News   Apr 02, 2026
Early Work Commencing on St Clair-Old Weston Station
 55     0 
News   Apr 02, 2026
Cranes Up, Foundations Underway at Peter Gilgan Mississauga Hospital
 259     0 
News   Apr 02, 2026
City Council March, 2026 Settlements: Negotiations Advance Projects Across Toronto
 996     1 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

crs1026 said:
As for the Seaway, they can stage boat traffic for short periods, but once the bridge goes up, it will be a while before it can come down again. That really constrains any potential to run a fleet of GO/VIA trains to the Falls in the morning. I suspect the Seaway can accept one-of train passages a few times a day, but a fleet of three trains following each other on 20-30 minute headways (which is about as close as the signalling system will allow) looks to the Seaway as basically one long occupancy. They will be opposed also.
Click to expand...
I would think staging /platooning Seaway traffic is not considered lightly. The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corp. has to remain competitive with other forms of commercial transportation. No commercial carrier makes any money when it is 'idling', but a ship bobbing around in Lake Ontario or Erie (when traffic is held it is held both ways) waiting to transit is an expensive venture. Couple that with mass/inertia, need for anchorage, water management in the canal, etc. etc. Also, only two of the eight locks are twin, making it harder to clear bidirectional traffic.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Is replacing and reinforcing the existing track a massive ordeal and expense?
Click to expand...

It’s not rocket science, but there are numerous steps and activities.

To make an analogy, one doesn’t simply lay asphalt on top of earth and call it a highway. There has to be an underlying structure (various layers of granular material usually, but sometimes concrete in road construction) that will bear the weight and retain its integrity in the face of water and freeze/thaw.

The Peterboro line has been downgraded and under-maintained for so long that the subgrade will need a lot of work. That includes restoring ditches and culverts to drain water. And the original subgrade was never built to the strength and stability that HFR may need.

And then there are bridges and grade crossings, and then there’s the need for a signalling/traffic control system, which must be designed from a blank sheet. And a complete replacement of track, ie rails crossties and ballast. And build sidings that are currently not there. And upgrade crossing protection.

To mix metaphors, one can’t just patch the drywall and paint. Any restoration of passenger service to Peterboro is a full teardown.

- Paul
 
lenaitch said:
I would think staging /platooning Seaway traffic is not considered lightly. The St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corp. has to remain competitive with other forms of commercial transportation. No commercial carrier makes any money when it is 'idling', but a ship bobbing around in Lake Ontario or Erie (when traffic is held it is held both ways) waiting to transit is an expensive venture. Couple that with mass/inertia, need for anchorage, water management in the canal, etc. etc. Also, only two of the eight locks are twin, making it harder to clear bidirectional traffic.
Click to expand...

All very true - the hourly operating cost of a lake boat is huge.
By staging, I merely meant having a boat pause at the bridge for long enough for a train or two to pass. This does happen regularly already, in the absence of trains, just to have boats pass each other safely.
But I agree, any serious backlogging or congestion in the Canal attributable to GO service would not be acceptable.

- Paul
 
I see two options for the Welland Canal bridge issue. The more expensive option is to raise the rail corridor over the canal to eliminate the lift bridge or even reduce the lift required (which would reduce the amount of time raising and lowering the deck). This would begin the ascent of the railway over the escarpment further west than where it is currently located, so it’s possible, though very expensive and probably not worth the cost if it’s only to permit somewhat more frequent GO trains.

The other option is to build a new station at Merriton, where CN used to have a stop that connected to NS&T interurbans (and later, buses). This station would be close to the Niagara Circle Route, and be a convenient transfer point for Niagara-on-the-Lake, Niagara College, and even Niagara Falls. Some trains could continue to Downtown NF, while others could terminate at Merriton. This would at least spread out some of the crowding.

The Merriton stop would also be useful for commuters, as the St. Catharines stop is not especially well-located and has limited parking.
 
Luckily the Welland Canal bridge already has a decent amount of elevation over the Welland Canal due to it being on the escarpment edge and adjacent to a lock (quick measurement appears to be about 12m of clearance).

Maximum ship height on the Canal is 35.5m, so assuming we give an extra few metres of height (say 38m, which seems to align with other bridges) we would need to elevate the existing bridge by about an additional 26 metres in height. That would still require a pretty significant structure, especially on the west side of the Canal where the rail lines already slop up towards the Canal, but wouldn't be as significant as you may think.

There is space to berm most of the grade change as well from a quick glance, which should reduce costs.


Still going to be hundreds of millions of dollars, but at quick glance the project wouldn't be too much larger than the Davenport Diamond project, if anything likely a similar cost point given a less constrained construction environment and likely far less structure involved.

The Davenport Diamond contract was $175 million, for comparison.
 
urbancog said:
During the Metrolinx Board Mtg, Phil Verster reports the following % of pre-COVID traffic levels:
GO Transit Weekend 100%
GO Transit Weekday 45%
UP Express 56%
Click to expand...
If the weekday is only 45% they really need to get on a peak train themselves and re evaluate what they’re looking at. The London or Niagara bound train alone will definitely pull a few hairs out. Unless if they’re also counting off peak and evening trains which would make sense but I still see a lot of traffic on some lines. So I still don’t get where its only that number because it feels like its a lot more than that.
 
urbancog said:
During the Metrolinx Board Mtg, Phil Verster reports the following % of pre-COVID traffic levels:
GO Transit Weekend 100%
GO Transit Weekday 45%
UP Express 56%
Click to expand...

To which I say, if you won't give me back 15M weekday service on Lakeshore, can we at least get it on the weekends?
 
innsertnamehere said:
Luckily the Welland Canal bridge already has a decent amount of elevation over the Welland Canal due to it being on the escarpment edge and adjacent to a lock (quick measurement appears to be about 12m of clearance).

Maximum ship height on the Canal is 35.5m, so assuming we give an extra few metres of height (say 38m, which seems to align with other bridges) we would need to elevate the existing bridge by about an additional 26 metres in height. That would still require a pretty significant structure, especially on the west side of the Canal where the rail lines already slop up towards the Canal, but wouldn't be as significant as you may think.

There is space to berm most of the grade change as well from a quick glance, which should reduce costs.


Still going to be hundreds of millions of dollars, but at quick glance the project wouldn't be too much larger than the Davenport Diamond project, if anything likely a similar cost point given a less constrained construction environment and likely far less structure involved.

The Davenport Diamond contract was $175 million, for comparison.
Click to expand...

Come to think of it, there is one more option, though it would also be expensive: a second rail bridge and approaches, likely north of the existing canal, allowing for continuous rail service, much like the Victoria Bridge on Montreal's South Shore. It would be built on vacant Seaway Authority and GM land.
 
anb said:
If the weekday is only 45% they really need to get on a peak train themselves and re evaluate what they’re looking at. The London or Niagara bound train alone will definitely pull a few hairs out. Unless if they’re also counting off peak and evening trains which would make sense but I still see a lot of traffic on some lines. So I still don’t get where its only that number because it feels like its a lot more than that.
Click to expand...
it feels a lot more because GO Is still running a fraction of the service levels it did pre-pandemic. LSW peak hour service had 13 trains enter Union between 7 and 9am, while current service sees just 6.
 
innsertnamehere said:
it feels a lot more because GO Is still running a fraction of the service levels it did pre-pandemic. LSW peak hour service had 13 trains enter Union between 7 and 9am, while current service sees just 6.
Click to expand...
Do they need to cycle more stored cars Into service? It takes time to inspect them and bring them back into service? How long does that take?
 
Bordercollie said:
Do they need to cycle more stored cars Into service? It takes time to inspect them and bring them back into service? How long does that take?
Click to expand...
No Idea.

The frustrating thing is that last summer they had restored 13 peak hour arrivals, albeit with more locals and less expresses, but here we are with far less ridership and less service still.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top