GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[gweed123]

No. The bike trains are configured differently than normal ones, and don't have the capacity needed for the service.

Dan

They don't have the capacity to handle the trickle of people heading westbound at midnight? I get that the configuration is different, but I don't really think seating capacity is an issue for that trainset. I've been on a quite a few of those trips, and it wasn't uncommon for me to be the only one in my coach.

 

[gweed123]

^if this were to happen then, then why not add a stop at aldershot for the 40 and 47 to connect with, that would honestly compliment the whole region and anyone from anywhere in the gta can get to niagara at ease, and vice versa if niagara region riders wanted to get to pearson/square one/brampton more efficently

I think that should happen regardless, to be honest. They've made the 47 more accessible for Burlington people by adding the Burlington North P&R as a stop, but I think Aldershot would be useful too.

Last time I flew from Pearson (early Feb) I took the 47 for my trip home. Far more convenient than using UPX + LSW.

 

[reaperexpress]

They don't have the capacity to handle the trickle of people heading westbound at midnight? I get that the configuration is different, but I don't really think seating capacity is an issue for that trainset. I've been on a quite a few of those trips, and it wasn't uncommon for me to be the only one in my coach.

That's not the issue. The issue is that in order to have anywhere to park at Lewis when it arrives, it actually needs to completely replace one of the 4 trains that currently spend the night there. That means that it also needs to run rush hour commuter service in and out of Toronto.

To be honest, I think it probably makes more sense to build a small 2-train layover facility at Niagara Falls than to expand Lewis Yard. There's plenty of space at Niagara Falls for more tracks, and storing the trains there avoids unnecessary train trips over the Welland Canal locks.

 

[lenaitch]

Just out of curiosity, how do they manage to co-ordinate train scheduling with Welland Canal traffic? Neither mode does short-notice disruptions well. Obviously a seasonal problem, but does GO simply hope for the best?

 

[smallspy]

They don't have the capacity to handle the trickle of people heading westbound at midnight? I get that the configuration is different, but I don't really think seating capacity is an issue for that trainset. I've been on a quite a few of those trips, and it wasn't uncommon for me to be the only one in my coach.

The train cycling schedule for weekdays has been written to get the most out of the equipment that they have. If a trainset is built as an L12, that means that over the course of the day it does at least two trips that require the capacity of a 12 cars. If the trainset is an L10, that means that at least two trips require the capacity of 10 cars. If it's an L6, then it is sitting around at rush hour doing nothing because that level of capacity would be easily overwhelmed. On top of that, fueling needs to be considered as each loco has a service range of about 500km, and the fact that there are only so many places where a trainset can be fueled without having to remove it from service.

So for that trainset heading to Hamilton at midnight on a Friday, you need to go back in the day and see what that trainset is doing elsewhere. There may be an opportunity to swap it with a different, shorter one in the evening. But depending on how the cycling or even the passenger loadings work, it may not be possible.

Just out of curiosity, how do they manage to co-ordinate train scheduling with Welland Canal traffic? Neither mode does short-notice disruptions well. Obviously a seasonal problem, but does GO simply hope for the best?

Metrolinx and the Canal Commission have a working agreement to try and keep the locks free at the CN tracks for a couple of hours at rush hour. At all other times, it's a crapshoot - which is why the weekend excursion trains have a different schedule than the weekday rush hour trains.

Dan

 

[gweed123]

That's not the issue. The issue is that in order to have anywhere to park at Lewis when it arrives, it actually needs to completely replace one of the 4 trains that currently spend the night there. That means that it also needs to run rush hour commuter service in and out of Toronto.

To be honest, I think it probably makes more sense to build a small 2-train layover facility at Niagara Falls than to expand Lewis Yard. There's plenty of space at Niagara Falls for more tracks, and storing the trains there avoids unnecessary train trips over the Welland Canal locks.

To be honest, that restriction makes a lot more sense than not being able to swap out a train set on an night owl run. It's a shame that Lewis Yard was initially built with such a limited capacity, such that that would even be an issue.

 

[Allandale25]

Numbers from the weekend.

Metrolinx Press Room

Find the latest Metrolinx news, project updates and more.

blog.metrolinx.com

 

[Allandale25]

Metrolinx and the Canal Commission have a working agreement to try and keep the locks free at the CN tracks for a couple of hours at rush hour. At all other times, it's a crapshoot - which is why the weekend excursion trains have a different schedule than the weekday rush hour trains.

Dan

Is there any kind of further heads up to GO's control centre on the canal, or do the trains just stop using the CTC signals? I guess it doesn't really matter if there is an earlier heads up to the crew/passengers or not. Not much they can do.

 

[Northern Light]

Numbers from the weekend.

Metrolinx Press Room

Find the latest Metrolinx news, project updates and more.

blog.metrolinx.com

Interesting.

They deployed an 'extra' train to deal with crowding issues on Saturday evening, on top of supplementing w/bus service; and trains were all modified to L8 and will remain L8 on a go-forward basis.

I'm impressed w/that level of usage, especially absent foreign tourists in substantial numbers.

I'm also intrigued by the additional train, 'Spare Board' staff or overtime?

Presumably an additional run with one of the Niagara train sets seeing as they wouldn't have extra bike coaches lying around.

 

[crs1026]

Is there any kind of further heads up to GO's control centre on the canal, or do the trains just stop using the CTC signals? I guess it doesn't really matter if there is an earlier heads up to the crew/passengers or not. Not much they can do.

The rail RTC and the Seaway bridge/lock controller both have means of communicating with each other through indications on their respective panels. The controls are interlocked, so the CTC signals can’t be cleared unless the bridges are locked in the down position. The bridges in turn can’t be raised once a rail signal is set. There are stop lights for the boats in the Seaway locks, too. And there’s the good old fashioned telephone to get lineups and coordinate who waits for whom.

I suspect both controllers have access to cameras as well, but don’t know the exact details. From radio conversations it’s clear that the respective controllers know what each other are up to.

- Paul

 

[Richard White]

The rail RTC and the Seaway bridge controller both have means of communicating with each other through indications on their respective panels. The controls are interlocked, so the CTC signals can’t be cleared unless the bridges are locked in the down position. The bridges in turn can’t be raised once a rail signal is set. There are stop lights for the boats in the Seaway locks, too. And there’s the good old fashioned telephone to get lineups and coordinate who waits for whom.

I suspect both controllers have access to cameras as well, but don’t know the exact details. From radio conversations it’s clear that the respective controllers know what each other are up to.

- Paul

I am honestly surprised nobody built a bridge over the canal or a tunnel under it. It would make rail traffic so much easier.

 

[crs1026]

I am honestly surprised nobody built a bridge over the canal or a tunnel under it. It would make rail traffic so much easier.

It’s quite a grade for the tracks either way.

If you have seen the rail tunnel down south of Welland, the approaches are pretty long. Pretty hard to accomplish considering the geology and topography in central St Catherines/Thorold. Big bucks.

As for a bridge, the height required would make for a pretty massive set of approaches. A second Skyway, basically, with gentler gradient. Again, huge cost and a hideous visual impact.

- Paul

 

[Richard White]

It’s quite a grade for the tracks either way.

If you have seen the rail tunnel down south of Welland, the approaches are pretty long. Pretty hard to accomplish considering the geology and topography in central St Catherines/Thorold. Big bucks.

As for a bridge, the height required would make for a pretty massive set of approaches. A second Skyway, basically, with gentler gradient. Again, huge cost and a hideous visual impact.

- Paul

Big Bucks but I can see it being spun as a VIA rail make work project.

 

[ShonTron]

It’s quite a grade for the tracks either way.

If you have seen the rail tunnel down south of Welland, the approaches are pretty long. Pretty hard to accomplish considering the geology and topography in central St Catherines/Thorold. Big bucks.

As for a bridge, the height required would make for a pretty massive set of approaches. A second Skyway, basically, with gentler gradient. Again, huge cost and a hideous visual impact.

- Paul

The tunnel on the south end of Welland carried a lot more traffic back when it was built than it does now. It had regular CP/TH&B/Conrail trains plus a daily VIA train, Penn Central/ Conrail trains between Buffalo and Detroit on the Caso (plus an Amtrak service for a bit) and CN trains on the Cayuga Sub. It replaced several lift and swing bridges and had three tracks to handle the volume. It was busier than CN’s bridge at St. Catharines, and in a flatter, less urbanized area.

Now it just has CP freights, and only a few trains a day.

 

[Northern Light]

The tunnel on the south end of Welland carried a lot more traffic back when it was built than it does now. It had regular CP/TH&B/Conrail trains plus a daily VIA train, Penn Central/ Conrail trains between Buffalo and Detroit on the Caso (plus an Amtrak service for a bit) and CN trains on the Cayuga Sub. It replaced several lift and swing bridges and had three tracks to handle the volume. It was busier than CN’s bridge at St. Catharines, and in a flatter, less urbanized area.

Now it just has CP freights, and only a few trains a day.

Silly question, @crs1026, @smallspy Looking at the CP route under the canal, a train could actually arrive right in the heart of Niagara Falls, moreso than the CN Route.

I recognize where the track has been removed at Fallsview, but it still seems to exist to just shy of there, almost right above the Falls themselves, and walking distance from hotels and attractions.

If this route isn't busy for CP, why not route trains through downtown Hamilton via Welland to the Falls?

I recognize there would be one-time costs to build or restore stations; and some of the track going into Niagara looks to be in terrible condition.........but avoiding any hassles w/the Canal crossing would seem tempting would it not?

I assume there are compelling reasons not to do this, that I am overlooking.