News   Apr 19, 2024
45 and 61-Storey Towers Proposed near Oakville GO
 353     0 
News   Apr 19, 2024
DRP Reviews Innovative Affordable Housing at Kennedy Station
 564     2 
News   Apr 19, 2024
Lifetime Helping Craft the Future of Toronto's Neighbourhoods
 946     3 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

ShonTron said:
The tunnel on the south end of Welland carried a lot more traffic back when it was built than it does now. It had regular CP/TH&B/Conrail trains plus a daily VIA train, Penn Central/ Conrail trains between Buffalo and Detroit on the Caso (plus an Amtrak service for a bit) and CN trains on the Cayuga Sub. It replaced several lift and swing bridges and had three tracks to handle the volume. It was busier than CN’s bridge at St. Catharines, and in a flatter, less urbanized area.

Now it just has CP freights, and only a few trains a day.
Click to expand...

Silly question, @crs1026, @smallspy Looking at the CP route under the canal, a train could actually arrive right in the heart of Niagara Falls, moreso than the CN Route.

I recognize where the track has been removed at Fallsview, but it still seems to exist to just shy of there, almost right above the Falls themselves, and walking distance from hotels and attractions.

If this route isn't busy for CP, why not route trains through downtown Hamilton via Welland to the Falls?

I recognize there would be one-time costs to build or restore stations; and some of the track going into Niagara looks to be in terrible condition.........but avoiding any hassles w/the Canal crossing would seem tempting would it not?

I assume there are compelling reasons not to do this, that I am overlooking.
 
Northern Light said:
Silly question, @crs1026, @smallspy

If this route isn't busy for CP, why not route trains through downtown Hamilton via Welland to the Falls?

I recognize there would be one-time costs to build or restore stations; and some of the track going into Niagara looks to be in terrible condition.........but avoiding any hassles w/the Canal crossing would seem tempting would it not?

I assume there are compelling reasons not to do this, that I am overlooking.
Click to expand...

It’s theoretically possible, but the two problems are a) cost and b) sharing the tracks with CP freight.

Re cost - the route would need track improvements, yes, plus new signalling. A couple bridges might need renewal. Nothing earthshattering, and certainly far less than what a new Canal crossing would cost. But not insignificant.

However - Re sharing - The Montrose Spur is lightly used and is the least of any worries. The problem piece is Hamilton- Welland, as trains would have to take the tunnel thru Hamilton, and have a route thru or around yards in Hamilton and Welland where track capacity may not always be available. CP is accustomed to having that line to itself. Delaying CP freights there is a bigger concern than one might think, because of the unpredictable delays CP faces on the US side in the Buffalo terminals. CP needs every last minute of crew time as insurance against having to recrew en route.

The current route has hung in there because a few passenger trains a day aren’t really an inconvenience to the Seaway. It doesn’t take a train long to scoot across the bridge, so with appropriate heads up the Seaway can tolerate the interruptions....just so long as there are no promises to riders about delays.

I would predict that the sticker shock and the desire to serve the Lakeshore communities will keep GO on the current route. Ml will lobby the Seaway to squeeze as many trains across the bridge as the Seaway will accept. That, plus a slick shuttle bus service, from GO trains turning back at St Catharines to fill in what ever headways ML needs for full service, would probably serve the market just fine. It will likely be easier to cajole the Seaway Authority to run a certain number of thru trains over the bridge than to cajole CP into putting the same number of trains on its line.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
It’s theoretically possible, but the two problems are a) cost and b) sharing the tracks with CP freight.

Re cost - the route would need track improvements, yes, plus new signalling. A couple bridges might need renewal. Nothing earthshattering, and certainly far less than what a new Canal crossing would cost. But not insignificant.

However - Re sharing - The Montrose Spur is lightly used and is the least of any worries. The problem piece is Hamilton- Welland, as trains would have to take the tunnel thru Hamilton, and have a route thru or around yards in Hamilton and Welland where track capacity may not always be available. CP is accustomed to having that line to itself. Delaying CP freights there is a bigger concern than one might think, because of the unpredictable delays CP faces on the US side in the Buffalo terminals. CP needs every last minute of crew time as insurance against having to recrew en route.

The current route has hung in there because a few passenger trains a day aren’t really an inconvenience to the Seaway. It doesn’t take a train long to scoot across the bridge, so with appropriate heads up the Seaway can tolerate the interruptions....just so long as there are no promises to riders about delays.

I would predict that the sticker shock and the desire to serve the Lakeshore communities will keep GO on the current route. Ml will lobby the Seaway to squeeze as many trains across the bridge as the Seaway will accept. That, plus a slick shuttle bus service, from GO trains turning back at St Catharines to fill in what ever headways ML needs for full service, would probably serve the market just fine. It will likely be easier to cajole the Seaway Authority to run a certain number of thru trains over the bridge than to cajole CP into putting the same number of trains on its line.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info Paul.

I've long heard about the CP capacity issue in the context of GO not having more slots at Hunter Street in Hamilton.

But Sean's post seemed to suggest traffic in the tunnel is quite light (under the canal) and I can see the have ripped out tracks.

Is the traffic much higher in a small segment of the route?
 
Northern Light said:
Thanks for the info Paul.

I've long heard about the CP capacity issue in the context of GO not having more slots at Hunter Street in Hamilton.

But Sean's post seemed to suggest traffic in the tunnel is quite light (under the canal) and I can see the have ripped out tracks.

Is the traffic much higher in a small segment of the route?
Click to expand...

CP runs two scheduled trains each way Buffalo to Toronto daily, and one train each way three days a week Buffalo to London. That may not sound like a lot, but the dwell times in the yards at Hamilton and Welland mean that the route is plugged there for periods of time all day. A couple of those trains are now very long, and that creates challenges re where trains can pass. All of that could be overcome if CP added track capacity and signalling - but there’s the cost and cajoling required.

The tunnel itself was built around 1970 with huge capacity planned, and it’s hugely underused. Much of the signalling and trackage has been ripped out because it isn’t needed any more. It‘s a rail wasteland down there, but would take money just to bring it back to passenger quality line.

- Paul
 
It's unfortunate that at the point at which the CN and CP lines are closest together (through Stoney Creek) is right where the CP line is trudging up the mountain. Had it stayed below the escarpment for a little bit longer, a connection between the two may have been feasible. That would have solved the pinch-point issues through Hamilton.
 
I’m happy the train to Niagara and back is every 4 hours, but if they pushed to service at least every 2 hours, that would allow for the right amount of ridership and it wouldn’t be too overcrowded or underutilized. It would better than just having the 12 bus let me tell you that
 
gweed123 said:
It's unfortunate that at the point at which the CN and CP lines are closest together (through Stoney Creek) is right where the CP line is trudging up the mountain. Had it stayed below the escarpment for a little bit longer, a connection between the two may have been feasible. That would have solved the pinch-point issues through Hamilton.
Click to expand...

The belt line in Hamilton already connects the 2 sets of tracks, though the connection is right by one of CP's mini-yards. (Kinnear)

Currently there is no connection track where the Belt Line crosses CN Niagara, but there is ample room (give or take a privately owned parking lot) for one.

The Belt Line doesn't look in great shape, so there'd be upgrade costs, plus I'm not sure there's any advantage unless you can cut in past the yard.

That might be possible, kinda/sorta with a bit moving stuff around. The yard itself appears to have had track removed, and the ROW just beyond it, in the Niagara direction seems to have 2 tracks, but space for 4.

Still, all that seems might elaborate.

I suspect, if there were anything worthwhile here, it would be better obtained by basic signalling and track investments, rather than routing up the Belt Line. (or any other connection)

4 trains a day sounds eminently reasonable to work around.

@crs1026, is that spur into Niagara used at all? Its beyond rough.
 
Northern Light said:
The belt line in Hamilton already connects the 2 sets of tracks, though the connection is right by one of CP's mini-yards. (Kinnear)

Currently there is no connection track where the Belt Line crosses CN Niagara, but there is ample room (give or take a privately owned parking lot) for one.

The Belt Line doesn't look in great shape, so there'd be upgrade costs, plus I'm not sure there's any advantage unless you can cut in past the yard.

That might be possible, kinda/sorta with a bit moving stuff around. The yard itself appears to have had track removed, and the ROW just beyond it, in the Niagara direction seems to have 2 tracks, but space for 4.

Still, all that seems might elaborate.

I suspect, if there were anything worthwhile here, it would be better obtained by basic signalling and track investments, rather than routing up the Belt Line. (or any other connection)

4 trains a day sounds eminently reasonable to work around.

@crs1026, is that spur into Niagara used at all? Its beyond rough.
Click to expand...

It doesn't appear as though there's a direct connection between the Belt Line and the CN. The Belt Line passes underneath the CN line. There may be a connection somewhere along the way through sidings in the steel mills though.

And even then, I don't know if that's really a viable option, given how it cuts right though the middle of Hamilton, with pretty much every road-rail intersection being at-grade. If GO were to use that, the train would have to pretty much crawl along the entire length.

It really is too bad that the track configuration (and what's between them) doesn't really allow for a decent connection between the two without some serious infrastructure investment. The best option of which would probably be to build an elevated guideway through the Red Hill Valley Parkway ROW.
 
Ridership must have pickup on the Milton Line. The first Milton train I saw after 4 pm at Kipling area was an L6 with MP40 pushing. The 7:39 train at Cooksville was an L8 with MP40 pushing. Counted about 12 riders walking to Hurontario with a number of cars pickup riders. Saw more cars pull out of the structure than I have seen park there in the past. Lots a cars on level one and expect they belong to the building around the structure.

5 GO bus bays have screens installed for them, but not hock up.
 
This service change is not that interesting but still something. I will definitely say that the now bi-hourly trips on the 34, 61, 90 and 96 will probably screw over some essential workers. In fact most of these changes are not what we expected to have

-Lakeshore and Kitchener trains get a 15-30 minute frequency during rush hour, while the rest of the day gets every half hour-hourly frequency. we get the evening trains back on the kitchener line. All the other corridors get every hourly during rush hour which is kind of disappointing. Barrie and Stouffville gets their weekend GO trains back which is exciting imo so that makes up for it

- There still is no 12B or weekday niagara train in sight (sigh)
- 16 will not be getting it’s regular schedule back (it’s really a bad day for the LW corridor)
- 19 stays the same for the most part
- 21 gets the 5:10AM eastbound trip restored
- 25 and 27 remain the same for the most part
- 29 gets the 9:40PM Guelph-Sq One trip cut
- 30 gets new stops at the Meadowvale business park and that is actually great for missisauga residents so we don’t have to always take the 25 to kitchener anymore. Probably one of my favorite changes
- 31,32 and 33 stay the same for the most part with little changes to make better KW train connections
-34 i already talked about
-36 still sadly stays the same to every hour frequency
-37 and 38 gets some of the trips/adjustments back (pretty nice for the KW corridor altogether)
- 40 gets its 30 minute rush hour frequency back
- The 45 gets extended to RMC and Unionville which i find is amazing for missisauga residents and another favorite change of mine definitely
- Every 15 minute (ish) service between Hwy 407 Station - Trafalgar Park and Ride via the 46 and 47 is back but only during rush hour, once again it’s inconsistent ranging from 30 minutes to 45 minutes, back to 15-20 minutes per trip (but square one to hwy 407 is pretty much more consistent and frequent overall thanks to the 40 and 45)
- 52 gets an amazing extension to oshawa go station, finally linking the lakeshore east train to the main 407 east go bus
- Nothing else too interesting from the 407 east buses
- Richmond hill and stouffville corridors get little changes here and there except for that 61 2 hour frequency i talked about
- 81 and 88 gets adjustments to connect to LE trains and there’s a new 88A running on weekday rush hours that will primarily serve newcastle, and the park and rides near it
- 90 i already talked about but it makes sense kind of
- 91 gets some of its stops replaced by the 88A
-92 also gets an extension to oshawa go station, making both the main 401 and 407 go buses to complete this corridor
- Theres a new Route 94 which will go from Pickering to Square One, giving some inconsistent same time trips and some 5-30 minute frequency along with the 19 between Yorkdale and Sq. Despite this however, this might be another favorite change

Hopefully we get a 100% service change next time as everything seems to be going back to normal
 
Last edited:
So basically to sum it up:

Best changes: 30, 40, 45, 52, 92, 94, KW and LE corridor for the most part

Worst Changes: LW corridor in general, all the bi hourly frequency buses, inconsistency on the 46 and 47 schedule, and the 16 not coming back on at least a hourly schedule
 
45 extending to Unionville is terrible actually since GO Transit gives a transfer credit for transferring. $11.19 direct vs $6.40 westbound and $7.40 eastbound.transfer

Also, GO Transit seems to post some incorrect schedule like route 40 the schedule only has an hourly service.
 
Haydenpoon said:
45 extending to Unionville is terrible actually since GO Transit gives a transfer credit for transferring. $11.19 direct vs $6.40 westbound and $7.40 eastbound.transfer

Also, GO Transit seems to post some incorrect schedule like route 40 the schedule only has an hourly service.
Click to expand...
How is it a bad thing? No one is forcing you to stay on the 407 West bus to Unionville...you can still get off at Hwy 407 Station and catch a 407 East bus if you wish.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top