News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.7K     0 

Rutherford was added in 2001 as a replacement for Maple. The idea was that the site at Maple was much more constrained and it was going to be difficult to add parking, whereas the site at Rutherford was much more open.

Of course since then, GO has decided to open their wallets and buy up as much land as possible around Maple in order to increase the amount of parking there. And since ridership has not appreciably dropped since the opening of Rutherford, they've decided to keep both of them open.

Dan
And with the introduction of RER on the Barrie Line, having stations 2km apart in suburban areas may not be a bad thing, so long as there's an option to run express trains on the inner portion of the line.
 
No amount of parking can satisfy the demand for RER type frequent rail service, especially when fares are fully integrated with local transit. GO will have to move away from the park & ride model and towards the feeder bus model that's been serving the subway for generations. That means that YRT has to learn from its neighbours and significantly increase service over the rest of the decade.
 
No amount of parking can satisfy the demand for RER type frequent rail service, especially when fares are fully integrated with local transit. GO will have to move away from the park & ride model and towards the feeder bus model that's been serving the subway for generations. That means that YRT has to learn from its neighbours and significantly increase service over the rest of the decade.
Agreed, but that's another reason why having stations closer together makes sense. If you have a station at almost every concession road (~2km apart), running local transit service on the roads would allow more local routes to more directly intersect with stations. When stations are 4+ km apart, the amount of deviation the local routes need to take, and by consequence the amount of time a transit user spends on a bus before even arriving at the station, increases substantially.

If you have a layered express/local pattern, you can increase accessibility while not substantially increasing trip times. For example, on the Lakeshore West corridor:

Route 1: Local Union to Oakville, terminate at Oakville
Route 2: Express Union to Oakville, local Oakville to West Harbour, terminate at West Harbour
Route 3: Express Union to West Harbour (stop at Burlington & Oakville), local to Niagara Falls

With this pattern, you could add infill stations at Park Lawn, Lorne Park, Ford, Dorval, and Walkers without substantially impacting travel times for most people on the corridor.
 
And with the introduction of RER on the Barrie Line, having stations 2km apart in suburban areas may not be a bad thing, so long as there's an option to run express trains on the inner portion of the line.
Exactly this. Using single level EMU's along the Aurora to Union section would basically create subway(metro)-like acceleration profiles. Subway stations 2km apart is pretty standard. I'm actually hoping to see more infill stations this close together on the line, such as the proposed Concord Station. If you want people to not drive to the stations you have to put enough of them to be within reasonable transit distance.
 
I was really disappointed that Niagara trains weren't running but I just got to Burlington and there was an announcement that they're running the 12B express to Niagara Falls. This is probably going to end up being faster than the train! It's ridiculously full and uncomfortable though.

I'm hoping they start up the Niagara trains again soon. This is however Metrolinx...
 
Metrolinx still owns the Guelph Sub from Silver to Kitchener correct? A CN foamer told me that its one and only owner is CN
 
*sigh* Foamers…… ;-)

You are correct. CN still owns from Kitchener westwards.

- Paul
Given the good ridership on the London pilot. Metrolinx should go ahead and buy the sub all the way to London.
 
Then they can upgrade the tracks to 70-90mph

They should work with VIA and upgrade it to class 6. Why not do the max you can if you are going to go through all the trouble. Class 6 would allow for 110mph, which is the max allowed with crossing gates in Canada.

The new VIA Siemens trains can do 125mph and even the EMD F59PH used on the London route can do 110mph, but the GO coaches I believe have a speed limit of 103mph.
 
They should work with VIA and upgrade it to class 6. Why not do the max you can if you are going to go through all the trouble. Class 6 would allow for 110mph, which is the max allowed with crossing gates in Canada.

The new VIA Siemens trains can do 125mph and even the EMD F59PH used on the London route can do 110mph, but the GO coaches I believe have a speed limit of 103mph.
I'm just wondering what is the physical/ observable differences between class 6/5/4
 
They should work with VIA and upgrade it to class 6. Why not do the max you can if you are going to go through all the trouble. Class 6 would allow for 110mph, which is the max allowed with crossing gates in Canada.

The new VIA Siemens trains can do 125mph and even the EMD F59PH used on the London route can do 110mph, but the GO coaches I believe have a speed limit of 103mph.

GO's F59's have a top speed of 83 mph (133 km/h). I'm not sure what the speed limit is for the coaches, but they do operate up to 93 mph (150 km/h) in regular service.

110 mph on the London line would be nice, but it's worth noting that you get rapidly diminishing returns as you increase the track speed above the speed the curves can handle. After a certain point the benefit becomes zero as the train can't even reach the track speed before it needs to slow for the next curve. Trains will always need to operate slowly (30 mph?) through St. Mary's and Stratford due to the sharp curves which cannot be widened. Just west of Kitchener there's a series of curves which limit speeds to around 80 mph or so. I'm sure trains could briefly reach 110 mph in spots between the curves, but I don't imagine they'd be able to sustain those speeds long enough to make a measureable difference compared to a 95 mph track speed.
 
GO's F59's have a top speed of 83 mph (133 km/h). I'm not sure what the speed limit is for the coaches, but they do operate up to 93 mph (150 km/h) in regular service.

110 mph on the London line would be nice, but it's worth noting that you get rapidly diminishing returns as you increase the track speed above the speed the curves can handle. After a certain point the benefit becomes zero as the train can't even reach the track speed before it needs to slow for the next curve. Trains will always need to operate slowly (30 mph?) through St. Mary's and Stratford due to the sharp curves which cannot be widened. Just west of Kitchener there's a series of curves which limit speeds to around 80 mph or so. I'm sure trains could briefly reach 110 mph in spots between the curves, but I don't imagine they'd be able to sustain those speeds long enough to make a measureable difference compared to a 95 mph track speed.

I really have to disagree with this, there are large portions of that section of the GEXR thats super straight. Yes there are some curves but they pale in comparison to how many straight sections there are. This isn't a constantly wavering track through a valley or something.

As for the F59's I find that very surprising, i'd love to see some documentation on that. Most F59's have a 110mph top speed, and the ones own by GO were refurbished in 2011. I can't imagine they would be run down by now.

Regardless, once they replace the bridge on this section, which would coincide with retracking I am sure, they could use the MPI's or other locos.
 

Back
Top