News   Nov 22, 2024
National Housing Day: City of Toronto and Riverdale Co-op Open Affordable Homes
 554     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
Bauhaus Condos Rising in Toronto's Old Town
 1K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
49-Storey Waterfront Tower Proposed at Spadina and Queens Quay
 2.7K     8 

GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

Bureaucromancer said:
Also significant that the Waterloo Spur ops actually de energize the overhead while CN is active.

We really do need to find a way to make the Class 1s live with electrification but there’s going to be more to it than getting aggressive in negotiations.
Click to expand...
What are you proposing? That the federal government should force them to have their mainlines electrified? Halting their entire business model while their tracks are converted? Force them to purchase new locomotives? What's in it for them? The system works "as is" for freight companies. They make billions in profits. There's is no economical benefit to them switching to an electrified system.
Even if the freight companies electrified their tracks, it wouldn't improve frequency for passenger trains because freight would still get priority over passenger rail, and they would limit how many passenger trains can run on their electrified tracks.

If people are serious about wanting to electrify the GO transit corridors and achieving "subway style" frequency, then we first must construct the "missing link" freight bypass routes. There is simply no other way. 407 bypass for CN. 413 bypass for CP.
 
Last edited:
I agree at the end of the day a bypass is absolutely required, but without getting some degree of acceptance of electrfication we're back to stupid edge cases, like electrification never reaching Hamilton and the Durham extensions remaining diesel.
 
Bureaucromancer said:
I agree at the end of the day a bypass is absolutely required, but without getting some degree of acceptance of electrfication we're back to stupid edge cases, like electrification never reaching Hamilton and the Durham extensions remaining diesel.
Click to expand...
Electrification will never reach Hamilton or Durham extensions unless Metrolinx has track ownership. Even if CN/ CP electrified their tracks, why are we assuming they would allow more GO trains to run on their tracks? What's the point of electrifying if it doesn't improve frequency?
IMO the future of rail in the GTHA (and probably Canada as a whole) is electrified passenger rail, while freight remains diesel. Which is why the freight bypasses and separated dedicated tracks (lakeshore east) need to be constructed.
If Metrolinx is serious about electrifying, then they should be seriously pursuing and willing to front money for the freight bypasses instead of claiming they'll electrify the whole network in some kind of piecemeal way, while trying to accommodate the freight companies. They shouldn't even be discussing electrification until the freight bypasses have begun construction.
 
Last edited:
Screenshot_2023-12-29_170133.jpg


toronto.citynews.ca

Massive expansion of GO Transit network underway with main focus on 5 rail corridors

CityNews speaks with the head of GO Transit capital projects about the network expansion plan in the last story of our 'Transit 2024' series.
toronto.citynews.ca toronto.citynews.ca

 
goodcitywhenfinished said:
wait... 15 minute frequencies are all they are shooting for now? What happened to 3-5min peak frequencies at exhibition and east harbour?
Click to expand...

Its a complete misunderstanding and marketing failure of GO/Metrolinx.

Their whole campaign is 15 minutes or better, but all people hear and remember is 15.

Its like if a car advert was like "This car goes 40 km/h or better!"

Currently some GO lines operate at every 7 minutes during rush hour already. So they would have to slow down service to hit 15 minutes.

Peak frequencies will be better than every 15. Im not sure 3-5, but better than 15.

Again, terrible terrible PR as usual from Metrolinx.
 
robmausser said:
Its a complete misunderstanding and marketing failure of GO/Metrolinx.

Their whole campaign is 15 minutes or better, but all people hear and remember is 15.

Its like if a car advert was like "This car goes 40 km/h or better!"

Currently some GO lines operate at every 7 minutes during rush hour already. So they would have to slow down service to hit 15 minutes.

Peak frequencies will be better than every 15. Im not sure 3-5, but better than 15.

Again, terrible terrible PR as usual from Metrolinx.
Click to expand...

I hope so. MX spokesperson in the CityNews interview stating "up to 15 mins" has me thinking plans are changing but I hope its just miscommunication.
 
goodcitywhenfinished said:
I hope so. MX spokesperson in the CityNews interview stating "up to 15 mins" has me thinking plans are changing but I hope its just miscommunication.
Click to expand...

I'm willing to write it off to too many narratives with too many different contexts.

The original BCS document laid out a service plan which was 15 minute on most lines but more on some.

There was a point when ML began talking to the P3 proponents where they became effusive about closer headways, mostly because the proponents were pitching that as doable.

And I'm sure the system designers always intended to build in a capacity well beyond 15 minute headways.So we saw plans for new layover yards in places based on some eventual view of the system.

And then as a matter of wishful thinking, spectators (including many Uters) came to see the closer headways as a given, when it might have only been aspirational or a 30-year design spec..

I expect that 15 minute headways will be the best we see on most lines, probably for a decade or more. There may be exceptions, but it will be a huge accomplishment just to get to that point.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
I'm willing to write it off to too many narratives with too many different contexts.

The original BCS document laid out a service plan which was 15 minute on most lines but more on some.

There was a point when ML began talking to the P3 proponents where they became effusive about closer headways, mostly because the proponents were pitching that as doable.

And I'm sure the system designers always intended to build in a capacity well beyond 15 minute headways.So we saw plans for new layover yards in places based on some eventual view of the system.

And then as a matter of wishful thinking, spectators (including many Uters) came to see the closer headways as a given, when it might have only been aspirational or a 30-year design spec..

I expect that 15 minute headways will be the best we see on most lines, probably for a decade or more. There may be exceptions, but it will be a huge accomplishment just to get to that point.

- Paul
Click to expand...
IIrC when Metrolinx awarded the OnCorr contracted they talked about how the winning service plan was something like 2x as many trains a day as the base reference case… so I think we’ll see better service than what’s been publicly shown.

But yes, some lines will likely be 15 minute service. Others won’t.
 
innsertnamehere said:
IIrC when Metrolinx awarded the OnCorr contracted they talked about how the winning service plan was something like 2x as many trains a day as the base reference case… so I think we’ll see better service than what’s been publicly shown.

But yes, some lines will likely be 15 minute service. Others won’t.
Click to expand...

A big unknown is just how many riders will turn up. (I'm sure Ml has projections). We know that 30 mins headways will attract more riders than hourly, and 15 min headways will attract even more riders. But at some point, adding trains may not attract enough additional riders to be worth it. The system will not run short and mostly-empty trains twelve times an hour when it could carry the same load at 6 longer trains per hour at half the cost, and still attract the ridership. Peak hours will demand more trains, obviously, but the goal of RER is greater aall-day loads rather than just greater peak loads.

LSE/LSW are now full enough at 30 mins headways that moving to 15 minutes seems quite justifiable. Some other routes might not fill seats at that headway. Six car trains twice an hour will do better than 12 cars run hourly, but eight cars twice hourly is a lot cheaper as an incremental step than 15 minute trains of any length..

The system that Oncorr is building will have capacity for close headways, but the system will only grow ridership gradually. That incremental ridership growth may only happen by 2040, so the service will not be peak headways on opening day.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
And there's still not enough attention being paid to station access. It doesn't matter how frequently trains run when the parking is full and the local bus sucks. NB: This is not to be misconstrued as advocating for more station parking--we need massively improved local bus service to as many GO stations as possible.
 
Undead said:
And there's still not enough attention being paid to station access. It doesn't matter how frequently trains run when the parking is full and the local bus sucks. NB: This is not to be misconstrued as advocating for more station parking--we need massively improved local bus service to as many GO stations as possible.
Click to expand...
Luckily ignoring York Region most GTHA municipalities have fairly substantial local service improvement programs.

York Region is the only one really lagging on the local service front at this point.
 
goodcitywhenfinished said:
I hope so. MX spokesperson in the CityNews interview stating "up to 15 mins" has me thinking plans are changing but I hope its just miscommunication.
Click to expand...
I'd think that if wait times are up to 15 minutes, then if it went beyond that, it would be less frequent, not more frequent.

So up to 15 minutes could mean every 5 minutes at peak.

I don't see anything here to be concerned about.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top