News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.9K     0 

I disagree that simply stating KPIs or outcomes would ensure consequences for failure. The government can simply shift the goalposts and brazen it out. There are maybe 100 people in the province whose votes depend on this and at least half of them post here

Having a clear documented scope and tracking against it (both changes to scope and work accomplished) is just Project Management 101.

And it gives something for the media, the overseeing politicians, and stakeholders to challenge. It's an absolute prerequisite to accountability.

ML has rewritten its promises - and the history of plans and commitments - so many times without anyone being able to interrogate or confront. It 's why some of us collect screenshots and downloads.

- Paul
 
legacy service plan
IMG_0887.jpeg

from 2022
 
Last edited:
Now this is the tea I come to this forum for! Just no clear idea of when this service level actually comes into effect. I'm assuming this is the end state?
  • Union-Oshawa: 32 mins from 67 mins (every 10 mins or better all day)
  • Union-West Harbour: 47 mins from 69 mins (every 30 mins all day)
  • Union-Kitchener: 78 mins from 108 mins (every 30 mins all day)
Edit: missed the "from 2022" caption. So I guess we're getting something way worse than this... :(
 
Alright, I'm moving to Europe. Y'all have fun.

Edit: That being said, reading through the article this kinda reinforced the idea that this wasn't a one sided affair. There are many sections here that kinda scream German arrogance such as:
Four sources said this was due to a disagreement in strategy. The rail veteran who worked for ONxpress, however, said Deutsche Bahn wanted software that hosted data in Germany, which wouldn't be allowed under Canada’s cybersecurity laws.
Like it really feels like DB just wanted to have their cake and eat it too, and thought that they would somehow be granted the authority to overturn any existing laws and regulations they saw fit. This falls in line with other things I heard such as heavy Union busting efforts as well as worker scheduling policies that could leave an engineer stranded in Barrie at 1am with no hotel.

I saw someone basically describe this situation as "The unstoppable German arrogance hit the immovable Canadian institutional momentum"
 
Last edited:

The article has these two slides. Two questions. For LSW (not East as shown below), why would there be an freight cleance issue east of Mimico for cabling?

For LSE, what is an overhead conductor rail? cc @smallspy @crs1026

1749581706451.png

1749581747674.png
 
So it means we are officially fvcked? I can unfollow this thread and come back maybe 2034?

Yes, it’s over. We are only getting lakeshore and expect that to be delayed right into the 2040s.

The only thing that could change this is a really ambitious provincial gov willing to rattle the hornets nest (the old-timers at metrolinx/GO)
 
^I'm assuming that an "overhead conductor rail" is just a fixed rail as opposed to a wire-style conductor. Both work the same way, ie the pantograph contacts and tracks along the conductor.... but a conductor rail does not have a tension based suspension system, it is a hard fastened rigid conductor.

There are conductor rails on the TTC streetcar system in some tunnels and underpasses.

The puzzle for me in that slide is the "Cabling from east of Exhibition GO to Ordinance" (sic). To begin with, Ordnance St (no i) is just west of Strachan, where the old Western Lead diverges towards Bathurst Yard....so a very short gap, and nothing spectacular implied if tracks are moved around. And second, what about the gap from Ordnance to Don Yard?

Either there is a third (not reproduced) slide dealing with the USRC.... or ????

My guess is there were other contexts to the slides that aren't relevant to this article.

- Paul
 
Alright, I'm moving to Europe. Y'all have fun.

Edit: That being said, reading through the article this kinda reinforced the idea that this wasn't a one sided affair. There are many sections here that kinda scream German arrogance such as:

Like it really feels like DB just wanted to have their cake and eat it too, and thought that they would somehow be granted the authority to overturn any existing laws and regulations they saw fit. This falls in line with other things I heard such as heavy Union busting efforts as well as worker scheduling policies that could leave an engineer stranded in Barrie at 1am with no hotel.

I saw someone basically describe this situation as "The unstoppable German arrogance hit the immovable Canadian institutional momentum"

I'd rather have German arrogance than Canadian arrogance AND under performance.

AoD
 
The only thing that could change this is a really ambitious provincial gov willing to rattle the hornets nest (the old-timers at metrolinx/GO)

The one sympathy I have for some of those folks as described in the article is - from what I have heard, the issue may not be that people undermined change.... but rather that people who appreciate the current regulatory environment and what is required to change practices and rule systems may have come up against people from afar who just wanted to impose new rules immediately without any pushback or challenge.

Better practices may well be possible, but the regulator will not just roll over and say "sure, whatever you think best". Any practice that runs contrary to the existing CROR or similar regulations would have to be analysed from many perspectives and the regulator would have to be satisfied that any number of error likely scenarios are appropriately addressed.

If that's true, I would hate to see those folks thrown under the bus under the accusation of being "change resistant" if all they were doing was providing a reality check on what may stand in the way to getting there.

An obvious hypothetical example might be any thought of procuring equipment that did not meet North American crash worthiness standards. It's one thing to say, those standards may be excessive.... it's another to say "let's go ahead and procure same, we already know better". Staffers being directed to do the latter would be doing the right thing to say, um, hold the phone a minute....

The same might be true around crewing levels, protection of track work, or any number of practices. Good ideas, but lots of due diligence to get there.

People who are accused of "throwing red tape" at a problem are not always the ones who are the problem.

- Paul
 
The one sympathy I have for some of those folks as described in the article is - from what I have heard, the issue may not be that people undermined change.... but rather that people who appreciate the current regulatory environment and what is required to change practices and rule systems may have come up against people from afar who just wanted to impose new rules immediately without any pushback or challenge.

Better practices may well be possible, but the regulator will not just roll over and say "sure, whatever you think best". Any practice that runs contrary to the existing CROR or similar regulations would have to be analysed from many perspectives and the regulator would have to be satisfied that any number of error likely scenarios are appropriately addressed.

If that's true, I would hate to see those folks thrown under the bus under the accusation of being "change resistant" if all they were doing was providing a reality check on what may stand in the way to getting there.

An obvious hypothetical example might be any thought of procuring equipment that did not meet North American crash worthiness standards. It's one thing to say, those standards may be excessive.... it's another to say "let's go ahead and procure same, we already know better". Staffers being directed to do the latter would be doing the right thing to say, um, hold the phone a minute....

The same might be true around crewing levels, protection of track work, or any number of practices. Good ideas, but lots of due diligence to get there.

People who are accused of "throwing red tape" at a problem are not always the ones who are the problem.

- Paul

I don't get the sense that this was good faith "oh well the regulations don't currently allow . . . ". At the same time, a project of this magnitude definitely justifies updating and modernizing regulation - regulations which force the use of antiquated systems or practices when better alternatives can be developed should be readily updated.

Of course, it's certainly the case that people use things like the current regulations as an excuse to prevent change that they don't think is justified. (I can imagine the same type of people who think it's a waste to run trains in two directions, which I've heard firsthand).

At the end of the day, our regulations are arguably mostly okay for running the type of Railways we run in Canada, but the railways we run in Canada, especially on the passenger front, are deeply deficient, and to the extent the regulations Force this to be the case, we should be open to changing them.

Edit: This is absolutely not to discount that there are processes that need to be followed etc, but it's often the case that the process is arbitrary and could be changed if the right people got in a room together and hashed it out. So often we surrender so much to rules which were made for different circumstances or which could be straightforwardly changed.
 
welp... this ruined my year
Don't let it.

As utterly disappointing as it is it wasn't hard to foresee. For years Metrolinx has not been able to articulate a clear vision of precisely what it was trying to achieve - Emus? Top frequencies? Electrification extents? Etc. etc. The standard stuff we see around the world has probably been pushed off further into the future, largely due to analysis paralysis among other predictable issues.

But heres the reality . . . imagine if we just had UP Express level service on every corridor. You could already do through running diesel FLIRTs like the ones in Ottawa running at 15 minute frequencies in the next several years (the main limit is probably getting the trains and training crews). The UP Express already runs the level of service we are looking for (at a minimum). Worth recalling (not that its a good thing) but parts of the London Overground ran for years without being electrified.

Its ok to be disappointed that things will come slower than we'd have hoped, but its also the case that they can get much better than most people appreciate much sooner than most people realize - if a vision for that is articulated. Every just standard locos and bilevels every 15 or every 30 with counter peak trains (Barrie and Stouffville) would be a lifechanger for so many people (we can and should do better than this as well, and with all the new nicer stations, grade separations, etc. the network is already better than it was 10 years ago).

Ultimately what I come back to as the ultimate impetus for the necessary organizations getting their act together on technical matters is just ridership. Nothing screams FIX ME like trains that are overcrowded and stations bursting at the seams - higher frequency, as well as density around stations are what will make that happen. It's simply the case that eventually our antiquated signalling and lack of electrification will need to be addressed to provide more service, and usually when things are a political imperative that suddenly manage to get done (or at least get moving).

TLDR: It sucks, but we can and probably will have much better service in the next few years. It's not unlikely that if ridership keeps going the way it is, and is accelerated by the additional service that the need for electrification will only become more obvious.

Edit: Not to mention that better links between GO and urban transit in Toronto (there are 5 very important GO / subway / rail interchanges on just OL and Eglinton, not to mention the proper connection between L2 and GO at Bloor is finally happening) should send a lot more people onto and off of GO trains.
 
Last edited:
Ultimately what I come back to as the ultimate impetus for the necessary organizations getting their act together on technical matters is just ridership. Nothing screams FIX ME like trains that are overcrowded and stations bursting at the seams - higher frequency, as well as density around stations are what will make that happen. It's simply the case that eventually our antiquated signalling and lack of electrification will need to be addressed to provide more service, and usually when things are a political imperative that suddenly manage to get done (or at least get moving).

Don't be so sure - Union Station is the prime example. We had been fighting the last battle on that front, and had been willfully blind to the centrality of that station and the need to future proof whatever solutions we chose.

AoD
 

Back
Top