carloverboy2k
New Member
AFAIK 200-14 have been delivered back to GO. Is UTDC cabs getting the same treatment or converted to coaches?
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
GO 214 leads a westbound LSW into Exhibition Station.
JSF-1
Active Member
I know this may not be this threads useaul thing but I thought you may appreciate this. I am currently working on my video for GO ALRT and made 3D models of the ALRT vehicles for use in the video (yes I am trying to upgrade my production values by using Blender models/Animations). Also for perspective ALRT platforms were to be 180m (590') in length
The bottom row is the OG model and the one we are most familiar with. These cars are 41' in length like the SRT cars but are configured into 3 car married sets with an open gangway in between and featured 2 doors per car. They could be chained together in 6, 9, and 12 car multiple units.
The middle row is the first revision which extended the train length to 59' and dropped the middle car in favour of a more traditional 2 car married pair with an open gangway and featured 4 doors per car. These trains could be chained together into 4, 6, 8, and 10 car trains (these would barely fit on the platform)
The second from last is the final revision which extended car lengths to 75' and featured 6 doors per car. By the time the project was cancelled this was the preferred version of the car. These trains could be chained together into 4 and 6 car multiple units.
Lastly at the back I included one with the TTC RT livery as at the time Metro was examining both the Etobicoke RT and DRL and both had overlap with the Provinces ALRT plans. The provinces hope was that the ERT and DRL would use ALRT spec trains so they could share the ALRT ROWs and interline service where it overlapped. (Also I must admit the TTC RT livery looks really good on the 75' variant compared to the smaller 41' variant the SRT got)
EDIT" Also all of the GO variants were to use commuter style forward/backward facing seats. The TTC variant would have almost certainly used the same transverse seating the SRT did since the TTC would be offering a subway style service (ample standing room required) while ALRT was to essentially be an S-Bahn (Commuter Comfort with Subway like frequency, standee's were to be kept to a minimum so less standing room than the TTC variant).
The bottom row is the OG model and the one we are most familiar with. These cars are 41' in length like the SRT cars but are configured into 3 car married sets with an open gangway in between and featured 2 doors per car. They could be chained together in 6, 9, and 12 car multiple units.
The middle row is the first revision which extended the train length to 59' and dropped the middle car in favour of a more traditional 2 car married pair with an open gangway and featured 4 doors per car. These trains could be chained together into 4, 6, 8, and 10 car trains (these would barely fit on the platform)
The second from last is the final revision which extended car lengths to 75' and featured 6 doors per car. By the time the project was cancelled this was the preferred version of the car. These trains could be chained together into 4 and 6 car multiple units.
Lastly at the back I included one with the TTC RT livery as at the time Metro was examining both the Etobicoke RT and DRL and both had overlap with the Provinces ALRT plans. The provinces hope was that the ERT and DRL would use ALRT spec trains so they could share the ALRT ROWs and interline service where it overlapped. (Also I must admit the TTC RT livery looks really good on the 75' variant compared to the smaller 41' variant the SRT got)
EDIT" Also all of the GO variants were to use commuter style forward/backward facing seats. The TTC variant would have almost certainly used the same transverse seating the SRT did since the TTC would be offering a subway style service (ample standing room required) while ALRT was to essentially be an S-Bahn (Commuter Comfort with Subway like frequency, standee's were to be kept to a minimum so less standing room than the TTC variant).
Last edited:
WB62
Senior Member
Great Job! By any chance have you seen my GO ALRT maps? They might be useful for your video. Or this one from back then:
jordanmkasla2009
Active Member
to note the MP54AC is limited to 110mph so we won't be seeing 125mph under diesel power anytime soon
kaptrice
New Member
I don't suppose that trying to save on traction power costs will be as big a motivator in the future as saving on fuel is today, and the faster-accelerating trains of the future will also be able to spend so much more time at maximum speeds of 140 km/h. A TRAXX platform locomotive with maximum power 5600kW may haul a 5-car train, of weight ~350 tonnes including the loco, and with a starting tractive effort of ~315kN. Today's MP40PHs may, with output 3000kW, haul 12-car trains within striking distance of 800 tonnes and with about 370kN starting tractive effort. Some quick calculations can produce ballpark figures for a stopping penalty - i.e. how much extra time it takes to reach a distant point after coming to a stop and accelerating again, ignoring the time spent dwelling while stopped. For current trains, it comes out to well in excess of 200 seconds for a MP40PH and maybe a dozen seconds less for a MP54AC. The short electric train may do it in 90 seconds. Modern EMUs could halve that again, but I understand they aren't planned in the near future for pragmatic reasons.
I was really shocked at the old Uxbridge sub speed limits though. Do we know if they've been raised following the double-tracking project?
Last edited:
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Unless it's an express train, is the time saved would be marginal.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Has MX started repainting the MP40's in the newer livery?
drum118
Superstar
A few have been done so far, but been some time one has been repainted
Edited: 607 + 615 + 647 that I have photos of. I believe 662 and up arrived in new colours
Last edited:
Bibi L
Active Member
607 and 615 were repainted a while back. 647 was an MP40 and was converted to an MP54 as an experiment. The newer 662+ MP40’s arrived in the new livery already. No repaints recently.
Bibi L
Active Member
Does anyone know if or when the remaining F59PH’s are going out of service entirely? And why they are still in service despite multiple being retired when the MP40PH-3C’s were ordered and delivered?
There were periods of time where I didn’t see many F59PH’s running, but I do see a lot more in service.
I love the F59PH’s!
There were periods of time where I didn’t see many F59PH’s running, but I do see a lot more in service.
I love the F59PH’s!
drum118
Superstar
The first photo of 607 been repainted was September 19, 2013:
First shot of 617 along with 607 was April 19, 2014
647 came back from rebuilt in new colours with the first shot October 09/22
They will be hanging around for some time as there is no rush to do so and mainly used on 6-8 cars trains for the Barrie and Stouffville/Mount Pleasant line
SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
So this is doing the rounds on Facebook this AM. Evidently GO has purchased some F59s from California and will have them rebuilt in North Bay. Take with a grain of salt.
cplchanb
Senior Member
That's ghetto... at least some surplus mp40s instead of a 40 year old relic
Bojaxs
Senior Member
I mean, Metrolinx is refurbishing those old cab cars. So a move like this shouldn't come as a surprise.
It's interesting how they sold some of their original F59's to EXO, only now to be buying some more back from Caltrain.
My only concern with the F59's is they're limited to moving 6 coaches. Unless the plan is to have two F59's per train. How many coaches can two F59's move? Without sacrificing speed.