News   Jan 06, 2025
Concord Sky Rises Skyward Above Its Heritage Walls
 1.1K     1 
News   Jan 06, 2025
QuadReal Revises Plans for 45-Storey Rental Tower in Midtown Toronto
 1.7K     2 
News   Jan 06, 2025
News Roundup for January 6, 2025
 558     0 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

Krypto98 said:
Stratford... at the minimum I think they should extend the Kitchener line to Stratford,
Click to expand...
Indeed as we saw in your excellent speed surveys, the line east of Stratford is in much better condition than west of it. There are substantial segments where trains can go 60 mph. The main issue is the slow order through the west side of Kitchener.

Starting in Stratford would also avoid the delays that GO trains experience at the CP diamond in London.

I think it would make sense to extend a few trains per day to Stratford, along with resolving the slow order through Kitchener.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
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.
Click to expand...

Our problem is having two levels of government with two very divergent agendas and insufficient incentive to work in unison. And reluctance to spend the necessary capital.

I do think that the service has three discernable tiers. And (for once, as I normally find we compare to this reference point to often! ) I would use the Netherlands as precedent. They have Sprinter trains, which resemble GO RER; they have Intercity trains which link regional centers eg Amsterdam and Rotterdam; and they have the Thalys/Eurostar level longer distance, higher performance high speed trains.

If we ran with that model, we would have Sprinters making local stops St. Marys-Stratford -New Hamburg-Baden-Kitchener, Intercity trains running Toronto- Brampton-Guelph-Kitchener-Stratford-London; and we would have Eurostar continuing on from Montreal through Toronto to London. Substitute VIA for Eurostar, give Intercity and Sprinter to ML, and things do align.

Certainly, Netherlands have far more trackage to make that work, and people will argue population density, although I feel that may be overargued.....the distances between population centers and small towns is converging, even if absolute population numbers isn't, yet. (A 50-million Canada isn't that far away...). What is unproductive is trying to make everything work with a single 12-car GO train that stops everywhere. On a track that neither Ottawa nor Ontario owns.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Certainly, Netherlands have far more trackage to make that work, and people will argue population density, although I feel that may be overargued.....the distances between population centers and small towns is converging, even if absolute population numbers isn't, yet. (A 50-million Canada isn't that far away...). What is unproductive is trying to make everything work with a single 12-car GO train that stops everywhere. On a track that neither Ottawa nor Ontario owns.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Population Density of the Netherlands as a whole is a hair over 500 per km2

Population Density of the GGH, which includes K-W, but not Stratford/London) is ~350 per km2

If you get all the way out to Essex, your coming down a bit, depends on how you draw the lines, but lets say ~300per km2

There is a difference, but not as much as some might think.

***

Interesting contrast here, the U.S. North-East Corridor's catchment, population density (Boston to Baltimore) is ~870 per km2
 
The note I’d toss into this is that I really don’t think we should bother with a Brantford GO train unless it involves rebuilding the GRR/GVR and running a Guelph - Cambridge - Brantford - Hamilton service; ultimately the VIA service is perfectly capable of serving Brantford without the duplication GO would involve, and a network that cuts VIA through Kitchener but ramps up to proper full day 2 way GO service in the north and VIA at least as far west as London is going to have better results for users than a more limited service
crs1026 said:
Our problem is having two levels of government with two very divergent agendas and insufficient incentive to work in unison. And reluctance to spend the necessary capital.

I do think that the service has three discernable tiers. And (for once, as I normally find we compare to this reference point to often! ) I would use the Netherlands as precedent. They have Sprinter trains, which resemble GO RER; they have Intercity trains which link regional centers eg Amsterdam and Rotterdam; and they have the Thalys/Eurostar level longer distance, higher performance high speed trains.

If we ran with that model, we would have Sprinters making local stops St. Marys-Stratford -New Hamburg-Baden-Kitchener, Intercity trains running Toronto- Brampton-Guelph-Kitchener-Stratford-London; and we would have Eurostar continuing on from Montreal through Toronto to London. Substitute VIA for Eurostar, give Intercity and Sprinter to ML, and things do align.

Certainly, Netherlands have far more trackage to make that work, and people will argue population density, although I feel that may be overargued.....the distances between population centers and small towns is converging, even if absolute population numbers isn't, yet. (A 50-million Canada isn't that far away...). What is unproductive is trying to make everything work with a single 12-car GO train that stops everywhere. On a track that neither Ottawa nor Ontario owns.

- Paul
Click to expand...
this is exactly the model I’d suggest with the caveats that the western local trains really should reach Guelph, and that rather than triple or more tracking most of the north main I’d go for double with the full express service through Hamilton and Branford.
 
Northern Light said:
Population Density of the Netherlands as a whole is a hair over 500 per km2

Population Density of the GGH, which includes K-W, but not Stratford/London) is ~350 per km2

If you get all the way out to Essex, your coming down a bit, depends on how you draw the lines, but lets say ~300per km2

There is a difference, but not as much as some might think.

***

Interesting contrast here, the U.S. North-East Corridor's catchment, population density (Boston to Baltimore) is ~870 per km2
Click to expand...

The population density gives a good idea of how many trips there will be in an area, but it doesn't tell you anything about how easy it would be to serve those trips.

If the population is evenly spread at that density, it would take an enormous amount of service to provide a decent frequency for all trips:
Density1.PNG

This is like the suburbs of most North American cities.

If the population is concentrated into a variety of relatively dense centres, then it takes a lot less service to serve all the trips at a reasonable frequency.
Density2.PNG

This is like the Netherlands.

But the best case scenario is if your population is arranged along particular corridors, because you can achieve very high coverage with only a handful of services.
Density3.PNG

This is like Japan or Hong Kong. Or Southern Ontario.

Nearly all of our major cities are aligned in a handful of corridors. If you play connect-the-dots with them, you pretty much get our existing passenger rail network:
Density4.PNG

(There are a couple missing links like Kitchener-Brantford and Guelph-Hamilton but the rail coverage is still pretty good). Those missing links can be covered by bus service.

In the Netherlands, population centres are scattered all over the place, so it takes a huge number of lines and services to make the rail network frequent, fast and direct.
Density5.JPG


In Southern Ontario running Dutch levels of service would only cost us only a tiny fraction of the cost of achieving those frequencies in the Netherlands, simply because there are so many fewer services to run.

The lower density of Southern Ontario is in large part due to the vast areas of farmland between population centres once you get west of Kitchener. But those areas don't make rail any less competitive. In fact, they can make rail more competitive, since intercity trains themselves have an average speed higher than cars. The longer the distance the more the speed advantage offsets the time passengers spent getting to the station and waiting for the train.
 
Last edited:
denfromoakvillemilton said:
What do people think about St Marys? Does that also merit consider or just Stratford?
Click to expand...
St marys has 2 issues

Platform is so short that only 1 door opens there... also the trestle just east of the station has an weight per axle limit which is why go has only been sending the f59s on the London run to begin with...
 
reaperexpress said:
The population density gives a good idea of how many trips there will be in an area, but it doesn't tell you anything about how easy it would be to serve those trips.

If the population is evenly spread at that density, it would take an enormous amount of service to provide a decent frequency for all trips:
View attachment 489915
This is like the suburbs of most North American cities.

If the population is concentrated into a variety of relatively dense centres, then it takes a lot less service to serve all the trips at a reasonable frequency.
View attachment 489914
This is like the Netherlands.

But the best case scenario is if your population is arranged along particular corridors, because you can achieve very high coverage with only a handful of services.
View attachment 489913
This is like Japan or Hong Kong. Or Southern Ontario.

Nearly all of our major cities are aligned in a handful of corridors. If you play connect-the-dots with them, you pretty much get our existing passenger rail network:
View attachment 489918
(There are a couple missing links like Kitchener-Brantford and Guelph-Hamilton but the rail coverage is still pretty good). Those missing links can be covered by bus service.

In the Netherlands, population centres are scattered all over the place, so it takes a huge number of lines and services to make the rail network frequent, fast and direct.
View attachment 489917

In Southern Ontario running Dutch levels of service would only cost us only a tiny fraction of the cost of achieving those frequencies in the Netherlands, simply because there are so many fewer services to run.

The lower density of Southern Ontario is in large part due to the vast areas of farmland between population centres once you get west of Kitchener. But those areas don't make rail any less competitive. In fact, they can make rail more competitive, since intercity trains themselves have an average speed higher than cars. The longer the distance the more the speed advantage offsets the time passengers spent getting to the station and waiting for the train.
Click to expand...
Not to beat a dead horse (railways, here), but the missing links in Southern Ontario used to exist- so that’s either a pro or a con depending how you look at it. There’s a clear path of what filling missing links look like… but ofc, the rails are gone, so we need to actually build them- much bigger hurdle.

(Correct me if I’m wrong, but European nations don’t seem to have to grapple with lost corridors either- they never “lost” any, so new builds typically serve unique roles?)
 
Last edited:
Sunnyside said:
(Correct me if I’m wrong, but European nations don’t seem to have to grapple with lost corridors either- they never “lost” any, so new builds typically serve unique roles?)
Click to expand...

Don't tell Dr Beeching that! The UK has restored a couple of the lines that were closed in the Beeching era.

There are other places in Europe - Belgium's Line 50 for instance - where new rights of way have been needed in order to upgrade from two tracks to more, and there simply wasn't room on the existing row.

Most places, the high speed lines have demanded a lot of new right of way.

- Paul
 
Sunnyside said:
Not to beat a dead horse (railways, here), but the missing links in Southern Ontario used to exist- so that’s either a pro or a con depending how you look at it. There’s a clear path of what filling missing links look like… but ofc, the rails are gone, so we need to actually build them- much bigger hurdle.
Click to expand...
Here's my layer of existing railways in black, and abandoned railways in white. There are genuinely more abandoned railways than active railways.
Capture.JPG


Most of these lost railways are not a big loss. Most of them provided really terrible passenger service anyway (much slower than a bus, and not at all frequent). It's no trouble to fill in the missing links with bus service nowadays. Even the line from Guelph to Hamilton which is still an active railway is better off as a bus than it would be on that slow winding railway.

Sunnyside said:
(Correct me if I’m wrong, but European nations don’t seem to have to grapple with lost corridors either- they never “lost” any, so new builds typically serve unique roles?)
Click to expand...
I know several abandoned railways in the Netherlands but there are definitely more active railways than abandoned railways there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top