mdrejhon
Senior Member
I have seen the GO train I was on, back up by a few feet when it overshot the platform it was arriving at. Less than one coach length.
I know all that's not really relevant to the discussion but if I got a dollar for every time I seen or heard someone refer to GO trains being restricted from backing up I could of bought myself a decent meal by now. And being privy to the actual procedure in place I do feel somewhat obligated in correcting that belief.
I have no idea how difficult it is(probably not that difficult considering they own the territory the equipment and don't use CN crews) but before they can run single car DMU's they'll have to get an exemption from CN GOI restriction 3.34:
I was never asserting that it was absolutely restricted. Only that it is a good idea. That's why it was a recommendation.
I personally wouldn't demand it, but I would prefer if the train carrying me was driven by someone with with the forward view and the controls.
I though you were under that impression when you said it though that was a "strict no-no" if you don't have a "cab at both ends"? In any case I'm not criticizing your view point whether that was or wasn't what you though. I just wanted to clarify the matter since its understandable that without having access to all the information, which the general public most certainly does not, its very easy to come to certain conclusions.
It's a very rare for something like that to happen but it has. For whatever reason sometimes the cab car cannot "communicate" with the engine but the train can still be operated from the engine itself. Thankfully that's probably not something that would ever occur for more than a stop at least not if the ones calling the shots have any sense at all - GO transit Rail Operations. I only heard of the cab failure(s) which is the more significant event, not what the crew was told to do afterwards - essential we only do what we are told to do, within the rules of course. But some of their calls have made me wonder what exactly are they thinking...
Bombardier has restricted the maximum permitted operating speed under this condition to 25mph unless the QCTO is in the cab. By the they meaning the 2nd engineer, of which approx. only 15% of the jobs have right now. But even under that exception, nobody I know is reckless enough to operate at track speed as if nothing were amiss. And like I was saying, the train would then most likely only operate in revenue service until the next station to drop off all passengers and then go out of service and proceed to the shop as equipment.
Well before we continue to dilly dally on the ethics of single car ops, can we confirm that there is actually only a cab on 1 side? all weve seen is 1 photo of 1 end and judging from the the fact that there are lights and even what seems to be a led destination sign over the gangway. Not to mention that they even stuck the UP logo to the sliding door. So unless metrolinx intentionally wasted money or tried to squeeze out all the dollars budgeted, it may seem to be a fair assessment that they may have intentions of running this car as at the very least a lead car.
I have no idea how difficult it is(probably not that difficult considering they own the territory the equipment and don't use CN crews) but before they can run single car DMU's they'll have to get an exemption from CN GOI restriction 3.34:
LOCOMOTIVES RUNNING LIGHT AND SELF PROPELLED CAR MOVEMENTS
...
- Where a signal system with automatic features is in service
(i) One unit running light 30 MPH
Wow, that press release was full of a hell of a lot of glad-handing and back-slapping for being an announcement of ATMs at UPX stations.
I certainly expect a lot of fluff in these, but when they started repeating themselves, it got ridiculous.Innovative!
Founding Partner!
Collaboration!
Strategic Partnership!
Partnership!!!
Innovative!!!
Actual Announcement
Thrilled!
Confidence!
It was a full six paragraphs before the actual announcement! It distills down to:
I certainly expect a lot of fluff in these, but when they started repeating themselves, it got ridiculous.
Wow, that press release was full of a hell of a lot of glad-handing and back-slapping for being an announcement of ATMs at UPX stations.
Metrolinx's apex of fluff was definitely that cringe-worthy UPX promo video they released a few months ago:
http://www.blogto.com/city/2014/07/the_toronto_airport_rail_link_will_be_epic_apparently/
That's what the testing is for. The whole reason why 3.34 exists is because of CN's absurdly low shunt voltage. A single vehicle does not have enough wheels on the rail/contact points to reliably shunt circuits, thus the speed limitation.
Since they own it, ML should just increase the shunt voltage and be done with it if they haven't yet already.
So... do we know when this thing is launching?