News   Apr 02, 2026
Early Work Commencing on St Clair-Old Weston Station
 767     1 
News   Apr 02, 2026
Cranes Up, Foundations Underway at Peter Gilgan Mississauga Hospital
 576     0 
News   Apr 02, 2026
City Council March, 2026 Settlements: Negotiations Advance Projects Across Toronto
 1.6K     2 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

ARG1 said:
OK, hold your horses. This is the definition of entitlement. I don't think CN doesn't care about commuters at all, however, you're acting as if Freight Traffic should be 2nd in priority to commuters. It doesn't, our entire country is dependent on the ability for freight traffic to be reliable and on schedule, or else tons of businesses and the economy will severely suffer. If you want proof, look at what happened last February with the Wetʼsuwetʼen protestors, and how many small businesses suffered because of CN falling a few weeks behind. I agree that commuter rail is extremely important especially in Hamilton, but don't act as if somehow we're entitled to track space for frequent all day service, especially in an important factory and port town like Hamilton.
Click to expand...

Though at the same time, CN and CP have eliminated all redundancies in the name of streamlining and cost cutting, especially in the era of E. Hunter Harrison. Had the Wet’suwet’en protestors blockaded tracks in the 1980s, there would have been alternate corridors to route freight trains. They’re now mostly gone.
 
ShonTron said:
Though at the same time, CN and CP have eliminated all redundancies in the name of streamlining and cost cutting, especially in the era of E. Hunter Harrison. Had the Wet’suwet’en protestors blockaded tracks in the 1980s, there would have been alternate corridors to route freight trains. They’re now mostly gone.
Click to expand...
Yup, just like how globalization has outsourced crucial local manufacturing chains in search for higher margins, “efficiency” destroys redundancy, and in reality can create bigger and bigger systems that paradoxically are more fragile than “less efficient” systems that retain that resilience.

Thus, when black swans strike, like with the whole N95 mask debacle or native rail blockades, these huge systems are left high and dry, begging governments for help...
 
^ This is a very old argument that never dies, and rarely changes anyone's views, so I won't expect to change any views. However....

With respect to Hamilton - over the past few years, CN field staff who were asked about the progress of work repeatedly told onlookers "We are ready to go, as soon as Metrolinx signs the work order". If things took too long, or if certain platforms weren't ever included, don't be blaming CN.

I can't imagine any sane 1990-ish railroader looking at the Grimsby Sub and saying "We better just leave things exactly as they are now....GO Transit might want to run a service here some day, ya know". The message from Ottawa for the last thirty years was consistently, we don't have any interest in enhancing passenger service on that line. And the message from Queens Park was, we sure don't intend to pay for something like that. Frankly, the old Grimsby Sub was a pretty crappy railroad. So, in the absence of any credible and actionable interest by government, CN shrugged and said OK, we will configure the line to fit our needs, and we will extract unneeded or non-revenue-producing capitalisation. You snooze, you lose.

How is that being unsympathetic?

I do think that people who ask "hey, where did the ability to run passenger trains go?" or who wonder why redundant routes were torn up have their heads stuck, well, someplace. There has never been a government willing to address on a going-forward basis the issue of maintaining rail capacity against the day that it will be needed for passenger. Rail freight volumes have grown dramatically over the life of VIA and GO transit. Who says that the railways had an obligation to preserve the space for passenger, by not changing their technology, by investing capital that created no income... instead of looking to their existing assets, improving their asset utilisation, running trains much differently, and only investing capital when the existing assets weren't enough for actual business? Certainly not Parliament, and certainly not the regulator..... in fact, they said the opposite.

Railways do a lot of dumb things, sure..... but the country would not be well served by demanding that they maintain at their own expense capacity or capitalisation that might, maybe, be needed some day for passenger trains. That's government's job, and nobody of any political stripe has ever stepped up to the plate on that.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
^ This is a very old argument that never dies, and rarely changes anyone's views, so I won't expect to change any views. However....

With respect to Hamilton - over the past few years, CN field staff who were asked about the progress of work repeatedly told onlookers "We are ready to go, as soon as Metrolinx signs the work order". If things took too long, or if certain platforms weren't ever included, don't be blaming CN.

I can't imagine any sane 1990-ish railroader looking at the Grimsby Sub and saying "We better just leave things exactly as they are now....GO Transit might want to run a service here some day, ya know". The message from Ottawa for the last thirty years was consistently, we don't have any interest in enhancing passenger service on that line. And the message from Queens Park was, we sure don't intend to pay for something like that. Frankly, the old Grimsby Sub was a pretty crappy railroad. So, in the absence of any credible and actionable interest by government, CN shrugged and said OK, we will configure the line to fit our needs, and we will extract unneeded or non-revenue-producing capitalisation. You snooze, you lose.

How is that being unsympathetic?

I do think that people who ask "hey, where did the ability to run passenger trains go?" or who wonder why redundant routes were torn up have their heads stuck, well, someplace. There has never been a government willing to address on a going-forward basis the issue of maintaining rail capacity against the day that it will be needed for passenger. Rail freight volumes have grown dramatically over the life of VIA and GO transit. Who says that the railways had an obligation to preserve the space for passenger, by not changing their technology, by investing capital that created no income... instead of looking to their existing assets, improving their asset utilisation, running trains much differently, and only investing capital when the existing assets weren't enough for actual business? Certainly not Parliament, and certainly not the regulator..... in fact, they said the opposite.

Railways do a lot of dumb things, sure..... but the country would not be well served by demanding that they maintain at their own expense capacity or capitalisation that might, maybe, be needed some day for passenger trains. That's government's job, and nobody of any political stripe has ever stepped up to the plate on that.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Yes government has and had a duty to do better.

But I think you omit that CN/CP have cut capacity and alternate routes they themselves would benefit from.

Their ruthless efficiency has not always served their own needs.

That is entirely on them.
 
Northern Light said:
But I think you omit that CN/CP have cut capacity and alternate routes they themselves would benefit from.
Click to expand...

First of all, they have not cut capacity...quite the opposite. Their traffic has grown enormously. It’s a matter of how much capacity they have added versus how much one might hope they would add. And technological change has affected how they use the track, so while their throughput is higher, their operating practices may no longer be compatible with passenger without new investment by the passenger proponent.

Passenger service has certainly moved down in priority, and sometimes the railroads have been caught short even for moving freight.....but in many cases the passenger service was living on surplus capacity. There was never any guarantee that it would retain priority if freight traffic grew.

As for retaining redundant routes....good grief. Maintain a line in operating condition, with (and this is the greatest hurdle) a workforce qualified and large enough to operate over it at significant volume, to be at the ready but only used every once in a while? There is no benefit to the railway in that.

Anyways, to get back to Hamilton, I imagine the Confederation service could be started on the existing line, at some nominal frequency. The peak trains carry on to the layover yard anyways.Adding track is prudent to grow service, but one should ask ML how that is coming along.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
First of all, they have not cut capacity...quite the opposite. Their traffic has grown enormously. It’s a matter of how much capacity they have added versus how much one might hope they would add. And technological change has affected how they use the track, so while their throughput is higher, their operating practices may no longer be compatible with passenger without new investment by the passenger proponent.
Click to expand...

There are routes, and rolling stocks issues that have left the freights w/o ability to move product (freight) in a timely way, notably grain in western Canada.

I was not suggesting they maintain routes to far-flung places that have neither the freight nor passenger demand to justify such; or they retain capacity solely as a charitable exercise.

The failure to retain twin track, or some sidings, or to lengthen said siding to merely allowed two freights to pass one another has hampered the industry at times.

That's what I was noting.

Additional capacity for the sole or primary benefit of passenger travel is something that would either have to be funded by passenger rail/gov't or legislated.

*****
As for retaining redundant routes....good grief. Maintain a line in operating condition, with (and this is the greatest hurdle) a workforce qualified and large enough to operate over it at significant volume, to be at the ready but only used every once in a while? There is no benefit to the railway in that.
Click to expand...

The idea is not to retain a route that can't be made to work economically, nor do so, in the context of this discussion, for any reason other than self-interest.

Retaining an E-W option across the near-north to Ottawa was entirely workable.

It was justified, if nothing else, by the disruption causes to freight service (and passenger) along the CN mainline in particular just last year.

But certainly you don't want that alternate line have 1-2 runs per week.

But an examination of CN Traffic shows an awful lot of traffic that passes through Toronto but is not bound for Toronto.

That makes a case for routing some of that traffic more directly to Ottawa, and points east.

****

There are other ways to address this; I have no objection to nationalizing all the track; and let the freights own and managing the rolling stock and pay for running rights.

I also have no objection to logical streamlining (there was no justification for 2 routes across the north); its frankly dubious whether CN and CP should both having mainlines running in tight parallel from Durham Region eastwards.
 
Northern Light said:
The failure to retain twin track, or some sidings, or to lengthen said siding to merely allowed two freights to pass one another has hampered the industry at times.
Click to expand...

There has been plenty of that, I agree, and for reasons that are not just shortsighted but at times downright dishonourable.

This can’t however be used as a knee jerk accusation when passenger rail meets an obstacle. There may be issues specific to that line, which may have seen changes in customers, traffic mix, operations etc. over the years. I find that people cite line abandonments, single tracking, etc as a conspiracy against passengers, when it may simply have been a very rational decision based on the line of sight at the time. And I find that the armchair proponents may be underestimating legitimate needs of the railways, or assuming that if it was once done it can easily be restored.

There are other ways to address this; I have no objection to nationalizing all the track; and let the freights own and managing the rolling stock and pay for running rights.

I also have no objection to logical streamlining (there was no justification for 2 routes across the north); its frankly dubious whether CN and CP should both having mainlines running in tight parallel from Durham Region eastwards.
Click to expand...

I would love to see both those steps taken.

Again, one has to look at why it hasn’t happened? Because the national transportation policy might have to force it, and the added money would have to come from the taxpayer. It’s not the railways’ job to take one for the team.

- Paul
 
Allandale25 said:
A proponent of GO train service to Bolton.

www.caledonenterprise.com

Building commuter rail in Bolton a better way to grow the city

A new report issued by Environmental Defence shows how billions of dollars earmarked for the proposed GTA West Highway can instead be used on a series of key transit infrastructures projects.
www.caledonenterprise.com www.caledonenterprise.com
Click to expand...

There's an element here I want to support which is GO commuter to Bolton in lieu of 413.

However, I'm not at all certain that the trips 413 aims to accommodate would benefit.

I opposed the 413 regardless.

But I'm leery of arguments that may not be evidence-based even if they are mustered in support of a cause with which I agree.
 
Totally agree this has to be fact and data based. One ought to revisit the ridership projections to see if the numbers are there.

It’s possible that peak service might fill a couple trains worth of business, but possibly by syphoning rides off other routes. The Highway 27/427 catchment will end up at Woodbine GO anyways. Bolton sits at the periphery of catchment for both Barrie RER and Kitchener RER, but I’m not sure we can afford to infill with another line. A better investment might be some level of east-west higher order transit that better links Vaughan destinations and communities.

I too oppose 413 on the general principle that building more highways in the GTA steals too much money from transit investment, and fundamentally we don’t want to encourage autocentric sprawl in that region. But I don’t have much of a handle on what the most important needs are. IMHO the paramount objective must be to discourage sprawl, so maybe adding transportation capacity at all is wrongheaded. It would be ironic if a group that claims to be fighting sprawl is advocating for an enabler of it.

Everything we were just discussing about CN and Niagara also applies. The Bolton line is CP’s main transcontinental freight thoroughfare. We are only hurting ourselves if we constrain CP’s freight business here, we need that traffic to flow smoothly. Doesn’t mean there can’t be GO there, but expect CP’s valid needs to be substantial and the cost of adding GO capacity on top of CP’s needs to be huge.

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top