GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[WB62]

6,000 weekly was not the highest number Metrolinx has promised over the past few years. The number was as high at 10,500 trips at one point. Pay attention to the phrasing used on this project overview graphic over the years, it happens to match the scope of the project at the time.

The first version from 2022 showed a commitment to trains every 15 minutes, and 10,000 weekly trips:

The second version from 2022 shows a commitment to running service every 3 to 8 minutes peak, 6 to 15 minutes off-peak, and 10,500 weekly trips:

The third version from 2024 shows a descoped promise, committing to building capacity to run trains every 15 minutes, and 10,000 weekly trips:

 

[generalcanada]

6,000 weekly was not the highest number Metrolinx has promised over the past few years. The number was as high at 10,500 trips at one point. Pay attention to the phrasing used on this project overview graphic over the years, it happens to match the scope of the project at the time.

The first version from 2022 showed a commitment to trains every 15 minutes, and 10,000 weekly trips:

The second version from 2022 shows a commitment to running service every 3 to 8 minutes peak, 6 to 15 minutes off-peak, and 10,500 weekly trips:

The third version from 2024 shows a descoped promise, committing to building capacity to run trains every 15 minutes, and 10,000 weekly trips:

View attachment 658514

I think thats a little too minor to be worth mentioning

 

[bearcat]

6,000 weekly was not the highest number Metrolinx has promised over the past few years. The number was as high at 10,500 trips at one point. Pay attention to the phrasing used on this project overview graphic over the years, it happens to match the scope of the project at the time.

The first version from 2022 showed a commitment to trains every 15 minutes, and 10,000 weekly trips:

The second version from 2022 shows a commitment to running service every 3 to 8 minutes peak, 6 to 15 minutes off-peak, and 10,500 weekly trips:

The third version from 2024 shows a descoped promise, committing to building capacity to run trains every 15 minutes, and 10,000 weekly trips:

View attachment 658514

They also changed the picture of level boarding to an elevator lol. I assume level boarding is the last thing Metrolinx is interested in now.

 

[WB62]

I think thats a little too minor to be worth mentioning

This is what Metrolinx used on the GO expansion page, presentations, emails, and physical pamphlets for years. I wouldn't pass what was shown off as nothing.

 

[afransen]

I did get a little intel in some of the odd issues that were raised by the graphics in the Trillium article.

First, the notion of "North" vs "South" systems is based on a couple of logistical points rather than a lack of interest in building all lines. The biggest differentiator is Union Station, which before too long will have the new expanded south end platforms ready. At that point, and with some trackwork restored, it will be possible to route LSE/LSW along the south side of the USRC such that there are no routing conflicts with the other "North" lines. That's a big benefit for LSE/LSW operations and readies it for upgrading well ahead of the other routes.

Once LSE/LSW get their south routing, it then becomes possible to begin modifying the older platforms to a new configuration. That requires one or more platforms to be taken out of service at a time....and that constrains how many trains can use the station per hour. So while other routes that will use the older platforms may see a little added service, the sequencing can't happen as fast as LSE/LSW.

Also, the "Northern" lines have much work left to be done to complete double tracking and signalling just to get to 2WAD. These things have to be further along before either service upgrades can match LSE/LSW and before electrification can be pursued.

Lastly, as to the reference to CN freight ..... while CN sold GO the Oakville Sub, CN retained emergency rights to the full line with full clearance ( full Plate H, in fact) guarantees right thru the USRC. So while CN is not using USRC at the moment, that capability has to be built into the new design.

So, there is some logic to the North vs South premise.... the point being, LSE/LSW will be ready for improvements sooner than the others... it's not that other lines are being downgraded, but more that things can't all happen at once. Separating the lines into two bundles means they can be planned and executed at different paces and that affects their operation for the next decade.

Lastly, with the new south platforms coming, the biggest constraint on electrification for LSE/LSW isn't the USRC - it's a few low bridges, especially around Parkdale. The graphics implied a "gap" in electrification, but that isn't so, it's just how the slides were drawn. The schedule for addressing those bridges is what determines when electrification can be started. The schedule for other lines will happen when other technical issues on those corridors are solved.

It's still a lot less than what the grandiose PR declarations promised.... but it's not without some underlying planning and thought.

- Paul

Doesn't this kind of raise the question of why those critical path items weren't started or prioritized earlier? We're they really just surprised?

 

[Urban Sky]

Doesn't this kind of raise the question of why those critical path items weren't started or prioritized earlier? We're they really just surprised?

I suspect they are just slowly finding out that building one of the most ambitious expansion projects this planet has seen so far for any regional rail network* is just very complex, as there are so many path-dependencies. Sure, you could start electrification now, but then you just make relocating the tracks to their final location even more expensive and complex…

*seriously, if someone knows a somewhat valid example for what GO Expansion has been (or still is) trying to achieve, I‘d be very curious to hear, because I can‘t think of anything which comes close…

 

[urbanclient]

I suspect they are just slowly finding out that building one of the most ambitious expansion projects this planet has seen so far for any regional rail network* is just very complex, as there are so many path-dependencies. Sure, you could start electrification now, but then you just make relocating the tracks to their final location even more expensive and complex…

*seriously, if someone knows a somewhat valid example for what GO Expansion has been (or still is) trying to achieve, I‘d be very curious to hear, because I can‘t think of anything which comes close…

National HSR in China run by China Railway (CR, formerly CRH) expanding at 3000km per year, including 'intercity' lines that run trains with shorter routes and more frequent stops (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railway_High-speed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China);

Intercity rail in China run by two city regions: Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Region intercity railway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_River_Delta_Metropolitan_Region_intercity_railway) around Guangzhou and various municipal run intercity systems around Shanghai such as the Shanghai Suburban Railway (intercity/regional/suburban/commuter rail systems that are not part of national high speed rail system, CR, that often have full height or half platform screen doors);

Metro/subway lines expanding at around 1000km per year including intercity-style, fast subway lines across all Chinese cities e.g. Guangzhou Line 18 with a top speed of 160km/h, 8 stops over ~60km which is less dense stop spacing than Lakeshore West from Aldershot to Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_18_(Guangzhou_Metro));

I've tried all 3 while visiting and the chasm in both quality and speed between Anglosphere North American public transportation and everyone else is just mind boggling. Even Sydney Metro and Sydney Trains blow TTC Subway and Metrolinx GO out of the water. And Sydney is only 2/3 the size of Toronto with a current population of around ~6 million for Greater Sydney vs. 9.5 million for the GTHA when accounting for population growth since 2021 and CIBC Senior Economist Benjamin Tal's estimates of temporary resident undercounts. Sydney is both less dense for the same approximate land mass and less populated overall, yet somehow managed to achieve GO Expansion's promised electrification and service intervals with Sydney Trains and an electrified airport link in 2000, a full 25 years ago. Their fully automated heavy metro system that first opened for service in 2019 is about to hit 113km before the Ontario Line will start running.

 

[kaptrice]

6,000 weekly was not the highest number Metrolinx has promised over the past few years. The number was as high at 10,500 trips at one point. Pay attention to the phrasing used on this project overview graphic over the years, it happens to match the scope of the project at the time.

The first version from 2022 showed a commitment to trains every 15 minutes, and 10,000 weekly trips:

The second version from 2022 shows a commitment to running service every 3 to 8 minutes peak, 6 to 15 minutes off-peak, and 10,500 weekly trips:

The third version from 2024 shows a descoped promise, committing to building capacity to run trains every 15 minutes, and 10,000 weekly trips:

I would note that the Metrolinx website still mentions "nearly 10,000" weekly trips, as well as 20% faster travel on the LSE page. I don't know if this is still true or not.

 

[Urban Sky]

National HSR in China run by China Railway (CR, formerly CRH) expanding at 3000km per year, including 'intercity' lines that run trains with shorter routes and more frequent stops (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railway_High-speed, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_China);

Intercity rail in China run by two city regions: Pearl River Delta Metropolitan Region intercity railway (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_River_Delta_Metropolitan_Region_intercity_railway) around Guangzhou and various municipal run intercity systems around Shanghai such as the Shanghai Suburban Railway (intercity/regional/suburban/commuter rail systems that are not part of national high speed rail system, CR, that often have full height or half platform screen doors);

Metro/subway lines expanding at around 1000km per year including intercity-style, fast subway lines across all Chinese cities e.g. Guangzhou Line 18 with a top speed of 160km/h, 8 stops over ~60km which is less dense stop spacing than Lakeshore West from Aldershot to Union (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_18_(Guangzhou_Metro));

I've tried all 3 while visiting and the chasm in both quality and speed between Anglosphere North American public transportation and everyone else is just mind boggling. Even Sydney Metro and Sydney Trains blow TTC Subway and Metrolinx GO out of the water. And Sydney is only 2/3 the size of Toronto with a current population of around ~6 million for Greater Sydney vs. 9.5 million for the GTHA when accounting for population growth since 2021 and CIBC Senior Economist Benjamin Tal's estimates of temporary resident undercounts. Sydney is both less dense for the same approximate land mass and less populated overall, yet somehow managed to achieve GO Expansion's promised electrification and service intervals with Sydney Trains and an electrified airport link in 2000, a full 25 years ago. Their fully automated heavy metro system that first opened for service in 2019 is about to hit 113km before the Ontario Line will start running.

You are describing the built network, I‘m referring to the scale and staging of the planning and construction, i.e. the path to get from the initial to the desired network. And that is where I have yet to receive an example of similar ambition*, as every single advanced network I can think of evolved gradually and/or steadily (rather than through a single „big bang“ project), like I described below:

Again, I invite you to find European projects of a comparable ambition to the initial scope of GO Expansion (especially at the time when the contract to ONxpress was awarded) and to compare the evolution of timelines and budgets with what we are trying here. Construction of the City Tunnel in Frankfurt (i.e., the backbone of the Rhein-Main S-Bahn) started in 1969 and it took 21 years before the first S-Bahn train traveled through the entire tunnel to surface at Südbahnhof in 1990, with another branch (to Mühlberg) opening in 1992 (extended towards Offenbach in 1995), while the branch towards Ostbahnhof (the "Nordmainische S-Bahn" towards Hanau) is expected to open in 2031. That's 62 years after construction started and doesn't include the planning phases.

Without knowing the staging of the various projects which led to the network, it is impossible to compare your examples to what we are trying to achieve here…


* The same, by the way, is true of ALTO, and is much more worrying than for GO since ALTO still seems to still be stuck in the „scope creep phase“ rather than proceeding to the inevitable reality check, like the one GO Expansion has just received.

 

[robmausser]

I suspect they are just slowly finding out that building one of the most ambitious expansion projects this planet has seen so far for any regional rail network* is just very complex, as there are so many path-dependencies. Sure, you could start electrification now, but then you just make relocating the tracks to their final location even more expensive and complex…

*seriously, if someone knows a somewhat valid example for what GO Expansion has been (or still is) trying to achieve, I‘d be very curious to hear, because I can‘t think of anything which comes close…

This is true and while I know a lot of people want electrification for many reasons (environmental, speed and frequency, keeping up with the european jonzes etc) I think it actually would be a poor decision to electrify asap without double tracking all the lines and getting frequency maxed out with the existing fleet first. Not only for the purpose of expediency of service, but also because you risk having to re-do much of the electrification to fit more tracks in, etc.

The issue I have, is that even doing THAT is taking FOREVER. Lol. I swear metrolinx is laying a rail tie a day for the double tracking and other rail projects. Hurry the F up!

Whatever needs to happen to speed up the expansion of the system in its simplest form needs to happen much much faster.

 

[ssiguy2]

I know I am REALLY going to regret bringing this up but.........seeing stringing up wires seems like an impossible task for ML, why don't they go with battery trains?

The Stadler Flirt Akku battery trains can go up to 150km without recharging {starting from 80% charge to 20%} and has nearly the same performance levels as their regular Flirt EMUs, reduced slightly due to battery weight. They take anywhere from 20 to 30 minutes to recharge to 80%. A 4 car train set has 300 seated capacity.

Those recharging/distance times, however, do NOT include recharging along the way. That could be either partially electrified portions {which seems like an impossibility for the rocket scientists at ML} or recharging at each station stop. This is quite a simple, fast, and cheap procedure. Going this route also reduces maintenance costs as well as leaves the system less vulnerable to extreme weather events.

Metra is probably the most comparable commuter rail system to GO. Similar stop spacing, topography, and climate and they signed a $US 118 million order early this year with Stadler for these Flirt Akku 2 car trains. They simply acknowledged the fact that extending their system wide electrical infrastructure wasn't worth it being too time consuming and too expensive. They are expecting the first delivery in 2027.

It would be MUCH cheaper and faster electrifying each station than every KM of route and would still offer the safe, smooth, reliable, comfortable, quiet and zero emissions travel that FLIRT & Stadler are known for. If METRA is going this way then why not GO?

 

[Urban Sky]

I know I am REALLY going to regret bringing this up but.........

You absolutely should regret bringing this up, as we’ve already explained to you dozens of times why GO Expansion is certainly not the right guinea pig for these kind of (at any meaningful scale) unproven and (for the intended frequencies and train lengths) unsuitable technologies. So please keep your trolling for yourself and leave the discussions to the people who actually want to learn from each other‘s contributions rather than just dumping the ever-same talking points and then go hiding. Thank you!

 

[ssiguy2]

^^^ Fine but before scoffing off my suggestion, why don't you present one of your own? We know this new 2032 target for only a couple lines will also be late and way over budget. After all, ML has been talking about electrification for over a decade and have yet to get a pole in the ground and there is absolutely no reason to think the next decade will be any different. They can certainly still use the monster diesel trains for rush-hour but off -peak/weekends, this seems like a good idea.

Anyway, instead of shooting down my idea why don't you tell us what you propose?

 

[crs1026]

Anyway, instead of shooting down my idea why don't you tell us what you propose?

Simple

1) Publish a scope document, with timetable, outlining the tasks and projects needed to achieve 15 minute 2WAD for each of the GO routes that are planned for electrification

2) Publish a quarterly progress report documenting work completed, cost incurred, and changes to projected timeline, measured against that original scope statement, as amended

3) Conduct a report and challenge session in the public portion of eavery ML Board meeting with respect to root causes of delays, and corrective actions where performance is not meeting target.

- Paul

 

[ssiguy2]

^^^ Those are all solid ideas and would help make ML far more accountable and transparent. The problem is that these "targets" can be moved or extended any time. ML has had so many targets for so many projects that they have gone from targets to mild suggestions.

ML/GO should scrap the entire idea of transferring the current locos over to electric and purchase battery and/or full catenary EMU trains to be deliverd beginning 2027 like Metra. This would force ML to go gangbusters on electrification. There is absolutely, positively NO reason why the entire original GO RER lines couldn't have catenary up within the year. It would hold ML's feet to the fire. Staying with just this idea of simply using electric locos allows, as we have seen, the timeline to be put back endlessly all while costs soar. If QP states it doesn't have the money yet, ML/GO have number of revenue resources it could tap into. First, they could get rid of free parking {except for the disabled} and second, sell the monstrous amount of surface parking lots they have at their stations. These are TODs waiting to happen and God knows Toronto needs the housing.

If ML had made an order for EMUs 3 years ago and they were beginning to arrive, we wouldn't be having this conversation...........the RER section of the system would already be up and running.