[EnviroTO]

I think it really depends on the cost of adding an off-peak train to Barrie. On a line fully owned by GO if there are no new capital costs associated with all day service then it might not be anywhere near the same order of magnitude of costs associated with added off-peak service on other lines. To some degree tracks fully owned and maintained by GO and trains fully owned by GO are wasting money sitting there so it really depends if off-peak service could recoup the costs of the fuel and the engineer. If adding an off peak train to Barrie is a quarter the cost of adding it elsewhere it really can't be seen as the cause for a delay on other lines. If anything the more lines there are with all day service the greater the political pressure to expand on that.

 

[ShonTron]

I think adding off-peak train service to Barrie would just result in delay to introducing off-peak train service for Milton and Georgetown, not mention improved off-peak service for Lakeshore. If Barrie is not a priority, it shouldn't net getting the off-peak service.

Yeah, it is annoying that Georgetown is stuck with the same number of peak period trains (4 in, 4 out) it had in 1981 (!), while every other corridor (except Richmond Hill, which only added one) has seen at least two additional round-trip trains in the peak. I know they added a shoulder-peak round trip and one AM short-turn and one PM evening short-turn, but those don't count. One would hope that the Kitchener trains will be brand new runs.

 

[Dan416]

I'm convinced that both Georgetown and Milton would surpass expectations if they moved to all-day service akin to Lakeshore. And if we moved to a S-bahn-type system, it would be phenomenal.

 

[rbt]

I'm convinced that both Georgetown and Milton would surpass expectations if they moved to all-day service akin to Lakeshore. And if we moved to a S-bahn-type system, it would be phenomenal.

They're getting closer on some lines but Milton will require a very larger capital project to do this. Probably $2B, 5 years, and lots of expropriations. Very politically messy until those along the line start demanding better service.

Another 4 years of buying and doubling track, rail-rail separations, bridge replacements and upgrades, and signalling system modernization and they will be ready. That, of course, assumes the next provincial government is as eager to fund GO capital projects as the current one has been.

The actual act of electrification is quite cheap once you own corridor and all of the other steps are complete.

 

[Dan416]

They're getting closer on some lines but Milton will require a very larger capital project to do this. Probably $2B, 5 years, and lots of expropriations. Very politically messy until those along the line start demanding better service.

Another 4 years of buying and doubling track, rail-rail separations, bridge replacements and upgrades, and signalling system modernization and they will be ready. That, of course, assumes the next provincial government is as eager to fund GO capital projects as the current one has been.

The actual act of electrification is quite cheap once you own corridor and all of the other steps are complete.

Who knows what amount of $$$ would convince CP to give up the Milton line.

 

[EnviroTO]

Georgetown all day is all but guaranteed to happen in about 5 years assuming a transit supportive government is in power. With all the construction on the line, a big segment single tracked, and the portion past the airport being the CN mainline there are some challenges to doing it now. They have put in the second track through Brampton and should be done the Credit Bridge soon, but the Georgetown South project is still 4 years out. Milton being the CP mainline also has challenges, but it will happen too although it will likely be beyond 2015 when the start construction on it.

 

[rbt]

Who knows what amount of $$$ would convince CP to give up the Milton line.

Well, they've given a pair of options. Build them a northern bypass and a new yard (lots of room at Pickering airport...) or widen the corridor and build another pair of tracks.

Based on Georgetown corridor costs, I'm guessing option 2 (building another pair of tracks) would be about $2B today. Hard to do politically since dozens of houses would be demolished and hundreds would lose a large chunk of their yard.

 

[DavidJamesTO]

I don't think it would be that hard. I used to take the Milton Line daily and in most places there is space for a third track to be slipped in. Streetsville is a concern though.

 

[Dan416]

Well, they've given a pair of options. Build them a northern bypass and a new yard (lots of room at Pickering airport...) or widen the corridor and build another pair of tracks.

Based on Georgetown corridor costs, I'm guessing option 2 (building another pair of tracks) would be about $2B today. Hard to do politically since dozens of houses would be demolished and hundreds would lose a large chunk of their yard.

You're saying that's what CP has demanded? That GO Transit build it a bypass? How feasible is that?

 

[rbt]

You're saying that's what CP has demanded? That GO Transit build it a bypass? How feasible is that?

It's not too bad actually. IIRC, they were to share an expanded set of CN tracks at the north of the city. Both organizations agreed that this would be possible. GO would then fully own the Hamilton to Oshawa corridor (which they are buying anyway and own a good chunk of at this time) and the mid-town CP corridor.

The expensive bit is replacing CPs western Yard as it would no longer be easily accessible to CP.

 

[rbt]

I don't think it would be that hard. I used to take the Milton Line daily and in most places there is space for a third track to be slipped in. Streetsville is a concern though.

The feasibility study (summer 2009) was for 2 additional running tracks, a fly under at Humber river, and additional bays and storage tracks. This was the minimum necessary to provide all day hourly service because CP isn't willing to share their existing infrastructure (they're using it).

An EA was scheduled for early 2010 (according to 2009 capital budget) but I cannot find any trace of it occurring. Can only assume that the feasibility study determined the cost was going to be significant (I.e. more expensive than Georgetown). Haven't see anything about the Cambridge extension of the Milton line either which was to be done at roughly the same time.

 

[Dan416]

The feasibility study (summer 2009) was for 2 additional running tracks, a fly under at Humber river, and additional bays and storage tracks. This was the minimum necessary to provide all day hourly service because CP isn't willing to share their existing infrastructure (they're using it).

An EA was scheduled for early 2010 (according to 2009 capital budget) but I cannot find any trace of it occurring. Can only assume that the feasibility study determined the cost was going to be significant (I.e. more expensive than Georgetown). Haven't see anything about the Cambridge extension of the Milton line either which was to be done at roughly the same time.

I haven't heard anything about the Milton EA in a looooong time...

 

[khris]

I took the GO bus home from Cooksville on Friday, going to Union. I was catching the 8:35 bus. It arrived around 9:05. Full. Everyone but 2 of us got on, and they all had to stand in the aisle. I had to wait for the next one. It was the first time a bus was that late for me, and also the first time I wasn't able to get on due to a full bus. I was not impressed, considering I paid $10.10 return ticket for this kind of service. Just glad it wasn't winter!

 

[doady]

Milton already has the infrastructure required for all-day service to Erindale, because there was already all-day service to Erindale in the past, so there is already a third track between Erindale and Cooksville, which allows the trains to layover between trips without impeding freight traffic. Erindale and Cooksville have the best local transit connections on the Milton Line, so why not? Only GO's cheapness is the problem, which is also probably why Lakeshore doesn't have 30 minute off-peak service.

The off-peak service to Erindale would probably have a frequency of 40 or 45 minutes.

Mt. Pleasant already has a third track also, judging from the satellite images...

 

[Platform 27]

Milton already has the infrastructure required for all-day service to Erindale, because there was already all-day service to Erindale in the past, so there is already a third track between Erindale and Cooksville, which allows the trains to layover between trips without impeding freight traffic. Erindale and Cooksville have the best local transit connections on the Milton Line, so why not? Only GO's cheapness is the problem, which is also probably why Lakeshore doesn't have 30 minute off-peak service.

By "GO's cheapness" I think you mean the "Government of Ontario's cheapness" rather than cheapness on the part of the transit provider itself.

I believe you'd find that CP has more freight traffic on the Milton line to skirt around today compared to back when those off-peak trains last ran... they were a Rae-era cut, right? That could mean the amount of triple-tracking that was adequate from CP's perspective then is inadequate now.

The off-peak service to Erindale would probably have a frequency of 40 or 45 minutes.

It's a 38 minute trip, and add in 5 minutes turnaround time at each of Union and Erindale and you're looking at a floor of 48 minutes. I imagine they'd rather pad it out to 60 and at least keep the schedules straightforward (though that's assuming you're running two trainsets solely on Milton during the day and not getting fancier with interlining them onwards on Lakeshore East or something). If aiming for that magic 60 minute number is that desirable then it might be an argument to push the turnback out to Streetsville, but I haven't the slightest clue if the track layout would support that. Any of of our more rail-knowledgable contingent know? At a guess, in that scenario the two trains would be passing somewhere between Kipling and Dixie, which is at least one of the triple-tracked segments, so it's got that going for it.

Mt. Pleasant already has a third track also, judging from the satellite images...

Yup, built a couple of years back now, and I imagine Mt. Pleasant's eventual use as an off-peak short-turn played a role in that.