Toronto GO Transit: Davenport Diamond Grade Separation | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

cplchanb said:
bilevel cars to power cars
Click to expand...
The first set of Bi-Level coaches were originally designed with this capability, when GO actually considered it in the 80’s they deemed it unfeasible due to lack of space. I’m sure that wasn’t the first or last time that it was considered too.
 
Willybru21 said:
The first set of Bi-Level coaches were originally designed with this capability, when GO actually considered it in the 80’s they deemed it unfeasible due to lack of space. I’m sure that wasn’t the first or last time that it was considered too.
Click to expand...
I'm surprised they actually didn't go with it. It's a turn key solution to waste 900 bi levels
 
Well, it's all water under the bridge. The new consortium has access to products that are proven and tested. No one knows how a D/EMU built on a GO bilevel frame will perform.
If Oncorr ever does decide they need any, they will turn to a proven product, and not tinker with perfectly good Thunder Bay coaches.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Well, it's all water under the bridge. The new consortium has access to products that are proven and tested. No one knows how a D/EMU built on a GO bilevel frame will perform.
If Oncorr ever does decide they need any, they will turn to a proven product, and not tinker with perfectly good Thunder Bay coaches.

- Paul
Click to expand...
Well we saw those leaked shots of that alstom go electric loco... it'll be a new bespoke loco either way. Thunder bay has had experience with multilevels being used for emus. I have a feeling f that they didn't even consider it.
 
Concept art isn’t commitment, it could very well just be a flashy image for ads like the EMU’s we saw above were, and the other countless electric equipment we’ve seen in concept art up to this point.
 
cplchanb said:
Honestly I think there was an opportunity to convert bilevel cars to power cars and make d/emus from the existing trainsets. We would just need to order more cab cars. That's what they're doing in New jersey
Click to expand...
NJT nor Alstom (or Bombardier, for that matter) is not converting anything.

What they are doing is building all-new cars that will happen to be self-contained power cars - they will have traction motors, pantographs, transformers, invertors, etc. to provide the tractive effort and onboard power for all of the cars that will be attached to them in a train. And they have to still retain some passenger space inside. And they have to be fully compatible with the existing MultiLevel fleet.

This is no small feat - which may also explain why after almost 4 and a half years not a single shot of a prototype car has been seen.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
NJT nor Alstom (or Bombardier, for that matter) is not converting anything.

What they are doing is building all-new cars that will happen to be self-contained power cars - they will have traction motors, pantographs, transformers, invertors, etc. to provide the tractive effort and onboard power for all of the cars that will be attached to them in a train. And they have to still retain some passenger space inside. And they have to be fully compatible with the existing MultiLevel fleet.

This is no small feat - which may also explain why after almost 4 and a half years not a single shot of a prototype car has been seen.

Dan
Click to expand...
Even if Alstom did build EMUs for GO, GO doesn’t have the same platform heights as NJT, or their Hudson tunnel height constraint. Accordingly, components in the NJT design may need to be accommodated or at least be more easily accommodated elsewhere in a bilevel design
 
cplchanb said:
Honestly I think there was an opportunity to convert bilevel cars to power cars and make d/emus from the existing trainsets. We would just need to order more cab cars. That's what they're doing in New jersey
Click to expand...

Willybru21 said:
The first set of Bi-Level coaches were originally designed with this capability, when GO actually considered it in the 80’s they deemed it unfeasible due to lack of space. I’m sure that wasn’t the first or last time that it was considered too.
Click to expand...

cplchanb said:
I'm surprised they actually didn't go with it. It's a turn key solution to waste 900 bi levels
Click to expand...

crs1026 said:
Well, it's all water under the bridge. The new consortium has access to products that are proven and tested. No one knows how a D/EMU built on a GO bilevel frame will perform.
If Oncorr ever does decide they need any, they will turn to a proven product, and not tinker with perfectly good Thunder Bay coaches.

- Paul
Click to expand...

smallspy said:
NJT nor Alstom (or Bombardier, for that matter) is not converting anything.

What they are doing is building all-new cars that will happen to be self-contained power cars - they will have traction motors, pantographs, transformers, invertors, etc. to provide the tractive effort and onboard power for all of the cars that will be attached to them in a train. And they have to still retain some passenger space inside. And they have to be fully compatible with the existing MultiLevel fleet.

This is no small feat - which may also explain why after almost 4 and a half years not a single shot of a prototype car has been seen.

Dan
Click to expand...
This is something I've been wondering about for a long time; not necessarily an EMU, just a conversion to essentially make the cab car or a coach into a slug for distributing tractive power. I do respect that may not be as simple as it sounds though.
 
smallspy said:
NJT nor Alstom (or Bombardier, for that matter) is not converting anything.

What they are doing is building all-new cars that will happen to be self-contained power cars - they will have traction motors, pantographs, transformers, invertors, etc. to provide the tractive effort and onboard power for all of the cars that will be attached to them in a train. And they have to still retain some passenger space inside. And they have to be fully compatible with the existing MultiLevel fleet.

This is no small feat - which may also explain why after almost 4 and a half years not a single shot of a prototype car has been seen.

Dan
Click to expand...

Has no consideration been given to single-level cars for some routes/times? Seems to be me that the loss of capacity off-peak, traded against the lighter weight, lower energy cost might make some sense, but perhaps my perception is amiss here.

I certainly did not expect a wholesale move away from the bi-level fleet but thought we might see it only for certain types/times of service.
 
Northern Light said:
Has no consideration been given to single-level cars for some routes/times? Seems to be me that the loss of capacity off-peak, traded against the lighter weight, lower energy cost might make some sense, but perhaps my perception is amiss here.

I certainly did not expect a wholesale move away from the bi-level fleet but thought we might see it only for certain types/times of service.
Click to expand...

I don't know what memos might have been circulated around ML headquarters....but I actually doubt it has ever gone very far.

Pre Covid, ML was mostly preoccupied with adding seatmiles and adding peak capacity, and not far enough along in RER to really grapple with equipment needs and procurement. Perhaps there were aspirations, and possible solutions required down the road.....but certainly not a rush to get on with an order. And once the P3 future was apparent, one suspects that any major procurement thrust was halted in deference to what the new operator might propose.

Post Covid, with there still being a surplus of equipment not yet returned to service, I'm pretty sure that the incremental fuel and operating cost of short bilevel consists compares favourably with the financing costs of a single level order. I suspect the new Oncorr operator will face the same tradeoff for a while yet.

- Paul
 
Weirdest thing rumbled by last night: Two full, coupled, P42s with HEP 2s and LRCs followed by a Maple Leaf (P42 and Amfleets) coupled in reverse. Sorry for the terribly pictures, the midnight light wasn’t friendly:

IMG_1440.jpeg
IMG_1441.jpeg
IMG_1442.jpeg
IMG_1443.jpeg

In the four years we've lived here, I've never seen anything but GO Trains and the bi-weekly Canadian. I understand this is because they were using the Mac Yard for maintenance but maybe someone else has more info? @smallspy / @crs1026?
 
ProjectEnd said:
Weirdest thing rumbled by last night: Two full, coupled, P42s with HEP 2s and LRCs followed by a Maple Leaf (P42 and Amfleets) coupled in reverse. Sorry for the terribly pictures, the midnight light wasn’t friendly:

View attachment 550943View attachment 550944View attachment 550945View attachment 550946
In the four years we've lived here, I've never seen anything but GO Trains and the bi-weekly Canadian. I understand this is because they were using the Mac Yard for maintenance but maybe someone else has more info? @smallspy / @crs1026?
Click to expand...
Maybe the wye at the VIA yard was unavailable
 
Willybru21 said:
Maybe the wye at the VIA yard was unavailable
Click to expand...

It's the whole VIA yard that was unavailable. ML had a work window on LSW with work both east and west of Mimico. Nothing could get through Mimico to Union.

For the weekend, all arriving VIA trains that weren't running through or turning back had to lay over in the GO Bathurst North yard. Trains that had to be turned were j-trained and run up the Barrie line in the middle of the night to Snider to be wyed.

Last night when the work block was over, at zero dark hundred, the accumulated trains from Sunday's runs were coupled together and run out to the TMC to get ready for today's runs.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top