hw621
Senior Member
Without electrification
|
|
|
GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
RandomBusGuy
New Member
https://www.gotransit.com/en/travelling-with-us/promotions-and-events/barrie-line-trains
https://www.gotransit.com/en/travelling-with-us/promotions-and-events/barrie-line-trains
Looks like GO is trying to increase weekend ridership on the Barrie line. It's not a bad idea actually. Likely close to revenue neutral compared to using a group pass, but "kids ride free" is more immediately positive sounding.
hw621
Senior Member
But why just Barrie Line? To be honest I am quite upset with this - don't kids on the other lines not entitle to same treatment?~
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,410
- Reaction score
- 1,436
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
I just want it all done now, electrification or not.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
The only progress is forward.
smallspy
Senior Member
Valid question. If I had to spitball....
Barrie is currently the only corridor with a massive surplus of capacity on weekends, due to the trains running. This, in concert with trying to "train" everyone to take the train in rather than driving may be why they're doing it.
If this is indeed the case, than I suspect that they will offer the same or a very similar one on the Stouffville Line once weekend service starts there, and for the weekend Kitchener service - provided they ever get around to offering it.
This kind of highly-targeted marketing and discounting plan has worked to great success for VIA over the past decade or so, and with UPX as well, so it stands to reason that it should work on GO as well.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
felix123
Active Member
If you mean 2WAD in the technical sense, that's possible. The latter clause is not achievable as RER on a largely duplicated track network, however, which is what GO is. It also bears consideration that most suburban railways electrified by the 1930's, and many from coal-derived electricity. Ontario is awash in cheap hydroelectricity, thus the capital expenditure now seems both fiscally and environmentally prudent. Why any political party would consider expensive diesel - - beyond their electors simply not wanting to understand the benefits of electrification - - is beyond me.
crs1026
Senior Member
Plus, if you are not 100% sure you can sustain this, it's a useful strategy to put your toe in the water and still be able to pull it out without too much backlash from the public.
Now.... how much would GO save if we backed the Service Guarantee rebate back ? Maybe incrementally - no rebate at 15 minutes, but 50% at 30 minutes? This is the kind of economy that I could see a new government driving towards. Personally, I have always found the guarantee too generous. And in a future environment where you have the ability to impose penalties on the operator, applying these against the total revenue stream instead of paying individual riders back directly, what purpose does the guarantee serve?
- Paul
crs1026
Senior Member
Electrification is crying for a P3 solution. Unbundle it from the Mother-of-all-DBFOM procurement that ML is working on. Bid the electricity supply (including financing the capital spend required to implement) on its own so there is a known and discrete envelope. Compare that to the price of diesels over the same period. The electric price may not be cheaper - but it's definable, and it puts it outside the core capital envelope (that may look excessive to the voter), and maybe it becomes something that Ottawa could fund from cap and trade.
Besides, keep the eye on the prize. If Doug is voted in, we need to protect track building above all. Get basic 2WAD in place, and ridership growth will demand added capacity, and electrification is integral to that. If we have to live with Doug, give him a reason to look good building RER. Saying he put RER in place for half the cost is his opportunity to shine. Let's get as much of it as we can.
- Paul
felix123
Active Member
An interesting idea and a reasonable, conservative approach.
I'm not against P3 - it has proven a decent degree of success in building Vancouver's rapid-transit, and now Montréal's as well. What I am against is tearing up the current electrification procurement plans - if these discussions were being had 40+ years ago, so be it, but Ontario and in particular the GTA long ago used up its window for backtracking and our lack of suitable regional transit is costing us in lost productivity.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,410
- Reaction score
- 1,436
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
For me, I'm with Paul. The highways are awful. We need something on the ground now. At least by 2020.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
I was reading up on New York's new Niagara Falls International station, and was wondering about the potential of extending Lakeshore West Niagara service there to replace the current VIA/Amtrak arrangement. The station would need a new low-level platform within a controlled Canadian customs zone to serve GO service. Currently, my understanding is that the station only handles customs entry into the U.S. - entry into Canada being handled at Niagara Falls ON.
I found that it would only take a slight adjustment to GO's existing Summer Weekend schedule to connect with two daily Amtrak services from Niagara Falls NY, rather than just the one VIA currently connects to. Creating an international connection and eliminating the redundant VIA service may help bolster GO's ridership enough to run the Niagara service year round.
Of course weekend service is not much without corresponding weekday service, so also I put together a conceptual schedule for Lakeshore West regional services. Due to concerns about delays at the Welland Canal, trains which arrive in the GTA during peak periods cannot originate any further than St. Catharines. But despite that constraint it is still possible to run a decent intercity schedule in the corridor. I also threw in the counter-peak trips to Hamilton Centre that I think would be really great for that city's development.
Notes:
Trainsets starting with "G" originate from Lewis (Grimsby) Yard, "H" sets originate from Hamilton Centre, and "U" sets come from somewhere else in the network (via Union).
Travel times include some modest speed gains between Aldershot and Niagara Falls, but these are not necessary to operate the schedule.
Stops in Hamilton Harbour (West Harbour), Stoney Creek (Confederation) and Grimsby (Casablanca) are similarly desirable but not required.
I found that it would only take a slight adjustment to GO's existing Summer Weekend schedule to connect with two daily Amtrak services from Niagara Falls NY, rather than just the one VIA currently connects to. Creating an international connection and eliminating the redundant VIA service may help bolster GO's ridership enough to run the Niagara service year round.
Of course weekend service is not much without corresponding weekday service, so also I put together a conceptual schedule for Lakeshore West regional services. Due to concerns about delays at the Welland Canal, trains which arrive in the GTA during peak periods cannot originate any further than St. Catharines. But despite that constraint it is still possible to run a decent intercity schedule in the corridor. I also threw in the counter-peak trips to Hamilton Centre that I think would be really great for that city's development.
Notes:
Trainsets starting with "G" originate from Lewis (Grimsby) Yard, "H" sets originate from Hamilton Centre, and "U" sets come from somewhere else in the network (via Union).
Travel times include some modest speed gains between Aldershot and Niagara Falls, but these are not necessary to operate the schedule.
Stops in Hamilton Harbour (West Harbour), Stoney Creek (Confederation) and Grimsby (Casablanca) are similarly desirable but not required.
Attachments
Richard White
Senior Member
GO transit is a provincial government entity not designed to handle inspections from Border Services or the CBSA.
GO will never cross the border just to make life easier for a few commuters. It would be a disaster for GO passengers heading to Niagara given how long inspections take.
Dan, refresh my memory but doesn't the Maple Leaf get held up and delayed at the border while customs and immigration gives trains and it's passengers the once over?
All I am saying is that if any trains go from Toronto to the new station in NY state it should be VIA as they are better equipped
reaperexpress
Senior Member
I'm not actually suggesting that GO cross the border in the operational sense. The border crossing would be in the station, not on the train. And unlike the current VIA/Amtrak service, a given train wouldn't actually cross the customs point and therefore there shouln't be much requirement for the operator. If small private airlines can operate into international airports, then surely a major operator such as GO can operate into a station where CBSA screens boarding passengers before they reach the platform.
GO trains would technically be immune from delays since their service never crosses the functional border, although in practice some delays will be voluntarily absorbed to maintain the connection. Fortunately those are evening arrivals into Toronto so there's available track capacity to accommodate delays. If Amtrak 63 (current Amtrak Maple Leaf) will be hours late, the GO train can actually depart on time and the arriving American passengers can take the next GO train departure.
The point isn't to pander to a few cross-border commuters. The point is to consolidate service and add an additional ridership anchor to support all-day Toronto-Niagara train service. To be frank, the poor connection between the Canadian and U.S. passenger rail networks is serious missed opportunity for ridership.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Let me begin, by saying, as always, how much I appreciate your hard work and thoughts on these types of things.
Your analysis and charts/graphs always have insights to offer!
That said, apart from Richard's note above, with which I do not disagree.........
I also wouldn't have thought Niagara Falls, NY was the place to slip new short(er) haul service into line.
I would suggest that based on demand, the issue is not serving inbound passengers from NYC, but rather resident passengers from Buffalo, NY.
I've long though VIA/Amtrak should offer a shuttle train (w/pre-clearance) and very limited, or non-stop service from Buffalo, NY, to Toronto-Union.
I don't have stats to support this, but my impression of demand is that a four to six car train, well priced, and running timely, reliable service could probably run six times per day, each way, and turn a modest profit doing so.
I can say that there are currently an average 12 bus trips daily making the Buffalo to Toronto trip (up to six via Megabus) and that there flights as well as considerable car traffic.
I still think inter-city rail stock would better at serving this market, though theoretically GO-type stock could be workable.
I don't think that's the case for meeting a service where people have already been on train for six hours plus.
In such cases, a modicum of luxury is all but essential.