GO Transit Fleet Equipment and other

[dowlingm]

And you can find those who would say buying used locomotives instead of making new ones is a 'Green" option.
The calculations these days about what you "should" buy are quite politically complex.

For me the things which militates against rebuilds of locomotives and coaches are safety and accessibility - the VIA 92 crash pointed up the difference in cab safety standards between the F40s design period and now - and Metra has a lot of F40s. If the SD70MACs (now MACHs) have a cab which is reasonably current vs current FRA cab standards, then a Tier 3 rebuild is a reasonable choice which gets you most of the environmental benefit and retains the carbon previously expended in the frame, trucks etc.

It can't give you 80mph on the Oakville Sub, but that isn't what it was purchased for, so good luck to them.

 

[crs1026]

Different agencies have different needs and financial realities

Metra: Remanufactured Progress Rail power - Railway Age

Chicago’s Metra has awarded a $70.9 million contract to Progress Rail for 15 remanufactured and repurposed diesel-electric locomotives to modernize its ageing fleet. The contract includes options for up to 27 additional units, which will be purchased if funding becomes available.

www.railwayage.com

16-710 power, AC traction, 4000hp, Tier 3. It's Metra so I'm guessing top speed isn't going to trouble the model's 70mph capability. A model and power which likely has a substantial parts availability nearby. They could have done worse, I think?

Under the hood, if constructed with such intent, such a loco could have many similarities to a standard GO MP40. Common parts supply is always good. I bet the price was a loss-leading kind of incentive.

I’m not thrilled about six axle trucks - although as noted at stop and go speeds, and with a B1-1B drive train, it’s within the capacity of the track. (Just don’t assign to express runs).

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

And you can find those who would say buying used locomotives instead of making new ones is a 'Green" option.
The calculations these days about what you "should" buy are quite politically complex.

70 Millon for 15 loco's is a steal.

 

[robmausser]

Well Metra in Chicago just got “like-new” commuter rail locomotives which ended up being refurbished freight locomotives. Metrolinx/GO PLEASE don’t do this.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1579888330874896384

Metra is an underfunded joke. Something like this would never happen here.

 

[dowlingm]

Metra is an underfunded joke. Something like this would never happen here.

AMT/Exo could absolutely have bought there - didn't they acquire F40s a few years back which were being used in freight service before them?

Not sure we should be judgey here in Ontario either - Metrolinx have high floor DMUs that weren't exactly a sales hit, and F59PHs that I assume never got Tier2. Ottawa got those castaway Bombardier DMUs for O-Train. Meanwhile we did our best to rebuild VIA's popcans and did trial runs of 60 year old RDCs to serve Southwestern Ontario.

 

[gotransitboyhere]

Is there anything happening to cab cars (242-257)?

 

[RS3488]

Is there anything happening to cab cars (242-257)?

242-250 are being refurbished by Alstom and are being converted to regular coaches.
251-257 are currently not scheduled for refurbishment.

 

[Willybru21]

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that maybe the locomotives will only be temporary and then once the electric locomotives arrive they'll be taken off the roster? Because in that case it doesn't really matter what locomotives they get as long as they preform reliably.

As long as we don’t pull a METRA and get literal freight locomotives.

 

[RS3488]

As long as we don’t pull a METRA and get literal freight locomotives.

I doubt the locos GO are getting will be temporary, and if for some reason they are not newly built locos they probably would be used passenger locos.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

I doubt the locos GO are getting will be temporary, and if for some reason they are not newly built locos they probably would be used passenger locos.

I would assume the new Metrolinx diesel order is for new, long term locomotives. If anything, Metrolinx will phase out older locomotives like the F59s first. Evidently, these new locomotives don’t mean the end of the F59s… yet (thankfully, my inner foamer likes them).

 

[Bordercollie]

I would assume the new Metrolinx diesel order is for new, long term locomotives. If anything, Metrolinx will phase out older locomotives like the F59s first. Evidently, these new locomotives don’t mean the end of the F59s… yet (thankfully, my inner foamer likes them).

F59PH'S are still required for London. So at least 5 will be required.

 

[RS3488]

F59PH'S are still required for London. So at least 5 will be required.

I’d assume the St. Marys bridge would get upgrades to make it support the MPXpress and other heavier locomotives.

 

[crs1026]

I’d assume the St. Marys bridge would get upgrades to make it support the MPXpress and other heavier locomotives.

All the larger Guelph Sub bridges are having work done. The Guelph and Rockwood bridges are already in progress, and the Grand River bridge is in procurement. One assumes that the Nith River and St Marys bridges will be next.

By the way, the upgrading of the bridges is not just related to loco weight and/or pier/steel condition. Bridges are a weak spot in the track structure in terms of the forces that run longitudinally down the rail. When a train is braking, it effectively pushes the rail down the track ahead of it. On solid ground, the mass of rock ballast and the rail anchoring systems hold everything rigid….. but on a bridge, the less solid deck structure may not be as stable. The faster a train goes, the more force is applied to the track especially when braking. If the track is CWR, as opposed to jointed rail, thermal expansion and contraction of the rail can likewise affect bridges as a weak point.

The need to strengthen the Guelph Sub bridges if higher speed trains are being implemented was highlighted in the Collenette report, when he looked at HSR potential on this line. (Back in the day, on some lighter branch lines, trains were forbidden to apply the brakes on trestles altogether….. a bit risky for GO trains). I don’t know if this is a consideration at St Marys but addressing this likely would be part of any upgrading.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

All the larger Guelph Sub bridges are having work done. The Guelph and Rockwood bridges are already in progress, and the Grand River bridge is in procurement. One assumes that the Nith River and St Marys bridges will be next.

By the way, the upgrading of the bridges is not just related to loco weight and/or pier/steel condition. Bridges are a weak spot in the track structure in terms of the forces that run longitudinally down the rail. When a train is braking, it effectively pushes the rail down the track ahead of it. On solid ground, the mass of rock ballast and the rail anchoring systems hold everything rigid….. but on a bridge, the less solid deck structure may not be as stable. The faster a train goes, the more force is applied to the track when braking. The need to strengthen the Guelph Sub bridges if higher speed trains are being implemented was highlighted in the Collenette report, when he looked at HSR potential on this line. (In the day, on some lighter branch lines, trains were forbidden to apply the brakes on trestles altogether….. a bit risky for GO trains). I don’t know if this is a consideration at St Marys but addressing this likely would be part of any upgrading.

- Paul

So Metrolinx will own those assets?

How do you strengthen the lateral movement of the track? And will that result in doubling the current speed limit?

So back when the line operated at faster speeds they were not allowed to apply the brakes while on the bridge even though the station is right after the bridge?

 

[crs1026]

So Metrolinx will own those assets?

Not necessarily, but whatever passenger service is operated, the tracks need to be brought back to a higher standard, and that includes bridges.

How do you strengthen the lateral movement of the track? And will that result in doubling the current speed limit?

A different design of bridge decking and fastening the crossties and rail to the bridge. While it’s unlikely to be the case here, this is one reason why many recent rail bridges are being built with rock ballast on concrete instead of wood ties on steel girders.

The engineering design would consider what speed is desired, and choose the design accordingly.

So back when the line operated at faster speeds they were not allowed to apply the brakes while on the bridge even though the station is right after the bridge?

No, I explained that was the case on light branch lines where trestles and bridges were especially flimsy. The Guelph Sub bridges have always handled longer heavyweight passenger trains behind heavy steam and diesel locomotives at moderate top speeds, ie 60-70 mph. I am sure that the design was sufficient for those to run safely. But if we are now wanting GO or VIa to run at 90-95 mph, or more…. that may exceed the as-built design capability of the bridges. Simply bringing them back up to as-built condition (they were not well maintained for the past 20 years) may not suffice.

- Paul