[nfitz]

They can't upgrade Link to go that far - it would have to be a completely new system; probably removing much of the current infrastructure. More likely they'd use both.

And I'm not sure the current having Rail to Terminal 1, with the adjacent Link station to T3 is inferior to Rail to GO Malton (or GO Woodbine) with Link to both T1 and T3.

 

[mdrejhon]

They can't upgrade Link to go that far - it would have to be a completely new system; probably removing much of the current infrastructure. More likely they'd use both.

Yes, but we are talking about 20 years from now.

Also LINK may be old and worn out then, so could be replaced with a new system like a rail-based APM. And if it goes the corridor, it eliminate UPX crossing conflicts without a rail-to-rail grade separation.

And I'm not sure the current having Rail to Terminal 1, with the adjacent Link station to T3 is inferior to Rail to GO Malton (or GO Woodbine) with Link to both T1 and T3.

It is not an inferior scenario TODAY but would be an inferior FUTURE scenario to:

* HSR inclusion
* UPX spur crossing conflicts potentially preventing RER service increases and HSR
* Three transfers for some passengers (VIA/RER/HSR --> UPX --> LINK)
* Better flexibility for any new Pearson terminals in next 20 years

How do YOU propose to solve this in year ~2035? Rail corridor relocation? Grade separation for UPX spur to flyover to the south? Still would be multiple transfers for many. Etc. The scenario I described eliminates a transfer, especially if HSR comes, it may actually be cheaper than alternatives given the grade separation hidden-cost problem forcing my suggestion or others.

 

[nfitz]

I very much doubt we'll be seeing any HSR service built as soon as 2035 ... so I'd simply use the existing infrastructure. Perhaps stop both VIA and UP trains at a station nearer to Pearson than Union.

 

[kEiThZ]

GO Commuter is not a good solution, either. Creating a GO Regional is possible but now we have an additional agency in play.

The more I look at it, when we're just talking Toronto-London, and the maximum commute times involved (under 1.5 hrs), it makes less, and less sense to have this as part of VIA. At those travel times, these services become commuters. So why bother with treating it as some wholly inter-city service. Treat it as a high speed commuter service. AD2W till Guelph. GO HSR beyond that. And they had proposed an hourly schedule anyway. That's in keeping with GO's AD2W philosophy anyway....

But I doubt VIA will be permitted to extricate itself, because the optics of that are poor, even if today's VIA service is badly in need of improvement.

Even with TKL linked to a TOM HFR, we're talking one VIA train per hour. Not a huge issue. When Metrolinx owns the whole corridor though, they can easily make VIA a tempting offer to vacate......

From the moment I heard of Ontario funded HSR proposal I wanted the service to be called GO Fast. I still like that name.

Also, I'd like to rebrand UPX as GO Fly.

You make an excellent point about branding that I've never thought of before. UPX would have been excellent opportunity for GO to expand its brand, to something beyond commuter services. Don't know if that would have impacted prices though (if it was part of GO). But now that the ship has sailed on lower prices, perhaps they can rebrand when they get new rolling stock?

It's great idea to start branding by service type. It makes differentiation easier. GO FAST = HSR. GO REX = AD2W. GO WORK = Commuter services. GO SMART = all-stop smart-track service inside 416.

The use of 200kph or 240kph GO RER semi-expresses might actually be more cost effective interim step before true HSR.

Didn't they propose those speeds when talking about TKL anyway? Or did they have higher speeds? And realistically I would think this HSR may be the only express service on the Kitchener line. Guelph onwards may end up becoming all-stop service. Or at least all GO stops, while Smart Track becomes all-stop (GO and SmartTrack stops) inside the 416.

1 hour 11 minutes from London to Union Station according to the pre-feasibility study. So London to Pearson would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50 minutes. Of course those numbers could change with the EA process, but they're the most official numbers we have so far.

I was under the impression it was 77 mins London to Union. And 48 mins to Kichener to Union. I'm assuming they'll end up adding Brampton, Guelph, Bloor and possibly Stratford though, which might end up bringing up travel times a bit. Skipping Brampton and Guelph makes no sense from a coverage perspective. Especially when you have AD2W going beyond Brampton. And it makes no sense not to have a stop at Bloor to allow transfers. Lastly, Stratford is a great midpoint between Kitchener and London. It has some tourist traffic too. Would allow them to completely eliminate VIA service on this line as well. Add all that together and I think it's tolerable to have a slight increase in travel times to add a few more stops.

 

[kEiThZ]

My favourite corridor-preserving connection would be a LINK upgrade to also reach a nearby station (Malton or the infill Woodbine/Pearson RER station) but could also interchange with UPX at an infill Woodbine RER station. Or a speedier replacement LINK peoplemover on the UPX spur replaces UPX, and the HSR/RER options only go to Woodbine/Pearson RER. The huge pro of a LINK upgrade is direct link to all terminals, unlike UPX. And LINK runs every 4 minutes or 8 minutes, which fits reasonably well with some of the higher-frequency RER options (5-8min). There is a scenario of 15min Bramalea and 15min UPX so that translates to 7.5 minutes reaching the UPX spur, so a little jiggle around, you might be able to run the people overs in sync with the timetable of non-delayed trains. Given the probably 20 year timeline of HSR, this is a comfortable lifetime for the current UPX station before modifications needed to connect LINK ROW to the UPX ROW, in such a theoretical scenario.

Then this terminates direct UPX service but activates a multi-terminal connection for all commuters (RER, VIA, HSR), could eliminate crossing conflicts without an expensive grade separation -- Possibly paying for the cost of the Woobine RER station alone just by avoiding that --

I'd like to see a Woodbine/Pearson station. Served with a new LINK. With check-in service at the station. UPX replaced by SmartTrack with a minimum of 15 min frequencies. Takes a little longer to the airport. But the fares cheaper. You check in when you reach Woodbine/Pearson and then board LINK for your terminal. Ditto, if you're coming by HSR or GO from elsewhere. They can even locate the rental car services at Woodbine. Instead of at the airport. Move all transit services to that hub as well.

 

[TOareaFan]

1 hour 11 minutes from London to Union Station according to the pre-feasibility study. So London to Pearson would be somewhere in the neighbourhood of 50 minutes. Of course those numbers could change with the EA process, but they're the most official numbers we have so far.

that implies this new high speed train would take 21 minutes between Pearson and Union? Why would that be? We have regular speed trains that stop twice in between the two and manage to do it in 25 minutes.

 

[kEiThZ]

that implies this new high speed train would take 21 minutes between Pearson and Union? Why would that be? We have regular speed trains that stop twice in between the two and manage to do it in 25 minutes.

Would higher speeds be allowed inside Toronto? Could they be accommodated in the corridor?

 

[crs1026]

The more I look at it, when we're just talking Toronto-London, and the maximum commute times involved (under 1.5 hrs), it makes less, and less sense to have this as part of VIA. At those travel times, these services become commuters. So why bother with treating it as some wholly inter-city service. Treat it as a high speed commuter service. AD2W till Guelph. GO HSR beyond that. And they had proposed an hourly schedule anyway. That's in keeping with GO's AD2W philosophy anyway...
.

True, but once they improve travel time on the London-Kitchener-Toronto route to equal or better than via Brantford, there is huge potential to reroute through Windsor and Sarnia trains to this route. Kitchener-Windosr is a bigger potential market than Brantfort-Windsor.

So VIA either bows out of Southern Ontario altogether, or they have to stay on the KW route. London-Brantford-Aldershot-Toronto is also attractive as a GO Regional route.

I like the idea of serving Kitchener with a very fast limited-stops service. I'd say we are many years from needing AD2W to Guelph, and arguably it's better served via the long distance trains.

- Paul

 

[MisterF]

Keithz: you could be right but the idea is that the fastest service wouldn't stop in Brampton and Guelph while the slower regional services would. To use your naming scheme, GO Fast wouldn't stop in these places but GO REX would.

The pre-feasibility study showed 71 minutes to London and 48 minutes to Kitchener. I don't have a link but you can find it by Googling. It's hosted on the MTO website.

that implies this new high speed train would take 21 minutes between Pearson and Union? Why would that be? We have regular speed trains that stop twice in between the two and manage to do it in 25 minutes.

I should clarify that 50 minutes is just a rough guess based on the 1h11m travel time to Union.

 

[TOareaFan]

Would higher speeds be allowed inside Toronto? Could they be accommodated in the corridor?

don't know....could be the answer but we seem to be accomodating them elsewhere in the corridor as a matter of general acceptance.

 

[TOareaFan]

I like the idea of serving Kitchener with a very fast limited-stops service. I'd say we are many years from needing AD2W to Guelph, and arguably it's better served via the long distance trains.

- Paul

That seems somewhat arbitrary (IMO)

 

[mdrejhon]

I very much doubt we'll be seeing any HSR service built as soon as 2035 ... so I'd simply use the existing infrastructure. Perhaps stop both VIA and UP trains at a station nearer to Pearson than Union.

2030, 2040, 2050 -- choose your year -- "a HSR extant" scenario.

Malton station is slightly closer and needs to be studied, but wouldn't necessarily be a shorter spur, depending on the variables. Definitely Malton is MUCH closer to the runways, but both Malton and Woodbine are roughly similar distance to the terminals. A LINK rebuild/extension might work better for Malton, though, given the way it's configured.

It definitely should be compared to a theoretical Pearson RER station located at Woodbine. If a new shorter spur gets built because it's more feasible and still saves time even for Union, then perhaps that's the more cost-effective option. There's pros/cons of both options, but at the end of the day, minimized time TTC/Union-to-Terminal, may very well determine whether Malton or Woodbine becomes "Pearson GO" for RER/VIA/HSR -- given possible faster rail-based LINK APM system to compensate for reuse of longer spur -- you kind of want to keep the trip time competitive or better than UPX including wait time.

 

[mdrejhon]

It's great idea to start branding by service type. It makes differentiation easier. GO FAST = HSR. GO REX = AD2W. GO WORK = Commuter services. GO SMART = all-stop smart-track service inside 416.

The lawyers of GO FAST Sports beverage would like to have a word with you...

...Seriously, GO FAST Sports should become the official sponsor of Metrolinx GO FAST HSR trains

 

[crs1026]

That seems somewhat arbitrary (IMO)

Well, I'm assuming the fast limited stopping trains would serve Guelph with frequency of hourly or so, which amounts to AD2W but not with all stops GO service.

Are we expecting development beyond Halton Hills on a level that would justify extending RER that far? There's a lot of greenbelt that needs to be protected out there.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

The GTAA master plan envisaged changing out Link for "self propelled" technology. It also intended to extend one stop to the far end of T1 when built out. In terms of extending the Link away from the airport, It seems likely more possible to do so from the T1-extension side given how GTAA has plunked the parking garage in the way of extending past the adjacent Link terminal, plus the UPX guideway to negotiate.