|
|
| Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) (1160127) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1160129) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by Train2104 on Sun Jun 3 21:00:43 2012, in response to Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Gold_12TH on Sun Jun 3 20:50:34 2012. Looks like a hybrid of a BiLevel and Metrolink's Rotems. |
|
|
| (1160138) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Jun 3 22:22:32 2012, in response to Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Gold_12TH on Sun Jun 3 20:50:34 2012. So much for being able to use cab cars in the middle of trainsets. At this rate just put two engines on the thing and have it go faster. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1160139) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Jun 3 22:28:28 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Jun 3 22:22:32 2012. This approach may be the answer to their notorius crumpleability. Putting an engine on the end isn't going to cut it either (see: Metrolink 185), so a bulbous nose may have to do. I can't see a hit to this kind of end extending back into the seating area, unless you are talking about a violent impact at 50+mph (in that case, all bets are off for any kind of rail vehicle).A step in the right direction. wayne |
|
|
| (1160142) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Jun 3 22:54:15 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Jun 3 22:28:28 2012. Even with their current level of crumpling they are still many times safer than riding a car or bus. The solution is to use stainless steel, not throw the flexibility of interchangeable rolling stock out the window. Also when the cab is the crumple zone you get safer operation and a far lower cost than PTC. |
|
|
| (1160143) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 3 23:08:07 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Jun 3 22:22:32 2012. So much for being able to use cab cars in the middle of trainsets.Why not? Most commuter systems use proof of payment these days. There is no absolute requirement the train allow a passenger or crew member walk from one end to the other. At this rate just put two engines on the thing and have it go faster. So that by doubling their fuel consumption and increasing the maintenance cost by at least a third they could consume enough operational funding that they would save money by installing a full PTC system? |
|
|
| (1160145) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 3 23:11:54 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Jun 3 22:54:15 2012. Even with their current level of crumpling they are still many times safer than riding a car or bus.Until they hit something. Also when the cab is the crumple zone you get safer operation and a far lower cost than PTC. Until they hit something. The solution is to use stainless steel, not throw the flexibility of interchangeable rolling stock out the window. It is unfortunate you have so low an opinion of railroad professionals' abilities and value that not only do you think them incapable of properly arranging a trainset, but you'd sacrifice their lives in accidents where fatalities of both passengers and crew members can be avoided through the use of adequate signalling and properly designed rolling stock. |
|
|
| (1160148) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Sun Jun 3 23:56:41 2012, in response to Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Gold_12TH on Sun Jun 3 20:50:34 2012. Great, and it'll look better as the basis of an EMU when GO gets around to electrifying the Airport Rail Link and Lakeshore lines. |
|
|
| (1160156) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Jun 4 01:03:55 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by WillD on Sun Jun 3 23:08:07 2012. Why not? Most commuter systems use proof of payment these days. There is no absolute requirement the train allow a passenger or crew member walk from one end to the other.Last I checked many commuter rail stations can't fit the maximum number of cars that can appear in a trainset. POP or no POP unless you want to build even the most lightly used station with a 10 car platform (or be forced to upgrade every station when you want to increase trainset size) passengers need to be able to move between cars. I guess you also like getting trapped in hot cars, or crowded cars. Please stop trying to change commuter rail into rapid transit, it just gets costlier and less convenient. |
|
|
| (1160159) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 4 01:20:49 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Jun 4 01:03:55 2012. Last I checked many commuter rail stations can't fit the maximum number of cars that can appear in a trainsetThere's no limit to the number of cars on a train. You could have a 40-car passenger train if you really wanted to. As for short platforms, I've experienced having to walk forward or backward on a train to get the platform to exit; the only hassle is to the railroad due to the extended dwell time. Please stop trying to change commuter rail into rapid transit, it just gets costlier and less convenient That's what your leftist überphoam keeps trying to do, especially without understanding the functionality (or lack) thereof. How do you think the LIRR got to be the way it is nowadays? It's the MTA's subway vision writ large on a FRA railroad. This is also why Philly's Bridge Line absorbed part of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Lines as far as Lindenwold. |
|
|
| (1160161) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Jun 4 01:23:04 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by WillD on Sun Jun 3 23:11:54 2012. Until they hit something.By your logic aircraft should be built to survive crash landings in a forest because they don't do so well when they hit something either. The whole point of a rare event is that you don't have to allocate substantial resources to defend against it because the costs will quickly outweigh the benefits. If you forget this important piece of information then you might s well start wrapping triains in 16 inches of lead to protect them nuclear fallous, because if you don;t, think of the children. It is unfortunate you have so low an opinion of railroad professionals' abilities and value that not only do you think them incapable of properly arranging a trainset, but you'd sacrifice their lives in accidents where fatalities of both passengers and crew members can be avoided through the use of adequate signalling and properly designed rolling stock. I don't care how competent a trainman is, he or she can't insert cars in the middle of a trainset faster than sticking a car on the end of the trainset unless they have some sort of magical superpower. Can you honestly not tell the difference between a stack and a queue? Re preventing deaths, I know you love reminding us all to think of the children, but I am going to remind you that nobody has a right to demand that an extraordinary proportion of public tax dollars be used to safeguard their lives. When rail vehicles are many times safer than our public highway, rail users simply have no right to complain that they are being treated unfairly. Fancy pants railcar designs cost more and are less flexible than traditional designs, plain and simple. Take your spend first and ask questions later mentality over to the EU and see how well they're doing with it. |
|
|
| (1160162) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 4 01:23:59 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Jersey Mike on Sun Jun 3 22:22:32 2012. So much for being able to use cab cars in the middle of trainsets. At this rate just put two engines on the thing and have it go fasterDidn't GO Transit do that (almost)? (The F7s here are "NPCUs", of course; but they could have been powered units if GO-T really had their wits about them.)  |
|
|
| (1160163) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jun 4 01:25:30 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Wayne-MrSlantR40 on Sun Jun 3 22:28:28 2012. This approach may be the answer to their notorious crumpleabilityDon't you mean lack thereof? I haven't heard of any such problems with gallery cab cars or Surfliner cab cars. Having full-width cabs on these cars destroys walk-through ability, as noted. |
|
|
| (1160166) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Jun 4 02:34:43 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Jun 4 01:23:04 2012. By your logic aircraft should be built to survive crash landings in a forest because they don't do so well when they hit something either.Surely you don't need strawmen to make your argument. The whole point of a rare event is that you don't have to allocate substantial resources to defend against it because the costs will quickly outweigh the benefits. Except that Metrolink's payouts for the Chatsworth crash are equal to their outlay for their PTC system. A one time capital expenditure trumps recurring legal costs added to the cost of replacing the equipment lost in whatever collision produced those payouts. I don't care how competent a trainman is, he or she can't insert cars in the middle of a trainset faster than sticking a car on the end of the trainset unless they have some sort of magical superpower. Can you honestly not tell the difference between a stack and a queue? Nothing says there cannot be multiple cab cars along the length of a train. If you insist on adding cars for peak periods then add those cars ahead of the cab car and spot the train on the platform with the cab car of the off-peak portion at the middle of the platform. People will still be perfectly capable of walking forward or back through either portion of the train to the platform if you'd rather extend station dwell than pay for platforms of adequate length. I know you love reminding us all to think of the children, but I am going to remind you that nobody has a right to demand that an extraordinary proportion of public tax dollars be used to safeguard their lives. And nobody at all has a right to demand their hobby be catered to with the lives of passengers and train crew members. And again, what extraordinary proportion of public tax dollars? We're spending that money on the legal expenses when your beer-can like trains crash because your antiquated signal system cannot keep them apart. |
|
|
| (1160167) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Jun 4 02:50:05 2012, in response to Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Gold_12TH on Sun Jun 3 20:50:34 2012. cute |
|
|
| (1160168) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by salaamallah@hotmail.com on Mon Jun 4 02:50:05 2012, in response to Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Gold_12TH on Sun Jun 3 20:50:34 2012. cute |
|
|
| (1160169) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Jun 4 03:02:53 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Jun 4 01:03:55 2012. Last I checked many commuter rail stations can't fit the maximum number of cars that can appear in a trainset. POP or no POP unless you want to build even the most lightly used station with a 10 car platform (or be forced to upgrade every station when you want to increase trainset size) passengers need to be able to move between cars.Again, the train will not be composed of more than two portions due to the cost associated with the labor to combine those segments. Because of that the train can be spotted on any platform more than 50 feet long such that one door of each halve is on the platform. I guess you also like getting trapped in hot cars, or crowded cars You're going to have at least three cars per segment, so you're always going have at minimum two alternatives to the car you're sitting in. Protecting passengers and crew members may come at the cost of your railfan window, but the remainder of the train will remain capable of being walked through. |
|
|
| (1160182) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by Joe V on Mon Jun 4 07:26:59 2012, in response to Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Gold_12TH on Sun Jun 3 20:50:34 2012. Are these to be neet additions to the fleet, or will they start selling off the older UTDC cars ? |
|
|
| (1160183) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by merrick1 on Mon Jun 4 07:32:31 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by WillD on Mon Jun 4 02:34:43 2012. You really don't need passage through the entire train on commuter equipment. Most people are regulars and will figure out if seats are usually more available in one section of the train. |
|
|
| (1160188) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Jun 4 07:54:43 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by merrick1 on Mon Jun 4 07:32:31 2012. You'd think that, but the "walk forward/back" for seats announcement is a constant refrain. The other issue is if I am running for a train I'll probably find myself in the middle of a platform due to where the steps drop you off. If the train is leaving I won't have a choice to get to the end in advance. |
|
|
| (1160207) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Jun 4 09:45:34 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by WillD on Mon Jun 4 03:02:53 2012. What? Were? Who? I'm sure that at least to begin with that GO will be able to manage its fleet so that the trains aren't broken up internally, but its a hassle, inflexible and ends up costing more. It's why commuter rail operators upgraded from NPCU's to cab cars when they had the option to do so. |
|
|
| (1160218) | |
Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic) |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Mon Jun 4 12:48:44 2012, in response to Re: Updated BiLevel coaches ordered for GO Transit (pic), posted by Jersey Mike on Mon Jun 4 09:45:34 2012. I'm sure that at least to begin with that GO will be able to manage its fleet so that the trains aren't broken up internally,but its a hassle,inflexible and ends up costing more.In other words now that I've pointed out your objection to the loss of the railfan window and the increase in crew and passenger protection is moot you're falling back on insulting the intelligence of the crews themselves. They manage to put the locomotives on the right end facing the right direction, so why do you insist on insulting their intelligence by insisting these crash energy management cabs will somehow confuse them? It's why commuter rail operators upgraded from NPCU's to cab cars when they had the option to do so. More than likely that was due to their weight. Who wants to shove around a 100 ton unit which is utterly nonproductive on a train with a HEP equipped locomotive, especially with the rising cost of fuel? |
|
|
