GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[Krypto98]

There are lots of crews who are qualified.

But the crew that runs the afternoon stretch is quite senior, and isn't getting unseated anytime soon.

Dan

Any idea how many crews are qualified for that run?

 

[smallspy]

Any idea how many crews are qualified for that run?

I don't have hard numbers, but it seems to be about half of them.

Dan

 

[vic]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1481749434945966087

Nice.

 

[sche]

Fun fact: one of my friends that has lived in Brampton for 20+ years didn't know that there was a train to downtown Toronto. So they always drove downtown or to the subway at finch.

many of my extended family in Durham Region still thought that the lakeshore lines ran hourly and had only 1-2 express services at rush hour as of 2 years ago.

This is what Mx should be advertising instead of their pointless “transit is happening!” “we’re building world class transit” ads

 

[Krypto98]

They drove all the way to Finch! Not even Vaughan or Downsview? Someone needs to give that person a transit map.

They didn't know that there was a subway in Vaughan. They usually drove to Kipling or Finch. I had to explain to them the other day how to use the GO Train and it was a mind blowing experience for them...

I'm starting to feel alot of people don't take transit because they don't even know it exists.

 

[Allandale25]

Posting this because the Bowmanville Extension is going to use a separate bridge parallel to the existing CP bridge apparently. Also an interesting story about the engine in the video as noted in the description.

 

[TOareaFan]

They didn't know that there was a subway in Vaughan. They usually drove to Kipling or Finch. I had to explain to them the other day how to use the GO Train and it was a mind blowing experience for them...

I'm starting to feel alot of people don't take transit because they don't even know it exists.

The times we want to use the subway from here in Brampton our choices are between Kipling and 407 Station.....weirdly, Kipling wins most times....the travel times are almost identical...but only if you use the 407 so the cost advantage swings to Kipling

 

[Urban Sky]

My apologies, @reaperexpress for the late reply, but this was quite a busy week, having to entertain both kids at home while they are the last ones at their small daycare who have yet to catch the virus!

When I suggested that the London trip/extension would be a likely target for a cut, I was simply looking at the trips which carry the fewest passengers per staff-hour. Hardly a deeply-entranched belief or conspiracy theory...

Agreed, but it would still be an extremely misguided and counter-productive business practice (and was part of the reasons which made me look for new professional adventures at the midst of the pandemic...). Rather than looking solely at what services carry the least passengers, you should focus on wherever you can cut services with the least impact on your passengers.


Let's have a look at the changes which took effect this week:

Now let's break down the 10 train pairs which were cut this Monday and how they impacted travelers:

• Express services (all 4-5 train pairs cut): With the primary reason for having Express trains having been over-crowding, there is hardly a justification at this moment to operate Toronto-Bramalea and Toronto-Kitchener as two separate services. For some passengers that will mean a 8 minute long ride, whereas others will save 7 minutes and 1 transfer at Bramalea.
• Counter-peak services (3 out of 4 train pairs cut): With only one Bramalea-Toronto peak service left (#3308), you can only run one off-peak service (#3207) in the opposite direction. Trains are replaced by busses, which offer comparable travel times and save quite a few passengers (e.g. Guelph-Union) a transfer). Same goes for the lost mid-day service to Kitchener, though in this case causing (rather than: removing) a transfer at Bramalea or Mount Dennis.
• Some peak services (another 2 out of originally 12 train pairs cut): as is the case with the Express trains, the main justification for frequent peak service is over-crowding, which is hardly an issue at this moment. Reduced peak service will cause little inconvenience beyond a slight reduction in the flexibility offered to commuters.

Conversely, removing the London extension would have left the (admittedly few) passengers relying on that train with no other alternatives to the car (which might not be available to some of them). There is a good reason why VIA didn't abandon its passengers on the Toronto-Sarnia route during the pandemic...

To operate the AM London-Kitchener component of the London service, the crew needs to drive (a car) 1.5h from Kitchener to London, set up the train (0.5h?) and drive 2.2h back to Kitchener. That's 4 hours of crew time to carry 30 passengers one-way. In that same time, they could operate 5 trips (2.5 round trips) from Union to Bramalea, each of which carries more than 30 passengers each way. The peak-direction components of those trips are not a huge loss given that ridership is currently very low and the former express trains are now operating local, but the counter-peak components of those trips were a big time saver for passengers connecting to other services at Bramalea (e.g. the Kitchener bus, 407 buses).

The most-constraining metric is not labor-hours, it's the number of shifts you have to staff and that becomes especially a problem with operating the traditional North American commuter-rail model. Under the previous schedule, out of the 10 trainsets required for the AM peak, only 4 are required past 10am:

Note: Timings in red are possible equipment positioning ("deadhead") trips, which help minimize the trainset requirements and rebalance the equipment at the end of the day.

Therefore, shaving off 4 hours from one single shift in the early morning does nothing to reduce the number of shifts you need to cover throughout the day.

Conversely, the reduced schedule halves the number of trainsets required in the AM peak from 10 to 5, of which 3 trainsets (i.e. 60% rather than 40%) are also required mid-day:

***

In short, I'm not saying that that I can confirm that this schedule is the best-possible trade-off (between the conflicting objectives of minimizing staff requirements and the impacts on passengers), but I seriously struggle to come up with a better one...

 

[dowlingm]

My observation re London is that the requirement to deadhead from and to Kitchener to store the trains significantly increases the overhead component of the service, and unless the ridership has significantly improved since launch, is well worth scrutinizing when crew hours are at a premium.

 

[Urban Sky]

My observation re London is that the requirement to deadhead from and to Kitchener to store the trains significantly increases the overhead component of the service, and unless the ridership has significantly improved since launch, is well worth scrutinizing when crew hours are at a premium.

Again: the metric which causes the crewing challenges is not "crew hours", it's the number of shifts which need to be crewed. Each of the 4 (out of 7) morning peak departures out of Kitchener which were withdrawn last Monday eliminated an entire shift. Conversely, canceling only the London-Kitchener segment does not change your crewing requirements. If you want to minimize the impact from cutting the number of shifts, you have to increase the average length of each shift. Removing just the London-Kitchener segment of any Kitchener-Toronto service would only make crewing even less efficient...

As a side note, I can't help the impression that the same people who accused Metrolinx of setting up the London service with the intention to cancel it again at the first occasion for doing so now criticize Metrolinx for not using the first occasion to kill it...

 

[tsm1072]

As a side note, I can't help the impression that the same people who accused Metrolinx of setting up the London service with the intention to cancel it again at the first occasion for doing so now criticize Metrolinx for not using the first occasion to kill it...

I would definitely say that the London service was implemented for political gain. But I have to think someone at Metrolinx is trying to make lemonade out of the lemons they were handed and pushing for the service to remain viable. The positives for Metrolinx are fairly clear if the service proves to be somewhat viable:

1. Justification to purchase/improve the track from Kitchener to London
2. Higher potential of funding for the Silver Grade Separation to enable frequent/faster service to Kitchener and London
3. Higher potential for funding an improved transit terminal in Kitchener
4. Opens up a potential expansion of GO bus routes to service SWO

 

[jamincan]

I'm not disagreeing with your post, but why would train service to London be a prerequisite for opening up GO bus service to SWO? Waterloo/Wellington area warrant bus service to neighbouring areas now (Kitchener/Cambridge - Guelph, Guelph/Kitchener/Cambridge - Burlington/Hamilton notably), and yet GO continues to ignore those routes despite them being unserved, within their existing service area, and all those areas having existing GO Bus/Train service and bus yards in their vicinity.

 

[smallspy]

My observation re London is that the requirement to deadhead from and to Kitchener to store the trains significantly increases the overhead component of the service, and unless the ridership has significantly improved since launch, is well worth scrutinizing when crew hours are at a premium.

The deadheading only happens on Friday evenings and Monday mornings. And the way it is built into those crews, over the course of the week they end up working about the same number of hours as a "regular" crew that has the same work 5 days a week.

Dan

 

[Bordercollie]

My apologies, @reaperexpress for the late reply, but this was quite a busy week, having to entertain both kids at home while they are the last ones in their small daycare who have yet to catch the virus!


Agreed, but it would still be an extremely misguided and counter-productive business practice (and was part of the reasons which made me look for new professional adventures at the midst of the pandemic...). Rather than looking solely at what services carry the least passengers, you should focus on wherever you can cut services with the least impact on your passengers.


Let's have a look at the changes which took effect this week:
View attachment 374888


Now let's break down the 10 train pairs which were cut this Monday and how they impacted travelers:

• Express services (all 4-5 train pairs cut): With the primary reason for having Express trains having been over-crowding, there is hardly a justification at this moment to operate Toronto-Bramalea and Toronto-Kitchener as two separate services. For some passengers that will mean a 8 minute long ride, whereas others will save 7 minutes and 1 transfer at Bramalea.
• Counter-peak services (3 out of 4 train pairs cut): With only one Bramalea-Toronto peak service left (#3308), you can only run one off-peak service (#3207) in the opposite direction. Trains are replaced by busses, which offer comparable travel times and save quite a few passengers (e.g. Guelph-Union) a transfer). Same goes for the lost mid-day service to Kitchener, through causing in this case causing (rather than: saving) a transfer at Bramalea or Mount Dennis.
• Some peak services (another 2 out of originally 12 train pairs cut): as is the case with the Express trains, the main justification for frequent peak service is over-crowding, which is hardly an issue at this moment. Reduced peak service will cause little inconvenience beyond a slight reduction in the flexibility offered to commuters.

Conversely, removing the London extension would have left the (admittedly few) passengers relying on that train with no other alternatives to the car (which might not be available to some of them). There is a good reason why VIA didn't abandon its passengers on the Toronto-Sarnia route during the pandemic...


The most-constraining metric is not labor-hours, it's the number of shifts you have to staff and that becomes especially a problem with operating the traditional North American commuter-rail model. Under the previous schedule, out of the 10 trainsets required for the AM peak, only 4 are required past 10am:
View attachment 374898
Note: Timings in red are possible equipment positioning ("deadhead") trips, which help minimize the trainset requirements and rebalance the equipment at the end of the day.

Therefore, shaving off 4 hours from one single shift in the early morning does nothing to reduce the number of shifts you need to cover throughout the day.

Conversely, the reduced schedule halves the number of trainsets required in the AM peak from 10 to 5, of which 3 trainsets (i.e. 60% rather than 40%) are also required mid-day:
View attachment 374899


***

In short, I'm not saying that that I can confirm that this schedule is the best-possible trade-off (between the conflicting objectives of minimizing staff requirements and the impacts on passengers), but I seriously struggle to come up with a better one...

The deadheading only happens on Friday evenings and Monday mornings. And the way it is built into those crews, over the course of the week they end up working about the same number of hours as a "regular" crew that has the same work 5 days a week.

Dan

So on the other days the train lays over at London Station?

 

[Urban Sky]

So on the other days the train lays over at London Station?

Given that the scheduled runtime is over two hours between Kitchener and London and there is just 9 hours (now even slightly less) between the scheduled arrival of the afternoon and the scheduled departure of the morning train, deadheading the train to Kitchener also during the week would consume almost half of that downtime…