crs1026
Superstar
From Metrolinx' most recent Annual Report:
It's anybody's guess if this represents a good deal for CN/CP vs Metrolinx.
- Paul
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
It's anybody's guess if this represents a good deal for CN/CP vs Metrolinx.
- Paul
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Ah, so the rate they get from CN covers their net dispatching costs, but not net track maintenance costs.
crs1026
Superstar
So it seems, although copywriters often mangle that kind of detail. Certainly, $9M doesn’t sound like much considering all the VIA movements, plus freight to Ford at Oakville and CP at Lambton, plus roadswitching.
It’s a bit of goose vs gander….the more ML can charge CN/CP, the more CN/CP can charge ML in return. So offering a bargain rate might get more in return.
- Paul
smallspy
Senior Member
Yes, VIA has to pay for track usage to Metrolinx. In fact, Metrolinx's revenue forecasts include a line item for Track Access.
What the rates are, I don't know. But I do know that VIA feels that its service on Metrolinx's tracks has gotten worse with their takeover of the dispatching.
Dan
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Regardless of how GO does or doesn't prioritize VIA trains, VIA's service quality on GO lines will have decreased simply due to the fact that there are a lot more local GO trains nowadays, and the mainlines only have 3 tracks (2 local, 1 express). Back when off-peak service was every 30 min on Lakeshore, there was a decent chance that VIA could still run on the local track without catching up to a local GO train. But now with 15-minute local service, those tracks are pretty much guaranteed to be slow for VIA. So if the centre express track is occupied by a train going the opposite direction, VIA is pretty much guaranteed delays.
Admittedly the main reason that the centre track would be occupied in the opposite direction is that an earlier VIA train was late.
Coolstar
Senior Member
smallspy
Senior Member
While you're right in theory.....
In practice, it has less to do with the frequency of the trains - remember, they've only just started to run 15 minute headways during the days in the past couple of weeks - and more to do with Metrolinx's dispatchers prioritizing Metrolinx's own trains. Which, in fairness, they have the right to do.
But it looks bad when a westbound VIA train gets held for 10 (or more) minutes at Pickering for a westbound GO, only to pass that same train they were held for around Eglinton or Scarborough. And this happens almost every day, and sometimes multiple times. It's just bad planning.
Dan
Bordercollie
Senior Member
So if you held the GO Train for ten minutes, would it have a chance to recover that time?
crs1026
Superstar
It looks bad, definitely.... but it's actually very good execution, from the perspective that GO Train schedule adherence is undoubtedly a scoreboard measure for senior ML Operations execs, who may be breathing down the dispatching center's neck to not delay GO trains.
Always the bridesmaid.....
And to give GO RTC's their due, at current block spacing, giving VIA a clear shot through either Guildwood eastwards or Liverpool westwards is a bit of a needle-thread. Virtually impossible to keep VIA running on greens until the preceding GO has cleared Rouge Hill in either direction. And only if an eastbound GO isn't lined through the plant at Durham Jct, which freezes the plant for minimum 2-3 minutes out of every 15. And no CN around to mess with Liverpool or Pickering Jct. An RTC would have to be paying close attention to figure those meets effectively, and they are watching a pile of territory. GO says they don't need to triple track all the way through that section, but I'm dubious, and frankly a flyover at Durham Jct ought to be in the plan... unless GO is hoping that post-HFR, VIA simply won't care if the remaining service needs to be padded.
- Paul
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
To flesh out the scenario as it occurs a bit more: the westbound VIA is more-or-less on time, and passes the westbound GO - also on-time and running on its own tracks, parallel to the CN line that the VIA is running on - between Whitby and Ajax stations.
The VIA then makes it to Pickering Junction, where it sees a red signal, and has to wait on the GO train it already passed to complete its station stops and pull onto the Kingston Sub ahead of it.
It then runs on the GO train's signals, which includes the GO making a station stop at Rouge Hill.
At Guildwood a third mainline track starts, and the VIA train will get switched over the middle main, while the GO stays on the north and makes its station stop.
By the time the GO train is prepping to stop at Scarborough Station, the VIA train passes it on the middle main.
In this scenario, the GO train is on time, while the VIA has had to hold at Pickering Junction picking up a delay, and then gets a further delay by operating on the slower GO's signals for several miles. A 15 minute penalty is not unusual.
If the VIA train was not held at Pickering Junction, it is generally far enough ahead of the GO train that the GO would not see a single signal that is less restrictive than a proceed.
And on top of everything, It's actually required the RTCs to do more work this way - they need to line route for the GO, then once its passed the various control points they need to line a second route for the VIA to pass it. If they allowed the VIA through first, the only intervention that they would need to do is configure the switch at Pickering Junction after the VIA has passed - and have all of the signals fleeted (allowing the signals to progress to clear once the train is through) on the same single-track route.
Absolutely. But holding a train on the mainline is also a very poor use of the limited corridor capacity that exists
You're absolutely right, and that's why VIA had configured their outbound (from Toronto) schedules to try and avoid any interference. Of course, then GO had to then go and change their schedules about a year ago....
Inbound, is in theory potentially more of a headache, as you have different trains with different performance metrics trying to funnel into a 2-track corridor. But with the way that the trains are currently scheduled, and maybe more importantly dispatched, what you see instead is just a blanket hold on all incoming non-GO trains and delays to them. This is and will continue to be an ongoing issue it seems.
Dan
Bordercollie
Senior Member
And there is no simple solution because there is no space for a third track between rouge hill and guildwood.
smallspy
Senior Member
There is lots of room for a third track (and even a fourth) between Rouge Hill and Guildwood. That's why the EA supporting it has been completed.
But the construction of additional track takes time, and isn't an overnight solution. Better dispatching rules is something that can be instituted tomorrow.
Dan
ack
New Member
One thing that stood out to me in the videos of the test runs to London were the train numbers used, 3815 and 3824. In the current schedule, that would imply a Union departure at 11:04 and a Union arrival at 16:28, which in turn would mean a highly ambitious meet at Stratford around 13:45.
Is this actually realistic?
Regardless, I ran with it and did a fantasy schedule based on current speeds west of Kitchener, 30 mph through Guelph, and meets at Stratford like those numbers seem to imply. Tried to squeeze out as many trips as possible without affecting VIA or running out of F59s.
Is this actually realistic?
Regardless, I ran with it and did a fantasy schedule based on current speeds west of Kitchener, 30 mph through Guelph, and meets at Stratford like those numbers seem to imply. Tried to squeeze out as many trips as possible without affecting VIA or running out of F59s.
Bordercollie
Senior Member
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Yeah that's why they said 30 mph, instead of the current 10 mph.