News   Apr 02, 2026
News Roundup for April 2, 2026
 62     0 
News   Apr 02, 2026
Mount Celeste
 205     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
UrbanToronto Explores the State of Environment with Special Features Throughout April
 391     0 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

Northern Light said:
There is very little CN service in this corridor unless something has changed; there are posters here, notably @smallspy and/or @crs1026 that can speak to that issue better than I.
Click to expand...

As far as I know they only run A421 and A422 on the Grimsby and a road switcgee in the hamilton area, and a road switcher(562) on the Stamford sub... I think the biggest constraint is the welland canal

As for the Guelph Sub, CN only runs 568, 540(guelph local), 533(overnight to Kitchener from macyrd) and 566(waterloo spur overnight)
 
421/422 is the only regular CN train pair on this line, it's a huge train with a little bit of everything including autoracks and double-stacks and is mostly interchange traffic to/from CSX and NS. It gets broken up at Port Robinson. There used to be another manifest freight (330/331?) that went from Sarnia/Port Huron and avoided Toronto using the north-to-south curve at Bayview. There might be other random as-needed trains but someone with more insider knowledge would have to confirm. CP probably has a slightly better route for freights, just because they have a tunnel under the Welland Canal, and AFAIK they actually run more freights in Niagara than CN does (CP runs its double stack trains to the Midwest this way because they won't fit in the Detroit tunnel).

Restoring the second track between Jordan and Nelles and constructing second platforms at St. Catherines (at least) should really be priorities for Metrolinx, at least in the medium term. I wonder if it would be feasible for Metrolinx to add an extra morning train 20-30 minutes after the existing one in busy periods (basically going old-school and adding a second section)?
 
reaperexpress said:
If we actually want to make meaningful changes to affordability, we should implementing systematic changes which address currently excessive fares. For example, by providing free transfers to/from the TTC, just as are provided to/from 905 agencies. And by providing discounts for off-peak travel in general.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I get my back up when people want a discount on everything expensive in the name of “affordability”. In this case, imagine a family of four touring the Falls, riding the Maid of the Mist, visiting the Wax Museum, maybe dropping a few dollars at the casino, having a nice lunch at a winery.. It’s not a cheap day out. The impact of the GO fare is marginal. If there were an affordability concern over the fare, they wouldn’t be going at all.

There is a case for discounting fares of this type, but it is
- developing public awareness of where the GO network runs and building habitual use of GO for non-workday, non-commuting trips and to destinations other than Downtown Toronto
- developing recreational attitudes and practices that rely on public transit versus auto.

As we watch the GTA intensify, I see a crying need for non-auto-centric recreational venues. Not everybody will fit in High Park and the Islands on a Sunday. Our entire realm of hinterland recreational venues (conservation areas, nature trails, small towns, lakes and beaches) is tied to the automobile….. even avid cyclists need a car to get to the nice trails ! Reaching places like the St Jacobs market or Wasaga Beach or the RBG by transit is part of our urban future. So while I’m happy to see GO discount the Niagara fares as a step in this direction, I think affordabilityof transportation (which is certainly a valid issue, in other contexts) is a red herring here.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
Increasing infrastructure investments along the Hamilton-Niagara Falls corridor is a tricky one. The weekend service is clearly incredibly popular, but weekend service alone doesn't justify significant investments to improve the infrastructure along the corridor.

For that, you need sufficient weekday commuting numbers. And to get those numbers, you need increased development along the corridor, which inevitably will generate far more auto traffic than it will transit traffic, just based on the nature of the development.

I wonder if there's any potential of using the Port Colbourne Harbour Railway Canal Spur to go between St Catharines (just west of the Welland Canal bridge) and the CP Townline tunnel. It would be a longer trip for sure, but it would provide the opportunity to have rail service to Thorold and Welland.

CP's track in Niagara Falls also terminates in a much better location than the CN line, which requires a WEGO transfer. If GO were to build a new station on Portage Rd just south of the Falls, that would be within easy walking distance of all of the main attractions, including the Falls themselves.
 
gweed123 said:
I wonder if there's any potential of using the Port Colbourne Harbour Railway Canal Spur to go between St Catharines (just west of the Welland Canal bridge) and the CP Townline tunnel. It would be a longer trip for sure, but it would provide the opportunity to have rail service to Thorold and Welland.

CP's track in Niagara Falls also terminates in a much better location than the CN line, which requires a WEGO transfer. If GO were to build a new station on Portage Rd just south of the Falls, that would be within easy walking distance of all of the main attractions, including the Falls themselves.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I hadn't thought of routing that way; I had considered, as previously noted, using the CP tracks all the way from Hamilton.

Your routing represented a net increase of about 28km of distance by rail.

I haven't the foggiest notion what the approved track speeds would be vs CN.

****

The challenge would be how to get from the PCHR to the CP Main.........this is the intersection, so to speak, of those 2 corridors today:

1656444591407.png


If the connection were made here, it would almost certainly require a level crossing of the tunnel road.

***

I've reviewed area maps, at a cursory glance I don't see any instantly restorable connections. There is some mostly intact ROW but it would be quite the rebuild; looks to be missing at least one bridge/culvert and would divert the train by a few km as well.

The most obvious also involves crossing the old canal through the heart of Welland as well. That's a lot of headaches.
 
Northern Light said:
Interesting, I hadn't thought of routing that way; I had considered, as previously noted, using the CP tracks all the way from Hamilton.

Your routing represented a net increase of about 28km of distance by rail.

I haven't the foggiest notion what the approved track speeds would be vs CN.

****

The challenge would be how to get from the PCHR to the CP Main.........this is the intersection, so to speak, of those 2 corridors today:

View attachment 410365

If the connection were made here, it would almost certainly require a level crossing of the tunnel road.

***

I've reviewed area maps, at a cursory glance I don't see any instantly restorable connections. There is some mostly intact ROW but it would be quite the rebuild; looks to be missing at least one bridge/culvert and would divert the train by a few km as well.

The most obvious also involves crossing the old canal through the heart of Welland as well. That's a lot of headaches.
Click to expand...
Yup, it would definitely be a big increase in total trip distance, but it would be interesting to see if the addition of Thorold and Welland to the route would increase ridership to the point that it would be justified. I honestly don't know the answer.

There is a connection between the two right now, but it would require about a 10km loop (in the SW quadrant of the T formed by the two lines). A fly-over would definitely be required, and would be an engineering challenge for sure.

This routing, at least to Welland, may be worth exploring as a branch option for weekday peak service. It would effectively allow for increased frequencies on the St Catharines-Hamilton portion of the line, without needing additional slots at the Welland Canal. For example, every 2nd train goes to Niagara Falls, while the other goes to Welland.
 
ShonTron said:
…but it became intolerably long to get to Peterborough, and with Greyhound gone, no other carrier has yet picked up the Toronto-Peterborough market.
Click to expand...
My kid is Trent U. and they take the GoBus to Oshawa and the GoTrain from there to Union. It works okay. But why is it scheduled to take to 2030 or longer to bring the GoTrain to Peterborough? The engineers tasked with that project may be retired before it opens. Can’t we expedite anything in this province?

kawarthanow.com

Return of passenger rail service to Peterborough projected for 2030 | kawarthaNOW

By Paul Rellinger. Federal Transport Minister Omar Alghabra announces procurement process for intercity high frequency rail service will begin this fall .
kawarthanow.com kawarthanow.com
 
Just realized how much easier life would be if we prioritized the CP tracks instead. Of course Downtown Hamilton is going to always be a thing that near everyone wants. I can also see Welland also being a popular destination overtime and there isn't the canal to worry about too much as the tracks tunnel under it. Then there's the location of where the tracks end up going when approaching Niagara and its near Table Rock, which is a great location for the general area. The fact that this would probably never happen at all is still disappointing.
 
anb said:
Just realized how much easier life would be if we prioritized the CP tracks instead. Of course Downtown Hamilton is going to always be a thing that near everyone wants. I can also see Welland also being a popular destination overtime and there isn't the canal to worry about too much as the tracks tunnel under it. Then there's the location of where the tracks end up going when approaching Niagara and its near Table Rock, which is a great location for the general area. The fact that this would probably never happen at all is still disappointing.
Click to expand...
Went to the Falls yesterday with a friend visiting from the US for the first time. He drove me to the train station before heading back to the US and was shocked at how far the train station was from all the attractions.

Also, the scheduling for the 12B on weekdays is awful. The trip was scheduled for 70 minutes but in reality it takes about 55-60 minutes. The schedule has the bus arrive 15 minutes before the train departs so that you spend the maximum amount of time waiting for the train. I waited 28 minutes for a train with 30 minute service...I don't get it.
 
Admiral Beez said:
My kid is Trent U. and they take the GoBus to Oshawa and the GoTrain from there to Union. It works okay. But why is it scheduled to take to 2030 or longer to bring the GoTrain to Peterborough? The engineers tasked with that project may be retired before it opens. Can’t we expedite anything in this province?

kawarthanow.com

Return of passenger rail service to Peterborough projected for 2030 | kawarthaNOW

By Paul Rellinger. Federal Transport Minister Omar Alghabra announces procurement process for intercity high frequency rail service will begin this fall .
kawarthanow.com kawarthanow.com
Click to expand...
That's not the GO Train, that's VIA HFR. GO currently has no plans to bring passenger rail to Peterborough at all.

As for why it's taking until 2030 to build VIA HFR, god knows. It's important to note that the goal of VIA HFR isn't to serve Peterborough, it's to do an HSR-lite thing between Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal (+ Quebec City I guess), Peterborough will just happen to be a stop along the route. Building HFR will require the electrification of the tracks between Toronto and Ottawa, as well as the reactivation of a ton of corridors between them. Why will all of this only be done by 2030? God knows, it frankly shouldn't take so long.
 
anb said:
Just realized how much easier life would be if we prioritized the CP tracks instead. Of course Downtown Hamilton is going to always be a thing that near everyone wants. I can also see Welland also being a popular destination overtime and there isn't the canal to worry about too much as the tracks tunnel under it. Then there's the location of where the tracks end up going when approaching Niagara and its near Table Rock, which is a great location for the general area. The fact that this would probably never happen at all is still disappointing.
Click to expand...
It's easier to get to Niagara Falls via the CP tracks, absolutely. But the reality is that most of the growth in the Niagara Region, particularly between St Catharines and the Stoney Creek border, is taking place below the escarpment. The CP route bypasses that growth area completely, as it ascends the escarpment about halfway through Stoney Creek, and passes through farmland for 95% of the route on the mountain until it hits Welland (Smithville being about the only notable town on route).

If the goal is to serve Welland, I think it would be a better option to run everything along the CN line until St Catharines, then have one branch going to Niagara Falls via the CN line, and another going to Welland via the PCHR line.
 
ARG1 said:
..note that the goal of VIA HFR isn't to serve Peterborough, it's to do an HSR-lite thing between Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal...
Click to expand...
Ah, that explains the time lag. I would think they'd be enough traffic for a regular diesel-electric GO or Via from Peterborough to TO now. The 115/401 interchange is certainly jammed enough.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Ah, that explains the time lag. I would think they'd be enough traffic for a regular diesel-electric GO or Via from Peterborough to TO now. The 115/401 interchange is certainly jammed enough.
Click to expand...
the infrastructure isn't there for it, the rail line to Peterborough today has a 10mph slow order over most of it and there is no rail station in Peterborough.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top