GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[north-of-anything]

As a resident of Barrie, I simply do not see the feasibility of a rail route along the 400. There is just not enough space for a curve off the current alignment onto the Highway 400 alignment, and even if you can get that it would disrupt a lot of industrial land. I think it's important that those land uses be clustered near freeway exits to keep heavy traffic off urban streets.

I don't see the logic in GO catering to cottage-goers, either. Considering the remoteness of many cottages and vacation homes (which I would argue is the whole point), it would be less of a "last mile" and more of a "last 1/3". And at that point, you might as well just drive.

The most practical and desirable route, to me, would be to forego a northbound connection entirely and instead hit the larger population base of Sunnidale/Collingwood/Wasaga Beach. I think those populations are more likely to want to travel along the Barrie Line than Orillia residents. It would also be cheaper since it would not require nearly as much expropriation. Orillia is in a better position to instead leverage their Highway 11 access to connect to the upcoming Allandale Transit Hub.

The money that would otherwise spent on a rail corridor through the 400 corridor would also be better spent electrifying the Barrie line - Bradford alone probably has more ridership growth potential than Orillia. Maybe the leftovers could be put towards a Barrie BRT system.

Side note: I live in the western part of the city. The 90/27 area should not be considered ripe for redevelopment. That would mean more unaffordable single-family houses far from existing amenities, which is the last thing Barrie needs more of.

 

[Sauga89]

I suspect there are better fish for Metrolinx money to fry.

Of course, that's why I wouldn't have recommended building it for 15 to 20 years, even if the government had designed the new bridges differently. But if you had built the bridges to accommodate it, it would hardly cost "billions" to lay 60 km or so of track on a mostly intact, existing right of way between Barrie and Washago. Millions, hundreds of millions even, yes, but I doubt it would be multiple billions. If you're the government, I don't know how you can argue that Gravenhurst to Cochrane should get a train today, or that there's demand for 5 lanes each way in Barrie, but somehow there won't be enough demand for a Barrie to Gravenhurst GO extension 20 years from now.

GO did run to Casino Rama for a while (off the Bala sub) - nobody used it.

In point of fact, I believe that Casino Rama paid CN to run rented GO equipment as a promotional offer when Casino Rama had just opened, about a month before CN ripped up the tracks. I'm not sure if it ended because CN wanted to abandon the tracks, or because Casino Rama didn't want to keep paying for the train itself, but GO never ran service to Casino Rama. In any case, a train wouldn't just serve Casino Rama. That would be silly. It would serve north Barrie, and Orillia as well, and augment the Northlander service to Gravenhurst. The line would serve freight customers. And it would reduce traffic on the roads for those who do drive.

(EDIT: It's also not just GO. The Canadian and the Northlander could use it without stopping, which would improve their reliability by avoiding freight trains. One of the reasons I think the Northlander's service to Gravenhurst could use augmenting is that I'm sceptical, given VIA's on-time performance, about its ability to arrive on time.

I don't see the logic in GO catering to cottage-goers, either. Considering the remoteness of many cottages and vacation homes (which I would argue is the whole point), it would be less of a "last mile" and more of a "last 1/3". And at that point, you might as well just drive.

You could say the same thing about Niagara Falls, where the station is 4 km from the principal attraction. And yet, people bike, they take shuttle buses, they get picked up by friends, etc. Niagara Falls also has been given GO service, even though it already had a VIA rail stop, similar to how I envision Gravenhurst getting a GO stop in addition to the Northlander.

to serve what? The north end of a city that already has two GO stations or a city of 30-odd thousand

Orillia might only have 35,000 now, but then Uxbridge only has 22,000, and yet Metrolinx has made plans to eventually service it. Orillia might also grow a lot with a GO train, similar to how Barrie has grown. Barrie itself only has a population of 150,000 to justify its 9 round-trips.)

There is just not enough space for a curve off the current alignment onto the Highway 400 alignment

I'm not an engineer. I admit that there may be something I'm missing. But the train wouldn't have to take any curves at speed. The curve off the BCRY onto the 400 would be the tightest, and at worst you might have to expropriate part of the property south of Tiffin, east of the 400. But I can't see how you'd have to demolish an entire neighbourhood.

Anyways, as I said earlier, this is all a moot point regardless, since the bridges have already been built. It doesn't matter anymore if you could have fit a train on the 400 corridor, because the new bridges don't allow for it.

 

[afransen]

Meanwhile, if I remember correctly, Google makes something like $80 in revenue for every dollar it spends on expenses in its advertising business.

From my understanding, it isn't as simple as Google gouging advertisers and content providers. Google is so successful in advertising because they pay content providers more than their competitors offer because their advertising can command higher rates, which is because it is more effective than competitor platforms. Killing off Google's advertising dominance won't automatically make competitors better, or raise advertising rates.

 

[Northern Light]

The most practical and desirable route, to me, would be to forego a northbound connection entirely and instead hit the larger population base of Sunnidale/Collingwood/Wasaga Beach. I think those populations are more likely to want to travel along the Barrie Line than Orillia residents.

I agree this market should ultimately be served as well. Irrespective of the merits of any northern reconnection.

This is also why I have suggested, for now, a one-stop extension of the Barrie Corridor along the BCRY at approximately the 400, to better serve residents in western Barrie with the upgrade of rail/signal to GO Standards for the addition 2-3km benefiting the longer term plan and some freight on an interim basis.

 

[Mihairokov]

This discussion just gets sillier and sillier.

It reminds me of the people who are motivated to twin the entire length of the TCH through Northern Ontario (and elsewhere) because...it simply just should be twinned? Nevermind that it probably doesn't call for it and isn't really required based on any traffic indicators, it would just look nice on a map if it was, or serve as some sort of "nation-building" milestone, as if most Canadians simply wouldn't care about it as it doesn't affect them.

Like yeah, I think maybe extending GO through Barrie, Angus, Stayner, and into Collingwood would be neat, but I doubt there's much of a business plan supporting it and I doubt there would be ridership to support the proposal in the next fifty years. These sorts of mental exercises just feel like people looking at a map and thinking about what might look nice or feel good without much consideration for anything else, with all due respect for anyone suggesting here that GO should extend north of Barrie.

 

[crs1026]

The thought of ever reconnecting Orillia to the Newmarket Sub seems to me to be rooted in lingering denial that the old route is gone, gone, gone. That loss is hugely shortsighted, but it's not reversible. We should not be inventing ways to stand on our heads and somehow recreate it.

The question no one seems to be citing fact on is - just where will the urban planning lead the whole Simcoe/Grey/Dufferin area to grow density and population? And what rail transport is feasible and most aligned to population growth? I would venture that Orillia will likely be on the periphery and not likely to create a reason to build a rail line to it. Whereas Collingwood, Stayner, Shelburne, Orangeville, may see a great deal of density created.

Personally I would park the whole idea of Barrie being a central hub, and leave it as a useful stub end line. And I would look enviously at the CPKC main line, which serves Bolton, Caledon, New Tecumseh.... and then connects to the Collingwood line to Utopia without having to go thru central Barrie.... and (this is an enabler to a certain poster from up north, I'm afraid) offers a far faster and more direct route to Parry Sound and Sudbury than the CN Bala Sub north of Washago.

There is definitely an opportunity here - it's a region that will inevitably see huge growth, and it's still relatively greenfield. So the notion of building new dedicated rail lines (or reclaiming old ones) is not unreasonable or absurd fantasy. Maybe appropriating the CPKC right of way is not wise or cheap, but there are other old routes. If nothing else, it's an opportunity to insist that urban planning include transportation corridors. I suspect that none of the Master Plans for these communities consider that idea, and certainly not with the integration that is needed to plan regional connections.

Finally, let's not get too far out of the envelope with grades and curvatures. There are many steep elevations and landforms in this region that have to be respected.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

In point of fact, I believe that Casino Rama paid CN to run rented GO equipment as a promotional offer when Casino Rama had just opened, about a month before CN ripped up the tracks. I'm not sure if it ended because CN wanted to abandon the tracks, or because Casino Rama didn't want to keep paying for the train itself, but GO never ran service to Casino Rama.

I wouldn't be surprised if the casino paid GO for the service. Regardless, GO trains ran to Casino Rama for a period of time - and nobody used them. The line (then known as the Newmarket Spur south from Washago) wasn't completely abandoned. It remained in freight service to Longford Mills, about 2.5 km north of the casino, until a couple of years ago when the sole customer closed. The stub section south of Longford Mills was torn out when Rama wanted to re-use the land (including parking and outbuildings for the casino.

The line would serve freight customers.

What freight customers?

It's also not just GO. The Canadian and the Northlander could use it without stopping, which would improve their reliability by avoiding freight trains.

This makes no sense. You just said it could serve freight customers. How does a once-a-day train - Northlander - need augmentation? If GO plans to run all-day/two-way service to Barrie, how does Northlander, Canadian and, oh ya, freight, fit into that?

It's gone. Make peace with the fact that it is gone.

 

[WB62]

I'm not sure if it ended because CN wanted to abandon the tracks, or because Casino Rama didn't want to keep paying for the train itself, but GO never ran service to Casino Rama

Service on the line was cut before being fully discontinued, it just wasn’t a popular service and even if the tracks weren’t abandoned it wouldn’t have survived.

 

[reaperexpress]

With the new second track between Kennedy and Agincourt finally being completed soon, I thought I'd take a look at what additional service it would enable. The passing track enables 30-minute bidirectional service, but during peak periods we probably want service more frequent than that.

This concept uses the new passing track and existing second/third platform at Unionville to increase the peak period service to 4 trains per hour, and introduce counter-peak service:

Notes on the service design:

• To make room for the counter-peak service, there needed to be a period of 30-minute service in the peak direction just outside of the peak hour. But since one of the trains turns back at Unionville, that creates a 45-minute gap north of Unionville, which puts a lot of ridership demand on a single trip. So I made that train run express between Union and Unionville to prevent Milliken or Agincourt passengers from using that train. They can instead use the new local trips that will have plenty of spare capacity and still provide the same 30-min or better service as the current timetable. The improved travel times for riders north of Unionville also partially compensates for the less ideal departure times for those riders.
• I added a southbound trip at the end of service. That trip presumably already exists as a deadhead given that the 23:07 northbound arrival at Mt Joy needs to return downtown somehow. This new in-service trip runs express to minimize the operating cost increase compared to the current not-in-service run.
• Due to the constraints of running 15-minute peak service on a line with a minimum bidirectional headway of 30 minutes, I wasn't quite able to fit hourly-or-better counter-peak service, but I was at least able to get the counter-peak service gap down to under 2 hours, compared to 4 hours currently.
• All-day 30-min service to Unionville would be technically possible but would require a lot more crews, and it would still have some awkward gaps due to the need to fit in the 15-minute peak direction service.

 

[TTCdinosaur]

With the new second track between Kennedy and Agincourt finally being completed soon, I thought I'd take a look at what additional service it would enable. The passing track enables 30-minute bidirectional service, but during peak periods we probably want service more frequent than that.

This concept uses the new passing track and existing second/third platform at Unionville to increase the peak period service to 4 trains per hour, and introduce counter-peak service:
View attachment 618748
View attachment 618747
Notes on the service design:

• To make room for the counter-peak service, there needed to be a period of 30-minute service in the peak direction just outside of the peak hour. But since one of the trains turns back at Unionville, that creates a 45-minute gap north of Unionville. So I made the adjacent peak-hour train run express between Union and Unionville to prevent Milliken or Agincourt passengers from using that train. They can instead use the new local trips that will have plenty of spare capacity and still provide the same 30-min or better service as the current timetable. The improved travel times for riders north of Unionville also partially compensates for the less ideal departure times for those riders.
• I added a southbound trip at the end of service, since that trip presumably already exists as a deadhead since the 23:07 northbound arrival at Mt Joy needs to return downtown somehow. This new in-service trip runs express to minimize the operating cost increase compared to the current not-in-service run.
• Due to the constraints of running 15-minute peak service on a line with a minimum bidirectional headway of 30 minutes, I wasn't quite able to fit hourly-or-better counter-peak service, but I was at least able to get the counter-peak service gap down to under 2 hours, compared to 4 hours currently.
• All-day 30-min service to Unionville would be technically possible but would require a lot more crews, and it would still have some awkward gaps due to the need to fit in the 15-minute peak direction service.

how soon is soon?

 

[ARG1]

how soon is soon?

If you're asking for when the service expansions might actually happen, I think its safe to say that regardless of when this track is available, no service expansion is happening until ONXpress takes over, and that's been delayed until Sept 2025.

 

[crs1026]

If you're asking for when the service expansions might actually happen, I think its safe to say that regardless of when this track is available, no service expansion is happening until ONXpress takes over, and that's been delayed until Sept 2025.

The interlocking at Highland was put into service in the last few days, without full winterization, but I'm not sure that all the necessary track shifts have happened south of there to align the route for double track operation.

I would think that there is more than one board period between now and next September, so service adjustments are possible.... but I agree there will be a reluctance to put anything major in place before then.... and the postponement calls into question how much hiring and qualifying of staff is going to happen before then.

I wonder also what level of service ML is willing to support on LSE while the Ontario Line shifts and construction is underway. Adding one extra train each hour to double service frequency doesn't seem unreasonable.... but I'm not the people doing all the flagging down there. ML may have other views.

- Paul

 

[WB62]

With the new second track between Kennedy and Agincourt finally being completed soon, I thought I'd take a look at what additional service it would enable. The passing track enables 30-minute bidirectional service, but during peak periods we probably want service more frequent than that.

This concept uses the new passing track and existing second/third platform at Unionville to increase the peak period service to 4 trains per hour, and introduce counter-peak service:
View attachment 618748
View attachment 618747
Notes on the service design:

• To make room for the counter-peak service, there needed to be a period of 30-minute service in the peak direction just outside of the peak hour. But since one of the trains turns back at Unionville, that creates a 45-minute gap north of Unionville. So I made the adjacent peak-hour train run express between Union and Unionville to prevent Milliken or Agincourt passengers from using that train. They can instead use the new local trips that will have plenty of spare capacity and still provide the same 30-min or better service as the current timetable. The improved travel times for riders north of Unionville also partially compensates for the less ideal departure times for those riders.
• I added a southbound trip at the end of service, since that trip presumably already exists as a deadhead since the 23:07 northbound arrival at Mt Joy needs to return downtown somehow. This new in-service trip runs express to minimize the operating cost increase compared to the current not-in-service run.
• Due to the constraints of running 15-minute peak service on a line with a minimum bidirectional headway of 30 minutes, I wasn't quite able to fit hourly-or-better counter-peak service, but I was at least able to get the counter-peak service gap down to under 2 hours, compared to 4 hours currently.
• All-day 30-min service to Unionville would be technically possible but would require a lot more crews, and it would still have some awkward gaps due to the need to fit in the 15-minute peak direction service.

Great work as always!

 

[reaperexpress]

I would think that there is more than one board period between now and next September, so service adjustments are possible.... but I agree there will be a reluctance to put anything major in place before then.... and the postponement calls into question how much hiring and qualifying of staff is going to happen before then.

It doesn't need to be a major change though. The changes can be implemented incrementally as additional crews finish training. It would be weird to leave newly-trained crews sitting idle just to save some paperwork.

I wonder also what level of service ML is willing to support on LSE while the Ontario Line shifts and construction is underway. Adding one extra train each hour to double service frequency doesn't seem unreasonable.... but I'm not the people doing all the flagging down there. ML may have other views.

These trains are mostly added during peak periods, when there are already 8 trains per hour in the peak direction. I doubt they're doing any flagging at that time. I left the off-peak frequency at 1 train per hour, and the OL construction was a big part of the reasoning.

 

[kvvoyage]

It doesn't need to be a major change though. The changes can be implemented incrementally as additional crews finish training. It would be weird to leave newly-trained crews sitting idle just to save some paperwork.
View attachment 618780
View attachment 618779


These trains are mostly added during peak periods, when there are already 8 trains per hour in the peak direction. I doubt they're doing any flagging at that time. I left the off-peak frequency at 1 train per hour, and the OL construction was a big part of the reasoning.

I understand this might be a much more complicated matter but have you done any conceptual timetables of the LSE when the expansion programme is fully complete?