GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[crs1026]

What's the reasoning behind this? I'm curious.

Not enough braking power is one reason - only 8 wheels, which may not all have brake shoes. Trailing cars add mass, so there's more to stop.....but there are more brakes and more wheel-to-rail friction points also.

There may be other reasons too.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

Phase 1 Interim Summary Report Niagara GO Hub and Transit Stations Study
(page 198 of the PDF)

Good find!

Also interesting on that agenda is their new plan for a 'Brock District' (as in the University). The reports shows promise.........

 

[smallspy]

If the distance described (within 300M or so of Ajax station) is accurate, closing both tracks and evacuating needn't have taken long.

Perhaps a 20m delay.

The train crew, aided by staff from Ajax Station should really be sufficient for this purpose.

Not quite.

First issue - yes, you have to close the tracks to allow everyone to safely evacuate from the train. But not just the GO Sub - also the Kingston Sub running 50 feet to the south. And I suspect that with all of the traffic running on both of those lines at that time, the CN RTCs would have put the kybosh on that idea.

Second issue - station staff would not be able to help with the evacuation until such a time as the tracks are closed. Same goes for the CSA on board the train. None of those employees are rules-qualified railway employees, and are not to be at track level when the tracks are active.

Not enough braking power is one reason - only 8 wheels, which may not all have brake shoes. Trailing cars add mass, so there's more to stop.....but there are more brakes and more wheel-to-rail friction points also.

There may be other reasons too.

- Paul

Braking power isn't the biggest issue - a loco is quite capable of skidding to a stop in almost all situations and from almost any speed - but rather the loss of continuity with the signal system (i.e. losing sight of the equipment in a block) is a far bigger concern.

This also varies from railroad-to-railroad. CP does have a similar speed limit on light equipment, but several of the US roads don't.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Braking power isn't the biggest issue - a loco is quite capable of skidding to a stop in almost all situations and from almost any speed - but rather the loss of continuity with the signal system (i.e. losing sight of the equipment in a block) is a far bigger concern.

This also varies from railroad-to-railroad. CP does have a similar speed limit on light equipment, but several of the US roads don't.

Perhaps a slug, B-unit or even an old coach could help. Having two yard units dedicated to being on stand-by for emergency is an extra cost, but if we're going to see GO ramping up the number of trips it runs daily, the risk of a situation like this happening again will increase. I'm sure they could have some auxillary duties assigned to them if GO wants to be cost efficient anyway.

 

[drum118]

Looks like GO will start servicing Winston Churchill Jan 2, 2017.

Service should be schedule to use Renforth starting Sept 4, 2017

 

[steveintoronto]

Perhaps a slug, B-unit or even an old coach could help. ...I'm sure they could have some auxillary duties assigned to them if GO wants to be cost efficient anyway.

That's a very good point! The TTC does this using pairs of older subway cars. This could also act a shuttle rescue, such that if the stalled train can't be moved due to a frozen or broken axle or derailment, and due to some regulation re brakes, for instance, can't couple onto the stranded cars, at least the two coaches it will be hauling (may I suggest using the now surplus until rebuilt control cab coaches, one in front of the loco, one behind) then if the first shuttle doesn't get all of the passengers off in one go, subsequent shuttles will. They'd have to couple onto the stranded train on the west end to allow through coach transfer, but if brakes are the reason a full consist minus loco can't be coupled on, then brake and HEP cables can't complicate the rescue. Needless to say, a section of at least one coach could carry a heavy tool-kit, akin to what a GO service road truck would carry.

As mentioned prior, there's still redundant F59s that could be used, and no shortage of coaches waiting to be rebuilt.

 

[smallspy]

Perhaps a slug, B-unit or even an old coach could help. Having two yard units dedicated to being on stand-by for emergency is an extra cost, but if we're going to see GO ramping up the number of trips it runs daily, the risk of a situation like this happening again will increase. I'm sure they could have some auxillary duties assigned to them if GO wants to be cost efficient anyway.

I can understand NJT doing that with the North River Tunnels where they are trying to push 30 trains through per track per hour, but for GO to do that? Seems wasteful. They already have a spare train stationed at Union during the morning and afternoon rushes - where would you put this rescue loco? Also Union?

There are very few scenarios where a trailing train couldn't be coupled up and used to move the train to the next station - and considering that they ended up doing just that here, eventually, there's no reason why it couldn't continue to be the case. What likely does need to be reviewed and possibly changed, however, is the protocol and process that is followed in this kind of situation, because here it totally broke down.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

There are very few scenarios where a trailing train couldn't be coupled up and used to move the train to the next station - and considering that they ended up doing just that here, eventually, there's no reason why it couldn't continue to be the case.

Except GO claimed that couldn't be done, ostensibly due to (gist) "Our rescue crews were sent to the gas leak".

I realize that you too think that procedure should be changed, but GO themselves have made statements that don't make sense as to why loco/consist help wasn't sent. You discount the lone loco scenario as being viable due to speed limitations (I still can't locate that after deep searching with Google and the DoT website search), so perhaps you can detail exactly how and why this could be done?

We still have absolutely no idea of what the "complete failure of the train" (their words) was all about. They're pretty damn quick to throw money to try and stifle the outrage of the inconvenience, but if they've released any details as to what happened, why it happened, and why exactly what you state didn't happen, then please quote and/or link.

We still have zero info, zilch, nada, on the huge cock-ups of reassigning tracks at Union. The reason GO/Metrolinx handle these situations the way that they do is because they get away with it.

If you ran that department, or a position above it, in a private, accountable to shareholder company, you'd be out of a job.

Accessing that train due to switches and/or other trains blocking the track may or may not have been a factor. That's one of the excuses being hinted at. In the absence of any kind of semblance of accountability on a litany of gaffes from GO, who here thinks we're going to get a reasonable account of what happened, and how it's planned to be addressed in the future?

There's many other questions, starting with the other trains stuck behind it. Were those passengers bussed? How was that done? Do they get a refund of some sort? You mentioned CN nixing detraining the passengers. I find that curious, since it would be marshalled by staff driven out there (three hours isn't enough time to do that?) and in such an emergency, *if* CN has an issue with that, they are *legally required* to shut down that stretch. In the event, passengers are highly unlikely to cross the gully. There's more danger of passengers crossing from platforms with freight tracks running right behind them.

This not only has indications that it can and quite possibly will happen again, but done with no accountability yet again. After all, whose money is it they're refunding? The executives? Or ours?

They fugged up, and royally, and inevitably broke laws doing it. I think an inquiry is needed on this, outside of Metrolinx' hands.

Edit to Add: CP and CN police could have been called in to marshall evacuation along the track back to Ajax. They certainly have the legal mandate to doing so.

Second edit to add:
Railway Passenger Handling Safety Rules
Legislation (Rail Safety)

• Acts
• Regulations
• Rules
• Standards
• Guidelines
• Policies

TC O-0-16, March 31st, 2000
[...]
5. Training
5.1 Each railway company that operates or hosts passenger train service shall ensure a sufficient number of on-board personnel as defined in the company's safety plan, including on-board personnel employed by a passenger service provider, are as a minimum, trained:

1. with the passenger handling safety plan;
2. with the company's emergency response procedures;
3. with the safety features of passenger equipment;
4. with normal and emergency communication procedures;
5. with the use of on-board emergency tools;
6. to administer first-aid and CPR;
7. to provide service to passengers with disabilities under normal and emergency situations;
8. to supervise or assist in emergency evacuation procedures.

5.2 Each railway company that operates or hosts passenger train service shall ensure all other appropriate railway personnel and on-board personnel, who may be required to assist in a passenger train emergency, are trained to be:

1. familiar with the passenger handling safety plan;
2. familiar with the company's emergency response procedures.

5.3 Safety training may not be required for on-board personnel who are not directly employed by either the railway company or passenger service provider and whose duties do not include the care, comfort and safety of the passengers.
[...]
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/rules-tco16-357.htm

 

[crs1026]

[QUOTE="steveintoronto, post: 1153909, member: 65910"

If you ran that department, or a position above it, in a private, accountable to shareholder company, you'd be out of a job.

[/QUOTE]

No, you would be working for an airline.

We all agree GO should do better - but we need to keep some perspective. Airplanes are regularly held on the tarmac for hours with passengers unable to use the washroom or any at seat service available - even water. GO passengers are also regularly held on trains - by design, not oversight - when there is a pedestrian contact incident.

This particular event was in ok weather so not a temperature or exposure risk even with no ventilation. The train was a far safer place for passengers to be compared to on the right of way. There were enough seats for everyone.

I worry about health risks.... being a diabetic I am accustomed to carrying some 'emergency supplies' with me at all times,, but even with precautions, these unforeseens can create health 'crises' if people can't get to meds or food. I have huge sympathy also with anyone who has kids in daycare at the end of their commute .... nothing is more stressful than daycare closing hours approaching and being unable to get there.

The problem is there is no standard to say "After xx minutes, passengers must have access to climate control, seats, water, washroom facilities, transportation alternatives". The standard is variable, too .... in winter or in a heat wave, it would be worse to dump passengers onto a platform than to leave them on a heated/air conditioned train.

It is damn annoying when it happens, and I would expect GO to be a leader here, but it's commonplace.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

No, you would be working for an airline.

We all agree GO should do better - but we need to keep some perspective. Airplanes are regularly held on the tarmac for hours with passengers unable to use the washroom or any at seat service available - even water. GO passengers are also regularly held on trains - by design, not oversight - when there is a pedestrian contact incident.
- Paul

Registration

SOR/2016-43 March 11, 2016

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ACT

Potable Water on Board Trains, Vessels, Aircraft and Buses Regulations
[...]
Operator
2 (1) Every operator who is authorized, under a law of Canada or of another country, to transport at least 25 persons on board any of the following conveyances must ensure that the requirements of these Regulations, except for the requirement set out in section 18, are met if the operator provides water, to be used for a purpose set out in section 3, on board the conveyance:

• (a) an aircraft;
• (b) a vessel used for interprovincial or international transportation;
• (c) a bus used for interprovincial or international transportation;
• (d) a train used for interprovincial or international transportation or used on a railway declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.

Excluded conveyances
(2) Despite subsection (1), these Regulations do not apply to a conveyance that

• (a) is used for urban transit purposes;
  
• [...]
• 
  
  http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/2016/2016-03-23/html/sor-dors43-eng.php

It appears that under federal law, there's two contentious clauses: "used on a railway declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada" which I do believe that railway is. GO Transit is incorporated under federal law. Oddly, they didn't have to, they could have incorporated under provincial, but whatever...

And: "is used for urban transit purposes" . I do believe, and the mandate for GO Transit is and was "Interurban transit". They used to provide drinking water, but due to contamination of the reservoir tank, discontinued it. That may be unlawful under federal regs.

I'll dig more later when I'm focused and search provincial regs.

The train was a far safer place for passengers to be compared to on the right of way.

They were IIRC, "100 metres from the Ajax station". (CBC story states "just metres") This wasn't in between two stations, it was a few stone throws from the one they just left. Tbe crew *if trained as required by TC regs!* could have shepherded them back to the platform. If that was deemed insufficient, and Metrolinx' own federally empowered staff not available, CN and/or CP Police have the jurisdiction to help. CN Police have a station in Oshawa, as well as Toronto. CP Police have an office in Toronto, a field office in Oshawa.

How many federally qualified staff does it take to shepherd a hundred passengers "a few metres"? The law states all three on-board must be qualified. So let's do the math on this.

How obvious on a "totally mechanically failed train" does this have to be after two hours, and no sign of being fixable, let alone over three approaching four?

 

[TOareaFan]

Was standing on the WB platform after the TFC match last night waiting for a train to Long Branch.....the EB platform had a lot of people on it (as usual) maybe about 1k of them (always a bit less than on the WB platform)......an EB train approached at high speed and blew through the station, it looked to be about 3/4 empty....any idea why a) a train would be scheduled at that time of night to skip the Ex and b) given the number of people waiting for a train and the emptyness of the train a decision could not have been made to adjust that schedule and stop and pick those people up.

Our WB train left around 10 minutes later so I have no idea how much longer those people waited for a train.

 

[Jonny5]

If the distance described (within 300M or so of Ajax station) is accurate, closing both tracks and evacuating needn't have taken long.

Perhaps a 20m delay.

The train crew, aided by staff from Ajax Station should really be sufficient for this purpose.

If needs be, some emergency personnel could have chipped in, and a couple of paramedics should have been at the station to meet passengers as a precaution anyway.

Avoiding liability, causes liability, sometimes. ($100 per passenger x 600) $60,000 to start

I think evacuation was the right move too, and, obviously, they don't have a written emergency plan with a decision tree that triggers that, if necessary, which is doubly stupid. If there are no more trains for the day then, yes, stranding people at a station that is not their own is really bad, but this was different. My only concern would be passengers with mobility issues: you do not want to evacuate the train but tell them they must stay and "it will only be about 4 hours until we get underway and can let you off at a station to which you don't even want to go."

 

[nfitz]

Was standing on the WB platform after the TFC match last night waiting for a train to Long Branch.....the EB platform had a lot of people on it (as usual) maybe about 1k of them (always a bit less than on the WB platform)......an EB train approached at high speed and blew through the station, it looked to be about 3/4 empty....any idea why a) a train would be scheduled at that time of night to skip the Ex and b) given the number of people waiting for a train and the emptyness of the train a decision could not have been made to adjust that schedule and stop and pick those people up.

Our WB train left around 10 minutes later so I have no idea how much longer those people waited for a train.

I was on the EB platform. That train blew through (on a centre track) at about 7:45 pm just before the westbound came? I thought it was completely empty, and I assumed it was heading from the Willowbrook yard to Union for staging extra trains there for Nuit Blanche - there was service yesterday on all the GO lines except Richmond Hill.

If it really did have passengers on it, then perhaps it was a re-routed Milton train? All Lakeshore trains were scheduled to stop at Exhibition.

Our EB train arrived as scheduled at 8 pm. Though there was no extra 7:45 train today, as there had been the last 2 games.

 

[steveintoronto]

If there are no more trains for the day then, yes, stranding people at a station that is not their own is really bad, but this was different

A bus could be put on for such a situation. Many of those passengers could have been picked up from the station by family members.

My only concern would be passengers with mobility issues: you do not want to evacuate a train and then tell them "it will only be about 4 hours until we get underway and can let you off at a station to which you don't even want to go."

EMS crews can do that, with the guidance of a federally commissioned policeman or train crew.

There is the concern for passengers being injured during the trek back to the platform. Passengers wandering off isn't a valid concern in the big scheme of things, inappropriate footwear is. As to how that would be addressed is a good question. The best option is to ferry them out with a rescue loco/consist, even if it is as I described prior, w/ a control cab on each end of the loco. That allows a shuttle ability and transfer through the coach end doors no matter which way the rescue consist is oriented. Same rescue train could also be used to ferry heavy tools and parts for other track/train emergencies, so it wouldn't be redundant until cases like this pop-up. (This situation will happen again unless addressed)

It appears, as others have pointed out, that the *balance of liabilities* rather than *observing the passengers' best interests* was the call. It's going to take an outside agency to oversee that call/protocol and how it's administered, and make sure they get it rationalized for the future.

In the interim, the attempt is to buy silence. No word yet if that "$100 on the Presto Card" comes with legal conditions attached.

 

[TOareaFan]

I was on the EB platform. That train blew through (on a centre track) at about 7:45 pm just before the westbound came? I thought it was completely empty, and I assumed it was heading from the Willowbrook yard to Union for staging extra trains there for Nuit Blanche - there was service yesterday on all the GO lines except Richmond Hill.

If it really did have passengers on it, then perhaps it was a re-routed Milton train? All Lakeshore trains were scheduled to stop at Exhibition.

Our EB train arrived as scheduled at 8 pm. Though there was no extra 7:45 train today, as there had been the last 2 games.

It looked like there were people on it to me although it could be staff and my 75% empty was to avoid being one of those guys who always looks at trains and says "completely empty"....we also noted how the extra trains after TFC matches were not there last night...likely because crews were assigned to the extra trains on the other lines.

I did consider that the train might be headed to Union to be one of the late trains home after NB....but even at that none of those were scheduled to leave until several hours later so even then a quick stop to get people at Ex back to Union might have made sense. The one I am talking about certainly did not blow thru at 7:45.....the match started at 7:30 and I am talking about post match.

We were initially excited when we saw the one return trip on KW line yesterday...thought that we might just take that EB train in for the match....but then thought "and wait around until after 2 a.m. to come home....no thanks"