GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[reaperexpress]

I wouldn’t put your money on Barrie Line express trains, but if they did happen then what you described is exactly what would end up happening

Barrie is 100 kilometres away. It would be absurd for the Barrie trains to make all stops en route given the stations planned at Spadina, Lansdowne (Bloor), Caledonia (Eglinton), Concord (Hwy 7), Mulock, and Innisfil in addition to all the existing stations, and given that there are going to be additional services running shorter segments such as to Aurora and Bradford. It would only make sense for those shorter services to serve all stops while the Barrie trains make limited stops south of Newmarket.

GO Expansion is supposed to deliver transformative travel time improvements, not merely local service that's slower than the lumbering diesel service we already have today.

So we're talking about the possibility of express trains running to & from King City?

Is there space for a third, centre track through Downsview?

Yes, Downsview Park station has space for a 3rd track and so do many of the bridges in North York. However the segment at and near the Snider grade separation (over the CN York sub) is not designed for 3 tracks so it's unlikely they'd build a continuous third track. A 3rd track from just north of Hwy 7 to just north of Maple would be long enough to allow an express train to overtake a local given that it contains two stations. Downsview Park station might get a bypass track but it would mostly just be useful to allow freight trains to pass through without being directly next to platforms raised for level boarding, and unscheduled overtakes in case of delays. With only a single station in the segment, local trains would need to have several minutes of delay added to the schedule waiting for the express train to overtake.

 

[WB62]

GO Expansion is supposed to deliver transformative travel time improvements, not merely local service that's slower than the lumbering diesel service we already have today.

GO Expansion definitely will do that, and travel times might just be good enough to not require express trains. Only time will tell though

(for the record I’m not disagreeing with you, I think Barrie express trains would be great)

 

[crs1026]

Barrie is 100 kilometres away. It would be absurd for the Barrie trains to make all stops en route given the stations planned at Spadina, Lansdowne (Bloor), Caledonia (Eglinton), Concord (Hwy 7), Mulock, and Innisfil in addition to all the existing stations, and given that there are going to be additional services running shorter segments such as to Aurora and Bradford. It would only make sense for those shorter services to serve all stops while the Barrie trains make limited stops south of Newmarket.

GO Expansion is supposed to deliver transformative travel time improvements, not merely local service that's slower than the lumbering diesel service we already have today.

Aspirationally, I totally agree.... but I wonder whether the incremental tweaks to conflicting agendas ie frequency, and closer station spacing have muddled this.

It's a question of a) how far apart stopping trains on 15 minute headways can get before they are overtaken by a following express and b) how those third tracks are utilised to operate express trains in both directions at once. Otherwise the express will mostly happen at peak but the off peak trains will still be all-stops plodders.

Once one assumes 15 minute core 2way service, plus added stations at Caledonia, Bloor, and Liberty, a third track between Steeles and Lawrence is essential - running express all the way to Concord between stopping trains will be an exercise in catching up. The Lawrence-Steeles leg is buildable in the mid term, but interleaving two directional flow will be challenging. Very precise schedule adherence is demanded - lots of other operators achieve this, but it's a new ballgame for ML. .

There is also the question of cash flow.... I wonder what priority ML places on a third track and express format on this line as compared to other expansion needs eg Milton, Niagara, added stations. There is only so much money. I would guess that three tracks to Barrie is still a ways down the list.

Perhaps ML has this all modelled out and it looks fine on paper....I'm still a bit dubious from here in the bleachers.

- Paul

 

[innsertnamehere]

Metrolinx did build the Davenport Diamond as a 2-track structure after initially proposing it as a 3-track structure, from my understanding. So 3-tracks is limited by that.

The rest of the corridor can support it with the right infrastructure though, from my understanding.

 

[Bojaxs]

Metrolinx did build the Davenport Diamond as a 2-track structure after initially proposing it as a 3-track structure, from my understanding. So 3-tracks is limited by that.

The rest of the corridor can support it with the right infrastructure though, from my understanding.

I brought this up earlier in the Davenport Diamond thread, and the prevailing response I got was three tracks wouldn't be necessary. Not sure I agree.

 

[crs1026]

I brought this up earlier in the Davenport Diamond thread, and the prevailing response I got was three tracks wouldn't be necessary. Not sure I agree.

The issue with Davenport was more that the initial 3-track design left far less opportunity to create a useful public space down below. The two track design gives a lot more light and openness and enables an attractive linear park and pathway. Whereas with three tracks, one would be pretty much recreating the underside of the Gardiner. You can see why everyone "hoped" that wasn't necessary.

It may still be technically possible to add a third track, but the community reaction to that would be brutal.

And the issue is not just the guideway itself, there would have to be a lot of property acquired and civil works carried out to connect a third track from the north end of the guideway up to Eglintonish where the corridor widens. There has never been an intention to have more than two tracks between the south end of the guideway and Bathurst Street - again, adding a third dedicated to the Barrie line would be a huge expense in that stretch. Crossovers to the Kitchener line is all that would ever be needed.

I do think that two dedicated tracks for the initial section from Bathurst St to Eglinton is sufficient with appropriate signalling. Express trains would likely make some or all of the stops in that section anyways, so the only real need is installing signalling that can manage the added frequency.

- Paul

 

[Krypto98]

Barrie is 100 kilometres away. It would be absurd for the Barrie trains to make all stops en route given the stations planned at Spadina, Lansdowne (Bloor), Caledonia (Eglinton), Concord (Hwy 7), Mulock, and Innisfil in addition to all the existing stations, and given that there are going to be additional services running shorter segments such as to Aurora and Bradford. It would only make sense for those shorter services to serve all stops while the Barrie trains make limited stops south of Newmarket.

GO Expansion is supposed to deliver transformative travel time improvements, not merely local service that's slower than the lumbering diesel service we already have today.

Yes, Downsview Park station has space for a 3rd track and so do many of the bridges in North York. However the segment at and near the Snider grade separation (over the CN York sub) is not designed for 3 tracks so it's unlikely they'd build a continuous third track. A 3rd track from just north of Hwy 7 to just north of Maple would be long enough to allow an express train to overtake a local given that it contains two stations. Downsview Park station might get a bypass track but it would mostly just be useful to allow freight trains to pass through without being directly next to platforms raised for level boarding, and unscheduled overtakes in case of delays. With only a single station in the segment, local trains would need to have several minutes of delay added to the schedule waiting for the express train to overtake.

Freight trains don't really go south of Downsview Park anymore furthest south they hit usually between Finch or Sheppard

 

[innsertnamehere]

South of Sniderman to the Davenport Diamond will eventually have 2 stations once Caledonia GO is built. Not sure if that station is being designed for 3 tracks off hand though.

edit: yes, the TPAP for the station includes 3 tracks. So it would have a decent opportunity for express to overtake.

The TPAP interestingly includes a third platform for the express track as well though, so not sure on the thought behind that one.

Eventually the Highway 7 to Maple stretch will actually have 3 stations as well, which gives even more time for overtaking.

 

[dowlingm]

We got the Bradford Bypass when what we need* is the Aurora Bypass **

* okay nice to have
** yeah it looks crappy I did it on my phone

 

[Fritter]

Bloomington station was partially built as a relief station for Aurora. The Richmond Hill line service however does not intice many from Aurora from using it.

 

[Islington Express Bus]

Do we have any current ridership stats for GO Transit? I'd love to see how well (presumably poorly) Bloomington is performing.

 

[reaperexpress]

Aspirationally, I totally agree.... but I wonder whether the incremental tweaks to conflicting agendas ie frequency, and closer station spacing have muddled this.

It's a question of a) how far apart stopping trains on 15 minute headways can get before they are overtaken by a following express and b) how those third tracks are utilised to operate express trains in both directions at once. Otherwise the express will mostly happen at peak but the off peak trains will still be all-stops plodders.

Once one assumes 15 minute core 2way service, plus added stations at Caledonia, Bloor, and Liberty, a third track between Steeles and Lawrence is essential - running express all the way to Concord between stopping trains will be an exercise in catching up. The Lawrence-Steeles leg is buildable in the mid term, but interleaving two directional flow will be challenging. Very precise schedule adherence is demanded - lots of other operators achieve this, but it's a new ballgame for ML. .

I've mocked up a timetable for the track configuration where there is double track to Barrie with one 3-track segment through Rutherford and Maple stations and it already accommodates half-hourly express trains from Barrie in both directions in addition to 4 local trains per hour. You only need a single overtaking location to accommodate the difference in speed, so there's no need for a 3-track segment at Lawrence.

In this scenario I assumed that the trains to Barrie are diesel and the local trains are electric. This would be the interim condition until electrification makes it all the way to Barrie. The stopping pattern I used for Barrie trains is all stops from Barrie to Newmarket, then limited stops to Union, stopping only at Aurora and stations with a direct subway interchange. There are so many new stations that even with this limited-stop pattern, express trains only stop at one fewer station than the current local trains.

I mocked up two options for the basic off-peak service, one using the passing track and one not. If Option 2 (no scheduled overtake) is chosen, the passing track would act as a plan B in case an express train gets stuck behind a local train due to delays. For example, if the 07:00 train from Barrie gets delayed and arrives at Aurora at 07:59, it can briefly run behind the 07:56 train until Maple where it overtakes it, arriving at Downsview Park at 08:22 with a clear shot to run fast to Union.

Passing track outlined in black. Times in blue are non-stop.

There is also the question of cash flow.... I wonder what priority ML places on a third track and express format on this line as compared to other expansion needs eg Milton, Niagara, added stations. There is only so much money. I would guess that three tracks to Barrie is still a ways down the list.

Perhaps ML has this all modelled out and it looks fine on paper....I'm still a bit dubious from here in the bleachers.

The cost of installing a third track through Rutherford and Maple is negligible given that the underlying structure is already in place - all that's missing is the track itself. There is no need to build three tracks all the way to Barrie.

 

[crs1026]

I've mocked up a timetable for the track configuration where there is double track to Barrie with one 3-track segment through Rutherford and Maple stations and it already accommodates half-hourly express trains from Barrie in both directions in addition to 4 local trains per hour. You only need a single overtaking location to accommodate the difference in speed, so there's no need for a 3-track segment at Lawrence.

In this scenario I assumed that the trains to Barrie are diesel and the local trains are electric. This would be the interim condition until electrification makes it all the way to Barrie. The stopping pattern I used for Barrie trains is all stops from Barrie to Newmarket, then limited stops to Union, stopping only at Aurora and stations with a direct subway interchange. There are so many new stations that even with this limited-stop pattern, express trains only stop at one fewer station than the current local trains.

I mocked up two options for the basic off-peak service, one using the passing track and one not. If Option 2 (no scheduled overtake) is chosen, the passing track would act as a plan B in case an express train gets stuck behind a local train due to delays. For example, if the 07:00 train from Barrie gets delayed and arrives at Aurora at 07:59, it can briefly run behind the 07:56 train until Maple where it overtakes it, arriving at Downsview Park at 08:22 with a clear shot to run fast to Union.

Passing track outlined in black. Times in blue are non-stop.

Awesome model. (as usual). One nitpick would be, I would assume at least two minutes between when a enters the triple track and when a following express can arrive behind it, partly to add timekeeping contingency but also to protect against lag in the signalling. But that's a minor tweak.

I have lost track - did ML decide that the turnback point for some trains would be Newmarket and not Aurora?

The cost of installing a third track through Rutherford and Maple is negligible given that the underlying structure is already in place - all that's missing is the track itself. There is no need to build three tracks all the way to Barrie.

Yes, it was really only the segment south of Lawrence that I was thinking of when I raised land costs.

There is enough work getting done at the moment that it's clear that no triple track is going in at this moment and there are places where it isn't being roughed in at all. In fact, even the doubling still seems fairly piecemeal in places. But it's cool to appreciate what may become possible down the road.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

Awesome model. (as usual). One nitpick would be, I would assume at least two minutes between when a enters the triple track and when a following express can arrive behind it, partly to add timekeeping contingency but also to protect against lag in the signalling. But that's a minor tweak.

I did assume at least two minutes between trains, in fact I assumed at least three. Keep in mind that the time shown for stopping trains is the departure time, so for example the train shown departing Maple at 08:04 actually arrived there at 08:02.

I have lost track - did ML decide that the turnback point for some trains would be Newmarket and not Aurora?

I'm honestly not sure where the turnback points are planned nowadays but I do recall them moving one of them to Bradford at some point.

I put the second turnback point at Mulock because it allows the Regional service to skip Mulock. If the short-turn happened at Aurora, the Regional would need to serve Mulock to meet the '15 minute service to Bradford' promise. But Aurora would definitely be an option as well, and I recall seeing some station drawings that did include a turnback track. I don't think Newmarket would be a good choice because there's no room for a third track at the station, so at that point you might as well turn back at East Gwillimbury.

Yes, it was really only the segment south of Lawrence that I was thinking of when I raised land costs.

Yeah I don't see any triple track happening south of Lawrence, not just due to space/infra constraints but also because even the express trains would presumably be making at least a few stops to connect people from the northern edges of the line to various subway services.

There is enough work getting done at the moment that it's clear that no triple track is going in at this moment and there are places where it isn't being roughed in at all. In fact, even the doubling still seems fairly piecemeal in places. But it's cool to appreciate what may become possible down the road.

Yeah for sure. This is not a 'current track construction' kind of scenario it's just a 'sanity-check of future-proofing' scenario. I was just confirming that it's not crazy to have omitted the provisions for third track at Snider Diamond and Davenport Diamond, while still future-proofing for triple track at Downsview Park, Maple, and Rutherford stations. Based on this timetable, triple tracking King City would also make the overtake more reliable, so ideally that should be future-proofed as well as part of the current second platform construction, just as it was at Rutherford and Maple.

The current track construction goal should be (and presumably is) to get full double track to Aurora with intermittent passing tracks every 15 minutes along the line further north, which would allow half-hourly local service to Aurora and hourly off-peak express to Barrie, increasing to half-hourly during peak periods. Then my priority would be to extend the double track further northward until Bradford. It would be at least a decade before it's time to come back and install an overtaking segment south of Aurora.

 

[vistaway]

Current state of the Burloak grade separation. This is west of Burloak but both sides are at the same stage. I'm guessing the upcoming weekend closures will really move this forward?