GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[nfitz]

Level boarding is essential to reducing dwell times and improving reliability. Passengers can board and alight the train at a higher rate with level boarding than they can while carrying a bag down a flight of steps (often handing their bag to an attendant). Saving a couple seconds per passenger adds up, especially at busy stations such as London.

Level boarding is minor compared to how often it takes the doors to open - and the number of doors on each car.

If they went back to how the doors used to work - you could start boarding before the train has fully stopped, and after it has started moving!

 

[reaperexpress]

Level boarding is minor compared to how often it takes the doors to open - and the number of doors on each car.

Level boarding is directly related to the time it takes the doors to open, and the number of doors which open at a station. Currently each door needs to be opened by an attendant because the vertical gap from the bottom step to the platform is so large it needs a stepstool. And then with the long set of stairs, they post an attendant next to it for the duration of boarding to assist passengers (e.g. elderly or with luggage). These requirements also limit the number of doors they typically open at stations since it's such a hassle to open a door.

The number of doors per coach is not a variable we can change. VIA runs intercity trains so the number of seats is per coach is critical and there will only ever be one door per coach. The platform height, on the other hand is a variable we can change.

Are you suggesting that they should rebuild the platforms at their current height? We should build a platform in the year 2024 which still requires doors to be individually opened by an attendant armed with a stepstool?

 

[TerryJohnson]

Cancelling the London-Kitchener train without replacing it with a comparable bus service would eliminate any credibility that the Conservatives have with their election promise to upgrade the railway. If they want to introduce a fast and frequent regional rail service in the corridor, they need to start building ridership in the corridor. Abandoning what little ridership the corridor currently has, would clearly be contrary to that goal.

The train is currently carrying more than a busload of people. A bus can match the train's travel time while also improving access within KW (e.g. by serving the Central Station LRT stop and/or continuing beyond Kitchener Station to Laurier and UW), so it's safe to assume we could retain a fairly large proportion of the existing ridership with a GO bus service from London to Kitchener. Switching to buses would enable railway upgrades to proceed without needing to constantly institute temporary schedule changes.



Indeed London Station is probably the single best candidate for new high-level platforms with level boarding to VIA trains. Apart from Union Station, which is undergoing its own redesign process, London is the busiest station on the VIA network without level boarding.

All of London Station's platforms are located on sidings which are never used by freight trains, which gives VIA and GO full freedom to raise all of the platforms to their liking. Personally I'd like if they raise the island platforms for VIA while leaving the north side platform low to enable future GO train use. Since GO's level boarding standard is 610mm while Via's is 1220mm. GO trains will all diverge towards the north (towards Kitchener) so it makes sense for them to have the northernmost platform to reduce conflicts in the future when there is more than one approach track.

Reaperexpress conceptual track users. Tracks colour coded by primary user, not necessarily track owner.
View attachment 489519



Level boarding is essential to reducing dwell times and improving reliability. Passengers can board and alight the train at a higher rate with level boarding than they can while carrying a bag down a flight of steps (often handing their bag to an attendant). Saving a couple seconds per passenger adds up, especially at busy stations such as London.

Furthermore, the manually hand-cranked wheelchair lift takes absolutely forever (several minutes) just to load a single passenger. The presence of someone in a wheelchair basically guarantees a 10 minute delay for the train (5 minutes each at the boarding and alighting stations). With level boarding and Via's usual gap filler plates, a customer in a wheelchair takes only a second or two longer to board than an able-bodied passenger, eliminating that source of delays.


While level boarding is not specifically an item that most people consider when chosing their mode of travel, the overall ease of travel certainly is, as is the speed and reliability of the service. Level boarding will improve the ease of access (primarily for those with luggage, the elderly etc), and improve speed and reliability, so it follows that level boarding will (very slightly) increase passenger demand.

This conceptual diagram is close to one I've handed to both the feds and province. Two door heights at London are pretty much inevitable unless there's a way to make a parallel VIA service between Kitchener and Toronto make economic sense, and fit on the infrastructure, that I haven't been told about.

However, I had it the other way around, with the platform on track AL01 raised for VIA Rail level boarding, and AL02/AL03 staying as they are for GO operations. There's also room under the Adelaide Street bridge for a fourth track to London East, so trains coming off the Guelph Sub would no longer conflict with CN movements on the Dundas Sub at all. Send out a flash welding truck and a tie crew and the Guelph Sub could be largely back up to Class 4 standards in a few weeks, all for about $50M.

If you really want to fix track congestion on the Dundas Sub to add a reasonable train frequency, and synchronize with regional buses, making London a meeting point, and there's a lot of space where CN took out sidings AL10 and AL11 south of the main. A new platform track and high platform on that side wouldn't be too hard to install, and then we would get something close to a station and service level suitable for a city of half a million. Based on the cost of the Belleville station works, adjusted for inflation, about $30-40M, some of which could be TOD-funded.

Also, lose all the manual, unheated switches... those are just asking for trouble and I've been caught up in it a few times.

 

[TerryJohnson]

From what I've been told by people closer to the situation.....

- part of the issue is that VIA is planning some major improvements to London Station. I don't know exactly what they have in mind, but it's enough that they can't allow GO to stable the train at the station overnight after October. And VIA apparently wants to get going on these improvements - thus the timeline.
- CN had originally offered to allow GO to stable the train in London Yard before balking due to Metrolinx's security requirements.
- Metrolinx had original designed a more fullsome schedule that had 3 or 4 departures daily from London, all throughout the day. That was kyboshed close to the actual launch of the service, but there are still some within the organization that are pushing for this.
- there is a feeling that this has been announced at this particular time in order to allow the Province time to make their own plans and to then swoop in much closer to the kill date and "save" the project.

Dan

VIA was blindsided by the original announcement in 2021. That won't have sat well. Whatever happens on this route needs to be coordinated and collaborative, not competitive and chaotic.
While I wouldn't count 3-4 daily departures as "fullsome" it would certainly have been much better, and presumably involved fixing the track, which should have been done in the first place. I'm wondering why/how that got kyboshed, seeing as it was a campaign promise by the province?

 

[crs1026]

This conceptual diagram is close to one I've handed to both the feds and province. Two door heights at London are pretty much inevitable unless there's a way to make a parallel VIA service between Kitchener and Toronto make economic sense, and fit on the infrastructure, that I haven't been told about.

However, I had it the other way around, with the platform on track AL01 raised for VIA Rail level boarding, and AL02/AL03 staying as they are for GO operations.

I would agree with putting the high platform on the north side. Most VIA trains pass through one at a time, so continuing to use that platform for the majority of trains makes sense, and creates the shortest and levellest path from front door to train. While London needs more than one platform, the design should minimize the number of people who have to be routed through an underpass and up to the tracks.

I don't agree however with not having power switches at the west end of the second and third tracks. There will be plenty of occasions (as there are now) when two trains meet or connect. Having two through routes is essential imho.

Switch heaters aren't that expensive - make the whole thing CTC and maximise its flexibility andd operability.

There's also room under the Adelaide Street bridge for a fourth track to London East, so trains coming off the Guelph Sub would no longer conflict with CN movements on the Dundas Sub at all.

This really needs to happen.

Send out a flash welding truck and a tie crew and the Guelph Sub could be largely back up to Class 4 standards in a few weeks, all for about $50M.

I'd want to see actual track data from the fancy test train before I can buy this. My fear is that much more work is required, or it may be more cost effective to do one upgrade rather than needing more later.

My wish-list bill of materials assumes that virtually all crossings need to be rebuilt, a good amount of new rail (all of it?), heavier duty fasteners, and crossing protection upgrades. Possibly a lot of undercutting and new ballast. None of this is beyond affordability, but more than one welding track and tie crew may be able to accomplish.

The line was never fully Class 4 - even in steam days - although I don't know how the old CN 70-75 mph standards vary from TC's current Class 4.

If you really want to fix track congestion on the Dundas Sub to add a reasonable train frequency, and synchronize with regional buses, making London a meeting point, and there's a lot of space where CN took out sidings AL10 and AL11 south of the main. A new platform track and high platform on that side wouldn't be too hard to install, and then we would get something close to a station and service level suitable for a city of half a million. Based on the cost of the Belleville station works, adjusted for inflation, about $30-40M, some of which could be TOD-funded.

A very prudent bit of futureproofing.

- Paul

 

[TerryJohnson]

I'd want to see actual track data from the fancy test train before I can buy this. My fear is that much more work is required, or it may be more cost effective to do one upgrade rather than needing more later.

My wish-list bill of materials assumes that virtually all crossings need to be rebuilt, a good amount of new rail (all of it?), heavier duty fasteners, and crossing protection upgrades. Possibly a lot of undercutting and new ballast. None of this is beyond affordability, but more than one welding track and tie crew may be able to accomplish.

The line was never fully Class 4 - even in steam days - although I don't know how the old CN 70-75 mph standards vary from TC's current Class 4.

That price for fixing up the Guelph sub came from approaching CN officials with a higher estimate and being told it could be done for less, with corroboration from a track maintenance firm.
The route was in good shape when the CTC was put in a decade ago, just before the VIA budget cut kyboshed their plan for more trains, and the crossings were also sorted out at that time. Although it's stick track now, that rail is mostly in good shape so it can be trimmed and flash welded rather than outright replaced, reusing at least 90% of it.

 

[reaperexpress]

That price for fixing up the Guelph sub came from approaching CN officials with a higher estimate and being told it could be done for less, with corroboration from a track maintenance firm.
The route was in good shape when the CTC was put in a decade ago, just before the VIA budget cut kyboshed their plan for more trains, and the crossings were also sorted out at that time. Although it's stick track now, that rail is mostly in good shape so it can be trimmed and flash welded rather than outright replaced, reusing at least 90% of it.

I don't see how the track could have been in good shape 10 years ago when it was still covered in 30 mph slow orders. It's supposed to be a 70 mph line.

 

[nfitz]

Are you suggesting that they should rebuild the platforms at their current height?

I'm only suggesting that it's just not a very serious topic for most people. We all know why this can't be fixed system-wide - at least without having a gap to mind - which is probably more dangerous.

 

[crs1026]

That price for fixing up the Guelph sub came from approaching CN officials with a higher estimate and being told it could be done for less, with corroboration from a track maintenance firm.

Just to be clear - is that figure for the entire length from Kitchener to London East ?

I wonder, too, about the life cycle plan beyond that. Will that level of investment assure SOGR for enough time..... or is it just enough to meet a bare minimum for a short lived Class 4 threshold only to see more new slow orders as more things reach end of life?

As an example, on paper one can "restore" the line to Class 4 by replacing 4 ties in a 39 foot section. (Class 2 requires 8 good ties in 39 feet, Class 4 requires 12, and let's not be too certain there are eight good ties out there today.....I wonder, given all the years of deferred maintenance) That's great at first......but.....How long until the retained older components wear out? A smarter option might be to immediately replace 8 in 39, or for lowest risk, a full 12..... 4 vs 8 vs 12 is a big spread on cost, and it may be a pay-now, vs pay-more-later proposition.

If the price is as low as you cite, then I'm delighted.... but I would hope the proposal also includes some upside... eg add a couple more sidings to futureproof so when additional trains are justified, we don't require another time consuming/risky trip to the altar for more capital investment.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

would be nice if there was a way to disincentivize infrastructure managers from downgrading track classes below historical capacity, such as imposing a fee per mile, unless the reason for downgrade was a change in govt regulations specifying the level of maintenance for a given class

 

[reaperexpress]

I'm only suggesting that it's just not a very serious topic for most people. We all know why this can't be fixed system-wide - at least without having a gap to mind - which is probably more dangerous.

Whether or not it is possible to provide level boarding at a flag stop in remote Northern Ontario is not relevant to the question of whether we should provide level boarding at busy stations which are located on dedicated passenger tracks, such as Windsor, London, Toronto, Brockville and Fallowfield, in addition to the stations which already have level boarding (Montréal, Québec and Ottawa). With these stations alone, I suspect that the majority of all VIA trips would both start and end at a station with level boarding.

The remainder of stations are mostly low ridership, and step-free accessibility can continue to be provided using the portable wheelchair lift. Since they're low ridership, it will be relatively uncommon for those inefficient lifts to actually be needed.

 

[Krypto98]

If they went back to how the doors used to work - you could start boarding before the train has fully stopped, and after it has started moving!

These days in the CN rule book getting on/off moving equipment is banned

 

[just east of the creek]

The GO/VIA relationship in Southern Ontario seems to be troubled with overlapping consumer needs.

Could it make sense for VIA in Southern Ontario to be replaced by two GO Servces - the existing commuter rail/bus services revised to operate from Hamilton, from K/W, from Bolton (one day). from Newmarket, from Stouffville, and from Oshawa. (Orangeville could/should be added at some point in the future) This service is going through a continuing program of improvement and these programs would continue and be accelerated.

And then layer on a GO Regional Service. Routes from Niagara Falls/St Catherine's/Stoney Creek through a Hamilton hub (ideally),and then express into Union. From Windsor (or Sarnia), London, Brantford through Hamilton (Ideally) and then express into Union. From Barrie/Bradford. From Peterbourgh. And from Coburg/Port Hope.

Go bus services to add to the linkages and provide other linkages between nodes.

Obviously track improvements and additional track to raise speed levels to acceptable levels are a must and to also allow for freight operations that could be enhanced as well. Buried in this one line reference is a huge amount of work to be done on a working agreement for track in Sothern Ontario between all the rail parties. Or, do you create a third party Southern Ontario Rail Consortium to purchase the existing rail infrastructure, and then build and maintain rail and signaling infrastructure in this operational area.

Separate from all of the rail infrastructure, would be the work on Stations and bus connections with GO busses and local transit that would be needed

And then differences in equipment between the existing GO fleet and a new regional fleet. Even allowing for future power source changes (electric or hydrogen), the passenger cars themselves would vary to cater to the longer distances, and other requirements for increased speed, luggage space, onboard bike storage etc.

VIA in southern Ontario would be limited to improved international services through Niagara Falls and Windsor (hopefully), and a higher speed, higher frequency network east to Montreal and Ottawa. Plus the Canadian (not to be overlooked and should be route improved as well to add to the tourist component of that train).

If we are going to look at integrated transit, I think we should look at more then just integrated fare structures and transit services within the GTA. The GTA is effectively expanding, and the GO system should be expanding in different ways to capture that ridership. VIA is not really a commuter service, and it should probably not be one.

There is a finite limit to the amount of highway building and expansion that is going to take place. But there is a great deal of growth that can take place in rapid rail based transit.

 

[Northern Light]

The GO/VIA relationship in Southern Ontario seems to be troubled with overlapping consumer needs.

Could it make sense for VIA in Southern Ontario to be replaced by two GO Servces - the existing commuter rail/bus services revised to operate from Hamilton, from K/W, from Bolton (one day). from Newmarket, from Stouffville, and from Oshawa. (Orangeville could/should be added at some point in the future) This service is going through a continuing program of improvement and these programs would continue and be accelerated.

And then layer on a GO Regional Service. Routes from Niagara Falls/St Catherine's/Stoney Creek through a Hamilton hub (ideally),and then express into Union. From Windsor (or Sarnia), London, Brantford through Hamilton (Ideally) and then express into Union. From Barrie/Bradford. From Peterbourgh. And from Coburg/Port Hope.

Go bus services to add to the linkages and provide other linkages between nodes.

Obviously track improvements and additional track to raise speed levels to acceptable levels are a must and to also allow for freight operations that could be enhanced as well. Buried in this one line reference is a huge amount of work to be done on a working agreement for track in Sothern Ontario between all the rail parties. Or, do you create a third party Southern Ontario Rail Consortium to purchase the existing rail infrastructure, and then build and maintain rail and signaling infrastructure in this operational area.

Separate from all of the rail infrastructure, would be the work on Stations and bus connections with GO busses and local transit that would be needed

And then differences in equipment between the existing GO fleet and a new regional fleet. Even allowing for future power source changes (electric or hydrogen), the passenger cars themselves would vary to cater to the longer distances, and other requirements for increased speed, luggage space, onboard bike storage etc.

VIA in southern Ontario would be limited to improved international services through Niagara Falls and Windsor (hopefully), and a higher speed, higher frequency network east to Montreal and Ottawa. Plus the Canadian (not to be overlooked and should be route improved as well to add to the tourist component of that train).

If we are going to look at integrated transit, I think we should look at more then just integrated fare structures and transit services within the GTA. The GTA is effectively expanding, and the GO system should be expanding in different ways to capture that ridership. VIA is not really a commuter service, and it should probably not be one.

There is a finite limit to the amount of highway building and expansion that is going to take place. But there is a great deal of growth that can take place in rapid rail based transit.

I agree w/GO having a Hamilton Hub (and a K-W one).

I don't really think we need another layer of GO as such.

I think VIA's niche is longer total trips with more limited stops.

We do need, though, to introduce the idea of the province directly funding VIA for services which compliment the commuter-shed goals of GO.

We also do need to see additional public track ownership, though neither CN nor CP will be selling their mainlines in the near future.

K-W to London (CN North Mainline) should be bought by either VIA or Mx

The other logical buys would be track between VIA's Chatham trackage and London; and I would argue for CN's Grimsby sub (the Hamilton-Niagara link); which aside from retaining dedicated trackage for accessing Hamilton's Industry is not all that busy.

 

[Allandale25]

I believe this is St. Mary's Station? Looks like decent ridership.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1676210488235917312