News   Apr 26, 2024
Sustainability Month: ReHousing — A Multiplex How-To Guide Explores What’s Possible in the Yellowbelt
 2.4K     4 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Mattamy's Soleil and Mile & Creek Condos in Milton’s Flourishing Landscape
 626     0 
News   Apr 26, 2024
Galleria on the Park Soon to Welcome First Residents of Masterplanned Community
 1.2K     1 

GO Transit Fleet Equipment and other

drum118 said:
2000-2079 will be the first batch to retire around 2026 or sooner, follow by 2100-2155 and 200-214 around 2033. 10 of the 2000's were sold in 1996 to TRE.
Click to expand...
I hope one of the burnt-orange coaches with the original-look leather seats, can be preserved in running service until its 50th anniversary, and then retired to a museum shortly after then. Perhaps coach 2056 that was exhibited at the Ex in 1978.
 
steveintoronto said:
Let's flip that over: If I were an investor considering whether to put money into Cdn rail transit or not, I'd certainly wait until Transport Canada did follow suit.

I wonder what possible reason TC can come up with to drag their rail brakes on this one?
Click to expand...

I'm sure they would be creative and stubborn - eg their position that overhead luggage racks on trains are unsafe and require closable compartment doors. They back that up on the narrow basis of Canadian rail experience (eg a single derailment of the Canadian in Sask a few years back generated all sorts of "lessons learned", as did the Aldershot derailment) and not the broader experience of North American or world wide accidents. Similarly, TC's position that UPE trains must operate bells on entering UPE stations, which really aggravates local residents, when many jurisdictions employ other means to warn those on platforms that a train is approaching.

There was a comment in the Globe this week about Trudeau's team coming to the conclusion that Canada overregulates things and they can help business by cutting back on this. Maybe there is a brief moment of opportunity to bring TC to the forefront as a classic case of this, and put some pressure on TC to change its attitude.

(Digression - a guy I know who just moved from AB to Toronto had to get Ontario plates for his pickup truck (a pretty standard passenger oriented model, not used for anything industrial). Ontario's licensing folks require that pickup trucks being transferred to Ontario registration must be *weighed* to confirm their gross weight before plates will be issued. Reading the sticker on the door, or even consulting the owner's manual, is not acceptable. He ended up in a line of garbage trucks at a transfer station, as that was the most available place to get his vehicle weighed. Yeah, we do overregulate in this country)

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Reading the sticker on the door, or even consulting the owner's manual, is not acceptable. He ended up in a line of garbage trucks at a transfer station, as that was the most available place to get his vehicle weighed. Yeah, we do overregulate in this country
Click to expand...
To be fair, that is an inter-provincial absurdity, but it certainly does show how we over-regulate some areas and leave the door wide open on others, but beyond the reason of the point for adopting UIC standards for cost and vastly greater availability, is *trade agreement!*

And it's not just USMCA (Nafta 2), it's any international agreement we've entered or are poised to enter into. CETA immediately comes to mind, albeit not fully ratified, well over 90% of the terms are already in play, including the most of the rail equipment ones, if not all (I'll check on details later).

It's *beyond* the interests of Transport Canada to not only match FRA regs on this, but to go even further in enacting the CETA ones even before full ratification.

And then while Alstom and Bombardier Transportation are still hot with assembly plants running here, start entertaining conversations both beyond and through the Infrastructure Bank. And since Siemens are very active in the US, allow their bids on Cdn projects for the reciprocity of Alstom and others who might set-up shop in Canada to do same in the US.

If the Feds aren't already on this, they're beyond incompetent. I suspect there's a massive disconnect between Trade and Industry and TC on this.
 
crs1026 said:
(Digression - a guy I know who just moved from AB to Toronto had to get Ontario plates for his pickup truck (a pretty standard passenger oriented model, not used for anything industrial). Ontario's licensing folks require that pickup trucks being transferred to Ontario registration must be *weighed* to confirm their gross weight before plates will be issued. Reading the sticker on the door, or even consulting the owner's manual, is not acceptable. He ended up in a line of garbage trucks at a transfer station, as that was the most available place to get his vehicle weighed. Yeah, we do overregulate in this country)

- Paul
Click to expand...

That seems weird - I've known people who have transferred registration of pick-ups from other provinces and have not had to do that. The one thing that might have affected your friend is if it was registered as a "commercial use" vehicle in Alberta. I don't know if they have the 'personal use' qualifier for light trucks like Ontario does (red sticker on front plate). From the Ontario government website:

If you will be registering a personal used vehicle (e.g. pick-up truck) in Ontario that was a commercial use vehicle in another province or country you will need:
  • proof of insurance
  • out of province ownership (title)
  • a complete bill of sale (if vehicle is not in your name)
  • proof of the “empty” weight of the vehicle in kg excluding the load (if not already on the ownership)
  • Safety Standards certificate
  • emissions test for heavy-duty vehicles older than the current model year (heavy- duty vehicles have a registered gross weight of more than 4,500 kg)
  • a structural safety (If the vehicle brand is “Rebuilt”, “salvage” or the equivalent. For a structural safety you must visit a vehicle inspection station.

Note: Proof of weight can be obtained from any government approved scale site such as a garbage dump, cement company, vehicle inspection station or you can get a letter from a motor vehicle dealer confirming the manufacturer's specifications for the empty weight.
 
Does the second train in this graphic look familiar to any existing vehicles out there? Source.

1543613380233.png
 
Last edited:
Streety McCarface said:
They better not go with low floor platforms, that would be a huge waste for electrification.
Click to expand...
Why is that, considering there were lowfloor DD trains in Europe back in 2012??? High or low-floor platforms have no impact on electrification.

This train is like many others either high-floor or low-floor cars that have gap plates sliding out to fill the gap between the car and platform that better than what GO has today. This deal with clearance for freight and high speed trains. They come 3-9 car trains and mu 2-3 trains of different configuration. Seen 18 car trains made up as either 2 or 3 trains. Seen one of the trains cut from the main train along the way as either its not needed or being used on a branch line. Takes a very short time to decouple or couple.
(Vienna) [Wien] Photo
8256213849_bdca4a9a70_b.jpg

8256186213_bf5affd9e0_b.jpg


Frankfurt Germany
8359592713_487302bde8_b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I hope they are not stupid enough to go with double-level trains. That would be a very poor choice for a RER type system. The increased dwell times at stations would cancel out any time savings resulting from electrification.
 
ssiguy2 said:
I hope they are not stupid enough to go with double-level trains. That would be a very poor choice for a RER type system. The increased dwell times at stations would cancel out any time savings resulting from electrification.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with using double-deck trains so long as they have enough doors to deal with the on-off traffic.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
ssiguy2 said:
I hope they are not stupid enough to go with double-level trains. That would be a very poor choice for a RER type system. The increased dwell times at stations would cancel out any time savings resulting from electrification.
Click to expand...
You need to plan a trip to France, Paris, Zürich, Berlin, Hamburg, Frankfurt, Vienna, Prague, Italy, Amsterdam, and so on to see DD trains as RER in service. All DD cars have 2 sets of doors per side as GO trains. The big different between GO and Europe is the fact Europe doesn't run 12 car trains and use diesel power locomotives. France runs DD high speed trains both within France as well to other countries as a 2 train set in various lengths. Been on them.

The problem today with GO RER, is the quality of service that has an impact on dwell time. Once you get headway down to 10-15 minutes or less, the dwell time will decrease and more so using smaller trains off peak. Can use smaller trains along with longer ones at peak time.
 
ssiguy2 said:
I hope they are not stupid enough to go with double-level trains. That would be a very poor choice for a RER type system. The increased dwell times at stations would cancel out any time savings resulting from electrification.
Click to expand...

Their plan is for double-level, yes.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top