News   Mar 28, 2024
 1K     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 562     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 851     0 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

Ah interesting. Currently the overlapping segments are every 2 minutes at best (at least the ones I looked at) and it is lower towards the ends.

I wonder what the constraint is then operationally, if they can't do better than 120 seconds in the shared areas? Is that just the reality of what happens when you start branching frequent services?

There may be a headway blending issue - if the headways are not evenly divisible, you can get into issues every little while with two trains trying to arrive at the same station at the same time.

There may be a track layout or geometry issue. While they've done well to minimize crossing movements, there are still some locations on the network that require them, and those will absolutely pose constraints on the system as a whole.

And finally, there may be an equipment issue - they may simply not have enough equipment to run more trains. They are looking at buying more equipment, but I don't believe that they've put a tender out for bids yet.

Dan
 
Sure, if you were to build the Ontario line as the preexisting relief line with the technology provided, sure, you might be able to get away with it, but once you start adding passengers from Sheppard and beyond, the line will be a sitting duck, a huge mistake for the city that should have built a subway line instead. This line is supposed to compete with the Yonge subway, which sees 30+ PPHPD north of Bloor, and assuming ridership continues to grow throughout the city, the Ontario line will not be able to keep up with the passenger growth north of Bloor, and will eventually become just as crowded as the Yonge line is today.

A secondary question is whether we want this number of people on the DRL. Is it better to have a few lines with large capacity (and the 40+ story condos and office towers needed to fill the demand) or more lines with density spread out? We are so focused on the one and done method of transit we look to the former. But if instead we look to the later we would have a more comprehensive transit planning process.
 
A secondary question is whether we want this number of people on the DRL. Is it better to have a few lines with large capacity (and the 40+ story condos and office towers needed to fill the demand) or more lines with density spread out? We are so focused on the one and done method of transit we look to the former. But if instead we look to the later we would have a more comprehensive transit planning process.
The problem with that mindset is that lower capacity lines tend to approach one location (Yonge street or Downtown). Sure, it's a good idea to have Light rail or other technologies on some corridors that won't see huge demand growth or don't have any other feeder lines (Finch and Jane come to mind), but what about other corridors that serve to direct people downtown? Lines 1-5 will do this, and despite lines 3 & 5 having smaller capacities than 1,2,4, line 5 in particular has many connections (especially to buses) that allow the corridor to funnel passengers to Line 1, and eventually the relief line. It also doesn't help that the future relief line's sole existence is to direct people downtown. If we're going to look at alternate technologies, the relief line is not the corridor to do this. There is already a huge demand and a large density along the corridor that will already justify full subway service.
 
A secondary question is whether we want this number of people on the DRL. Is it better to have a few lines with large capacity (and the 40+ story condos and office towers needed to fill the demand) or more lines with density spread out? We are so focused on the one and done method of transit we look to the former. But if instead we look to the later we would have a more comprehensive transit planning process.

In a City where we are desperately challenged to build one new line, and we have perhaps a 1/2 dozen high priority projects (new or expanded lines), in the queue now, needed now; do you have a real expectation that there will be money for another Relief Line in the next 20 or even 40 years?

I don't think that likely.

As such we'd better build this one with lots of capacity that covers our needs well into the future.
 
Sorry, but that statement is purely false. Every technology has limitations with regards to the size of station, the frequency the service can obtain, and the size of vehicles. Sure, you can link up a bunch of light rail vehicles, but at what point does it become cost prohibitive, or increase the cost of construction? I can theoretically make a 6 LRV long train that has a similar capacity to a Toronto Rocket, but I'm going to provide more wear on the pantographs, require platforms that are 42 meters longer than a subway platform, spend more on rolling stock and maintenance.

But what about running said service with smaller trains but with much higher frequencies? Well that creates its own set of challenges in it of itself. Sure, automation can reduce bunching, but at the same time, it severely decreases speed. Think of fluid dynamics and Bernoulli's law, if water is under pressure, the velocity is a lot lower, however, if it's pressure is a lot lower, the velocity is a lot higher (for ideal systems). The same principle can be extended to trains: If you have more trains running on a line (an increase in pressure since the space between trains is a lot less), then the ideal speeds the trains can run at will reduce, and if you decrease the number of trains on the line, the space between trains increases, meaning speeds can increase. If you sacrifice speed for frequency, there comes a point where your service isn't rapid any more, and doesn't provide enough of a justification for people to use it.

The technology used has everything to do with these complications. With heavy rail, specifically the subway technology we use in the system to this day, we have wider trains that have the potential to run at frequencies of every 90 seconds. You can only make your platforms so long, so if you decrease the width of the trains, you're taking away potential capacity. If you're trying to cut costs, increasing the diameter of the tunnel will be significantly less expensive than building a station with a longer platform, so cutting the length of trains can still provide decent capacity while cutting costs. Of course, this is a dumb move to make on the Ontario line due to capacity constraints.

There's also another problem with the frequency argument, it doesn't account for huge surges in demand. This is going to be a huge problem at all the transfer stations, especially Pape. You can see how these demand surges affect train capacity on the Yonge & Sheppard Lines at Sheppard Yonge station. If you have a subway bringing in a huge number of passengers at Pape, and it dumps say, 800 passengers off there to take the Ontario line, some passengers may have to wait for up to 3 trains (probably more since there will be traffic from Science Centre) in order to make the transfer. It also doesn't help keeping the line on time because assuming the line is running at a maximum train capacity, the trains behind it will have to wait for all passengers to board the trains currently at Pape. This is enough to sway people away from using the Ontario line as a potential service.

Sure, if you were to build the Ontario line as the preexisting relief line with the technology provided, sure, you might be able to get away with it, but once you start adding passengers from Sheppard and beyond, the line will be a sitting duck, a huge mistake for the city that should have built a subway line instead. This line is supposed to compete with the Yonge subway, which sees 30+ PPHPD north of Bloor, and assuming ridership continues to grow throughout the city, the Ontario line will not be able to keep up with the passenger growth north of Bloor, and will eventually become just as crowded as the Yonge line is today.

You and many others completely fail to realize that the traditional subway technology that Toronto uses is wider than most that some of the largest cities in the world use. Including the B Division cars in New York City, Montreal, Paris, London, etc etc.

A thinner but longer car will work fine, as it works everywhere else. Width and rolling stock are a very small part of the greater picture of capacity.
 
You and many others completely fail to realize that the traditional subway technology that Toronto uses is wider than most that some of the largest cities in the world use. Including the B Division cars in New York City, Montreal, Paris, London, etc etc.

A thinner but longer car will work fine, as it works everywhere else. Width and rolling stock are a very small part of the greater picture of capacity.
Again, wider car subway systems are cheaper to build because station platforms don't have to be as long. It is the stations themselves that are far more expensive to construct. The benefits of narrower rolling stock really only shine when you're building really close to the surface, but even in Downtown, there's no room no matter the diameter of the tunnel. Who knows, if he picks underground Light Rail with catenary, tunnels will be even wider and there won't be any difference between the traditional relief line and the proposed Ontario line. We really don't have enough information to conclude how this project will turn out, but given the variables, the attitude of this government, and the drawbacks (especially the incompatibility with the rest of the existing system, which no one really seems to care about), it doesn't seem like a good idea at all.
 
Sure, if you were to build the Ontario line as the preexisting relief line with the technology provided, sure, you might be able to get away with it, but once you start adding passengers from Sheppard and beyond, the line will be a sitting duck, a huge mistake for the city that should have built a subway line instead. This line is supposed to compete with the Yonge subway, which sees 30+ PPHPD north of Bloor, and assuming ridership continues to grow throughout the city, the Ontario line will not be able to keep up with the passenger growth north of Bloor, and will eventually become just as crowded as the Yonge line is today.
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.
A secondary question is whether we want this number of people on the DRL.
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.
In a City where we are desperately challenged to build one new line, and we have perhaps a 1/2 dozen high priority projects (new or expanded lines), in the queue now, needed now; do you have a real expectation that there will be money for another Relief Line in the next 20 or even 40 years?

I don't think that likely.
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.
A thinner but longer car will work fine, as it works everywhere else.
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:
UK: Siemens has unveiled the Class 717 Desiro City electric multiple-units which it is building for Govia Thameslink Railway.
Being built at the Siemens plant at Krefeld in Germany, the 25 six-car units are scheduled to enter service from September on GTR’s Great Northern commuter services from Welwyn Garden City, Hertford and Stevenage to London’s Moorgate station. All units are due to be in service by January 2019.
The dual-system 750 V DC third rail/25 kV 50 Hz overhead Class 717 EMUs will replace 44 three-car Class 313 units dating from 1976-77. Ridership on the route has doubled in the last 14 years, and the new units have full-width inter-car gangways to increase capacity as well as 2+2 seating with wide aisles and wide doors for rapid boarding and alighting. Total capacity is 943 passenger per unit, with 362 seats including 64 priority and 15 tip-up seats; there are no seat-back tables. There are two wheelchair spaces.
The EMUs are fitted with Liebherr air-conditioning, real-time information systems and power points, and there will also be wi-fi, although with limited coverage in the Moorgate tunnels. There is provision for ETCS, although GTR said ‘timescales are now unclear’ for this to go live on the route. ETCS is expected to improve reliability by allowing the removal of mechanical tripcocks and older lineside equipment.
The Class 717 is similar to the Siemens Class 700 ordered by the Department for Transport for GTR’s longer-distance Thameslink services. Differences include cab end doors with extending ladders for emergency evacuation in the single-bore tunnels on the Moorgate route; this requires the driver’s seat to be on the left of the cab rather than central, and some instruments can be swung inwards. There is an additional priority seat per doorway in place of the luggage area, one power socket per seat pair compared to none on the Class 700s, no first class or toilets, and revised software.
‘We have designed and built the trains with one goal in mind – to transform passenger journeys to and from London by ensuring that services are reliable and offer as much space as possible’, said Richard Carrington, Director of Rolling Stock Projects at Siemens, on May 2.
GTR selected Siemens to supply the fleet in December 2015. The operator organised a separate competition to finance the order, and a deal worth more than £200m was signed by the Rock Rail Moorgate joint venture of Rock Rail Holdings and Aberdeen Standard Investments in February 2016. According to Siemens, this is the first time that UK rolling stock financing is being provided through a direct long-term investment by pension and insurance companies.
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:
Interoperability Study to Operate HFR VIA Trains on Montreal’s Réseau express métropolitain (REM)
VIA foresees the construction of a dedicated High Frequency Railway (HFR) for passenger transit along the Quebec City-Windsor corridor across the provinces of Québec and Ontario.

On the specific section between Montreal and Quebec City, VIA wishes to use the Mont-Royal tunnel to run along the north bank of the Saint-Lawrence river. However, the Mont-Royal tunnel will soon host the new REM automatic metro system. The need is therefore to evaluate the feasibility to share infrastructure in order to operate both urban and inter-urban trains.[...]
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)
 
Lakeshore East Rail Corridor – Bowmanville Extension Update Meetings (Reminder)

Metrolinx to Significantly Increase Trains to Bowmanville

One of our goals is to find a way to get more rail service to communities beyond Oshawa as quickly as we can, and to do so with an all-day service. The original plan from a few years ago was for limited service in the morning and evening peaks only. Theoptions we are now considering are based on operating train service throughout the day. You are invited to attend one of our community meetings to learn more about thefour options we are considering to extend GO service beyond Oshawa. You can review the options here.

 
You can tell Metrolinx is angling for Option 3 4. While I don't hate it as it retains existing infrastructure at Oshawa GO and will most likely result in significantly higher speeds for the trip to Bowmanville, Missing the planned Ritson station is pretty poor land use planning. That station would be a boon for access to Downtown Oshawa, which actually has quite a few active development applications right now and seems to be really turning a corner in a lot of ways.

I think it's easy to forget that half the purpose of the Bowmanville Extension was to improve service to Oshawa, and Option 3 4 removes a lot of those benefits.

Regardless, It's exciting to see that they are now planning for all day service. I always found that to be a pretty major issue with the old plan.
 
Last edited:
Regardless, It's exciting to see that they are now planning for all day service.
The fine print still doesn't make sense according to what's being touted:
Electrified GO Expansion services will terminate at Oshawa station.
- Option 3

Go figure...(Best I detail as it will be missed by some: System-wide planned RER electrified is the prerequisite for "15 min all-day two way" since present stock numbers are woefully inadequate to do so) In the event, I take anything coming out of the Metrolinx Fantasy Fiesta with a grain of magic dust. It's going to be three and half years until anything believable or concrete happens from ML. And then the following regime will have the legitimate excuse: "The Ford Tories left the cupboard looted and bare. It will take years to rebuild the plans to expand".

Btw: I notice that the 'Get Out of Promise Free' card has been expunged from a number of ML docs. The (gist) "contingent on the Immaculate Leader's whims' clause.

I'll reference later, must run.
 
Last edited:
You can tell Metrolinx is angling for Option 3. While I don't hate it as it retains existing infrastructure at Oshawa GO and will most likely result in significantly higher speeds for the trip to Bowmanville, Missing the planned Ritson station is pretty poor land use planning. That station would be a boon for access to Downtown Oshawa, which actually has quite a few active development applications right now and seems to be really turning a corner in a lot of ways.

I think it's easy to forget that half the purpose of the Bowmanville Extension was to improve service to Oshawa, and Option 3 removes a lot of those benefits.

And similarly, look at where the station in Bowmanville will be relocated to under Option 3. Man, Durham region just continues to be an epic failure in land use planning.

186048
 

Back
Top