GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

[crs1026]

.But as others noted, I'd be reluctant to commit public funds to upgrade a line still owned by CN. Both Via and GO have been burned by that in the past.

While the route is valuable to CN, it has plenty of unused capacity that CN may never need. I'm sure they would love to have GO pay part of the fixed costs that CN currently has to pay themselves.

The bridge is on a dual lock along the canal that only has a capacity of about 1 boat per hour per direction regardless of the railway bridge. If hourly GO trains are timed to cross the bridge simultaneously in both directions it would have a negligible effect on seaway capacity, though it could potentially cause up to an hour of delay to ships if they happen to arrive at the wrong time.

It's not just ships that risk delay. Once the bridge is raised and the lock opened for an upbound boat, it takes considerable time for an upbound boat to slide into the lock. A late or out of pattern train that arrives once the bridge goes up is going to wait quite a while for the bridge to come back down.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

I was looking at an older plan for a yard in Burlington, which I believe is now cancelled in favour of one at Walkers Line.

I noticed that this yard had space for a maintenance facility, which would have been the third one on the network. Since this yard was cancelled, is there still a need for a third maintenance facility?

View attachment 627083

Just about every single layover site built in the past 20+ years has room for a small running maintenance facility should they choose to build it out to that size. I think that the only exception to that is Kitchener.

This was just the ultimate maximum size of the facility should they have chosen to build it, not what they actually intended to build for day 1.

Dan

 

[Yeltsa Kcir]

But as others noted, I'd be reluctant to commit public funds to upgrade a line still owned by CN. Both Via and GO have been burned by that in the past.

Burned? How so?

 

[Northern Light]

Burned? How so?

See this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/go-transit-audit-sparked-by-claims-cn-overbilled-taxpayers-1.1868852

 

[Allandale25]

Burned? How so?

For VIA, since you're new here, I found some posts where this has been discussed before.

VIA Rail

So why then is VIA so constrained on 2-track (and especially 3-track) sections of the Kingston sub? Maybe because VIA wants to operate its trains faster than CN's freight trains, but CN is not willing to give VIA dispatching priority? Therefore, VIA trains can only overtake any trains if they...

urbantoronto.ca

VIA Rail

So why then is VIA so constrained on 2-track (and especially 3-track) sections of the Kingston sub? Maybe because VIA wants to operate its trains faster than CN's freight trains, but CN is not willing to give VIA dispatching priority? Therefore, VIA trains can only overtake any trains if they...

urbantoronto.ca

Also, this:

We represent the interests of rail and bus passengers and advocate for public transport services in Canada.

Transport Action Canada, founded as Transport 2000 Canada in 1977, is the nation’s leading citizen transportation advocacy group. We represent the interests of consumers or users of public transport services in Canada.

www.transportaction.ca

 

[bpbpbpbp]

But as others noted, I'd be reluctant to commit public funds to upgrade a line still owned by CN. Both Via and GO have been burned by that in the past.

This makes me wonder about the Kitchener Line and Halton subdivision deal. The work that is being done will have MX upgrading the Halton with a fourth track in parts and a third track through Brampton. This is in CN territory, I know it seems unlikely, especially since CN probably has 0 need for more than 2 tracks, and not much more need than even one (the Halton through MIlton is single tracked with passing tracks), but isn't there a risk that CN pulls a funny and limits GO service? Potentially blocking GO operations as blackmail for more fees or whatnot? Or is there something in place that would ensure that MX effectively calls the shots on the third and fourth tracks?

 

[crs1026]

This makes me wonder about the Kitchener Line and Halton subdivision deal. The work that is being done will have MX upgrading the Halton with a fourth track in parts and a third track through Brampton. This is in CN territory, I know it seems unlikely, especially since CN probably has 0 need for more than 2 tracks, and not much more need than even one (the Halton through MIlton is single tracked with passing tracks), but isn't there a risk that CN pulls a funny and limits GO service? Potentially blocking GO operations as blackmail for more fees or whatnot? Or is there something in place that would ensure that MX effectively calls the shots on the third and fourth tracks?

There is a service contract agreement between CN and ML. It's confidential, so we don't know the exact terms, but yes one can assume it will define the number of trains that CN commits to handle. It is a legally binding contract and is enforceable. There is also federal law that gives ML the option of going to a tribunal if it feels CN is being unreasonable. It's all subject to negotiation.

Clearly on any given day, CN will care a lot more about its own operation than about GO's, and there will be some tension in the relationship especially when ML is increasing the scope of its operations. But especially where ML has added track capacity, CN seems to accept GO. The trains do mostly run with moderate reliability. And the GTA is not the only place on the CN network where passenger trains exist.

The option, of course, is to build completely separate transit rights of way. That can happen where land is cheap, but planning new rail corridors in the GTA is mostly beyond affordability. So we mostly live with things as they are. The devil you know etc.

- Paul

 

[ctf5650]

For context, here's the current extent of double track on the Grimsby sub.
View attachment 627105
It's already mostly double-tracked, the most notable single-track segment is the 16 km between Grimsby and St Catharines. The single-track segment in Niagara Falls probably doesn't really matter since that's after CN's trains split off, and hourly GO trains would presumably lay over in NF for about about 20 minutes which still leaves enough time to get to/from the existing double track in St Catharines. A second platform at NF station (high-level platform for US customs clearance perhaps?) would be enough to enable hourly GO service in addition to Via/Amtrak thru trains.

But as others noted, I'd be reluctant to commit public funds to upgrade a line still owned by CN. Both Via and GO have been burned by that in the past.


The bridge is on a dual lock along the canal that only has a capacity of about 1 boat per hour per direction regardless of the railway bridge. If hourly GO trains are timed to cross the bridge simultaneously in both directions it would have a negligible effect on seaway capacity, though it could potentially cause up to an hour of delay to ships if they happen to arrive at the wrong time.

View attachment 627104

For what it's worth, the daily CN ops on the Grimsby sub consist of 2 manifests (A421 and A422) as well as a local (which might not even be daily). Seems like plenty of room for GO and CN, similar to the MX-owned Newmarket and Oakville subs which see a few CN trains per week

 

[Yeltsa Kcir]

See this:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/go-transit-audit-sparked-by-claims-cn-overbilled-taxpayers-1.1868852

For VIA, since you're new here, I found some posts where this has been discussed before.

VIA Rail

So why then is VIA so constrained on 2-track (and especially 3-track) sections of the Kingston sub? Maybe because VIA wants to operate its trains faster than CN's freight trains, but CN is not willing to give VIA dispatching priority? Therefore, VIA trains can only overtake any trains if they...

urbantoronto.ca

VIA Rail

So why then is VIA so constrained on 2-track (and especially 3-track) sections of the Kingston sub? Maybe because VIA wants to operate its trains faster than CN's freight trains, but CN is not willing to give VIA dispatching priority? Therefore, VIA trains can only overtake any trains if they...

urbantoronto.ca

Also, this:

We represent the interests of rail and bus passengers and advocate for public transport services in Canada.

Transport Action Canada, founded as Transport 2000 Canada in 1977, is the nation’s leading citizen transportation advocacy group. We represent the interests of consumers or users of public transport services in Canada.

www.transportaction.ca

Wow that pretty damning. I can't say I'm surprised though. It's really too bad the government didn't put in more provisions for passenger rail when they privatized CN so stuff like this wouldn't happen.

There is a service contract agreement between CN and ML. It's confidential, so we don't know the exact terms, but yes one can assume it will define the number of trains that CN commits to handle. It is a legally binding contract and is enforceable. There is also federal law that gives ML the option of going to a tribunal if it feels CN is being unreasonable. It's all subject to negotiation.

- Paul

I imagine there was a legally binding service contract agreement between CN and ML back in the mid to late 2000s. Clearly didn't stop CN from screwing around as was written in that CBC article @Northern Light posted.

 

[Northern Light]

5 days to the election call and this is on my social media..........again:

When exactly?

 

[Allandale25]

^ I wonder if it mentions the freight bypass research recently announced if you click on the link, or, the $6 billion idea for two new tracks outlined last year (or 2023 I can't remember).

 

[Northern Light]

^ I wonder if it mentions the freight bypass research recently announced if you click on the link, or, the $6 billion idea for two new tracks outlined last year (or 2023 I can't remember).

LOL, the link takes you to IO's projects page.

I didn't spend long looking around, but didn't see any further detail that was obvious.

 

[ProjectEnd]

For context, here's the current extent of double track on the Grimsby sub.
View attachment 627105
It's already mostly double-tracked, the most notable single-track segment is the 16 km between Grimsby and St Catharines. The single-track segment in Niagara Falls probably doesn't really matter since that's after CN's trains split off, and hourly GO trains would presumably lay over in NF for about about 20 minutes which still leaves enough time to get to/from the existing double track in St Catharines. A second platform at NF station (high-level platform for US customs clearance perhaps?) would be enough to enable hourly GO service in addition to Via/Amtrak thru trains.

But as others noted, I'd be reluctant to commit public funds to upgrade a line still owned by CN. Both Via and GO have been burned by that in the past.


The bridge is on a dual lock along the canal that only has a capacity of about 1 boat per hour per direction regardless of the railway bridge. If hourly GO trains are timed to cross the bridge simultaneously in both directions it would have a negligible effect on seaway capacity, though it could potentially cause up to an hour of delay to ships if they happen to arrive at the wrong time.

View attachment 627104

Even if Metrolinx owned the whole corridor, without significant track bed upgrades (and the resulting heighted speeds they would permit), I don't think hourly service to Niagara is in any way worth it. It's a 2 hour trip one way so you're still eliminating St. Catherine's commuters and I'd say the number of tourists going to the falls mid-week is minimal.

 

[Northern Light]

Even if Metrolinx owned the whole corridor, without significant track bed upgrades (and the resulting heighted speeds they would permit), I don't think hourly service to Niagara is in any way worth it. It's a 2 hour trip one way so you're still eliminating St. Catherine's commuters and I'd say the number of tourists going to the falls mid-week is minimal.

Hourly is a big leap, particularly outside tourist season..........however.....

I think you're a bit low on your demand estimates.

Off-season, weekday, in addition to 3 daily train trips, GO is running 30M bus service for large chunks of the day, from Niagara to Toronto.

That demand is in place with a current travel time of ~ 2hrs 30. * (the buses serve Burlington)

A time that will be reduced by ~20M with the West Harbour changes coming online this year.

29 daily bus trips, 3 train trips. That's already a good sized level of pasenger demand (a majority of these are bus meets train in Burlington, so its important to remember we're talking about extending trips that already reach from Toronto to either Burlington or West Harbour; and that that the latter will soon be Confederation Station in Hamilton.

Flixbus is also doing six daily runs, off-season.

Mega bus is doing 7 daily runs, off season.

I would note that not all demand for travel in the corridor is Toronto-Niagara tourism. Students bound for Brock/McMaster will account for a portion, in addition to work commuters.

So when you consolidate, you've got at least 13 private buses daily, plus 29 GO Bus trips, for 42 daily trips, with 3 train runs, plus the one Via/Amtrak run.

That seems like a pretty solid demand base.

****

I am told that with no latent demand growth, and no population growth or commuting pattern shifts, there is demand for 4 daily trains off-season (plus hourly from Confederation) and more during peak tourist season. Each train trip would remove 2 existing bus departures.

However, given that there is expected to be latent demand, that the trip time could be dropped substantially from today, and that service frequency would induce additional demand, I don't think its a reach to suggest bi-hourly service at all, with hourly in rush hours, in the off-season.

****

To be clear that doesn't justify unlimited investment in the corridor, but significant improvement could be obtained for far less than maximum investment.

 

[crs1026]

Without looking at specific numbers.....If we can't design a regional service that draws ridership off a congested six-lane expressway, there is something wrong with what we are doing.

My gut says that a Niagara 2WAD line with improved feeder transit would be a real gamechanger for the region, with much of the value being linkage to Hamilton as much as Toronto. A growth plan for Hamilton as a relief development center would be hugely beneficial to the GTA.

The investment required would definitely include replacing the missing double track, and some station work (let's be spartan here) - there will no doubt be a need for grade separations in plces but that can be done incrementally. If the speed restrictions in east end Hamilton were addressed, the commuting time to that point would be competitive. Maybe some added speed beyond Stoney Creek is possible, but the speeds aren't that bad as is. I'm afraid the slow speeds thru Bayview may be something we are stuck with, but auto traffic over the Skyway is not getting lighter, so the train is not a complete non-starter competitively.

The big question is what it would take to have CN move its operations from daylight hours to open up clear sailing for GO. That isn't inconceivable, especially if they are relieved of fixed costs and capitalisation. As noted, while CN uses the corridor, they have only so much traffic.

As much as we all think of the Falls as the terminus, I would run the 2WAD only to St Catherines with only whatever number of trains crossing the Canal can be managed continuing to Niagara Falls. St Catherines is well situated as a hub for bus routes to Welland, Port Colborne, Niagara on the Lake etc.

- Paul