GO studies Bolton rail service

[Undead]

I am referring to the swath of land north of the built up area of Brampton/Caledon, south of Bolton. A bit south of the proposed 413 corridor.

I know, I know. Not invented here. Let's just build a highway instead.

Yeah, that area. I meant the rest of the city!

 

[smallspy]

Why did we lag? Canada did not have a series of high impact fatality-causing incidents. The US did. Congress imposed PTC as a knee jerk, the US railways were not enthusiastic.

PTC is the cautionary tale that I point to when people mention hydrail, or battery trains. PTC was not ready for prime time and was rolled out very broadly before the bugs were worked out. The railroads kept coming back asking for more time.The US railroads have spent billions on it and it's only just getting to reliable operation. A longer test and redesign timeframe was required.

Canada's railways have sat back and learned from the whole experience, fortunately without any adverse incidents in the meanwhile. A great many CN and CP locomotives are PTC equipped, as they regularly cycle into the US. So we are further along than it may appear, but the investment in the plant isn't under way as yet.

- Paul

Further to this....

I'm not sure that it's a matter of "we lag". As you correctly point out, PTC was an extremely knee-jerk reaction to a number of high-profile incidents.

For all of our "regulatory sync", the fact of the matter is that the two systems do actually differ in some very substantial ways - despite the close proximity and inter-operation. The lifting of deregulation and the Staggers Act in the US greatly changed the equilibrium of their system, with the regulatory agencies having far less power and the railways able to push ahead what they wanted when they wanted it. In a way, the push to PTC there was the pendulum swinging the other way, in a manner.

Dan

 

[smallspy]

Whats the status of GO and using PTC on the RER sections of their track?

If they arent implementing it initially, that will be interesting because once they eventually do, we will see schedules and headways increase even more using the existing track infrastructure.

If you want GO to actually improve their service, you shouldn't be interested in "PTC" as it is being installed in the US. It's not a signal system, and it will do nothing to increase capacity in the system.

Some of the higher-ups at GO have a pretty big hard-on for CBTC, and I'm sure that the news that BNSF is working on the first heavy-rail application of it in North America was met with great joy.

Dan

 

[afransen]

Yeah, that area. I meant the rest of the city!

For the rest of the city, we are probably resigned to having to thread lines through utility/rail ROWs where possible, and otherwise elevated. Elevated is cheaper than tunneling, but not nearly as cheap as building surface rail in a greenfield ROW (probably an order of magnitude cheaper). The rail itself probably only costs a few million per km. The ROW only needs to be perhaps 20m wide, so that is 5 acres per km for land acquisition. At a generous $1m/acre that's still only $5m/km. Add in earthworks and it is probably doable for $10m-20m/km. Things like bridges, grade separations and stations are extra.

But, not possible here.

Let's wait until it's built up, and put a crappy LRT in the middle of a suburban arterial that can plod along at 30 kph avg speed and at a cost 5-10x higher.

 

[ShonTron]

Previously, there were stops at Woodbridge (on Kipling Avenue, across from the fairgrounds), Kleinburg (Nashville), and Bolton (at Station Road and Elwood Drive, just southeast of the old junction between the CP MacTier Sub mainline and the old TG&B route to Orangeville). It's interesting that Caledon protected a site on Humber Station Road north of King Road, as it's good for park-and-ride commuters from places like Caledon East, it's on the opposite end of Bolton from where most traffic is headed, though a site on Albion-Vaughan Road would not have been great either. I guess they're far enough apart that you could have both stations, plus a stop at Rutherford Road, and maybe a restoration of the Woodbridge Station with a bus loop and minimal parking.

It'd probably be only two or three trains in the peak direction only, given the low demand, which I'd think CP could work around with moderate rail infrastructure upgrades, like a double track approach to the intermodal yard from the north, and perhaps double tracking at the new GO stations.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Previously, there were stops at Woodbridge (on Kipling Avenue, across from the fairgrounds), Kleinburg (Nashville), and Bolton (at Station Road and Elwood Drive, just southeast of the old junction between the CP MacTier Sub mainline and the old TG&B route to Orangeville). It's interesting that Caledon protected a site on Humber Station Road north of King Road, as it's good for park-and-ride commuters from places like Caledon East, it's on the opposite end of Bolton from where most traffic is headed, though a site on Albion-Vaughan Road would not have been great either. I guess they're far enough apart that you could have both stations, plus a stop at Rutherford Road, and maybe a restoration of the Woodbridge Station with a bus loop and minimal parking.

It'd probably be only two or three trains in the peak direction only, given the low demand, which I'd think CP could work around with moderate rail infrastructure upgrades, like a double track approach to the intermodal yard from the north, and perhaps double tracking at the new GO stations.

I don't think there is enough room to put woodbridge station at that location anymore 1) There is a townhome development there that I suspect would have a NIMBY attitude towards a rail station less that 250 m from their front doors. 2) the distance between Kipling and Meeting House here is only 1000 ft and if I'm not mistaken most Go platforms are at least 1200 ft (?). I mean they could probably shoe horn the platform as Meeting House rd only serves the Woodbridge Foam Corp there but I don't think it would be an ideal situation especially if they want to keep traffic flow on Kipling going, rather than having vehicles stop and wait for the train as is done at say Aurora. 3) I'm not sure if the small sliver of land is enough to build a platform, station building, bus loop, and kiss and ride loop. 4) Finally if pressured I suspect the preference from Vaughan and Woodbridge politicians would be to build the station closer to the core "downtown" Woodbridge area and/or the VIVA line. These two options do have their own issues as the involve significant grade differences between the road and the rail, as well as being right in the Humber river valley. In fact I think I remember seeing those suggestions way back when I read up on the Bolton line proposal.

In the end I suspect the best solution is for a station at the 407 with a large(ish) commuter parking lot, and station at Rutherford. That's a 6 km distance between the two stations and as long as the Bolton line remains a peak period only service should be sufficient for the area. However if pressed I would think, though expensive, the best bet would be to build as close to the VIVA line as possible in order to capture as many of those riders as possible.

 

[crs1026]

^I’m of mixed minds about Bolton-

If you want GO to actually improve their service, you shouldn't be interested in "PTC" as it is being installed in the US. It's not a signal system, and it will do nothing to increase capacity in the system.

Some of the higher-ups at GO have a pretty big hard-on for CBTC, and I'm sure that the news that BNSF is working on the first heavy-rail application of it in North America was met with great joy.

Dan

The ML Business Plan documents refer to objectives around “traffic control” . I would interpret this to mean getting all the loose ends of the new control center completed, plus completing the USRC resignalling, plus the various bits of track additions.
I can’t imagine doing anything with PTC , CBTC, etc until those basic building blocks are done. It has been said that the more recent CTC installations are PTC friendly but whether that extends to ither flavours is not known. If the top folks have aspirations to further technology, it may be a ways off.
And, since some lines do use CN/CP for some segments, it will be interesting to see how GO’s deployment meshes with CN/CP. .... multiple systems some day, just like in other jurisdictions

- Paul.

 

[Northern Light]

On potential Bolton stations, this is what the Feasibility study looked at:

Interesting to see they look at 4 different service models.

One of which went to Summerhill.

One of which took passengers only to Weston

Those 2 were discounted.

Leaving Bolton to Union via Mactier/Weston.

And Bolton to Union via Mactier/Halton-York/Newmarket sub.

Once again, the link to the study is here: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/regiona...n_Commuter_Rail_Feasibility_Study_2010_EN.pdf

 

[ShonTron]

In the end I suspect the best solution is for a station at the 407 with a large(ish) commuter parking lot, and station at Rutherford. That's a 6 km distance between the two stations and as long as the Bolton line remains a peak period only service should be sufficient for the area. However if pressed I would think, though expensive, the best bet would be to build as close to the VIVA line as possible in order to capture as many of those riders as possible.

What riders?

 

[crs1026]

What riders?

I never know whether to be impressed or horrified by the number of highly-undense “estate home” developments north of Bolton.
On the one hand, it creates a quasi-greenbelt full of multi-acre lots with well monied folk who will resist any effort to densify that area. On the other hand, it’s the kind of urban sprawl we don’t need. So long as residents pay their rightful share of local services (which must be costly, at that low density) I guess it could be a lot worse.... but it works against the argument that thus low density area justifies a costly GO line.

- Paul

 

[DKsan]

I never know whether to be impressed or horrified by the number of highly-undense “estate home” developments north of Bolton.
On the one hand, it creates a quasi-greenbelt full of multi-acre lots with well monied folk who will resist any effort to densify that area. On the other hand, it’s the kind of urban sprawl we don’t need. So long as residents pay their rightful share of local services (which must be costly, at that low density) I guess it could be a lot worse.... but it works against the argument that thus low density area justifies a costly GO line.

- Paul

A significant chunk of Caledon's infrastructure is funded by Peel....which means it's being subsidised by Brampton and Mississauga.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I never know whether to be impressed or horrified by the number of highly-undense “estate home” developments north of Bolton.
On the one hand, it creates a quasi-greenbelt full of multi-acre lots with well monied folk who will resist any effort to densify that area. On the other hand, it’s the kind of urban sprawl we don’t need. So long as residents pay their rightful share of local services (which must be costly, at that low density) I guess it could be a lot worse.... but it works against the argument that thus low density area justifies a costly GO line.

- Paul

Greenspace is/should only be enjoyed by the wealthy.



[END TANGENT]

 

[Allandale25]

Ontario designates future GO rail site for Caledon

On March 8, the province announced that a future Caledon GO rail site has been designated at Humber Station Road and King Street.

www.caledonenterprise.com

 

[ssiguy2]

I think, in theory, this is a very good idea as Bolton is a very fast growing area and would serve a lot of people in Northern Toronto and Vaughn too.

Logistically, however, I can see this as being highly problematic. This will mean that at roughly Brockton you are going to have 3 GO commuter lines, the UPX, and 2 RER routes all plying for the same small rail space. In rush hour the RER routes will probably be running every 8 minutes each. Too say it's going to be 'cozy' is a bit of an understatement. As service levels increase dramatically, I don't see how they are going to pull it off.

I think by 2030.........at the very latest......... ML is going to have to get it's greasy hands on the crosstown CP rail corridor from Milton to at least Yonge/Davisville. This would allow a potential Milton RER route to avoid going downtown and a line such as Bolton would also be able to veer off after St.Clair and head east to Yonge. As GO service increases, Toronto is going to have to start thinking outside the 'Union' box or the system will begin to clog up.

 

[smallspy]

The ML Business Plan documents refer to objectives around “traffic control” . I would interpret this to mean getting all the loose ends of the new control center completed, plus completing the USRC resignalling, plus the various bits of track additions.
I can’t imagine doing anything with PTC , CBTC, etc until those basic building blocks are done. It has been said that the more recent CTC installations are PTC friendly but whether that extends to ither flavours is not known. If the top folks have aspirations to further technology, it may be a ways off.
And, since some lines do use CN/CP for some segments, it will be interesting to see how GO’s deployment meshes with CN/CP. .... multiple systems some day, just like in other jurisdictions

- Paul.

I feel that is a correct interpretation as well. There seem to have been very few external comments about any sort of more advanced signal control, but internally there are a lot of higher-ups that are focused on whatever leading/bleeding edge technologies they can implement - being completely and entirely oblivious to the fact that they already have systems in place (and in use) that allow for 95% of the kinds of headways that they want to attain.

Indeed. We may get into a similar situation as down around the Northeast Corridor, where only small subfleets of freight locos will be equipped with the onboard systems required to safely operate over the lines.

Dan