GO Transit: Service thread (including extensions)

[smallspy]

Remember as well that GO has a lower top speed than VIA / Amtrak services, which can operate at 166km/h when GO tops out at ~144km/h.

Nitpick: Amtrak locos have a top speed of 79mph when operating anywhere without cab signalling / PTC / ATS. That includes in Canada.

And that really doesn't matter on Grimsby Sub, where the passenger speed is 60mph anyways.

From a train performance standpoint, the biggest reason why the Amtrak/VIA train operates faster is because it is shorter and lighter, meaning that it can get away from stops more quickly. But the reality is that the GO trains by virtue of their loading take longer at stops anyways, despite the additional, lower doorways.

Dan

 

[KevinT]

I can’t see any type of elaborate higher order transit being affordable for Niagara Falls. The most possible arrangement might be bus combined with fleeted GO service to spread the crowd out timewise…. But even that asks a lot of CN and the Seaway. And if that actually grows the business further…. waiting for a bus may just have to be.

A flyover, or a duckunder of lock 4 just south of the mainline that's only for GO trains (which can handle higher grades than freight) would be great, but I'm not holding my breath.

Edit to add: Swerve a bit further south to punch it under lock 5 and the grades for the train wouldn't even be all that crazy, although the curves could slow you down a lot depending on how far you could walk back (or not) the diversions.

 

[reaperexpress]

That’s terrible. So just like the TTC, GO pads their schedule to avoid paying the date refund vs actually providing faster service.

Schedule padding is essential to having reliable service. If you don't have any, then even the slightest delay will be unrecoverable. And with trains, delays cause other delays, as trains are not in their planned slots and have a greater chance of conflict with other trains.

If you don't have padding, your trains will not run on time.

Remember as well that GO has a lower top speed than VIA / Amtrak services, which can operate at 166km/h when GO tops out at ~144km/h.

GO Transit reaches 150 km/h (93 mph) between Toronto and Niagara.
Amtrak can only reach 127 km/h (79 mph) due to signalling restrictions, as smallspy mentioned.

 

[Northern Light]

Schedule padding is essential to having reliable service. If you don't have any, then even the slightest delay will be unrecoverable. And with trains, delays cause other delays, as trains are not in their planned slots and have a greater chance of conflict with other trains.

If you don't have padding, your trains will not run on time.

Do you not feel that GO's current schedules carry 'excess' padding?

 

[anb]

You can really feel the GO padding whenever a train arrives late to a stop, and all of a sudden speeds up to a point where they're trying to get there at the next stop and meet on time as if the train wasn't delayed at all.

They overexaggerate the stop by stop travel time when it doesn't need to be that way at all.

 

[T3G]

Do you not feel that GO's current schedules carry 'excess' padding?

Besides the Niagara train, is there any specific service you think has excess padding?

I regularly use the 21, and Milton and Lakeshore lines. I do not find the schedule for any of those has excess padding.

 

[Northern Light]

Besides the Niagara train, is there any specific service you think has excess padding?

I regularly use the 21, and Milton and Lakeshore lines. I do not find the schedule for any of those has excess padding.

In respect of GO, I mostly rely on what I see here at UT, i do use GO but not extensively, so my anecdotal experience is not material and doesn't inspire me to look closer.

I can certainly take a look; but I feel @reaperexpress , @smallspy , and @crs1026 are all more qualified than I to offer opinions on that, along with, rather obviously, those than run the rails in said corridors, some of whom are UT members.

I can more accurately discuss TTC schedule padding...........which is grossly excessive on many routes.

 

[reaperexpress]

Do you not feel that GO's current schedules carry 'excess' padding?

I do. It is always a balancing act between speed and reliability, but GO's rail schedules do indeed feel like they're too padded, causing most trains to run much slower than they otherwise could have.

But I can't objectively say that it's too much padding because I don't know how severe the consequences would be if the amount of train delays increased. Especially on the single tracked routes where delays on one train get transmitted directly to the train in the opposite direction, it is possible that speeding up the schedule would be no better for passengers, with the travel time savings being offset by increased wait times (delays) and reduced consistency.

 

[Northern Light]

I do. It is always a balancing act between speed and reliability, and GO's rail schedules do feel like they're too padded, causing most trains to run much slower than they otherwise could have.

But I can't objectively say that it's "too much" padding because I don't know how severe the consequences would be if the amount of train delays increased. Especially on the single tracked routes where delays on one train get transmitted directly to the train in the opposite direction, it is possible that speeding up the schedule would be no better for passengers, with the travel time savings being offset by increased wait times (delays) and reduced consistency.

Not to give you extra work, but I firmly believe in your ability to model that out, at least to a 95% confidence.

 

[crs1026]

I am not aware of many places where the schedule is so padded that trains regularly wait for their departure time. There are a couple, but these are driven by operational needs (especially meets on single track - some slack is desirable here).
The slowness of the schedules is concealed in the interest of fuel conservation. Crews have a chart telling them when to stop accelerating - even if the track is good for higher speed, if on time they are required to coast once the specified train speed is reached. So trains run slower, rather than reaching the next station with time to spare. Some of those top speeds between station are pretty slow.
There is definitely room to squeeze more time out of the schedule, but better to wait until we have electrification and possibly shorter lighter equipment. Plus, the existing schedule has opportunity to add more stops. If ML tightened timings too aggressively, then any new station opening would force a readjustment that would ”disadvantage” riders. Better they not know……
From a marketing perspective, riders are likely much more sensitive to their wait on the platform than on trip speed or on time arrival. Reliability ie train showing up on time where the rider is waiting is critical to reputation, arriving at the end point on time apparently less so.
I am more concerned about pinch points where the physical plant forces slow running. There are track switches that limit speed to 25 or 30 where 45 would be preferable, and track quality to Niagara, London, etc is clearly a limiting factor.

- Paul

 

[WB62]

Besides the Niagara train, is there any specific service you think has excess padding?

I regularly use the 21, and Milton and Lakeshore lines. I do not find the schedule for any of those has excess padding.

Lakeshore trains going east wait at Burlington for up to 3 minutes, it can be cut down significantly

 

[smallspy]

Schedule padding is essential to having reliable service. If you don't have any, then even the slightest delay will be unrecoverable. And with trains, delays cause other delays, as trains are not in their planned slots and have a greater chance of conflict with other trains.

If you don't have padding, your trains will not run on time.

Well, hold on here.

There is padding, and then there is schedule recovery time. They are two different things, although they can be used to the achieve the same goals.

Many of the mid-day services on GO are heavily padded. Crews regularly operate the trains at not their maximum capabilities, and sometimes station dwells get extended because of it.

And yet, the same crews complain that there is not enough recovery in certain places such as West Harbour to be able to turn a train around and still meet the schedule.

Historically at GO, padding gets added to a schedule when a certain threshold of trains arrive late over a period, regardless of what the cause of those delays are. And GO has not been great at removing that padding if the cause gets removed.

Dan

 

[reaperexpress]

Well, hold on here.

There is padding, and then there is schedule recovery time. They are two different things, although they can be used to the achieve the same goals.

Many of the mid-day services on GO are heavily padded. Crews regularly operate the trains at not their maximum capabilities, and sometimes station dwells get extended because of it.

And yet, the same crews complain that there is not enough recovery in certain places such as West Harbour to be able to turn a train around and still meet the schedule.

Historically at GO, padding gets added to a schedule when a certain threshold of trains arrive late over a period, regardless of what the cause of those delays are. And GO has not been great at removing that padding if the cause gets removed.

Dan

In my post I was using the term 'padding' to refer to any form of additional time in the schedule above the expected travel and terminal times. Including both running time padding (en route) and recovery time (at the terminals and some stations).

The question was regarding the amount of extra time in the schedule, not the location where that extra time was added.

 

[smallspy]

In my post I was using the term 'padding' to refer to any form of additional time in the schedule above the expected travel and terminal times. Including both running time padding (en route) and recovery time (at the terminals and some stations).

The question was regarding the amount of extra time in the schedule, not the location where that extra time was added.

The problem is that to a scheduler (and to the crews using the schedules), the two terms mean completely different things.

Thus my clarification.

Dan

 

[Fritter]

Now that Niagara is a 7-day, all year service, I would suggest adding CTC for the short stretch from Clifton (MP2.6) to the platform at the Falls (MP 0.6) with a power switch and signalling on the siding at the Falls. CSXT signalling begins at MP 0.0, and it would not be unreasonable to signal all the way to that point. Replace the crossovers at Clifton to allow 45 mph through those.

That, and some track sprucing-up, would allow speed to be raised above the current 20 mph PSO with Rule 105 limitations. It's a short stretch, but would add flexibility at Niagara Falls especially to clear the Maple Leaf. No complicated new trackage required, pretty cheap to install.

For that matter, I wonder how VIA would feel about a J-trained Maple Leaf combined with a 6-car GO train, adding just a bit of extra capacity and making only the VIA stops.

- Paul

I'm assuming that section between Clifton and mile 0 at the bridge is still under CN ownership. If so, do you think it would be a good opportunity for ML to purchase and construct infrastructure to their needs?