Updated 2 April 13, 2014 at 2:50pm: Eric Miller, the author of the illustrations originally used for this article, has objected to their being taken out of context and has asked that they be removed.
Meanwhile, the information is available in a paper by Dr. Miller of February 24, 2012 which is available on the City of Toronto’s website. This is cited in a City Planning presentation at the Sheppard Transit Corridor Expert Panel on March 2, 2012.
I am hoping to obtain new information about Scarborough travel patterns from a regular reader. When this is available, I will update the article.
In another thread’s comments, I mentioned that I would post travel pattern info for Scarborough to show how this behaves.
The diagrams linked here were originally produced by Eric Miller at the UofT, and they have been included in a few presentations including one recently at the UTSC Eco-Summit by André Sorensen. The source data come from a 2006 survey conducted by the University on behalf of governments in the GTHA. More recent data are about to be published, but they were not available when these charts were created.
There are two pairs of charts in this set, one for the planning district north of the 401, and one for the district to the south. For each district, both the AM Peak and All Day flows are shown.
North of the 401 (Planning District 16), 36% of the travel is within the district, and a further 19% is to the area south of the 401. Only 6% of the travel is to downtown. During the AM peak, the percentage to downtown doubles, but other demands are comparable (on a percentage basis) to the all day values.
South of the 401 and west of Kingston Road / Morningside (Planning District 13), there is a slightly higher proportion of trips going downtown, but the lion’s share remains within Scarborough and to other suburbs.
There are a few caveats about these charts.
- There is a typo on the first chart where there is a reference to internal trips within PD13. This should of course refer to PD16.
- The values shown are percentages, not absolute numbers.
- There is no information for south-eastern Scarborough.
I’m not excusing the shortcomings, just saying these are the charts I have available. Once the updated data come out, it will be intriguing to see how this has evolved (and not just for Scarborough) and to attach numbers to the percentages.
The basic point is that although, yes, there are many people who go downtown from Scarborough, there are many more who are travelling to some other location, and their transit requirements should not be forgotten.
Updated April 13, 2014:
In response to comments asking about the context of the travel charts, a fifth page has been added showing a sample of corridors on which LRT could be implemented to form a network in Scarborough. Note that this map is part of the presentation from which the others are taken, and it is not “my” map. Moreover, it is “descriptive” in the sense of “this is what could be done”, not “prescriptive” in the sense of “you must built exactly this network and nothing else”. Comments in the vein of “why here and not there” will be deleted as I really don’t want to get into a hypothetical discussion of a network here.
Steve Munro 
This comment is in place of a rather long one left by a reader who shall remain nameless in which a DRL via Sherbourne was proposed. Aside from the fact that it is totally impractical, something I would have pointed out in a reply, I had a big problem with a claim that the folks who matter politically would never build it because Sherbourne is a high crime area through which they would never travel. He went on to rant about the low density of the Pape corridor as a potential source of riders as compared with the higher density on Sherbourne.
Argue for your proposals all you like, but don’t invent slurs against part of the city to do so.
Moreover, as I have said many, many, many times, a subway does not succeed simply because it is surrounded by density, but because of the feeder network of surface routes supplying riders. It is almost impossible to put enough density right at stations to make a line self-sufficient. Just as expressways draw cars via a network of arterials and local streets, rapid transit lines draw riders from a network of lower-order routes.
The challenge for a network planner is to put the major lines in a location where they will draw lots of trips, even if they go through low density areas enroute. The Bloor-Danforth subway is a perfect example of a line that runs through moderate density areas but carried heavy loads. Similarly, the Yonge line south of Sheppard is surrounded by low density residential areas, but is packed with riders from Sheppard and Finch.
Argue for alternates if you will, but be civil about the discussion and don’t reject ideas just because they might come from downtown or Scarborough or anywhere else.
LikeLike
Why is it impractical? Is it impractical because it doesn’t benefit you even though a DRL through Sherbourne will provide good relief to the Yonge subway line. Or build it through Bay or Parliament. Bay, Sherbourne, and Parliament have very high densities and a lot of jobs and will serve the public better than putting it in the Broadview/Pape area where there are neither the jobs nor the density to justify the billions of dollars in expense.
Steve: A “relief” line on Bay does not make sense unless it is a branch off of the Yonge line which, for various reasons has problems of its own notably the near-impossibility of fitting in a junction somewhere around Rosedale among existing structures.
Sherbourne is predominantly residential as is Parliament. A DRL via Pape and north to Don Mills & Eglinton would serve Thorncliffe and Flemingdon at the north end, not to mention lands at Eglinton that could well see redevelopment. Further south, there is a cluster of high rises on Cosburn. At Gerrard, there is a large property now used as the Gerrard Square Mall whose owners, I understand, are already talking about intensification. Down at Eastern and Broadview is the Lever site where Great Gulf has announced a very large development.
Finally, as I have said before, there is the basic issue that many riders will arrive on feeder services including the Eglinton LRT and whatever comes down Don Mills.
LikeLike
I was under the impression that the DRL is also intended to remove riders from multiple Go Routes, rather than have them transfer at Union Station or Bloor/Yonge. The proposed DRL route, east of the DVP, will intersect riders heading to the core from the Lakeshore and Markham Go Lines at (roughly) Gerrard Square and the Richmond Hill Go Line at Bayview.
A Sherbourne subway, while going through a very, very high density area of our City, will not accomplish this important objective.
Steve: The DRL is not intended to intercept GO east of downtown. There had been mentions of that in times past based on a flawed understanding of how GO works. The main intercept would be on the west side at an alternate station at Front/Spadina for the Weston corridor services.
As Karl Junkin has pointed out, a GO to subway exchange has potential problems because of surge loads from relatively infrequent GO service all trying to board a subway service that would probably be operating 4-car trains at a headway wider than the 140 seconds we see on YUS.
LikeLike
Here is a link to additional data that is referenced in the slide presentations.
This data is what we need to see for PD 13&14. An updated study appears to be in process. An interesting piece of information from the source data is 10% of work trips originating from Scarborough are destined for the core. This compares with 11% for North York and 6% for Etobicoke.
Following are a couple of comments from the presentation.
Slide 13 – “In order to provide connectivity, coverage and high quality service levels, the transit network must be designed in a hierarchical fashion (high capacity trunk lines, feeder services; long-distance line-haul, local accessibility).”
A trunk line is what the residents of Scarborough are missing. The proposed Subway extension to Sheppard is a high capacity trunk line to the geographical center of Scarborough. It will connect with LRT’s (Sheppard & Eglinton) bus lines, and proposed lines such as Malvern LRT.
Steve, you commented in an earlier post that GO cannot behave as the high-capacity trunk line for the inner burbs. It is a dual purpose at odds with getting commuters to the core. I share this comment because other posts have suggested that GO is the solution for downtown based commuters from Scarborough. GO is not an effective substitute.
Steve: I would argue that the major difference as a trunk line between the proposed subway and LRT is that the LRT provides greater coverage for origins and destinations within Scarborough. The slightly shorter subway trip time must be viewed in the context of whether access time to the subway would be longer than to the LRT for specific trips. As for the role of GO, I see it as a relief certainly for northern and eastern Scarborough because these are the areas furthest from the subway. However, for “inner” Scarborough locations, much depends on how well the local bus network will connect to either GO or to the existing subway line. It is important not to treat Scarborough as a monolithic entity for travel and network planning purposes.
Slide 19. Looking closely at the population densities within Scarborough, there are 3 population clusters north of the 401 that can be roughly defined as: Malvern (Sheppard-Nielson), Miliken (Steeles–McCowan) and L’Amoreaux (Finch–Warden). It is harder to define clusters south of the 401 — there is a cluster along Eglinton east of Kennedy and along Victoria Park, north of St. Clair. The higher density clusters north of the 401 are the essential “feeder” communities that will be the source of new riders and justify the long term investment in the subway extension to SCT and Sheppard.
Slide 19 emphasizes the importance of North/South Transit Service. The proposed Scarborough LRT is a meandering north-east line that does not truly address the transit needs of many Scarberians. It is cost effective because it leverages existing stations. The unfortunate reality is several of these stations are in terrible locations. (Ellesmere station). If the SRT did not exist and we were to start planning transit for Scarborough from Kennedy station would anyone suggest the proposed route of the Scarborough LRT?
Steve: Many years ago, the original Scarborough LRT was proposed to follow the old railway corridor northeast from Warden Station (this proposal predated the subway extension that follows the same route to Kennedy) northeast into Malvern. At its northern end, it would have used the same right-of-way as is proposed for the LRT Malvern extension north of Sheppard. STC would have been accessed by a branch from the southeast as the rail corridor does not pass through the STC lands.
This alignment was strongly fought by people living along the rail corridor whose houses were quite close to it. They objected to noise and intrusion of frequent service, and as a result the route was shifted to the dogleg arrangement we have today. The line ran close to residential properties at the south end, but not as close as it would have on the northeasterly alignment.
This arrangement also provided a direct route to STC which the original proposal did not. In those days, STC was to be the centre of the known universe east of Victoria Park, and how one got there really didn’t matter. Proposed intermediate stations at the 1km marks between Kennedy, Lawrence East and Ellesmere were dropped from the plan to save money.
And so, when you say that the alignment might not be chosen were the route being planned today, you may be correct, but you would still have faced the ire of residents who would get all the disruption of a line outside their door and little of the benefit. I look forward to hearing from the happy folks on McCowan who should visit their neighbours on the existing BD line to learn about noise and vibration problems.
The PD1 maps you linked are part of a set that is broken down by section of Toronto, although not at the PD level. The Scarborough set tells us that 44% of the trips destined for Scarborough originate there.
Of the trips originating in Scarborough, 33% stay within Scarborough, 25% go into the old City of Toronto, 15% to old North York, and 14% to York Region. The remaining 13% go to a smattering of other locations. A total of 207.7k trips begin in Scarborough, and so about 52k wind up in the old City of Toronto.
Readers should note that Planning District 1 is only the core area of downtown, and it does not include any employment areas north of Dundas including both universities and centres such as Yonge/Eglinton. The total trips into PD1 is 376,100 of which 8% originate in Scarborough, or about 30k. Therefore, there are roughly 22k trips going somewhere other than PD1 in old Toronto. These trips are less likely to be attracted to an alternate route via GO Transit than those destined for the core area.
From the charts prepared by Eric Miller, we know that proportionately more trips from southern Scarborough wind up in the core than from northern Scarborough (16% vs 13%), but we also know that northern Scarborough is much more strongly connected by trip count to York Region, a destination with little prospect of improve transit connectivity.
LikeLike
The difference in operating characteristics between EMUs and locomotive hauled coaches, whether diesel or electric locomotives, on start and stop service is amazing. It could save 20 minutes on the Lakeshore west over diesels and a little less over electric locomotives. To keep up 12 car trains, GO would need 2 locomotives per train at $13 million each. You can buy a number of EMUs for $26 million.
As I said before the tunnel diameter for Transport Canada regulations would be 25 to 26 feet inside or 27 to 30 feet outside diameter. It is a simple math problem using Pythagoras and the clearance diagrams which are down loadable from TC TC_E_O5e.pdf. In addition would you want diesel carrying locomotives operating in long tunnels?
Locomotive swapping takes about 10 minutes because of the brake continuity tests that must be made under FRA/TC rules. With subways you just couple the cars, apply and release the brakes then GO. Cross platform connections between diesel locomotive hauled trains and EMUs on the Lakeshore lines at Burlington and Oshawa, and on Kitchener at Bramalea makes much more sense. True it would probably cost me a frequent ride downtown from Brampton but it makes more sense economically.
Barrie and Stouffville should be able to be operated by non compliant equipment because CN is not going to run a through freight on them as they dead end. Non compliant EMUs should also be used as far as Bramalea, Burlington and Oshawa but Metrolinx will never do it because they only know how to operate main line trains. Oh for the return of the interurbans.
LikeLike
Oddly enough this high capacity trunk line function is filled by LRT in other cities. The question needs to be how large a trunk is required in order to fill the function in Scarborough. Cities larger than Scarborough have no subway and rely on BRT and LRT to fill this trunk role, and it works very well. It is unfortunate that the SRT was built as it was in the first place, an LRT would already have been updated and extended likely to most of Scarborough, and be providing much improved transit service to the area.
GO is not an effective substitute for a high capacity trunk line for Scarborough either, however, it is an effective way of getting commuters to the core. A trunk line, needs to serve areas between as well. The GO is a through service, a trunk has many points of load and/or unload. I do not believe that Steve is suggesting that GO fill that function, but rather LRTs, with the required capacity to fill the trunk role in the areas in question. LRT vs subway is a question of capacity not quality, 15k load is LRT, and to get to that number requires including a large number of riders who would be going to the core where a more direct trip be better.
This debate should rather hinge on high frequency GO, GO in CPR, and providing a high quality transit connection to GO services and pricing for the total ride which is comparable to TTC. If there can be no GO in CPR, perhaps the debate could shift to an express BRT in the Gatineau Power Corridor directly to the Don Mills subway.
Perhaps a BRT from Sheppard and Meadowvale running the 16km to a Flemingdon Park stop would serve this load as well as GO if it stopped in only handful of places (Sheppard, Ellesmere, STC, Kennedy). GO is inappropriate in the inner area, because it would slow the longer trips from 905 and outer 416 too much (add too many stops).
I agree a faster, easier trip downtown is needed for those who live in outer Scarborough, I just do not believe that a long subway extension is a viable way to achieve it.
LikeLike
Since there are no FRA road proven EMUs which meet GO’s needs right now (25kV AC, low floor), it makes a lot more sense to ask Bombardier and Siemens to offer a variant of their in-service ALP-46 and ACS-64 engines with lower top speed and higher tractive effort to cover initial service rollout, with EMUs coming later as fleet needs require expansion and retirement replacement, perhaps in cooperation with NJT who kick the tires on that notion every so often in respect of their ageing Arrow units.
LikeLike
And the thing to keep in mind is what would the train frequency be for the “dark territory” (not the signal kind of dark) on an electrified line? For example, will 15 minute all day service be just to Aldershot or to Hamilton and beyond on the Lake shore line? If it’s only to Aldershot and service to Hamilton would be once ever 30 minutes to an hour, a 10-20 minute layover at Aldershot is not that big of a deal.
LikeLike
Mark, a couple of questions;
1. Why does GO need low floor equipment? I believe this would be a total impossibility while meeting FRA/TC buff loading requirements. I believe you meant low door as in the lower level of a bi-level car.
2. How do you propose getting higher tractive effort engines? One does not get an increase in tractive effort by reducing power of an engine. The only way to get an increase in tractive effort is by increasing the weight on drivers relative to the total weight of the train. You can do this by increasing the weight of the locomotive or by putting the driving wheels under the coaches, EMUs. GO could also increase tractive effort by using AC motored locomotives. AC motors allow for a higher coefficient of friction than do DC motors, about 0.3 – 0.4 versus 0.2 – 0.25. I believe New Jersey Transit has ordered commuter diesel locomotives with AC motors, Alstom PL42ACs.
3. Why would you want to reduce the power output of the locomotives. Higher power gives a higher speed before tractive effort falls off, the constant power point. The main advantages of electric locomotives is their higher power rating. Why get rid of it?
4. Are there no road proven 25 kV EMUs? What are they operating in the Deux Montagnes tunnel? Granted these are high floor vehicles but they do exist. If Bombardier can make them then they can make a bi-level one. The GO cab cars are technically locomotives according to FRA/TC rules as they have brake stands. It would not take a lot of change to remove part of the passenger space to put in a transformer and motor controls. Since they would have AC traction motors only half the axles would need to be powered. They could be configured into 4 car sets: cab motor, trailer, trailer and cab motor. This would allow the use of 4, 8 or 12 car trains.
We should not perpetuate the mistake of locomotive hauled cars in start and stop service because no one makes what we want at the moment. Put out a request for proposal for a large enough order, and GO would need a large order. and you would get a decent response. You would only need to buy cab motors as the existing cars could be used as the trailers. The existing cab cars could be mated with a new powered cab car to make a group of 2 car sets to allow for more flexibility of consists. NJT operates 230 EMUs and are looking at ordering Arrow IVs multilevel power cars which would be compatible with their existing multilevel locomotive hauled cars. If NJT can do it, then GO can do it. As you say it would be a good joint effort.
LikeLike
The other thing you have to remember is that one, probably two train persons would be needed to perform the change over to uncouple, couple, join the air hoses, join the MU cable, join the electric head end power cables then perform the air brake continuity tests. Much simpler to just run the trains from farther west (east if you go to Niagara) express to Toronto after doing a cross platform transfer for local passengers. A 20 minute layover on what would otherwise be a trip of an hour or less is a very big deal.
LikeLike
Robert, in answer to your queries:
1. I did mean low door rather than low floor in this case, thanks for catching the typo.
2. The most E/D+E recent locomotives in North American service, ALP-46A, ALP-45DP and ACS-64, use AC motors already. The question for Siemens and Bombardier is whether trucks, couplers and frame for their 100 tonne locomotives can perform adequately at something closer to 130 tonnes to keep sufficient adhesion to shift a 12 pack and accelerate it to 80mph in a reasonable interval. Perhaps ALP-46A propulsion kit in an ALP-45DP shell (designed for 130t) plus ballast would be the end product.
3. I said “reduced top speed” owing to weight rather than “reduced power at rail”. An ALP-46’s 125mph rating and 3000hp advantage over an MP40 is for naught so long as an MP40 can manage 392kN starting effort over the ALP’s 316. NJT doesn’t ask their locos to move more than 10. In some service scenarios a higher frequency GO service may not require full 12 car sets anyway.
4. “What are they operating in the Deux Montagnes tunnel?” *Single* level EMUs with both low and high doors. Metra Highliners use 1500V DC so their EMUs aren’t what we need either. Perhaps it is possible to convert GO cab cars in the way you describe but you’re talking about large transformers plus a pantograph in a structure which, so far as I know, has no provision for either, and operating most of the fleet as 4+4+4 would likely compromise capacity as cabs would reduce space in the mid-consist coaches just as they do on T1 subway cars.
I agree with you that NJT is a good potential partner in the development of EMUs, but *we don’t need the same units they do*. We need 2 x 25kV 60Hz AC input, not 12.5kV or 25Hz and have no need for either high doors (at this point) or NJT’s/AMT’s low roof height. Given national procurement issues it’s likely the assembly lines would be separate anyway and as long as there were common design wins in reducing the footprint of the traction equipment within the car that may not make a huge amount of difference. If AMT overcomes its electrification difficulties with CN/CP they may need EMUs to replace current standard bilevels too.
While there is no fully off the shelf answer to the problem and thus costs and timelines are uncertain in both scenarios, it seems to me that the likelihood is that initial service is likely to be met with locomotives and existing coaches, followed by EMUs for fleet expansion and the retirement of early generation bilevel coaches.
LikeLike
Sorry, I missread you statement about top speed, not top power.
Bombardier has reduced the locomotive’s weight to 90 – 92 tonnes (about 200,000 lbs) but still gets the tractive effort at 311 kN (71,000 lb) with ac traction. I have read somewhere, but can’t find it now, that NJT has ordered straight diesel electric locomotives, from GE I think, with AC traction. Keeping the weight at 130 t (288,000 lb) would give a starting tractive effort around 400 kN (92,000 lb.) this would allow the train to have a higher initial acceleration rate and to maintain it longer. This would be very beneficial on start and stop commuter routes. GO should put AC traction in the locomotives they are upgrading as a test.
I disagree with any argument to buy dual power locomotives and the use of electric locomotive hauled start stop commuter operation. The lead time for these improvements is significant and the decision should be made to go for EMUs at the start. Trains that run outside the electrified territory should keep the existing diesels and run express.
I agree with you that NJT is a good potential partner in the development of EMUs, but *we don’t need the same units they do*. We need 2 x 25kV 60Hz AC input, not 12.5kV or 25Hz and have no need for either high doors (at this point) or NJT’s/AMT’s low roof height. Given national procurement issues it’s likely the assembly lines would be separate anyway and as long as there were common design wins in reducing the footprint of the traction equipment within the car that may not make a huge amount of difference. If AMT overcomes its electrification difficulties with CN/CP they may need EMUs to replace current standard bilevels too.
True we don’t need the same units but after the transformer the power system is essentially the same though a 60 Hz transformer would have a lot less iron than a 25 Hz one. Since the propulsion units, controls and auxiliaries would be similar now is the time to start looking. A joint RFP from GO, AMT and NJT would make manufacturers listen. Once those parts are made fitting them into the car body would be relatively simple, not totally easy, but still doable.
LikeLike
Except that if you are having a 20 minute layover at the swap out point, which is at the end of the 15 minute service point, it only is an issue if you stay on the train. Simply put, a swap out operation would have a cross platform transfer component to it which is why it’s not a big issue if train frequency is half or less for the diesel portion compared to the electrified portion.
LikeLike
If I understand you correctly you would need a two platform station to allow for the cross platform connection. You would get off the train you are on and get on another local train. While this is happening your old train would change locomotives and become the next train inbound. Would it not be a lot simpler to either run your train in express to provide faster service for those coming from farther away or to just turn your original train and send it back out from the transfer point? If everyone is going to catch the adjacent train in, then what is the reason for doing the engine swap? It seems like a waste of time, money and energy. I think you need to re-think this.
LikeLike
If the non-electrified long-distance trains are running express by a certain point along the route wouldn’t they need less passenger capacity and therefore not necessarily have to be 12 cars long anyway? This could improve performance slightly or at least negate the issue of dual-power engine weakness.
LikeLike
Or I’m aware of the layout of Aldershot station that has two platforms out of its current four which already allow for a cross platform transfer in addition to the space available for CN to bypass the station if all four platforms are needed for electric operations and the proximity of Aldershot yard which has the needed personnel to do a locomotive swap out.
I’m also aware that there is no one size fits all solution to this problem.
LikeLike
Goofy question, but based on current rules, signaling and limitations at Union in terms of handling trains and platform length – how much added capacity will electrifying GO actually make? Is it possible just with electrification to reduce headway, or increase cars in train?
Is this ultimately about increasing capacity and service or reducing pollution? Would it make more sense in terms of overall capacity service and pollution to direct more of this effort to increasing availability to other lines? GO in CPR? Rebuilding the Don sub ?
Steve: That’s a very complex question, and the answer is “it depends”. Aside from the need for signalling that can handle many more trains on much shorter spacing, GO must adopt a quick in, quick out approach to station stops at Union. This may require rethinks of platform layouts even to the point of giving up some trackage to create more platform space. As for the CPR, just getting service on their lines is a challenge, never mind electrification. The project would be worthwhile, and it should not have electrification as a pre-requisite.
LikeLike
So in essence, capacity will come from changing signals, station and operating methods, not really electrification? If this is correct should not the things required to increase capacity be considered prior to electrification? The rate of return on a purely financial basis seems low, and I dare say pulling more cars off the road with more frequent service and increased capacity would have a larger environmental impact and be a better use of limited financial capacity. Again I think we need to focus down on completing the projects likely to have the largest impact for the fewest dollars first.
Steve: The problem is that there is a point beyond which diesel operations are not feasible, and if we are going to make major changes, we should do it once on the presumption of electrification. Certainly, some service improvements do not require electrification, particularly on the less frequent lines like Barrie unless there is a fundamental change in philosophy about the amount of service to be provided there. Lake Shore and Georgetown, on the other hand, need attention sooner. The whole point is not to make one line’s upgrades hostage to a long, expensive system-wide change that is not strictly necessary in the short to medium term.
To be honest, Steve, I was suggesting that the money be spent on GO in CPR and the Don sub instead, as I have the impression that these would have a larger impact, and should be ahead of electrification on a list of priority. (Do it or get it off the map!)
Steve: I made a similar suggestion as part of the Metrolinx study now in progress. Don’t show the CPR lines as future options as part of The Big Move if you have no intention of ever using them.
LikeLike
Aldershot station is on CN owned track. Metrolinx track ends where the York Sub joins the Lakeshore line, Oakville sub, just west of Burlington Station. You still haven’t explained why there is a need to do a locomotive swap out. Aldershot yard is a CN yard not a Metrolinx yard and only has people there when CN is switching. They are not GO employees and CN would charge a fortune for this. You still need to re-think this idea as it does not make economic or operational sense.
A GO study says that each track can handle a train every 10 minutes if they are through routed or every 15 if they are turned and sent back but it is possible to have two trains on each platform, one from each direction, or 8 trains per hour per track with double berthing. There is still the problem of pedestrian capacity at Union. I have been there when two trains arrive and dump all the passengers onto one common platform plus 2 outside platforms at the same time. It is not comfortable to be on one of those crowded platforms when a train arrives or leave while you are on it. There is not enough stairway capacity or platform width to handle this level of service, forget about track capacity.
Transport Canada says that signalling must be to FRA specifications which generally means 6 mile long blocks with an approach signal to an interlocking about 2 miles out. This limits practical headways to every 10 minutes. There are some cases where a local departs 6 minutes after an express but this usually means that one of the trains switches to another track or quickly gets ahead of the following train because it does not stop.
Positive Train Control, PTC the mainline railway version of cab signalling automatic train operation, might allow for closer headways but a revamping of the rules from Transport Canada would be a real help.
Metrolinx needs to remove a couple of tracks, 3 and 6 and build much wider platforms for tracks 2, 4, 5 and 7 with much wider stairs to clear the platforms sooner. This combined with operating rules that reflect conditions in the 21st instead of the 19th century would be a big help.
LikeLike
So essentially we cannot through electrification alone add a lot of capacity, and there are some major works that need to be done in order to permit electrification to add capacity, and this work in itself would add capacity (signals, platform changes, track changes, escalators etc.) Would it not make [sense] to do this work first?
Steve: Some of it, certainly. But that just repeats my previous remarks.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s all that difficult to get a FRA exemption in Canada. In Ottawa, the O-Train track is used by freight trains at night, but the O-Train itself is not FRA compliant because it’s a surplus European train. Also, the platforms are too wide for North American freight trains (apparently, European trains are narrower than American ones), so the platforms have to be retracted a bit every night. I remember in the early days, the O-Train would cross freight and Via Rail track, and part of the safety procedure involved the driver looking both ways to see if another train was coming. If the O-Train was given a FRA exemption, I’m pretty sure that GO could get one too assuming they proposed something reasonable.
Steve: The problem is that the freight operations are not only at night. The lines involved are main lines for CN and CP, and they have traffic all day long. Where exemptions are possible would be on lines where there would be no freight, but these are not the highest candidates for electrification: Lake Shore and Georgetown.
LikeLike
Steve on Lakeshore West, are there not 3 sets of tracks most of the way west, with only a couple of narrow spots? If the 3rd set was continuous is the corridor configured so it be possible to have GO run on dedicated rails and have freight go through on the 3rd set of rails. Is the frequency of freight trains too high to permit it to pass where there are 4 sets? Would this not a large change in the way the tracks are currently managed? Is it physically possible?
Also in terms of frequency for approaches to Union, assuming you did change the signals, had track space, and got approval for tighter spacing, can Union Station itself handle a change from 6 to say 8 trains per hour without major work?
Steve: It’s not enough to have separate tracks. There are physical separation requirements between those tracks, and the services must not cross each other. As for Union, capacity problems arise (as Robert Wightman has described) from shared platforms where two trains may unload at the same time. The shorter the headway, the more likely this is to occur. GO could probably get up to 8 trains/hour provided that they all ran through. The fun starts when we talk about 10 or more trains per hour each way on multiple services.
LikeLike
I suspect that multiple services with 10 or more would hit a lot of constraints even in pedestrian traffic away from the station, especially in bad weather. .
LikeLike
Well, since I actually have to point out the obvious, crews want a rest at the end of a run. As a result, you need platform space for idling trains which is why a pure cross platform operation won’t work at Aldershot. A locomotive swap out eliminates the need for space dedicated to trains that only operate along the non electrified portion of the line. Also, the cost of outsourcing the swap out operation to CN is less than the cost of hiring more crews to have a hot swap operation to minimize station dwell time at Aldershot which will be mandated by CN if you want to keep diesel and electric operations separate. Of course, in addition to Kristian’s point about running trains express between Aldershot and Union not needing 12 car trains, a dual-mode locomotive avoids these points which is why I brought up the ALP-45DP in the first place.
The issue about Aldershot being along CN owned trackage is a minor one since the overhead on the line must be built to handle high clearance freight cars due to the Oakville Assembly Complex. CN also has an existing bypass track along the north side of the station in the event CN is transporting a load that cannot pass under the overhead. As a result, CN would not be outright against the idea of having electric operations at all of Aldershot’s platforms.
LikeLike
I wanted to respond to this question long ago but was having trouble accessing the site from my computer.
Steve: The site was down for several days last week.
Moaz: I don’t think that a GO tunnel under downtown belongs in the “sensible” list but I am curious as to the answer of whether the DRL should be built using TR “subway” trains or standard-gauge high-floor EMUs collecting power from an overhead wire.
Steve: To handle railway equipment, the tunnel will have to be considerably larger than for subway or LRT, and that’s a substantial cost. The plan (such as there are any plans so far) is to operate the DRL from Greenwood and shift some of the Bloor trains elsewhere. The TTC is eyeing property in the west end for a satellite yard.
If the plan is to share the Greenwood Yard and interchange with the rest of the subway network then it makes sense to use TRs. But if the DRL is going to be fully separated from the subway network and a standard-gauge EMU can be stored at Bathurst North yard … then I think the main challenge is the need for larger tunnel to accommodate the pantograph and wire.
The big question is whether or not Metrolinx will decide to “take over” the DRL (some kind of EMU operating on standard-gauge tracks, financed by Metrolinx through a PPP) or just pay for a “TTC-owned-and-operated” DRL-subway that uses TR trains.
Steve: I get rather tired of a stealth campaign to convert the DRL to mainline rail, and thence make its co-existence on the Weston corridor simpler. It’s a subway. Get used to it.
Another issue … will it make sense to have an EMU fleet or bi-level trains pulled by electric locomotives and pushed/pulled by powered cars. I think GO would prefer electric locomotives but Murray has mentioned EMUs.
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: The advantages of faster acceleration cannot be achieved without EMUs.
LikeLike
Let’s think this through. Lakeshore will be every 15 minutes with electrified trains if the Liberals are to be believed. A train that terminates at Aldershot right now sits there for 16 minutes. They arrive on the 18 and the 48 and leave on the 04 and the 34. If we take this down to 15 minutes they would arrive on the 03, 18, 33 and 48 an leave on the 04, 19, 34 and 49. Since they are not going to do a 1 minute turn around they would still have a 16 minute lay over for recovery time end change, potty brake smoke coffee etc. Let’s say we have an hourly service beyond from there that will connect with the train inbound on the 34. It could arrive on the 28 giving passengers plenty of time to transfer to the inbound on the 34 and pick up passengers from the outbound on the 33, no engine swap, no muss, no fuss, no expense.
Dwell time does not change with a “hot swap” versus connecting services. There is always an electric train in the station and there would only be a diesel for 10 to 15 minutes per hour. Your plan would still have 2 trains in the station for part of the time to perform the cross platform connection while you swapped locomotives. I still fail to see any advantage to your proposal.
If you feel there is a need to continue on that train to Union then run it express and get those people there faster, especially if they are coming from Niagara or Brantford. There is no way they will get 15 minute service in the foreseeable future and the value of a dual power locomotive is wasted on a service that does not stop. The ALP-45DP costs $15 million each and still only pulls 8 cars in diesel mode.
The issue is not the overhead clearance; it would need to be about 23 to 25 feet anyways because CN still runs freights on the Lakeshore corridor. The issue is line capacity. The Halton sub joins in between Burlington and Aldershot along with all of CN’s freight to south west Ontario and the US. I don’t think I mentioned overhead clearance as a problem because it is not. The problem was and still is line capacity. Please do not read things into my comment that are not there.
LikeLike
The thing is that for this to work, would certainly mean that it would mean Scarborough would not need a subway, and an extension north on Yonge would not have the volumes either. The issue I have is that while such an idea could likely provide substantial relief, it does not provide relief to the traffic generated in the inner 416 riding the bus to stations inside Kennedy and Steeles. You would need to divert the equivalent of all the growth bound for the Yonge and Danforth lines which would need to all come from the 905 and outer 416, because as Steve has indicated it once a rider got on the subway they are unlikely to get off.
Steve: And “Joe” undermines his argument with a gratuitous remark about “people who … just want a pet subway”. For examples, please see Vaughan and Scarborough, for starters.
LikeLike
It is also quite interesting in terms of what his thoughts imply for prospects of growth in traffic. This would be especially so for those who say LRT is not enough at the outer ends. If his position were correct, in order for this to work
1. GO in CPR would have to be a reality, and be heavily used.
2. GO to Stouffville, would need to very frequent and heavily used.
3. Barrie & Richmond Hill as well, would need to be high density services with very high uptake.
This in effect to divert all outer 416 and 905 growth away from subway, meaning no extensions required.
It also would require a very good system of transfer from GO to TTC for trip distribution, and most destination growth to be in the centre of current and south core. Also this requires an expectation of very little residential growth or intensification in the areas of the inner 416. Notably, no meaningful intensification east of Broadview on or near the Danforth, no major intensification along the Eglinton LRT, or of traffic that is bound for the Yonge line south of Steeles.
On the Yonge line itself I can imagine 33-36 trains per hour assuming a billion+ is spent on added turn backs at the north end of Yonge Line. 40 trains — strains the imagination.
The current organic growth of 2.5% for 10 years is 28%, or the equivalent of 27=>35 trains per hour on Yonge. How much of this can be sent to GO? Given current crowding and service issues — I expect if you added the trains now, and a reasonable number of buses Yonge would likely most of this capacity growth consumed very shortly after it is ushered into existence (as soon as people know it is there).
LikeLike
The problem is not the number of freights on the line, I believe that there is only one through freight each way by Union but the fact that CN and CP retain the right to operate along the Lakeshore corridor as necessary to move freights. The third and fourth tracks are mainly used in the rush hour to get express trains and dead moves past the stopping trains. These trains eat up most of the capacity on these “extra tracks”. The fact that they must be able to handle freights when necessary does not help. Also in the west end there are auto rack moves to and from the Ford plant in Oakville.
I assume you mean 6 to 8 trains per track per hour. The track spacing in Union is fixed and cannot be moved because of the pillars under the tracks that support them. The spacing is actually too close as it is and is borderline dangerous. Someone is eventually going to fall under one of those trains.
The problem is that right now there is too much track flexibility. On each side of the station there are two sets of crossing tracks with double slip switches which run from north to south and south to north. This allows a train that comes in on any track get to any platform. The problem is that when the train is crossing any intermediate tracks those tracks are not useable from the time the switches are locked until they are cleared. This can take 5 or 6 minutes with interlocking timing. They could operate more service if they eliminated this flexibility and limited trains to only a couple of tracks for each GO line.
LikeLike
Do I understand correctly this could be done by changing their operating practices? That is, it is not the presence of all those crossing tracks but the fact that they use them which renders the intermediate tracks not useable for that time. It seems that they should be able to keep the crossing tracks available for occasional use but possibly re-think the way they use the station to use them much less.
On a related note, do you know how the train traffic through Union now compares to the 30s, 40s, 50s, etc.? I have long marvelled at how stunningly inefficient VIA operations are (passenger loading practices, for example), and just can’t imagine how the station would have worked back when many more trains were operated. Or is GO essentially taking up the same capacity that was formerly used by CN and CP passenger trains?
Steve: It’s important to remember that in its heyday, Union Station was right next door to the coach and locomotive yards for the railways, and everything was organized to get trains into and through the station quickly. Now VIA trains must shuttle in from Willowbrook when there is free track time, and passengers almost certainly carry more of their own baggage. Station staff would have been fairly numerous because there were always trains to serve, but at the level we now see, keeping an army of agents on hand for a train now and then gets expensive.
LikeLike
At a recent presentation to Transport Action Canada, a representative from Metrolinx outlined a plan to consolidate VIA rail service at the south end of Union Station, removing the second to last track and replacing it with a high-level Platform 28/29.
VIA service would essentially be moved to 27, 28 & 29 and GO would take over the old VIA Platforms
Cheers, Moaz
LikeLike
If a train is limited to staying on the track it arrives on or one on either side then it can only block access to 2 tracks. If a train goes from track 2 to track 9 then it is blocking the use of tracks 2, 3, 4, 5 ,6, 7, 8 and 9. So a change in operating strategy would improve the ability of trains to use the station. The double set of slip switches going both ways look really impressive but they are extremely expensive to build and maintain. Metrolinx just overhauled all of them and while I am not certain of the cost I think it was above $20 million. Perhaps someone can remember the actual value. They are also a problem in ice and snow as they tend to freeze. I believe GO has a plan to only use one out of each pair in snow and ice.
Until the mid 60s all of CN’s freights and a number of CP’s ran along the lakeshore through Union Station rail corridor. As Steve said both CP’s and CN’s passenger shops and locomotive maintenance facilities were near Union. They both operated a lot of milk run passenger services that have since been abandoned. In the mid 60s and early 70s CP got almost entirely out of Passenger service while CN put up a valiant effort to keep it going but the feds eventually stopped their aid. IIRC there used to be 5 trains each way between Toronto and Windsor and 4 between Toronto and Sarnia with both sets using the Oakville and Dundas subs. On top of this there were 3 Budd trains that did the Toronto London run via Kitchener and Stratford. These used to do meets in London with some of the Windsor and Sarnia trains. The Windsor trains made fewer stops between London and Toronto than the Sarnia trains and there were often 3 way meets in London to trade passengers. One or two of the Sarnia trains went onto Chicago.
There 3 trains to Niagara and 5 or 6 trains to Montreal and about 3 to Ottawa with some extra service to and from Kingston. On top of this there were the transcontinental trains and the ONR ones.
So yes there were a lot more regular passenger trains and very few GO trains. I would bet that there are a lot more passenger trains running through Union now but most are GO.
LikeLike