[steveintoronto]

And the 20min frequency is more like 15-15-30 (3 trains an hour).

They use the dubious term "average" for this, which is what threw some of us initially.

No big expense.

They claimed "the agency is adding trips to the Lakeshore lines at no additional cost".
https://news.ontario.ca/mto/en/2018...-go-train-service-increase-in-five-years.html

From the same release:

"Your government is making sure the people of Ontario have a safe and efficient transportation network," said Minister Yakabuski "Our plan to get people moving includes delivering two-way, all-day GO service. We look forward to improving the transit experience for all Ontarians."

Il Duce ll.

 

[smallspy]

So more details at the Globe:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/can...ain-service-on-lakeshore-east-and-west-lines/

THIS:
"Some of the increases are being will be achieved by splitting trains, so one with 12 cars becomes two six-car trains. Although this increases the number of trains without changing the number of available seats, such splitting allows the fleet to be used more efficiently."

This is *exactly* what a number of us were touting years ago in this and other strings, but told that it wasn't possible due to (take your choice) 'Brake tests' 'assembly time in the yard' 'crewing problems' 'scheduling' 'available pathings' etc, etc.

So what has radically changed to allow the obvious? Have TC regs changed on making/breaking trainsets? Someone has a lot of explaining to do on this, because there's those F59s that were to be sold off (after recent refits) (or it may be too late, they might have gone) and *present* possibility (had some had their druthers) for an AD2W Bramalea to Union (or further) frequent 3 DD coach consist (the limitation might be cab cars and/or disability coach availability) running the 15 min stopgap between longer consists to begin "SmartTrack Prequel". Ideally, this would be replaced once electrified with RER vehicles. UPX pathings continue to be grossly underutilized by about 66%. I'm led to believe the signalling is good for even less than 5 min headways. So 7.5 min should be fine. Union terminal would be a constraint, but that's relatively easy to address. Bramalea is almost ready for some kind of AD2W service (on top of the present late morning/early afternoon service to Mt Pleasant).

If the emphasis is to be on (gist) "Existing infrastructure" then there's a heck of a lot more than can be done, especially now the cat is out of the bag on 'splitting trains'.

Contrary to what the press releases state, they are not splitting trainsets.

There are currently 8 6-car trainsets in service. On Monday, there will be 8 6-car trainsets in service. There have been no TC changes to the regs regarding train build-up.

A lot of the press release refers to the improvements that occured early in September, so I wonder if I can't help but think that the press releases for this were simply added on to from the previous and not proof-read.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Northern Light]

Dan, with the schedules for LSW and LSE no longer in synch for mid-day, are the new runs all turn-backs at Union? OR are any through-runs?

 

[steveintoronto]

Contrary to what the press releases state, they are not splitting trainsets.

There are currently 8 6-car trainsets in service. On Monday, there will be 8 6-car trainsets in service. There have been no TC changes to the regs regarding train build-up.

A lot of the press release refers to the improvements that occured early in September, so I wonder if I can't help but think that the press releases for this were simply added on to from the previous and not proof-read.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Interesting. That would certainly go a long way to clearing up the confusion. But note that no-one at QP or Metrolinx has clarified the facts on this, as maybe the Public don't have an issue with the claims, but some of us who follow these events do.

I have noted (don't have link or reference handy) the claim (Aikins perhaps?) that (gist) "We are taking coaches from some trains to add to others". Again, questions to ask on that...is that a case of 'Robbing Peter to pay Paul'? And if that's logical to do now, why wasn't it in the past?

Hopefully we'll be reading an in-depth operational account of how the claims are being achieved. But there's no way around aspects being done in haste, if not panic: "I can't help but think that the press releases for this were simply added on to from the previous and not proof-read."

Concerning in itself...

Edit to Add: It could well be that the Metrolinx plan to increase service (which goes back prior to Ford conversion) which was well considered and tested was hijacked by this regime to 'squeeze every possible new run out of it'....contrary to best advice from middle managers who see the risk in making some runs timetable rigid whereas they deadheaded before, and were able to grab slots when they became available, not by schedule.

 

[steveintoronto]

I might be wrong about this Steve but, I am pretty sure the whole point of DBFOM etc. is that there is private finance? That's what the F is for right? I know for the REM and Canada Line the Caisse picked up a lot of the cost?

As far as RER goes doesn't the new LSE service pattern basically achieve the final RER level service on LSE? (In the midday at least?) It doesn't seem like MU's were required?

Don't get me wrong I'd be deeply disappointed if the PC's just provided more Diesel Service without any improved stations etc. but it seems like they could meet the promised service?

As far as platforms go I think high level probably won't happen? There are regional rail networks not dissimilar to RER is Europe that use low platforms with KISS and it doesn't seem to be a problem, though I am not sure they have the plans for such close station spacings.

All good questions. I'll answer in more detail with reference later, just rushing out door, but DBFOM...you're right! But there are an infinite number of variables to each contract, not least how much cost and risk is assigned to each party. DBFOM is a form of P3. The amount the gov't assumes is about to change even further to financing being virtually all "private"....but the gov't is still involved in other aspects, like approval, control of the service and eventual ownership of the asset in most, but not all cases.

The DBFOM discussion really deserves its own string, as the importance of the topic is increasing exponentially. A dedicated string would attract those of the financial persuasion (shiny brown Oxfords optional) as there are nuanced aspects to it that can 'make or break' a deal. (Crosstown is an example of this, and there's lessons to be learned)

Back later, sun is shining, and I can't miss doing miles cycling while I still can.

Quick added note: I can see only one way this regime will move ahead with electrification: Putting it out as a P3, quite possibly *separate* from whoever owns/runs RER. It's something an electric utility could/would handle well. More on this later, as it will take reference to show how it's worked elsewhere.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Can it be viable to have two engines on the trains with 12 coaches and after arriving, they split off in opposite directions with 6 coaches each?

 

[steveintoronto]

Can it be viable to have two engines on the trains with 12 coaches and after arriving, they split off in opposite directions with 6 coaches each?

It's a good question. VIA do it on a number of runs, some out of Toronto. It might be a time problem, it might be logistical too, where to put the second loco? Middle of train? That creates some issues, but GO runs only loco facing one way. The real way to do this is with EMUs/DMUs.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

News Release

Ontario's Government for the People Announces Largest GO Train Service Increase in Five Years
September 20, 2018

Adds 400,000 more train seats every week for people in the GTHA
TORONTO — Ontario's Government for the People is keeping its promise to get people moving faster by adding GO train service to reduce congestion in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area.

Today John Yakabuski, Minister of Transportation, announced the largest GO service increase in five years. Starting September 24, travelers on the Lakeshore corridors will have access to 220 new trips per week, an increase of nearly 18 per cent.

"Your government is making life easier for those travelling within the GTHA," said Minister Yakabuski. "We are making GO trains run more frequently and increasing seat capacity — more than 400,000 additional train seats will be available every week. This will bring immediate relief to the thousands of travelers who use GO Transit in the area."

Travelers on the GO Lakeshore corridors will benefit from:

• 27 new train trips on GO Lakeshore East, an increase of 21 per cent, which will double midday, weekday service between Oshawa and Union. This brings the line to 15-minute midday service frequency.
• 17 new weekday train trips on GO Lakeshore West, with six trips during rush hour and 11 in the midday period between Oakville and Union Station, representing a new train every hour. This is an increase of 50 per cent more midday trains and nearly 14 per cent overall.

"With hundreds of new trips between our busy morning and evening peak travel periods, we're taking the thinking out of travelling — whether travelling east or west, from dawn to dusk," said Phil Verster, President and CEO of Metrolinx. "Our customers along the Lakeshore lines can leave their schedules behind and just GO for much of the day."

Additional service improvements include:

• On the Kitchener line, GO is adding a new morning, rush hour train trip from Malton GO to Union Station. GO will also increase seat capacity on two morning and two evening peak trips that originate and end at Kitchener GO, expanding the length of the train from 10 to 12 cars.
• GO bus customers now have a new bus stop at Highway 404 and Major Mackenzie in Richmond Hill. Customers will see more than 180 new weekly bus trips across the region.

"Your government is making sure the people of Ontario have a safe and efficient transportation network," said Minister Yakabuski "Our plan to get people moving includes delivering two-way, all-day GO service. We look forward to improving the transit experience for all Ontarians."

Wow Dougie moves real quick if he was able to get the 404/major mack park and ride station approved, built, and opened in the less than 6 months hes been in office. Must have really cut a ton of red tape.

Talk about taking credit for someone else's work

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Wow Dougie moves real quick if he was able to get the 404/major mack park and ride station approved, built, and opened in the less than 6 months hes been in office. Must have really cut a ton of red tape.

Talk about taking credit for someone else's work

haha

 

[Streety McCarface]

You are aware that a) there is no agreement in place to get any more trains to any stations west of Malton and b) GO trains don’t hold anywhere near 5,000 passengers?

First part I was unaware of (based on my usage of the line, I wouldn't have guessed that freight trains would be running during peak times).

12-car train. -- 162 seated, 276 standees, 438 passengers/car, *12 cars = ~5,250 passengers/train. Although their design capacity is 360 passengers/car, with crush loads, it can easily carry 438 passengers/car. Even if we assume that lower value, we get 4,320 passengers/train. It's not 5,000, but much closer than "[nowhere] near 5,000 [passengers]."

 

[mdrejhon]

One thing I noticed about North American transit is people refuse to board trains if the train is at 50% of their standee capacity.

In many parts of of the world, commuters actually push into the train to make space for them and get much closer to crush capacity. Even staff sometimes helps!

Realistically, GO trains support about 2500-3000 passengers when overloaded. We just tend to skip the train once the train is already at ~2500.

 

[LNahid2000]

12-car train. -- 162 seated, 276 standees, 438 passengers/car, *12 cars = ~5,250 passengers/train. Although their design capacity is 360 passengers/car, with crush loads, it can easily carry 438 passengers/car. Even if we assume that lower value, we get 4,320 passengers/train. It's not 5,000, but much closer than "[nowhere] near 5,000 [passengers]."

Easily? Maybe if we start doing this:

 

[Streety McCarface]

One thing I noticed about North American transit is people refuse to board trains if the train is at 50% of their standee capacity.

In many parts of of the world, commuters actually push into the train to make space for them and get much closer to crush capacity. Even staff sometimes helps!

Realistically, GO trains support about 2500-3000 passengers when overloaded. We just tend to skip the train once the train is already at ~2500.

I've never experienced that for a LSW train leaving for union, or a Kitchener express train. While this might be true for the subway, most people will do everything they can to try and get onto their train if the frequencies are worse than 5 minutes, or if there's a benefit to taking a particular train (most likely, the fact that a train might run express).

Admittedly, our trains are nowhere near as crowded as Tokyo's, but some subway lines are running at >200% capacity during rush hours. 200% of a 12-car go train design maximum capacity is 8,640 passengers/train. With this in mind, 5,000 passengers per train isn't far fetched as an absolute maximum for GO train capacity, especially since dwell times don't really matter.

 

[crs1026]

I’m not sure that loading to crush capacity is something GO should aspire to.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

Given how long it takes to get paths set and rosters done and all the rest, plus Whitby yard coming on line, it doesn’t seem likely to me that Ford/Yakabuski had anything to do with the current rollout - they simply have not had their feet under the table long enough. It is far more likely to me that this is simply Metrolinx doing what Metrolinx planned to do.

It is a bit odd to me that GO can operate Malton trains given that it is west of the junction with CN but I assume there is a quirk of track/switch location which makes this convenient rather than further west.

As for Verster, he probably hoped that Wynne would provide him with a reasonable steady political environment unlike the one he left at ScotRail. Well, if he did, that was not how things worked out for him.