GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[steveintoronto]

Many thanks for that, as it allowed me to delve more on the MPXpress series of locos and braking systems only to find this gem:

[...]In 2013, GO Transit ordered 10 more units numbered 657-666, initially to replace the remainder of their F59PH fleet (but instead ended up supplementing them), and to expand/increase service on its lines. These locomotives differ from the older (600-656) units because these are Tier-III/IV compliant, as such they feature a noticably quieter engine as well as a Bombardier regenerative braking system, visible as a thin black "block" above the exhaust section. The locomotives' prime mover and HEP configuration has not changed. [...]

http://locomotive.wikia.com/wiki/MPI_MP40PH-3C

Note: [...a Bombardier regenerative braking system, visible as a thin black "block" above the exhaust section.]

I was exploring the tendency for wheel lock-up for the loco independent brakes v. those of the coaches, and the lack of a sensing circuit inter-coupled with the coach brakes as in an 'anti-skidding' system for airplanes and road vehicles. The indirect answer is to use dynamic braking on the loco in lieu of an 'all train' friction system, (ostensibly facilitated by electro-hydraulic brakes used on trainsets) but that reference to "regenerative braking" puts a further onus on why GO would prefer to avoid braking dissipated as just heat, rather than regenerated. It helps them meet their Tier IV standard!

There's a delicious story in there somewhere...but as you remark, a lot of the juicy bits aren't published for public eyes to read. I'm still looking to suss out the details of the Sharyo "regenerative braking" system. The only reference is to recharging the main batteries and hotel power in published docs. (ZF refer to various PTOs (Power take-offs) available pre and post clutch to engage during freewheel braking and prime motor idle disengaged from the xmssn)

The disc brakes on the coaches are a wondrous thing in themselves, the size alone must render them capable of a very high braking rate, and if there's no inter-coach wheel lock sensing, some other facet of design seems to apply them equitably. I can see how the coach braking would be far superior to mechanical braking on the loco, and much less prone to flat spots.

It's not a TC restriction but a CN one and is found in their GOI which unfortunately is not a publicly available document. Also 2 units are restricted as well (one locomotive and a coach or two locomotives) to 50mph. But GO had that restriction recinded(after lots of testing) for the UP DMU's.

This is fascinating information! I wonder on the use of two coaches and a loco? Even 50mph is fast enough to get a rescue loco from Willowbrook to Ajax in about half an hour, clear track permitting. The question remains on available track switches to get it in front or behind the stranded consist. What hasn't been made clear that I can find is where the consist that finally did tow it (push it?) back to Ajax came from? Was it sitting there stranded itself all that time? Or waiting empty in Oshawa?

Edit to Add: Would the MP-54ACs be a lot more immune to this type of "complete mechanical failure"? (dual prime motors, can run independently even if one is completely unusable) If so, it would be the silver lining to this incident.

Monday morning edit to add:
Digging on locomotive 'blended' braking systems (esp for passenger, including E-P, Electro-Pneumatic) shows a lot of results. Getting the specifics as used by GO very difficult, even from Wabtec for the locos, and they produce some of the most sophisticated braking and traction control systems available. But *specifically* relating to the bi-level coaches, the Transit Toronto website has some excellent info as that relates to Vegeta's points on GO braking procedure:
[...]
An interesting feature of these cars is the use of pneumatic tread brakes and disk brakes. It’s the disks that allow a speeding train to stop within the length of a platform. The cars are rated to provide braking up to almost 1 m/s2, which is unusually quick for a car of it’s size. The quick deceleration, coupled with quick acceleration, speeds up service and gets commuters to their destinations without a significant delay at intermediate stops.
[...]
http://transit.toronto.on.ca/regional/2507.shtml

With the new MP54AC locos, newer electronically controlled train braking system (a type of E-P) might be feasible, along with a higher degree of regenerative brake recovery, due to the high level of electronic control and the AC motors. Finding that information is not readily available, at least for my recent searches, on the internet. A lot of it might be held close to the manufacturer as propriety commercial advantage.

 

[smallspy]

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

That's the claim from the media department. I haven't heard from anyone in operations yet. More specifically, I'm not talking about the spare set at Union by rather the next service train, operating 10 to 15 minutes later.

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?

You shouldn't take the statements from the media department at face value. At best, they are not nearly technically minded enough to give even the briefest attempt of an explanation of what is going on. At worst, they have purposely put out deceptive and incorrect information.

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.

Publicly, no, we don't. There have been a number of discussions inside the offices that have resulted in changes.

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

How so? Something happened that shouldn't have and there was a big mess. After you clean things up, you review what happened and you change the plan for the next time.

At least, that is how its done at my private, accountable to shareholder company, or any organization that No one's ever lost a job there because of a cock-up.

Many thanks for that, as it allowed me to delve more on the MPXpress series of locos and braking systems only to find this gem:

http://locomotive.wikia.com/wiki/MPI_MP40PH-3C

Note: [...a Bombardier regenerative braking system, visible as a thin black "block" above the exhaust section.]

Except that very little in that article where it relates to the last order of 10 locos is accurate.

There are no Bombardier components in the exhaust or braking system. That thin black "block" as described in the article is an exhaust silencer - a muffler. The units are not Tier IV rated, just Tier III. In fact, there is very, very few differences mechanically between any of the series of MP40s built.

I was exploring the tendency for wheel lock-up for the loco independent brakes v. those of the coaches, and the lack of a sensing circuit inter-coupled with the coach brakes as in an 'anti-skidding' system for airplanes and road vehicles. The indirect answer is to use dynamic braking on the loco in lieu of an 'all train' friction system, (ostensibly facilitated by electro-hydraulic brakes used on trainsets) but that reference to "regenerative braking" puts a further onus on why GO would prefer to avoid braking dissipated as just heat, rather than regenerated. It helps them meet their Tier IV standard!

The braking system of any passenger train is what is known as a "blended" system. The main brake handle also operates a valve which, dependent on the speed of the train, will add more or less dynamic braking to the mix, and does so on the fly and automatically. The idea is to maintain the braking rate requested by the brake handle but minimize the use of friction brakes. Dynamic brakes are good at higher speeds, but below about 6mph they taper off to nil pretty quickly, so the system will mix in more and more air brake to bring the train to a stop.

Anti-lock systems are installed on every single car, and frankly it makes a lot more sense that way. Because the mileage isn't equal from car-to-car, and with that the condition of the wheels and brake shoes, the braking force can vary as well.

The disc brakes on the coaches are a wondrous thing in themselves, the size alone must render them capable of a very high braking rate, and if there's no inter-coach wheel lock sensing, some other facet of design seems to apply them equitably. I can see how the coach braking would be far superior to mechanical braking on the loco, and much less prone to flat spots.

The disc brakes themselves only provide a small amount of the total brake force of each coach, and do so primarily at high speeds. The tread brakes on every wheel do the majority of the braking.

Disc brakes are generally more prone to flat spots than tread brakes, as there's usually no way to clean the wheel face. Contaminants are allowed to build up, and can prevent good adhesion.

This is fascinating information! I wonder on the use of two coaches and a loco? Even 50mph is fast enough to get a rescue loco from Willowbrook to Ajax in about half an hour, clear track permitting. The question remains on available track switches to get it in front or behind the stranded consist. What hasn't been made clear that I can find is where the consist that finally did tow it (push it?) back to Ajax came from? Was it sitting there stranded itself all that time? Or waiting empty in Oshawa?

GO schedules an 75 minutes for the morning deadhead trains to run to Oshawa from Willowbrook in the very early morning hours with virtually no traffic on the rails. There's no way that it could be done to Ajax in 30.

I believe that the train that eventually rescued it was one that was supposed to deadhead back to Willowbrook from Oshawa towards the tail-end of the afternoon rush.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

I'll address some of Smallspy's claims in detail later. I've managed to access Wabtec technical spec sheets and drawings. This is for the MP-54AC, I'll see if I can find the MP-40 later. Note, amongst other things, the Regenerative Braking. Please see attached:

 

[smallspy]

I'll address some of Smallspy's claims in detail later. I've managed to access Wabtec technical spec sheets and drawings. This is for the MP-54AC, I'll see if I can find the MP-40 later. Note, amongst other things, the Regenerative Braking. Please see attached:

An MP54 and an MP40 are two completely different beasts, and share very little in common with each other. One thing that MPI is trying to do with the MP54 is to have the dynamic braking feed back into the HEP circuit - this has been done with electric engines for a couple of years now. Because of how the MP40 is built however, this is not possible.

And just to further complicate things, 647 is a bit of a bastard, and will not represent how the actual production units are going to be built.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

647 is a bit of a bastard

Good thing these locos don't have feelings.

Did I ever tell you guys that, when they were breaking 647 in, I saw it lashed up with 666? The devil and the beast, together.

 

[steveintoronto]

An MP54 and an MP40 are two completely different beasts, and share very little in common with each other. One thing that MPI is trying to do with the MP54 is to have the dynamic braking feed back into the HEP circuit - this has been done with electric engines for a couple of years now. Because of how the MP40 is built however, this is not possible.

And just to further complicate things, 647 is a bit of a bastard, and will not represent how the actual production units are going to be built.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I didn't infer otherwise Mr Spy. So it's interesting that you now acknowledge that Regenerative Braking is being fed back into hotel power, exactly as I posited many months back for the Sharyos, but you swore that it's not possible, because the Sharyo has a stand alone HEP generator (which indeed it might, as supplement when the prime motor shuts down or is otherwise disengaged with the ZF gearbox. The gearbox has PTOs both pre and post the fluid clutch) Sharyo themselves make the claim as well as Metrolinx for regenerative braking on the Sharyo. I find it interesting how you claim a point, and yet never post reference to it.

I can't speak to the SMART units, as I don't know their specific set-up and configuration. But the UPX units have no ability to have regenerative braking, as there is nothing that can "regenerate" in the driveline. They have a diesel engine, connected to a mechanical drivetrain, which is then connected to the right-angle drives mounted on the inner-most axles of each truck. Because of this, they use a device called a retarder.

But yeah, continue to use outdated and incorrect documents.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

The regularly scheduled first Lakeshore morning train that transits Mimico to Ajax makes it in far less than the 75 minutes (60 mins if you don't count the stop-over at Union) you claim for the early morning deadhead. With stops yet. In an emergency, on that line, GO is permitted to do 79 mph (or 80 depending on source). The distance between those points is about 40 kms as the track lays. (it's 30km Union to Ajax)

One thing that MPI is trying to do with the MP54 is to have the dynamic braking feed back into the HEP circuit

"Try to do?" They're already extant and doing it. Delivery is pending.

this has been done with electric engines for a couple of years now.

It's been done for *generations* even pre-AC motors. The Red Rockets did it for heating. Dynamic braking has been reality for longer than you've been alive even.

Dynamic braking lowers the wear of friction-based braking components, and additionally regeneration can also lower energy consumption. Dynamic braking can also be used on railcars with multiple units, light rail vehicles, trams and PCC streetcars.
[...]
Yard locomotives with onboard energy storage systems which allow the recovery of some of this energy which would otherwise be wasted as heat are now available. The Green Goat model, for example, is being used by Canadian Pacific Railway, BNSF Railway, Kansas City Southern Railway and Union Pacific Railroad.

On modern passenger locomotives equipped with AC inverters pulling trains with sufficient Head End Power loads braking energy can be used to power the train's on board systems as a form of regenerative braking if the electrification system is not receptive or even if the track is not electrified to begin with. The HEP load on modern passenger trains is so great that some new electric locomotives such as the ALP-46 were designed without the traditional resistance grids. [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_braking_(locomotive)

And just to further complicate things, 647 is a bit of a bastard, and will not represent how the actual production units are going to be built.

It's a prototype, yes. The production units aren't. That's why I posted the details for the production model from Wabtec themselves.

The Siemens Charger is yet another diesel loco that now uses regenerative braking.
[...]An electronically controlled regenerative braking system use energy from the traction motors during dynamic braking to feed the auxiliary and HEP (head-end power) systems to reduce fuel consumption. The locomotives also meet the latest FRA safety regulations, including enhanced carbody structural safety with CEM (crash energy management).[...]
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...s/charger-burning-up-the-rails-in-pueblo.html

I'll get to the other points later. I have pressing matters at this time.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I would love to see an effort to increase train service on the other lines right now, to show people Metrolinx is serious about this.

 

[dowlingm]

Maybe 647 and another MP40 should be lashed back to back to form a dual cab rescue pair since GO don't seem to want to leave it out on its own...

 

[smallspy]

I didn't infer otherwise Mr Spy. So it's interesting that you now acknowledge that Regenerative Braking is being fed back into hotel power, exactly as I posited many months back for the Sharyos, but you swore that it's not possible, because the Sharyo has a stand alone HEP generator (which indeed it might, as supplement when the prime motor shuts down or is otherwise disengaged with the ZF gearbox. The gearbox has PTOs both pre and post the fluid clutch) Sharyo themselves make the claim as well as Metrolinx for regenerative braking on the Sharyo. I find it interesting how you claim a point, and yet never post reference to it.

What exactly does one have to do with the other? You're comparing two completely different units by two completely different makers.

I've never acknowledged that it wasn't possible at all, just that it wasn't possible on those particular units. And the same goes for the MP40s - it can't be done on them, either. The MP54s are built quite a bit differently, and so they may be able to have the regenerative braking power feed the HEP circuits - provided MPI is able to work out the bugs that plague 647 right now.

But sure, please feel free to continue to infer comments from my posts.

The regularly scheduled first Lakeshore morning train that transits Mimico to Ajax makes it in far less than the 75 minutes (60 mins if you don't count the stop-over at Union) you claim for the early morning deadhead. With stops yet. In an emergency, on that line, GO is permitted to do 79 mph (or 80 depending on source). The distance between those points is about 40 kms as the track lays. (it's 30km Union to Ajax)

48.4km from Willowbrook to Whitby Station, but who's counting.

And yes, a scheduled train is able to do that distance in 63 minutes. With almost no traffic on the rails. VIA is able to go from Union to Oshawa, almost the exact same distance, in 31 minutes with a smaller/lighter train and with fewer speed restrictions. So yeah, there's no way that GO could deadhead a train from Willowbrook to Ajax in a half-hour. 40 minutes, maybe, in ideal situations. The middle of rush hour is hardly ideal, however.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

But sure, please feel free to continue to infer comments from my posts.

I quoted you.

VIA is able to go from Union to Oshawa, almost the exact same distance, in 31 minutes with a smaller/lighter train and with fewer speed restrictions.

Exactly. So could a rescue train by GO.

The middle of rush hour is hardly ideal, however.

How long does rush hour last? They waited for over three hours.

 

[steveintoronto]

Maybe 647 and another MP40 should be lashed back to back to form a dual cab rescue pair since GO don't seem to want to leave it out on its own...

Even an F59PH, some of which are idle waiting for disposal, with two redundant for rebuild cab-cars facing outward each end of the loco could be put aside ready for emergencies like this, so as to allow coupling (or even just abutting to allow transfer passage from the end-doors) of a stranded consist. The older cab-cars allow end-door passage, and since orientation of the rescue loco could block that passage, one on each end of the loco allows a much greater chance of coupling onto the end of the coaches. One coach might not be enough to rescue a packed train, but in many cases, like this one, it could at least shuttle passengers back to the station they just left.

 

[smallspy]

Exactly. So could a rescue train by GO.

A full 10-car GO train, which is what GO keeps around at Union Station on standby/in case of emergencies, has a far lower power-to-weight ratio than a VIA train. For instance, an eastbound GO train may be able to achieve 65mph or so through Danforth Station due to the hill - a VIA will be very close to the track speed of 95mph at that same point.

And then there's the amount of time to travel from Willowbrook to Union - GO schedules 17 minutes for service trains but 13-14 is more reasonable.

If GO were to keep a short "rescue train" handy for such emergencies, there's no reason why it couldn't run a similar schedule to a VIA train. But why bother? It couldn't be used in service to replace another trainset.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Allandale25]

Not sure if there is a specific topic for this GO bus project. Posting it here regardless:

Jennifer Pagliaro @jpags 2h Plans for 141 Bay office tower approved at community council. Now goes to council.

 

[andrewpmk]

In other news related to GO buses Lake Shore Boulevard will be closed 5am to 2pm for "Waterfront Marathon", severely delaying GO bus service. Also 511 Bathurst will be completely closed for a few hours and sections of 501 Queen and 504 King will be closed and many other TTC routes will be disrupted as well. If City Council is going to approve a new GO bus terminal maybe it should also prohibit unnecessary closures of major roads like DVP, Gardiner & Lake Shore which severely negatively affect GO bus service and traffic in this city.

 

[steveintoronto]

f GO were to keep a short "rescue train" handy for such emergencies, there's no reason why it couldn't run a similar schedule to a VIA train. But why bother?

Well there Mr Spy, do the math. An F59 with two older style cabcars, from the redundant storage track, one cab-car each end of the loco, to make the consist bi-directional with an accessible end door gang-way to couple to, with a considerably higher thrust to weight ratio than even an MP54 dragging a 10 car consist, such that it can do the top track speed allowed to get to an emergency when needed.

"But why bother?" GO management couldn't have stated that any better, their admission that is was unforgivable besides last incident. Being unaccountable is what it's all about evidently, not to mention that a ten coach consist would have to be turned to access the stalled train for an end-door shuttle evacuation.