[lenaitch]

I don't know if they have destination modelling, even from the previous service, but examination of a service split at North Bay certainly merits examination.

Perhaps some like Friday evening n/b to NB (accommodating Muskoka traffic) then layover and continue n/b from NB to Timmins/Cochrane Saturday; s/b all the way to Toronto Sunday, passing through Muskoka in the late afternoon/evening; n/b all the way Monday; s/b all the way Tuesday; n/b all the way Wednesday; s/b all the way Thursday. Of course, I'm not a rail service planner and much would depend on rolling stock, crewing impacts, and on and on.

Proposing a destination at Timmins (S. Porcupine) makes sense from the perspective that it is the largest population centre. It won't be terminating at the city centre like it did in days of yore; the ROW has been built over, but the remains (very) still exist to a Hydro substation. However, they would need to find an accessible location for a station, re-build the ROW and build layover facilities. No turning facilities seem needed since they mention a cab-car, but it seems that one coach and one cab car doesn't seem to anticipate much passenger load and doesn't seem to allow for any increased ridership, unless they are thinking of reconfiguring GO bi-levels. Unless they really improve the roadbed, I'm not sure I'd want to ride the upper level (urp!). It also suggests no re-built former GO single level units.

Regardless, a step.

 

[lenaitch]

Re: Train Stop Infrastructure

Predictable. At least it'll be better that the Porquis Junction shelter.


Re: Table 26 - Stop Requirements
- Muskoka seems to have a lot of "Purchase or lease property and reinstate station; base station scope" while North of North Bay has the more "base station" response.
- Related, despite station lands being owned by Ontario Northland I'm seeing a lot of "Construct new station; base station scope", giving the north the unappealing shelter options in an area that gets hammered with harsh weather.
- Good for them for presenting a Timmins option. But how well will that play out? The capital cost is pretty significant (by their numbers), making this project a bigger money pit and ripe for cancellation. Expect a station on the outskirts of Timmins if it does materialize.

The stations in G'Hurst and Huntsville were divested years ago. Gravenhurst did have a coffee shop when it was used as a bus station but I don't know who the tenants are now. I believe the Temagami station was sold too but not sure. All Washago and Bracebridge ever were was shelters. North Bay continues to serve as the ON bus terminal.

I’d also like to see a zoning and official plan change for properties within 500m of each station to encourage density.

This isn't a commuter service. Have you ever been in any of these towns?

 

[Towered]

Just go with option 3B and be done with it. Provide Ontario communities with a minimally decent amount of service. The subsidy in the scheme of things is so small. It's probably the same that the Sheppard Subway costs us. Get Ontario connected!

It still blows my mind that a city the size of Thunder Bay has no passenger rail connection.

 

[lenaitch]

It still blows my mind that a city the size of Thunder Bay has no passenger rail connection.

Or Calgary, or Fredericton or Regina . . .

 

[Northern Light]

Or Calgary, or Fredericton or Regina . . .

LOL, @ Fredericton, its ~58,000 people after triplets are born.

Calgary is the most clear example of a City in Canada that should have some form of inter-city and/or regional rail service and does not.

Regina would be second; and T-Bay third.

Though a case could be made for Barrie there (though at least it has regional service), but at 150,000 people, its also a large city not to be on the Inter-City network.

 

[crs1026]

^Am I the only one who looked at those operating ratios and thought, This thing is dead ?

- Paul

 

[UrbanJon]

^Am I the only one who looked at those operating ratios and thought, This thing is dead ?

- Paul

Between the cost recover ratio and sunstantially slower journey times, I don't think this is worth pursuing. It just isn't something that is needed and the cost and complexity would be huge. If you can, drive, otherwise the bus works. I don't think the status quo for northeastern Ontario transport needs to change.

 

[Bordercollie]

Between the cost recover ratio and sunstantially slower journey times, I don't think this is worth pursuing. It just isn't something that is needed and the cost and complexity would be huge. If you can, drive, otherwise the bus works. I don't think the status quo for northeastern Ontario transport needs to change.

I think it's more of an attempt to win votes rather than actually do anything. They won't likely be in power when or if the train is supposed to get up and running.

 

[micheal_can]

I too would support 2x daily service for the simple reason that IF the decision is made to invest considerable sums; we ought not to set up the new (restored) service for failure.

Doing that; might imply this is simply a way to subsidize upgrades to CN's mainline.

That said, I am open to something a bit different; which is breaking the route at North Bay; with a separate service north thereof.

To me that should be an option based on:

1) Serving the largest population north of Barrie w/service that reflects that.

2) Improving service reliability and schedule adherence by shortening the route (s)

3) A lot of people from the far north will need access to a place like North Bay, comparatively fewer will need to go on to Toronto.

North Bay - Toronto has its own demand, discrete from a far north connecting service.

I don't feel there is enough need for 2x daily along the entire route.

I could see the case for 2 times daily service to North Bay with a reduced service level north of that.

This could make some sense. One train ends in North Bay while the other keeps going? They could be set about 12 hours apart.

That option should certainly be on the table.

Though I do wonder if you ran Toronto-NB; and NB-Cochrane as completely distinct services, having shorter trips times, greater reliability and serving locally convenient time windows whether you might not be able to generate sufficient demand for 2x daily.

Presumably with larger volumes on the more southerly route; you could tailor rolling stock to meet the need, with shorter consists on a portion of the combined route.

I think I see what you're getting at and I'm inclined to agree. North Bay is a transfer point for east and west traffic, and a lot of trip patterns between North Bay and further north will look different. I'd expect to see shorter trips, a smaller ridership pool, and more frequent repeat ridership. That might be best served with more frequent, smaller trains (s recurring theme in rural Ontario transit, in my opinion). However I'm not entirely sure of the practicalities of terminating at NB - you might end up just having the train sit around anyway. There's also the question of what rolling stock you'd use and how easily it could be up sized/downsized

I'd agree if there was a way for the North Bay station to have more than 1 platform. Otherwise it will be a bit messy.

I don't know if they have destination modelling, even from the previous service, but examination of a service split at North Bay certainly merits examination.

Perhaps some like Friday evening n/b to NB (accommodating Muskoka traffic) then layover and continue n/b from NB to Timmins/Cochrane Saturday; s/b all the way to Toronto Sunday, passing through Muskoka in the late afternoon/evening; n/b all the way Monday; s/b all the way Tuesday; n/b all the way Wednesday; s/b all the way Thursday. Of course, I'm not a rail service planner and much would depend on rolling stock, crewing impacts, and on and on.

Proposing a destination at Timmins (S. Porcupine) makes sense from the perspective that it is the largest population centre. It won't be terminating at the city centre like it did in days of yore; the ROW has been built over, but the remains (very) still exist to a Hydro substation. However, they would need to find an accessible location for a station, re-build the ROW and build layover facilities. No turning facilities seem needed since they mention a cab-car, but it seems that one coach and one cab car doesn't seem to anticipate much passenger load and doesn't seem to allow for any increased ridership, unless they are thinking of reconfiguring GO bi-levels. Unless they really improve the roadbed, I'm not sure I'd want to ride the upper level (urp!). It also suggests no re-built former GO single level units.

Regardless, a step.

I have always thought they should have a "cottage rush" that ended in North Bay and left around 6pm on a Friday and get back around 8pm on a Sunday or holiday Monday.

 

[micheal_can]

Province unveils passenger rail plan

13-stop rail service will connect North to Toronto

www.nugget.ca

 

[Bordercollie]

That train could turn around and head back up north to allow northerners to spend time in the city and get home around 10pm.

 

[Garuda]

The stations in G'Hurst and Huntsville were divested years ago. Gravenhurst did have a coffee shop when it was used as a bus station but I don't know who the tenants are now. I believe the Temagami station was sold too but not sure. All Washago and Bracebridge ever were was shelters. North Bay continues to serve as the ON bus terminal.


This isn't a commuter service. Have you ever been in any of these towns?

I’m from one of them so yes. I have been to one of these towns. The point is to get the zoning and OP changed so far into the future a commuter service can develop. Brace ridge is centrally locates. Whereas Gravenhurst and North Bay could use higher density around it. If you can’t bring the train downtown, bring the downtown to the train.

 

[Bordercollie]

For sure I think that after the pandemic people won't need to go to the office everyday and if you only have to commute once a week, it would totally be worth it to live in Muskoka.

 

[ShonTron]

LOL, @ Fredericton, its ~58,000 people after triplets are born.

Calgary is the most clear example of a City in Canada that should have some form of inter-city and/or regional rail service and does not.

Regina would be second; and T-Bay third.

Though a case could be made for Barrie there (though at least it has regional service), but at 150,000 people, its also a large city not to be on the Inter-City network.

I'd argue that a Saint John-Moncton-Halifax daily service (two trains a day in each direction still in the 1980s) makes more sense than connecting Thunder Bay for the sake of it, though the CP route cut in 1990 is a Superior route for the existing Canadian, as it serves more populated centres and has a more scenic route than the CN line through Longlac and Sioux Lookout

 

[allengeorge]

Honestly, the yearly subsidy amounts seem laughable. We spent $1.8B burying the Eglinton West Crosstown Extension, which (I think) would pay for ... 176 years (?!) of enhanced service to Cochrane?