lead82
Senior Member
That’s terrible. So just like the TTC, GO pads their schedule to avoid paying the date refund vs actually providing faster service.
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Also - the express GO schedule to Niagara (i.e. the one that doesn't reverse in to West Harbour) runs in 2:15, not 2:36 like the peak hour service.
Remember as well that GO has a lower top speed than VIA / Amtrak services, which can operate at 166km/h when GO tops out at ~144km/h.
You end up with Amtrak doing Union-Aldershot in 36 minutes which takes GO 52 minutes to complete - almost the entirety of the extra travel time. After Aldershot, it takes GO 1:23 vs. Amtrak's 1:19 to get to Niagara Falls - very similar.
Northern Light
Superstar
Yes to all of that.
But let's note one thing on that very last comparison, that the Maple Leaf has one extra stop on that segment, at Grimsby. Presumably, but for that, the time difference would be a bit greater.
Richard White
Senior Member
Neither does GO if you use any of the weekend or GO/WEGO passes. Found that out this weekend.
smallspy
Senior Member
Nitpick: Amtrak locos have a top speed of 79mph when operating anywhere without cab signalling / PTC / ATS. That includes in Canada.
And that really doesn't matter on Grimsby Sub, where the passenger speed is 60mph anyways.
From a train performance standpoint, the biggest reason why the Amtrak/VIA train operates faster is because it is shorter and lighter, meaning that it can get away from stops more quickly. But the reality is that the GO trains by virtue of their loading take longer at stops anyways, despite the additional, lower doorways.
Dan
KevinT
Senior Member
A flyover, or a duckunder of lock 4 just south of the mainline that's only for GO trains (which can handle higher grades than freight) would be great, but I'm not holding my breath.
Edit to add: Swerve a bit further south to punch it under lock 5 and the grades for the train wouldn't even be all that crazy, although the curves could slow you down a lot depending on how far you could walk back (or not) the diversions.
Last edited:
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Schedule padding is essential to having reliable service. If you don't have any, then even the slightest delay will be unrecoverable. And with trains, delays cause other delays, as trains are not in their planned slots and have a greater chance of conflict with other trains.
If you don't have padding, your trains will not run on time.
GO Transit reaches 150 km/h (93 mph) between Toronto and Niagara.
Amtrak can only reach 127 km/h (79 mph) due to signalling restrictions, as smallspy mentioned.
Northern Light
Superstar
Do you not feel that GO's current schedules carry 'excess' padding?
anb
Active Member
You can really feel the GO padding whenever a train arrives late to a stop, and all of a sudden speeds up to a point where they're trying to get there at the next stop and meet on time as if the train wasn't delayed at all.
They overexaggerate the stop by stop travel time when it doesn't need to be that way at all.
They overexaggerate the stop by stop travel time when it doesn't need to be that way at all.
T3G
Senior Member
Besides the Niagara train, is there any specific service you think has excess padding?
I regularly use the 21, and Milton and Lakeshore lines. I do not find the schedule for any of those has excess padding.
Northern Light
Superstar
In respect of GO, I mostly rely on what I see here at UT, i do use GO but not extensively, so my anecdotal experience is not material and doesn't inspire me to look closer.
I can certainly take a look; but I feel @reaperexpress , @smallspy , and @crs1026 are all more qualified than I to offer opinions on that, along with, rather obviously, those than run the rails in said corridors, some of whom are UT members.
I can more accurately discuss TTC schedule padding...........which is grossly excessive on many routes.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
I do. It is always a balancing act between speed and reliability, but GO's rail schedules do indeed feel like they're too padded, causing most trains to run much slower than they otherwise could have.
But I can't objectively say that it's too much padding because I don't know how severe the consequences would be if the amount of train delays increased. Especially on the single tracked routes where delays on one train get transmitted directly to the train in the opposite direction, it is possible that speeding up the schedule would be no better for passengers, with the travel time savings being offset by increased wait times (delays) and reduced consistency.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Not to give you extra work, but I firmly believe in your ability to model that out, at least to a 95% confidence.
crs1026
Superstar
I am not aware of many places where the schedule is so padded that trains regularly wait for their departure time. There are a couple, but these are driven by operational needs (especially meets on single track - some slack is desirable here).
The slowness of the schedules is concealed in the interest of fuel conservation. Crews have a chart telling them when to stop accelerating - even if the track is good for higher speed, if on time they are required to coast once the specified train speed is reached. So trains run slower, rather than reaching the next station with time to spare. Some of those top speeds between station are pretty slow.
There is definitely room to squeeze more time out of the schedule, but better to wait until we have electrification and possibly shorter lighter equipment. Plus, the existing schedule has opportunity to add more stops. If ML tightened timings too aggressively, then any new station opening would force a readjustment that would ”disadvantage” riders. Better they not know……
From a marketing perspective, riders are likely much more sensitive to their wait on the platform than on trip speed or on time arrival. Reliability ie train showing up on time where the rider is waiting is critical to reputation, arriving at the end point on time apparently less so.
I am more concerned about pinch points where the physical plant forces slow running. There are track switches that limit speed to 25 or 30 where 45 would be preferable, and track quality to Niagara, London, etc is clearly a limiting factor.
- Paul
The slowness of the schedules is concealed in the interest of fuel conservation. Crews have a chart telling them when to stop accelerating - even if the track is good for higher speed, if on time they are required to coast once the specified train speed is reached. So trains run slower, rather than reaching the next station with time to spare. Some of those top speeds between station are pretty slow.
There is definitely room to squeeze more time out of the schedule, but better to wait until we have electrification and possibly shorter lighter equipment. Plus, the existing schedule has opportunity to add more stops. If ML tightened timings too aggressively, then any new station opening would force a readjustment that would ”disadvantage” riders. Better they not know……
From a marketing perspective, riders are likely much more sensitive to their wait on the platform than on trip speed or on time arrival. Reliability ie train showing up on time where the rider is waiting is critical to reputation, arriving at the end point on time apparently less so.
I am more concerned about pinch points where the physical plant forces slow running. There are track switches that limit speed to 25 or 30 where 45 would be preferable, and track quality to Niagara, London, etc is clearly a limiting factor.
- Paul
Last edited:
