[Willybru21]

I found concept schedules for 2032 5pm outbound Lakeshore West departures from Union Station in a Union Station Enhancement Project document that was on a City of Toronto website.
The schedules I found was from a 2021 draft that was likely presented to Metrolinx by OnXpress during the bidding process for GO Expansion.

On the left is the schedule that was included in the 2018 GO Expansion FBC for comparison. We won’t know how much this concept has changed until we get more information about GO Expansion once the development phase is over, but for now this is a good idea of how the scope of the project has increased since the 2018 case:

To clear up possible confusion, the column on the right says “2023 concept” because the USEP document was published in 2023, but it included a 2021 concept schedule, I didn’t realise the schedule was 2 years older than the document until I had finished this diagram.

 

[afransen]

Weren't some details due to be released following the joint development phase by now? When do we expect them... next year at this point?

 

[Sunnyside]

wait im confused, You both say there has been trimmings of the project, but there hasnt at the same time?

The general sentiment I've been hearing is that it is much better on the whole, just tweaked a bit. My understanding is its a sort of reconfiguration/optimization of the plan as the actual project has taken shape. The IBC is just what GO was expecting- not what will be delivered. Some things are certainly better, like the proposed frequencies, while others are concessions they've likely had to make in the design phase. Such are closer to compromises.

With that said, we won't know for sure what we are and are not getting until we hear from proponents later this year.

 

[ARG1]

I would have to look for you, but in short, a lot has changed since this business case. It may not be relevant at all anymore for what the service plan will be. The giveaway should be that 'trains every 15 minutes' is well out the door. I am sure other members are more familiar with how different the plans are, and where those can be seen, but I will make a point of checking when I can.

This is also OK- what is clear is that the quality of service on the electrified network will be way higher than this document stated. If the 'scoping' of the project has resulted in some trimmings for later phases like dropping Centennial-Lincolnville, we can survive till then. I'd be much more concerned if an entire corridor was axed at this point. By not biting off more than we can chew, the more quickly benefits can be realized, whenever that might be...

I'm aware, that why I'm asking for a source that that specific design change was made.

 

[smallspy]

This is a conversation about the marginal value one gains versus the marginal cost when evaluating the two options.

I'm not trying to say EMUs have this kind of disadvantage, but that it doesn't have unspoken advantages beyond what is already known- shorter/faster acceleration times being the key one. Perhaps you can reach higher top speeds, but as far as I'm aware it's not substantial. My point is that with the state the GO network is in, there would be no noticeable difference in service to use EMUs or electric locomotives, and it would be very expensive to get the network to such a point. At least double what we are putting in now, given how expensive both stations and/or a full replacement fleet of EMUs would be (yes, and/or; neither of these is small or cheap, at all).

I'm not disagreeing with you on this at all. EMUs are a very expensive proposition. And I'm of the position that we need to get the system up-and-running as soon as possible, and we have all of these unpowered coaches with which we can do it with. The EMUs only should come on stream as replacements to the coaches, or if the fleet needs to be expanded beyond what it is already.

If we had a narrow stop spacing already, of say 2km per station rather than 4-5km, then yes, EMUs would be worth considering. Electric locos would perform measurably worse by comparison. While this is a chicken-or-the-egg type of problem, we can and are fitting plenty of stations with electric locomotives, so It'll be at least 15 years before this will even become a problem.

So this is where I start to have a problem with your contention.

EMUs should be the first pieces of equipment purchased (after electric locos, of course) when it comes time to expand the fleet beyond its current size. Their benefits are measurable even when the stops are spaced further apart.

Do they make an even bigger difference when the stops are really close together? Of course they do. But that acceleration improvement can also be felt/used on the longer stretches between stations, such as Pickering-Rouge Hill-Guidwood, or Port Credit-Clarkson-Oakville.

And side factors as well, if you're not gonna buy the "we couldn't make use of them" line:
1. We have an enormous fleet of carriages ready to go. There is nowhere for us to send them, and it is a massive number of units to order as replacement.
2. Diesels will remain in operation, with those carriages anyway. Might as well be interchangeable across the network, at least for a transition period.
3. Transit dollars are finite. We can still buy EMUs- let's just do it when we need them, instead of having them turn 20 when they finally start outperforming an electric locomotive on the network.

See what I've written above. I'm not talking about immediately replacing them. I'm talking about when it comes time to replace them because they are at end-of-life, or if it is time to expand the fleet beyond what is there already.

In an ideal world with infinite budgets, sure, it would be nice to get a fleet of a thousand EMUs and call it a day. (Yes, I know that there are still going to be a need for the diesel fleets.) It's not an ideal world, and while Metrolinx makes it seem like their budgets are bottomless the reality is that they aren't.

And to be clear, I like EMUs. If we are going to electrify additional lines, like Milton, then it would be a good opportunity to buy newer, smaller trains to make our lives easier for that purpose. But GO Expansion isn't a total new slate.

Completely agree.

Dan

 

[Bojaxs]

But that acceleration improvement can also be felt/used on the longer stretches between stations, such as Pickering-Rouge Hill-Guidwood, or Port Credit-Clarkson-Oakville.

People on this forum often say, "We can afford to add more stops to a line cause we will have electrification."

Well, what if we electrified a line, and didn't add any more stops? Would you get to your destination faster?

But I suppose this point is moot if the plan is to run more express service trains throughout the day once electrification is up and running.

 

[north-of-anything]

People on this forum often say, "We can afford to add more stops to a line cause we will have electrification."

Well, what if we electrified a line, and didn't add any more stops? Would you get to your destination faster?

But I suppose this point is moot if the plan is to run more express service trains throughout the day once electrification is up and running.

That is indeed the plan.

Take the Barrie line for example. We are definitely getting a new Caledonia station within Toronto, and likely Spadina/Front and Lansdowne/Bloor as well. Outside Toronto, the most likely infill station is Innisfil at 6th Line (as the town currently has no train service), followed by Highway 7 in Vaughan (connecting to Viva) and Mulock Drive in Newmarket (Park and Ride to relieve the constrained Newmarket station). In peak direction, however, I believe the plan is to use Aurora GO as the express train cutoff - the delays caused by stopping in Innisfil and at Mulock are more than offset by skipping King City/Maple/Rutherford. Same net number of stops, and faster service from using electric trains.

And for off-peak, you can't get much worse than the status quo on the Barrie line. If it means trains coming more than once every two hours, a few added stops is nothing.

I imagine the Stouffville line would be in a similar situation to the Barrie line. The Lakeshore West and East lines already have express services (when the tracks are available), and those lines don't have many opportunities for infill stations anyways.

 

[JSF-1]

That is indeed the plan.

Take the Barrie line for example. We are definitely getting a new Caledonia station within Toronto, and likely Spadina/Front and Lansdowne/Bloor as well. Outside Toronto, the most likely infill station is Innisfil at 6th Line (as the town currently has no train service), followed by Highway 7 in Vaughan (connecting to Viva) and Mulock Drive in Newmarket (Park and Ride to relieve the constrained Newmarket station). In peak direction, however, I believe the plan is to use Aurora GO as the express train cutoff - the delays caused by stopping in Innisfil and at Mulock are more than offset by skipping King City/Maple/Rutherford. Same net number of stops, and faster service from using electric trains.

And for off-peak, you can't get much worse than the status quo on the Barrie line. If it means trains coming more than once every two hours, a few added stops is nothing.

I imagine the Stouffville line would be in a similar situation to the Barrie line. The Lakeshore West and East lines already have express services (when the tracks are available), and those lines don't have many opportunities for infill stations anyways.

Well for the Souffville line the opportunities for infill stations would have to be Lawrence, and Finch with maybe an extension to Uxbridge. As for the LSE I think you could justify an infill station somewhere between Danforth and the future East Bayfront since its about a 5km gap which is on the longer side of things (not including the RH Line). As for the LSW a stop at Roncesvalles could be viable since there used to be a train station there way back when. This would put it about halfway between the Exhibition and the future Park Lawn station, but it might be best to wait until we see how a western extension of the Ontario Line shapes up first.

 

[EnviroTO]

This GO electrification and investments to remove TTC slow zones can't come soon enough. I went from Yonge & Eglinton to Glen Abbey Community Center last Sunday using transit and it took 1 hour and 40 minutes and I had almost not transfer time (rushed to the train, rushed to the bus), whereas the driving time heading back was 50 minutes. A penalty of double the time isn't competitive. Even as the frequency improves which drives down wait and transfer times, the travel times also need to be a big focus.

 

[Dan416]

Yeah I can't comprehend those who say the speed of transit doesn't matter. Anything we can do to improve speeds should be considered. I'm not saying all stops should be removed, for instance, but they really need to rationalize the number of bus/streetcar stops, as well as do whatever they have to so that streetcars don't have to crawl over intersections and switches or whatever.

The amount of slow orders on the subway *should* be easy to handle, these are TTC tunnels and the TTC has full control of them, it's not like city streets where they're hampered by other departments.

 

[pesto]

Found these on the GO Expansion X account:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1826326237012217962

 

[generalcanada]

Found these on the GO Expansion X account:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1826326237012217962

View attachment 589854View attachment 589855View attachment 589856View attachment 589857

Wow its been awhile since Ive heard about the expanded Wilson yard.
I guess that was rolled up into GO expansion?

 

[Bojaxs]

Wow its been awhile since Ive heard about the expanded Wilson yard.
I guess that was rolled up into GO expansion?

It must be difficult for MX to keep track of all the different projects they have going on right now.

 

[Allandale25]

Wow its been awhile since Ive heard about the expanded Wilson yard.
I guess that was rolled up into GO expansion?

I can't remember if it's been posted here why they call it "Wilson Yard". Was it named after a GO manager or someone else? cc @smallspy @crs1026

 

[crs1026]

I can't remember if it's been posted here why they call it "Wilson Yard". Was it named after a GO manager or someone else? cc @smallspy @crs1026

That's a good question. I have no idea how it got that name. Certainly, it never carried that name before Metrolinx came along. The tracks belonged to the Toronto Harbour Commission with CP and CN having joint access.

- Paul