Jump to content

GO Transit


Enzo Aquarius
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 11/4/2022 at 10:27 PM, T3G said:

It has been begun since yesterday.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9257860/go-transit-strike/amp/
Since GO Trains and UPX aren’t affected, how will the TTC and the 905 systems will cope with alternative service? There could be possible temporary service increases.

Secondly, I would imagine if Ford will pass a bill to get GO bus operators back to work similar to what McGuinty did to the TTC back in April 2008 once the union gets a new contract. They’ll eventually declare GO Transit as an essential service as time goes on. 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Kumiko Oumae said:

Secondly, I would imagine if Ford will pass a bill to get GO bus operators back to work similar to what McGuinty did to the TTC back in April 2008 once the union gets a new contract. They’ll eventually declare GO Transit as an essential service as time goes on. 

I doubt that there is any impetus at this point to legislate them back to work, and there is even less interest in declaring them as an essential service as doing so would open a rather large Pandora's Box that no one seems particularly interested in going into.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Kumiko Oumae said:

It has been begun since yesterday.

https://globalnews.ca/news/9257860/go-transit-strike/amp/
Since GO Trains and UPX aren’t affected, how will the TTC and the 905 systems will cope with alternative service? There could be possible temporary service increases.

Secondly, I would imagine if Ford will pass a bill to get GO bus operators back to work similar to what McGuinty did to the TTC back in April 2008 once the union gets a new contract. They’ll eventually declare GO Transit as an essential service as time goes on. 

The problem with being an essential service is that everything goes to binding arbitration, which results in everything being split down the middle. 

So if party A is at #2 and party B is at #5 the result is 3.275 or something like that. 

In this situation I think that is exactly what the government is trying to avoid, because it costs more. 

Not sure what precedent they are trying to make here but it's not good.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the issue of Artics on GO Buses. I don't see that happening. I see either more Highway coaches or DD Buses. Whether they are e-Buses or Diesel buses, I can't say, but I don't see Artics or at least not Highway coaches. I know Neoplan makes  Highway Artics, not sure about Van Hool or Setra, but I guess they could use either NFI or Nova artics in Surban versions with Highway Coach style seats, but I can't see it happening. Simply put they would have retrofit they garages  Hoists for Artic buses, and the artics have issues in snow, just look at Ottawa's artics in the winter?

 

I see mainly DD Buses & MCI series Coachs be it E-Buses or D-buses. I dought they'll go with Prevost?

 

As for the arbitration, I can't comment on other unions or places, but for me I work for the City Of Ottawa(PWS-building operations) and the department I work for can't strike, for us or union CUPE 503 tries to work out a deal. For the things the city & union can't agree on those issues go before a arbitrator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I'd be curious to know exactly what sort of transit systems these are that have been replaced DDs with artics. They must be urban systems, surely. I don't know of any artic produced in the modern day that is suitable for commuter operations.

I guess if a big enough operator were interested, they could redesign the bus to make it more suitable for such an operation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, T3G said:

Yes, I'd be curious to know exactly what sort of transit systems these are that have been replaced DDs with artics. They must be urban systems, surely. I don't know of any artic produced in the modern day that is suitable for commuter operations.

I guess if a big enough operator were interested, they could redesign the bus to make it more suitable for such an operation.

They could remove the cargo area on the double deckers and add more seats like they do in Ottawa. Those compartments are hardly used anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shaun said:

They could remove the cargo area on the double deckers and add more seats like they do in Ottawa. Those compartments are hardly used anyway.

I'm not confident this would work on the SuperLo buses due to their reduced height.

Regardless, it's important to look at what lead to the development of the SuperLo. Go originally got DDs for capacity reasons, but the SuperLos were created by a desire to have a vehicle that would accommodate wheelchairs without a lift. Lift issues are a massive problem for high-floor buses in use in commuter service, and the ease of deploying a ramp makes a low-floor bus a winner. Around the time that GO was looking for buses with a low-floor wheelchair entrance, MCI came out with the D45CRT which hardly seems like a co-incidence. While GO chose the SuperLo, the D45CRT seems like it would be the best option for additional coach buses should GO want to go that route in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Flalex72 said:

I'm not confident this would work on the SuperLo buses due to their reduced height.

Regardless, it's important to look at what lead to the development of the SuperLo. Go originally got DDs for capacity reasons, but the SuperLos were created by a desire to have a vehicle that would accommodate wheelchairs without a lift. Lift issues are a massive problem for high-floor buses in use in commuter service, and the ease of deploying a ramp makes a low-floor bus a winner. Around the time that GO was looking for buses with a low-floor wheelchair entrance, MCI came out with the D45CRT which hardly seems like a co-incidence. While GO chose the SuperLo, the D45CRT seems like it would be the best option for additional coach buses should GO want to go that route in the future.

Metrolinx was reportedly not overly thrilled with the D45 CRT LE. They are looking for something low floor, however. What that is remains to be seen and again could be something custom like the SuperLo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, 2044 said:

Metrolinx was reportedly not overly thrilled with the D45 CRT LE. They are looking for something low floor, however. What that is remains to be seen and again could be something custom like the SuperLo.

I recall hearing the same, and I don't disagree. The design seems like a bit of a kludge, reducing the vehicle capacity regardless of the presence of a person in a wheelchair and sticking them in their own separate hole with limited visibility. With the developments since, New Flyer group wins either way but what the D45CRT proves is that GO seemingly has enough buying power to influence the market. Perhaps one of the New Flyer or Volvo companies will copy the VanHool C3045 should GO want something like that in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Different provinces and systems, but Translink has LFS Suburbans and formally Orion V suburban. 

While not a "GO Transit" so to speak, operating separately from Translink...

But anyway, in my opinion, think they should look at the DDL or another brand I'd standard highway commuter coach, like the LeMiarge.

At least with the DDL, it could be the best option for LF, except with limited routes they can serve. But could ADL build a DDL type bus minus the luggage compartment to make lije a SuperLo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, newflyerinvero said:

Different provinces and systems, but Translink has LFS Suburbans and formally Orion V suburban. 

While not a "GO Transit" so to speak, operating separately from Translink...

But anyway, in my opinion, think they should look at the DDL or another brand I'd standard highway commuter coach, like the LeMiarge.

At least with the DDL, it could be the best option for LF, except with limited routes they can serve. But could ADL build a DDL type bus minus the luggage compartment to make lije a SuperLo?

I don't think that a transit bus would fulfill the duty cycle of a highway coach, but maybe if it was half high floor? But it can't go as fast, I know this because if there are any hills they will slow down. It won't be able to maintain current schedules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Shaun said:

I don't think that a transit bus would fulfill the duty cycle of a highway coach, but maybe if it was half high floor? But it can't go as fast, I know this because if there are any hills they will slow down. It won't be able to maintain current schedules.

They can be geared to highway use. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the wiki it says the MP40s are the first locos capable of handling 12 car trainsets.

Does that mean the F59PHs can only do a max of 10 car trainsets?

Do they ever couple two MP40s or MP54s in a trainset like they do with the F59PHs in revenue service?

And how about coupling one MP40 or MP54 with one F59PH in revenue service?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Orion V said:

On the wiki it says the MP40s are the first locos capable of handling 12 car trainsets.

Does that mean the F59PHs can only do a max of 10 car trainsets?

Do they ever couple two MP40s or MP54s in a trainset like they do with the F59PHs in revenue service?

And how about coupling one MP40 or MP54 with one F59PH in revenue service?

When it was a 12 car train set it required 2x F59 locomotives.

 

It's rare but there have been some MP40/F59 combinations.

Go through this collection, there should be some of what you are looking for. 

 

https://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Orion V said:

On the wiki it says the MP40s are the first locos capable of handling 12 car trainsets.

Does that mean the F59PHs can only do a max of 10 car trainsets?

Do they ever couple two MP40s or MP54s in a trainset like they do with the F59PHs in revenue service?

And how about coupling one MP40 or MP54 with one F59PH in revenue service?

The thing that limits train lengths is the ability for the locomotive to provide enough HEP for the length of train.

 

The HEP powerplant in an F59 only has enough power to reliably provide power for 10 coaches.

 

The HEP powerplant in an MP40 is somewhat more powerful, and can reliably provide power for more than 12 coaches.

 

Can they each handle more? Sure, although there will be issues with phasing, voltage drop, and a whole lot of other things that really don't make it a worthwhile endeavour.

 

Perhaps you've forgotten, but for several years GO was operating all of the weekend rains with pairs of locos - including pairs of MP40s. That stopped when someone high up saw the fuel bills.

 

As for coupling one of each of them together? That would depend on which loco was configured to provide HEP. But keep in mind that if you're pulling a 12-car train with an MP40 and an F59, and the MP40 conks out, what are you going to do about those other two cars?

 

2 hours ago, MCIBUS said:

Question?

What's the max rtrain lehght(cars)that Go can run, that fit the GO Station Platforms?

The standard GO platform is about 335 metres (~1100 feet) long. That is long enough for a 12-car train pulled by an MP40/MP54.

 

There are a couple of locations with platforms shorter than this for various reasons. In those cases, only half of (or in some extreme cases, 1 and a half) cars will have their doors open.

 

Conversely, there are a couple of places with platforms longer than this, but they are far from the norm.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, smallspy said:

 

As for coupling one of each of them together? That would depend on which loco was configured to provide HEP. But keep in mind that if you're pulling a 12-car train with an MP40 and an F59, and the MP40 conks out, what are you going to do about those other two cars?

 

That's interesting cause about two months ago I noticed a very interesting consist on the Lakeshore Line.

 

It was MP40 632, followed by F59 558, 11 BiLevels, and classic cab car 252.

 

I heard 558 was placed on as a way to test the unit because it had recently got maintenance.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, rs3488 said:

That's interesting cause about two months ago I noticed a very interesting consist on the Lakeshore Line.

 

It was MP40 632, followed by F59 558, 11 BiLevels, and classic cab car 252.

 

I heard 558 was placed on as a way to test the unit because it had recently got maintenance.

Sure, it could be done. The F59 would have been providing the traction power. The train would have been slower than a 3-legged dog in a snowstorm, but yeah, it would move.

 

HEP though? That would have been problematic. So the MP40 would have been providing it.

 

Dan

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/8/2022 at 8:29 PM, Shaun said:

The problem with being an essential service is that everything goes to binding arbitration, which results in everything being split down the middle. 

So if party A is at #2 and party B is at #5 the result is 3.275 or something like that. 

In this situation I think that is exactly what the government is trying to avoid, because it costs more. 

Not sure what precedent they are trying to make here but it's not good.  

A variation on arbitration is "final offer selection": the arbitrator/board picks one final offer over the other, no cherry-picking between the two.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Orion V said:

Dan, that means if there's a 12 car train with 2 F59s, both would be providing HEP provide at the same time?

Last weekend there was one run I saw on a youtuber's channel like that.

I’ll defer to Dan for the final word, but synchronizing the phases on each respective genset strikes me as impractical, if not impossible.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Bus_Medic said:

I’ll defer to Dan for the final word, but synchronizing the phases on each respective genset strikes me as impractical, if not impossible.

Synchronizing diesel powered generators is actually pretty standard in backup power situations.  Example, the place I work in has three large diesel generators.  Whenever Toronto Hydro bails out, they start up and synchronize then get connected to a common buss, and a break-before-make transfer switch throws to disconnect the building from commercial power onto the generators, and it's all automatic and fast.  It's also totally standard practice in places where the utility power is provided by diesel generators like many of communities up in the territories (the per-kWh cost of this, especially the unsubsudized numbers will cause anyone who thinks rates are high in Ontario to have an epic eyepopping case of sticker shock).

Is it done in railway head end power?  I don't know.  It's something I've wondered about with how many cars Via packs into The Canadian which has multiple locomotives.  That would be a lot of load on one head end power unit if it isn't being picked up across the multiple locomotives.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...