CDL.TO
Moderator
They might add mid-day service. 2WAD isn't feasible until more of each corridor is double-tracked.
Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited
They might add mid-day service. 2WAD isn't feasible until more of each corridor is double-tracked.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Not sure there is always a direct correlation of physical work completion and service introduction.
Platform 27
Active Member
At the risk of re-summoning a certain frequently-repeated series of posts in this thread, finished trackwork on date x does not automatically equal all-day service on date x+1.
[Edit: ha --- in the time I had the window open, the cavalry did indeed show up
]All indications are that some portion of Kitchener will have some flavour of two-way service outside the peak at some point in 2015. That clearly places it ahead of Barrie or Stouffville.
Also, I don't think this is correct: "in the announcements they have straight up said that the new track is to allow for all day service in at least an hourly capacity".
Last edited:
TOareaFan
Superstar
At the risk of re-summoning a certain frequently-repeated series of posts in this thread, finished trackwork on date x does not automatically equal all-day service on date x+1.
[Edit: ha --- in the time I had the window open, the cavalry did indeed show up
All indications are that some portion of Kitchener will have some flavour of two-way service outside the peak at some point in 2015. That clearly places it ahead of Barrie or Stouffville.
Also, I don't think this is correct: "in the announcements they have straight up said that the new track is to allow for all day service in at least an hourly capacity".
To be fair...was trying to point out the same thing you are without re-hashing the old discussion point you refer to....on that, we shall see...but no point dredging it all up at this point without any new (in either direction) information that could make any new discussion meaningful.
robmausser
Senior Member
This is correct, you also need the actual trains in order to provide the increased service.
GO customers aren't very fond of having to run along the tracks home, even if there is space within the schedule now to do so
innsertnamehere
Superstar
GO transit has huge amounts of trains sitting around mid-day, they don't have fleet issues in providing mid day service.
robmausser
Senior Member
I have heard that there is a lack of engineers and crew to drive these trains however, and that they are having trouble finding hires for the job and getting them trained in time.
Drum118 can fill me in on that I am sure, I believe he spoke of it here.
ehlow
Senior Member
Re: UPX as a regular service. To me it seems like they priced trips like Weston-Lawrence to Union or Dundas West/Bloor to Union in order to discourage people from using it for commuting or other trips.
This is speculation but I'd guess that if those trips were priced more affordably the trains & frequency wouldn't be able to handle that high ridership.
This is speculation but I'd guess that if those trips were priced more affordably the trains & frequency wouldn't be able to handle that high ridership.
drum118
Superstar
You are correct.
My concern at this time, how much shifting of crews from GO to UPX will hurt current and the next 2 years of service for GO?? I expect the spare board will almost empty for GO for the next 2 years.
Every train you put out there 7 days a week, you need 3 engineers and 3 conductors. Spare board should be 10-15% of trains crews on line.
Even if you add a train for peak, you need spares or overtime cost for the crews.
CAS are run of the mill position and not a problem for putting a train on line, but you need 1.5-3 per train depending on the service.
Just because GO has train setting around doesn't mean they can put more service out there when there is no track capacity for them in the first place. Milton is a non started for more service to a point at this time. KW has more capacity than Milton.
Don't for get it cost about $600 per hour to put a train on line and doesn't cover the running rights on various lines not own by Metrolinx.
How many riders do you need to break even on these train as well is there enough ridership in place to do this than use the current bus service??
Bottom line, unless a engineer is fully train when hired, it will take 2 years for someone to work from conductor to engineer and not all of them will make that seat at the end. Until the fed's change the rules for someone to be an engineer, long process to get the crews to run trains that people want to see.
Going to EMU's will help with crews some what, as you can use less of them with faster turn around of equipment for short/peak trips, but not all day service.
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
I wouldn't worry about that. The spareboard is absolutely huge right now, but only part of that is due to UPX. The rest is in preparation for the rest of the improvements this year, and they're still training more people as we speak as well.
CSAs aren't covered under the same hours-of-work regulations as the running trades, but they are scheduled to do the same shifts. If you have 3 operating crews, than expect 3 CSAs as well. At least for now.
All of the lines have more capacity for additional service than Milton, in fairness.
It costs way more than $600 per hour to run a train. $600 per hour is just the fuel costs, never mind operating crew, dispatching, maintenance, running rights, etc.
EMUs do nothing to help with turn arounds any more than the current equipment, because you still have to do all of the same brake tests as you do with the current equipment and have the crews walk from one end of the train to the other. Going to DMUs or EMUs will however allow for faster all-stops services as they can accelerate faster.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
It's huge for conductors - 39 not including the one in training who they could always take off training, something they've done far too often in past further increasing the training duration. Not so much for engineers - 26, this weeks totals. Including the 4 current working the UP test train that's 30 spare engineers. UP service will take a minimum of 24 engineers, 16 regular jobs and 8 spareboard shifts - seems they really want to protect against contingency's, only natural I suppose since they're propping it up as their crown jewel. Which leaves 6 engineers for reg GO spareboard. That number would be extremely low, but there are a several are off for difference reasons that should be back on by then. And certainly while help is indeed on the way with the training, it'll still be pretty tight going for a while there.
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
Oh forgot to mention, VIA's got an ad up for engineers yet again - 15 openings total. They'll probably get most of those guy from the freight side(specifically CP) but there might be a few departures from GO as well. They've poached off a couple of our guys in the last year or so - though we actually got those guys from CP just shortly before that. Talk about free agents eh... hopefully the net lose for GO is minimal. But funny how the skill drain from CP continues, seems nobody likes working for that douchebag of a CEO of theirs.
TOareaFan
Superstar
That Star article the other day prompted an interesting letter to the editor.
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/lett...chedule.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/lett...chedule.html?referrer=https://www.google.com/
Conrad Black
Senior Member
On time and on budget!
crs1026
Superstar
Well, parts of the project - such as the West Toronto Diamond - started in 2007 and are far from on time or budget. It's amazing just how shameless these guys are at self-aggrandising and spinning around the facts - "Since we assumed control"....it may not have always been a Metrolinx project, but it was certainly always a Province of Ontario/GO Transit project.
All the same, I'm happy to celebrate its completion. The reasons for any added costs are not egregious.
- Paul
All the same, I'm happy to celebrate its completion. The reasons for any added costs are not egregious.
- Paul