GO Transit Fleet Equipment and other

[smallspy]

A friend who is just back from some time in California tells me that MetrolinK has put a fair number of the GO design bilevels in storage.....replaced by newer equipment.

Amazing to think that they have fulfilled a life cycle.

- Paul

The reason why Metrolink has pulled those cars out of service is entirely political. They aren't as "safe" (with extra emphasis on the air quotations) as the newer cars.

Of course rather than disposing of the equipment, they've put them into storage to hopefully reactivate and use again at some unknown point in the future.

Those were designed, and the production set up, when CCF was owned by Hawker Siddeley. Like the European Flexities, Bombardier does fine when they have an acquired design in its original plants, and management has nothing to do but sit back and cash the cheques.

The new CEM BiLevel cars have virtually no parts commonality with the old cars. Literally, the windows are the parts that interchangeable between the cars - and that's only with the cars built since 2005.

I don't follow who is getting bi-level, but the last US car I saw was a SunRail in 2014 when it came south passing the West Toronto Diamond construction site I was on at the time and got a so so photo as I wasn't expecting it.

And SunRail received their last car in 2015 or so. Sounder is receiving a bunch of new cab cars in the next couple of months.

What was built in the past is one thing, but what will be built in the coming year is another thing since CRRC is here now and a few more coming.

Maybe....but maybe not. There have not been nearly as many as commuter train startups in the past couple of years as there had been in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

Also, I guess you hadn't heard about the big kerfuffle in Chicago with their new subway car order. Suffice to say that things are never as suffice as they seem.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[jje1000]

A nice summary of ongoing GO projects/new equipment from the Toronto Sun nonetheless:

At 50, GO Transit has big plans ahead

Greg Percy, GO’s chief operating officer, said in addition to soon having “services on off-peaks and weekends,” major plans will involve GO and municipalities in all directions.

“You’re going to get a lot more trains,” he said.

Since March 2007, 284 of the 528 bi-level Canadian-built coaches ordered from Bombardier have arrived, with the rest promised by late 2020. Costing $8.51 million each, 16 U.S.-built MP40 diesel-electric locomotives are due by 2019.

Alternative bus fuel sources are being considered and, with the success of 22 double-decker buses, 253 more were ordered from Scotland in 2015, for almost $1 million each.

Meanwhile, the largest structural expansion continues at the City of Toronto’s 90-year-old Union Station, where GO’s new York Concourse was opened two years ago.

Now in its 7th year, the $800-million project — with $172 million and $164 million contributed from the Ontario and federal governments, respectively — should reach “substantial completion in 2018,” city spokesman Eric McGuey said, adding Union’s revitalization “is one of the most complicated construction projects in the country.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2017/05/22/at-50-go-transit-has-big-plans-ahead

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Saw the following tweet from John Jeffery:

• "GO 667 has left Motive Power Industries in Boise, Idaho. Robert Boes photo and information" (with picture attached)

He goes on to say that the model number is "MP40PHT-T4AC" (tweet).

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

ICYMI, UT has a front page sit-down with Phil Verster.

The whole thing is interesting in its entirety, and you should read it, but here's a segment related to fleet:

One of the key questions for RER is the trains themselves. Today, GO operates an exclusive fleet of diesel-locomotive-hauled bilevel cars. Most international regional rail operations use electric multiple units (EMUs), owing to their rapid acceleration and braking, which shortens journeys and enables trains to run more closely together. Verster explained that EMUs also offer far more flexibility in terms of shortening trains to match capacity to demand in off-peak periods. There are significant performance differences between EMUs and the current bilevel trains, even if the latter are hauled by electric locomotives. Mixing trains that have different performance adds complexity to signalling and infrastructure planning. Infrastructure designed for vehicles with limited performance (freight trains are also a problem in this regard) is considerably more expensive than infrastructure designed exclusively for high-performance EMUs. However, as Verster explained, it would likely be cost-prohibitive to entirely replace GO’s enormous fleet of 1,000 bilevel cars. He did leave open the possibility of a different approach, since the final decision on the fleet composition will be in the hands of Metrolinx’s private partner.

There remain some other significant questions that the private consortium will need to answer. The bilevels have much lower door levels than standard international regional rail trains. Now that platforms are being raised to match the bilevel floors, will GO RER use unique, custom EMUs to match these floor levels? Will some of the platforms be further raised when they arrive? Or will non-level boarding be accepted on the EMUs, at least temporarily?

 

[cplchanb]

ICYMI, UT has a front page sit-down with Phil Verster.

The whole thing is interesting in its entirety, and you should read it, but here's a segment related to fleet:

The sentence before the bolded is also important to note too.... if thats the case might as well consider building an exclusive parallel line from scratch where possible. obviously easier said than done but
just gives something to think about esp on lines where CN has us by the balls

 

[44 North]

Do they have a shortlist of private partners yet, or any idea of who they might choose. Maybe knowing this could shed some light on the direction they're headed.

 

[steveintoronto]

Do they have a shortlist of private partners yet, or any idea of who they might choose. Maybe knowing this could shed some light on the direction they're headed.

It's certainly open to guesses. I was just reading Verster's bio on-line, he's ex-Bombardier, but of course, that's their European Rail Division, headquartered in Germany, but with regional offices in the UK. But BBD have an obvious...mmm...mark on their record, and not a lot of loose cash to invest.

However, CRRC are in big-time the new Melbourne Metro, and assembling some stock in Oz. They're part of a consortium to partner own, run , and stock the operation. CRRC want further into Canada. They're already here, doing freight wagons in NB. They want more, and have virtually bottomless pockets. Alstom would also be a candidate, as would Siemens and others.

I've advocated what Verster is now going on record as stating, but even being my position, it's been resisted by so many Ontarians, I'm shocked to see it come to this stage of proposal.

It's simple really: You want it built? Then P3 or PFI is the way to do it, and do it fast, with controlled costs. The other way to do it? Like Crossrail: Two levels of government in equally as shareholders of a limited company compliant with all corporate law.

I don't see the latter happening in Ontario...

I just hope we get even more details out of Verster. He certainly has the background to state what he has so far...

 

[Allandale25]

I saw this posted today by John Jeffrey:

GO TRANSIT NEWS The first of GO’s model MP40PHT-T4AC units built by Motive Power Industries is enroute to Pueblo, Colorado (as MPEX 667) for design qualification testing and vehicle dynamics testing. GO 668 to 682 will arrive in 2018. These units are 5400 horsepower twin- engine Tier 4 locomotives with AC traction, powered by twin QSK-60 2700 HP engines which generate 5400 horsepower combined. 4000 horsepower is used for traction, the balance for HEP and auxiliary locomotive power. The twin engines can be used individually to provide 2000 traction horsepower in economy mode. Both engines have alternators that feed a common bus, which supplies power to all four traction motors. John Jeffrey - Sr. CRO GO/TTC Editor www.canadianrailwayobservations.com

Doesn't provide a more specific timeframe.

Saw the following tweet from John Jeffery:

• "GO 667 has left Motive Power Industries in Boise, Idaho. Robert Boes photo and information" (with picture attached)

He goes on to say that the model number is "MP40PHT-T4AC" (tweet).

 

[M636RF]

As far a EMUs go, does anyone know if they've officially ruled out buying trains that comply with FRA crash regulations? I heard that New Jersey Transit is looking to replace older, single level, EMUs with new bilevel models. Bombardier may potentially offer a version of their Multilevel Car. Would it be that difficult to fit this traction equipment into a modified bilevel car, and thus solve the platform height and mixed operations problems? Now yes, European designs are lighter and have faster acceleration, but refitting large portions of network to accommodate them would take time, and come at a higher price tag.

I saw this posted today by John Jeffrey:

Doesn't provide a more specific timeframe.

I thought 667 had been at Pueblo since before Christmas.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

As far a EMUs go, does anyone know if they've officially ruled out buying trains that comply with FRA crash regulations?

I'm' not sure how US regulations would affect a railroad only operating in Canada I think it's up to the Canadain Transportation board and probably also CN and CP.

 

[M636RF]

I'm' not sure how US regulations would affect a railroad only operating in Canada I think it's up to the Canadain Transportation board and probably also CN and CP.

I believe that Transport Canada would need to give them some sort of a waiver to operate European Designs. The question is whether significant changes like PTC or separation from FRA compliant trains would be required.

 

[steveintoronto]

As far a EMUs go, does anyone know if they've officially ruled out buying trains that comply with FRA crash regulations? I heard that New Jersey Transit is looking to replace older, single level, EMUs with new bilevel models.

Synchronicity that this comes up in this string, being discussed in the Platform Height and CBTC strings too.

Not sure what NJT is doing, but I've been searching for the TC regs on EMUs, can't find any. They may exist, but just not showing. It might have to come down to interpretation on TC's part....not something that should be left to bureaucrats in my opinion, unless there's a clear way to appeal to a higher level, like the Ministry.

Here's all I can find:

Locomotives Design Requirements (Part II)
10. General Design
[...]
10.2
[...]
(b) Passenger Locomotives

After January 1, 2015 new and remanufactured locomotives travelling at speeds exceeding 25 MPH (40 KPH) shall be designed and constructed as a minimum in accordance with the latest revision of the “American Public Transit Association” (APTA), the Association of American Railroad Manual of Standards and Recommended Practices or equivalent standard.

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/rules-tco76-338.htm

In the absence of finding any specific regs for EMUs, this would have to stand. And this is ambiguous, to say the least. Is that APTA *and* FRA/AAR, or APTA *or* FRA/AAR?

I'll keep searching. Even if specific regs are found on EMUs, the only ones I'm aware of in Canada are the Ms on the Deux Montagnes line, and they were required to have buckeye couplers as per FRA regs (followed by TC) at the time (twenty odd years ago) when they entered service.

If the TC specs don't change, it's time to force them to. That might just be a case of the Ministry dictating it (via the Governor in Council)(Effectively the Minister) if TC don't grant 'exceptions' ("waivers" in FRA lingo) to do so.

Btw: Under the FRA, a powered EMU (not an unpowered trailer) is considered a "locomotive".

 

[smallspy]

As far a EMUs go, does anyone know if they've officially ruled out buying trains that comply with FRA crash regulations? I heard that New Jersey Transit is looking to replace older, single level, EMUs with new bilevel models. Bombardier may potentially offer a version of their Multilevel Car. Would it be that difficult to fit this traction equipment into a modified bilevel car, and thus solve the platform height and mixed operations problems? Now yes, European designs are lighter and have faster acceleration, but refitting large portions of network to accommodate them would take time, and come at a higher price tag.

NJT has been.....well.....dreaming may not be the right word here, but at least lusting for a self-propelled version of the MultiLevel cars for about 10 years now. And yet, year after year, nothing ends up happening.

It has devolved into the "I'll believe it when I see it" phase of product development at this point.

I thought 667 had been at Pueblo since before Christmas.

Indeed it has. I haven't heard any updates on it since then, although 647 was recently returned back to service again.

For the record, any piece of self-propelled equipment that isn't covered under the classification of "track unit" - speeders, hi-rail trucks and small MOW equipment - is considered a locomotive.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Allandale25]

668 is on its way to Toronto. Spotted here on Feb 24rd at Cheyenne Deport Museum in Cheyenne, WY. (Note: it's not a EMD F59 as noted in the description)

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Update on 668 (or another one of GO's new uber-powerful locomotives). It is currently being moved out of CN's Aldershot yard. Just took a VIA Train past it.