News   Sep 16, 2024
14-Storey Mixed-Use Condo Proposed in Leslieville
 590     0 
News   Sep 16, 2024
City Celebrates Opening of Leslie Lookout Park in the Port Lands
 1K     2 
News   Sep 16, 2024
News Roundup for September 16, 2024
 632     0 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

There may be switch work going on on the USRC also. Makes no sense to have to reduce UPX service to replace the Oakville Sub bridges. Unless the UPX crews have been tapped to be pilots for the detours?

- Paul
 
Allandale25 said:
When would be the first revenue service run over the Canpa Sub?
Click to expand...

A freight derailment at Mimico around 2006 led to revenue detours on the Canpa.

Historically, back in the 1950's CP ran special trains from North Toronto Station to the Long Branch racetrack, using the Canpa. I'm not aware that it ever was used for scheduled service, but others may know of some. CN had a couple pretty hefty derailments east of Canpa back in the days when CP ran scheduled service to Hamilton, perhaps there were detours back then also.

On this occasion, Sept 8, the 06:43 westbound LSW train from Union will be the first train of the day on the first day of detours. VIA 71 to Windsor will follow 2 minutes later (actually, it will likely be a few minutes later, because the Galt Sub signalling will limit fleeting to 6-7 minute headways.). First eastbound of the day will leave Aldershot at 07:01.

- Paul
 
Neutrino said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-45367990

@steveintoronto can you comment? Sorry for the off topic. Posting here because it's the most relevant thread and potentially has implications for GO RER.
Click to expand...
'Was just reading and watching that story last night.
Click to expand...

It's a blemish on an otherwise fantastic project. It's also gone slightly over-budget on a few aspects. One of the complications that's almost inevitable in projects like these, and this will apply to SmartTrack and the uploading of the subway, is separate ownership of shared infrastructure.

Here was a hint of what the major problem is now:
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/te...-2-to-cut-signalling-systems/10025144.article

For @jcam and others as per DBFOM and aspects of P3 financing models (And Crossrail in its corporate entirety isn't, it's wholly owned by two levels of gov't and run as a two shareholder corporation. Something Queen's Park should study intently)
A FAILED PPP: LONDON UNDERGROUND

The London Underground PPP transferred the rehabilitation and maintenance of the London underground infrastructure to private sector consortiums. This was a very complex DBFOM project made up of three separate, yet interdependent, PPPs. Metronet consortium was selected for two PPPs and Tube Lines consortium won the other PPP. Apart from private sector financing, the PPPs were also financed through governmental grants. It was envisioned as a 30-year contractual engagement. Yet, by 2010, only six years into the contractual agreement, the consortiums failed and the infrastructure was returned under government control. The PPP failure was triggered by the bankruptcy of the two PPPs controlled by Metronet. The latter was estimated to cost the taxpayers approximately £4.1 (≈ $6.3 billion) in losses (UKNAO, 2009). This particular PPP project was controversial from the very beginning. Although, the British government strongly advocated for the project on the basis that the London Underground, as a governmental agency, did not have, due to budget cuts, the institutional capacity to undertake infrastructure improvements - many remained skeptical about the adequacy of a PPP arrangement and if it indeed provided efficiencies. The VfM analysis for the project, for instance, was questioned in terms of its accuracy and rigor. It also wasn’t clear whether government truly believed that a PPP was the most effective solution or simply attempted to shift some of the financing and risk associated with the infrastructure off governmental books. The failure of the project was primarily due to: (1) overly optimistic projections/unrealistic expectations; (2) lack of comprehensive understanding of all underlying variables involved in the project; (3) consortium internal mismanagement; (2) ineffective governmental control; (3) poor comprehension of the true cost of financing; and (5) incomplete/poorly underwritten contracts.
Click to expand...

https://www.nigp.org/docs/default-s...ocurementspecialistsneednowfinal.pdf?sfvrsn=4

The whole study report that's from is a US one, and highly relevant to Canada, and increasingly the GTHA.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...97B721A&utm_campaign=tmh_5016&utm_content=a05

Note the reference in the TorStar story linked above (It's come up in a couple of stories on this) to 'eventual privatization of the subway'...and by extension, Metrolinx.

DBFOM and P3, for better or worse, is poised to play a much greater role in delivering transit to the GTHA. I'll consider starting a string on it if I can remember how, it deserves its own UT forum.
potentially has implications for GO RER.
Click to expand...
@Neutrino is not that far off-topic by any means. It has *huge* implications for GO RER....Metrolinx altogether. (Edit: And perhaps HFR too)
 
Last edited:
Another question (this one is dumb). Do Lakeshore East trains run through Union? For example, if one were to board at Eglinton GO, is a one seat ride to Exhibition possible? Looking for a way to attend a TFC match without driving or TTC-ing.
 
crs1026 said:
That must be a typo? The GO web site does indicate service west of Long Branch.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Allandale25 said:
I noticed the bridge spans sitting in the VIA yard in Mimico. Maybe they need the space to get them into position?
Click to expand...

I hope it’s a typo.....what they are saying in that release makes no sense......it means no service at PC, Oakville, Clarkson, etc etc etc
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top