[cplchanb]

Well, coaches are considerably less complex than self powered rail cars. I don't know exactly how intensive the refurbishment is, but if the coaches were stripped down to their bare shells and had new electric/HVAC systems installed that match those of the newer equipment, I don't really see that there is a lot of opportunity for things to go wrong compared to something with a propulsion package, for example.

Keep in mind too that the Series II cars have already been refurbished once, from 2002 to 2004. It's not as though we're dealing with cars that are untouched since being built.

You may call it cheap. I, on the other hand, would not be very happy knowing that Metrolinx is junking coaches that could still be used for decades to come, just because some people have an aversion to old equipment. Fiscal responsibility should entail making what you have last as long as possible.

40 years is a very very long time imto keep rolling stock. You dont see many people trying to scrape every inch off of that 1995 ford aerostar van do you? They could easily sell them to other railways especially the gen 1 to 5s. Not to mention by buying new trains more frequently we could've helped Bombardier stay alive and employed hundreds to thousands to keep a cyclicl railway industry going. There's more to it than just trying to continuously refurbish.

 

[T3G]

40 years is really not that unusual for railway coaches. The UK still uses Mark 2 coaches built 1963-1975 and Mark 3 coaches built 1975-1988, as a quick example. It is much more unusual to see powered rolling stock survive beyond that age. There are advantages to being unpowered empty shells.

Also, I’m sorry, but the thought of Metrolinx junking perfectly usable equipment for the sole benefit of Bombardier, who were too incompetent to stay afloat, is beyond absurd to me. Tax dollars should not be used to prop up incompetent mega corporations. Bombardier has been the recipient of the bulk of rail orders in southern Ontario for the last 20 years, they have been given a ton of business, and it wasn’t enough. The concern with buying new rolling stock should be chiefly how it will affect the company doing the purchasing. If Bombardier had to rely on premature fleet renewal to keep going, they deserve to have gone under.

 

[cplchanb]

40 years is really not that unusual for railway coaches. The UK still uses Mark 2 coaches built 1963-1975 and Mark 3 coaches built 1975-1988, as a quick example. It is much more unusual to see powered rolling stock survive beyond that age. There are advantages to being unpowered empty shells.

Also, I’m sorry, but the thought of Metrolinx junking perfectly usable equipment for the sole benefit of Bombardier, who were too incompetent to stay afloat, is beyond absurd to me. Tax dollars should not be used to prop up incompetent mega corporations. The concern with buying new rolling stock should be chiefly how it will affect the company doing the purchasing. If Bombardier had to rely on premature fleet renewal to keep going, they deserve to have gone under.

Think about it this way. The reason why bbr NA struggled was that there was little business available due to railways being too cheap and just constantly refurbing. You can't survive long teem in that type of operating model even if you're competent. Businesses rely on product purchases to survive and if most North americal railroads with is antiquated FRA standards continuously relies only walking dead refurbs and 50year life cycles eventually they will choke out what suppliers are there here...

 

[AnnetteMeetsJane]

I love anecdotal stories like this.

Mainly because they show just how wrong many of these views that "things were much better back in the day!". And doesn't give any of the details - like the fact that trains back then didn't stop as often. Or that the frequency of service in many cases is actually better today.

Rose-coloured glasses are a funny thing. And so is memory - collective or otherwise.

Dan

It's not an anecdotal story @smallspy - and I think that @cplchanb understands my point.
Google "Cornish Riviera Express" and you will get plenty of information about the run he drove, the engines that were used etc. It was quite a famous service at the time. I will give you that "stopping less" point - The GWR used slip coaches so they didn't have to stop and literally just detached carriages as the train passed the station - not sure that would pass health and safety now. This extract from "Railway Wonders of the World" is interesting. There were other express services that ran that level of service too - the Flying Scotsman is perhaps more famous.

My point was that the railway company - GWR did everything it could to provide the most reliable, and fastest, service - 4 hours for 360 km daily and literally as regular as clockwork. Toronto to London is about half the distance, and takes about 2.25 hours. The GWR service was expected to be on-time, everyday and the entire company took pride in that level of service. A watch-maker was employed at the depot (Old Oak Common) - every driver had a company-issued watch which they handed in when they finished each run, and it was cleaned, wound and set to GWR time ready for the driver to pick up at the beginning of the next shift. When they retired, they got to keep their watch and my Dad has his Grandfather's GWR watch.

In the 21 century we have a system that runs passenger service which cannot boast that level of reliability. Sometimes trains leave on time, mostly they don't, and it is not unheard of that they don't leave at all! Service is run on stretches of line which @Krypto98 says are down to 30 mph and, if I understand correctly, this is mostly due to a lack of maintenance not a lack of technology or difficult terrain. That is just so crap! How can a modern reliable fast service be run over rail that isn't fit for the service provided 70+ years old? It drives me bonkers that the rail system is so poor in Canada, when train is pretty much the ideal way to move goods and people across the long distances and the relatively flat terrain that we are blessed with. I would absolutely love to use the train to get to work and back (Toronto -> Guelph) but while it would have been possible at the beginning of the 20th century, it isn't possible right now as the track needs to be restored...

Its sad. That's all. And sarcastic comments about rose-coloured glasses just demonstrates petulance.

AmJ

 

[reaperexpress]

It's not an anecdotal story @smallspy - and I think that @cplchanb understands my point.
Google "Cornish Riviera Express" and you will get plenty of information about the run he drove, the engines that were used etc. It was quite a famous service at the time. I will give you that "stopping less" point - The GWR used slip coaches so they didn't have to stop and literally just detached carriages as the train passed the station - not sure that would pass health and safety now. This extract from "Railway Wonders of the World" is interesting. There were other express services that ran that level of service too - the Flying Scotsman is perhaps more famous.

My point was that the railway company - GWR did everything it could to provide the most reliable, and fastest, service - 4 hours for 360 km daily and literally as regular as clockwork. Toronto to London is about half the distance, and takes about 2.25 hours. The GWR service was expected to be on-time, everyday and the entire company took pride in that level of service. A watch-maker was employed at the depot (Old Oak Common) - every driver had a company-issued watch which they handed in when they finished each run, and it was cleaned, wound and set to GWR time ready for the driver to pick up at the beginning of the next shift. When they retired, they got to keep their watch and my Dad has his Grandfather's GWR watch.

In the 21 century we have a system that runs passenger service which cannot boast that level of reliability. Sometimes trains leave on time, mostly they don't, and it is not unheard of that they don't leave at all! Service is run on stretches of line which @Krypto98 says are down to 30 mph and, if I understand correctly, this is mostly due to a lack of maintenance not a lack of technology or difficult terrain. That is just so crap! How can a modern reliable fast service be run over rail that isn't fit for the service provided 70+ years old? It drives me bonkers that the rail system is so poor in Canada, when train is pretty much the ideal way to move goods and people across the long distances and the relatively flat terrain that we are blessed with. I would absolutely love to use the train to get to work and back (Toronto -> Guelph) but while it would have been possible at the beginning of the 20th century, it isn't possible right now as the track needs to be restored...

Its sad. That's all. And sarcastic comments about rose-coloured glasses just demonstrates petulance.

AmJ

The GWR owned the railway and controlled the dispatching. Via does not.

GO Transit also boasts excellent reliability on the lines they own.

The GWR went as far as to drop carriages off a moving train to avoid stopping, and yet that express train still had a lower average speed than today's all-stops milkrun from Toronto to Ottawa.

 

[Bordercollie]

40 years is really not that unusual for railway coaches. The UK still uses Mark 2 coaches built 1963-1975 and Mark 3 coaches built 1975-1988, as a quick example. It is much more unusual to see powered rolling stock survive beyond that age. There are advantages to being unpowered empty shells.

Also, I’m sorry, but the thought of Metrolinx junking perfectly usable equipment for the sole benefit of Bombardier, who were too incompetent to stay afloat, is beyond absurd to me. Tax dollars should not be used to prop up incompetent mega corporations. Bombardier has been the recipient of the bulk of rail orders in southern Ontario for the last 20 years, they have been given a ton of business, and it wasn’t enough. The concern with buying new rolling stock should be chiefly how it will affect the company doing the purchasing. If Bombardier had to rely on premature fleet renewal to keep going, they deserve to have gone under.

Considering that the design has basically stayed the same over 50 years tells you that it's well designed. Although they changed from rivets to welds that was because of an update in technology and welding is likely less labor intensive.

Also Crash Energy Management was a big advancement but the overall design is still the same. Why replace them with new ones if the ones we already have, are perfectly capable of doing the work?
LED head lights, new HVAC and the refurbishment of the trucks and boagies. I don't know if any structural changes were made to increase safety but I'm sure that if it took them that long some safety improvements were made to the cab area.

 

[crs1026]

The GWR went as far as to drop carriages off a moving train to avoid stopping, and yet that express train still had a lower average speed than today's all-stops milkrun from Toronto to Ottawa.

The GWR had a long history, a positive reputation, and has a body of enthusiasts who celebrate GWR as tradition, but I’m not sure that I would run to that traditional viewpoint to prescribe what ML is doing right or wrong. They did many things well, but one has to measure those best practices against the local context. Some will do well, some not so well. Other operators with good reputations have practices that we would be wise to adopt, but which the GWR would not have found acceptable.

I can respect one’s pride in one’s heritage, but that should not verge into institutional hero worship.

- Paul

 

[T3G]

Think about it this way. The reason why bbr NA struggled was that there was little business available due to railways being too cheap and just constantly refurbing. You can't survive long teem in that type of operating model even if you're competent. Businesses rely on product purchases to survive and if most North americal railroads with is antiquated FRA standards continuously relies only walking dead refurbs and 50year life cycles eventually they will choke out what suppliers are there here...

To which I say again, of what concern is that to GO? Their mandate is to provide commuter service in southern Ontario, and (I hope) keeping their fares as low as is reasonable to expect. There is no part of their mandate that requires them to look out for Bombardier, or MPI, or MCI, or Alexander-Dennis, or whatever manufacturer or supplier you choose to substitute in. What kind of economic situation do you visualize where companies tailor their purchasing needs for the benefit of one manufacturer rather than the manufacturer tailoring their business situation to the present economic reality?

BBD's financial situation is of no concern to GO, nor should it be. Refurbishment is chosen when it is the more economical option. Are you willing to pay extra fares so that GO can set money on fire and buy new rolling stock to replace perfectly usable old rolling stock?

Also, as I previously mentioned, GO was hardly BBD's only client in southern Ontario (and they alone bought a ton of stuff from them). And there was no such entity as "BBR NA"; it was all under the Bombardier Transportation subsidiary, which also has operations overseas.

 

[crs1026]

BBD's financial situation is of no concern to GO, nor should it be. Refurbishment is chosen when it is the more economical option. Are you willing to pay extra fares so that GO can set money on fire and buy new rolling stock to replace perfectly usable old rolling stock?

If it were only higher fares, that would be problem enough. ML does not have unlimited capital. For the incremental price of a few new trainsets, we can rebuild the entire Kitchener - London line, or the Hamilton - Niagara line. Or add a whack of double track elsewhere. Ontario can only give ML so much spendingmoney.

If ML had to make that choice, new trains and less track, versus refurbed trains and more track…. I know which I would choose.

- Paul

 

[Richard White]

If it were only higher fares, that would be problem enough. ML does not have unlimited capital. For the incremental price of a few new trainsets, we can rebuild the entire Kitchener - London line, or the Hamilton - Niagara line. Or add a whack of double track elsewhere. Ontario can only give ML so much spending money.

If ML had to make that choice, new trains and less track, versus refurbed trains and more track…. I know which I would choose.

- Paul

Speaking to the fares, ML is keeping them artificially low and it is not helping them any.

Take a look at the debacle with Niagara Falls and the fact that you can go from Oshawa to Niagara Falls for 10 dollars return. If they increased fares to a more realistic number they could easily afford upgrades to the Niagara Line.

Instead, ML wants to keep fares low and increase ridership to unsustainable levels. What they really need to do is charge the full fare at all times without pandering to the masses.

 

[WB62]

It's likely for HVAC but newer units are smaller requiring less space.

I was looking through my GO collection and on the Bombardier Bi-Level product brochure they have a photo with the outer vents covered up and the ones I was questioning earlier uncovered, does anyone know why this happened?

 

[WB62]

As far as I know those vents were for the HVAC units, which is strange since they’re covered up in that top photo.

 

[Bordercollie]

Speaking to the fares, ML is keeping them artificially low and it is not helping them any.

Take a look at the debacle with Niagara Falls and the fact that you can go from Oshawa to Niagara Falls for 10 dollars return. If they increased fares to a more realistic number they could easily afford upgrades to the Niagara Line.

Instead, ML wants to keep fares low and increase ridership to unsustainable levels. What they really need to do is charge the full fare at all times without pandering to the masses.

Maybe $10 from Oshawa to Niagara seems cheap, but the point is that it's intention is to provide an affordable means for people to travel in the region. It's to encourage people to take the train instead of driving. If it was $15 maybe people would drive.

 

[Richard White]

Maybe $10 from Oshawa to Niagara seems cheap, but the point is that it's intention is to provide an affordable means for people to travel in the region. It's to encourage people to take the train instead of driving. If it was $15 maybe people would drive.

Affordable yes but they likely do not break even at that price.

 

[Bordercollie]

Affordable yes but they likely do not break even at that price.

How do you know what the backend costs are? And what the fare/recovery ratio is?

Do you know how many different variables there are to determining if it makes sense or if it breaks even?

It's an average between the cost of running the whole network and all of the costs recovered vs funding.

I don't think you can make a blanket statement like that without knowing what goes on in the back end.

Do you know what Tourism Niagara contributes? Do specifically know what the tax base of each person in each region contributes? What each rider pays, vs the cost of running the service? Do know exactly how many people boarded at which station? And how many of them are monthly pass holders?

Think about it this way. Regardless of if the train is packed to the brim or has no passengers the cost to run the train or bus is the same. As long as the whole system covers whatever formula that they have it's all relative as to what it costs per ride. It's more about the big picture.

If you looked at fares from Mimico to union it probably looks expensive compared to Oshawa to Niagara.