Thanks for the link. Now that I've read it, I like it even better.
Apologies for not getting back sooner, meant to reply, closed tab and then promptly forgot.
My question is still - you've suggested 10 trains per hour. That's one every 6 minutes on the Langstaff spur. And you've drawn RER extending northwards to Richmond Hill proper. Are you suggesting that some of those 10 trains just carry on northwards (ie RER and ST are fundamentally the same thing, with ST just being a turnback and a different end point downtown), or are you suggesting RER trains interleave between ST trains?
Yes, I believe when I made this proposal the idea was that SmartTrack and RER were the same thing, just with SmartTrack trains turning back at Langstaff. So 10 trains arrive at Langstaff, and only say 4 (one every 15 minutes) head north to Richmond Hill. I suppose there is room for adjustment in the plan to allow for an express GO-RER service that would bypass some of the stations in the 416 if so desired.
When this proposal was brought up last time, I remember many people engaging in discussion on how the frequency can work. I tried to search for it,
I found this from January about the Malvern/Stouffville section of the line, but I don't think it is the discussion I am thinking about.
I'm still dubious that an RER train could interleave on a 6-minute headway without catching up with the preceding ST train.....even assuming the RER stops at a certain number of those stops. (RER should connect to the Sheppard line (the old Oriole stop moved northwards), the Eglinton LRT, and to the Bloor line, and Gerrard Square becomes the Jamaica-like transfer point if RER passengers want to transfer to ST...so it's not really an "express" train anyways).
I like that the ST as you've drawn it has a modest number of stops. That, and the more direct route, might mean no increased travel time for RER versus the current GO. Once you get to Gerrard Square, there would have to be a major junction (and more tracks) so overtaking trains aren't an issue beyond that point.
If the services are interleaved and there is an 'express' GO-RER service, then the stations would require an extra track to allow GO-RER service trains to bypass SmartTrack ones. You are right though, inevitably delays will slow down the express service, and there are still 4 stops within the 416 that RER trains will need to stop at. So it will not really be all that "express" anyway.
That is why I think I originally had SmartTrack and GO-RER service as the same, rather than interleaved. But even with the extra stops, as you say the service should still be much quicker than GO is currently due to electrification and a new direct route through Don Mills and DRL tunnels. Also much more frequent, which in transit planning is just as, if not more important.
One new issue to consider: If RER and ST are to share the same tracks, they may have different trains but still will have to share the same control system. One of the first lines for both ST and RER is the Weston Sub, which just had a new control system installed for UPX. Smallspy reports that this system has a PTC module already installed (but not turned on).....so the question becomes, does the UPX control system meet RER/ST's needs? If so, can it be the standard for all of ST/RER? If it can't, and it has to be torn out and replaced with something else.....what a colossal waste of money that was!
- Paul
Additionally, it remains to be seen how SmartTrack would meet the airport. I think UPX is still the only viable option for SmartTrack to reach Pearson, especially now that Metrolinx has come out as against the Eglinton spur.
