News   Jul 16, 2024
 202     0 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 957     3 
News   Jul 15, 2024
 1K     1 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

There is some minor variance in acceleration between every locomotive but that only amounts to a difference of 3-4 mph between stations. And even that might be largely explained by an inaccurate speedometer reading. Sometimes the speedometers are bang on and other times they're off by as much as 10% - when comparing the reading noted on the speedometer on the dash to that provided on the computer panel and radar based wayside detection systems. Many times on my trip to Niagara I'll be at the speed limit of 65mph(the only line where we can operate at the exact speed limit for a long period of time) only to go over a scanner which gives me a reading of only 59-60mph. Seems the speedometer reading is based off an axle counter which I imagine can vary based on wheel diameter while the speed readings from the computer panel(at the back of the cab - its not something that is easy to check nor are we required to do so) is based off a radar decvice located below the locomotive. The radar is more accurate, however the device can be covered by snow and ice so it's less reliable in that sense.

The radar's primary function is for the wheelslip systems - EMD has been using radar for this since the late 1980s. As an added benefit, if the speed on the EM2000 screen is giving you funny readouts, your wheelslip will also be all over the place.

Keep in mind too, that the speedometers on the HBDs are also notoriously fickle, and only read the speed of the first axle.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Double locomotive consist, either on the front or back or smaller consist. Not possible another way. Downhill makes a difference but not that much.
I should have looked closely, but when I looked back briefly at Aldershot, it certainly looked like a full length consist. Can't remember if it was 2 locomotives, but I've definitely seen 2 locomotives handling the train I've been on sometimes.

<railfan moment>
What is the deciding factor whether to pull a consist with two locomotives instead of one? Especially if it's done on a nearly-empty late offpeak train, as Lakeshore West seems to have no slopes that needs second-lomotive help (even for an older FP40H)? Reliability of older locomotives (one engine fails, revenue service can still continue)? Traction during rainy forecast? (It did rain) Would that be a more-underperforming-than-average locomotive that needs a little "help"? Two older FP40Hs, which I frequently see if they're doubled up? The only other thing I can think of is reduced wear and tear when the engine is a concern... I presume accelerating two locomotives at 75% throttle is still gentler than accelerating one locomotive at 100% throttle, and still give better performance. Am I right in one of my guesses?

Related question: What's the fuel consumption of accelerating two consists (at the same acceleration rate) versus accelerating one consist at full throttle? Certainly to keep the same acceleration for both, it makes sense two consists would be less than full throttle and thus have less fuel consumption per engine, but would still total more fuel than one engine. For two-consist I presume fuel expense can be a concern on a low-revenue train time, so I am curious.
</railfan moment>

P.S. It doesn't seem fair that the resident GOtrain drivers have 0 likes. I've liked your post. :)
 
Last edited:
Starting Thursday July 9th, we'll begin regular GO Train and bus service from our new West Harbour GO Station in Hamilton!

There will be two weekday train trips travelling from West Harbour GO Station to Union Station in the morning and two returning from Union Station in the evening. Eastbound train trips will depart from West Harbour GO at 6:16 a.m. and 6:46 a.m.; arriving Union Station at 7:24 a.m. and 7:57 a.m. Returning from Toronto, train trips will leave Union Station at 4:47 p.m. and 5:23 p.m.; arriving West Harbour GO Station at 5:59 p.m. and 6:35 p.m. Eight weekday westbound 18E Lakeshore West bus trips that connect with our trains at the Aldershot GO Station, will also service the West Harbour GO Station, upon request.

Additionally, starting Saturday, July 11th, we'll be running special train service to select Pan Am 2015 Game events.
For a closer look at the new schedule, please check the following link: West Harbour GO Station
 
<railfan moment>
What is the deciding factor whether to pull a consist with two locomotives instead of one? Especially if it's done on a nearly-empty late offpeak train, as Lakeshore West seems to have no slopes that needs second-lomotive help (even for an older FP40H)? Reliability of older locomotives (one engine fails, revenue service can still continue)? Traction during rainy forecast? (It did rain) Would that be a more-underperforming-than-average locomotive that needs a little "help"? Two older FP40Hs, which I frequently see if they're doubled up? The only other thing I can think of is reduced wear and tear when the engine is a concern... I presume accelerating two locomotives at 75% throttle is still gentler than accelerating one locomotive at 100% throttle, and still give better performance. Am I right in one of my guesses?

For a couple of years, all weekend trainsets were being run with a pair of F59s to help keep everything on time. Then the bean-counters found out what the fuel and switching costs were, and by the kybosh to that. That would have been about early 2007.

Nowadays, there's two reasons why a train may have two locos on it. The most common is the 2 scheduled trains on the Barrie line with a loco at either end - this was done because of wheelslip issues at the north end of the line. The other is where two locos are coupled to each other at the east end of a train - this is done because one of them had just been outshopped after getting some fairly major work, and so there is an ~800 mile break-in period where it is run with a second unit for protection.

Related question: What's the fuel consumption of accelerating two consists (at the same acceleration rate) versus accelerating one consist at full throttle? Certainly to keep the same acceleration for both, it makes sense two consists would be less than full throttle and thus have less fuel consumption per engine, but would still total more fuel than one engine. For two-consist I presume fuel expense can be a concern on a low-revenue train time, so I am curious.
</railfan moment>


Fuel use will vary depending on the situation - in the first scenario I listed above, both units will burn (approximately) the same amount of fuel as both will be used to provide HEP - one to each side of the train. On the second scenario however, only one unit will be providing HEP to the train, so there will be a reasonably big difference in fuel use.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Or both -- the hazard stripes, the light strip, and the physical barrier. Not mutually exclusive. Begin immediately with the easy/simple stuff like the light strip. The flashing light strip would warn when the barrier is coming up/down, too. That said, there is a headache for when the platform is so crowded a wheelchair person can't back away from a raising barrier, so there's some difficult decisions to be made (e.g. sensors). With so many 300 meter platforms, and the possible mechanical issues, especially in the winter with muddy/salty shoes, it may be infeasible maintenance-wise at Union station's scale (more than 1/2 kilometer of raisable platform walls per track!) with major service disruption when platform lowering fails.

However, 300 meters of a common infrastructure-rated waterproof LED strip reel (amber color, a few dollars to a few tens dollars per meter, something far more durable than the cheap reel stuff) rolled out and mounted inside an industrial plexiglas-windowed rectangular metal tube (3cm wide x 2cm deep) mounted to the small vertical platform walls on both sides of the track, would cost a mere few thousand per platform to install and easily maintained at night. This could be combined in with the USRC upgrades and new train traffic control centre -- a good initial stopgap with and/or without physical barriers. At about 1 watts per meter for fairly bright (but not obnoxiously bright) amber LEDs, it would consume only 300 watts for the whole platform length (600 watts for two edges of platforms); and only consume power briefly while a train was approaching/departing. It could even steadily illuminate as platform-gap safety lighting while the train is stopped with doors open.

And being LED, would be extremely durable for years, with main risk being temperature swings and vibration damage causing breaks in the ribbon, but such ribbon is frequently used in adverse conditions and even underwater nowadays, and would be easily replaceable at night in ~5 meter segments, it wouldn't be embedded into the platform but as a ~2cm protrusion off the vertical surface of the low platform wall (roughly stairstep height) near the platform edge. So easy nighttime maintenance and no service risk upon failure (flashing failure), and upgradeable (e.g. replacement with more power-efficient, more durable industrial LED ribbon strips as they get released in the future, in standardized 12-volt 5-meter ribbon lengths; Some are cheap like $10 from china for 5m, at $2/meter, while other waterproof building exterior industrial ribbons costing $100+ per 5 meter roll, but probably cheaper in large quantities -- but all of them are 12 volt standardized reel ribbons. Pretty safe voltage.)

View attachment 45398

(This LED ribbon is waterproof and encased in plastic. But a more industrial version thereof -- there are building-exterior-rated ones frequently used to illuminate Las Vegas casinos too; easily installed & mounted below the platform on the platformwall above track; inside ~2cm x ~3cm metal rectangular ducting with plexiglass window strip -- for further weatherproofing -- and along entire platformwall of both sides of all platforms, slow-flashing 1 Hz during approaching/departing trains, steady illumination as platform edge safety light while train is stopped at platform. Carefully choose a strong industrial version rated for building exteriors & survives winter-time temperature swings, spending $100 per 5 meter rather than cheap ebay $10 per 5 meter).

!WARNING!: A train is approaching behind you; please step away from platform edge NOW!
View attachment 45411
!WARNING!: A train is approaching behind you; please step away from platform edge NOW!
Credit: Photoshopped version of Michael Kappel on flickr

Amber/yellow is an international hazard color; often flashing at stop sign intersections, school crossings, pedestrian crossings, etc. Slow flashing frequency, approximately 1 Hertz. Some city commuter/metro systems use a variant of this.

OFF: No train is currently approaching
FLASHING: (1 Hertz) Train is approaching or departing (step away from platform edge NOW. FINES ENFORCED.)
STEADY ON: Train is currently stopped at platform. Safety platform gap lighting.

View attachment 45414
(could also fade on-off for gentler flash, or dimmer if this is too bright)

Even if it just save just ONE life within the next 10 years, it'll have been worth it. And it's not mutually exclusive with other physical barrier upgrades too. We are becoming one of the busier low-platform stations in the modern Western world, and we are unfortunate to be saddled with narrow platforms and GO trains with dangerous undercarriages and protrusions; therefore this is a critical cheap safety modification of Union Station. Even just in the interim. Do it, please.

Cost estimate: A mere $100,000 for the entire Union station for top-quality waterproof ribbon and mounts, plus install labour cost. An economic fraction of a human life! This can actually save money; by potentially reducing Union station insurance costs too!

[EDIT to add enforcement reinforcement:]

Enforcement is easy:
- Today, lots of people step forward on yellow line at familiar predicted door locations while train is still moving!
- Fare inspectors wait at Union station anyway to board their trains. Utilize this resource!
- Fare inspector pre-located standing on crowded platform a couple feet to side of where train doors will stop. Within arm's reach, standing spread-leg just behind yellow line to the side, in a way to occupy enough space to safely pull aside one person.
- All the fare inspector needs to do is reach out an arm. The embarassment of being pulled a couple feet aside & fined in front of crowd near predicted door location. Use a moderate/low fine initially (e.g. $20) that's sufficient enough to deter, "people have been killed by moving trains, this is why these fines exists", so people never become angry enough to "never take GO trains again".
- The embarassment in front of crowd actually outweighs the fine, and actually deters rest of the crowd. So only moderate enforcement is required to make this extremely effective (never step on yellow line; fare inspector may be watching).
- Occasional enforcement blitzes easily catching people who step forward on predicted door locations while the train is still only halfway in the station, will dramatically improve compliance elsewhere in Union station, and could actually save 1 life per 10 years. Easy fish. Like shooting fish in a barrel!
- Heck, be nice, do phased-in introduction. Start with warning citations, followed by low fines, followed by very high fine (fines potentially raised after next injury of flashing-light-ignoring person).
- Coverage on social media by guilty commuters "oops, I stepped on yellow line during flashing [photo of my fine ticket]", news, twitter, coworkers, parents/family, reinforces public to stay away from platform edge.
- And the death rate at Union is higher than that currently, even saving 1 life for only $100,000 of cheap retrofits, is well worth it.
- Enforcement should also occur on unruly behavior. GOtrain traffic control centre should keep all Union station video footage long enough to cover all "contested fine" events.
- "Flashing light" = "You'red fined if you're on the yellow line while light is flashing"
- Union station commuters become more well-behaved as a result, too.

We are gradually going to become one of the busiest low-platform train stations in the western world, so we need inexpensive mitigation measures such as these. $100,000+labour for flashing platform lights, and moderate enforcement.

No need for enforcement whenever platform lights are not flashing; strong fine enforcement during flashing lights = public stays away from platform edge during approaching/departing trains. Rude passing people now know to stop walking on yellow line immediately the platform edge light begins to flash. Eventually, after sufficient enforcement, most people stop feeling it's worth walking down the platform while it's crowded, and/or stay still and/or stay in the concourse.

Everyone:

After a absence from UT I am trying to catch up with current events - and I noticed this tragic accident that involved
a passenger's backpack getting snagged on what look to be protruding hinges around the "skirts" which partially cover
the trucks on the riveted GO bilevel cars - I noted that the hinges and latches are different on both bilevel car types and
the newer smooth side bilevel cars have a updated design without protruding hinges or latches...

I am all for enforcement to keep riders from crossing tracks in Union Station - and this idea to install warning strip type
lightstrips on platform edges is a good one - to me anything to warn passengers about the dangers of nearby
moving trains can only help in keeping riders safe especially during peak commuting hours...

LI MIKE
 
So what's the rationale for dropping people off at West Harbour GO, but not picking them up from it? I understand there may be a logistical reason, but that's not a logical way to build two-way ridership.
Yes, make Hamilton a work destination please -- and we have enough Mac students to make it worthwhile.

I, however, think they are sending them to Lewis to park overnight, I think.
 
So what's the rationale for dropping people off at West Harbour GO, but not picking them up from it? I understand there may be a logistical reason, but that's not a logical way to build two-way ridership.
Yes, make Hamilton a work destination please -- and we have enough Mac students to make it worthwhile.

I, however, think they are sending them to Lewis to park overnight, I think.
All those trips should be at west harbour. And Metrolinx needs to stop with the nonsense and bring all day service to Hamilton.
 
So what's the rationale for dropping people off at West Harbour GO, but not picking them up from it? I understand there may be a logistical reason, but that's not a logical way to build two-way ridership.
What are you talking about? There are 2 departures from West Harbour in the morning, and 2 arrivals to West Harbour in the evening.

Oh, I see now, you're talking about bus service. I guess the return commute is more spread out, so they need to run the additional service.
 
Everyone:

After a absence from UT I am trying to catch up with current events - and I noticed this tragic accident that involved
a passenger's backpack getting snagged on what look to be protruding hinges around the "skirts" which partially cover
the trucks on the riveted GO bilevel cars - I noted that the hinges and latches are different on both bilevel car types and
the newer smooth side bilevel cars have a updated design without protruding hinges or latches...

LI MIKE

The person's backpack was snagged by a part of the locomotive, not on any of the passenger cars.

Yes, make Hamilton a work destination please -- and we have enough Mac students to make it worthwhile.

I, however, think they are sending them to Lewis to park overnight, I think.

Lewis Road Yard isn't going to be completed and open until early next year. And in any case, the trackwork that is in place right now wouldn't make that manoeuvre particularly convenient.

The two trains will be deadheaded out from Willowbrook in the morning, and back in the evening.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
What are you talking about? There are 2 departures from West Harbour in the morning, and 2 arrivals to West Harbour in the evening.

Oh, I see now, you're talking about bus service. I guess the return commute is more spread out, so they need to run the additional service.
I asked GO and their spokesperson on Twitter about it. Nothing yet, but will post a reply if I get one.
 

No EA for Milton.

However, apparently Mississauga is spearheading an effort to remove freight traffic from the Milton line.

http://www.mayorcrombie.ca/the-missing-link/

The communities of Mississauga, Toronto, Cambridge, and Milton have joined together to develop a business case to build a so called “Western By-Pass” to divert freight traffic from the Canadian Pacific “Milton” rail line north, to free up the line for commuter rail traffic.

Today at Mississauga City Council, Councillors voted to commence a study by IBI group that will examine the feasibility of constructing a new rail line that would connect the CP line, just west of Trafalgar Road, with the already existing CN Line that runs through Brampton. You can see the full report, here.

The four municipalities have agreed to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and will bring this to their municipal councils in the next few weeks for approval. With Mississauga taking the lead, it is our hope the business case will be finalized in mid-August.

The purpose of this new line would be to relocate heavy freight rail away from the Milton and Kitchener GO lines in order to allow for 2-way, all-day GO Train service on both of these lines. Another benefit would be that heavy freight would be relocated away from the most densely populated areas of the GTA, including central Mississauga.

This truly is the “Missing Link” that will create a regionally-integrated rapid transit network in the Western GTA.

Improving rail transit in the western GTA would provide long-lasting benefits for our city. It would stimulate economic growth by attracting new talent, businesses, employers and students to the city while increasing innovation, growth opportunities and prosperity.

We share the same vision as our municipal partners to bring about convenient and effective transit solutions to move people across the GTA and beyond. Similar to Mississauga’s LRT, there’s a strong foundation that supports the need for a regional rapid transit system.

Once the business case is completed, we will continue conversations with the government and the other federal parties about the proposal. It is our hope that the federal government will be a partner in this project to help make it a reality.

This is something we've talked about for years on here. It's nice that finally politicians and I assume bureaucrats as well are thinking about this/asking for this.
 
However, apparently Mississauga is spearheading an effort to remove freight traffic from the Milton line.
Finally, brand new information on this. It also frees up the Toronto North Division for a future crosstown GO train line! They even mention this in the June 24th 2015 PDF on Page 55. This is probably "RER Phase II" stuff but Mississauga should get started well before the next round of megaproject funding in a future cycle.

Mississauga (and nearby municipalities) looks like they are going to be paying out of the pocket for an upcoming study ($84,000 funding for a study, page 53). My impression is that if it happens as suggestive, could potentially be an expensive multibillion dollar project to reoute the freight along the 407 beltway but they argue the following benefits that are far more valuable:

---Quoted from PDF---

Potential Benefits of the "Missing Link"

Relocating heavy freight rail traffic from the existing Milton and Kitchener GO Rail lines by way of a new rail line has many potential benefits. It would:

• Provide capacity for two-way, all-day GO Rail service on the Milton/Cambridge and Kitchener lines. Without this connection, providing capacity for two-way, all-day service on these lines would require considerable investment, including new bridges over the Credit River and additional tracks, which could end up costing more than the construction costs of the "missing link". Furthermore, upgrading the Milton/Cambridge and Kitchener lines would result in greater community disruption than with the new rail connection because these corridors are located in more dense/mature urban areas where there is limited room for expansion to accommodate the necessary grade separations and additional tracks.

• Relocate the movement of dangerous goods away from dense urban areas, such as downtown Toronto, central Brampton and central Mississauga.

• Make it much easier for GO Transit to potentially electrify both the Milton/Cambridge and Kitchener rail lines.

• Make the following rail lines (all of which are long-term corridors in The Big Move) available for future passenger rail service: the North Toronto line, the Agincourt line, and the lower portion of the Bolton line.

• Permit the construction of another link in the Don Valley between CP and CN thereby allowing for improvements to the Richmond Hill GO Rail line.

• Provide potential corridors for High Speed Rail to enter the GTA from both the east and west.

The need for two-way, all-day GO Rail service on the Milton GO line for Mississauga

After the Lakeshore GO West/East lines, the Milton GO line is the busiest by ridership in GO Transit's rail network. Of the eight stations on this line, six are located within Mississauga (Dixie, Cooksville, Erindale, Streetsville, Meadowvale and Lisgar) meaning that the vast majority of the six million annual trips on the Milton GO line are made by Mississauga residents. The Cooksville GO station, with future Council STRATEGIC PLAN: - 5 - June 12, 2015 connections to the Hurontario-Main LRT will provide access to Mississauga's Downtown and major employment areas along the Hurontario corridor. In addition, the Meadowvale GO station provides access to another major employment area of the City.

Currently, service is limited to peak-direction, 15-minute service during peak hours, and because the Milton corridor is completely owned by CP and operated as their main freight line, there is limited opportunity for service enhancements without expanding the number of tracks meaning that no future off-peak services are currently planned for this line. The need for two-way, all-day service through Mississauga to Milton and beyond to Cambridge is supported through multiple planning studies in order to support Mississauga's and provincial growth and planning frameworks, respond to growing traffic congestion, meet latent demand for inter-regional transit service as well as support economic development in Mississauga, the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area (GTHA), the region known as the Continental Gateway and Canada's Innovation Supercluster.

The need for expanded GO Rail service to Waterloo Region

Extension of GO Rail service to Cambridge and the provision of twoway GO Rail service to Kitchener are also fundamental transportation improvements required to sustain and enhance a vibrant broader regional economy and livable and thriving urban growth centres. These two important regional passenger rail services would be integrated with the Light Rail system in Waterloo Region, currently under construction, making it possible to travel seamlessly by transit between the GTA and Waterloo (see Appendix 3). Convenient and reliable transit which connects the GTA and Waterloo is needed to ensure that employees and business travelers can access the growing technology, financial and post-secondary sectors in both regions.
---end PDF---

Interesting to see that re-routing freight may actually end up being cheaper than upgrading Milton to permit 2-way all day service. Very good reason to trade the freight train companies a free (billion dollar league) new rail line in exchange for a massive goldmine of a rail route rededicated 100% to commuter service. If the federal NDP gets voted in, this could gain a lot of traction.

The Ontario GO RER announcements shunning Milton has woken up a few within Mississauga council, and hopefully some traction can occur. The spinoff benefits of resurrecting rail lines back to passenger service is massive over the timescale of a century, and would be a cheap solution "when looking back in the rearview mirror".
 
Last edited:
It will be interesting how Brampton reacts to this one. Additional tracks needed through downtown Brampton. More freight trains running on that route.

The other key thing is how it impacts what GO wants to do between Georgetown and Bramalea. It makes the case for a flyover much stronger.

And it gives CN leverage to demand that the planned intermodal yard in Milton be approved.

- Paul
 

Back
Top