SaugeenJunction
Senior Member
Here is the quote from VIA's 2018-2022 Corporate Plan on page 23 (most recent plan). They seem pretty intent on buying it.
And on page 57:
Last edited:
|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
Here is the quote from VIA's 2018-2022 Corporate Plan on page 23 (most recent plan). They seem pretty intent on buying it.
And on page 57:
crs1026
Superstar
Perhaps, but notice how the early trains to Kingston and Windsor both depart well before 0700, due to track availability. And then there are the delays to Kingston trains attributable to the introduction of 15 minute headways. The squeeze is there, If GO keeps growing, the growth will eventually be at VIA’s expense. I expect the Kitchener line will see its share of that.
- Paul
Northern Light
Superstar
On the Kingston/LSE this is why VIA requires a single, dedicated track from Toronto-Union to Durham Junction (where the GO sub breaks off and its service no longer conflicts with VIA).
This is also another critical reason they current proposals for Ontario Line going overground through Leslieville are untenable.
There is easy room to take this corridor to 5 tracks, (2 for LSE, 2 for Stouffiville and 1 for VIA) with minimal if any embankment expansion.
But as soon as you add the O/L you're now in need of six tracks without considering VIA's needs or 7 with VIA, and you have to find room for 2 stations (East Harbour and Gerrard in there somewhere, and a portal into the tunnel).
That is hideously expensive and unworkable.
O/L needs to be underground and we need to get on with a layout of 5 tracks to Stouffville Junction (from the Don) and then 3 up to Durham.
On K-W, the corridor likewise needs a single track dedicated to VIA at least until Georgetown, after which sharing track with GO to K-W is probably manageable.
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
Transit references start on PDF page 89.
No new information as best I can tell. Nice to see though a reference to electrification. Content on the other transit projects as well.
No new information as best I can tell. Nice to see though a reference to electrification. Content on the other transit projects as well.
smallspy
Senior Member
Why do you need a dedicated track for anything?
It serves everyone far better if the tracks are grouped and shared by purpose, rather than by line or service. You get far better throughput that way.
Dan
Krypto98
Active Member
UP and Go has been sharing tracks for quite awhile now. During off peak Usually at humberview or nickel after Etobicoke North the train switches from the northmost active track to whatever eastbound Track UP is using. Usually its because of the Northbound barrie train coming out of union, otherwise the kitchener train has to wait for the Barrie train to clear.
Lately for the off peak trains, they have been doing Weston Go construction.
Northern Light
Superstar
You're quite correct, if total capacity is at right level; signalling is appropriate and modern and the nominally controlling carrier is fair with any other user.
I'm not sure anyone can count on any of that.
Certainly there are indications that ML has already caused some shift in VIA departure times; and we're nowhere near peak levels of conflict.
That's more an issue of total track capacity (number of tracks and signals) than dedication of tracks; but also indicates ML is inclined to give its own service priority, should conflict arise.
A dedicated track belonging to VIA avoids this issue.
In the LSE space, I imagine peak movements by VIA at 4 per hour (departures every 30m, plus arriving trains); up against GO service at 7 '30 or better on both the LSE and Stouffville services. I think that leaves a lot of room for conflict.
Kitchener, less so. But you're still looking at the Brampton bottle neck; and even without that, if Windsor service peaks at say 8 trips per day (hourly at a peak time), in conflict with GO service that's hourly to K-W, but 15M or better from Bramalea, plus UP and any freight issues.....
I'm certainly open to alternate ways to organize service; and alternate ways to create throughput; the key, in truth is we want/need a hell of a lot more of that than what we have today.
crs1026
Superstar
I have no knowledge of what the service agreements between ML and VIA specify - but VIA's relationship with ML is no different than its relationship with freight railways. In ML's case, their operations are sufficiently interdependent that I'm sure they try to stay on each others' good side, most of the time.
However, with the USRC and the LSE, LSW, and Kitchener lines all requiring substantial capital investment, it strikes me as a no-brainer that ML will eventually draw attention to VIA's presence and wonder aloud whether VIA should be contributing to the capital investment if they wish to continue using those corridors at the current or at an expanded level. In fact, given the present occupants at Queens Park, with their lack of love for Ottawa, I'm surprised that this hasn't happened already. Personally, I think it's a fair argument to make.
Obviously, VIA has little prospect of getting money from its masters to protect its use of ML's lines. This is another death-by-1000-paper-cuts issue for VIA.
- Paul
smallspy
Senior Member
I'm not as pessimistic about that as you are, it would seem.
For all of its faults, at the end of the day Metrolinx is in the same business as VIA - moving passengers - and so their needs from a railway standpoint are very similar. VIA's trains can slot in quite easily between GO's own trains, and do on a regular basis.
Considering the considerable capacity gains that have occured simply by upgrading the signalling on the Weston Sub, I can't see how Metrolinx wouldn't do the same on the Oakville and Kingston Subs. Yes, there will still be a need for more track, but certainly not 5 tracks worth between Don and Scarborough.
I'm not sure that's actually correct. Metrolinx certainly had given VIA no issues with their net additions over the past couple of years.
Well of course they would - that's the whole point of owning the line.
But one can not assume that a "dedicated" line used solely by VIA would also allow dedicated VIA operation. Perhaps if they built a dedicated line on their own property, but that isn't likely to happen if they continue to use, or wish to continue to use, the Kingston, Oakville and Weston Subs.
At a cost, of course. But again it also ignores the question of ownership, which almost certainly wouldn't revert to VIA.
Under the current track and signal conditions, yes, it will be a very, very tight squeeze.
But Metrolinx doesn't seem inclined to keep the track and signal condition as it currently sits. There are completed EAs for a 4th mainline track from Don to Scarborough, and a 3rd mainline from Guildwood to Liverpool, after all.
Right now the biggest bottleneck is between Georgetown and Kitchener. Until additional sidings are put into service, they can't even run an hourly service to Kitchener, nevermind thinking of rerouting the Windsor VIA service.
Only once that is taken care of do things like the third track from Mount Pleasant to Georgetown and downtown Brampton really need to be looked after.
Completely agreed.
Dan
mdrejhon
Senior Member
With some countries successfully milking 5-minute and 10-minute 2-way service on single-track corridors (using only 2-track stations as crossing points) -- there's some real incredible efficiency gains to be had on many railroad corridors simply by resignalling (though some require Transport Canada approvals, e.g. moving-block signalling).
The brute force hammer is to add more track, but one can more than double or triple the capacity per track -- just by using other tricks like resignalling, new train control systems, and new operating methodologies. Capacity can be surprisingly low with very coarse granular block-based operations of traditional North American rail road operations. Glance at a high frequency Japanese mainline, Paris-Lyon TGV, Paris RER -- just ramming those trains through every few minutes on the same track. In a previous era, it would have been sheer insanity to run 300kph trains at subway frequencies but they do nowadays. But those high capacity signalling systems cost oodles of money.
Here, you just shake your head at how inefficiently utilized our trackage is in comparison, with trackage unable to safely sustain 15-minute headways if you follow methology rules to the tee. In classical signalling system, a single train can flag many (even tens) kilometers of track as being occupied. The speeds too low & the blocks just too coarse to permit short headways per track. The point is that we are milking less than 25% of our theoretical train throughput per track in many locations. It just hasn't really been necessary, especially with track only needing one passenger train per hour. Or a few freight trains per day. But the times are changing...
Progress can be smarter -- like a 3-track corridor and upgrading signalling / train control. That can have more capacity than a 4-track corridor (and expropriations) with older signalling / train control.
Also, operators need to co-operate. Agree to the high-capacity rail signalling / operating methodologies too. As long as the operators are willing to work with each other, sheer efficiency gains are possible. Like how CN and CP share assets (when it suits both) to behave as a defacto double track -- like westward CN/CP trains all going on CN single track, and eastward CN/CP trains all going on CP single track. That's the Thompson and Fraser Valley "arrangements". Instead of being forced to work bidirectionally in their fiefdoms (bidirectional on single track), they pool their assets together if it massively benefits both of them simultaneously (defacto double track).
Likewise, big efficiency gains are possible when all operators co-operate better -- i.e. GO / VIA / Freights / etc inside Toronto's mostly Metrolinx-owned mainline network. Now, simultaneously combine that with short-headway signalling, and incredible frequency gains are possible for all operators simultaneously.
All needs to be done over time (per-track efficiency AND extra tracks). They're not to the exclusion of each other.
Related thread: New GO Train Control+Signalling (PTC, CBTC, ETC) -- Safety & Subway-Like Frequency
The brute force hammer is to add more track, but one can more than double or triple the capacity per track -- just by using other tricks like resignalling, new train control systems, and new operating methodologies. Capacity can be surprisingly low with very coarse granular block-based operations of traditional North American rail road operations. Glance at a high frequency Japanese mainline, Paris-Lyon TGV, Paris RER -- just ramming those trains through every few minutes on the same track. In a previous era, it would have been sheer insanity to run 300kph trains at subway frequencies but they do nowadays. But those high capacity signalling systems cost oodles of money.
Here, you just shake your head at how inefficiently utilized our trackage is in comparison, with trackage unable to safely sustain 15-minute headways if you follow methology rules to the tee. In classical signalling system, a single train can flag many (even tens) kilometers of track as being occupied. The speeds too low & the blocks just too coarse to permit short headways per track. The point is that we are milking less than 25% of our theoretical train throughput per track in many locations. It just hasn't really been necessary, especially with track only needing one passenger train per hour. Or a few freight trains per day. But the times are changing...
Progress can be smarter -- like a 3-track corridor and upgrading signalling / train control. That can have more capacity than a 4-track corridor (and expropriations) with older signalling / train control.
Also, operators need to co-operate. Agree to the high-capacity rail signalling / operating methodologies too. As long as the operators are willing to work with each other, sheer efficiency gains are possible. Like how CN and CP share assets (when it suits both) to behave as a defacto double track -- like westward CN/CP trains all going on CN single track, and eastward CN/CP trains all going on CP single track. That's the Thompson and Fraser Valley "arrangements". Instead of being forced to work bidirectionally in their fiefdoms (bidirectional on single track), they pool their assets together if it massively benefits both of them simultaneously (defacto double track).
Likewise, big efficiency gains are possible when all operators co-operate better -- i.e. GO / VIA / Freights / etc inside Toronto's mostly Metrolinx-owned mainline network. Now, simultaneously combine that with short-headway signalling, and incredible frequency gains are possible for all operators simultaneously.
All needs to be done over time (per-track efficiency AND extra tracks). They're not to the exclusion of each other.
Related thread: New GO Train Control+Signalling (PTC, CBTC, ETC) -- Safety & Subway-Like Frequency
Last edited:
tmlittle
Active Member
You nailed it. A lot of people in North America seem to think every rail service needs its own corridor and I think this misconception is a product of the freight railways neglecting infrastructure and the long consists and lack of sidings. Companies also have an incentive to flip the table and claim there's no way a new service could operate along existing lines because then they can block that service or end up with dedicated tracks built for it so that their own corridors are protected. Freight operators were happy to pay for new bridges and tunnels so they could run double stacks but when it comes to implementing even late 20th century signals tech it's impossible.
Allandale25
Senior Member
More information here on the TPAP for Guelph Subdivision:
www.metrolinxengage.com
Timeline: https://www.metrolinxengage.com/sites/default/files/kitchener_history.pdf
Colour version of the map.
Kitchener Electrification – Guelph Subdivision | Metrolinx Engage
A TPAP is an environmental assessment that studies the environmental impacts or effects of transit projects, and provides proposed mitigation. This streamlined approach helps to protect the environment, and allows for feedback through regular consultation from communities and stakeholders. The...
Timeline: https://www.metrolinxengage.com/sites/default/files/kitchener_history.pdf
Colour version of the map.
Allandale25
Senior Member
robmausser
Senior Member
More information here on the TPAP for Guelph Subdivision:
Kitchener Electrification – Guelph Subdivision | Metrolinx Engage
A TPAP is an environmental assessment that studies the environmental impacts or effects of transit projects, and provides proposed mitigation. This streamlined approach helps to protect the environment, and allows for feedback through regular consultation from communities and stakeholders. The...
Timeline: https://www.metrolinxengage.com/sites/default/files/kitchener_history.pdf
Colour version of the map.
View attachment 214164
I wonder if the VIA Trains that use this corridor could get a dual-mode loco and use the electrification to their benefit.
Not only talking about whether its technically possible or worth it for them, but I mean more along the lines of would Metrolinx allow them to?
Whats the protocol on overhead power sharing? It must be different than allowing trains to use your track
crs1026
Superstar
Lots of ways to do it. For the power - options vary from "reading the meter" on each locomotive/EMU to negotiating a per train or even annual set price for the electricity using some base assumptions about the likely energy consumption. for operating and maintaining the catenary, determining the relative share of maintenance and operating costs to be covered would be much like determining dispatching and MOW maintenance charges. I'm sure that provision would just find its way into the service agreement between VIA and ML.
Have we heard anything that states definitively that CN and ML have reached an agreement over the Halton Sub section? The recent service improvements appear to imply that, and ML must have some confidence in CN's comfort with their plans to proceed with this TPAP . But I haven't seen anything saying this for the record. The concept of dual mode is speculative (and not a bad idea) - but do we know anything as fact?
Certainly a good question for upcoming town halls.
- Paul