News   Apr 02, 2026
Early Work Commencing on St Clair-Old Weston Station
 1.3K     1 
News   Apr 02, 2026
Cranes Up, Foundations Underway at Peter Gilgan Mississauga Hospital
 779     0 
News   Apr 02, 2026
City Council March, 2026 Settlements: Negotiations Advance Projects Across Toronto
 2K     2 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

innsertnamehere said:
I like the idea of more specialized seating for long distance GO trips - focusing on toronto - Niagara and toronto - London. Perhaps with HFR it could expand to Kingston, or maybe a cottage country service could be offered on weekends running up the Northlander route.

the difference between via and Go is that GO integrates it into the commuter fare network, which doesn’t require dedicated seats, pre-purchased fares, etc. - meaning service is easier to access and is much more accessible to people. There is a reason Niagara GO trains are wildly popular (and a good thing too, the QEW out to Niagara is a hilarious disaster).
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Though, I would still wonder why GO/Ontario wouldn't just contract with VIA to provide the long-haul service rather than buy its own specialized fleet for that purpose.

That seems a bit duplicative to me.

Where Amtrak operates commuter services on behalf of States it can and does set a different fare structure in accordance w/that that particular state wants and is willing to fund.

VIA can, and should, offer some non-reserved seats in the corridor, but still cap capacity (if you're aiming for the last train of the day, probably best to reserve); but not expressly required.
 
VIA Rail had three trains per day to Niagara at one point, the Maple Leaf and two others, and the trains were not packed. The government of Ontario paying to have VIA run services makes no sense unless someone believes VIA Rail can run a more cost effective service. I would guess the operating costs of Ontario Northland were higher than VIA and GO's operating costs per train are lower. If people wanted to pay for more seat space, beverage cart service, and less stops on VIA then that service would still be running. Go Transit putting in place their service at their price point create a demand that did not exist before.

GO Transit to London would be looking to create new demand by lower price points and the way you deliver a lower price point is to divide the costs of running a train over more people. Knowing that today you can go to the station and there will definitely be a seat at a standard price because there is a double deck train that fits a load of people will create a new customer base that doesn't exist today. A ridership not interested in booking the limited seats on VIA a week in advance or paying a much higher price point. If they can improve the speed of the trip to about 2.5 hours then it will be well utilized. Track improvements plus the skipping of all stops except Stratford, Kitchener, Guelph, Brampton, Bramalea, Mount Dennis, and Bloor might make it possible.
 
Last edited:
The difference in ridership between Via’s Niagara service and GOs service is absolutely shocking, especially hearing those stories of packed 12 car trains making the trip. I think it really shows that there is demand for good regional train service provider it can be affordable and easily accessible.
 
EnviroTO said:
VIA Rail had three trains per day to Niagara at one point, the Maple Leaf and two others, and the trains were not packed. The government of Ontario paying to have VIA run services makes no sense unless someone believes VIA Rail can run a more cost effective service. I would guess the operating costs of Ontario Northland were higher than VIA and GO's operating costs per train are lower. If people wanted to pay for more seat space, beverage cart service, and less stops on VIA then that service would still be running. Go Transit putting in place their service at their price point create a demand that did not exist before.
Click to expand...

GO loses money on this operation (its subsidized); VIA was not given the $ or the mandate to offer more attractive pricing.
VIA also removed service at a time when gas and parking were cheaper and traffic was considerably lower on area highways.

I don't think the comparison is particularly fair.
If the government of Ontario provided VIA with the same per passenger subsidy it will provide Mx; then the price would be lower and more attractive.

Mx is also building the market through more frequent and reliable service; challenges VIA experienced, in part, due to the lesser funding aforementioned.

Edit to add: VIA is perfectly capable of running bi-level rolling stock, if that is desired, Amtrak does it all the time. Again, that's a funding choice.
 
Northern Light said:
My concerns are that VIA would:

a) No longer service K-W, a major market, impacting the financials for this route.

b) No longer maintain access to the route w/the greatest potential for ridership growth

c) GO has little experience or expertise offering the type of service that I think is necessary for 2hr + journeys.

d) That CN cannot spare the type of capacity VIA should want and need on the Dundas Sub.

This is the antithesis of how Amtrak is growing in the U.S. where it becomes the State-level provider of service for longer journeys; which is where I think VIA should be headed.
Click to expand...

While VIA absolutely should aim to concentrate service onto the North Mainline (NML) in the long term for the reasons you state here, I also think it could make sense for VIA to temporarily leave the NML in the short term.

In the business as usual scenario (the funded option from the Kitchener Expansion business case), we will have a single-tracked line with passing sidings from Kitchener to Georgetown, and a largely triple-tracked Halton sub without a grade separation. In this scenario CN has agreed to 1 thru GO train per hour, plus occasional extra trains representing a second train per hour (i.e. VIA trains and peak-period extra GO trains).

Off-peak service pattern: Phase 1 (Business as usual).
Capture1.JPG
Capture4.JPG

Capture.JPG

I have taken some liberties with the exact stopping patterns, but the number of trains per hour on each segment matches the Metrolinx business case document.

Relative to this scenario, it would be quite easy to simply extend the hourly GO service to London by upgrading the Kitchener-London segment with a higher line speed and two additional passing sidings. No additional capacity would be required between Kitchener and Toronto, avoiding the long lead times for items such as double-tracking the Guelph subdivision or building the rail-to-rail grade separation with CN.

Off-peak service pattern: Phase 2 (GO to London)
Capture2.JPG
Capture5.JPG

With hourly GO service, it would be difficult to also run fast VIA service along the single-tracked lines. In this scenario there also isn't any capacity for frequent VIA service east of Kitchener (yet). Two slow VIA trips per day wouldn't really contribute anything useful so instead VIA would leave the corridor entirely and coordinate their schedules with GO to facilitate transfers at London.

Concept for a coordinated timetable if GO departs at :35 past the hour:
Capture7.JPG


Of course the above is merely an interim situation. Once a grade separation is built in the Halton subdivision and the Guelph subdivision is double tracked, VIA could return to the corridor with fast hourly intercity service, complementing GO's regional service.

Off-peak service pattern: Phase 3 (Full HFR buildout)

Capture3.JPG
Capture6.JPG
 
Last edited:
reaperexpress said:
While VIA absolutely should aim to concentrate service onto the North Mainline (NML) in the long term for the reasons you state here, I also think it could make sense for VIA to temporarily leave the NML in the short term.

In the business as usual scenario (the funded option from the Kitchener Expansion business case), we will have a single-tracked line with passing sidings from Kitchener to Georgetown, and a largely triple-tracked Halton sub without a grade separation. In this scenario CN has agreed to 1 thru GO train per hour, plus occasional extra trains representing a second train per hour (i.e. VIA trains and peak-period extra GO trains).

Off-peak service pattern: Phase 1 (Business as usual).
View attachment 338510View attachment 338507
View attachment 338511
I have taken some liberties with the exact stopping patterns, but the number of trains per hour on each segment matches the Metrolinx business case document.

Relative to this scenario, it would be quite easy to simply extend the hourly GO service to London by upgrading the Kitchener-London segment with a higher line speed and two additional passing sidings. No additional capacity would be required between Kitchener and Toronto, avoiding the long lead times for items such as double-tracking the Guelph subdivision or building the rail-to-rail grade separation with CN.

Off-peak service pattern: Phase 2 (GO to London)
View attachment 338509View attachment 338513
With hourly GO service, it would be difficult to also run fast VIA service along the single-tracked lines. In this scenario there also isn't any capacity for frequent VIA service east of Kitchener (yet). Instead VIA would leave the corridor entirely and coordinate their schedules with GO to facilitate transfers at London.

Concept for a coordinated timetable if GO departs at :35 past the hour:
View attachment 338506

Of course the above is merely an interim situation. Once a grade separation is built in the Halton subdivision and the Guelph subdivision is double tracked, VIA could return to the corridor with fast hourly intercity service, complementing GO's regional service.

Off-peak service pattern: Phase 3 (Full HFR buildout)

View attachment 338515View attachment 338512
Click to expand...

Great post!

Can't say enough about your excellent contributions!
 
reaperexpress said:
While VIA absolutely should aim to concentrate service onto the North Mainline (NML) in the long term for the reasons you state here, I also think it could make sense for VIA to temporarily leave the NML in the short term.

In the business as usual scenario (the funded option from the Kitchener Expansion business case), we will have a single-tracked line with passing sidings from Kitchener to Georgetown, and a largely triple-tracked Halton sub without a grade separation. In this scenario CN has agreed to 1 thru GO train per hour, plus occasional extra trains representing a second train per hour (i.e. VIA trains and peak-period extra GO trains).

Off-peak service pattern: Phase 1 (Business as usual).
View attachment 338510View attachment 338507
View attachment 338511
I have taken some liberties with the exact stopping patterns, but the number of trains per hour on each segment matches the Metrolinx business case document.

Relative to this scenario, it would be quite easy to simply extend the hourly GO service to London by upgrading the Kitchener-London segment with a higher line speed and two additional passing sidings. No additional capacity would be required between Kitchener and Toronto, avoiding the long lead times for items such as double-tracking the Guelph subdivision or building the rail-to-rail grade separation with CN.

Off-peak service pattern: Phase 2 (GO to London)
View attachment 338509View attachment 338513
With hourly GO service, it would be difficult to also run fast VIA service along the single-tracked lines. In this scenario there also isn't any capacity for frequent VIA service east of Kitchener (yet). Instead VIA would leave the corridor entirely and coordinate their schedules with GO to facilitate transfers at London.

Concept for a coordinated timetable if GO departs at :35 past the hour:
View attachment 338506

Of course the above is merely an interim situation. Once a grade separation is built in the Halton subdivision and the Guelph subdivision is double tracked, VIA could return to the corridor with fast hourly intercity service, complementing GO's regional service.

Off-peak service pattern: Phase 3 (Full HFR buildout)

View attachment 338515View attachment 338512
Click to expand...
Not "Dundas West" but "Bloor" GO and UPX Station. (They want to change the name of the current Dundas West TTC Station. I like "Vincent" or "Roncesvalles".)
 
W. K. Lis said:
Not "Dundas West" but "Bloor" GO and UPX Station. (They want to change the name of the current Dundas West TTC Station. I like "Vincent" or "Roncesvalles".)
Click to expand...
Kind of besides the point, but I showed the name as Dundas West because the stations should share a name once the underground connection opens. If they're both called "Vincent" or "Roncesvalles" that's fine too.
 
My opinion is, as expressed previously, that VIA leaving the NML simplifies their operations as long as they can obtain additional capacity on the Oakville and Dundas routes to make use of the engineers and rolling stock freed up. With GO in reservia, they don't have to lose all their connecting customers.

GO's offering is less comfortable than VIA's but if we assume that London-Toronto NML travel only covers part of the route, whereas London-Toronto end-end would stay on faster Dundas Sub services with at least one more daily roundtrip, maybe the harder seats and no food offering is sufficiently offset by cheaper fares (London-Kitchener is $54 on VIA).

What this would presumably do is put an indefinite stay on ambitions in Brantford to have GO trains extended to them.

There would be some implications about connections in London and how Sarnia would be serviced, but likely more appropriate to the VIA thread.
 
dowlingm said:
My opinion is, as expressed previously, that VIA leaving the NML simplifies their operations as long as they can obtain additional capacity on the Oakville and Dundas routes to make use of the engineers and rolling stock freed up. With GO in reservia, they don't have to lose all their connecting customers.

GO's offering is less comfortable than VIA's but if we assume that London-Toronto NML travel only covers part of the route, whereas London-Toronto end-end would stay on faster Dundas Sub services with at least one more daily roundtrip, maybe the harder seats and no food offering is sufficiently offset by cheaper fares (London-Kitchener is $54 on VIA).

What this would presumably do is put an indefinite stay on ambitions in Brantford to have GO trains extended to them.

There would be some implications about connections in London and how Sarnia would be serviced, but likely more appropriate to the VIA thread.
Click to expand...
West coast express was able to convert part of the lower level to a cafe car.

All you need is coffee, sandwich and pop vending machines.

You would need bigger garbage bins thou.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top