TOareaFan
Superstar
Technically you are wrong....there are clear signs as you get to platforms that you are entering a "fare paid zone".......if you are going to a train the expectation is that you have paid (or tapped) before you get to that point.
|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
steveintoronto
Superstar
Yeah, I didn't have time to fully check out that vid I posted link to, but the Sharyos (and I live right adjacent to the Bloor station) are incredibly reminiscent of 158/9s! The Sharyo's engines run a lot more....errr...sublimely, constant shop work might account for that, but it's the *shifting* cadence and rev points to shift that was unmistakable. And then I kept reading the specs stating "Hydraulic". I guess the advantage (in theory) of the ZF is locking the highest gear to the shaft (overdrive) and then perhaps the "top rated speed" for the SMART versions is a different gearbox...and thus a different "final ratio" as I was alluding to earlier. *In theory* a low loss gearbox (mechanical with option of straight-through shaft) can't be bettered. But theory and practice often don't align. And theory is only as good as sustainable reliability and low service.
This may be a great trainset, but not ready for service yet. All fine and good with caveats, until the *service agreement* is stated. "Teething problems"? Inevitable, but who pays for them? And has SMART (Sonoma) had the sense to steer clear of this gearbox arrangement?
Must run, but will dig later. Of course, the gearbox and prime might be a wonderful match, but the ancillaries are all important, piping, pumping, cooling, conditioning, de-frothing etc, etc. On the temp extreme aspect, I suspect ZFs are in reliable service in Sweden and Switzerland, but again, with what lube ratings? This Guinea Pig might fly....but we've heard that a few times too many with the "Airport Express". Who's paying for it?
I'm now intrigued to find out if SMART had the sense to stick with a Voith, a tried and trued standard. I'm also interested as to how the prime hydraulic pump is powered, straight off the ZF output shaft?
steveintoronto
Superstar
A quick note on various posters references to coupling and decoupling sections of trains: It is almost *inescapable* on some systems, like many UK trunks, that 'paths' are extremely limited, and so it is often done that trains are split and rejoined to maximize the use of one "path" on congested lines. The newer couplers make this easy, and it's done in many places. Whether Metrolinx would look so positively on it...???? There might be a litany of reg and labour issues.
Edit to Add: Really rushed, but here's an excellent discussion on it:
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=137&t=159788
This is certainly going to be a continuing topic, especially with Union being congested.
Edit to Add: Really rushed, but here's an excellent discussion on it:
http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=137&t=159788
This is certainly going to be a continuing topic, especially with Union being congested.
Last edited:
Ard9001
New Member
I don't think it's talked about in this thread, but Ajax Go is building a pedestrian bridge over the Fairall Street. Hopefully there won't be as much congestion on Fairall after the bridge is built, as many people who do park on the south lot have to cross Fairall Street which they have be carefully especially during the rush hour.
Here are some pictures taken last weekend.
This what the bridge should like after it's done by "early" next year
Here are some pictures taken last weekend.
This what the bridge should like after it's done by "early" next year
Attachments
smallspy
Senior Member
No, it is not a bus transmission - it is a train transmission. Just because ZF has chosen to brand it the same does not mean that it is.
And yes, UPX (and seemingly SMART) DMUs are testbeds of a sort. The particular transmission has been around for many, many years, but to the best of my knowledge this is a new version of it designed specifically to deal with the competitor's product.
The quick connections - any sort of automatic coupler - isn't going to get around the necessary Transport Canada regulations required when a movement is broken apart or put back together. So no, there's no point in going that route.
Frankly, a good crew can remove or add a car or two from a consist in a matter of seconds. The only thing that an automatic coupler gets you is the ability to do so remotely, without going to track level, or even on the fly (and there are sort of methods of getting around that in North American operation, too).
The time killer is going to be the various brake tests necessary after such a maneuver. And until TC decrees otherwise, that will always be the stumbling block.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Here's the way ZF feature it as the rail version:
[The technical basis is the worldwide well-proven ZF-EcoLife transmission for city buses. The Special Driveline Technology business unit at ZF has adapted the transmission for special-purpose applications in rail vehicles - in particular to suit DMU operation.]
https://www.zf.com/corporate/en_de/press/list/release/release_17428.html
Here's an interesting article on adapting it for the Class 158/9, a unit that I've mentioned a number of times as being available in various types and rebuilds for leasing, that often uses an earlier version of the Cummins engine (pre Tier 4 compliant)(the "R" version):
[...][The Class 158/159 is a common sight across the UK rail network, in passenger service with seven different (Train Operating Companies). The trains, built from 1989-1992 at BREL’s Derby Works, feature a Voith T211rz or T211rzz hydraulic transmission (and Gmeinder GM 190 final drive), but a modern mechanical gearbox is thought to offer better fuel economy on some routes, especially those with lots of stops.
Porterbrook, (Leasing, one of the UK 'ROSCO's) which owns a large number of the trains, has previously suggested that replacing the transmission with ZF technology would save “up to 10%” on fuel costs, with the only downside being more frequent maintenance overhauls, and the complexity of integrating the technology into trains more than 20 years old.
A trial is now underway on one of the South West Trains – Network Rail Alliance 158s which suggests that fuel savings will in fact be even higher than 10%.
The six to eight month trial, due to finish around July, shows savings “definitely above the 10% mark”, according to fleet director Christian Roth.
[...]
(Roth) said: “It is technically complex to replace the existing hydrostatic gearbox design with a mechanical design. There are investment costs to do that kind of change on a piece of rolling stock.”
[...]
But the ZF design is derived from HGV-type (Heavy Goods Vehicles...trucks or buses in North Am speak) applications, he said, and made suitable for railway applications. “Automatic transmission and the associated power range and technology were not available when the 158s/159s were designed originally.”
[...]
Vossloh Kiepe UK was commissioned by Porterbrook to test the feasibility of the retrofit in August 2012. Vossloh Kiepe UK’s engineering director Hugh Parker said at the time: “This trial is incredibly important to the industry as we have a legacy of regional diesel trains which will stay in service for some time to come.”]
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-Industry-Focus-/automatic-transmission
Same magazine later published a retort from a Voith principal:
[For a large part of my formal career I was the principal focus for here in the UK for Voith’s rail activities and was heavily engaged in the original delivery of the T211rz transmissions for the Class 158/159 programme. I’m therefore interested to read your article regarding the trial of the ZF automatic transmission in the Class 158 DMUs currently running on SWT’s services and to offer my perception.
First I must say that I’m sure that Christian Roth would not have said that the existing gearbox design is hydrostatic, it is in fact a hydrodynamic transmission using a torque converter rather than the ball or piston pump arrangements typical of hydrostatic units.
[...]
How Vossloh intend to make use of the six speeds of a transmission that already provides an excessively wide ratio spread fascinates me. For comparison the ZF has a spread of about 13.1:1 while the Voith road transmission derivations are around 6:1 and Transpennine Express T312 torque converter-coupling-coupling transmission comes in at 6.2:1. Surely they won’t use more than 4 or 5 of the available ratios. Such ratio spreads are fine for road adhesion levels twice that of rail, they’re equally suited to the gradients encountered in road-going applications, but rail; no.
The last and essentially the most significant issue to be mentioned, the complexity of replacing the existing transmission with a torque converter/mechanical speed shift arrangement. In 1989 this was indeed as I’ve said a difficult subject, not least due the necessity of the transmission and the engine to communicate not only with one another but also with the power pack in each car talking to one another.]
[...continues in exquisite detail...]
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/trial-of-zf-automatic-transmission-on-swt-class-158s
I've searched for SMART's actual production specs for the Sharyos. I've yet to locate them, but the tender specs, which are quite extensive and intricate, ( http://www2.sonomamarintrain.org/userfiles/file/Vehicles -Draft DMU Technical Specification 1-20-10.pdf ) (Specifically, Section 10, pdf reader page 77)
indicate either DEMU, or *all* fluid drive. I'll find that document and link it and the pertaining section later. Perhaps SMART were eventually persuaded to adopt a mechanical gearbox too, it appears unlikely from all I can gather, but I'm still looking. Might contact one of the news reporters for the local papers. They might find the *ostensible* developments here interesting. *From what I can gather*...the SMART tendering specs appear to strictly preclude later acquisitions that don't exactly match their current stock. Read: Metrolinx might be stuck with these.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Well, it was approved for use on the O-Train by TC:
[For example, there were people in Transport Canada who didn't want European couplers to be used on the O-Train. Unfortunately, if you didn't use those couplers you couldn't run them in a multiple unit. There was a fellow in Mr. Collenette's office who phoned up and raised a little hell and the Scharfenberg couplers were retained.
There is an anti-European bias in the railway culture here, just as there's an anti-North American bias in the railway culture in some countries in Europe. That is a barrier to technical transfer in a timely manner.]
http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublicat...Language=e&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1&DocId=2463074
The US FRA is looking at alternatives, albeit these are all non-starters:
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/42000/42900/42910/rr0829.pdf
Last edited:
mdrejhon
Senior Member
You're right...
...though it looks like pigs might end up flying -- possibility of non-FRA EMUs being chosen with European couplers -- so who knows?
The $13.5bn GO RER budget apparently includes $800M for the CBTC system that Metrolinx assumes is part of GO RER electrification (in the nearly 200 page report just released). It also quotes $200M if only PTC is implemented, but it looks like the whole CBTC shebang is being assumed if the whole $13.5bn plan is done. The report mentions adoption of european structural strength as a possibility rather than FRA. Not guaranteed, but mentioned multiple times in the nearly-200-page report.
Assuming Transport Canada actually decrees otherwise within 10 years, what's your opinion?
In the report, the Stadler KISS (non-FRA) is one of the considered options, and it is my understanding it has European-style couplers...
Quite a big Transport Canada ask -- but billions are being dangled (including Federal/Municipal pitch-ins, thanks to "SmartTrack enhancements"). With three levels of governments (all now with billions at stake) whose funding efficiency now depends heavily on Transport Canada flexibility, this is a whole different ballpark than Ottawa's O-Train.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
To make it even easier for some luddites to accept, they can just use APTA regs, as is done in the US. Dellner and Scharfenberg couplers are used widely, including lines like San Diego Trolley (Siemens various types, S100, S200, S70) and though temporally separated, San Diego Eastern does a freight operation at night over almost all the system. Many other examples in the US, plus Ottawa's example.
And of course, Calgary and Edmonton too, albeit their lines (being stand-alone light rail) might be provincially regulated as transit only operations. Is there going to be massive pressure on TC to at least come into step with the FRA? You betcha, and more. If this Fed regime wants to move things forward, transit, jobs and an efficient and profitable future, they'll look like fools if they don't. After all, this isn't going to cost anything, quite the contrary, it *opens opportunities up*!
Last edited:
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Any experience/knowledge about the European-style couplers, and if it could be practical to couple EMU consists just before peak, and uncouple post-peak?
Can the number of steps of the procedure be dramatically reduced, and sufficiently reliable, also waivered by Transport Canada (ala Ottawa O-Train), to be practical in daily operations? I ask as the new RER report suggests the couple/uncouple option as one of the many items in the "peak hour warchest" (on top of adding the Bombardier BiLevel trains to Union to add peak capacity).
steveintoronto
Superstar
Transport Canada, if what has been stated about their disallowing automatic couplers is true, is generations out of step with the US FRA. The lame excuse of "doing what the US does" is untrue. In fact it's ridiculous:
[WABCO N-Type[edit]
WABCO Model N-2 on a SEPTASilverliner II
The WABCO N-Type coupler was first developed for the prototype Pittsburgh Skybus system with the initial model N-1 as applied only to the three Skybus cars. The updated model N-2 with a larger 4-inch (102 mm) gathering range was first applied to the new "Airporter" rapid transit cars on the Cleveland Rapid Transit line. The model N-2 used lightweight draft gear slung below the center sill, to allow for the wide swings required to go around sharp curves. This made the N-2 unsuitable for main line railroad use so an updated version N-2-A was developed for that market. The first of these were fitted in 1968 to the UAC TurboTrain with 228 electrical contacts and the Budd Metropolitan EMUwith 138 contacts. Starting in the 1970s the N-2-A was fitted to the entire SEPTA Silverliner family of MU's, the NJT Arrow series of MU's and the Metro-North/LIRR M series of MU railcars. The N-2 was also used by the PATCO Speedline, but was replaced due to issues with the electrical contacts. Later WABCO would create a new model N-3 for the BART system with a 6-by-4-inch (152 mm × 102 mm) gathering range which required a rectangular funnel.
The WABCO N-type is sometimes referred to as the pin and cup coupler or spear coupler.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_coupling
Here's a forum post on exactly this coupler, written six years ago, but illustrating how far back modern automatic couplers for US heavy rail go :
[...][Joe, you're right on all points (except at WABCO, when these things were first developed, we called 'em "horse-cocks"!). Generically, they are WABCO N-type couplers. The N-type was first designed for the Westinghouse Electric Corporation (no connection to WABCO since 1910) "Skybus", the predecessor to the airport transits serving in Atlanta, Orlando, SFO, Pittsburgh, Houston, Denver, etc.; this was the N-1, and it was only used on the 3 prototype Skybuses that ran on the South Park (Pittsburgh) Test Track in the 1960's. However, at that time Cleveland Transit System (CTS) was designing the Airporter cars, and they needed a coupler to substitute for the WABCO K-1 that they had used on their first and second series of transit cars (WABCO had no other customers for the K-1, so it had become too expensive to produce), and the WABCO H-2-C couplers, used by NYCTA and others, were considered too heavy and too costly. So WABCO designed the N-2, with a better "gathering range" (4") than the N-1 (2-1/2") -- that is, the "funnel" is 8" wide, so the couplers can be misaligned by up to 4" in any direction, and still couple, and a new electric portion that contained 78 contacts, much more than the 22 contacts available with the H type couplers. The N-2 is a transit coupler, using a lightweight "radial" draft gear slung below the center sill, to allow for the wide swings required to go around sharp curves, so it is not suitable for mainline use. The N-2-A was designed for this purpose: a long-shank version, with 228 (!!) electric contacts for the United Aircraft TurboTrains, and a standard shank version, with "only" 138 contacts, for the NYMTA M-1 and M-1a cars. Then, at about the same time, the N-3 was designed for San Francisco's BART test cars; BART, just to be different, insisted on a 6" horizontal, 4" vertical, gathering range, so the "funnel" had to be rectangular instead of circular. The only major differences between the "transit" and "mainline" versions, besides the shank, is the material: transit couplers are cast in ductile iron, while mainline couplers are cast steel.
The N-type mechanical/pneumatic portions were very successful, but the electric portions, known as the FL type, were not. Without going into a lot of detail, they were a brilliant design, but the contacts they depended upon came from an outside supplier who could not maintain close enough tolerances, and a plastics supplier who did not realize that car-washing fluids would damage the plastic contact housings. The result was far too many contact failures, which caused PATCO to get disgusted and replace all their couplers with Ohio Brass Tomlinson couplers. Eventually, WABCO designed a new series of button-contact electric portions, with the help of Ohio Brass designs (in the messy world of industrial mergers/takeovers, Ohio Brass had been bought out by a Swedish company, which later bought a share of WABCO, and transferred all O-B manufacturing to WABCO's Spartanburg, SC plant; later still, of course, WABCO bought out the Swedes and became independent once more -- but they retained ownership of all the O-B designs and patents). So nowadays, whether a customer wants an N-type coupler or a Tomlinson, they get it from WABCO.
As you say, the N-2-A's used by SEPTA are very similar to the ones used on NYMTA M-1 through M-6 cars, but for later cars, NYMTA specified a heavier "spear" (WABCO calls them "probes"), due to a problem of bent ones caused by missed couplings; in WABCO's opinion, the problem was caused by poorly-maintained coupler centering devices which, had they been working properly, would have prevented damage by keeping the couplers properly aligned; but when a customer the size and importance of NYMTA says "jump!", the proper answer is "yessir, how high?" -- so M-7 and M-8 cars have larger-section "spears".
Filmteknik, looks can be deceiving -- the N-2-A may *look* weaker than the Tomlinson, but in fact it is a lot stronger. The original Metroliners (and, IIRC, the first series of Jersey Arrows) had a Tomlinson-style coupler (IIRC, made by Waugh) that had to be nearly twice the size and weight of the Tomlinson transit couplers (and the N-2-A) to meet the mainline strength requirements (not sure if they were spelled out by the ICC, or who, but there was no FRA in 1966-69). They were also very unreliable, and ended up being replaced by conventional knuckle couplers and jumper cables.
Roger Lewis (airbrakegeezer)]
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2350777
Here's a Youtube vid on how readily these couple, and the newest couplers on the market are a gen ahead of this even. These are trainees (pardon the pun) in the vid, so not skilled in mating speed and distance, or this would have gone a lot faster.
(Following edited for accuracy: *used* until the Deux Montagnes line was completely overhauled in the nineties and HV AC lines installed, and Bombardier MR-90s used, which used a sophisticated variation of the knuckle coupler, still researching the details, but point stands, Canada has had fully automatic couplers, including HEP and brake lines, on main-line rolling stock):
Montreal's AMT use the same trains (Nippon Sharyo built) as the South Shore, and ostensibly the same couplers, so automatic couplers *ARE* being used in Canada on mainline heavy rail corridors, Tomlinson or something much more modern (I'm still digging to confirm type):
(From the same forum quoted prior on couplers for SEPTA trains)
[...][Currently, Metra Electric and NICTD/South Shore MU cars use Tomlinsons, as did the original IC suburban MUs. The late, great Chicago, Aurora & Elgin also used Tomlinsons on their steel interurban cars (but not the wood cars). Indiana Railroad (the interurban) and Key System were also significant users back in the day.
Did a web search to find a close-up photo of a Tomlinson coupler and found a good one here:
http://www.keyrailpix.org/gallery2/v/WRM/tomlinson.jpg.html
I am taking the liberty of attaching the image in case the link doesn't work. Apologies if that causes anyone any heartburn.
NZ
[...]
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,1963593
[WABCO N-Type[edit]
WABCO Model N-2 on a SEPTASilverliner II
The WABCO N-Type coupler was first developed for the prototype Pittsburgh Skybus system with the initial model N-1 as applied only to the three Skybus cars. The updated model N-2 with a larger 4-inch (102 mm) gathering range was first applied to the new "Airporter" rapid transit cars on the Cleveland Rapid Transit line. The model N-2 used lightweight draft gear slung below the center sill, to allow for the wide swings required to go around sharp curves. This made the N-2 unsuitable for main line railroad use so an updated version N-2-A was developed for that market. The first of these were fitted in 1968 to the UAC TurboTrain with 228 electrical contacts and the Budd Metropolitan EMUwith 138 contacts. Starting in the 1970s the N-2-A was fitted to the entire SEPTA Silverliner family of MU's, the NJT Arrow series of MU's and the Metro-North/LIRR M series of MU railcars. The N-2 was also used by the PATCO Speedline, but was replaced due to issues with the electrical contacts. Later WABCO would create a new model N-3 for the BART system with a 6-by-4-inch (152 mm × 102 mm) gathering range which required a rectangular funnel.
The WABCO N-type is sometimes referred to as the pin and cup coupler or spear coupler.]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railway_coupling
Here's a forum post on exactly this coupler, written six years ago, but illustrating how far back modern automatic couplers for US heavy rail go :
[...][Joe, you're right on all points (except at WABCO, when these things were first developed, we called 'em "horse-cocks"!). Generically, they are WABCO N-type couplers. The N-type was first designed for the Westinghouse Electric Corporation (no connection to WABCO since 1910) "Skybus", the predecessor to the airport transits serving in Atlanta, Orlando, SFO, Pittsburgh, Houston, Denver, etc.; this was the N-1, and it was only used on the 3 prototype Skybuses that ran on the South Park (Pittsburgh) Test Track in the 1960's. However, at that time Cleveland Transit System (CTS) was designing the Airporter cars, and they needed a coupler to substitute for the WABCO K-1 that they had used on their first and second series of transit cars (WABCO had no other customers for the K-1, so it had become too expensive to produce), and the WABCO H-2-C couplers, used by NYCTA and others, were considered too heavy and too costly. So WABCO designed the N-2, with a better "gathering range" (4") than the N-1 (2-1/2") -- that is, the "funnel" is 8" wide, so the couplers can be misaligned by up to 4" in any direction, and still couple, and a new electric portion that contained 78 contacts, much more than the 22 contacts available with the H type couplers. The N-2 is a transit coupler, using a lightweight "radial" draft gear slung below the center sill, to allow for the wide swings required to go around sharp curves, so it is not suitable for mainline use. The N-2-A was designed for this purpose: a long-shank version, with 228 (!!) electric contacts for the United Aircraft TurboTrains, and a standard shank version, with "only" 138 contacts, for the NYMTA M-1 and M-1a cars. Then, at about the same time, the N-3 was designed for San Francisco's BART test cars; BART, just to be different, insisted on a 6" horizontal, 4" vertical, gathering range, so the "funnel" had to be rectangular instead of circular. The only major differences between the "transit" and "mainline" versions, besides the shank, is the material: transit couplers are cast in ductile iron, while mainline couplers are cast steel.
The N-type mechanical/pneumatic portions were very successful, but the electric portions, known as the FL type, were not. Without going into a lot of detail, they were a brilliant design, but the contacts they depended upon came from an outside supplier who could not maintain close enough tolerances, and a plastics supplier who did not realize that car-washing fluids would damage the plastic contact housings. The result was far too many contact failures, which caused PATCO to get disgusted and replace all their couplers with Ohio Brass Tomlinson couplers. Eventually, WABCO designed a new series of button-contact electric portions, with the help of Ohio Brass designs (in the messy world of industrial mergers/takeovers, Ohio Brass had been bought out by a Swedish company, which later bought a share of WABCO, and transferred all O-B manufacturing to WABCO's Spartanburg, SC plant; later still, of course, WABCO bought out the Swedes and became independent once more -- but they retained ownership of all the O-B designs and patents). So nowadays, whether a customer wants an N-type coupler or a Tomlinson, they get it from WABCO.
As you say, the N-2-A's used by SEPTA are very similar to the ones used on NYMTA M-1 through M-6 cars, but for later cars, NYMTA specified a heavier "spear" (WABCO calls them "probes"), due to a problem of bent ones caused by missed couplings; in WABCO's opinion, the problem was caused by poorly-maintained coupler centering devices which, had they been working properly, would have prevented damage by keeping the couplers properly aligned; but when a customer the size and importance of NYMTA says "jump!", the proper answer is "yessir, how high?" -- so M-7 and M-8 cars have larger-section "spears".
Filmteknik, looks can be deceiving -- the N-2-A may *look* weaker than the Tomlinson, but in fact it is a lot stronger. The original Metroliners (and, IIRC, the first series of Jersey Arrows) had a Tomlinson-style coupler (IIRC, made by Waugh) that had to be nearly twice the size and weight of the Tomlinson transit couplers (and the N-2-A) to meet the mainline strength requirements (not sure if they were spelled out by the ICC, or who, but there was no FRA in 1966-69). They were also very unreliable, and ended up being replaced by conventional knuckle couplers and jumper cables.
Roger Lewis (airbrakegeezer)]
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2350777
Here's a Youtube vid on how readily these couple, and the newest couplers on the market are a gen ahead of this even. These are trainees (pardon the pun) in the vid, so not skilled in mating speed and distance, or this would have gone a lot faster.
(Following edited for accuracy: *used* until the Deux Montagnes line was completely overhauled in the nineties and HV AC lines installed, and Bombardier MR-90s used, which used a sophisticated variation of the knuckle coupler, still researching the details, but point stands, Canada has had fully automatic couplers, including HEP and brake lines, on main-line rolling stock):
Montreal's AMT use the same trains (Nippon Sharyo built) as the South Shore, and ostensibly the same couplers, so automatic couplers *ARE* being used in Canada on mainline heavy rail corridors, Tomlinson or something much more modern (I'm still digging to confirm type):
(From the same forum quoted prior on couplers for SEPTA trains)
[...][Currently, Metra Electric and NICTD/South Shore MU cars use Tomlinsons, as did the original IC suburban MUs. The late, great Chicago, Aurora & Elgin also used Tomlinsons on their steel interurban cars (but not the wood cars). Indiana Railroad (the interurban) and Key System were also significant users back in the day.
Did a web search to find a close-up photo of a Tomlinson coupler and found a good one here:
http://www.keyrailpix.org/gallery2/v/WRM/tomlinson.jpg.html
I am taking the liberty of attaching the image in case the link doesn't work. Apologies if that causes anyone any heartburn.
NZ
[...]
http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,1963593
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
Sorry I didn't mean it was legal, just there are no physical barriers obstructing you from doing so.
nfitz
Superstar
At Exhibition? The platform has never been signed as a fare paid area. In fact (and you can see this in the video that Torontovibe posted) The sign at the doors to the tunnel from Track 1 to Track 4, also has a sign saying to Liberty Village. So clearly the Track 4 platform has never been a fare-paid zone, as you've always had to walk on it to get to Liberty Village. Similarly the sidewalk leading from Atlantic to Track 4, has had a sign saying Exhibition Place for years.
This might well change in the future, once Track 5 is completed; however it's not true that there are always signs saying you are entering a "fare paid zone" at platforms.
Presumably this is also true for Platform 3 at Union, which is also the accessible walkway across Yonge Street to the GO Bus terminal.
And I've certainly used platforms and then a tunnel to get to a GO bus from a walkway from the street at some GO stations.
Megaton327
Senior Member
I lived near Exhibition for a while and would often walk to Liberty via the tunnel there; if I recall correctly only the small portion of platform 1 (I believe platform 1 is actually the liberty side?) between the tunnel exit and the Liberty walkway was not signed as a fare paid zone, the portions immediately adjacent to that section had signs saying they were fare paid zones...construction, of course, might have gotten that messed up. Platform 4 (which I believe was on the Exhibition side) was a fare paid zone--you didn't actually need to walk on the platform to get to Liberty as the tunnel entrance was about 10 metres south of Platform 4.
Union platform 3 is most definitely not a fare paid zone--every other platform has ample signage stating they are, 3 has none. Additionally, it is the official accessible connection between the Bus Terminal and the York concourse. It is obvious that it is not a fare paid zone because there are both GO departure information screens and multiple Presto card readers along the length of the platform.
I don't recall ever being at any GO Train station and not seeing a sign stating you are entering a fare paid zone at platforms--or, similarly, "this is a fare paid zone, you must have POP or face a fine" signs posted every few metres along it. Maybe there are some that are different, but I've used many stations on many lines over the years and this has always been the case. If they did not post those signs, there is absolutely no way that they could ever collect a single ticket on those platforms as you can't just say "you have to pay to stand here" without actually informing people...not that I really suspect GO has ever issued tickets for being on the platform without a fare as opposed to on the train, but I doubt they'd have the rule, whatever their reasons are, without the means to enforce it. Realistically where the platform is the most direct or reasonable route from, say, a street walkway to a GO bus, I cannot imagine they would issue a ticket for walking along the platform--again, I'm really not sure why they have that rule.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,460
- Reaction score
- 9,244
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
At Mount Pleasant Station in Brampton, the tunnel itself is used to connect between different Brampton Transit bus routes. At other stations, like Brampton, the platform and tunnel is used as a pedestrian throughway, though if you hang around the platform too long, you might get yelled at by a dumb old man contracted by VIA simply to open and close the station doors.
I've only seen the GO-Po check fares on platforms at Union Station (though Platform 3 is exempt; it is designated for through passage between the headhouse and the bus terminal), or of customers immediately disembarking trains.