GO Transit Electrification | Metrolinx

[reaperexpress]

More realistically, anyone could just walk down to their local MP's constituency office, and ask them to tack on an amendment to the next bill to remove the train shed from the Union station heritage designation. The new environment minister, who will probably help set government policy, is a Toronto MP with a constituency office at Queen and Pape. Any MP could submit such an amendment though.

I think this is the most realistic path forward for getting electrification through Union. The biggest challenge to getting the shed removed would be public opposition (to changes to heritage designation), but if the pressure to remove the shed is coming from the public in the first place, that opposition doesn't have as much weight behind it.

We also don't need to completely remove the designation, it may just need to be scaled back a bit to allow the shed to be relocated to somewhere it's not preventing Canada's most populous region from introducing fully-electric (not battery-electric) trains. Perhaps part of the shed can be set up in Railway park, and/or indivdual modules can be reused as gazebos in parks across the city.

 

[reaperexpress]

How can GO realistically achieve European rail standards on the network when so much of the network is still single tracked, and shared with freight? It was never possible.

By adding a second track? Like they are doing as part of the project? And most of the network has minimal freight. There are only two places in the GO Expansion project with significant freight conflicts: West Harbour to Burlington, and Georgetown to Bramalea. Both have plans for additional tracks to enable increased passenger service with less conflict with freight. The latter even has a grade separation planned to bring passenger trains across the freight corridor without conflict.

This is one of the most pathetically Ontario Defeatist statements I've seen in a while. I mean come on, surely it's not hard to figure out that the solution to single-track constraints is to add a second track. And the solution to freight conflicts is to resolve the freight conflicts.

A lot of you guys are blowign this way out of proportion. Claiming the whole GTA is doomed because this project fell through.

I think you are blowing people's comments out of proportion. It is true that getting fast and frequent train service is very important to the GTA's economic viability, and a string of recent announcements has indicated that the pace and extent of service improvements will likely be only a fraction of what was originally promised.

All GO needs to do is get AD2W service with 15-30 frequency on as much of the network as possible using the existing diesel fleet. It's not complicated.

This idea that GO was going to run electric, 4-5 coach trains every 5 minutes on the lines was a pipe dream.

Diesel trains with two operators cost vastly more to operate than electric trains with one operator, while also attracting less revenue due to being slower. Sure, anything is possible if you throw enough money at it, but fundamental changes to opertions are required to make frequent service financially sustainable in the long term. There's a reason that nearly every frequent rail service on the planet uses electric trains, and it's not that the operators are tree-hugging hippies. It just makes financial sense.

 

[Bojaxs]

West Harbour to Burlington, and Georgetown to Bramalea. Both have plans for additional tracks to enable increased passenger service with less conflict with freight.

You mean Niagara Falls to Burlington? You're just going to forget the entire Milton and Richmond Hill lines?

Diesel trains with two operators cost vastly more to operate than electric trains with one operator, while also attracting less revenue due to being slower. Sure, anything is possible if you throw enough money at it, but fundamental changes to opertions are required to make frequent service financially sustainable in the long term. There's a reason that nearly every frequent rail service on the planet uses electric trains, and it's not that those places are tree-hugging hippies. It just makes financial sense.

I want to see GO trains down to 1 man cabin crews. But the Ontario government, Metrolinx, and ONXpress don't have the jurisdiction to force that to happen. It's up to the feds.

People on this forum don't understand the levels of bureaucracy that have to happen for the simplest decisions to get the green light. There are so many moving parts in the background that we don't see.

I think you are blowing people's comments out of proportion.

No I'm not. Some people are now posting "the sky is falling" type of comments since this came out.

 

[afransen]

If what some people in this thread are saying is true, then clearly OnXpress came into this not knowing what they were getting themselves into.

When it comes to crew sizes, you first have to get the Feds involved because having two members in the cabin is a federal regulation applied to all railroad operations across Canada. Both passenger and freight. This is something CN and CPKC have already been trying to work on with the Feds to no success. Secondly even if you can convince the Federal regulators to shrink cabin crews down to 1 man, you then have to negotiate with the labour unions. And they'll most likely object claiming it violates their member's safety while on the job.

How can GO realistically achieve European rail standards on the network when so much of the network is still single tracked, and shared with freight? It was never possible.

A lot of you guys are blowign this way out of proportion. Claiming the whole GTA is doomed because this project fell through.

All GO needs to do is get AD2W service with 15-30 frequency on as much of the network as possible using the existing diesel fleet. It's not complicated.

This idea that GO was going to run electric, 4-5 coach trains every 5 minutes on the lines was a pipe dream.

It means that GO won't be able to add enough capacity to relieve congestion in the region, or offer a compelling level of service to attract ridership, and steps toward adding that capacity are likely delayed by 10 years. That is a catastrophe. Absent some public commentary from Mx or the province, this seems to signal a change in policy toward GO expansion, that the project is fundamentally dead and a new plan will need to be developed.

 

[crs1026]

More realistically, anyone could just walk down to their local MP's constituency office, and ask them to tack on an amendment to the next bill to remove the train shed from the Union station heritage designation. The new environment minister, who will probably help set government policy, is a Toronto MP with a constituency office at Queen and Pape. Any MP could submit such an amendment though.

Sure, that removes the heritage issue. But we aren't going to tear the trainshed down and have passengers stand out in the open until someone designs a new one. And the MP you are hoping for probably won't propose their members' bill until that is settled. Getting to a new design is the first step.

- Paul

PS - and skipping all the intervening due process is a recipe for litigation. (I guess you don't have a problem with the Province stepping in and reducing the size of Toronto City Council? Or imposing MZO's? Removing city-approved bike lanes? )

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Sure, that removes the heritage issue. But we aren't going to tear the trainshed down and have passengers stand out in the open until someone designs a new one. And the MP you are hoping for probably won't propose their members' bill until that is settled. Getting to a new design is the first step.

- Paul

PS - and skipping all the intervening due process is a recipe for litigation. (I guess you don't have a problem with the Province stepping in and reducing the size of Toronto City Council? Or imposing MZO's? Removing city-approved bike lanes? )

This is a better case for skipping the intervening due process. Ministerial discretion exists for a reason - and they should be used, rarely, where warranted. Also one has to keep in mind the original rationale for the designation - it was in response to the then threat of wholesale redevelopment - headhouse, shed and corridor - and replacement with office towers.

AoD

 

[Irishmonk]

So, an ugly, century-old, dilapidated train shed that nobody wants is impeding the development of a transit system serving a region of approx 10 million people. This could only happen in Toronto--the city that can't shoot straight unless the gun is aimed at its' own foot. Absolutely pathetic.

 

[Urban Sky]

So, an ugly, century-old, dilapidated train shed that nobody wants is impeding the development of a transit system serving a region of approx 10 million people. This could only happen in Toronto--the city that can't shoot straight unless the gun is aimed at its' own foot. Absolutely pathetic.

Torontonians always fail to give Montreal its due credit, for throwing away the one heavy rail access from the North Shore right into downtown…

 

[ssiguy2]

So when it's all said and done, when will the first electrified GO line {probably Lakeshore} start actually using electric trains? The first "RER" portion was suppose to be done by 2026 and the rest by 2032 and yet they still haven't managed to get a single pole in the ground.

 

[Northern Light]

Torontonians always fail to give Montreal its due credit, for throwing away the one heavy rail access from the North Shore right into downtown…

Not all of us.

****

In all honesty there are handful of major cities in the world not have had at least one disastrous transit project the last two decades.

That's not to excuse poor judgement, lack of foresight and worse, where it happens.

Its absolutely not ok.

But its also absolutely not unique to Toronto; or for that matter to transit.

We need to do better and we need to hold those who demonstrate insufficient ability or ambition to account.

We should not pat ourselves on the back for sharing the trait of suspect project management and vision with other places.

But we ought not to think this is 'us' alone.

 

[Northern Light]

So when it's all said and done, when will the first electrified GO line {probably Lakeshore} start actually using electric trains? The first "RER" portion was suppose to be done by 2026 and the rest by 2032 and yet they still haven't managed to get a single pole in the ground.

I can't give you a firm date; but I can tell you major work is unlikely to start in the joint-corridor portions of LSE/LSW until the existing major projects wind down. That certainly pushes the earliest major work to 2027 or beyond, and since no rolling stock has been ordered...........

It'll be a bit.

 

[T3G]

So, an ugly, century-old, dilapidated train shed that nobody wants is impeding the development of a transit system serving a region of approx 10 million people. This could only happen in Toronto--the city that can't shoot straight unless the gun is aimed at its' own foot. Absolutely pathetic.

This is a rather extreme statement. I am active in the transit communities of 4 cities: Toronto, NYC, Prague, and Bratislava, and a big thing I've learned is that everyone loves to rag on their own city, and act as though mediocrity and bad management is something that they don't see in other parts of the world, but that's just straight up untrue. It would be easier if you made a list of cities across the world that didn't badly bungle something in the recent past.

 

[generalcanada]

I can't give you a firm date; but I can tell you major work is unlikely to start in the joint-corridor portions of LSE/LSW until the existing major projects wind down. That certainly pushes the earliest major work to 2027 or beyond, and since no rolling stock has been ordered...........

It'll be a bit.

Bringing up the rolling stock.
Whats your take on the EMUs thing and the union shed?

 

[Northern Light]

Bringing up the rolling stock.
Whats your take on the EMUs thing and the union shed?

I'm perfectly comfortable saying this is outside of my personal knowledge base; and not something I have had a chance to dig into as an issue yet w/someone in the know.

I have no love for the existing shed, and think we spent far too much on 'restoring' it, particularly in light of a subsequent, impending project to widen the platforms...........

But I can't say from my existing knowledge that some form of catenary can't fit in the shed, as-is (or with minor modifications) or that it cannot.

I would personally prefer to see core service with full emu rolling stock vs electric-hauled loco, as the performance in terms of acceleration/deceleration will be much higher, and allow faster and more frequent service.

Of course we need an honest, open accounting of where all the options stand, and how Mx proposes to get there to properly assess the best choice here.

 

[Sauga89]

Sure, that removes the heritage issue. But we aren't going to tear the trainshed down and have passengers stand out in the open until someone designs a new one. And the MP you are hoping for probably won't propose their members' bill until that is settled. Getting to a new design is the first step.

How would developing a new design even work with the heritage restrictions? Would you be able to complete an environmental assessment process before getting federal heritage approval? Or would you have to develop a preliminary design, get federal heritage approval, then do an EA, and then go back to the feds for heritage approval of any amendments from the EA? You are talking about adding years to the process, requiring more political will, and making it much more expensive, just to get to the same place.

PS - and skipping all the intervening due process is a recipe for litigation. (I guess you don't have a problem with the Province stepping in and reducing the size of Toronto City Council? Or imposing MZO's? Removing city-approved bike lanes? )

I have issues with all those examples. But those are examples of the province overruling municipalities whereas this would be the federal government stepping out of the way of the province and city. Also, litigation may happen regardless, but it would be much less likely to succeed with a change to the federal law.