressed in the light green. This was before the official launch of UPX, and the presentation of their colours/paint scheme.

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...