GO Transit Fleet Equipment and other

[WB62]

Hawker Siddeley designed an EMU based on the BiLevel (although with some design differences to fit all of the additional equipment necessary to make them so). But the BiLevel coaches as built for GO were not designed to be converted to EMUs.

I’m just reading that off the 1978 brochure I have for the GO Bi-Levels (specifically the last two points, or most importantly last point), maybe I’m not getting it right though:

 

[crs1026]

I’m just reading that off the 1978 brochure I have for the GO Bi-Levels (specifically the last two points, or most importantly last point), maybe I’m not getting it right though:

I would interpret that as indicating that as of 1978 the design had the capability to be built with power modules and/or pantograph.

That does not necessarily mean that the cars as built for GO retained the capability to be converted to such. Nor that this could be done cheaply without more significant modification.

Also, being a document dating from the 1978 design - it does not establish that later versions of the cars could be either built with such or converted to such. Subsequent modifications to the design may have traded off some of that potential.

And, since nobody ever took them up on that claim, we have no prototype or even drawings to demonstrate how easy that configuration was (or wasn't) to build. The claim is aspirational, but not service proven.

- Paul

 

[WB62]

retained

Also, being a document dating from the 1978 design - it does not establish that later versions of the cars could be either built with such or converted to such. Subsequent modifications to the design may have traded off some of that potential.

I did say that in my original post too

 

[Bureaucromancer]

My major concern with this bi-level EMU conversation is that it really does seem like the most likely configuration would be set of one power car with two trailers... At which point I question whether there would actually be any meaningful performance gain over a locomotive left.

 

[MovingBlock]

My major concern with this bi-level EMU conversation is that it really does seem like the most likely configuration would be set of one power car with two trailers... At which point I question whether there would actually be any meaningful performance gain over a locomotive left.

Most EMUs have unpowered axles, so it’s not the worst issue. You still would have greater adhesion weight.

The upgrade that they should prioritize is fitting all equipment with electro-pneumatic brakes. It would make a big difference in reducing the stop penalty.

 

[crs1026]

My major concern with this bi-level EMU conversation is that it really does seem like the most likely configuration would be set of one power car with two trailers... At which point I question whether there would actually be any meaningful performance gain over a locomotive left.

The change in paradigm may well be a move away from single discrete cars to two- or three- or even four-car semipermanently connected railcar sets. One sees that happening in many other jurisdictions, including VIA. And when you look at how traction motors and appliances are spread over those railcar sets, you won't necessarily see a "power" car or "trailer".... the car set is closer to an articulated LRV in design, with things spread along the whole set..

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

The upgrade that they should prioritize is fitting all equipment with electro-pneumatic brakes. It would make a big difference in reducing the stop penalty.

That is a plan to go with conversion to Cat5 from the 27pin MU/Com, but how do you figure that it would improve braking, exactly? The trains already have graduated release and blended braking.

Dan

 

[MovingBlock]

That is a plan to go with conversion to Cat5 from the 27pin MU/Com, but how do you figure that it would improve braking, exactly? The trains already have graduated release and blended braking.

Dan

EP brakes can be applied and released faster and more evenly than a pneumatic system.

 

[AHK]

July 31 - On a different note - seen outside the Whitby GO Transit Maintenance Facility today:

 

[dowlingm]

If this is GO, I am guessing that means we probably will see more MP54ACs then.

The Boise plant is gone so that would be an interesting situation.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Yeah the B end door and a entire window needed to be removed on the Series 5b-10 coaches to add a lower level washroom, you can’t add them to older coaches without putting them through a massive retrofit.

Here’s a comparison between the Series 1 and 10 coaches, you can see the door is moved over quite a bit on the Series 10 coach:View attachment 584298View attachment 584299

I like these diagrams, thanks for sharing. What's the source on them?

 

[Northern Light]

July 31 - On a different note - seen outside the Whitby GO Transit Maintenance Facility today:

View attachment 584923

I'm not shocked by GO Locos outside their east side maintenance facility...........but the idea that you, AHK can be found in such a place is astonishing indeed!

 

[Bojaxs]

July 31 - On a different note - seen outside the Whitby GO Transit Maintenance Facility today:

View attachment 584923

Was 673 refurbished or just new livery?

 

[WB62]

I like these diagrams, thanks for sharing. What's the source on them?

I made them (There was actually a general template online that I made into each different Bi-Level Series).
I need to eventually remake them but I’ve done a diagram on all 16 variants that GO uses.

There’s a few details that I got wrong or forgot to include on each different one, but overall they still act as a good representative of what changes happened to a specific model of coach, whether it be removing a window or adding step lights, etc

 

[Bojaxs]

673 is a fairly new locomotive, came around 2019 iirc.

Ah shoot. I got 674 mixed up with 647.