News   Jul 05, 2024
Cladding Going Up for Crosstown Towers as Two Cranes Come Down
 2.7K     0 
News   Jul 05, 2024
West Don Lands Block 13 Evolves to 16 and 43-Storey Towers
 1.8K     13 
News   Jul 05, 2024
News Roundup for July 5, 2024
 669     0 

GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

Well Liberty Village's location is common to three lines, so represents the greatest PPYD (Press Per Your Dollar) (Four if you count UPX)
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/board_agenda/20150922/20150922_BoardMtg_New_Station_Analysis_EN.pdf

Liberty Village also has the western section to it, which is still Commercial, not residential, and revitalization is currently underway. A GO station would service workers as well as residents.
Metrolinx reviewing 50 locations for GO Transit expansion
Oshawa, Guelph and Liberty Village among new sites being evaluated by provincial agency
...
Among the sites being reviewed are those put forward in Toronto Mayor John Tory's SmartTrack plan. Others being evaluated include Oshawa, Guelph and Toronto's Liberty Village neighbourhood. ...
Click to expand...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...-locations-for-go-transit-expansion-1.3240645

Guelph is very unlikely, albeit parking is a very real issue in downtown Guelph, and most Guelphites, for all their claimed "Greeness" are addicted to their cars (the archaic bus system, hub and spoke, doesn't help). Guelph's buses also have no Presto system, and recognition of co-fare is purely arbitrary only at certain times of the day by producing a paper ticket. (GO figure)

 
Last edited:
robmausser said:
I can almost guarantee the majority of that cost is for the flyover over the 401.
Click to expand...

Do you know whether additional tracks will be built along the CP line? If so, will these tracks be exclusively for Metrolinx use and will they be electrified?

Given that this extension is for now 4 trains each way per day, it sounds like Metrolinx does not have exclusive access to the tracks and that it will be diesel.

As usual the Reddit thread on this turned into a debate on the Scarborough subway. I am pretty sure that if you calculate cost/# of daily riders that this extension compares very poorly compared to the Scarborough subway. This extension is going to have at most a few thousand riders per day.
 
TransitBart said:
What, precisely, is your proposal?
Click to expand...

mdrejhon said:
Scare casual ratrunners with catenary and "High Voltage" signage, maybe.
Click to expand...

Ha! Well more surveillance at locations where intrusions can occur would help, ditto better physical barriers (fencing along the corridors are shockingly non-existent right now). Stop the fuzzy, give me a hug campaigns - those who get the message aren't the ones causing the problems in the first place.

AoD
 
Last edited:
The track diagram from the EA can be seen at http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/docs/ea/oshawabowmanville/AppendixH_PlansandProfiles.pdf

Basically, it shows one mainline track added, plus the current sidings at Darlington (Courtice) and Oshawa moved to the north side of the north main line. I interpret that as one track for GO (south track) and one for CP (north track). No doubt part of the current negotiations will be about whether CP will entertain GO using the north track so that frequent two-way service can be achieved. I'd also predict that the north track will not be electrified.

I would be surprised if CP is happy with the current siding provision, as the existing sidings are too short for the longer trains. I'd predict they ask ML to lengthen one or both.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
The track diagram from the EA can be seen at http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/docs/ea/oshawabowmanville/AppendixH_PlansandProfiles.pdf
- Paul
Click to expand...
Many thanks for that file! It's disconcerting the way they draw multiple tracks with just one cross-hatched (ties) as it's the inverse of the classic way of drawing them, but after doing double takes, it's clear the bridge is double-tracked, that has future inferences. So will ML offer to buy that line off of CP? The question of property ownership arises as per stations let alone track RoW.

Very interesting...the potential is there to abandon the present station stub if ML gets ownership in some form or other of that CP stretch.
 
steveintoronto said:
So will ML offer to buy that line off of CP? The question of property ownership arises as per stations let alone track RoW.

Very interesting...the potential is there to abandon the present station stub if ML gets ownership in some form or other of that CP stretch.
Click to expand...

It is extremely unlikely that CP would sell this line to ML. Similar to CN in Peel, this is a key through line for them. They will have pretty firm positions around protecting their ability to move freight trains expeditiously through the area. It's a very similar situation to the Richmond Hill line north of Doncaster. GO is expanding but they will be a tenant for the foreseeable future. It's a bring-your-own-track proposition.

There are better diagrams in http://www.gotransit.com/public/en/...rviceExpansionOshawatoBowmanville-Feb2011.pdf
which appear to show two new tracks east of the layover facility at Rundle Road.

More unknowns - how does this initiative affect whatever VIA may be pursuing for its service, and how does it impact whatever CN and CP mightpursue for directional running. Some of us thought the Missing Link was a good idea but its time hadn't come. I was pretty surprised when that got officially kicked off (good news, even if it takes years). One wonders if there are things happening in the east that are taking shape or already done but under wraps.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
It is extremely unlikely that CP would sell this line to ML.
- Paul
Click to expand...
Thanks for latest link again, downloaded, will read later, must catch UPX! I thought as much on ownership, but just checking in case there's something in the wind I hadn't caught. If ML are good for their claim (gist)(unofficial or otherwise) "no electric unless we own" it puts paid to that idea. But one has to wonder if CP and CN aren't being played off of each other to some extent? Here's a wild supposition, albeit it had been raised by another poster (ReJohn?) a few weeks back in the VIA string: What if CP is offered the old O&Q route, part financed by Feds and Province, even if temporal, for offsets elsewhere?

Both CN and CP are on tough times right now, it might be time to bargain...
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
If ML are good for their claim (gist)(unofficial or otherwise) "no electric unless we own" it puts paid to that idea.
Click to expand...

The no-electrification thing is not about ownership. Many existing bridges clear double stack trains by a mattter of inches. There is no place for the wires. Even if there is clearance, the wires have to be so high as to require a whole different collection system for the locomotives. To a lesser degree, auto carrier cars have the same problems. And, even if the height were there, there are safety issues if the wires fall down.....bigger risk exposure for a 15,000 foot freight train than for a passenger train, especially with hazardous cargo.

So - there have to be freight corridors that do not intersect with electrification, anywhere. ML accepts that it can't go there.

But one has to wonder if CP and CN aren't being played off of each other to some extent?
Click to expand...

One hopes so..... not to be nasty, but to address some of the bargaining imbalances between the province and the railways. There are potential leverage points where the first railway in gets the better competitive position. There are other places where the railway has the province over a barrel. That's how negotiation works.

Here's a wild supposition, albeit it had been raised by another poster (ReJohn?) a few weeks back in the VIA string: What if CP is offered the old O&Q route, part financed by Feds and Province, even if temporal, for offsets elsewhere?
Click to expand...

The O+Q was CP's first line connecting Toronto and Montreal (in a roundabout way). It was built to nineteenth century standards. By about 1910, it was apparent that it was not very functional. Rather than upgrade it - to 1910 standards - CP built a new line, the Belleville Sub. Bringing the O+Q up to 1910 standards was more expensive than building a new line. Consider what it would take to bring it up to 2016 standards. The O+Q is the one line nobody wants. Any other option will be cheaper.

- Paul
 
I think electrification was probably part of the Bowmanville negotiating table, given long term needs.

On the surface, spending 750 million on 20 kilometers, serving only a few thousand tops, with no future provisions to electrify towards Kingston would seem to be a birdbrain move. If that actually happened that contracts guatantees no electrification, then, dumb move there. But I don't think such an exclusion exists. There are opportunities to reconnect to the CN cordidor down the line, as the Metrolinx track will be right betweem the CP tracks and CN tracks, and might be relatively freight-conflict-free. The electrified track can even switch sides depending on which side avoids freight spurs to customers, as the CN/CP switch actually sides with a rail-rail separation down the line... And if VIA HFR ends up deciding to choose the Bowmanville route, there are electrification congruences and savings to be had.

So my bet is CP tolerated a "someday" electrification provision, maybe even for some dollar amount, since it is a southernmost track being added to the CP corridor and the design may be so that CP never needs to use the southernmost track for double stack freight.

We probably won't ever know, but perhaps we ought to ask Metrolinx and see if they respond to that: Did they leave provisions to electrify Bowmanville? YDS of VIA (or whatever future consortium that electrifies the TOM corridors) would love to know, probably (if he hasn't already), as it changes the business case calculus between the Peterborough corridor and the existing corridors to Kingston.

Theoretically, that is a potential cost savings of almost 100 kilometers of ready-made electrification, possibly all paid by Ontario, towards Kingston route! But it would need a guarantee of passenger priority (the catenary will help do that, as a kind of freight train repellant by itself -- only when absolutely necessary and only single stack freight with properly covered debris buckets, etc). Peterborough may be better, but the options definitely need to be financially mathed out, given freight considerations.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top