GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[smallspy]

Schedule padding is essential to having reliable service. If you don't have any, then even the slightest delay will be unrecoverable. And with trains, delays cause other delays, as trains are not in their planned slots and have a greater chance of conflict with other trains.

If you don't have padding, your trains will not run on time.

Well, hold on here.

There is padding, and then there is schedule recovery time. They are two different things, although they can be used to the achieve the same goals.

Many of the mid-day services on GO are heavily padded. Crews regularly operate the trains at not their maximum capabilities, and sometimes station dwells get extended because of it.

And yet, the same crews complain that there is not enough recovery in certain places such as West Harbour to be able to turn a train around and still meet the schedule.

Historically at GO, padding gets added to a schedule when a certain threshold of trains arrive late over a period, regardless of what the cause of those delays are. And GO has not been great at removing that padding if the cause gets removed.

Dan

 

[reaperexpress]

Well, hold on here.

There is padding, and then there is schedule recovery time. They are two different things, although they can be used to the achieve the same goals.

Many of the mid-day services on GO are heavily padded. Crews regularly operate the trains at not their maximum capabilities, and sometimes station dwells get extended because of it.

And yet, the same crews complain that there is not enough recovery in certain places such as West Harbour to be able to turn a train around and still meet the schedule.

Historically at GO, padding gets added to a schedule when a certain threshold of trains arrive late over a period, regardless of what the cause of those delays are. And GO has not been great at removing that padding if the cause gets removed.

Dan

In my post I was using the term 'padding' to refer to any form of additional time in the schedule above the expected travel and terminal times. Including both running time padding (en route) and recovery time (at the terminals and some stations).

The question was regarding the amount of extra time in the schedule, not the location where that extra time was added.

 

[smallspy]

In my post I was using the term 'padding' to refer to any form of additional time in the schedule above the expected travel and terminal times. Including both running time padding (en route) and recovery time (at the terminals and some stations).

The question was regarding the amount of extra time in the schedule, not the location where that extra time was added.

The problem is that to a scheduler (and to the crews using the schedules), the two terms mean completely different things.

Thus my clarification.

Dan

 

[Fritter]

Now that Niagara is a 7-day, all year service, I would suggest adding CTC for the short stretch from Clifton (MP2.6) to the platform at the Falls (MP 0.6) with a power switch and signalling on the siding at the Falls. CSXT signalling begins at MP 0.0, and it would not be unreasonable to signal all the way to that point. Replace the crossovers at Clifton to allow 45 mph through those.

That, and some track sprucing-up, would allow speed to be raised above the current 20 mph PSO with Rule 105 limitations. It's a short stretch, but would add flexibility at Niagara Falls especially to clear the Maple Leaf. No complicated new trackage required, pretty cheap to install.

For that matter, I wonder how VIA would feel about a J-trained Maple Leaf combined with a 6-car GO train, adding just a bit of extra capacity and making only the VIA stops.

- Paul

I'm assuming that section between Clifton and mile 0 at the bridge is still under CN ownership. If so, do you think it would be a good opportunity for ML to purchase and construct infrastructure to their needs?

 

[crs1026]

I'm assuming that section between Clifton and mile 0 at the bridge is still under CN ownership. If so, do you think it would be a good opportunity for ML to purchase and construct infrastructure to their needs?

In this case I bet CN would be motivated to retain ownership and/or charge a king’s ransom, and it would be cheaper/simpler for VIA and ML to remain as tenants.

The bridge itself is already owned by VIA/Amtrak.

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1660691785151070212

On a weekday, when there are a

I was reviewing GO Transit's current bike policy on trains.

View attachment 479227

I seem to recall that bikes were not permitted during rush-hour on trains in either direction, not just peak direction. Did this recently change?

Also, just anecdotaly, I've found that there seems to be less space for bikes on coaches recently. I think this is due in part to the increase of food delivery cyclists.

It was only peak-direction trains, and not at Union Station at AM and PM peak times. The only thing that changed was the Union Station prohibition, which is no longer in effect. I assume this is because of the improved vertical circulation

 

[reaperexpress]

Am I correct to calculate that at roughly 2hrs 41M over approx. 120km of track length, that Toronto-NF service is running at an average speed of 45km/ph? (yes, including station stops)....

Still, that seems ghastly slow.

The distance is 132.6 km so the average speed is 56 km/h for the weekend express train (which skips Hamilton Harbour), but yes we can do considerably better, even with additional stops in Stoney Creek and Grimsby.

If one could get the average speed up to just 70km/ph you would drop the travel time to decently below 2hrs each way. That's hardly seems unattainable.


@reaperexpress likely has all this modelled somewhere........

I wonder what strategic investments would drive the biggest potential speed increases?

Here's a fairly back-of-the-envelope for the following upgrades:
- USRC up to 45 mph (already under construction for Lakeshore platforms)
- Hamilton West Harbour - Stoney Creek Confederation: increase from 30 mph to 65 mph
- Stoney Creek - St Catharines: increase from 65 mph to 95 mph
- St Catharines - Niagara: increase from 65 mph to 75 mph; resolve slow zones in Niagara Falls.

So it looks like we could save about a half hour just by upgrading the CN Grimsby subdivision to the same standard as the existing GO-owned portion of the line. Additional savings are probably possible by further upgrading tracks between Hamilton and Toronto.

I'd also need to do a quick check on the scheduling. It's already possible to run hourly service with the existing track configuration but it might require a longer dwell in Hamilton to make the trains meet in the right spots.

 

[Northern Light]

The distance is 132.6 km so the average speed is 56 km/h for the weekend express train (which skips Hamilton Harbour), but yes we can do considerably better, even with additional stops in Stoney Creek and Grimsby.



Here's a fairly back-of-the-envelope for the following upgrades:
- USRC up to 45 mph (already under construction for Lakeshore platforms)
- Hamilton West Harbour - Stoney Creek Confederation: increase from 30 mph to 65 mph
- Stoney Creek - St Catharines: increase from 65 mph to 95 mph
- St Catharines - Niagara: increase from 65 mph to 75 mph; resolve slow zones in Niagara Falls.
View attachment 480525
So it looks like we could save about a half hour just by upgrading the CN Grimsby subdivision to the same standard as the existing GO-owned portion of the line. Additional savings are probably possible by further upgrading tracks between Hamilton and Toronto.

I'd also need to do a quick check on the scheduling. It's already possible to run hourly service with the existing track configuration but it might require a longer dwell in Hamilton to make the trains meet in the right spots.

Awesome contribution, as always; thank you!

 

[crs1026]

- St Catharines - Niagara: increase from 65 mph to 75 mph; resolve slow zones in Niagara Falls.

Nice work !

My one caveat would be the zone between St Catherines station and the Seaway bridge. There may be a reduced speed that is required across the bridge, and that would likely force a moderate speed between those points as acceleration may be difficult and/or futile. I also wonder if there has to be some padding allowed (especially if intending more frequent train service) as Seaway operations can be only somewhat reliable. Putting a few minutes here might be a better-slow-than-frequently-off-the-time proposition.

But definitely a demonstration that things can be improved significantly.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

Nice work !

My one caveat would be the zone between St Catherines station and the Seaway bridge. There may be a reduced speed that is required across the bridge, and that would likely force a moderate speed between those points as acceleration may be difficult and/or futile. I also wonder if there has to be some padding allowed (especially if intending more frequent train service) as Seaway operations can be only somewhat reliable. Putting a few minutes here might be a better-slow-than-frequently-off-the-time proposition.

But definitely a demonstration that things can be improved significantly.

Good points.

Based on your point about bridge speeds, it may indeed be futile to raise the limit above 65 mph east of St Catharines. Nearly all the time savings came from resolving the slow zone in Niagara Falls anyway so it doesn't make much difference if the limit is still 65.

I figured that the hourly service pattern would involve meeting on the bridge so it only needs to close once per hour rather than twice. In which case the terminal time in Niagara Falls needs to be about 25 minutes anyway which would act as the buffer for NF-bound trains in case of bridge delays. For Toronto-bound trains trains I'd definitely add some extra padding at the bridge to reduce the chance of cascading delays down the line.

 

[Bordercollie]

GO Expansion has all day express services planned on LSW to service Hamilton. From what I recall the plan is to have the eventual 30-minute frequency service to Confederation GO operate express.

We will have to see when we even get 30 minute service to Hamilton / Confederation, yet alone if we will get express service.


Train speeds on the Niagara Peninsula have also always bothered me - the corridor is dead straight from Hamilton to St Catharines. There is no reason GO shouldn’t be able to operate at 140km/h for the entire stretch, but yet that clearly doesn’t happen.I believe there are reduced speeds through central Hamilton due to the high number of level crossings, but once trains hit the Red Hill Parkway track speeds should really be 140-160km/h.

Long term the goal should be for GO to operate a Toronto-Niagara Falls service which does the trip in around an hour and a half. There is no reason that shouldn’t be achievable on the corridor which should be able to support very high travel speeds for most of its length.

It's a freight corridor. The fastest you will get is likely 50mph.

The train that starts in Niagara do crews start at west harbor? Or do they park the train at the station?

When the new VIA fleet is delivered they should return service to Niagara falls giving passengers more options.

 

[WB62]

It's a freight corridor. The fastest you will get is likely 50mph.

The train that starts in Niagara do crews start at west harbor? Or do they park the train at the station?

When the new VIA fleet is delivered they should return service to Niagara falls giving passengers more options.

GO parks the train at Lewis Road Yard, which is just a few kilometres southeast of where Confederation will be

 

[reaperexpress]

It's a freight corridor. The fastest you will get is likely 50mph.

You know what else is a freight corridor? The CN Kingston Subdivision. Which allows up to 100 mph (161 km/h) for passenger trains, and 65 mph (105 km/h) for freight trains.

Furthermore the existing track speed on the CN Grimsby subdivision is already more than 50 mph for passenger trains.

I'd love to hear what rationale or evidence you used to support your claim that freight corridors are unlikely to exceed 50 mph.

When the new VIA fleet is delivered they should return service to Niagara falls giving passengers more options.

Why would we add departures to VIA rather than GO?

For a corridor such as this - which should be less than 2h end-to-end by GO train, GO's operational style is far more suitable than VIA's. Why book a specific ticket on a specific Via train far in advance (otherwise it's unreasonably expensive), when you could just tap your Presto card whenever you show up, get on any GO train, and come back whenever you feel like it?

The only situation in which VIA makes sense in the Niagara corridor is as part of longer distance trips (i.e. the Amtrak Maple Leaf).

 

[Krypto98]

The CN Kingston Subdivision. Which allows up to 100 mph (161 km/h) for passenger trains, and 65 mph (105 km/h) for freight trains.

Add to this

CN Dundas 80 mph for passenger and 60 mph freight, similar with the CN Strathroy
MX Guelph has 70/55 respectively...

Back when CN owned the weston it was 80/60 till Metrolinx changed it to 80/25...

 

[Bordercollie]

You know what else is a freight corridor? The CN Kingston Subdivision. Which allows up to 100 mph (161 km/h) for passenger trains, and 65 mph (105 km/h) for freight trains.

Furthermore the existing track speed on the CN Grimsby subdivision is already more than 50 mph for passenger trains.

I'd love to hear what rationale or evidence you used to support your claim that freight corridors are unlikely to exceed 50 mph.


Why would we add departures to VIA rather than GO?

For a corridor such as this - which should be less than 2h end-to-end by GO train, GO's operational style is far more suitable than VIA's. Why book a specific ticket on a specific Via train far in advance (otherwise it's unreasonably expensive), when you could just tap your Presto card whenever you show up, get on any GO train, and come back whenever you feel like it?

The only situation in which VIA makes sense in the Niagara corridor is as part of longer distance trips (i.e. the Amtrak Maple Leaf).

What I mean is there is no benefit for CN to invest in higher track speeds in this corridor.

To be competitive with cars you need to cater to different types of travellers.

Direct from Union to Niagara or from inbetween to Niagara/union.

Or transfer at Aldershot.

In other countries people take local trains to the express train to travel longer distances. We need various levels of service to attract riders.