News   Aug 06, 2024
Proposal Grows to 42 Storeys at Bayview and Sheppard
 1.3K     3 
News   Aug 06, 2024
Almega and Brixen Developments Look to Downsview Park as Toronto's Central Park
 1.2K     3 
News   Aug 06, 2024
News Roundup for August 6, 2024
 594     0 

Metrolinx/GO Georgetown Corridor Project

I forgot, the biggest point in my mind for the delay of electrification is that GO doesn't know what RoW width and what cantenary pole configuration it will use. Until GO/CP/CN agree to this, nothing constructive on electrification will be on the horizon. Do you have any links to older electrification documents?
 
unimaginative2 said:
You're probably right and I hope he doesn't succeed in those efforts. Still, he has a good point in drawing attention to the divergence between Metrolinx's plans for an 8-track mega-corridor and GO's stated plans to run worse-than-hourly service on the corridor in the long term.
Click to expand...

If you take GO's total Georgetown train movements as of 2009, and add 10 more trains, you're sitting at hourly service. Not worse-than-hourly, hourly. And that's only for construction completion in 2015... GO's "stated plan" for the long term is to keep ramping up gradually beyond those numbers, and lowering headways accordingly.
 
You surely mean 10 trains in each direction?

McNeil has been guilty of bait-and-switch. I was at those PICs and packed church gatherings. GO was not promising hourly service in each direction to Brampton, they were promising a slight improvement over the lousy less-than-hourly service Brampton, er, Bramalea was getting before next week's cutbacks.

Even 10 more trains in each direction doesn't quite mean all-day, two way service.

Right now, there are 10 departures from Bramalea: an early morning run, the 4 through trains from Georgetown, one peak local train, one later morning run (was 9:05, now 9:20), and 3 trains running every 90-120 minutes apart.

So 20 trains could be "hourly service" from 5:30 AM to 12:30 AM, but that does not count the rush hour trains, so add 3 peak extra trains. So maybe you've got service from 5:30 to 21:30 now, a train every hour, with peak half-hourly service. Still, that assumes no increase in peak hour demands. Let's add 3 more trains for 20 minute rush hour service.

That's 23 trains, or 46 in-service trips, and a conservative figure. That's more than McNeil was promising opening day.

Below, McNeil was talking trips, not trains, not round trips. He's typical of old, "Cabbagehead" GO.

Metrolinx, at least, seems to have a more progressive mindset than the old GO crowd. 59 trains a day, or 29 one way, 30 the other, is certainly hourly service all day, with considerable peak improvements as well.

All-electric GO train system studied
Community concerned about pollution pressuring officials to electrify expanding Georgetown line
Tess Kalinowski Transportation Reporter
Toronto Star
Published On Wed Oct 21 2009

Despite a Metrolinx report projecting 59 GO trains running up the corridor to Georgetown in 2015 when the expansion opens, McNeil said only 10 additional trains might be added to the existing 19.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ShonTron said:
You surely mean 10 trains in each direction?

McNeil has been guilty of bait-and-switch. I was at those PICs and packed church gatherings. GO was not promising hourly service in each direction to Brampton, they were promising a slight improvement over the lousy less-than-hourly service Brampton, er, Bramalea was getting before next week's cutbacks.

Even 10 more trains in each direction doesn't quite mean all-day, two way service.

Right now, there are 10 departures from Bramalea: an early morning run, the 4 through trains from Georgetown, one peak local train, one later morning run (was 9:05, now 9:20), and 3 trains running every 90-120 minutes apart.

So 20 trains could be "hourly service" from 5:30 AM to 12:30 AM, but that does not count the rush hour trains, so add 3 peak extra trains. So maybe you've got service from 5:30 to 21:30 now, a train every hour, with peak half-hourly service. Still, that assumes no increase in peak hour demands. Let's add 3 more trains for 20 minute rush hour service.

That's 23 trains, or 46 in-service trips, and a conservative figure. That's more than McNeil was promising opening day.

Below, McNeil was talking trips, not trains, not round trips. He's typical of old, "Cabbagehead" GO.

Metrolinx, at least, seems to have a more progressive mindset than the old GO crowd. 59 trains a day, or 29 one way, 30 the other, is certainly hourly service all day, with considerable peak improvements as well.
Click to expand...

One can say that 10 train is 5 in the AM and 5 in the PM.

McNeil talks with fork tongue.

Even if you say 10 trains are round trip which would be if all day service, that doesn't cover the 19 hours of service. In fact you need only need 2 trains per hour with one going in each direction for hour service. Going to 30 minute service, you need 4 trains.

So the other 10 are express trains to KW and Brampton.
 
Will be using Europe Standards, not FRA.


Mean while we are doing What??



http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_14772450?source=rss



http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?4,2157989

Caltrain set to approve plans to electrify railroad

By Mike Rosenberg
San Mateo County Times

Posted: 03/27/2010 08:55:54 PM PDT

Updated: 03/27/2010 08:55:55 PM PDT


After 10 years of study, Caltrain officials on Thursday will approve plans to electrify the railroad from San Francisco to San Jose, setting the stage for quicker, cheaper and greener trains within five years.
The board of directors said it expects to certify both the state and federal environmental reports for the $1.23 billion project, which will allow Caltrain to expand to 114 trains from 90 each weekday.
The project's approval will allow Caltrain to dip into two high-speed-rail funding sources: the $9.95 billion Proposition 1A bond and $2.25 billion in federal stimulus grants. The California High-Speed Rail Authority agreed to share some of its money since it needs the Caltrain tracks to be electric before it can run bullet trains from San Francisco to San Jose on their way to Los Angeles.
And Caltrain cannot on its own afford the electrification project, which includes $785 million for infrastructure such as overhead wires and $440 million for new, zippier electric rail cars.
Caltrain has stacked up $709 million in local, state and federal funds but still needs $516 million from the rail authority to fund the project.
In addition to securing the last chunks of funding, spokeswoman Christine Dunn said planners still need to complete the remaining 65 percent of the engineering details and select a construction firm before beginning work. Construction is expected to last three years, and the new railroad should be up and running
Advertisement

b
p-e4m3Yko6bFYVc.gif
​

by 2015, she said.
Both Caltrain commuters and anyone passing through the 52-mile area from San Francisco to San Jose will notice major changes.
For one, the trains and tracks will take on a more modern, sleeker look and feel. Emissions spewed by the trains will diminish by 90 percent. Trains will start and stop quicker, allowing for faster rides, stops at more stations and the ability to squeeze more train service into the daily schedule.
Operating costs will go down, decreasing the likelihood of further budget problems that have historically led to fare increases and, most recently, service cuts. A new safety system that uses global positioning system technology will be installed, and safety work will be done at 47 roadway crossings.
Consultant reports concluded that the project and its construction would not significantly harm the environment — including aspects such as noise, aesthetics and air quality.
Federal authorities reviewed the plans and reached the same conclusion in December, while state officials required only the third-party review.
Contact Mike Rosenberg at 650-348-4324
 
CN nets $168M after selling tracks in Toronto


March 31, 2010

logo_part_of_canada_com_network.gif


http://www.montrealgazette.com/nets+168M+after+selling+tracks+Toronto/2748394/story.html

################################################

Canadian National Railway Co. will pocket $168 million from the sale of a key section of track west of Toronto's Union Station to Metrolinx, which provides the integrated intermodal transport network in Greater Toronto, including GO Transit.

Metrolinx said Wednesday the deal gives it a critical section of its busiest GO Transit corridor linking Union Station and the Willowbrook rail equipment plant in Southwest Toronto.

CN will preserve certain operating rights on the section to maintain its freight services.

################################################
 
Operating costs.
It was by far the most expensive track for GO to run on because of the number of train movements between Willowbrook & Union.
 
Metrolinx ownership means Metrolinx owns the capacity space and can put as many trains on it as they like and allow CN trains minimal access required. Previously, Metrolinx could not increase service without CN approval (and compensation).
 
Mapleson said:
Metrolinx ownership means Metrolinx owns the capacity space and can put as many trains on it as they like and allow CN trains minimal access required. Previously, Metrolinx could not increase service without CN approval (and compensation).
Click to expand...

But we the public never get to know what the word "certain" means in this statement which, I believe, has accompanied everyone of these purchase that GO/Metrolinx has made "CN will preserve certain operating rights on the section to maintain its freight services."

If they get the same access to run the same freight services (which is how I interepret the word "maintain") then how are we better off? Are the freight companies really giving up access? I know it is early days yet on this "buying spree" but have we seen any increased passenger service on lines since GO/Metrolinx started buying corridors/track?
 
Yes, Lakeshore West has just completed construction of a third track. Since Metrolinx bought the sub, that track capacity is property of the Government of Ontario. As such, we do not pay access fees (lower operating costs).

There are two things standing in the way of universal all-day GO service.
1) Track Capacity
2) Union Station Capacity

Building tracks on CP/CN's subdivisions requires compensations. Building tracks on Metrolinx subdivisions improves the value of that Crown property.

Basically CN doesn't have any customers out there anymore, so they only need the sub for maintainance access and emergency routing. By preserving the right to exercise those options, it allows Metrolinx to take the lead on what will happen there in the future.
 
Mapleson said:
Yes, Lakeshore West has just completed construction of a third track. Since Metrolinx bought the sub, that track capacity is property of the Government of Ontario. As such, we do not pay access fees (lower operating costs).

There are two things standing in the way of universal all-day GO service.
1) Track Capacity
2) Union Station Capacity

Building tracks on CP/CN's subdivisions requires compensations. Building tracks on Metrolinx subdivisions improves the value of that Crown property.

Basically CN doesn't have any customers out there anymore, so they only need the sub for maintainance access and emergency routing. By preserving the right to exercise those options, it allows Metrolinx to take the lead on what will happen there in the future.
Click to expand...

I am not trying to be difficult (honestly) but I am not sure I fully understand what you are saying (and, therefore, not sure it answers my question).......I get that a government might be reluctant to build extra track on someone else's property....but they could. So it is not exactly the fact that they now own the corridor that increases capacity it is that they own the corridor and then built new track.

If they had simply bought the corridor would they (paraphrasing you from earlier) "own the capacity space and be able to put as many trains on it as they like and allow CN trains minimal access required"

To rephrase my original question "has there been a case where simple purchase of the corridor (without subsequent expansion) allowed for service increases at the expense of reduced freight trains?"
I have the suspicion that all they get for writing these cheques is the right/ability to write more cheques for expansion and that is what allows them to eventually increase service levels. Essentially the freight companies monetize future rental income into hard cash today and still get to run as many freight trains as they did before?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top