[nfitz]

The capacity of a double-track railway is upwards of 12 trains per hour with ETCS ...

All fine and great in theory - but in reality, it doesn't work. We see this daily.

Fool me once ...

Well if you want a limited stop service that's still possible with metro technology. It's not like stations magically appear when you convert a line to a metro, that's a choice you make during the planning process.

If you use Metro technology on that corridor, with metro-like frequences, and express services, then you'll need 4 tracks. Two for the local services, and two for the express. Or else it's simply an express.

 

[taylortbb]

All fine and great in theory - but in reality, it doesn't work. We see this daily.

Where exactly is ETCS installed and operating and we're seeing it fail daily?

 

[crs1026]

I think I have told this story before but - last time I was in Brussels I was taking a high speed train to France. I looked up the departure time and gave myself 25 minutes to be on the platform ahead of departure time - a very North American margin "just to be safe". I arrived at the station as planned, to find that five other trains were lined up to run through the same platform between my chosen arrival time and when my train departed. They all made their stops, departed, and yes my train departed on time. My point being - I am accepting that Alto could in theory be routed down the Stouffville route and onto the Kingston Sub with the right combination of higher standard of operating efficiency and high quality signalling. (I am more dubious that GO will run to that standard without a lot of dwell and padding.... right now 3 minute delays do not trigger bells, but the envisioned service would make those unacceptable)

The point is more - while that would be technically impressive, why needlessly put so many eggs in one basket?

The other missing factor is the potential for LSE to need to provide regional service along the Lakeshore. While VIA will probably be wound down, Ontario has good justification to seek an up to hourly local service at least to Kingston - Ottawa acknowledges the Kingston hub idea but is completely vague about what that will look like. The province may have to step up to enable this, but the need is there. So the corridor may house LSE express and local, Lakeshore Regional, Stouffville 2WAD, and Peterborough GO..... and then Alto. That's a lot of eggs!

I do think the Scarborough Jct needs the flyover, regardless of Alto or not Alto, because of those four or more routings that will have to be accommodated. Claiming that a flat junction will do is a pretty serious erosion of that location's operability.

And, as noted, even achieving 1968 times would likely make the Leaside routing a few minutes faster.

There are good arguments for both routings, and I suspect the Kennedy routing is being taken very seriously. I'm still of the view that it is a tradeoff that may come back to bite.

- Paul

 

[KhalilHeron]

All fine and great in theory - but in reality, it doesn't work. We see this daily.

Fool me once ...

I can imaging Metrolinx saying this when they fired deutsche bahn

 

[reaperexpress]

All fine and great in theory - but in reality, it doesn't work. We see this daily.

Fool me once ...

If you think it's impossible to reliably run 12 trains per hour on a double-track line with ETCS, despite the fact that we currently reliably run 8 tph with old-school signalling, and despite the fact that countless systems do that around the world, then we might as well give up on GO expansion entirely because we'd need to so massively overbuild everything that the pricetag won't pass any cost/benefit analysis.

If you use Metro technology on that corridor, with metro-like frequences, and express services, then you'll need 4 tracks. Two for the local services, and two for the express. Or else it's simply an express.

Well good thing there are already 4 tracks then.

 

[nfitz]

If you think it's impossible to reliably run 12 trains per hour on a double-track line with ETCS, despite the fact that we currently reliably run 8 tph with old-school signalling, and despite the fact that countless systems do that around the world, then we might as well give up on GO expansion entirely because we'd need to so massively overbuild everything that the pricetag won't pass any cost/benefit analysis.

It's pretty clear we don't - and GO has doubled down on that by firing DB. Alto would be well clear of that.

Well good thing there are already 4 tracks then.

After converting 2 for the Ontario Line, and 2 for express Ontario Line metro to Pearson? I'm not even sure how you'd get 2 more (maybe though), let alone 6. It's not happening.

Where exactly is ETCS installed and operating and we're seeing it fail daily?

Ooh, magical technology that in theory would make things work, but never does in this city. Will we even see it, or end up with some made in Ontario solution that doesn't work. Or implemented haphardly to make it useless.

FFS we still aren't using 1920s technology streetcar track automatic switches everywhere yet! The whole thing is pointless!

 

[kEiThZ]

In all of this, the broader question is what are Alto's design principles. And I'm going to suggest a few.

1) Cost containment. I don't think they'll pick the more expensive solution unless they can't absolutely help it. Ie. There's no cooperation from existing operators or agencies.

2) Speed of delivery. Anything that adds to the time before shovels get into the ground and the length of the construction process is probably out.

3) Operating efficiency. I would group operating speed in here. They have to build this thing to be competitive with air. But they also have to build this thing to be reliable and easy to maintain.

You take these principles and order them as I have and you reach some obvious conclusions:

1) Maximize use of existing infrastructure and corridors where possible. Don't for building new ones at billions to save minutes.

2) Build the minimum viable product. That MVP just has to be competitive with flying. So that's 3.5 hrs from Toronto to Ottawa or Montreal, 1.5 hrs between Ottawa and Montreal and Montreal-Quebec City.

Everything above the MVP will probably demand substantial internal review on cost-benefit. It'll have to improve the market enough or save enough or a conservation combination to pay for itself.

You take the above idea and corridors like Leaside or downtown Peterborough or a new Mount Royal Tunnel all become hard to defend.

 

[reaperexpress]

It's pretty clear we don't - and GO has doubled down on that by firing DB. Alto would be well clear of that.

Well then we might as well cancel what remains of GO Expansion because apparently we have no way of becoming competent in rail operations.

After converting 2 for the Ontario Line, and 2 for express Ontario Line metro to Pearson? I'm not even sure how you'd get 2 more (maybe though), let alone 6. It's not happening.

What are you talking about? There are 4 tracks. 2 tracks for a local service (Line 3) and 2 tracks for an express service (Kitchener Line). This is not complicated.

Ooh, magical technology that in theory would make things work, but never does in this city. Will we even see it, or end up with some made in Ontario solution that doesn't work. Or implemented haphardly to make it useless.

FFS we still aren't using 1920s technology streetcar track automatic switches everywhere yet! The whole thing is pointless!

Metrolinx is implementing ETCS, which is the world's most common signal standard. This is not a magical hypothetical technology.

 

[robmausser]

Why don't we do both? Say you live at one station that is only served by one direction, how do you get to it going the opposite way? Is that way really a good answer

The solution is really easy, you instead put trains in both directions on both tracks, but half the trains go down the Don Branch and half go down Stoffville line. You service the stations less often, but you interrupt GO less and with high enough frequencies the stations get serviced enough.

 

[JJTheJetPln]

The solution is really easy, you instead put trains in both directions on both tracks, but half the trains go down the Don Branch and half go down Stoffville line. You service the stations less often, but you interrupt GO less and with high enough frequencies the stations get serviced enough.

Wouldn't this in theory require more layovers to be built, or do we have enough space in the existing layovers to ensure that trains can operate in such a way?

 

[nfitz]

What are you talking about? There are 4 tracks. 2 tracks for a local service (Line 3) and 2 tracks for an express service (Kitchener Line). This is not complicated.

That would force pretty much every GO train from Malton to Union to go non-stop. I hadn't considered that possibility; and I don't think that's going to happen. I don't see them skipping Mount Dennis and Bloor Street. Fine for those heading to Union; but personally I board GO trips heading further west from Bloor, and I'm sure many will from Mount Dennis too.

 

[reaperexpress]

That would force pretty much every GO train from Malton to Union to go non-stop. I hadn't considered that possibility; and I don't think that's going to happen. I don't see them skipping Mount Dennis and Bloor Street. Fine for those heading to Union; but personally I board GO trips heading further west from Bloor, and I'm sure many will from Mount Dennis too.

No it wouldn't force the trains to go non stop. Nor did I ever suggest Kitchener trains would be running non-stop from Malton (or anywhere). I clearly showed Kitchener Line platforms in my diagram of Mount Dennis so clearly I'm not talking about all Kitchener line trains going non-stop. Why do you keep making up things that I didn't say, and then start arguing against them? That's the definition of straw-man arguments and doesn't result in a productive or enjoyable discussion.

 

[nfitz]

No it wouldn't force the trains to go non stop. Nor did I ever suggest Kitchener trains would be running non-stop from Malton (or anywhere). I clearly showed Kitchener Line platforms in my diagram of Mount Dennis so clearly I'm not talking about all Kitchener line trains going non-stop. Why do you keep making up things that I didn't say, and then start arguing against them? That's the definition of straw-man arguments and doesn't result in a productive or enjoyable discussion.

Straw man arguments?

I'm really confused here. If you have 4 tracks. And you turn 2 into a subway. You have 2 tracks left. So all you have left are 2 tracks for GO service. I feel I'm missing something.

I've been trying to say that I don't see Ontario line extension using that corridor. I'm not even sure you disagree!

 

[reaperexpress]

Straw man arguments?

I'm really confused here. If you have 4 tracks. And you turn 2 into a subway. You have 2 tracks left. So all you have left are 2 tracks for GO service. I feel I'm missing something.

I've been trying to say that I don't see Ontario line extension using that corridor. I'm not even sure you disagree!

I'm really struggling to see what the confusion is here. It's exactly like you said. 2 tracks for a subway and 2 tracks for GO. Why on earth would that mean that GO trains need to run non-stop from Malton?