GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[dowlingm]

Can anyone actually provide a clip or quote of CP actually expressing willingness, let alone legally enabling this to come to pass? I presume you mean on CP property? If not, who is going to pay to acquire all the private land alongside the RoW? Certainly not QP at this point in time.

The CP Belleville at that point is a single track line with some sidings. Some track expansion (and thus $) is required in any event. Increased activity on grade crossings is undesirable on several levels, particularly given the proximity of the CPR to Darlington Nuclear (although those particular roads may not be necessary for plant incident response)

Below is a rough outline of what I have in mind. I find the notion of "where will we find the cash for land" to construct 4km of two-track embanked railway and some bridges a bit hard to take given the vast swathes of land purchased for 418 (not shown in the imagery available) and the 407 (which can be seen further north in construction phase)

 

[muller877]

The CP Belleville at that point is a single track line with some sidings. Some track expansion (and thus $) is required in any event. Increased activity on grade crossings is undesirable on several levels, particularly given the proximity of the CPR to Darlington Nuclear (although those particular roads may not be necessary for plant incident response)

Below is a rough outline of what I have in mind. I find the notion of "where will we find the cash for land" to construct 4km of two-track embanked railway and some bridges a bit hard to take given the vast swathes of land purchased for 418 (not shown in the imagery available) and the 407 (which can be seen further north in construction phase)

If I recall the bush between Rundle Rd and Solina is fairly wet. Costly plus the toll on a environmentally risky area.

(confirmed it is swampy per the MNR map...there is often reasons why the original route was chosen)

 

[crs1026]

^ The irony is that there was once an 1800’s era Grand Trunk Railway right of way parallel to what you suggest - you can see its remnants at the bottom right of your screen shot. Some of the civil works from that line were removed not that long ago.

To my mind, the limiting factor in what you suggest is whatever design was developed for the 418. It’s probably too late to revisit a lot of that - a change order to 418 construction would waste a lot of money. Perhaps for that reason alone, maybe the CP ROW needs to prevail.

As to CP’s involvement in all this, CP was very involved in the original EA, and the EA’s end design reflects CP’s druthers as of that date. On the one hand, that predated the Harrison Precision Railroad era, but on the other hand CP does have an active dialog with ML - better than one might think - and I don’t believe ML would be foolish enogh to broadside CP completely. And on the other hand, since ML is as happy with offering an excuse for inaction as with delivering shovels in the ground, perhaps CP has told them to f—- off completely and the route redesign reflects that. So that’s a wordy way to say, we don’t know....but CP’s participation, or not, is likely not the defining factor in this. My gut says they will cooperate with the east end part but don’t want GO on their route thru Oshawa.... perhaps for real estate reasons.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

I find the notion of "where will we find the cash for land" to construct 4km of two-track embanked railway and some bridges a bit hard to take given the vast swathes of land purchased for 418 (not shown in the imagery available) and the 407 (which can be seen further north in construction phase)

The acquisition for those two hwys was made under the previous Wynne regime, and both are toll. At least one is built as a P3 project.

This is *exactly* the mode the present regime want to pursue for commuter rail. I'm the messenger on this, since the Gov't and Metrolinx refuse to come right out blank and say it. Unfortunately for ML at this time, and QP, any corporation worth half their salt won't deal with them. It will take the Federal InfraBank or the Feds directly to get involved to barter a deal.

Here's the record for the Ford fuddle duddle:

Cancellation of German-owned Ontario wind project prompts warning from Berlin

SHAWN MCCARTHY GLOBAL ENERGY REPORTER Globe and Mail
OTTAWA
PUBLISHED JULY 23, 2018 UPDATED JULY 24, 2018

Ontario’s move to cancel the contract of a German-owned wind energy project represents a black mark for the province in the eyes of foreign investors, Berlin’s ambassador to Canada, Sabine Sparwasser, warned Monday.

The German government and multinational companies have taken note of Premier Doug Ford’s decision to pull the plug on wpd AG’s White Pines wind project in Prince Edward County, as well as the bill now before the legislature that will allow the province to set limits on what compensation is provided, Ms. Sparwasser said in a telephone interview.

“Obviously, every incoming government has the right to change policy direction,” she said. “But to have a unilateral cancellation pushed through by law that way is unsettling for the company, but is also something that will unsettle other potential investors."
[...]
The ambassador’s warning was echoed by John Manley, president of the Business Council of Canada, which represents chief executive officers of the country’s largest firms.

In a letter to Premier Ford dated Monday, Mr. Manley urged the provincial government to reconsider the cancellation, saying it is sending the wrong signal as the premier declares the province “open for business.”
[...]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/bus...ed-ontario-wind-project-prompts-warning-from/

What corporation in their right mind would deal with QP or ML unless it's cash?

 

[lenaitch]

All that's necessary is a waiting room until the train comes, not some fantastic Taj Mahal which is what Metrolinx has been all about for some time in lieu of actually delivering people to where they need to go.

Until the chorus starts that stations are s-o-o-o boring; that they're all concrete, no artwork and no espresso bar and what troglodyte designed this.

The CP Belleville at that point is a single track line with some sidings. Some track expansion (and thus $) is required in any event. Increased activity on grade crossings is undesirable on several levels, particularly given the proximity of the CPR to Darlington Nuclear (although those particular roads may not be necessary for plant incident response)

Below is a rough outline of what I have in mind. I find the notion of "where will we find the cash for land" to construct 4km of two-track embanked railway and some bridges a bit hard to take given the vast swathes of land purchased for 418 (not shown in the imagery available) and the 407 (which can be seen further north in construction phase)

View attachment 186272

Railway alignments were (are) usually laid out in consideration of curvature, grade and cost (as expressed in terms of the technology of the day). Seeing as the two ends of 'the dip' seem to end up at roughly the same bearing, it would be interesting to know why they laid it out that way originally. Even if more feasible with today's methods, land acquisition costs would remain an issue unless there is some spare change in government funding that isn't needed elsewhere.

 

[rbt]

The problem began when the last government allowed an implicit promise to form that was never substantially fulfillable. I have never believed that the RER vision was affordable, even when a lefty government was in power. I suspect Verster realised in his early days that he was hired under a “cheque is in the mail” mentality - but rather than calling this out he became part of the problem by using his ample charms to continue to spread the blarney.

Capital spending was $3B per year for a limited time (a decade; so $30B total) but the actual payments would have been spread over a 30 year period, so closer to $1.6B/year in actual payments (at current Ontario borrowing rates). GO efficiencies (if you believe they'd be break-even) reduce that to $1.1B. GTA economic growth ought to have covered a portion of that.

So already we're aroud $1B/year in actual spending and I've not even considered the carbon tax revenue that was trimmed.

That said, a slow start is better than no start, and maximizing for value likely isn't overly harmful (I've got nothing against phases), but actual money that would appear in Ford budgets is quite minimal. Might hamstring the next guy a bit (in 2026).

 

[steveintoronto]

That said, a slow start is better than no start, and maximizing for value likely isn't overly harmful (I've got nothing against phases)

Which has many advantages (if done for selected projects at a time, rather than spreading it over them all) not least the ability of local government to plan accordingly. What the Ford regime has produced *yet again* is waste and inefficiency, and *reason for doubt* (always a deadly recipe for incremental progress) for the planners and coffers of local gov't.

It's a classic case of 'Slow and Steady wins the race...', but of course, politicians want to 'spread the love' all around, even if it means a flower in every wasteland, and a flower garden in none. Metrolinx is a litany of unfinished projects, and anyone thinking this regime will finance finishing any of them is mistaken.

And of course, the bitter irony is that Private Investment could/would deliver a lot more a lot faster than the fumbling Ford fools. Who would go into a 'partnership' with any of the failed business bozos in the Ford farm at QP?

 

[smallspy]

Railway alignments were (are) usually laid out in consideration of curvature, grade and cost (as expressed in terms of the technology of the day). Seeing as the two ends of 'the dip' seem to end up at roughly the same bearing, it would be interesting to know why they laid it out that way originally. Even if more feasible with today's methods, land acquisition costs would remain an issue unless there is some spare change in government funding that isn't needed elsewhere.

Keep in mind, too, that this particular segment of railway is not some 1850s, hack-and-slash, get-it-built-now-and-on-the-cheap alignment. The Belleville Sub was surveyed and built between 1904-ish and 1914. And with the huge improvements in the speed, size and quality of railway equipment and technology in the 50-ish years that the railways had been running in the area, it was built to a far, far, far higher standard than the older in-land route via Peterborough. In the 1850s, they would avoid any geological trouble spots because they were in a hurry. By the 1900s, if they avoided that kind of spot it wasn't because time was of the essence - it was because it was just too difficult for them to accomplish.

All this is not to say that they couldn't do it today - the technology has come even further. But it does put a bit of perspective on the whole thing and why they may have made the choices that they did.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

Capital spending was $3B per year for a limited time (a decade; so $30B total) but the actual payments would have been spread over a 30 year period, so closer to $1.6B/year in actual payments (at current Ontario borrowing rates). GO efficiencies (if you believe they'd be break-even) reduce that to $1.1B. GTA economic growth ought to have covered a portion of that.

So already we're aroud $1B/year in actual spending and I've not even considered the carbon tax revenue that was trimmed.

That said, a slow start is better than no start, and maximizing for value likely isn't overly harmful (I've got nothing against phases), but actual money that would appear in Ford budgets is quite minimal. Might hamstring the next guy a bit (in 2026).

Just to clarify - does your reckoning of $3B a year for a time in the past refer to GO Expansion/RER, or just to Provincial transit capital generally?

One can't deny that GO has made lots of infrastructure investments in the past decade - eg GTS, UPE, the East Maintenance Facility, added yard capacity in various location; Double track Snider-Concord; Silver track extension. These may contribute in lesser ways to the RER/Expansion work package, but I don't believe that much if any of the cash flow that the RER BCS document called for has ever been released - nor could it be, as it represents added borrowning at a time where the budget hasn't been balanced and the credit analysts are shifting politely in their seats about Ontario's overall debt. It would be incremental to Ford's subway transit promise, which appears to have sucked up most or all available provincial transit capital.

My issue is that the Wynne government energetically spun this "slow start" as "nearing completion" and implicity promised 2024 for the whole package (with some slippage introduced towards 2025). The new government has allowed ML to continue this story line. The longer that the start dawdles, the less realistic a 2024/2025 delivery date becomes. Until this reality is expressed and timelines reset, we are being fed a falsehood.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

Just to clarify - does your reckoning of $3B a year for a time in the past refer to GO Expansion/RER, or just to Provincial transit capital generally?

Provincial transit capital in general. Effectively took the capital spending report and averaged it out. So it included RER, finishing Eglinton and other LRT projects, SmarTrack, and possibly some subway projects. I believe that figure also included federal and city contributions to those projects, as it was a spending report without revenue streams broken out.

My issue is that the Wynne government energetically spun this "slow start" as "nearing completion" and implicity promised 2024 for the whole package (with some slippage introduced towards 2025).

Yes, that was very frustrating but seemed more like an under-staffing and too many projects problem rather than a money problem.

The only thing more frustrating was the previous scattering of projects, including bid budget ones like Georgetown South, with no knowledge of what type of service they would be able to provide after project completion. TTC projects sometimes come in late and over budget, but we always knew what we we're getting when finished.

 

[gibsonm]

You make the argument very well in this and following posts. Why build a compact car when you can build a bus? Economy of scale is multiples more, as is utilization efficiency of the roadway, and you share the fixed costs, like a steering wheel, four wheels, doors, and a single driver remain static while the passenger load is multiples more. This is writ large in modern streetcars.
Perhaps that "relief" in DRL is eluding you? Build this of sufficient size, capacity and *speed* and it not only relieves existing infrastructure, it renders moot the massive investments needed to expand the older lines to do something they were never designed to do in the first place. It will actually *save* money in the long run by allowing a perfectly good extant system (with needed perks, such as elevators, enlarged access and platforms and state of the art signalling systems) to continue to run uninterrupted, and continuing to render benefit from the original investment approx half a century ago. Leave it, and circumvent the extra needed capacity around it.
Absolutely. It's like building an arterial road when you need a highway. Either build it big, or don't bother. And not only that, since it's going to take private investment to do this, the grander it is (caveats apply) the more likely you are to attract private capital since you'll be satiated most of the demand, competition is far less likely. The proof of that is many grand projects around the world, many built with Cdn pension and fund money. Time to do it in Toronto.
Doesn't 'work everywhere else'. It works in many places where *local demand* needs to be satisfied. That's not what will make the Ontario Line work. The comparator isn't the Docklands Light Railway, which is rather pedantic and serves only a section of London.

The real comparison is Crossrail and Thameslink. That's London's transportation future. It not only serves the core of London (and Thameslink is already running ATO in the central core, Crossrail will too when the core section is opened) but run out on mainline rail to the exurbs. With no seat change to do it.

Not only that, one version of Thameslink Siemens Class 700 (which operate through new tunnels totally automatically save the driver closing doors and hitting a button to go) the Class 717 operates third rail through a tunnel into the core of London well over a century old, and 4.7m in diameter, and the trains run out to the mainlines, put up pantographs, and then run on 25kV catenary.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=class+717

Class 717, top speed 85mph. Class 700 (also run third rail and catenary, but in modern wider tunnels with space to evacuate from the regular doors) over 100 mph. And can do so totally automatically in segments of track with balises.

Here's the model most apt for for the Ontario Line, and able to run in the 5.4 metre tunnels the TTC planned for the DRL with space to spare:

https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...w/great-northern-class-717-emus-unveiled.html

And the carriage gauge of these trains? The same is RER single deck EMUs would be, and compatible with VIA Rail HFR, since they are ostensibly able to work with REM Metro sized stock:
https://www.systracanada.com/en-pro...e-hfr-via-trains-on-montreal-s-reseau-express

DOCUMENTS

Interoperability Study to Operate HFR VIA Trains on Montreal’s REM
PDF - 190.5 kb

The Ontario Line can stone three birds with one kill if you let it, and allow local trains to stop while regionals and HFR bypass them in station with a centre track. HFR to Ottawa from underground at Osgoode? Why not? (Alternates would still be available from Union)

I could see the Ontario Line (in your proposed gauge) enter the rail corridor just south of a King and Bathurst Station with one train option (Ontario Line A) running along the Lakeshore West GO Line with a southern spur running to a station just south of Exibition (with North-South running platforms, such that the northern exit from the platforms has a tunnel directly to the Exhibition GO station and the southern end has an exit in front of the entrance to Ontario Place). I can see another train option (Ontario Line B) running up the Kitchener GO Line to the new Liberty Village station. Basically you have two variations available on the same line, as in New York. Although I’d still prefer to see the Ontario Line run farther west along Queen before dipping south, with a stop at Bathurst and one at Trinity Bellwoods-Shaw before it shifts south, hits the new Liberty Village SmartTrack/GO station then ends at Exhibition/Ontario Place. That routing relieves Union traffic on two major GO lines. The new Spadina GO station only relieves Union on the Barrie Line.

 

[nfitz]

1) Guys, can we keep discussion of the Ontario Line in the relevant thread? This is the GO Transit Service Thread

You dug up forgotten posts from a fortnight ago to complain about things that shouldn't be in this thread?

 

[Allandale25]

Agreed. Considering the "success" of the Milton corridor, avoiding CP upfront is probably best.

Wouldn't this be easier since the new GO track(s) would remain on the south side? Milton's challenge is that a grade separation is needed near the Humber River to get from the south to the north side.

What I don't get about the so-called difficulty dealing with CP is this: wouldn't the GO tracks use the GO RTC and in effect be separated but adjacent to the CP mainline? cc @crs1026

 

[crs1026]

^ In the original EA, (The original EA report has disappeared from the ML website, but I have a copy..... Some documentation can be found in municipal archives eg here.) the new track was planned in places to the north of the existing track. I believe curvature and clearances on the right of way made it more desirable to build the new trackage on the north side. In effect GO, would have taken CP's existing track and CP would have the new (north) track. The plan would have required building a third track where CP had an existing siding, which implies they intended to operate as a separated flow, crossovers and double track notwithstanding. The layout of station platforms does suggest that GO would normally have access to only one track, but crossovers were planned that would allow CP and GO to use either track when necessary.

Going forward, it's up to CP whether they want GO to have its own tracks (like the GO sub east of Pickering) or to share tracks with freight (as on the Milton line).

The Milton corridor is not "unsuccessful". It is simply "unfunded". CP cooperates quite well, to the extent that it can without giving away its freight capacity. To upgrade service any further on the Milton line, there would have to be track added. Such track would not benefit CP over what it has today - the sole added value of that new track would be for GO's needs. That's a very reasonable position for CP to take IMHO. The Milton "problem" is the province's purse strings.

- Paul

PS - in hunting through old documents, I found this from 2017 which is still on line. Amazing how a "commitment" expressed in 2017, with a clear affirmation that all work can be completed by 2024, gets undone two years later.

 

[crs1026]

PPS - I did find the EA report on line, it's here.

This track map may be of interest.

- Paul