With the growth in the comment string on the original post, it’s getting rather unwieldy. Therefore, I am setting up new subsections to continue the threads on separate major topics.
This one is for GO Transit. Any comments related to GO that are left on the other thread will be copied into this item. In a few days, I will close off comments in the old thread on the assumption that everyone will have relocated to this one.
I have not yet decided whether to have a thread just for Swan Boats since Dalton didn’t announce any funding for them.
Steve Munro 
One thing I wonder about is how will the electrification of the Lakeshore take into account the rather tall clearances of both GO trains and CN freight trains? If overhead wire is used, it will have to be high up enough that double stack container trains can fit underneath, not necessarily the easiest thing to accomplish.
On the other hand, if third-rail is used, how will it hold up during winter? I know that the subway has some surface sections of line with third rail running, but will it hold up in this environment? And would the tracks have to be fenced off so nobody steps on the third rail by accident? We’ve had problems in my area with high schoolers crossing busy freight lines–try adding a few thousand volts to the mix!
LikeLike
I am really interested in the plans to electrify the GO Lakeshore line. Has the province talked to CN about the cost of doing this and the type of electrification that would be acceptable for them? I’ll still bet that they will demand 25 000 V AC. The big advantage to self propelled vehicles for this type of service is their higher acceleration rates. Locomotive hauled trains can not get enough tractive effort with only 8 wheels to generate the same rates. For main line service with fewer starts and stops locomotives make more sense but not for commuter trains. I believe that they will use bi-level coaches because it reduces the spare inventory and it is a proven design. I can just se the new super GO logo with the green or red cape flying to the right from the top of the O in Super GO.
LikeLike
Does anybody know if any studies have been done on the GO Bolton line, and if any new stops will be added in the 416 area for this new route?
LikeLike
I understand the other advantage of electric trains is that they have maximum torque pretty much immediately whereas most (all?) diesels have to reach a specified rev level and thus doesn’t have the same acceleration for the same engine rating.
I’m not sure what the issue is with using 25kV AC, I have noted other forums mentioning CN on that score – we’re not talking about local service EMUs (though I would be open to that idea), we’re talking about replacing 4,000hp MP40s on regional services. 25kV AC will be useful for CN, sure, but it will also be useful for high speed passenger rail.
As for freight cable clearance – perhaps 1 track might be left unpowered?
LikeLike
Mimmo Briganti:
I remember reading a while back that GO actually wasn’t interested in sending trains up the CP Tracks to Bolton, but that was a few years ago and I have not heard it mentioned since before this 2020 announcement. I must say, it caught me by surprise and I find it suspiscious given the circumstances (hey, it’s an election year). I would be willing to bet that no studies have been done on the Bolton GO Train route yet, and I would like to know if CP has been consulted on this – CP and GO don’t like each other very much, but keep it polite for business’s sake. While the Bolton line has not been studied, the Midtown Corridor, also run by CP, has been studied (and I suspect the government has underestimated the cost, from what I read, the Midtown Corridor requires some expensive capacity expansion to handle GO Traffic without crippling CP’s freight operations (well, or vice-versa as would more likely be the case)). As for Bolton-Union 416 stations, it would likely stop at the existing Weston GO and Bloor GO Stations like the Georgetown line does, since the two corridors merge south of the 401. Unlike the Milton Line, the trains would be running on the same tracks as the Georgetown line through Bloor GO Station (but Weston will rquire a new platform for the separate CP tracks if the train is going to stop there, and I imagine the Weston Community Coalition will insist it does stop). North of the 401, I would speculate a stop at Emery (at Finch Ave. W near the 400 (west side of the highway)) would be very likley, but that’s only a personal hunch. Other than Emery, I wouldn’t bet on any new 416 stations along that corridor.
LikeLike
David H said:
The overhead wire on main line railways is much higher than on street car lines. Amtrack in the North East Corridor, and Illinois Central and Chicago, South Shore and South Bend have overhead on their commuter service into Chicago. None of them seem to have any trouble running freight over the same lines and they all have freight operations. Third rail is a non starter because of safety reasons and also because the power losses that would result from the low voltages that would be needed. Resistive losses vary as the SQUARE of the current and the lower the voltage the higher the current. The only way around this is lots of substations which cost a lot of money. If electrification happens it will be with overhead. The only questions is AC, DC and at what voltage will it be.
LikeLike
WRT to the Bolton line. I’ve spent years looking for info on this line as it would run right through my neighborhood. However I’ve never been able to find anything. Regardless a quick look at a map of the area brings up a few obvious areas for station construction.
1. Finch Ave just west of the 400. Connection with drivers coming down the 400 will hopefully bleed more people off the highway and onto transit. The Finch West LRT line in the Transit City plan would also connect to this station. Hopefully giving it a decent level of ridership.
2. Steeles ave and Islington Ave intersection. Nothing here to really serve the station other than some industrial lands to the southest. However proximity to the 407 might encourage construction of a park and go station plus connection with a 407 GO BRT line running on the 407. Depends on station configuration.
The remaining stations (I see 3, one in Woodbridge, Kleinburg ‘ish, and Bolton respectively) could go just about anywhere depending on how GO wants to operate. Hwy 7, Woodbridge Downtown, Kipling Ave crossing, Langstaff Ave crossing, Hwy 27 crossing, Nashville Rd crossing, Albion-Vaughan Rd, and Hwy 50 would likely be the major considerations.
That’s just the way I think things would go.
LikeLike
Hi Steve, I’ve been reading this site daily since I found it back in January and it’s fantastic – keep up the great work.
I noticed that whenever there is discussion or a comment made about extending the GO beyond Hamilton and in to Niagara, it’s always met with a response that there aren’t enough commuters in Niagara and there are better areas that need service first such as Guelph and KW (which is true). However, Niagara Falls receives around 10 million tourists per year. Would it not be in the Ontario government’s best interest to link it’s biggest city to such an important tourist centre? I say this from a tourism industry perspective where you can package Toronto and Niagara together as a more attractive vacation destination with a government serviced link. What if they made the service seasonal from May to October?
Just wondering what your thoughts are about this. Thanks.
Steve: This gets into the interesting question of whether Ontario should be elbowing Via aside for providing such paltry service in the Niagara area. As for tourist operations, the biggest problem I see is that many of the things tourists want to visit are nowhere near the railway or potential stations. Unless there is a good local bus service to ferry people around (to wineries for example), the train won’t do people much good.
For example, it is impossible to go to the Shaw Festival by rail because the railway doesn’t travel along the south shore of the lake, it heads inland to Niagara Falls.
LikeLike
Late Breaking news:
I was down by Willowbrook yard today and saw one of the new locomotives, 601. It looks sharp in the green paint scheme and is about the same height as bi-level car.
LikeLike
Maybe the “Alpine Way” ride will return back to the Canadian National Exhibition, but placed between the streetcar loop and Ontario Place.
Steve: Hmmm … an Ontario Place shuttle. Now where did I leave those swan sleighs?
LikeLike
Steve,
Great site.
I know that there aren’t any already built in tracks that circumvent the GTA, but wouldn’t it be useful to have a GO line around Toronto, something that would connect Oakville-Erindale-Bramalea-Rutherford-Langstaff-Unionville-Pickering (not necessarily these specific stations) or some similar service like an LRT that wouldn’t go through downtown Toronto? Nowadays there is a lot of commuting between the suburbs. I know people who live north of Toronto and work in Mississauga/Oakville, the only way they can get to work is by driving along the 401-403 or going into Union Station and transferring to the Lakeshore line to Mississauga/Oakville (which isn’t very practical).
Steve: There is the CNR’s York Subdivision running parallel to Hwy 7, but I suspect that the CN wouldn’t take too kindly to running GO trains on it. Travel that is not core-oriented in the 905 is a big, big problem. The BRT network will address some of this, but I worry that GO’s bus services will still be premium fare and on headways that don’t attract large volumes of riders. Local services at the origin and destination points will be vital because people do not live and work along railway lines or expressways. Even if you have parking at one end, you don’t at the other, and big parking lots poison land around stations that should have higher-density development on it.
I also have always wondered how come the suburbs are building sprawled office space in the middle of nowhere (the service roads along the QEW) instead of having developers build near the GO Stations of Burlington, Bronte, Oakville and Clarkson. There is tons of space to build office towers around these stations that would then be serviced by GO and still be near the QEW, why don’t they do it?
Steve: The entire development of the burbs was oriented to the highway network (a) because it operates 7×24 and you don’t have to read a timetable to decide where to put your building, and (b) the 905 developed as a car-oriented culture where trains were a quaint form of transport used by people working downtown.
LikeLike
Will current GO links at places like Yorkdale, York Mills and Finch be moved, or just added on to?
Steve: Who knows? This was all announced last week, and the implications for the network as a whole are only dimly understood.
LikeLike
I’m hoping that GO stations will be considered for all the lines (new and existing) that cross the Eglinton crosstown LRT. On the Bolton line, granted, a stop at Eglinton is awfully close to the Weston station, but it would connect with the LRT just as it goes underground heading east. Same thing on the other side of Yonge with the rail line crossing Eglinton east of Leslie, just before it goes underground heading west. Good for overall network connectivity. (This is assuming better connections than exist at Main/Danforth, Leslie/Oriole, of course. Just how do we go about getting those fixed?)
Steve: We have to be careful not to distort the geometry of lines just because a GO line happens to cross a “TTC” line somewhere. Leslie/Eglinton is an obvious choice, although the geometry for vertical access between the two lines would be interesting.
“Fixing” Main/Danforth is a challenge because the line is well south of the subway, almost the equivalent of two city blocks.
Leslie/Oriole is just embarrassing. Probably the biggest challenge is admitting that it’s in the wrong place and abandoning a parking lot in favour of a subway link.
LikeLike
Leslie/Eglinton could use an incline railway escalator like the famous Castle Frank/Don River Swan Boat connection, or the catapult idea. Or was that to Broadview station?
The only hope for Main/Danforth is a new streetcar line.
Does any one know what happened to the moving sidewalks from Spadina and the Airport terminals? That might be the solution for Lelie/Oriole.
LikeLike
Fix Main/Danforth? No problem. Remove the daft Pearson cable car from its mountings and replace it with something that can be extended to the Georgetown line. Then stick the cable car between Main and Danforth. Everyone’s a winner.
LikeLike
Your point on not distorting the geometry of lines is a valid one, and the other thing to keep in mind is that if we have too many GO stations it slows the line down too much and kind of defeats the purpose of that particular service.
But surely it makes sense to connect a rapid transit line to another rapid transit line? And the Eglinton Crosstown is, for all intents and purposes, a subway connecting the old cities of York and East York.
A Parkdale station at Dufferin/Queen, while an awfully romantic notion directly across from the Gladstone Hotel, wouldn’t make much sense in the overall picture of network connectivity for GO, but it would for an LRT line in that same corridor. Non?
Imagine the Bradford line connecting with the Finch LRT, Spadina subway, Sheppard subway (OK, just kidding), Eglinton LRT subway, Lansdowne subway, and Union. This all makes more sense when transferring between systems isn’t so difficult or expensive.
LikeLike
My vision for Niagara is increasing VIA support then an LRT following near the huge circle you can go on with a bike. Niagara invested a lot of money in Trails.
Commuting in Niagara is not at the Gridlock state. The gridlock is when people travel down on the weekend so that is why I feel they need to build Transit for Tourists needs and the locals will find ways to benefit.
Old Rail lines were converted in Bike Paths I think in some places. People can take their bike now in a Bike Car to Niagara using Via.
Steve: At the risk of sounding anti-bike, that’s not an option for bad weather or for tourists with luggage who plan to stay a while. Bicycles have their place, but many people choose not to use them, or cannot use them. Often, we hear about accessibility, and telling me who (a) has never ridden a bicycle and (b) has a knee that wouldn’t take kindly to that sort of exercise leaves me absolutely cold.
Demand on a tourist circle is unlikely to ever be at LRT levels, but much better local bus service is needed so that tourists don’t need cars.
LikeLike
Steve said: There is the CNR’s York Subdivision running parallel to Hwy 7, but I suspect that the CN wouldn’t take too kindly to running GO trains on it.
Steve, your knowledge never ceases to amaze me! — my hat goes off to you. I drive by that line all the time and think it would be a great route — and better than the GO Crosstown routes currently proposed further south. This line parallels Hwy 7 and 407 and could be used for the Vaughan to Markham commute, providing there are good local bus services on each end. Passengers could even transfer from that line to the Bolton southbound route.
About the GO Bolton line, a stop near Islington and Steeles near the 407 is a must. This line could have removed the need for the VCC extension. If I lived in Vaughan and had a choice between GO Bolton and the Spadina Subway, the subway would always lose.
LikeLike
Regarding the height of the contact wire above the rail: the information is hard to ferret out, so I’m posting it here in case others find it useful. According to an article in Japan Railway and Transport Review, the standard wire heights for high speed lines are:
5.0 m Japan
4.95 m France TGV
5.3 m Germany
4.85 m Italy
The Bombardier bi-level coach is 4.85 m high. Clearly there is no requirement for an unusually high wire height to accommodate bilevels – the TGV Duplex trainsets certainly prove this. But how high are double stack container trains? Well, containers are 8’6″ or 2.59 m high, making two stacked 5.18 m high. Add in the height above rail for the containers sitting in “well” cars and you do have something rather taller than a bilevel passenger coach. (I couldn’t find any dimensions of well cars, but I’m guessing you’d have to add at least 0.5 m). According to Wikipedia (a sometimes reliable source), double stacking “usually precludes operation” under overhead, but notes the Betuweroute in the Netherlands as an exception.
So, the short version is: I don’t think there is a problem, you just have to set a standard wire height high enough – presumably whatever was chosen for the Betuweroute would be fine. Choose your pantograph accordingly. Next question: how much clearance is there in tunnels used by double-stack container trains? Is there enough room for a contact rail?
References:
Click to access f48_technology.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_BiLevel_Coach
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_(cargo)
http://en.betuweroute.nl/home?setlanguage=en
LikeLike
A comment on Mark Dowling’s post:
Diesel locomotives are sometimes called diesel-electric because the diesel engine is used to generate electricity which is then used to power electric motors to move the locomotive. Therefore, the torque advantage of electric motors is available at all speeds to a diesel locomotive.
One advantage that electric trains do have is that it is possible to have all the cars powered. Some systems do this, some do not. We will have to see what we get.
LikeLike
It would be nice to see more frequent, all-day service on GO lines. For instance, it would be great if the Richmond Hill line ran smaller trains every 15 to 20 minutes all day long. I think this would take tension of the Yonge subway line. York region residents heading downtown for the evening could take a GO train for the long haul, instead of driving to Finch station and taking the subway.
I would also like to see more integration between the TTC and GO. In particular, accept TTC fare on GO services within Toronto. This would mean, I could take the GO train from Mimico to Union and then the subway up to Queen for one $2.75 fare.
LikeLike
Kevin Love said …
A diesel locomotive can exert about 30% of its weight as a tractive force so for a 400 000 lb locomotive it can exert 120 000 lb of tractive force. A 12 car train with a fully seated load with locomotive will weigh about 1 800 000 lb so you have a tractive effort of 120 000 lb to accelerate 1 400 000 lb. Since a force of 1 pound accelerates a mass of 1 pound at 32 ft/s/s the above force will accelerate the train at 2.1 ft/s/s or between 1.4 and 1.5 mph/s. As the train accelerates it rate of acceleration drops off.
With a self propelled train the tractive effort of 30% of weight give a theoretical maximum acceleration of about 10 ft/s/s which is more than people like which is about 3 ft/s/s. Since the car is accelerating below its maximum rate at the start it can keep this rate up for much longer which means that the diesel hauled train reaches line speed sooner. Since these cars also use dynamic braking where the engines become generators and pump power back into the overhead they can stop faster because they do not have to worry about brake fade from overheating. If you are running a line with frequent starts and stops then mu is the way to go. For intercity service it is cheaper to use locomotive hauled trains to minimize the number of vehicles requiring maintenance.
DC traction motors exert maximum torque and minimum speed so are great for starting but lose acceleration as the motor speeds up. AC motors exert maximum torque when the motor is rotating just below synchronous speed (1200, 1800 or 3600 rpm for motors operating on 60 Hz.) These do not have great starting torque or acceleration. With the advent of solid state controllers we now use variable frequency variable voltage ac motors which give great starting torque and good torque most of the way up the power and speed curves. For these reasons I believe that they will use electric multiple unit operation if they are serious about cutting 15 minutes off the running times on the Lakeshore line.
Steve: Note that this means new equipment for the Lakeshore line with existing cars and locomotives redeployed to the other routes. One way or another, GO needs more equipement for all of the new services.
LikeLike
The problem with electrification is not the container cars, but Autoracks, which can be up to 6 metres tall. There is heavy Autorack traffic on the Lakeshore line, coming from the GM plant in Oshawa and the Ford plant in Oakville, so catenary would have to be especially high to accommodate them
LikeLike
Kevin – thanks for clarifying that. Why then is electrification deemed to reduce journey times? Is it because the engines are lighter without needing fuel etc?
Steve: Please see Robert Wightman’s long technical explanation. Basically it comes down to the fact that a train with all cars powered by their own motors and with regenerative braking can accelerate and decelerate faster than a locomotive-hauled train. This saves a lot of time because you run at top speed for longer stretches.
LikeLike
Wow. I just got back from a two week vacation in Spain, and can’t believe what I’m reading here! This is (potentially) great news!
The communter rail trains in Madrid (Cercanias) are all electrified and are vastly more useful than our GO train system. Trains on most lines there run every 10 minutes in rush hour, and every 20 minutes during off-peak hours. Some lines even go underground through the centre of Madrid (the amount of subway, commuter rail and road/highway tunnels there is simply staggering in scope), and effectively serve as an express service to complement parellel Metro lines. It’s a great way to reduce the load created by long-haul riders on local Metro routes. In fact, I noticed that many people used Cernanias to get from the north end of Madrid to downtown, which is a three-stop trip versus a 15-stop trip on the Metro. There are also many connecting routes on Cernanias, much like their Metro.
In short, imagine being able to get from Richmond Hill to Union in three or four stops, with six trains per hour during peak periods and three during off peak (and imagine how much relief that could provide to the Yonge subway line). Or imagine a frequent GO service that could get you from York region to Durham or Peel in well under an hour. Wouldn’t that be nice…
LikeLike
Re: electrification and catenary heights, etc.
“Overhead lines supply electricity to the vast majority of light rail systems. This avoids the danger of passengers stepping on an electrified third rail. The Docklands Light Railway uses a standard third rail for its electrical power. Trams in Bordeaux, France use a special third-rail configuration where the power is only switched on beneath the trams, making it safe on city streets. Several systems in Europe, as well as a few recently-opened systems in North America use diesel-powered trains.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Power_sources
The Bordeaux arrangement sounds interesting.
LikeLike
Where is the GO Transit expansion for the Guelph, KW, Acton area?
Sure Waterloo Regions LRT will be funded 2/3 by Ontario, and possibly 1/3 by Federal level, yet it seems to be a very big disconnect here and this plan drops the ball on one of the biggest and fast growing regions.
The questions is simply how does the Government expect Guelph, Kitchener-Waterloo, Cambridge residents to give up one or two cars in order to switch to what could and should be a viable public transit system, when the only way to get in and out of the area is by car or bus?
I have to agree with Steve Host at http://www.gokw.org, There is an incredible lack of vision on this part that no one seems to have picked up on, at least at Government level. You would think after the many years that the North Municipal Mainline Alliance have been lobbying goverment for support it would be on at least on their radar.
The only new GO service planned this fall is to the University of Guelph. The service will run between the UoG and Mississauga, going to 2 GO Stations.
However, more and more of us need better ways in and out of this growing region into the GTA and it seems this plan drops the ball on that.
LikeLike
Leo Gonzales: Wow. I just got back from a two week vacation in Spain, and can’t believe what I’m reading here! This is (potentially) great news!
Hahaha I was last on my computer on Friday, 15 June, at 4:30 pm (time zone GMT+8, or 4:30 am EST). I then went on a 4-day vacation to Bali.
I cannot believe that I missed this announcement by about 6 hours! Also, I am surprised that no rumors were flying about before this happened.
I am absolutely thrilled to just read the announcements. Never mind the fact that it is an election year, or that the projects are “subject to approval” and that the projects are missing some of the local planning that is needed or that some of the details still need to be worked out.
Better public transit is getting the GTA talking.
Good luck from Malaysia
LikeLike
Leo Gonzales said:
Kevin’s comment:
I have previously posted here on how to do just that on the Richmond Hill line, including a staged ramp-up plan for implementation.
However, the fundamental problem appears to be GO’s “all or nothing” approach to rail transit. In other words, we either get a great big train with thousands of seats or else nothing. This makes it tremendously difficult to build demand by starting new service to areas which will in the beginning not have enough ridership to justify a great big train with thousands of seats. Examples include Guelph and Kitchener-Waterloo.
The “all or nothing” approach also makes it difficult to run off-peak service to existing GO stations on current GO lines where the present demand does not justify a great big train with thousands of seats.
There is, of course, an alternative available. This involves using a Diesel Multiple Unit (DMU) which is a self-propelled railcar. A good example is the 188 seat DMU currently in production by Colorado Railcars. See: http://www.coloradorailcar.com/double-deck-dmu-home.htm
Steve: The problem with DMUs is that if the line they run on needs those great big trains to handle rush hour demand, the DMU service only runs in the off peak. It’s actually cheaper just to leave the “big trains” in operation even if you don’t open the doors on all cars.
Service to Guelph and KW is far enough out that it won’t need 10-car trains, but these trains will also form part of the Georgetown service.
DMUs have very limited applications in the sort of network we will have in the GTA.
LikeLike
The absence of a GO line from Toronto to Guelph or KW/Cambridge notwithstanding… What about some type of GO service to link these areas, or maybe even the Kitchener/Woodstock/London areas, WITHOUT linking to Toronto. GO transit does stand for Government of Ontario does it not?? (i understood it does)… so why mandate that any GO line connects to Toronto? those of us living in Toronto may see it as an “orphaned” line, but I am sure there is some demand for a commute from Kitchener to London for example, or London to Woodstock. I know VIA serves this corridor, but costs of commuting on VIA are preventative.
Would running a short train a couple of times during each rush hour over such a stretch be so infeasible? Why wait until the 401 along that stretch needs to be expanded to a 16 lane monstrosity before investing in this sort of outside-the-GTA regional infrastructure? there are a whole bunch of GO locomotives that are soon to be replaced that would most certainly be up to the task.
LikeLike
In response to what Dan said, something like that would probably be reasonable Kitchener to Guelph, and possibly Cambridge Guelph as well. Otherwise, you would probably do better with implementing bi directional service on the full corridor.
My opinion is that GO should probably run all the way to London, and remove Via from that corridor altogether. Run all day service in both direction (doesn’t have to be hourly, but at least a couple of mid day trips). Set up schedules to allow transfers between Via in London both ways and you’ve provided commuter service to most of the 401 corridor without harming long haul. If this were successful I would suggest moving on in a similar manner for service to Niagara. Of course if any of this was to be successful improved local service would be a necessity everywhere, especially Niagara. Before anyone asks, yes, I do believe that GO should provide service that far from Toronto, and also that any FARTHER than Barrie, Niagara, Peterborough and Waterloo qualifies as true intercity service. I say GO should continue to London as a regional service, but oriented at commuters not heading into Toronto from east of Kitchener (which I would assume there aren’t too many of) and to better connect with Via.
Speaking of Niagara, what about a unified transit system for all areas south of Hamilton and east of Brantford? This could certainly tackle the problem of the virtually nonexistent feeder service that would be needed for a successful commuter operation there.
With this much new service in a different market than traditional for GO, perhaps the purchase of the former VIA RDCs would be justified. They seem to be the ideal equipment for midday service on most non Lakeshore lines, and would also be very nice if we ever started to talk in terms of service to Peterborough.
Now in the real world, MoveOntario probably has the right immediate focus for GO, but I would like to see bus service to Niagara, Waterloo Region and Peterborough. Once that’s done, it’s time to start looking at this other stuff.
Has there been any information on what GO intends to do with the replaced locomotives? It does seem to be very short sighted for them to dispose of any equipment with the kind of things being discussed in MoveOntario.
LikeLike
Steve wrote: The problem with DMUs is that if the line they run on needs those great big trains to handle rush hour demand, the DMU service only runs in the off peak.
Kevin’s comment:
My plan for the DMU use is that during the peak hours they will be used to provide service to places that currently do not have service. Examples include Guelph and Kitchener-Waterloo.
Then, during the off-peak hours, the same DMU equipment will provide off-peak service to places that do have peak service with the current huge GO trains – but no service outside of peak hours.
This will result in the DMU units having a much greater percentage of utilization than the current GO trains which have sharply reduced use in off-peak hours.
Steve: This model works fine provided that GO is actually running service that far afield from Toronto. However, for the scope of plans announced last week, I don’t see a place for DMUs.
LikeLike
Not sure if this has been touched on yet.
I came back from the baseball game last night on the GO train and sat in the car with a worker. He was very outspoken and he issued a huge warning about service when the contract is up.
— Think the delays are bad now he says, wait till a crew without the training takes over. They have a huge learning curve he says.
Also , they just bought these new Locomotives at a lot of money.
How do these new locomotives fit into the electric part of the GO annoucement? Andy in durham had posted a link about them and it is not working now.
Steve: Any future electrification is part of an overall increase in GO services. The new locomotives will move off the Lake Shore to other diesel-powered lines.
LikeLike
I agree with Dan. Its time to create some intercity commuter lines in Ontario that are not centred on Toronto.
Some cities that I think should have rail commuter lines are
-KWC-Guelph (Grand River Rail? With Guelph served by GO and the new network)
-Ottawa
-London
-Niagara-St Catharines-Welland
-Windsor
-Hamilton (I wrote an editorial on this for my website, at http://ca.geocities.com/hamiltontransithistory@rogers.com/CommuterRail.html)
LikeLike
I believe, like many of the other contributors, that GO Transit, which is the Government of ONTARIO Transit, should run to a larger catchment area. While I can see the argument for DMU’s or DEMU’s the servicing requirements would over ride any cost saving over locomotive hauled trains. GO could operate the same or better service at lower cost because of their better operating practices and POP and self serve ticketing. The GO bi-levels load faster and are friendly to the handicap (see the court decision against VIA and their Renaissance Coaches). I would truly love to see self propelled Diesel Electric GO bi-levels and have even given a method off accomplishing this in the long run the economics are against them. I am off for a two month vacation so see you in September.
RobertWightman
LikeLike
Returning to the topic of GO Transit electrification: ignoring the freight train clearance, how much clearance is available for catenary at Union Station? Looking at some pictures of the trainshed roof, there isn’t much. Is this an optical illusion, or is the roof going to have to be modified.
In an article in the Star today, it says that changing freight patterns will have to take place to allow the wires to be used; this doesn’t bode well for freight on the Lakeshore…
Steve: I don’t know the exact measurements for Union, but the bilevels fit in there with room to spare. Since this is not freight territory, the catenary can drop to a lower height.
LikeLike
I can’t for the life of me understand the proposed Richmond Hill GO extension to Aurora road. If it follows the existing track, it lands in the middle of nowhere. Even worse: in the greenbelt.
Aurora already has a GO station that is centrally located, what good is one in the middle of protected farm country?
LikeLike
Kent said: “I can’t for the life of me understand the proposed Richmond Hill GO extension to Aurora road. If it follows the existing track, it lands in the middle of nowhere. Even worse: in the greenbelt.”
One word: Parking
LikeLike
To all those that want to see inter-city commuter lines in Ontario: Long Live Sir Adam Beck!
He wanted them to be electric too!
He was also the prime mover behind what was once Ontario Hydro, a huge bloated bureaucracy.
LikeLike
Hi Steve,
Would the “GO Richmond Hill rail line capacity expansion from Union Station to Richmond Hill” project of MoveOntario 2020 include adding the second track?
In case the second track is added, what would be the maximum peak-time frequency, given that the line shares the Union tracks with other GO and VIA operations? Can it run on 10′ or 15′ headways? (Trying to understand if it can provide a noticeable relief for the extended Yonge subway by attracting downtown commuters from Langstaff / Hwy 7, Finch E, Sheppard E, and perhaps from Eglinton E and Don Mills LRTs if transfer stations are added.)
Steve: The problem with the MoveOntario announcement is the vagueness of so much of it — lines on a map, not specifics of implementations. Supposedly the great and powerful GTTA will figure all of this out.
LikeLike