GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[Jonny5]

Huge delays on Lakeshore West this morning. Looks like trains are 45 minutes delayed getting out of Hamilton

 

[ShonTron]

Related to GO Transit fares, I wrote a blog post over the last week looking at GO's fare structure. It might be of some interest here:

Not so fair-by-distance: GO Transit’s problematic fare system

 

[ShonTron]

For the record, unlike the piecemeal approach on the Newmarket sub. the CTC service on the Guelph has been activated on the entire line(89.1 miles) from Silver(Georgetown) to Ashland/Pottersburgh(London);

The CTC is indeed currently only single track the entire route. Controlled locations are as follows;

mile/name
30.0 Silver
39.2 Eramosa
50.2 Hanlon
62.7 Kitchener(siding)
75.1 New Hamburg
88.5 Stratford(siding)
106.0 Kellys(siding)
119.1 Ashland

Current zone speeds(maximum track speeds) are;
70 mph 30.0 to 88.5
10 mph 88.5 to 89.3
60 mph 89.3 to 119.1

However, additional speed restrictions are located at;

PSO's
45 mph 35.5 to 35.7
10 mph 48.8 to 49.8
30 mph 61.8 to 62.8
25 mph 72.03
20 mph 88.3 to 88.5
15 mph 99.7 to 99.97
35 mph 116.5 to 119.1

TSO's
60 mph 48.5 to 48.8
30 mph 58.4 to 59.8 slight difference in mileage for eastward & westward trains
10 mph 62.8 to 63.52 slight difference in mileage for eastward & westward trains
40 mph 63.5 to 70.2
30 mph 72 to 74
25 mph 77.1 to 77.78 slight difference in mileage for eastward & westward trains
30 mph 89.3 to 89.9
25 mph 99.3
40 mph 90 to 116.5
30 mph 109.7 to 119

As you can tell, the track is in very shitty shape, especially west of Kitchener where speeds is restricted below 40 mph on 83% of the track (46.7 miles of 56.4) and that doesn't take into consideration acceleration/deceleration. Only stretch where poor 'ol VIA trains are able to do track speed is just east of Stratford for maybe 6-7 miles in between mileages 77.78 & 88.3.

Thanks for this. I understand how Kent Street in Guelph is problematic, but I never understood why VIA and GO trains crawl through GEXR Guelph Junction as well, long after the trains cleared Kent Street. Is that technically yard trackage? Or just track in poor condition?

 

[nfitz]

Related to GO Transit fares, I wrote a blog post over the last week looking at GO's fare structure. It might be of some interest here:

Interesting.

Have you looked at some of the trip costs that don't involve Union. There used to be some really whacky ones, when you changed between 2 routes. And of course, then there's the different prices for the same route, depending whether or not you tap in/out at Union.

 

[ShonTron]

Interesting.

Have you looked at some of the trip costs that don't involve Union. There used to be some really whacky ones, when you changed between 2 routes. And of course, then there's the different prices for the same route, depending whether or not you tap in/out at Union.

I only looked at fares to/from Union in interest of time and how much one can say in one's own blog post. I'd be interested in looking at York University, as well as other important non-Union Station destinations, like Yorkdale/York Mills, or Downtown Hamilton.

 

[mdrejhon]

Is there any way for Metrolinx to begin to be able to get full, complete say on signal control on the Metrolinx owned trackage?

We simply must see some kind of an upgrade during electrification!

No ifs, buts, can't, won't.

As Yoda says, "Do. Or do not. There is no try."

 

[nfitz]

I only looked at fares to/from Union in interest of time and how much one can say in one's own blog post. I'd be interested in looking at York University, as well as other important non-Union Station destinations, like Yorkdale/York Mills, or Downtown Hamilton.

One that has jumped out at me is Danforth to Kipling - 20 km for $7.70 - though I guess one would only do it if the subway was down - though that does happen!

Though that's one of the ones where it pays to tap off and back on at Union. If you do so the trip is only $5.36 on Presto, but if you don't it's $6.93.

 

[Filip]

Is there any way for Metrolinx to begin to be able to get full, complete say on signal control on the Metrolinx owned trackage?

We simply must see some kind of an upgrade during electrification!

No ifs, buts, can't, won't.

As Yoda says, "Do. Or do not. There is no try."

Is it true that Metrolinx owns the corridors/tracks but still has to give preferential treatment to the former owners? (CP/CN)?

If so, I don't see the business case in purchasing the track if your operations are still dictated by freight companies. Sure you own the asset (and liability) but you gain no operational advantages.

 

[bobbob911]

Related to GO Transit fares, I wrote a blog post over the last week looking at GO's fare structure. It might be of some interest here:

Not so fair-by-distance: GO Transit’s problematic fare system

Good analysis - but what are you arguing for here? Are you saying all fares should be priced near the 15-20 cents/km rate? (making an Exhibition - Union fare a mere 60 cents or so) Or at the higher end (making a Niagara trip $150-$200)?

Just like a taxi drop rate, there is a fixed cost per passenger that need to be borne, regardless of distance traveled.

 

[smably]

I'm not a fan of high fares for short trips, but I can see why GO has chosen to price trips that way. Because GO operates a radial system from Union, the peak demand is between downtown stations and Union. So the incremental cost of a new passenger on that part of the line is quite high, given that trains operate over the entire length of the line. That is to say, with GO's current operating strategy, if demand increased on the Bloor to Union part of the line, they'd have to add another train all the way from Bramalea to Union. So they optimize for long trips, because it's the most efficient in terms of revenue relative to service.

Given infrastructure constraints, I suspect it would be hard to increase service solely within the 416. Maybe GO RER will improve the situation, though -- and in that case, I'd expect to see lower fares for shorter trips.

 

[ShonTron]

Good analysis - but what are you arguing for here? Are you saying all fares should be priced near the 15-20 cents/km rate? (making an Exhibition - Union fare a mere 60 cents or so) Or at the higher end (making a Niagara trip $150-$200)?

Just like a taxi drop rate, there is a fixed cost per passenger that need to be borne, regardless of distance traveled.

Actually, I'd lower most, if not all GO fares, and replace it with a parking fee. I'd definitely lower the base fare to, say, $3 or $4, then perhaps a $0.15/kilometre fare rate, and allow for discounted TTC-GO co-fare. I'll have play with the numbers and follow up with another post.

 

[bobbob911]

I strongly disagree with a parking charge for GO transit. The reality is that nearly all GO commuters drive to get to the station. Why would you disincentive someone who drives to the GO station to take the train? That's exactly who we should be encouraging to take the train (instead of driving all the way downtown). Furthermore, for the majority of GO stations the parking lot real estate is not particularly valuable.

 

[smallspy]

There has been some talk of giving us Iphones instead of carrying around all that paper work. But apparently CN won't sign off on it. Really it's preposterous that CN has any say in the matter but because they are actually considered the operating railroad, my rules card (basically my license) has to be signed off by them, they have a say in such matters. GO/MX have been dragging their feet when it comes to taking over that aspect of the operations and in other areas such as the dispatching of trains which CN also still does for GO.

Also the MP40 locomotives and cab cars are not equipped with digital screens that can provide us with that information in the first place. Not sure how difficult it would be to install, but there isn't much space for it on the control stand as is.

It should be added that the technology now exists, although admittedly it is still somewhat in its infancy. A couple of the PTC systems getting installed (Caltrains and Metrolink, I want to say) will have the ability to live-update the US equivalent of Rule 42s and PSOs onto the speed monitor in the cab of the operating unit. And I believe that the full implementation of Amtrak's ACSES does or will have that capability as well.

Is there any way for Metrolinx to begin to be able to get full, complete say on signal control on the Metrolinx owned trackage?

Yes, once their control centre opens in 2018 (or whatever date it is now projected to be completed).

But...

Is it true that Metrolinx owns the corridors/tracks but still has to give preferential treatment to the former owners? (CP/CN)?

If so, I don't see the business case in purchasing the track if your operations are still dictated by freight companies. Sure you own the asset (and liability) but you gain no operational advantages.

And therein lies the rub. GO must allow CN and CP to access the tracks that they've purchased from them, although in some cases that access is exceedingly rare - for instance, the last time CP needed to access the south end of the Galt Sub was June 2009, and the time before was probably 5 years before that. And worse yet, the freight railways are allowed to keep whatever little freight business still exists on the line as well.

I've love to see Metrolinx tender out the operation of freight switching/service on their lines - after all, isn't part of their mandate removing traffic, including trucks, from roads? Unfortunately, they seem to have a rather passenger-centric view of the world, and don't really seem to think too much of freight, beyond trying to get as much of it moved to overnight.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[JasonParis]

I strongly disagree with a parking charge for GO transit. The reality is that nearly all GO commuters drive to get to the station. Why would you disincentive someone who drives to the GO station to take the train? That's exactly who we should be encouraging to take the train (instead of driving all the way downtown). Furthermore, for the majority of GO stations the parking lot real estate is not particularly valuable.

Lots around transit stations are very valuable. They just may not have been zoned properly until more recently (or are in the process of) and thereby aren't always reflective of being potential nodes. Also, GO pays for the parking, its maintenance, the associated property taxes, security, etc. and this is all reflected in the fares everyone pays. By including parking in said fares, those that use don't use the parking are helping to subsidize those that do. Do you think that is actually fair? BTW, the same arguments were made when the TTC ended free parking at Finch Station a few years back and now nobody really cares.

 

[bobbob911]

Lots around transit stations are very valuable. They just may not have been zoned properly until more recently (or are in the process of) and thereby aren't always reflective of being potential nodes. Also, GO pays for the parking, its maintenance, the associated property taxes, security, etc. and this is all reflected in the fares everyone pays. By including parking in said fares, those that use don't use the parking are helping to subsidize those that do. Do you think that is actually fair? BTW, the same arguments were made when the TTC ended free parking at Finch Station a few years back and now nobody really cares.

I think its reasonable because the vast vast majority of GO train passengers drive to the GO station. The only time that parking fees make sense is when there is not enough parking for everyone (such as Finch Station).

The upside of "rewarding" people who get to the station by other means is not worth the penalty of charging almost everyone else a parking rate (which will probably add another $40-$80 to the monthly rate of a GO train passenger) and giving someone an excuse to simply drive downtown.