RU479
Active Member
Actually it’d be more around 15 cab cars.
Also GO does have the option to also refurbish the 25 UTDC Built Cab Cars, so that’d give you an extra 40 cab cars.
|
|
|
GO Transit Fleet Equipment and other
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
Also GO does have the option to also refurbish the 25 UTDC Built Cab Cars, so that’d give you an extra 40 cab cars.
RU479
Active Member
You see, what is confusing is that GO is not refurbishing all the old cab cars to lead again.
The Bombardier built Cab Cars (242-250), which are the ones being refurbished by Alstom, will supposedly be refurbished to become intermediate coach cars, only the Hawker Siddeley Cab Cars (200-214) will return as cab cars.
nfitz
Superstar
I thought only the last few of the old-style cab cars had the better crash resistance - and not the early ones? I guess they are making some structural changes as well to the 200-214 cars?
RU479
Active Member
I guess so
My theory on the matter is the old cab cars leading won’t be a long term thing
They’ll be used for the the expansion of services in 2025, and the beginning parts of electrification. But after a while will be scrapped in favour of EMUs when the system is more suited for them.
Considering the fact that 200-214 are already pretty old (they’ll be hitting the 40 years old mark by 2023), it’d make more sense to reuse them as it’d be easier to scrap them.
T3G
Senior Member
Only cab cars no. 300+ were built with the new CEM technology. These were delivered from 2016 onwards.
Cars 200-257 were all built to the same general design, the only change I know of is that the later cars which were built by Bombardier (242+) came with two windows on the front instead of 1, which the ogre-eyed Hawker-Siddeley/Can-Car Rail cars were later upgraded to match.
All of the above photos are mine.
I do not see any appreciable structural changes in the photos of the refurbished cab cars. I think their look would have to change significantly if they were to incorporate the CEM technology. I'm not sure who's photo this is, but if the owner is here and wishes for me to credit them or take the photo down than please do not hesitate to reach out.
nfitz
Superstar
If they don't have the same structural protection, isn't Metrolinx opening itself for a big lawsuit if an operator gets killed in a collision, using the old cabs?
Though we all know that safety is not a priority for the decision makers, now matter how much they make their minions tweet about it.
Though we all know that safety is not a priority for the decision makers, now matter how much they make their minions tweet about it.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Maybe they have in mind to run the old cab cars on services which are mostly grade separated so the chance of a collision with a truck is minimal.
Here's a map of level crossings
Green = Grade Separation
Orange = Level crossing (typical)
Red = Level crossing (particularly awkward)
Lakeshore West (east of Hamilton), Kitchener (east of Mount Pleasant), Stouffville (south of Unionville) and Lakeshore East all have high levels of grade separation. There are currently a group of level crossings on the Stouffville line south of Unionville, but these are planned to be eliminated, including the awkward crossing at Danforth Rd.
Last edited:
RU479
Active Member
But even then, wouldn’t they still be extremely vulnerable if god forbid they collide with another train?
The Chatsworth Train collision in 2008 highlighted the vulnerability of the older BiLevels, so there is still that risk.
RU479
Active Member
You know, from what I’ve heard, only the very last batch of old cab car, being 255-257, actually have these improved safety features. 200-254 do not.
gotransitboyhere
Active Member
Any more pics of the refurbished cabs
reaperexpress
Senior Member
All trains are vulnerable if they collide with another train. If you want to prevent injuries and fatalities from train-to-train collisions, you need to prevent collisions from happening in the first place, which is totally doable with modern signalling systems. The Chatsworth collision would have been prevented if there had been some form of Automatic Train Protection present, such as the PTC system which has since been installed on Metrolink and all other US passenger railways. ATP also would have prevented the vast majority of US train crashes which have occured over the past decade.
The GO network does not have any ATP, but GO has so far managed to keep a clean record. However, the 2012 Burlington VIA derailment was on trackage which has since been purchased by GO, and I think the same type of signalling system is in place (though they made some site-specific improvements to signal placement). That derailment was caused by significantly exceeding a switch's turnout speed, which would have been prevented by an ATP system.
ONexpress is planning to install ETCS signaling on the GO network, which includes ATP functions. That is where a real improvement of safety will occur. At this point the main obstacle is to get ETCS approved by Transport Canada, since it is based on EU regulations, not Canadian ones.
Last edited:
gotransitboyhere
Active Member
Any pics of 212?
RU479
Active Member
Can you please stop asking for pictures of the refurbished cab cars all the time? They will be posted when people take them.
RU479
Active Member
But as for the 200-214, I heard they may get some structural changes done on the inside to atleast give them some level of protection in the event of an accident.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
I would think that it's not as simple as reinforcing the plow, which was the case with the Hyundai cars. The concern is likely less with head on train collisions but more so with vehicles at level crossings. This is why in California they stopped using them as lead cars.
If they found a way to reinforce the front structure of the cab without changing the design too much that would be good to protect the operator.