[reinventingthewheel]

The only path that makes any sense to me would be Stone Road and Gordon Street:

Looks fine on aerial but in reality that’s a big descent from UofG to Guelph central on Gordon St, up to 6%. It’s also an awfully slim ROW. If the university ever requires a higher order connection to downtown, it will likely need a new east/west ROW.

Since this is a Guelph related thread I’ll share one fantasy alternative: a transit ROW extending from Wyndham St at York Rd, through Cutten Field golf course, to meet College Ave and Lang Way, where trips would continue on towards the University bus loop.

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

Business case for Guelph-Cambridge GO trains heading to council

Letter will be sent to Metrolinx supporting the Cambridge to Union passenger rail connection Initial business case and concept design

www.guelphtoday.com

I think this is where the project dies. There's little incentive for Guelph because they're getting their GO expansion already. Then there's Metrolinx who will likely have no time for a rickety low-volume branch line service when virtually all the high volume high ROI projects are on a severe backlog. Let's also not forget that the upcoming austerity government in Ottawa will likely put a freeze on federal transit funding, squeezing Metrolinx resources. In the highly unlikely event they do take it on, it won't be in place before 2041 at the earliest, by which point CN will have likely tired of waiting and sold the right of way to developers.

Not to mention of course, this makes no sense as a train and should be a bus, even in the long term.

 

[dowlingm]

In the highly unlikely event they do take it on, it won't be in place before 2041 at the earliest, by which point CN will have likely tired of waiting and sold the right of way to developers.

I mean, the least Metrolinx could do is buy it for stock, in the way they relieved CP of the expense of worrying about the Don Branch bridges and alignment with no real plan to do anything with it.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

My hope is still really for the Region to take the lead on this thing. As a regional project even buying the corridor for protection and freight service preservation follows the model of the Waterloo Spur and would have some nice synergy with Guelph Junction, while yeah, if it MUST be metrolinx for some reason it’s a low priority oddity.

 

[reaperexpress]

My hope is still really for the Region to take the lead on this thing. As a regional project even buying the corridor for protection and freight service preservation follows the model of the Waterloo Spur and would have some nice synergy with Guelph Junction, while yeah, if it MUST be metrolinx for some reason it’s a low priority oddity.

Yeah and maybe the Region would be able to deliver the project within a reasonable budget if Metrolinx is kept out of the contracting and project management.

The City of Ottawa managed to deliver the original O-Train (now Trillium Line) for $21M in 2001 ($35M in 2025) including upgrading 8km of railway, building a short new spur (at Bayview Station), building 5 basic stations and purchasing 3 trains and building a maintenance facility for them. Here is a table with the key stats:

	O-Train phase 1	Cambridge-Guelph
Length	8 km	18 km
Stations	5 new stations	1 new, 1 upgraded
Trains	3x 3-car	2x 2-car
Cost ($2025)	$35M	???

The major potential cost for the Cambridge project is the upgrade of Guelph Central station. But that could be completely avoided if a tailtrack is built east of the station. That would of course involve double-tracking the bridge (which already has supports for a second span) but that cost could be shared with Metrolinx since GO trains would also benefit from the extended double track.

Given the longer segment, a Cambridge DMU would probably be more expensive than the O-Train but it shouldn't be that much more.

 

[robmausser]

Personally I would prefer to see a spur line of the Kitchener GO train going down this rather than a BEMU.

However I understand that will be hard and still commit to hourly trains to Kitchener. But anytime someone has to transfer it really kills interest.

 

[reaperexpress]

Personally I would prefer to see a spur line of the Kitchener GO train going down this rather than a BEMU.

However I understand that will be hard and still commit to hourly trains to Kitchener. But anytime someone has to transfer it really kills interest.

Maybe once they build the Credit grade separation they'd be able to negotiate more slots on the CN line continuing west of Mt Pleasant. Based on the Kitchener business case, they already got a tentative agreement for 3 trains per hour, only one of which continues beyond Mt Pleasant. With a grade separation it doesn't seem like a stretch to extend a second train per hour to Cambridge via Guelph, if accompanied by some extensions of the existing/planned double track segments to improve resilience. Peak period service is already 2 trains per hour, and it doesn't seem too bad to have one each to Kitchener and Cambridge.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Personally I would prefer to see a spur line of the Kitchener GO train going down this rather than a BEMU.

However I understand that will be hard and still commit to hourly trains to Kitchener. But anytime someone has to transfer it really kills interest.

I really, really DON'T want to see this. It's a path to compromising both services deeply and effectively killing the local Cambridge - Guelph traffic that really ought to be a big chunk of this things viability while ending any real possibility of getting the line to Galt.

 

[reaperexpress]

I really, really DON'T want to see this. It's a path to compromising both services deeply and effectively killing the local Cambridge - Guelph traffic that really ought to be a big chunk of this things viability while ending any real possibility of getting the line to Galt.

It seems plausible that there could be thru service while still maintaining at least 1 train per hour KW-Guelph and Cambridge-Guelph. In the short term we could have something like:

Peak:
1tph KW to Toronto
1tph KW to Guelph (in addition to above, en route from the yard to Cambridge)
1tph Cambridge to Toronto

Off-peak and counter-peak
1tph KW to Toronto
1tph Cambridge to Guelph
(Off-peak is DMU, counterpeak is GO trains heading between Cambridge and the yard)

This wouldn't require any changes to service east of Guelph compared to the current plan.

 

[robmausser]

I really, really DON'T want to see this. It's a path to compromising both services deeply and effectively killing the local Cambridge - Guelph traffic that really ought to be a big chunk of this things viability while ending any real possibility of getting the line to Galt.

The thing is, I see putting an existing GO train as a spur having a MUCH, MUCH greater chance of happening than a battery emu line, which needs its own maintenance facility etc.

I think this plan with the EMU is DOA.

I'd rather have a worse option than nothing. Just like I was all in favour of the VIA HFR proposal.

A lot of people on here seem hellbent on perfect or nothing. And in Canada that means nothing.

 

[crs1026]

This is one of those design issues that feels like an old sweater that has a loose thread….you think you can just pull out the little thread, but when you do the whole sweater starts to unravel.
The amount of new track (and row space) needed to lay over even short d(b)mu’s at Guelph implies some expensive construction. I am doubtful there is a quick fix here. We are assuming that a layover schedule and service plan is feasible without understanding what role the only two available tracks may play in allowing GO and VIA trains to Kitchener to meet on an otherwise single track line. The ROW is narrow and punching in additional track may be impractical. Through trains are less of an issue as they just flow through and are gone.
There is also a collision of visions here. Connectivity to Brampton and Toronto for peak needs is a timely need and proven by the current volume on the 401. Whereas an all day heavy rail transit backbone between Cambridge and Guelph is a future vision and is a “build it they will come” idea rather than relieving an overloaded existing corridor (which hadn’t even reached maximum BRT volumes as yet)(and which isn’t necessarily an urban growth corridor in the cities’ master plans).
Lastly I don’t feel that Cambridge has done a very good job in any of its LRT/GO route alignments, such that the line and stations end up somewhere that limits utility and marketability. There is a certain amount of wanting GO just to say they have it, rather than station placement driven by a real problem statement driven by volume and demand and planned growth.
To my mind, envisioning this service as 3-4 peak trains that run through to Toronto has the highest probability of filling seats, removing cars from the 401, and minimising capital costs. Anything more is a fantasy scenario and involves force fitting new ideas such as BMU largely because people want nice things and this is an empty line so a convenient canvas to imagine - again, not starting with a problem statement and a growth plan.
To my mind, the right approach is to take whatever capital envelope is proposed and look at how other alternative uses of that envelope might benefit Cambridge more. Hint : one could run a 10-minut-headway bus service on 24 for just the financing cost of the proposed rail link. And, for the capital cost of adding a layover platform at Guelph, one could rebuild the Highway 6 bridge at Puslinch, and add sufficient double track and CTC west of Campbellville to satisfy CP enough to extend 3 or 4 of the existing Milton trains to Cambridge, thereby relieving the layover limit at Milton and inserting more peak trains on the Milton line… and providing a more 401-competitive routing to attract those commuting motorists.

- Paul

PS - I could be convinced that a Cambridge - Guelph - Peel - Malton routing has more potential value as a 401 relief than a Milton routing , based on the number of jobs in Peel and commuting patterns from Cambridge as a bedroom community - but let’s see the data on that volume.

 

[DirectionNorth]

This is one of those design issues that feels like an old sweater that has a loose thread….you think you can just pull out the little thread, but when you do the whole sweater starts to unravel.
The amount of new track (and row space) needed to lay over even short d(b)mu’s at Guelph implies some expensive construction. I am doubtful there is a quick fix here. We are assuming that a layover schedule and service plan is feasible without understanding what role the only two available tracks may play in allowing GO and VIA trains to Kitchener to meet on an otherwise single track line. The ROW is narrow and punching in additional track may be impractical. Through trains are less of an issue as they just flow through and are gone.
There is also a collision of visions here. Connectivity to Brampton and Toronto for peak needs is a timely need and proven by the current volume on the 401. Whereas an all day heavy rail transit backbone between Cambridge and Guelph is a future vision and is a “build it they will come” idea rather than relieving an overloaded existing corridor (which hadn’t even reached maximum BRT volumes as yet)(and which isn’t necessarily an urban growth corridor in the cities’ master plans).
Lastly I don’t feel that Cambridge has done a very good job in any of its LRT/GO route alignments, such that the line and stations end up somewhere that limits utility and marketability. There is a certain amount of wanting GO just to say they have it, rather than station placement driven by a real problem statement driven by volume and demand and planned growth.
To my mind, envisioning this service as 3-4 peak trains that run through to Toronto has the highest probability of filling seats, removing cars from the 401, and minimising capital costs. Anything more is a fantasy scenario and involves force fitting new ideas such as BMU largely because people want nice things and this is an empty line so a convenient canvas to imagine - again, not starting with a problem statement and a growth plan.

Fair enough. I'm not knowledgeable enough to say on the technical problems, but I suspect you're right in saying that imaginations are running ahead of logical planning on this line.

With that said - I do wonder what the split is on Cambridge traffic. Toronto is the larger job market, and the 401 is a bigger problem for sure, but Guelph is much closer. Hespeler is just 20 minutes from Downtown Guelph; this is close enough to be considered one housing/employment market, especially the way housing is going.

And a note on funding - a local Guelph-Cambridge train will probably have to be funded with Region of Waterloo and/or Guelph money, while a GO train would (I would think) come mostly out of the province, which will definitely influence decision-making at both levels of government. Additionally, I think that the Region would prefer Kitchener-Guelph be the priority over Cambridge-Guelph, and I'm skeptical of frequency splitting on Kitchener GO; in this vein, I am actually quite surprised that WR is so interested in this line being GO.

To my mind, the right approach is to take whatever capital envelope is proposed and look at how other alternative uses of that envelope might benefit Cambridge more. Hint : one could run a 10-minut-headway bus service on 24 for just the financing cost of the proposed rail link. And, for the capital cost of adding a layover platform at Guelph, one could rebuild the Highway 6 bridge at Puslinch, and add sufficient double track and CTC west of Campbellville to satisfy CP enough to extend 3 or 4 of the existing Milton trains to Cambridge, thereby relieving the layover limit at Milton and inserting more peak trains on the Milton line… and providing a more 401-competitive routing to attract those commuting motorists.

If the Region has extra cash, I am personally most interested in that 10 minute network plan from their business plan, which I hope they implement but honestly doubt will happen beyond bits and pieces.

Yeah, land banking is probably the best we can do for now, at current ridership levels. (I worry about adding more expansions to GO when Metrolinx is having trouble managing existing parts of GO Expansion)

 

[Bureaucromancer]

in this vein, I am actually quite surprised that WR is so interested in this line being GO.

I get the sense that there is a real fear of getting entangled in inter municipal transit operations between this and the total lack of any kind of service between Waterloo and Guelph or Brantford.

On that Guelph Central operations note, I am inclined to agree that the cost of an additional platform might be surprising, but am a long way from convinced that's a sure thing if we're looking at a short bay platform... but if platform 3 IS a problem I really would reiterate that concept of a tail track to the east, which is liable to create a more desirable single platform transfer anyway.

 

[C_Johnson_1995]

Yeah, land banking is probably the best we can do for now, at current ridership levels. (I worry about adding more expansions to GO when Metrolinx is having trouble managing existing parts of GO Expansion)

We don't do land banking in this province. Once it's gone it's gone, and will never come back. Even in places that do practice landbanking, restoring rail is exceedingly rare. But even in the long term busses are perfectly adequate in this corridor, and the opportunity cost of not developing the RoW is too large.

To my mind, envisioning this service as 3-4 peak trains that run through to Toronto has the highest probability of filling seats, removing cars from the 401, and minimising capital costs. Anything more is a fantasy scenario and involves force fitting new ideas such as BMU largely because people want nice things and this is an empty line so a convenient canvas to imagine - again, not starting with a problem statement and a growth plan.
To my mind, the right approach is to take whatever capital envelope is proposed and look at how other alternative uses of that envelope might benefit Cambridge more. Hint : one could run a 10-minut-headway bus service on 24 for just the financing cost of the proposed rail link. And, for the capital cost of adding a layover platform at Guelph, one could rebuild the Highway 6 bridge at Puslinch, and add sufficient double track and CTC west of Campbellville to satisfy CP enough to extend 3 or 4 of the existing Milton trains to Cambridge, thereby relieving the layover limit at Milton and inserting more peak trains on the Milton line… and providing a more 401-competitive routing to attract those commuting motorists.

I strongly agree with this, though I think a service pattern like this will get a level of ridership which doesn't justify the costs. In my opinion, Cambridge's geographical location along with its population make it such that it can never support passenger rail.

 

[nfitz]

I strongly agree with this, though I think a service pattern like this will get a level of ridership which doesn't justify the costs. In my opinion, Cambridge's geographical location along with its population make it such that it can never support passenger rail.

And yet it's bigger than Brantford, and the city itself is bigger than the City of Kingston (not to mention Peterborough, which is smaller than all three).

I'm not sold on this current concept, but I think restoring service from Milton to Cambridge would support at least some trains; you could probably extend a couple of the current trips quickly. Heck, if you want to get creative, you could put the Galt station back, and then turn to the northwest, and put a station in Preston, and a third in Hespler!