News   Jul 15, 2024
 509     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 662     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 586     0 

GO Transit Fleet Equipment and other

If it were only higher fares, that would be problem enough. ML does not have unlimited capital. For the incremental price of a few new trainsets, we can rebuild the entire Kitchener - London line, or the Hamilton - Niagara line. Or add a whack of double track elsewhere. Ontario can only give ML so much spending money.

If ML had to make that choice, new trains and less track, versus refurbed trains and more track…. I know which I would choose.

- Paul

Speaking to the fares, ML is keeping them artificially low and it is not helping them any.

Take a look at the debacle with Niagara Falls and the fact that you can go from Oshawa to Niagara Falls for 10 dollars return. If they increased fares to a more realistic number they could easily afford upgrades to the Niagara Line.

Instead, ML wants to keep fares low and increase ridership to unsustainable levels. What they really need to do is charge the full fare at all times without pandering to the masses.
 
It's likely for HVAC but newer units are smaller requiring less space.
I was looking through my GO collection and on the Bombardier Bi-Level product brochure they have a photo with the outer vents covered up and the ones I was questioning earlier uncovered, does anyone know why this happened?
AF0818C9-767F-4380-A7E6-072696CA1255.jpeg
 
As far as I know those vents were for the HVAC units, which is strange since they’re covered up in that top photo.
9ECFF0B4-FD69-41F5-BE88-42A6527F7AB0.jpeg
 
Speaking to the fares, ML is keeping them artificially low and it is not helping them any.

Take a look at the debacle with Niagara Falls and the fact that you can go from Oshawa to Niagara Falls for 10 dollars return. If they increased fares to a more realistic number they could easily afford upgrades to the Niagara Line.

Instead, ML wants to keep fares low and increase ridership to unsustainable levels. What they really need to do is charge the full fare at all times without pandering to the masses.
Maybe $10 from Oshawa to Niagara seems cheap, but the point is that it's intention is to provide an affordable means for people to travel in the region. It's to encourage people to take the train instead of driving. If it was $15 maybe people would drive.
 
Maybe $10 from Oshawa to Niagara seems cheap, but the point is that it's intention is to provide an affordable means for people to travel in the region. It's to encourage people to take the train instead of driving. If it was $15 maybe people would drive.

Affordable yes but they likely do not break even at that price.
 
Affordable yes but they likely do not break even at that price.
How do you know what the backend costs are? And what the fare/recovery ratio is?

Do you know how many different variables there are to determining if it makes sense or if it breaks even?

It's an average between the cost of running the whole network and all of the costs recovered vs funding.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that without knowing what goes on in the back end.

Do you know what Tourism Niagara contributes? Do specifically know what the tax base of each person in each region contributes? What each rider pays, vs the cost of running the service? Do know exactly how many people boarded at which station? And how many of them are monthly pass holders?

Think about it this way. Regardless of if the train is packed to the brim or has no passengers the cost to run the train or bus is the same. As long as the whole system covers whatever formula that they have it's all relative as to what it costs per ride. It's more about the big picture.

If you looked at fares from Mimico to union it probably looks expensive compared to Oshawa to Niagara.
 
Affordable yes but they likely do not break even at that price.

Cost recovery is a slippery slope that can be debated forever, from a million angles.

Few if any public transit operations recover their costs.

No one should be surprised that GO doesn’t either.

There are viewpoints that even argue that transit should be free. I’m not a fan of that viewpoint, but I will say that in my view, weaning people away from the automobile is probably a more important objective for GTA transit than cost recovery, especially with such an impasse around fare integration.

I’m not a fan of subsidising long distance commuting either, but with housing supply in such a mess, I will park that one for another day.

- Paul
 
Maybe $10 from Oshawa to Niagara seems cheap, but the point is that it's intention is to provide an affordable means for people to travel in the region. It's to encourage people to take the train instead of driving. If it was $15 maybe people would drive.
At 1.55 per liter, 206 km distance and let's say 7.0 L/100 KM fuel economy it costs about $22 to go from Oshawa to Niagara falls.
 
For one person in a car? So assuming you can fit 5 people is $4.40 which means driving is cheaper.
True if the stress doesn't get to you fighting the traffic for about 3 hours each way. On top of that cost, you still have to paid to park somewhere as no free parking around legally these days unless you are staying overnight. At the same time, it not true if there is less than 4 in the car to the point of you being the only one.

How long of a trip is it using GO??

Even taking GO, you still have to pay for transit from the train station to the downtown and getting around. You are peg as to when you can go and come back with GO compare to a car you can jump in and go when you want to.

A lot of TTC network got built when TTC was making a profit that paid for it in the first place. Today, transit is a money pit with the goal of getting ppl out of their car.

If and went there is more equipment, you will have better options as to when to go and come back as well. Having EMU equipment will speed things up once the CN line is brought up for its speed.
 
Considering that the design has basically stayed the same over 50 years tells you that it's well designed. Although they changed from rivets to welds that was because of an update in technology and welding is likely less labor intensive.

Also Crash Energy Management was a big advancement but the overall design is still the same. Why replace them with new ones if the ones we already have, are perfectly capable of doing the work?
LED head lights, new HVAC and the refurbishment of the trucks and boagies. I don't know if any structural changes were made to increase safety but I'm sure that if it took them that long some safety improvements were made to the cab area.
The real issue is why are they "wasting" the new cab cars by turning them into passenger coaches?
 
The real issue is why are they "wasting" the new cab cars by turning them into passenger coaches?
Has that actually been confirmed? Considering the fact that they're reactivating cab cars for the expanded service that haven't run as such in more than half a decade, this would be an astonishingly short sighted decision.
 

Back
Top