[cplchanb]

Considering the fact that GO at one point put their foot down and prevented the YDHR from operating freight services along the Stouffville line with a big 6 axle ALCO years ago. I am confident that GO will not get the SD70MACH or anything similar.

What I would NOT rule out however is used locos in general, such as older retired passenger locos.

How does that make sense? Would you buy a 15 year old used car? In most cases theres a good reason why the locos are retired and its not because of surplus. Why waste the money on something that
is already near or at the end of its service life and would just cost more to keep running like the walking dead?

 

[smallspy]

How does that make sense? Would you buy a 15 year old used car? In most cases theres a good reason why the locos are retired and its not because of surplus. Why waste the money on something that
is already near or at the end of its service life and would just cost more to keep running like the walking dead?

You have a finite amount of money.

Do you buy a used car that is in good condition with the expectation that you will be replacing it, or do you buy a new one? Keeping in mind that buying the new one will cause you to not be able to eat for a month.

Dan

 

[RU479]

I have no idea where you would have heard this. YDHR has never had a 6-axle locomotive.

My apologies, I should have worded my phrasing a bit more accurately. YDHR at one point did want to operate freight services on the Uxbridge Sub using ex CP 4500, an ALCO, however due to the combination of GO apparently not wanting the big 6 axle loco operating on the line + some falling out between upper management at YDHR, the deal fell through.

 

[RU479]

Here is 206 facing the wrong way at Willowbrook (the cab in this image is facing east)

The image is not mine

 

[lenaitch]

My apologies, I should have worded my phrasing a bit more accurately. YDHR at one point did want to operate freight services on the Uxbridge Sub using ex CP 4500, an ALCO, however due to the combination of GO apparently not wanting the big 6 axle loco operating on the line + some falling out between upper management at YDHR, the deal fell through.

Off topic, but what customer were the YDHR planning on servicing as a heritage railway? Just curious as I had not heard that when we lived in the area back when it was getting started.

 

[cplchanb]

Here is 206 facing the wrong way at Willowbrook (the cab in this image is facing east)

The image is not mine
View attachment 446259

This would cause some people here to start foaming.

 

[smallspy]

My apologies, I should have worded my phrasing a bit more accurately. YDHR at one point did want to operate freight services on the Uxbridge Sub using ex CP 4500, an ALCO, however due to the combination of GO apparently not wanting the big 6 axle loco operating on the line + some falling out between upper management at YDHR, the deal fell through.

Sooooo........

No, that's not quite what happened, at least as I understand it.

This is going back 30-some-odd years or more, but my understanding is that there was a customer who wanted to remain to be rail-served even as/after CN pulled off of the line. They tried to work out an agreement between the three parties - CN, the customer and YDHR - and it was YDHR that nixed the whole process, as switching this customer on behalf of CN (under a for-profit basis) would have greatly complicated their charitable status.

This same situation is happening right now north of Waterloo on the Waterloo - St Jacobs. The difference there is that WSJR has formed a for-profit entity specifically to handle the switching on behalf of CN.

Dan

 

[Bordercollie]

Sooooo........

No, that's not quite what happened, at least as I understand it.

This is going back 30-some-odd years or more, but my understanding is that there was a customer who wanted to remain to be rail-served even as/after CN pulled off of the line. They tried to work out an agreement between the three parties - CN, the customer and YDHR - and it was YDHR that nixed the whole process, as switching this customer on behalf of CN (under a for-profit basis) would have greatly complicated their charitable status.

This same situation is happening right now north of Waterloo on the Waterloo - St Jacobs. The difference there is that WSJR has formed a for-profit entity specifically to handle the switching on behalf of CN.

Dan

Thinking outside of the box! For once!

 

[RU479]

Considering that the steps at the doors of the BiLevels is what’s preventing GO from having the 610 mm ATR platforms, is there any plan in place to re-place the steps? Kind of surprised the recent ONR and Alstom refurbishments do not address these issues.

 

[Bordercollie]

Considering that the steps at the doors of the BiLevels is what’s preventing GO from having the 610 mm ATR platforms, is there any plan in place to re-place the steps? Kind of surprised the recent ONR and Alstom refurbishments do not address these issues.

I thought they came up with a fix for this and need to modify the steps on every railcar?

 

[APTA-2048]

You can see how they were spec’d in Utah for level boarding.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1464200629279203343

 

[Bordercollie]

You can see how they were spec’d in Utah for level boarding.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1464200629279203343

The problem with this is that it can only do high platforms and cannot work with the ones we have now. So unless we convert every single platform overnight it's not going to work.

 

[WB62]

Level boarding is apart of OnCorr, with exceptions at certain stations they’ll probably raise half of every station platform on a line at a time, then the other half, then move onto another line.

 

[Bordercollie]

Level boarding is apart of OnCorr, with exceptions at certain stations they’ll probably raise half of every station platform on a line at a time, then the other half, then move another line.

Not sure how that's going to work with busy stations.

 

[crs1026]

Not sure how that's going to work with busy stations.

You can eat an elephant if you do it one steak at a time.

There are examples of properties that already operate with split height platforms and consists. It takes a certain attention to operating practices and consist configurations, but it works.

I believe it would be wise to wait until Oncorr is on site and running well before ML tackles this, for this very reason - there will be enough moving parts such that platform height could be a crippling distraction in the transformation toOncorr. But ultimately, clever minds can make this change happen. Some sort of gradual transition with crash conversions, perhaps all stations in a line changing 2-3 carlengths over a long weekend, then move on and do one end, then the other end….something will work so long as it doesn’t collide with other transitions.

- Paul