GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[mdrejhon]

Enormous cost rises, although less per passenger due to lower operating cost of electric trains. Likely enormous revenue rises too.

It's possible to have less staff per train. Eliminate the GO ambassador on the "SmartTrack" route of GO RER, as an example. Reallocate these staffing resources to other routes that keeps old bilevels, like Lakeshore.

There are wheelchair accessible trains in Europe servicing low platforms, so it's doable. Also, SmartTrack infills means a new platform height may be cheaply possible from scratch (e.g. Some European trainsets have bottom floors only 17" above the rails -- only one stairstep higher than current 8-9" GO platforms).

• Wheelchair accessibility at all train doors, like a subway. Less need for ambassadors.
• Train lengths are shorter (100-150 meter instead of 300 meter).
• Same number of coaches. Same layover storage space. Same cleaning time.
• Electric trains turnover a route faster, so fewer trainsets for a specific time interval.
  
• Operating costs are lower with electrics
• Maintenance costs are lower with electric locomotives.
• Maintaining two electric locomotives cost less than maintaining one legacy diesel

So doubling train service at the same or less operating cost may be possible

Now ridership goes up because of more frequent service. This can result in better farebox recovery despite double number of trains -- depending on train corridor ability to sustain 15-minute service.

Of course, what's about to happen to Barrie is a dramatically massive increase -- then when switching to electric, operating costs may stay the same or actually fall back downwards, despite further increases in trainsets, especially with unattended wheelchair boarding capability.

This is probably a 20-to-30-year timescale before the friendly GO ambassadors are reallocated, but it could happen within 10 years for the Bramalea-Stoufville/SmartTrack segment (the section most likely to be the first to get EMUs and unattended wheelchair boarding).

 

[nfitz]

Yup. And - when they add the service, their costs will go up. Before they add the service, they will have to hire and train people.

As compared to adding 30-minute service on the Lakeshore line, or extending service to West Harbour, they will hire proportionately more people. 30-min service didn't change the number of ticket agents significantly. Nor did it require extra security staff. Nor did the fuel stand at Willowbrook have to stay open on Saturdays. Nor did anyone have to clean coaches, shovel snow, empty garbage, etc etc - other than on the Lakeshore line.

Hopefully they will sell more tickets, and hopefully the net difference is worth it in terms of the region's transportation habits. But it will cost lots more.

It will cost more - but lot's more? There's more revenue too. Do stations need staffing? Lakeshore stations aren't staffed all the hours the train runs now - never have been.

Still, you're reaction seems to ignore that GO has already announced this for 3 of the 5 routes which don't do this already.

 

[TOareaFan]

If I was in Unionville I would be angry if they replaced my half-hourly 25 minute bus trip to Union with a train every hour or two which took 35 minutes.

Have never understood why it has to be "one or the other".....what is wrong with transitioning to train service by introducing hourly trains on, say, the hour and eliminating one bus trip have moving to hourly bus on the half hour.

If, as people suspect, riders prefer trains there will be an increase in overall ridership and it will show up as riders gravitate to the train....but there will be people who are more attracted to the frequency (and the ability to get off the bus in between some train stations) and they will take the bus....

....overall you would suspect it would work to grardually build ridership in front of the promised land of 15 minute frequencies (which I happen to think is overkill on most lines....including the one I use) that is coming someday.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Speaking of the latter, has anyone seen published data on GO's workforce planning for the operating complement? One hears commentary that the expansion to date, including UPE, combined with the latest Transport Canada regs, make it difficult for BBD to keep up. They can't just hire on demand, they have to train people with a legnthy certification process, so there is a lag between a decision to add a run and when it can be added. Even something like the West Harbour extension is a big deal, because of the number of people in the pool who have to be qualified to run that new segment, even if it only requires two crews a day Mon-Fri. Reportedly BBD has cashed in on the morale problems at CP, which is resulting in lots of qualified CP RTE's leaving CP for GO. Just wondering how big of a challenge this is, or isn't, given future plans.

Wouldn't recommend holding your breath on Bombardier publishing any public documentation on its operations. Certainly its one of the benefits GO/ML enjoys with contracting out operations and maintenance to a private enterprise. All that information is supposedly "out of their hands", though that's actually not the case at all but officially it is.

In any case they could hire on demand at any time. For instance last year(or the year before) they had over 3000 applicants for the CSA position, essentially the entry level position for operations. So there is plenty of demand for the position. But from what I understand GO/ML is very tight fisted with funding and obviously Bombardier is in this to make money, they won't hire people without receiving an additional allocation of funds from GO. Due to the regulations it takes a minimum of about 3 years from being hired as a CSA to becoming an engineer. Which is actually pretty damn good for the industry as there are places in other services/companies where people have had to work as conductors and not by choice for over 20 years before being able to work regularly as an engineer. The key is to hire enough people ahead of time for forecasted service increased. It's all planned in advance by GO/ML. Though sometimes unexpected occurrences can change the numbers a little, i.e the exodus to VIA a few years back and the current exodus from CP through which B has added about two dozen engineers over the last couple of years, only a few of whom have so far left(to VIA). You could see the process as being a difficult one - though it should be. There's a lot of responsibility in being an locomotive engineer/train operator.

But really, bottom line is GO/ML's make it difficult for the Bomb because of budgetary constraints and the Bomb makes it difficult on themselves, that is the hierarchy makes it hard for the lower level management because of their own internal budget. Everything else such as the reg's, can be worked around/planned for.

Labour laws and agreements will likely stipulate those working weekends earn premium wages - so the incremental cost of weekend service is greater than just 40% more than the current system. Implementing a 7-day-per-week shift schedule for station personnel etc is not good news for those who currently only work Mon-Fri.

True but probably not as much as people think. Can't speak for GO/ML employees or other contractors but I don't see anything about a weekend sift premium for maintenance personal. As for operations the premiums are rather insignificant, wish they were higher I might have more incentive to work those shifts

Shift Premium Per hour
weekday
Evening
$0.85
Night
$0.95
Split
$3.00

weekend
Day/WE
$0.85 (increases of $0.85 per hour)
Evening/WE
$0.95 (increases of $0.10 per hour)
Night/WE
$1.50 (increases of $0.55 per hour)
Split/WE
$3.50 (increases of $0.50 per hour)

The biggest impact will certainly be lower revenues rather than higher expenses.

 

[crs1026]

Due to the regulations it takes a minimum of about 3 years from being hired as a CSA to becoming an engineer. Which is actually pretty damn good for the industry as there are places in other services/companies where people have had to work as conductors and not by choice for over 20 years before being able to work regularly as an engineer. The key is to hire enough people ahead of time for forecasted service increased. It's all planned in advance by GO/ML.

I'm hoping BBD is required to train and 'bank' engineer-qualified CSA's for future needs .....20 years is likely overkill, but some wait is prudent. It's better to be safe than sorry. Just to maintain current operations, one would have to anticipate retirements, the odd LTD/sudden death, and attrition three years out and beyond. If you assume a 35-year career, you will have 10% of your workforce leaving within 3 years just through retirement. You need that many CSA's in training today.

Startup of new services will draw down the number banked, and as each new service is introduced, the pool that needs to be sustained grows. One would hope the ML-BBD contract gives ML access to data confirming that BBD is 'banking' enough Engineer-qualified CSA's to address future expansion. You can't manage this by waiting until GO decides to announce a new service to begin hiring or training.

The biggest impact will certainly be lower revenues rather than higher expenses.

In terms of on-train labour costs compared to a weekday rush hour train, yes. But look at how GO puts a second engine on trains on long weekends, so the consists don't have to be fuelled over the weekend and so one locomotive failure doesn't take the train out of service. I'm inferring that's done so mechanical dept staffing on the weekend can be minimized. That will have to change when more trains are running on weekends. There will be lots of support people required.

I'm not opposed to GO growing, in fact I'm counting on it. My point was, the amount of change (and cost) will be significant.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

In terms of on-train labour costs compared to a weekday rush hour train, yes. But look at how GO puts a second engine on trains on long weekends, so the consists don't have to be fuelled over the weekend and so one locomotive failure doesn't take the train out of service. I'm inferring that's done so mechanical dept staffing on the weekend can be minimized.

Interesting. I learn something new. I initially wondered if it was really an efficient use of resources because of all that fuel to pull less-full weekend trains.

But now I understand why -- it still saves money because you can essentially shut down fuel & maintenance facilities during part of a long weekend. That outweighs the extra fuel and haulage.

I'm not opposed to GO growing, in fact I'm counting on it. My point was, the amount of change (and cost) will be significant.

We love to be skeptical about megaplans that are still early enough to be cancelled.

Wait till we see the first kilometer of catenary going up and several paid contracts signed for the "electric stuff" (substations, locomotives, EMUs), politicians stop talking cancellation, point of no return, shovels actually happening.

THEN everybody's going to finally panic about how there'll be not enough engineers/drivers available for the fancy new electric trains. Panicked chickens. Hiring and training spree time.

(Right....vegata?)

 

[vegeta_skyline]

I'm hoping BBD is required to train and 'bank' engineer-qualified CSA's for future needs .....20 years is likely overkill, but some wait is prudent. It's better to be safe than sorry. Just to maintain current operations, one would have to anticipate retirements, the odd LTD/sudden death, and attrition three years out and beyond. If you assume a 35-year career, you will have 10% of your workforce leaving within 3 years just through retirement. You need that many CSA's in training today.

Startup of new services will draw down the number banked, and as each new service is introduced, the pool that needs to be sustained grows. One would hope the ML-BBD contract gives ML access to data confirming that BBD is 'banking' enough Engineer-qualified CSA's to address future expansion. You can't manage this by waiting until GO decides to announce a new service to begin hiring or training.

That's an interesting premise and it is what the fright companies like to do. There are stipulations in place in the collective agreement that allow for set back;

Taken from the current collective agreement which is publically available online.

While technically there's nothing to prevent them from going about it in that way, I don't believe that stipulation was ever intended to be used in such a way. Rather the rational behind it simply being to protect themselves from employing more people than necessary as TO's in case of a reduction in GO service, however unlikely that may be. Thus it's something that the union might take issue with if used in a different way. It's also not entirely clear when/how often they are able to do this. Thus far its never been used before because of GO's continual expansion.

They regularly call TO's off the TO spare board to fill in for CSA's on a daily or even weekly basis. But while this increases their flexibility it also increases costs because those TO are paid at TO rates rather than CSA rates;

23.0 TEMPORARILY CHANGING CLASSIFICATIONS
Where the Company temporarily assigns an employee to perform the duties of a classification with a higher wage rate, the employee shall be paid in accordance with the applicable rate of the classification to which he/she is temporarily assigned for the period of day’s assignment. Should the employee be required to perform the duties of a lower rated classification, he/she shall maintain his/her current normal classification rate.

However the bigger problem with banking Engineer-qualified CSA's is the requirement to work as conductors for 2 year before they can start throttle training. The entire training process is quite costly and they would have to hire additional personal to fill the role of those CSA. Although we're all aware of GO's expansion plans, I could understand why the B would balk at preemptively training personal without a official guarantee from GO/ML that those people will actually be necessary. I think GO/ML doesn't really cares how the B goes about their training process as long as there are people available when the time for expansion comes. And I doubt GO/ML would open up the pocket book sooner than they have to. I could be wrong about that since I don't know the specifics. But it been quite obvious that they've been operating under a just enough/just in time approach since the beginning.

There are a couple of other issues as well. Once the TO qualified CSA's are sent back to work as CSA's, the excess CSA hired in their place would of course be laid off. That would result in issues with retainership and moral. While the costs of hiring and training CSA's are minor compared to the TO training process they aren't insignificant. As with any vocation, lay people off and they'll look for other employment. And one of the biggest issues with moral at CP & CN is the constant threat of layoff's. Moral is fairly good right now here though there are some issues which threaten to change that disposition. I think they are quite cognisant of the negative implications introducing layoffs would have and its not something they would introduce unless they were forced to by an actual reduction of GO service.

(Right....vegata?)

I'm sure they'd suggest that there are no problems with the process at all since its easy enough for them to just not publish anything about why a planned expansion project is delayed.

 

[LNahid2000]

I'm on one of the weekend trains to West Harbour right now. There were a few hundred people on the platform at exhibition. Looks like lots of people are using transit to get to Pan Am events.

 

[nfitz]

I think we were on same train! The West Harbour elevator is closed; I thought someone had said otherwise last night in the construction thread, but I can't see that post.

 

[Jonny5]

A story in the Star this week quoted a Metrolinx employee saying Burlington GO Station has "7,300 daily users".

Is there any other published boardings or 'user' numbers for various stations?

 

[LNahid2000]

I think we were on same train! The West Harbour elevator is closed; I thought someone had said otherwise last night in the construction thread, but I can't see that post.

Haha possibly. One of the station attendants was really helpful when he saw my bike and told me where the ramp was. It worked pretty well. Then I biked back to Toronto and now I just want to die.

 

[canarob]

Can we please stop inconveniencing thousands of GO Riders for a handful of people?


Few TTC riders step up to pay more to take GO
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/tra...tc-riders-step-up-to-pay-more-to-take-go.html

 

[nfitz]

I'm not sure how selling a few passes is going to inconvenience thousands of riders. It's not like the program is costing much $.

 

[DavidH]

I'm not sure how selling a few passes is going to inconvenience thousands of riders. It's not like the program is costing much $.

The "inconvenience" is that express GO trains that previously bypassed Danforth Station during rush hour are now stopping there in order to accomodate riders riding these passes, adding several minutes to the commute.

 

[mdrejhon]

I think we were on same train! The West Harbour elevator is closed; I thought someone had said otherwise last night in the construction thread, but I can't see that post.

Was this for the fully-sold-out Canada-Brazil soccer game last evening? The other games that didn't involve Canada was much quieter.

How full was the train when it arrived at West Harbour?