News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6K     0 

Alright, consider me mollified.

IMG_3748.JPG
IMG_3760.JPG
IMG_3788.JPG
IMG_3811.JPG
IMG_3813.JPG
IMG_3819.JPG


Also caught this cool meeting:

IMG_3780.JPG

IMG_3805.JPG
 
turbanplanner said:
With ever 4 hours service frequency 😂
Click to expand...
hey at least thats service and cars taken off the road. thats a start.

on a more serious note would a FLIRT like powerpack car be feasible to make these short consists? tri-rail running with 1 loco for 4 cars seems such a waste of motive power
 
cplchanb said:
on a more serious note would a FLIRT like powerpack car be feasible to make these short consists? tri-rail running with 1 loco for 4 cars seems such a waste of motive power
Click to expand...
I believe New Jersey Transit wants to do something like this with their new Multilevel IIIs.
 
cplchanb said:
hey at least thats service and cars taken off the road. thats a start.

on a more serious note would a FLIRT like powerpack car be feasible to make these short consists? tri-rail running with 1 loco for 4 cars seems such a waste of motive power
Click to expand...
I would think it would make more sense to have a double decker like the KISS coupled to 2 or 3 BiLevels. That way there is room for passengers all along the train.
 
APTA-2048 said:
I believe New Jersey Transit wants to do something like this with their new Multilevel IIIs.
Click to expand...
this could actually work well for GO to get cheap multiple units without mothballing everything. rebuild/order bi level power unit cars so that every 3rd or every other one is a power car and book end the cab cars.
hopefully DB will consider this option. this is essentially EMU conversion using the existing fleet.
 
^There have been lots of inexpert suggestions over the years that the traditional GO bilevel model is compatible with a EMU or maybe DMU configuration..... and lots of artwork from consultants who didn't have to build, maintain, oroperate same.... but I'm not convinced that anyone ever asked a PEng if it was feasible or desirable.
Seems to me that the design has maxed out the interior space (ie passenger capacity) at the expense of underfloor space and/or weight carrying ability. So to my layman's perspective, the design might be a terrible starting point for a self propelled car design.
I would speculate that when GO seriously contemplates self propelled cars, (as they should) they will land on a different design that is purpose built for that operating and maintenance mode.
The last thing we need is for a builder to cram electrical or diesel components into some disfunctional arrangement that is hard to maintain or pushes the envelope on stress factors for the car. So my bet is, the bilevel fleet ends up behind electric locos or mu'd to some new power equipped railcar.
There's a difference between how professional designers think and those who just say "wouldn't it be neat if....."

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
^There have been lots of inexpert suggestions over the years that the traditional GO bilevel model is compatible with a EMU or maybe DMU configuration..... and lots of artwork from consultants who didn't have to build, maintain, oroperate same.... but I'm not convinced that anyone ever asked a PEng if it was feasible or desirable.
Seems to me that the design has maxed out the interior space (ie passenger capacity) at the expense of underfloor space and/or weight carrying ability. So to my layman's perspective, the design might be a terrible starting point for a self propelled car design.
I would speculate that when GO seriously contemplates self propelled cars, (as they should) they will land on a different design that is purpose built for that operating and maintenance mode.
The last thing we need is for a builder to cram electrical or diesel components into some disfunctional arrangement that is hard to maintain or pushes the envelope on stress factors for the car. So my bet is, the bilevel fleet ends up behind electric locos or mu'd to some new power equipped railcar.
There's a difference between how professional designers think and those who just say "wouldn't it be neat if....."

- Paul
Click to expand...
spitballing some creative armchair ideas, since the 2 levels and diaphragms are connected via the mid landing on either side, maybe they can still keep the bi level body and house all the power equipment on the lower deck and block out access.
or they go the FLIRT way and have a passageway through the powerpack car. maybe a retrofit isnt possible but using the existing body with a strengthened frame on a new build is possible.
 
I'm no expert in tamping machines, but a bit of googling says that these are high end European format tampers - an interesting youtube video here.

The benefit being, fairly sophisticated get on/work/get off machines that minimise the time tracks are out of service for surfacing.

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

Back
Top