reaperexpress
Senior Member
I guess it's a case of good news and bad news.
The good news is that they are finally communicating a clear and consistent vision of the track allocations and service types, unlike in past years where each project contradicts each other project. In fact, the vision confirms my original hypothesis that the 4th platform we built at Weston Station last year is completely pointless since the eastern pair of tracks will be used by express trains that don't stop at Weston.
To recap for others: Metrolinx's stated mission is to have 8 local trains per hour (all to the airport) plus 4 express trains per hour, (2 terminate at Bramalea, 1 terminates at Mt Pleasant and 1 terminates at Kitchener).
Due to the updated design for St Clair / Old Weston station, we know that the local service will operate on the west pair of tracks and the express will operate on the east, meaning that this service design does not include any crossing conflicts at Wice (Pearson Junction). That is presumably the main reason they chose it.
Due to the platform configurations, we know that express trains will not stop at St Clair / Old Weston or Liberty Village. But we don't know the stations at which they will stop. Weston, Mount Dennis and Bloor/Dundas already have 4 platforms, and Woodbine has 4 platforms under construction, so it is physically possible for express services to stop at any/all of them. Like I showed in my line diagram, I don't think it makes sense for the express service to stop at Weston since it lacks rapid transit connections.
Given that they already built all of the platforms required to connect express trains to the key regional hubs (Woodbine, Mt Dennis and Bloor) I don't think there's any risk of the western portion of the line losing its connection to the airport (at Woodbine), Line 5 (at Mt Dennis) or Line 2 (at Dundas West). Worst case scenario is that they try to implement a non-stop service and the public yells at them until they add the stops back in (like what happened when they tried to run half the UPX trains non-stop without having any way for trains to quickly bypass stations).
The bad news is that the clear vision they have established indeed has a complete separation between the local service (exclusively to the airport), and the express service (exclusively along the Kitchener line). It certainly seems like it would be more useful to have a mix of express and local trains on both types of services. For example 8 local trains per hour could be split with 4 to the airport and 4 to Bramalea. Then the express could be split, 4 to the airport and 2 to Mt Pleasant (of which 1 continues to Kitchener). This would require some kind of interchange at Wice, probably a flyover from the north side to the south. Maybe that's something that could be added when the design gets updated to include a new railway Pearson Airport's proposed transit hub.
I was noticing this as well. Their mission of 4 express trains per hour is extremely modest given the infrastructure. As discussed above, the line can already handle 10 trains per hour on each pair of tracks (20 tph total) just with the work already under construction. The capacity of the line is therefore not limited by the line itself (or its signalling), it is limited by the capacity of the USRC and Union Station platforms. That is probably they aren't proposing 20 trains per hour even though the line between Woodbine and the USRC can already handle that much, and ETCS would bump that capacity up over 30.
This is the underlying reason I'm proposing to change the technology of the local service to match the Ontario line. Regional rail technology and signalling can theoretically provide subway-level frequencies, but the problem is that we then need more platforms at Union than there's physically space for. That's why my proposal to reroute the airport local into the Ontario Line tunnel is able to accommodate 42 trains per hour while the current plan only includes 12.
I don't see how either of the proposals (either mine or Metrolinx's) throws anything away from the existing corridor. Both visions depend on a quad-tracked corridor that's fully grade separated, which is what all the investment has been leading up to. Whether the western pair of tracks uses ETCS (UPX) or CBTC (OL) is immaterial.
Like I said above, the problem is that there never was a single design 5-10 years ago. Each project had its own ideas for service patterns. They actually seem to have finally established a clear vision that is reflected in all their projects, so after years of indecision, this concern has finally been addressed.
Metrolinx's stated mission already pretty much accommodates this. The main limitation to frequency will be the capacity at Union, not the capacity along the line.
Last edited:
