[crs1026]

For this reason I think that as GO moves towards shorter, more frequent trains, they should be increasing their standards for traction vs train length.

It would be interesting to know what DB proposed around speed and acceleration.

The traditional ML timings assume fairly low top speed, often well below even current track speed limits. Some of that is due to limitations in the current loco fleet, but some is pure fuel and brake shoe economy and conservative schedule construction (aka "padding").

With electrification, fuel use is a different proposition thanks to regen braking, and tractive effort during accel is also much more favourable regardless of loco or emu flavour.. But I can't imagine a GO train reaching heightened speeds between some closer-spaced stations, so 140 km/hr is not likely to be required or practically useful for non-express trains.

Sure would like to see what DB thought was doable.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

That whole entire facility is hideous. Looks like either a post apocalyptic scene or something you'd see in Russia.

You must not hang around may industrial sites. I doubt any railway company has 'landscaping' as a line item in their operating budget, certain for non-public spaces.

 

[smallspy]

Currently based on observations they seem to have the following minimum power guidelines:
6-car: 3000 hp (e.g. 1x F59)
10-car: 4000 hp (e.g. 1x MP40 or 2x F59)
12-car: 5400 hp (e.g. 1x MP54, though they do sometimes run 1x MP40)

This is not quite the case.

An MP40 is rated to a maximum of a 12-car train. And in fact, most 12-car trainsets use one, as there are more 12-car trains in service each day than there are MP54s..

While an F59 is rated to a maximum of a 10-car train, they are generally only used on 6-car trains now.

As well as on the 12-car trainests, MP54s are also frequently used on 6-car trains, as they will only use one of the two prime movers in that case.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

You must not hang around may industrial sites. I doubt any railway company has 'landscaping' as a line item in their operating budget, certain for non-public spaces.

LOL The change in appearance during the month before the CEO's annual inspection train arrives can be dramatic, however.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

This is not quite the case.

An MP40 is rated to a maximum of a 12-car train. And in fact, most 12-car trainsets use one, as there are more 12-car trains in service each day than there are MP54s..

While an F59 is rated to a maximum of a 10-car train, they are generally only used on 6-car trains now.

As well as on the 12-car trainests, MP54s are also frequently used on 6-car trains, as they will only use one of the two prime movers in that case.

Yes I know that F59s are rated to 10 cars, and MP40s are rated to 12. I even mentioned the latter in my post.

That list is merely indicating what the preference seems to be, given that F59s are generally only used on 6-car trains now. Evidently I overestimated the percentage of 12-car trains that have MP54s, which makes my point even more pertinent. A 12-car train hauled by an MP40 is absolutely glacial.

It would be interesting to know what DB proposed around speed and acceleration.

Indeed. Some early rumblings were that they were considering short BiLevel trains hauled by an electric locomotive. The only relatively new e-loco currently in North America is the Siemens ACS-64, which has 8600hp - more than double the power of an MP40. Though doubling the power doesn't come anywhere near doubling the tractive effort (I know that you know this already, but I have to say it otherwise Smallspy will insist on "correcting" me).

The traditional ML timings assume fairly low top speed, often well below even current track speed limits. Some of that is due to limitations in the current loco fleet, but some is pure fuel and brake shoe economy and conservative schedule construction (aka "padding").

With electrification, fuel use is a different proposition thanks to regen braking, and tractive effort during accel is also much more favourable regardless of loco or emu flavour.. But I can't imagine a GO train reaching heightened speeds between some closer-spaced stations, so 140 km/hr is not likely to be required or practically useful for non-express trains.

Sure would like to see what DB thought was doable.

Even if they keep the cruising speed the same, accelerating more quickly would save a fair bit of time. Most trains currently continue accelerating until the next stop. Accelerating quickly and then coasting down to that same speed wouldn't increase the energy lost during braking. But with electric trains the value proposition on higher cruising speeds definitely improves thanks to regenerative braking.

MP54s’ 5400HP includes HEP. I assume the power deliverable to the traction motors is much closer to what the MP40 has available than the figures above suggest.

Good point. I don't see any stats for the MP54, but the MP36-S apparently has 2900 hp out of 3600 available for traction (the remainder for HEP), so for an MP54 that would work out to about 4700hp available for traction.

 

[crs1026]

(I know that you know this already, but I have to say it otherwise Smallspy will insist on "correcting" me).

LOL I was being imprecise, I admit. I'm sure @smallspy is chagrined that you corrected me before he could ;-)

Most trains currently continue accelerating until the next stop.

Actually, they don't. There is a Speed Chart issued to crews ( I have a copy but for certain reasons better if I don't post it) that indicates the top speed to be applied, assuming acceleration at Run 8 from the last station and clear track without turnouts or TSO's. Once they hit the target speed, they are supposed to hold it and not accelerate further, in the interest of fuel conservation. For LSW the highest top speed is only 65 mph wb (Clarkson to Oakville) and 67 mph eb (Clarkson to Port Credit) . For LSE it's max 64 mph wb Whitby to Ajax and 70 mph eb Guildwood to Rouge Hill and Ajax to Whitby. Some are quite low (Guildwood to Eglinton wb 44 mph). Obviously individual crews may go faster on a given day if circumstances require, but in theory the current schedule can be maintained with these low speeds.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

Actually, they don't. There is a Speed Chart issued to crews ( I have a copy but for certain reasons better if I don't post it) that indicates the top speed to be applied, assuming acceleration at Run 8 from the last station. Once they hit the target speed, they are supposed to not accelerate further. For LSW the highest top speed is only 65 mph (Clarkson to Oakville). For LSE it's max 64 mph Whitby to Ajax. Some are quite low (Guildwood to Eglinton 44 mph). Obviously individual crews may go faster on a given day if circumstances require, but in theory the current schedule can be maintained with these low speeds.

Ah okay. My impression from riding the trains is that it takes most of the distance between stations to reach the target speed, but maybe that's perception bias. I didn't realize they were supposed to be in notch 8, they don't seem like they're accelerating at full power when they're on time.

LOL I was being imprecise, I admit. I'm sure @smallspy is chagrined that you corrected me before he could ;-)

Oh I didn't mean that you were imprecise, I meant that I wanted to be imprecise but didn't want to risk being disciplined again.

 

[Metroscapes]

Can you name a rail yard that looks different?

 

[T3G]

Other than the lack of grass here, what am I seeing that's different?

 

[smallspy]

That list is merely indicating what the preference seems to be, given that F59s are generally only used on 6-car trains now. Evidently I overestimated the percentage of 12-car trains that have MP54s, which makes my point even more pertinent. A 12-car train hauled by an MP40 is absolutely glacial.

Except that about half of the 6-car trains are being powered by MP54s at any given time. And in fact, that is in part what they were designed to do - be able to work with shorter and longer trains equally..

Good point. I don't see any stats for the MP54, but the MP36-S apparently has 2900 hp out of 3600 available for traction (the remainder for HEP), so for an MP54 that would work out to about 4700hp available for traction.

Rather than a flat rate, the amount removed from the total figure is dependent on the length of the train and thus the amount of HEP required to be provided.

While there's obviously a lot more nuance to it, the general assumption is that it costs about 75hp per BiLevel car in the consist. Thus a 6-car train costs about 450hp of HEP against the total horsepower of the prime mover, a 12-car train costs about 900hp, etc.

Dan

 

[SkylineHorizons]

Other than the lack of grass here, what am I seeing that's different?

It's not just the grass and the weeds it's about the level of decay. As someone who used to work in both freight yard and commuter yards including the one posted above, there is a world of difference between the two when it comes to maintance in and around a yard which is immediately noticable to a railroader(or a former one). Things are essentially left to rot in maintance/repair/lesser used freight yards because there is a limited budget for such. In comparison MX yards are generally much more well maintained, I'll give them that much.

 

[Metroscapes]

Other than the lack of grass here, what am I seeing that's different?

Colourful trains, pretty clean buildings with relatively solid HVAC, solid lighting?

I mean, if you wanted a stark contrast you need an overhead shot of Whitby RMF.

 

[T3G]

Those all seem like fairly trivial differences to me, especially the lack of colourful trains. There's nothing stopping them from parking colourful trains there, other than the fact that they happened to have none on hand (ONR's colours are superior by leaps and bounds to the new ML colours). But I think the ONR yard as pictured is more than fine (and is more pleasant to look at than a good 90% of streets in Toronto), so YMMV.

 

[lenaitch]

Colourful trains, pretty clean buildings with relatively solid HVAC, solid lighting?

I mean, if you wanted a stark contrast you need an overhead shot of Whitby RMF.

To be fair, that portion of Willowbrook is a storage yard containing single-fleet equipment and both the equipment and the facility are a lot newer (you can see the old turntable pit in the ON yard). No freight equipment they don't own, no out-of-service equipment being stored for repair or being parted-out. There's little need for concrete or paved platforms when there are no crews walking the trains. It's a tough place to grow grass.

 

[crs1026]

Willowbrook is laid out for efficient maintenance of full trainsets using contemporary methods on an effectively greenfield site. That section of the North Bay yard was laid out in steam days and the newer shop buildings are squeezed into the land available.

There's a lot of concrete in a GO yard these days which assists vehicles used in maintenance ( not a lot of those in steam days) - and is a definite benefit to workers thru better, safe footing. Of course there are tradeoffs in that there will be a much more elaborate infrastructure for rainwater runoff and pollutant/liquid emissions control. And large pads of concrete are environmentally undesirable - temperature, cooling, rainwater, etc. Probably more use of salt and brine and a lot more plowing (diesel emissions)to keep clear in snowfall. OTOH the older North Bay shops probably have contaminated soil that will be a challenge to remediate if the yard ever moves. Apples and oranges really. And the North Bay yard probably is snow covered for longer periods in winter, footing is moot.

When I look at that shot of North Bay, I don't see that much rusting or decrepeit abandoned equipment..... any heavy shop will have a couple rows of fresh wheels, and flatcars holding new components waiting to be used. Willowbrook has all that also, just not within the frame of that one photo.

To my mind, the test would be a comparison of the indoors - does the lighting, ventilation, cleanliness, housekeeping, and layout enable work to be done efficiently and safely.

- Paul