[Northern Light]

There is far more idle capital tied up in the poorly executed track construction plan, which has whole stretches of track, bridges, culverts, tunnels, and signalling sitting unused because some other moving piece hasn't been completed.

Agree on the above. Neither of us like the way Mx has handled the 'early works'. They don't seem to be able, as an organization to think in logical, complete thoughts.

ie. we must complete these 3 things on line C in order to enact 'this' level of service.

Instead, deciding to do 2 things on line C, 1 at pace, 1 slowly, and then do the same on 2 other lines. Such that none see service upgrades to where we would like in a timely fashion.

The latent demand cannot be addressed - and service cannot be increased - without the civil works getting completed.

Well......

We know Mx had plans for 11 daily trains per direction on the Milton corridor, and it is not tied up with any major works, and they are not running 11 trains daily.

So..... while I agree that some of the work is a barrier to next-level service; and some is even a barrier to pre-pandemic service (see joint corridor works with the Ontario Line) there is certainly some space on some corridors for greater service now.

I don't feel I was being mean spirited by pointing out that a fixation on the rolling stock to the exclusion of all this other investment is a bit foamerly.

- Paul

I didn't say you were mean spirited, and I don't think I would ever attribute that to you; but I might say I think the statement is simply a bit much; that there is a bit more room for nuance than you implied.

 

[crs1026]

We know Mx had plans for 11 daily trains per direction on the Milton corridor, and it is not tied up with any major works, and they are not running 11 trains daily.

So..... while I agree that some of the work is a barrier to next-level service; and some is even a barrier to pre-pandemic service (see joint corridor works with the Ontario Line) there is certainly some space on some corridors for greater service now.

It's fair to point out that GO has a certain amount of equipment that they could be using, and aren't. But again, as context, I would wonder how many of GO's coach fleet are still sidelined, and how their overall utilisation is looking. (I will confess I don't know how much of their fleet is still out of service, and how much is stored serviceable vs unserviceable, and whether the older or more worn coaches are the ones sidelined versus newer or refurb'd coaches.)

I trust that not having as many Milton trains within the same peak window as previously reflects ridership. The headways are good enough that they probably do not discourage ridership.

One does wonder what threshold GO needs to reinstitute 15 minute service on LSE/LSW. Or more express runs on LSW at peak.

The fixation on non-use of this particular model of refurbished cab car is what grated. It's disproportionate to the status of the other parts of the fleet.If X cab cars are not being used, fine, but what if 3 x X equally pricey coaches are sitting idle also? As an enthusiast, I can look forward to seeing those cars return, but it doesn't speak badly of ML that they are still idle.

- Paul

 

[drum118]

GO may all kind of equipment sitting around that could add a number of trains to improve service, but do the have the engineers to operate those trains???

It takes 2 years plus of training to be able to run a train as well hire them from other RR. Need 3 engineer for each train to cover 7 days of service running all day. 18 x 7 = 126 hours /42 = 3. You also need a spare to cover a shift or someone is off for various reasons.

It great to complain about equipment and service, but what good is it complaining if the manpower is not their to use them. We have a few GO engineers as members who gave us inside info and they could give us an update on manpower if they were still around.

You need 20 engineers at bare minimum for those future 13 locomotives with 43 for maximum service.

 

[WB62]

It’s funny you say that because GO currently DOES have a shortage of crews, but nobody here even considered that.

This thread has really been annoying me the past few days, it seems like some people here just want the old cab cars to be in service just because they haven’t been used yet, ignoring the fact that Metrolinx is building up a fleet for a significant service increase that’s imminent within a year.

Instead of being a bunch of armchair enthusiasts complaining that you can’t ride the old coach yet, we should be excited that GO is even seeing initiative and preparing their fleet to be able to handle more service one day. Would you all rather GO have to delay phase 2 of service expansion next year because they don’t have enough equipment? I think not.

 

[T3G]

It’s funny you say that because GO currently DOES have a shortage of crews, but nobody here even considered that.

This thread has really been annoying me the past few days, it seems like some people here just want the old cab cars to be in service just because they haven’t been used yet, ignoring the fact that Metrolinx is building up a fleet for a significant service increase that’s imminent within a year.

Instead of being a bunch of armchair enthusiasts complaining that you can’t ride the old coach yet, we should be excited that GO is even seeing initiative and preparing their fleet to be able to handle more service one day. Would you all rather GO have to delay phase 2 of service expansion next year because they don’t have enough equipment? I think not.

Who is saying anything that you are saying? You are attacking a whole bunch of points that no one has made.

On the issue of crew shortages: this is a two faceted issue. The first point is that that may very well be true, but that is not something that should concern anyone as a regular user of the service. If I go into a store, and there is no one available to assist me with whatever it is I need, I don't care about what administrative issues lead to this result, I care that there is no one to perform the service that I require. If I need to get somewhere, and I end up missing my train or bus, and have to wait an hour for the next one (bonus points if I have to do so in inclement weather), all I see is that I am now stranded in the middle of nowhere in the freezing cold, or baking sun. Whether that reason be because there is not enough crews or because all the vehicles disintegrated into rusty powder in the middle of the night is not my affair. It just shows me a failure on the part of the organization to deliver an acceptable level of service (no, hourly frequencies anywhere in a region as densely populated as the GTA are not a success).

Second point: bringing up the crew shortage in a discussion about why refurbed rolling stock is not being used is a red herring. There is no link between having X amount of crews and being able to run Y rolling stock unless we subscribe to the frankly baffling line of thought here that Metrolinx cannot use the refurbished cars unless they have more service. For the third time, I am saying that it is entirely possible to use all the equipment, but using each car less frequently. There are cars currently in circulation that could be substituted with refurbished cab cars: the remaining cab cars, 251-257, are 10 years old and accordingly worn out, while the refurbished cab cars are newly refreshed; the earliest CEM cab cars are 7-8 years old and the same thing applies; the refurbished cab cars could be used to substitute Series II and III coaches as regular passenger stock, which have worn out, dusty seating (especially the Series II cars) that is unpleasant to me as a passenger. There are lots of non-enthusiast arguments to put the cars into service now.

"GO currently DOES have a shortage of crews, but nobody here even considered that." - This is a self serving ad hominem attack.

"Instead of being a bunch of armchair enthusiasts complaining that you can’t ride the old coach yet..." - This is a self serving ad hominem attack.

"Would you all rather GO have to delay phase 2 of service expansion next year because they don’t have enough equipment? I think not." - This is a self serving ad hominem attack.

I have repeated infinitely that I do not understand the financial basis for refurbishing something and then not using it for several years. And setting that aside for the moment, bringing all of this up seems to miss a critical truth in this whole discussion:

But yes, when people are interested in vehicles, and a new or substantially modified in appearance vehicle starts appearing, it is entirely natural for people to be interested in seeing them, and to slag them off as being foamers just creates bad blood in the community. The only community of people of shared interests who attack other people in that community more than transportation enthusiasts are Star Wars fans.

These are the first cab cars to be painted into the new scheme. This is not like someone asking about when we're going to see a Series II-IV coach repainted into the new colours, those are identical to the Series I and V coaches already running around in the new colours. So obviously, a change is going to attract attention, no different than if the first CEM cab cars had been delivered and then not used for several years. If you are posting in this thread, it's probably because you have some level of interest in the rolling stock. Don't act like you are above this.

As for me? I never like to share or justify my opinions on various transit vehicles, because it's tacky and irrelevant and no one cares, but since you have elected to use this line of argument: I am interested in finding out when the refurbs come back into service because within the next half a year or so, I will, in all likelihood, be moving out of Ontario. Therefore it is my personal interest to know if the cars will enter service before then. I'm sorry if that offended your sensibilities, I will now return to blindly beating the Metrolinx drum. Hooray for fluid, vaguely defined timelines that can fall apart at a moment's notice!

 

[crs1026]

Who is saying anything that you are saying? You are attacking a whole bunch of points that no one has made.

On the issue of crew shortages: this is a two faceted issue. The first point is that that may very well be true, but that is not something that should concern anyone as a regular user of the service. If I go into a store, and there is no one available to assist me with whatever it is I need, I don't care about what administrative issues lead to this result, I care that there is no one to perform the service that I require. If I need to get somewhere, and I end up missing my train or bus, and have to wait an hour for the next one (bonus points if I have to do so in inclement weather), all I see is that I am now stranded in the middle of nowhere in the freezing cold, or baking sun. Whether that reason be because there is not enough crews or because all the vehicles disintegrated into rusty powder in the middle of the night is not my affair. It just shows me a failure on the part of the organization to deliver an acceptable level of service (no, hourly frequencies anywhere in a region as densely populated as the GTA are not a success).

Second point: bringing up the crew shortage in a discussion about why refurbed rolling stock is not being used is a red herring. There is no link between having X amount of crews and being able to run Y rolling stock unless we subscribe to the frankly baffling line of thought here that Metrolinx cannot use the refurbished cars unless they have more service. For the third time, I am saying that it is entirely possible to use all the equipment, but using each car less frequently. There are cars currently in circulation that could be substituted with refurbished cab cars: the remaining cab cars, 251-257, are 10 years old and accordingly worn out, while the refurbished cab cars are newly refreshed; the earliest CEM cab cars are 7-8 years old and the same thing applies; the refurbished cab cars could be used to substitute Series II and III coaches as regular passenger stock, which have worn out, dusty seating (especially the Series II cars) that is unpleasant to me as a passenger. There are lots of non-enthusiast arguments to put the cars into service now.

"GO currently DOES have a shortage of crews, but nobody here even considered that." - This is a self serving ad hominem attack.

"Instead of being a bunch of armchair enthusiasts complaining that you can’t ride the old coach yet..." - This is a self serving ad hominem attack.

"Would you all rather GO have to delay phase 2 of service expansion next year because they don’t have enough equipment? I think not." - This is a self serving ad hominem attack.

I have repeated infinitely that I do not understand the financial basis for refurbishing something and then not using it for several years. And setting that aside for the moment, bringing all of this up seems to miss a critical truth in this whole discussion:


These are the first cab cars to be painted into the new scheme. This is not like someone asking about when we're going to see a Series II-IV coach repainted into the new colours, those are identical to the Series I and V coaches already running around in the new colours. So obviously, a change is going to attract attention, no different than if the first CEM cab cars had been delivered and then not used for several years. If you are posting in this thread, it's probably because you have some level of interest in the rolling stock. Don't act like you are above this.

As for me? I never like to share or justify my opinions on various transit vehicles, because it's tacky and irrelevant and no one cares, but since you have elected to use this line of argument: I am interested in finding out when the refurbs come back into service because within the next half a year or so, I will, in all likelihood, be moving out of Ontario. Therefore it is my personal interest to know if the cars will enter service before then. I'm sorry if that offended your sensibilities, I will now return to blindly beating the Metrolinx drum. Hooray for fluid, vaguely defined timelines that can fall apart at a moment's notice!

@

 

[RU479]

Let me say this, I honestly don't know what GO's plans are with ANY of the non CEM cab cars anymore.

For almost a year they were almost exclusively used on 12 car trains, mostly on the Lakeshore corridor. Suddenly in August of this year, GO suddenly decided to place them on 10 car trains that would mostly run on the Richmond Hill, Stouffville, Barrie and Kitchener.

I have now also seen them using 251 in a 6 car set on weekend trains, before placing it midset by adding more coaches to the front on Monday before eventually taking 251 out of service until the next weekend.

Then there is the refurbs, the ones from North Bay have no clear status on when they will be returned to service, and the ones from Thunder Bay we have no status on whether they would retain their cab controls or not.

 

[Tofee_beef]

For the third time, I am saying that it is entirely possible to use all the equipment, but using each car less frequently.

Don't understand why it would be a good idea. If we don't need the equipment for now, why do we have to put them into regular train service? It just feels like adding unneeded wear and tear on them, and I'd rather have them be used when we actually have the service to use them. As much as I like to see shiny new cars I see why they are just storing them for now and keeping them in good shape awaiting future service changes.

 

[smallspy]

Let me say this, I honestly don't know what GO's plans are with ANY of the non CEM cab cars anymore.

For almost a year they were almost exclusively used on 12 car trains, mostly on the Lakeshore corridor. Suddenly in August of this year, GO suddenly decided to place them on 10 car trains that would mostly run on the Richmond Hill, Stouffville, Barrie and Kitchener.

I have now also seen them using 251 in a 6 car set on weekend trains, before placing it midset by adding more coaches to the front on Monday before eventually taking 251 out of service until the next weekend.

GO has never had a plan for them versus the CEM cabs. Any patterns that you think that you saw were simply coincidence.

So long as it is functional as such, operationally to the organization, a cab is a cab is a cab - regardless of it's age, configuration or colour.

Dan

 

[MovingBlock]

Second point: bringing up the crew shortage in a discussion about why refurbed rolling stock is not being used is a red herring. There is no link between having X amount of crews and being able to run Y rolling stock unless we subscribe to the frankly baffling line of thought here that Metrolinx cannot use the refurbished cars unless they have more service. For the third time, I am saying that it is entirely possible to use all the equipment, but using each car less frequently.

Shunting requires labour, which is in short supply. There IS a link between the number of shunting moves planned and the number of staff available for revenue service.

 

[crs1026]

There is no link between having X amount of crews and being able to run Y rolling stock unless we subscribe to the frankly baffling line of thought here that Metrolinx cannot use the refurbished cars unless they have more service.

They can theoretically use them in place of the equipment currently being used in service, sure - but read on.

For the third time, I am saying that it is entirely possible to use all the equipment, but using each car less frequently. There are cars currently in circulation that could be substituted with refurbished cab cars: the remaining cab cars, 251-257, are 10 years old and accordingly worn out, while the refurbished cab cars are newly refreshed; the earliest CEM cab cars are 7-8 years old and the same thing applies; the refurbished cab cars could be used to substitute Series II and III coaches as regular passenger stock, which have worn out, dusty seating (especially the Series II cars) that is unpleasant to me as a passenger. There are lots of non-enthusiast arguments to put the cars into service now.

This is quite wrongheaded. Every car has a maintenance schedule based in part on days or months and not on hours of use. The more cars are placed in service, the more monthly/quarterly/annual inspections have to be performed for a given service schedule. Using as few cars as possible to meet the overall service plan is just good management. Even having to switch cars in and out of rotation has a cost which ML is wise to avoid.

"GO currently DOES have a shortage of crews, but nobody here even considered that." - This is a self serving ad hominem attack.

"Instead of being a bunch of armchair enthusiasts complaining that you can’t ride the old coach yet..." - This is a self serving ad hominem attack.

"Would you all rather GO have to delay phase 2 of service expansion next year because they don’t have enough equipment? I think not." - This is a self serving ad hominem attack.

I have repeated infinitely that I do not understand the financial basis for refurbishing something and then not using it for several years. And setting that aside for the moment, bringing all of this up seems to miss a critical truth in this whole discussion:

Well, maybe repeating the point will make it sink in..... the lack of crews is one clear reason why GO can't implement service improvements more aggressively. Holding equipment in reserve until the service can be upgraded is not a root cause, it's a result. And it's not wrongheaded, it's just good economy.

As for me? I never like to share or justify my opinions on various transit vehicles, because it's tacky and irrelevant and no one cares, but since you have elected to use this line of argument: I am interested in finding out when the refurbs come back into service because within the next half a year or so, I will, in all likelihood, be moving out of Ontario. Therefore it is my personal interest to know if the cars will enter service before then. I'm sorry if that offended your sensibilities, I will now return to blindly beating the Metrolinx drum. Hooray for fluid, vaguely defined timelines that can fall apart at a moment's notice!

I'm sorry if you don't get any satisfaction from this particular ML investment. The reality is, trains are running just as well today without them. When they do go into service, I hope you will come back and visit and enjoy them.

This forum is more about understanding the state of ML's operation and its effectiveness in delivering to the transit needs of the GTA. Rolling stock matters are a part of that effectiveness, but having too many cars for this particular moment is not really a big problem. We mostly agree that ML ought to have been able to get expansion done better and sooner - but the endless overthinking of everything around these few cab cars is not representative of the broader system issues behind that. And there are many issues.

- Paul

 

[WB62]

I was going to write my own response but I think most of you covered everything I was going to mention, one thing I will say though is I do apologise for being so rude in my first message, while I stand by the points I made I should have phrased them in a more respectful manner, I was coming off of a rough morning so I blew my anger off here.

 

[T3G]

This is quite wrongheaded. Every car has a maintenance schedule based in part on days or months and not on hours of use. The more cars are placed in service, the more monthly/quarterly/annual inspections have to be performed for a given service schedule. Using as few cars as possible to meet the overall service plan is just good management. Even having to switch cars in and out of rotation has a cost which ML is wise to avoid.

Ah, that changes my understanding of the problem entirely.

I was not aware of the fact that GO's maintenance cycle counts the days like that. In that case I do see why cycling them into service does not make sense.

Is this common practice around these parts? I'll admit to not being intimately familiar with the maintenance practices of most transit agencies, but those that I am (chiefly central European ones), they run their maintenance cycle based only on mileage. If a vehicle is out of service, it's not working towards its next maintenance cycle, if there's 5 cars required for a service but they have 10, all else being equal, they would use each car every other day and take twice as long to reach the next maintenance milestone than they would if they only had 5 cars.

I was going to write my own response but I think most of you covered everything I was going to mention, one thing I will say though is I do apologise for being so rude in my first message, while I stand by the points I made I should have phrased them in a more respectful manner, I was coming off of a rough morning so I blew my anger off here.

Thank you.

 

[smallspy]

Ah, that changes my understanding of the problem entirely.

I was not aware of the fact that GO's maintenance cycle counts the days like that. In that case I do see why cycling them into service does not make sense.

Is this common practice around these parts? I'll admit to not being intimately familiar with the maintenance practices of most transit agencies, but those that I am (chiefly central European ones), they run their maintenance cycle based only on mileage. If a vehicle is out of service, it's not working towards its next maintenance cycle, if there's 5 cars required for a service but they have 10, all else being equal, they would use each car every other day and take twice as long to reach the next maintenance milestone than they would if they only had 5 cars.

It's not GO, it's regulatory. And if you would like some light reading to learn more, please feel free to peruse this: https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/...OTIVE_INSPECTION_AND_SAFETY_RULES_ENGLISH.pdf

All "controlling equipment" - locomotives, cab cars, etc. - need a fairly intensive inspection of all of its safety appliances every 92 days (although they're working towards extending that to 184 days if certain conditions are met). This inspection is so thorough that it frequently makes more sense to remove those pieces of equipment from the trainset and replace them with others that have just finished undergoing the same inspection.

Passenger cars need their brakes inspected every 2 weeks. This one is a little bit easier, and is frequently done with the train as a whole unit over a pit track.

There are other inspections that have their own schedules, but the 92 day inspection is so intensive that for years the loco manufacturers even designed and built the maintenance cycles of their locomotives around it.

Dan

 

[SaugeenJunction]

It’s funny you say that because GO currently DOES have a shortage of crews, but nobody here even considered that.

This thread has really been annoying me the past few days, it seems like some people here just want the old cab cars to be in service just because they haven’t been used yet, ignoring the fact that Metrolinx is building up a fleet for a significant service increase that’s imminent within a year.

Instead of being a bunch of armchair enthusiasts complaining that you can’t ride the old coach yet, we should be excited that GO is even seeing initiative and preparing their fleet to be able to handle more service one day. Would you all rather GO have to delay phase 2 of service expansion next year because they don’t have enough equipment? I think not.

“Restore it and run it on the mainline” (for folks who get the reference) lol.