News   Apr 01, 2026
News Roundup for April 1, 2026
 235     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
Lombard Canyon
 433     1 
News   Mar 31, 2026
City Council March, 2026: Plenty of Rental, Mutli-Phase Redevelopments Approved
 2.1K     4 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

Northern Light said:
Bringing that forward for the click-averse:

View attachment 488784

This is the taxpayers money at work? Really?
Click to expand...
Well, this is really just an elaborate shell game between government institutions. This is madness....

I suppose it is better than Lays Doritos Ruffles Brampton GO.
 
i have serious questions about how operationally feasible that name is - will it fit on the wayfinding?

- Paul

PS - one should also note that Brampton GO is actually on the CN Halton Sub, and CN might have ita own view of the appropriateness of this name on anything having operational significance, which could extend to printed schedules, GBO’s, etc etc
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
i have serious questions about how operationally feasible that name is - will it fit on the wayfinding?

- Paul

PS - one should also note that Brampton GO is actually on the CN Halton Sub, and CN might have ita own view of the appropriateness of this name on anything having operational significance, which could extend to printed schedules, GBO’s, etc etc
Click to expand...

VIA still calls Oshawa Station Oshawa. Technically, VIA’s station is on a separate subdivision, but the naming rights only applies to Metrolinx properties.
 
ShonTron said:
VIA still calls Oshawa Station Oshawa. Technically, VIA’s station is on a separate subdivision, but the naming rights only applies to Metrolinx properties.
Click to expand...

There is no automatic need for GO stations to be named using railway nomenclature or overlap with operational data - many examples where the GO station doesn't even appear in railway documentation, or has a different name altogether for operational purposes (eg GO Bramalea vs CN Halwest, GO Kipling vs CPKC Obico, and even GO Cooksville vs CPKC Cooksville).

I'm a bit dubious of ML bureaucracy however - there will be a temptation to "spread" the use of the long name in internal documents, and it will just get messy. The long name is unlikely to fit on paper tickets, arrival/departure screens, ticket machine buttons... does it begin to be used on crewing documents, non-operational schedules, working notes and information sent to transit agencies, etc? Not to mention internal charts and graphs, and technical drawings. They are doing this to themselves, so I guess that's their problem..... although that's exactly how latent traps get set that create unanticipated consequences for safety and efficiency, perhaps years later.

As it happens, CN Brampton is a designated station name in the operating documentation, and as such is a specific "place" that matters to the railway. So I expect there will continue to be a CN Brampton.

- Paul
(who has visited LlanfairPG....)
 
ShonTron said:
VIA still calls Oshawa Station Oshawa. Technically, VIA’s station is on a separate subdivision, but the naming rights only applies to Metrolinx properties.
Click to expand...
The naming only applies to public-facing signage and information. Operational naming remains the same. So in the case of Oshawa Station, the location is still known as "Oshawa North" on all of the operational paperwork for the crews.

Dan
 
And so ends the London farce. I like the way they try and imply that VIA or CN have responsibility for this, when we know it's about the extremely poor ridership. (I bet they'd have better ridership if they tried to run a London to Guelph train during rush-hour instead of the wee hours of the morning)

1688144760460.png
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
And so ends the London farce. I like the way they try and imply that VIA or CN have responsibility for this, when we know it's about the extremely poor ridership. (I bet they'd have better ridership if they tried to run a London to Guelph train during rush-hour instead of the wee hours of the morning)

View attachment 488978
Click to expand...

Not surprising. The trip is way too long. Hearing from a lot of London residents who prefer to drive to Aldershot and take the LW train into Union instead.
 
crs1026 said:
According to @reaperexpress 's wonderful schedule archive, there were ten return trips each day when Covid hit. (I thought I remembered an eleventh, but the schedule shows ten)



CPKC's operations are pretty much the same seven days a week, although not every freight train in the plan runs all seven days.

I am confident that ML knows exactly what CP might require to add more trains (which they likely have no obligation to do under the existing service agreement). With added track, it is likely possible. But we should not assume that CP can accommodate a bigger service window just because they have quiet spells.

It's like when your neighbour asks to borrow your lawn mower when theirs has broken. Most people likely reply, "Sure, any time". But that's not license to come and habitually borrow it every weekend.

The issue may well also include things not related to CPKC eg added security, cleaning, etc that ML would have to add to open stations at extended hours. And crewing, which remains tight.

- Paul
Click to expand...
Are there any stations on the CP line between Bowmanville and Kingston?
 
Bordercollie said:
Did we know that the London GO train is ending? CN really needs that single track slot at that specific time?
lfpress.com

Citizens fume as 'wandering' London-to-Toronto GO Train route axed

The London to Toronto GO Train is being pulled off the tracks this fall, Metrolinx announced Friday, as the organization declines to extend its two-year pilot project.
lfpress.com lfpress.com
Click to expand...

@smallspy and @crs1026 would know more about CN's needs, but its certainly my impression that that is not a material issue here.

What I'm wondering about was the provincial election promise by Ford to spend 160M on upgrading the corridor.

Certainly that would not seem to make sense if they have no intention running service on it.

Lots of thoughts on what they may foretell, but I will leave it to the experts about to offer their take on the tea leaves first.
 
nfitz said:
And so ends the London farce. I like the way they try and imply that VIA or CN have responsibility for this, when we know it's about the extremely poor ridership. (I bet they'd have better ridership if they tried to run a London to Guelph train during rush-hour instead of the wee hours of the morning)

View attachment 488978
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why you think that the ridership was bad - the last time a train got stranded a month or so ago, they needed to send 5 buses out to handle the crowd. And that was past Stratford.

(Yes, that pales in comparison to a fully-loaded train, but it's not like only 1 or 2 people were taking it daily.)

In any case, despite the public non-announcement, there are apparently ongoing discussions about extending it beyond that date.

Dan
 
crs1026 said:
There is no automatic need for GO stations to be named using railway nomenclature or overlap with operational data - many examples where the GO station doesn't even appear in railway documentation, or has a different name altogether for operational purposes (eg GO Bramalea vs CN Halwest, GO Kipling vs CPKC Obico, and even GO Cooksville vs CPKC Cooksville).

I'm a bit dubious of ML bureaucracy however - there will be a temptation to "spread" the use of the long name in internal documents, and it will just get messy. The long name is unlikely to fit on paper tickets, arrival/departure screens, ticket machine buttons... does it begin to be used on crewing documents, non-operational schedules, working notes and information sent to transit agencies, etc? Not to mention internal charts and graphs, and technical drawings. They are doing this to themselves, so I guess that's their problem..... although that's exactly how latent traps get set that create unanticipated consequences for safety and efficiency, perhaps years later.

As it happens, CN Brampton is a designated station name in the operating documentation, and as such is a specific "place" that matters to the railway. So I expect there will continue to be a CN Brampton.

- Paul
(who has visited LlanfairPG....)
Click to expand...


55f1ccbbbd86ef1e008b96e5




🙃
 
nfitz said:
And so ends the London farce. I like the way they try and imply that VIA or CN have responsibility for this, when we know it's about the extremely poor ridership. (I bet they'd have better ridership if they tried to run a London to Guelph train during rush-hour instead of the wee hours of the morning)

View attachment 488978
Click to expand...

smallspy said:
I'm not sure why you think that the ridership was bad - the last time a train got stranded a month or so ago, they needed to send 5 buses out to handle the crowd. And that was past Stratford.

(Yes, that pales in comparison to a fully-loaded train, but it's not like only 1 or 2 people were taking it daily.)

In any case, despite the public non-announcement, there are apparently ongoing discussions about extending it beyond that date.

Dan
Click to expand...

I'm also skeptical the infrastructure issue is a cover for poor ridership. This are some close range shots at CN and VIA which they probably wouldn't take kindly to if they actually don't have a hand in it. I'm actually surprised VIA is named specifically, yeah it's their station, but are they really having an active role in not helping GO extend the service? If they aren't, GO isn't being very kind to their partners with their implicit public messaging.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top