No offense, but you clearly haven't read the fantasy plan that you're critiquing. The fantasy plan, unlike the current plan, has almost homogenous services through this segment. Since the mainline is diverted through Pearson airport there is no UPX. There is therefore no shortage of capacity with 2 tracks, given the line capacity is 20 trains per hour per direction assuming a minimum separation of 3 minutes. That is way beyond the capacity we would need in a Weston corridor which is also served by a subway line (up to 30 tphpd on its own).
As for the claim that you need at least 3 tracks to run a variety of different services at high frequency, I would encourage you to look at any of the major railway systems in the world (Japan, Germany, Netherlands etc) and compare their level of service with the number of tracks. I think you'll find that two-track railways routinely provide both a variety and quantity of service far superior than what would be needed in Kitchener if there were also a subway.
I frustrates the hell out of me when an outsider says "oh they do it in Japan, Germany, Netherlands etc".
Do we live in Japan, Germany, the Netherlands? Yet people continue to insist that we do things the same way without realizing or being ignorant of the fact that we deal with completely different operational & regulatory requirements than those nations. Your proposal runs into physical, technological, operational and regulatory constraints. Clearly your not affiliated with any of the major railways, otherwise you'd be cognizant of these limitations. Here, allow me to give you specific examples of them.
When there is a priority alarm, the CSA must cease all other duties an proceed to the coach where the priority alarm has been activated. If we are pulling into a station when it is activated, we will be delayed as the CSA must attend to the matter before we can proceed. Likewise if it happens when we are at the station or when we are just leaving the station, the train must be immediately be brought to a stop if still adjacent to the platform. The amount of delay varies depending on where the coach is located on the train, how many people are on the train and on that coach, since the CSA must walk through to the coach and then when in the coach he must ask anyone if they require assistance. The resulting delay can be negligible(eg. a false alarm in the CSA's coach), several minutes(eg. a false alarm several coaches away on a busy train) or a 1/2 hour or more(eg. medical emergency's, passenger disruptions). I have no idea how many alarms we get in a single day system wide but I can tell you that in one shift on one line, I hear an average of 3-5 passenger alarms being called in to operations. 90% of the time its a false alarm but quite often even those will result in delays. So why do they have these procedure and as a result incur so many delays? Perhaps its because GO values its passenger safety more than maintaining a schedule?
When a train strikes any object on the track it must stop and thoroughly inspected, which will resulting in about a 10 min delay. Why do we do this? Once again perhaps because GO values
safety more than on-time performance.
When a wayside inspection system has not given us a proper reading must slow our train down and contact the dispatcher to get one. If he cannot provide us with one then we must stop and inspect our train. Resulting in a substantial delay.
When a wayside inspection system has given us an alarm, we must stop the train immediately and inspect it and make sure it is safe to proceed. Resulting in a substantial delay.
If there is a rule 43(slow order) usually only on one track in a given location, this can delay multiple trains. With another track available trains can be routed around the problem without incurring any delays at all.
In the winter or during the fall(due to snow/ice or leave residue respectively) heavily loaded trains can be subject to severe wheel slippage. Those who travel on the Lakeshore East line may have remembered the many delays that occurred several years ago to trains leaving Union traveling east to Oshawa. While the problem has been largely mitigated(it was so bad at one point the several trains stalled and had to go back to Union) I can assure it still is an issue. I fact it caused significant delays to multiple trains just a week ago.
Dealing with any foremen working on the line will can a huge issue more so when train frequency increase. Everyone has to communicate and receive verbal instructions which must be repeated back correct before being allowed to proceed. If we cannot communicate with a foreman, we cannot enter into his limits. Radio interference is a constant problem we deal with on a daily basis, be it other trains using the radio at the same time or simply a poor transmission. The problem is exacerbated when there are more trains in a given area. In addition
While they all individually might be infrequent, when taken altogether these problems and other less frequent ones (trespasser incidents, mechanical failures, signal malfunctions, rule violations, poor visibility due to weather conditions, police investigations - all of which I've seen happen multiple times per year) results in about 5-10% of all train movements being delayed by 5 mins or more.
That is why GO has chosen to design a system on the Weston sub. that will mitigate the impact to other trains.
Working with a predicted service level of 8 tphpd, if we had crossovers every 2 miles we would have enough capacity to get all scheduled services through a single-track pinch point by running trains in pairs or threes through the single-track segment. Yes, trains would experience delays, but it wouldn't cause a backlog.
Pairs or even threes? Actually that would cause a massive backlog, since it takes approx.
1/2 an hour to join two trains together on the mainline.
I'll try to explain it so that those who don't work in the field can understand.
For one train to even enter into the block of another train it would need to get authority. If the block is not a controlled block that authority would be by signal indication. The signal would be a "restricting signal" which indicated that circuit is down in the next block(in this case due to the train occupying it). The train entering into the block of another train would be allowed to move at a maximum of 15mph. If the block was a controlled block they would need to get a "pass stop" authority from the RTC to pass a stop signal. That alone would take several minutes. By rule the authority must be verbally communicated to the train crew who will put in down in writing and then repeat the authority exactly word for word to the RTC who will then confirm it is correct. Then they will be allowed to proceed into the block at a maximum of 15mph. Then the train must of course travel through the block to meet the train ahead of it. If the block is short and or the other train is close by this won't be long. But obviously if the other train is waiting for trains to pass from the other direction they will have stopped at the signal on the other side of the block. Single blocks are about 1.5 miles long which means it'll take the other train 6 mins to reach the one ahead of it. Its possibly that the blocks on the Weston sub. might be made with shorter spacing. Although that would depend on how much say CN still has in the matter since they still have "running rights" over the territory which was a provision of the sale. I would assume though it probably would not be an issue since the trains CN would be running on the sub would not be monster 2 mile long ones and maybe they even restricted CN from running such trains there. But I don't know the provisions of that highly confidential agreement. So lets say, the blocks will hopefully be only a mile long, that's still 4 minutes and only if the train was able to maintain the maximum speed(there are several provisions/situations for which it would not be able to). Now once they get there, they obvious have to couple on. This is not a quick procedure. The train must stop within 6-12ft of the "joint" to make sure the couplers are alined. Then it may proceed and make the coupling using extreme caution since they are coupling onto occupied passenger equipment. Once made the coupling is made it must be tested, then secured, then the second train will "cut out" its controls, then the train lines will be connected and finally the air valve will be slowly opened. Optimally this can be all be done in about 6-7 mins but quite often takes longer, due to problems with making the coupling or problems with hooking up the air pipes(they have designed the "glad hands" to be very stiff so that they are not easily parted when struck by debris, however that has made them much more difficult to connect). Following that the second train will need to be brake tested using the controls from the first train as required by rule. A crew member must to walk the length of the second train to check that the brakes are applied on each car and then he must walk back to check that they are released on each car, so you can add another 8-10 mins.
So now, after incurring at least a 20 minute delay(but more realistically a 30 minute one), your double consist can proceed.
Does that sound like a realistic option? Or for that matter were you aware of all before you made that claim? Clearly you were not. Which is why I get frustrated when someone who is not involved in or aware of railroad regulations/policies submits a fantasy proposal and rigorously stands behind it.
Just so you know I'm not entirely against your proposal. Although I don't agree this route would be the best alinement for a western extension of the DRL, I do realize the relatively low cost of it would make that routing desirable. Its just there's no way its an option with 4 tracks, it would require 5. Which unfortunately the South Georgetown project was not engineered for.
