Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

I have seen the GO train I was on, back up by a few feet when it overshot the platform it was arriving at. Less than one coach length.
 
vegeta_skyline said:
I know all that's not really relevant to the discussion but if I got a dollar for every time I seen or heard someone refer to GO trains being restricted from backing up I could of bought myself a decent meal by now. And being privy to the actual procedure in place I do feel somewhat obligated in correcting that belief.

I have no idea how difficult it is(probably not that difficult considering they own the territory the equipment and don't use CN crews) but before they can run single car DMU's they'll have to get an exemption from CN GOI restriction 3.34:
Click to expand...

I was never asserting that it was absolutely restricted. Only that it is a good idea. That's why it was a recommendation.

Accidents usually happen because of a combination of factors. If we can eliminate one factor, why not? I personally wouldn't demand it, but I would prefer if the train carrying me was driven by someone with with the forward view and the controls.

I also think everyone is getting a bit too worked up about it.
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
I was never asserting that it was absolutely restricted. Only that it is a good idea. That's why it was a recommendation.
Click to expand...

I though you were under that impression when you said you though that it was a "strict no-no" if you don't have a "cab at both ends" In any case I'm not criticizing your view point whether that was or wasn't what you thought. I just wanted to clarify the matter since its understandable that without having access to all the information, which the general public most certainly does not, its very easy to come to certain conclusions.

I personally wouldn't demand it, but I would prefer if the train carrying me was driven by someone with with the forward view and the controls.
Click to expand...

It's a very rare for something like that to happen but it has. For whatever reason sometimes the cab car cannot "communicate" with the engine but the train can still be operated from the engine itself. Thankfully that's probably not something that would ever occur for more than a stop at least not if the ones calling the shots have any sense at all - GO transit Rail Operations. I only heard of the cab failure(s) which is the more significant event, not what the crew was told to do afterwards - essential we only do what we are told to do, within the rules of course. But some of their calls have made me wonder what exactly are they thinking...

Bombardier has restricted the maximum permitted operating speed under this condition to 25mph unless the QCTO is in the cab. By the they meaning the 2nd engineer, of which approx. only 15% of the jobs have right now. But even under that exception, nobody I know is reckless enough to operate at track speed as if nothing were amiss. And like I was saying, the train would then most likely only operate in revenue service until the next station to drop off all passengers and then go out of service and proceed to the shop as equipment.
 
Last edited:
vegeta_skyline said:
I though you were under that impression when you said it though that was a "strict no-no" if you don't have a "cab at both ends"? In any case I'm not criticizing your view point whether that was or wasn't what you though. I just wanted to clarify the matter since its understandable that without having access to all the information, which the general public most certainly does not, its very easy to come to certain conclusions.



It's a very rare for something like that to happen but it has. For whatever reason sometimes the cab car cannot "communicate" with the engine but the train can still be operated from the engine itself. Thankfully that's probably not something that would ever occur for more than a stop at least not if the ones calling the shots have any sense at all - GO transit Rail Operations. I only heard of the cab failure(s) which is the more significant event, not what the crew was told to do afterwards - essential we only do what we are told to do, within the rules of course. But some of their calls have made me wonder what exactly are they thinking...

Bombardier has restricted the maximum permitted operating speed under this condition to 25mph unless the QCTO is in the cab. By the they meaning the 2nd engineer, of which approx. only 15% of the jobs have right now. But even under that exception, nobody I know is reckless enough to operate at track speed as if nothing were amiss. And like I was saying, the train would then most likely only operate in revenue service until the next station to drop off all passengers and then go out of service and proceed to the shop as equipment.
Click to expand...


Well before we continue to dilly dally on the ethics of single car ops, can we confirm that there is actually only a cab on 1 side? all weve seen is 1 photo of 1 end and judging from the the fact that there are lights and even what seems to be a led destination sign over the gangway. Not to mention that they even stuck the UP logo to the sliding door. So unless metrolinx intentionally wasted money or tried to squeeze out all the dollars budgeted, it may seem to be a fair assessment that they may have intentions of running this car as at the very least a lead car.
 
cplchanb said:
Well before we continue to dilly dally on the ethics of single car ops, can we confirm that there is actually only a cab on 1 side? all weve seen is 1 photo of 1 end and judging from the the fact that there are lights and even what seems to be a led destination sign over the gangway. Not to mention that they even stuck the UP logo to the sliding door. So unless metrolinx intentionally wasted money or tried to squeeze out all the dollars budgeted, it may seem to be a fair assessment that they may have intentions of running this car as at the very least a lead car.
Click to expand...

Oh there's definitely a cab on both ends of the C-car. Multiple press releases have stated that the "C-cars can still be operated individually". Of course technically you can move a piece of equipment individually if there is only one cab. But I think its fairly safe to assume they are referring to running the unit in revenue service. It would make no sense to design a piece of equipment intended to be operated as a single unit in revenue service with a cab on only one end. The engineer is not going to be sitting in the tail end operating the train backwards half the time with the conductor on the head end calling out signals and giving cars counts to stops. In addition if there was no cab on the conductors end that means there's no cab controls to operate the headlight, bell, whistle and the emergency brakes there(those controls are what makes a cab afterall). If the person on the leading end of the unit does not have access to those controls than the train would be restricted to a maximum speed of 25mph while reversing. And the promise was to make it to the airport in twenty-five minutes afterall, not a hundred and twenty-five minutes.
 
vegeta_skyline said:
I have no idea how difficult it is(probably not that difficult considering they own the territory the equipment and don't use CN crews) but before they can run single car DMU's they'll have to get an exemption from CN GOI restriction 3.34:

LOCOMOTIVES RUNNING LIGHT AND SELF PROPELLED CAR MOVEMENTS
...
- Where a signal system with automatic features is in service
(i) One unit running light 30 MPH
Click to expand...

That's what the testing is for. The whole reason why 3.34 exists is because of CN's absurdly low shunt voltage. A single vehicle does not have enough wheels on the rail/contact points to reliably shunt circuits, thus the speed limitation.

I don't know if they've increased the shut voltage on the Weston Sub, but between whatever changes they've made to the signal system and the PTC overlay that they are currently commissioning, the hope is that they will be able to activate the signals reliably with a single vehicle.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Markster said:
Wow, that press release was full of a hell of a lot of glad-handing and back-slapping for being an announcement of ATMs at UPX stations.
Click to expand...

In my experience few organizations speak of their accomplishments with more syrup and hyperbole than Metrolinx. A fun UT drinking game would be to take a shot every time "innovation" or "world class" is mentioned in a Metrolinx press release.
 
It was a full six paragraphs before the actual announcement! It distills down to:

Innovative!

Founding Partner!

Collaboration!

Strategic Partnership!

Partnership!!!

Innovative!!!

Actual Announcement

Thrilled!

Confidence!
Click to expand...
I certainly expect a lot of fluff in these, but when they started repeating themselves, it got ridiculous.
 
I didn't see the usual McGuinty/Wynne "moving forward" :)

In other news, the original UPX DMU set have been returned to the factory in Illinois. This isn't necessarily a sign of anything bad - it's the set with the most road testing, so may be ready for some tweaking or to let the engineering folks tear things down for inspection. It will be interesting to watch the next Metrolinx board meeting to hear how road testing is going.

- Paul
 
Markster said:
Wow, that press release was full of a hell of a lot of glad-handing and back-slapping for being an announcement of ATMs at UPX stations.
Click to expand...

No kidding, is that what counts as innovation (look at me!!!!!!) these days? I am glad they aren't in charge of anything else because we'd still be stuck with rotary phones if that's the case. They couldn't even manage to be innovative with their spin, geeze. And yes, the rendering certainly suggests a relaxing space, when the first thing you see is a CIBC logo in full, visual assault red. Sight for sore eyes, no doubt.

mjl08 said:
Metrolinx's apex of fluff was definitely that cringe-worthy UPX promo video they released a few months ago:
http://www.blogto.com/city/2014/07/the_toronto_airport_rail_link_will_be_epic_apparently/
Click to expand...

Hey, the original video is gone, but apparently someone provided a far more suitably epic edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDGmZamFAw8

AoD
 
Last edited:
smallspy said:
That's what the testing is for. The whole reason why 3.34 exists is because of CN's absurdly low shunt voltage. A single vehicle does not have enough wheels on the rail/contact points to reliably shunt circuits, thus the speed limitation.
Click to expand...

I don't know how they're able to get away with that. Well I do - self regulation, but I mean they shouldn't. One of these days its going to come back and haunt them when a single car runaway happens and a crossing circuit or worse yet the signal circuit fails to pick it up which results in another major 'accident'. And for what, just to cut back on the # of UTO's - Unidentified Track Occupancy's?

Since they own it, ML should just increase the shunt voltage and be done with it if they haven't yet already. As for the single car, I guess there's enough time to do it at the airport and leave the 2nd car there. Just going through the steps in my head... Stop. Change ends. Brake test. Tie the 2nd car down. Tug test. Close the anglecock. Make the split. Re-spot. Load & go. Yeah pretty simple, 20 is certainly enough.
 
vegeta_skyline said:
Since they own it, ML should just increase the shunt voltage and be done with it if they haven't yet already.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree, although I don't know how that would affect/interfere with CN's own systems - or if it would at all.

I'll ask one of my buddies at PNR what they've changed in the systems to account for it.

Sir Novelty Fashion said:
So... do we know when this thing is launching?
Click to expand...

April board/card change.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top