[RU479]

Is there anything happening to cab cars (242-257)?

242-250 are being refurbished by Alstom and are being converted to regular coaches.
251-257 are currently not scheduled for refurbishment.

 

[WB62]

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that maybe the locomotives will only be temporary and then once the electric locomotives arrive they'll be taken off the roster? Because in that case it doesn't really matter what locomotives they get as long as they preform reliably.

As long as we don’t pull a METRA and get literal freight locomotives.

 

[RU479]

As long as we don’t pull a METRA and get literal freight locomotives.

I doubt the locos GO are getting will be temporary, and if for some reason they are not newly built locos they probably would be used passenger locos.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

I doubt the locos GO are getting will be temporary, and if for some reason they are not newly built locos they probably would be used passenger locos.

I would assume the new Metrolinx diesel order is for new, long term locomotives. If anything, Metrolinx will phase out older locomotives like the F59s first. Evidently, these new locomotives don’t mean the end of the F59s… yet (thankfully, my inner foamer likes them).

 

[Bordercollie]

I would assume the new Metrolinx diesel order is for new, long term locomotives. If anything, Metrolinx will phase out older locomotives like the F59s first. Evidently, these new locomotives don’t mean the end of the F59s… yet (thankfully, my inner foamer likes them).

F59PH'S are still required for London. So at least 5 will be required.

 

[RU479]

F59PH'S are still required for London. So at least 5 will be required.

I’d assume the St. Marys bridge would get upgrades to make it support the MPXpress and other heavier locomotives.

 

[crs1026]

I’d assume the St. Marys bridge would get upgrades to make it support the MPXpress and other heavier locomotives.

All the larger Guelph Sub bridges are having work done. The Guelph and Rockwood bridges are already in progress, and the Grand River bridge is in procurement. One assumes that the Nith River and St Marys bridges will be next.

By the way, the upgrading of the bridges is not just related to loco weight and/or pier/steel condition. Bridges are a weak spot in the track structure in terms of the forces that run longitudinally down the rail. When a train is braking, it effectively pushes the rail down the track ahead of it. On solid ground, the mass of rock ballast and the rail anchoring systems hold everything rigid….. but on a bridge, the less solid deck structure may not be as stable. The faster a train goes, the more force is applied to the track especially when braking. If the track is CWR, as opposed to jointed rail, thermal expansion and contraction of the rail can likewise affect bridges as a weak point.

The need to strengthen the Guelph Sub bridges if higher speed trains are being implemented was highlighted in the Collenette report, when he looked at HSR potential on this line. (Back in the day, on some lighter branch lines, trains were forbidden to apply the brakes on trestles altogether….. a bit risky for GO trains). I don’t know if this is a consideration at St Marys but addressing this likely would be part of any upgrading.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

All the larger Guelph Sub bridges are having work done. The Guelph and Rockwood bridges are already in progress, and the Grand River bridge is in procurement. One assumes that the Nith River and St Marys bridges will be next.

By the way, the upgrading of the bridges is not just related to loco weight and/or pier/steel condition. Bridges are a weak spot in the track structure in terms of the forces that run longitudinally down the rail. When a train is braking, it effectively pushes the rail down the track ahead of it. On solid ground, the mass of rock ballast and the rail anchoring systems hold everything rigid….. but on a bridge, the less solid deck structure may not be as stable. The faster a train goes, the more force is applied to the track when braking. The need to strengthen the Guelph Sub bridges if higher speed trains are being implemented was highlighted in the Collenette report, when he looked at HSR potential on this line. (In the day, on some lighter branch lines, trains were forbidden to apply the brakes on trestles altogether….. a bit risky for GO trains). I don’t know if this is a consideration at St Marys but addressing this likely would be part of any upgrading.

- Paul

So Metrolinx will own those assets?

How do you strengthen the lateral movement of the track? And will that result in doubling the current speed limit?

So back when the line operated at faster speeds they were not allowed to apply the brakes while on the bridge even though the station is right after the bridge?

 

[crs1026]

So Metrolinx will own those assets?

Not necessarily, but whatever passenger service is operated, the tracks need to be brought back to a higher standard, and that includes bridges.

How do you strengthen the lateral movement of the track? And will that result in doubling the current speed limit?

A different design of bridge decking and fastening the crossties and rail to the bridge. While it’s unlikely to be the case here, this is one reason why many recent rail bridges are being built with rock ballast on concrete instead of wood ties on steel girders.

The engineering design would consider what speed is desired, and choose the design accordingly.

So back when the line operated at faster speeds they were not allowed to apply the brakes while on the bridge even though the station is right after the bridge?

No, I explained that was the case on light branch lines where trestles and bridges were especially flimsy. The Guelph Sub bridges have always handled longer heavyweight passenger trains behind heavy steam and diesel locomotives at moderate top speeds, ie 60-70 mph. I am sure that the design was sufficient for those to run safely. But if we are now wanting GO or VIa to run at 90-95 mph, or more…. that may exceed the as-built design capability of the bridges. Simply bringing them back up to as-built condition (they were not well maintained for the past 20 years) may not suffice.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

Not necessarily, but whatever passenger service is operated, the tracks need to be brought back to a higher standard, and that includes bridges.



A different design of bridge decking and fastening the crossties and rail to the bridge. While it’s unlikely to be the case here, this is one reason why many recent rail bridges are being built with rock ballast on concrete instead of wood ties on steel girders.

The engineering design would consider what speed is desired, and choose the design accordingly.



No, I explained that was the case on light branch lines where trestles and bridges were especially flimsy. The Guelph Sub bridges have always handled longer heavyweight passenger trains behind heavy steam and diesel locomotives at moderate top speeds, ie 60-70 mph. I am sure that the design was sufficient for those to run safely. But if we are now wanting GO or VIa to run at 90-95 mph, or more…. that may exceed the as-built design capability of the bridges. Bringing them back up to as-built condition (they were not well maintained for the past 20 years) may not suffice.

- Paul

It's sad that the line at one time allowed for speeds of 60-70mph and today we are running at 20mph. The neglect to the infrastructure to allow it to deteriorate to proof that railroads are doing everything they can to increase profits while neglecting to spend money on infrastructure.

 

[lenaitch]

How do you strengthen the lateral movement of the track? And will that result in doubling the current speed limit?

I thought he said longitudinal forces but I imagine lateral strength is important as well.

A different design of bridge decking and fastening the crossties and rail to the bridge. While it’s unlikely to be the case here, this is one reason why many recent rail bridges are being built with rock ballast on concrete instead of wood ties on steel girders.

I noticed that on recent images of the Kerch Bridge and wondered why. Now I know!

 

[crs1026]

I thought he said longitudinal forces but I imagine lateral strength is important as well.

I noticed that on recent images of the Kerch Bridge and wondered why. Now I know!

Mark me directionally challenged ;-)

On solid ground, the lateral movement is largely controlled by the rail spikes and tieplates and the mass of the ballast. That's why curves are sometimes banked and usually subject to speed restrictions.

The longitudinal movement of the rail is controlled by rail anchors, which hold the rail in place against each crosstie. Whatever tension exists in the rail, the anchors prevent this tension from accumulating along the length of the section of rail, so it doesn't expand and kink or contract and break.

In CWR territory, there may be short sections of jointed rail and some special track material installed just beyond the ends of a bridge. Those rail gaps provide a little bit of cushion for movement so that any major expansion or contraction of the rail which does happen does not spread onto the bridge where the track structure may be less rigid.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

Mark me directionally challenged ;-)

On solid ground, the lateral movement is largely controlled by the rail spikes and tieplates and the mass of the ballast. That's why curves are sometimes banked and usually subject to speed restrictions.

The longitudinal movement of the rail is controlled by rail anchors, which hold the rail in place against each crosstie. Whatever tension exists in the rail, the anchors prevent this tension from accumulating along the length of the section of rail, so it doesn't expand and kink or contract and break.

In CWR territory, there may be short sections of jointed rail and some special track material installed just beyond the ends of a bridge. Those rail gaps provide a little bit of cushion for movement so that any major expansion or contraction of the rail which does happen does not spread onto the bridge where the track structure may be less rigid.

- Paul

What if you swapped it out for welded rail?

 

[crs1026]

What if you swapped it out for welded rail?

Same issue. The bridge still needs to handle the linear forces that the train is transmitting to the rails.

CWR actually needs more attention to expansion/contraction and anchoring, hence the practice of gapping it in proximity to a bridge and adding some extra hardware. But that's not really the issue here. The track on the bridge, how it is fastened to the bridge, and how much linear force the bridge structure can handle, are the issue.

- Paul

 

[RU479]

Genuine question, is there a possibility that MX may get not get newly built locomotives?

I mean if the first 8 locos are supposed to arrive by September 2024, that's less than 2 years for a company to build every locomotive.

And considering how used locomotives that could be rebuilt are cheaper, is there even a slim chance that is what goes ahead?