GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[crs1026]

I'm still generally confused by the Lakeshore West schedules in that document.

They propose a variety of off peak "super express" services - including a likely sub 1 hour service to Hamilton, but don't run those services in peak hour when they would be most useful? Is it a track capacity issue as to why the Hamilton bound trains can't run super express at rush hour?

I don't know what went into their service plan, but without a 4-track main line there can't be both an intensive express service and a very frequent stopping service. On a 3-track main line, two tracks will be tied up in the stopping service. Doesn't leave much room for two directional express trains. In theory one could devise a clever schedule that has the conflicting express moves ducking in and out around the stoppers, but even one delayed stopping train would throw that into disarray.

Ever wonder why the early morning VIA departures both east and west of Toronto now depart in the wee hours (06:40ish) instead of a little later? Now you know why. The third track east and west of the city is used for incoming expresses. VIA has to get out of town before those tracks are needed for the inbound rush hour.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

Isn’t this why we’d want more doors per car and single-level cars?

Depends on the relative capacity. If bilevels haul 40% more people, moving to single level might mean needing more trains at peak to move the same number of people... less dwell time per train but not more overall throughput. It's a tradeoff, and not a one-over-the-other. ML probably knows the math best.

- Paul

 

[afransen]

Even with the new signalling, there are some basic constraints with the station that are due to things like the physical setup of the station and the various rules that the railways run by - not to mention some that are self-imposed by Metrolinx.

Because of this, it's been calculated that if a train is to run through the station that it will occupy a platform for about 10 minutes. This means that the throughput will be 6 trains per hour.

With double-berthing - having a train arrive at a platform from each direction, something that the new signal system is expressly designed to allow but is not capable today - the station will be able to handle 4 trains per hour per direction, for a total of 8 trains per hour on those platforms. And most of the tracks through the station will be configured to allow this.

Dan

Seems like borderline criminal incompetence. It's not like they are inventing rail transit from scratch here. Surely they know this is very poor performance from international benchmarking.

 

[Undead]

^Am I misrememebring or does Japan manage frequent local and express two way service on two tracks?

 

[ARG1]

The 2020 GO Expansion EA update (linked in the GO construction projects thread) shows clear frequencies for each of the 5 electrified lines will be (both peak and off-peak) starting at page 11.

https://www.metrolinxengage.com/sites/default/files/overview_station_-_go_expansion_feb_2020_-_revised_feb_13.pdf

No two lines have identical schedules. Some trains could run through (like the Stouffville and Kitchener 10 minute frequency portion) and LakeShore East/West 15 minute frequency portion, but many trains would still not be through service at union.

Keep in mind that the plans are changing all the time. The EA is only interested in what a likely headway would do to a community, however its not a contract that states "this is how it will be". Looking at the pdf you provided, it looks like they just ripped the schedules straight out of the 2018 IBC which can be found here: http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pd..._BoardMtg_GO_Expansion_Full_Business_Case.PDF

Its entirely possible that at the time they weren't planning interlining, but now its something they're considering. Do not take proposed service patterns as gospel, especially for a project as large and variable as GO Expansion.

 

[AHK]

^Am I misrememebring or does Japan manage frequent local and express two way service on two tracks?

Of course it can be done, with certain limitations. The express leaves the point of origin first, and then the local immediately afterwards. By the time the next express is to depart, the local would be far enough down the route that it would not be in the way of the next express.

Requirements would include decent acceleration capabilities on the locals - which of course the current generation of GO trains does not have, along with limitations on route length / number of stops / frequency of service. In the case of longer routes, numerous close together intermediary stations, or very short intervals between the express train departures, lay-by tracks would be required to allow the next express to bypass a local service train.

None of this is rocket science - the chief requirements are political will and funding.....

 

[JSF-1]

^Am I misrememebring or does Japan manage frequent local and express two way service on two tracks?

Yes they do, but most lines which offer both local and express on only 2 tracks will have quad track/platform stations positioned along the line to allow local trains to pull off the main line while the express either also stops at the station or passes through. Also worth noting that many railway companies in Japan offer a mutlitude of express services. You may see designations like "Local" "Rapid" "Express" "Commuter Express" etc. all of which do different things. In fact I can't really think of any "true" quad tracks line in Japan. Even the corridor into Tokyo Station is like 6 to 8 tracks wide depending on which side of Tokyo Station you are on. Each set of tracks is reserved for a specific line. So you have 2 dedicated to the Yamanote Line, 2 for the Kehin-Tohoku Line, 2 for the Tokaido Line, and 2 for the Chuo Rapid Line. There really isn't any intermingling of the lines in normal operation.

 

[smallspy]

Isn’t this why we’d want more doors per car and single-level cars?

More doors and single-level cars aren't going to make the trains traverse the trackage any faster. That's the limiting factor.

Dan

 

[afransen]

More doors and single-level cars aren't going to make the trains traverse the trackage any faster. That's the limiting factor.

Dan

Isn't that why we're electrifying?

Throughput, to be fair, is probably more a function of dwell time and train capacity.

 

[ssiguy2]

A single level electrified train can run safely and efficiently every 100 seconds. With 3 wide platforms and 10 lines of track, there will be absolutely NO problems at Union.

2 platforms with 4 tracks going each way allows for trains to arrive every 25 seconds one way and ditto for the other 2 platforms going the opposite. The 3rd platform could be reserved strictly for VIA which run slower accelerating diesel trains and have much thinner doors and more people with luggage etc hence creating vastly longer dwell times required for long distance travellers. The only extra piece of infrastructure require will be a two-track flyover before the station/downtown where the lines merge near Spadina/Bathurst allowing for no cross tracking delays/slowdowns.

If they say that such frequencies are not possible then it is NOT a reflection of Union Station capacity issues and strictly a problem of Metrolinx incompetence. Full stop.

 

[ARG1]

A single level electrified train can run safely and efficiently every 100 seconds. With 3 wide platforms and 10 lines of track, there will be absolutely NO problems at Union.

2 platforms with 4 tracks going each way allows for trains to arrive every 25 seconds one way and ditto for the other 2 platforms going the opposite. The 3rd platform could be reserved strictly for VIA which run slower accelerating diesel trains and have much thinner doors and more people with luggage etc hence creating vastly longer dwell times required for long distance travellers. The only extra piece of infrastructure require will be a two-track flyover before the station/downtown where the lines merge near Spadina/Bathurst allowing for no cross tracking delays/slowdowns.

If they say that such frequencies are not possible then it is NOT a reflection of Union Station capacity issues and strictly a problem of Metrolinx incompetence. Full stop.

That's not exactly true. Remember that GO RER is still considered mainline rail, and being able to reach 100 second frequencies would not only go against the federal legislation of mainline rail (which I believe dictates at least 5 minutes between trains), but would still require the resignalling of the entire GO Network to ATC, from Union Station to Allendale Waterfront, and as you mentioned this resignalling would make it impossible for non GO trains to use. This doesn't include the fact that many corridors such as LSW, Kitchener, and in the future LSE will still have diesel trains running on them to Non-Electrified segments of their respective lines, so now you have to build dedicated tracks and stations for these trains which costs even more time and money. GO RER isn't a REM, nor is it Crossrail. These things aren't being done because they don't need to be done, and there is no need for them to be done.

 

[44 North]

That's not exactly true. Remember that GO RER is still considered mainline rail, and being able to reach 100 second frequencies would not only go against the federal legislation of mainline rail (which I believe dictates at least 5 minutes between trains), but would still require the resignalling of the entire GO Network to ATC, from Union Station to Allendale Waterfront, and as you mentioned this resignalling would make it impossible for non GO trains to use. This doesn't include the fact that many corridors such as LSW, Kitchener, and in the future LSE will still have diesel trains running on them to Non-Electrified segments of their respective lines, so now you have to build dedicated tracks and stations for these trains which costs even more time and money. GO RER isn't a REM, nor is it Crossrail. These things aren't being done because they don't need to be done, and there is no need for them to be done.

I feel like something to this effect should be stickied somewhere. Electrified, higher frequency GO is a def gamechanger that's a longtime coming. But it shouldn't be confused with an actual subway/metro system capable of 100sec frequencies. Obviously it can be hard to differentiate when we get promises of "surface subways", or "subway-like ___", but it's worth a notation for those unaware of the diffs.

 

[smallspy]

Isn't that why we're electrifying?

Throughput, to be fair, is probably more a function of dwell time and train capacity.

There are lots of benefits to electrifying the network. Frequency isn't one of them however - there is nothing from stopping them from running the current equipment to whatever the minimum headways possible are on the various lines.

The problem specifically with Union vis-a-vis through-running or double-berthing is that many of the platforms are quite long, and so at 10mph it takes a long time to traverse that specific bit of trackage. The dwells can be as short as you want, but if a train is occupying a length of trackage for 10 minutes, that's your limit.

A single level electrified train can run safely and efficiently every 100 seconds. With 3 wide platforms and 10 lines of track, there will be absolutely NO problems at Union.

2 platforms with 4 tracks going each way allows for trains to arrive every 25 seconds one way and ditto for the other 2 platforms going the opposite. The 3rd platform could be reserved strictly for VIA which run slower accelerating diesel trains and have much thinner doors and more people with luggage etc hence creating vastly longer dwell times required for long distance travellers. The only extra piece of infrastructure require will be a two-track flyover before the station/downtown where the lines merge near Spadina/Bathurst allowing for no cross tracking delays/slowdowns.

If they say that such frequencies are not possible then it is NOT a reflection of Union Station capacity issues and strictly a problem of Metrolinx incompetence. Full stop.

The problem is that you aren't thinking in enough dimensions - you need to think in 4 - length, width, height AND time. A train does not just magically appear and disappear from a piece of track in an instant - the instant a single axle is on it is considered occupied, and will remain so until the last axle rolls off of it.

Do a little math experiment. For how much time does a 330m long train occupy a 450m section of track at 10mph? Do the same question but with a shorter train, say 225m. It's not an inconsequential amount of time.

That's not exactly true. Remember that GO RER is still considered mainline rail, and being able to reach 100 second frequencies would not only go against the federal legislation of mainline rail (which I believe dictates at least 5 minutes between trains), but would still require the resignalling of the entire GO Network to ATC, from Union Station to Allendale Waterfront, and as you mentioned this resignalling would make it impossible for non GO trains to use.

There is no rule regarding the minimum distance or spacing between trains. So long as they are operated in a "safe manner", the railroads are free to operate as they see fit.

Dan

 

[superelevation]

There are lots of benefits to electrifying the network. Frequency isn't one of them however - there is nothing from stopping them from running the current equipment to whatever the minimum headways possible are on the various lines.

The problem specifically with Union vis-a-vis through-running or double-berthing is that many of the platforms are quite long, and so at 10mph it takes a long time to traverse that specific bit of trackage. The dwells can be as short as you want, but if a train is occupying a length of trackage for 10 minutes, that's your limit.


The problem is that you aren't thinking in enough dimensions - you need to think in 4 - length, width, height AND time. A train does not just magically appear and disappear from a piece of track in an instant - the instant a single axle is on it is considered occupied, and will remain so until the last axle rolls off of it.

Do a little math experiment. For how much time does a 330m long train occupy a 450m section of track at 10mph? Do the same question but with a shorter train, say 225m. It's not an inconsequential amount of time.


There is no rule regarding the minimum distance or spacing between trains. So long as they are operated in a "safe manner", the railroads are free to operate as they see fit.

Dan

The improved perf of electric trains (and reliability) does help operate higher frequencies

 

[smallspy]

The improved perf of electric trains (and reliability) does help operate higher frequencies

Self-propelled equipment regardless of its power source will provide a greater ability to operate at higher frequencies due to the greater acceleration rates that they provide. If that equipment is electrically powered, than yes, I'd agree with you.

But the slight performance benefits of using electric locos to replace the diesels is minimal and won't be felt by the vast majority of passengers.

But if you're specifically speaking about Union....then no, they don't help at all. There are a lot more factors that limit the ability of trains to run into and out of the station, so many that the performance of the equipment gets taken out of the equation.

Dan