T3G
Senior Member
I’m sure they will still be on the market when the BiLevels naturally reach the end of their life. In the meantime, nixing perfectly usable equipment strikes me as being extraordinarily shortsighted.
|
|
|
GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx
- Thread starter innsertnamehere
- Start date
tsm1072
Active Member
How do EMUs handle running on non-electrified track? We will have a huge amount of that still after electrification, even on mostly electric corridors (LW, Kitchener, LE). Operationally, EMUs will be constrained, while bilevels just need a locomotive swap.
EMUs will be beneficial once GO is running higher frequencies and has upgraded central corridors to level boarding, allowing for short dwell times.
cplchanb
Senior Member
Or as I mentioned earlier and as originally designed, convert or develop power cars to slot in between them. That way you can book end 2 cab cars and create ad hoc emus/dmus for minimal additional cost vs spending resources in selling existing fleet and buying new trainsets
APTA-2048
Senior Member
And how many of them actually need our equipment?
Just because regional rail is badly needed in the US doesn’t mean it’s actually going to happen.
And I’m sure Metrolinx has already looked at the market, and probably did more work then just quickly scanning Wikipedia, and determined that there may not be that much of an appetite for their rolling stock. And it may be worth more keeping them than what they would get selling them.
I don’t get this obsession with getting EMUs right now if everyone involved in the project is saying they can run the promised service with existing rolling stock and electric locomotives. If they can deliver what they promised, I don’t see the problem.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Time to drag out the German transit planning maxim: Organisation vor Elektronik vor Beton.
AoD
MisterF
Senior Member
These numbers show that GO Transit has 979 of the 1510 bilevel coaches currently in operation. That's 65% of the total. More than all other operators combined and it's not even close. The market for that many used coaches is non-existent.
JSF-1
Active Member
This is something I have though of recently as well, and while I don't know what MX's solution is the one I came to you was a replacement at a 1:1 ration, for every 1 trains worth of Bi-Levels retired you replace it with an EMU (factor in spares as well for what ever GO's operational spare ratio is).GO could look through their roster of Bi-Level coaches and see which ones can be retired when RER service commences and purchase EMU's to replace said coaches immediately upon the start of RER service. Ideally this could lead to the Bi-Levels disappearing in a nice half-life curve over the coming decades eventually all being replaced by EMU and DMU trains. Of course what constitutes a "trains worth" of Bi-Level coaches depends on how long RER trains will be; but let's its 6 cars since train frequency will be every 10-15 minutes thus negating the need for 12 car tains (unless we are all severely underestimating passenger demand). So for every 6 Bi-Level coaches retired from service you replace it with a 6 car EMU while the remaining Bi-Levels are slowly shifted to Diesel only operations (eg Richmond Hill) until they to are finally replaced by DMU's. Obviously will want to keep some diesel locomotives on hand for emergency uses like picking up stalled trains.
Bojaxs
Active Member
A standard bi-level coach most likely has less maintenance costs compared to a EMU coach. For every bi-level coach replaced with an EMU, GO's operating costs go up.
Everyone right now is comparing GO with Caltrain. Easy to electrify and replace your diesel fleet and coaches with EMUs when your entire network consists of a single line.
Metrolinx is in the process for currently refurbishing some of their oldest Bombardier bi-level coaches. The amount of value they're getting out of these coaches means they're in no rush to switch to EMUs.
Everyone right now is comparing GO with Caltrain. Easy to electrify and replace your diesel fleet and coaches with EMUs when your entire network consists of a single line.
Metrolinx is in the process for currently refurbishing some of their oldest Bombardier bi-level coaches. The amount of value they're getting out of these coaches means they're in no rush to switch to EMUs.
turbanplanner
Senior Member
Not a single GO Bilevel was retired due to age, the ones they don't have anymore were sold. I can't think of anything else that moves and is reliable that we still use from the 70's!
ARG1
Senior Member
I want to point out the fact that Toronto has almost 1000 bilevels. That means Toronto alone has almost double the amount of BiLevels as the rest of NA has COMBINED, and selling them all off would require all of these networks to triple in size (either system size or frequency). As such, it cannot be understated how impossible it would be to sell off even half of our stock. In terms of which cities have any major expansion plans in the works or looking at increasing their fleets, there is Caltrain (which as mentioned before is actively trying to get rid of its fleet as its electrifying the network so they're out), Metrolink - which could be a potential buyer, but probably won't make a significant dent, and I'll put a massive asterisk next to Sounder, SunRail, and Tri-Rail (but even in the best case scenario, they'll probably only buy 20 combined). Simply put, not enough NA commuter rail systems are expanding fast enough to make even a reasonable dent to our BiLevel supply to where replacing them with EMUs (without scrapping them) can even be considered.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
The desire for shorter journey times because of the superior acceleration.
MrGoose
Active Member
Is there anyway to convert the bilevels into EMUs?
ARG1
Senior Member
If you're comparing EMUs with 12 car Electric Loco Trains, then yes this is a factor. However on several occasions it has been stated that the plan is to run the electric locos with very small consists (like 2 or 3 coaches long). As such, while there might be a difference in acceleration, it really shouldn't be that big to make such a difference in travel time.
ARG1
Senior Member
The original Series I or Series II BiLevels were designed to be convertible to EMUs at some point, however (as we know) that never ended up happening, and I'm almost certain that you can't do that with any of the more recent bi-levels without a ton of expensive retrofits.
crs1026
Superstar
I am steadily amazed at posters who think that just because something is “better”, we ought to give up our careful investments and buy the “better” thing just because it’s “better”.
Here’s a thought. Why don’t these bright minds write up a proposal that shows how (at today’s interest rates) it makes financial sense to sell our used bilevels (at whatever used market value you anticipate) and finance an order of the “better” ones.
Now show that the cost of financing, building, and operate these new “better” railcars will improve on the cost of retaining our existing GO fleet and running it to life end.
If such a pitch were available, some investors and lenders would already have gladly funded the new fleet and reaped the profit.
Full disclosure - I drive my autos until the bitter end, maintaining them in proper condition the full time. The limiting factor in how old my cars get before I replace them is the availability of parts. My last car was 14 when I traded it in, and I still wonder if that was too soon. Were there “better” cars on the market all that time? Certainly. But the economics of earlier replacement were not compelling.
ML’s mandate is not to have the “best” equipment available.
- Paul
Here’s a thought. Why don’t these bright minds write up a proposal that shows how (at today’s interest rates) it makes financial sense to sell our used bilevels (at whatever used market value you anticipate) and finance an order of the “better” ones.
Now show that the cost of financing, building, and operate these new “better” railcars will improve on the cost of retaining our existing GO fleet and running it to life end.
If such a pitch were available, some investors and lenders would already have gladly funded the new fleet and reaped the profit.
Full disclosure - I drive my autos until the bitter end, maintaining them in proper condition the full time. The limiting factor in how old my cars get before I replace them is the availability of parts. My last car was 14 when I traded it in, and I still wonder if that was too soon. Were there “better” cars on the market all that time? Certainly. But the economics of earlier replacement were not compelling.
ML’s mandate is not to have the “best” equipment available.
- Paul