smallspy
Senior Member
Then I'm going to keep saying it, because you don't seem to understand how Metrolinx arrived at it.Yes I know you keep saying that.
Terminating certainly allows you to store more trains, but through running can allow for more movement capacity via frequency. It's not just about platform capacity, it's also about conflicts in the adjacent corridor. To achieve very high frequencies you need grade separation, which is not possible when trains need to cross over to return the other way.
There is a reason so many cities have spent billions of euros to turn their termianl stations into through stations.
That 4-trains-per-hour number to turn trains back on each track? That takes into account crossover movements. There's a reason why the plan has always been to maintain the dual ladders at both ends. It reduces the amount of overlap - the segment where trains are occupying a single track but traversing it in both directions.
Is through-running more efficient at operating services at high frequencies? Usually, in most places - but it also requires operating rules and the fixed plant to take advantage of it as well. And in the North American operating sphere - and particularly with Metrolinx/GO - the rules are such that it actually becomes less efficient at Union.
Dan




