[unimaginative2]

Re: S-bahns

Great points again, antiloop. I know that many European systems use bilevel vehicles. I realize now that I was a bit unclear. I was just saying that I wouldn't support retaining locomotive-hauled GO bilevels, though bilevel multiple unit vehicles like in Paris and the Netherlands might be a good choice for Toronto.

I am not sure what the ownership situation is for European rail lines. Especially since more countries are working towards privatized models. One day I will research all that since I am sure it would helpful and interesting to know. I would suspect the state plays a much larger role in ownership in most countries.

European countries have traditionally all had one monolithic rail company which owned the tracks and operated both freight and passenger services. In more recent times, many countries have taken early steps to separate ownership of the tracks from the operators. Most countries allow a number of different freight companies to compete on the same tracks, sort of like different truck lines which operate on the same highway. Some are moving toward the same system for passenger lines, though rather more slowly outside Britain. Nowhere, though, is the trackage owned by the freight railways where the passenger operators are simply leasing space. It doesn't make sense since the standard of track needed for passenger operation is far higher than for freight.

I don't think successful regional rail will ever develop in Toronto unless the rail corridors become publicly-owned. The freight railways will always fight tooth and nail against any expansion of passenger service. This is why the failure of GO ALRT was such a tragedy.

Speaking of GO-ALRT, this report, though a bit technical, is quite interesting. The link loadings and the maps on pages 68 and 69 are definitely worth a look.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Re: S-bahns

I don't think successful regional rail will ever develop in Toronto unless the rail corridors become publicly-owned. The freight railways will always fight tooth and nail against any expansion of passenger service.

Agreed. This is also the case for rail service in Montreal as well as intercity service in the Quebec-Windsor corridor. I cannot see anything happening in any of these areas unless there is public ownership.

Actually, I would say of any issue surrounding creating a regional rail system, this is by far the most important. Technically speaking, the system is simple to build. Even gaining public support and financing for the project would not be a difficult challenge (if kept out of the hands of politicians and headed up by a competent group of people, so scratch the current lot of useless twits).

But unless you have an ownership framework of the lines that allows the system to be built in the first place, nothing else matters. It is a huge task to change this structure. Not impossible though. And a necessity if you want to even consider expanding the rail system to something beyond its current form.

Thanks for that link. I will have to read through it one day. GO-ALRT really was a great plan. And given the time it was proposed, very forward thinking. While the actual plan and details might not be of much relevance, the spirit of it is exactly what any regional rail plan should embody.

Edit: I would also add airlines to the list of interested parties that work against public ownership of rail lines. Of course their main concern is making intercity travel more efficient and competetive but even in the case of public ownership of just lines in the GTA their opposition would almost be guaranteed out of fear it could lead to public control over intercity lines.

Just a sideline from regional rail for a moment. The new HSR line in Holland is a model that could be useful for Canada. The new line is operated by a private consortium that also includes KLM-Air France. Since one of the airlines arguments against HSR in the Quebec-Windsor corridor is increased competition, setting up a consortium that would include interested parties such as Air Canada, West Jet, etc, too operate high speed intercity rail service could be a way of swaying them in favour of the idea. That could be just the push towards public ownership of rail lines that is needed. Again, there are plenty of ifs and maybes and who knows involved, but, an idea I thought had at least a minimal amount of merit.

 

[dashingdan]

Re: S-bahns

Those were some great posts, Antiloop. It just makes me wish that we could actually DO that here, without taking forever! Double tracking some of the lines could be problematic due to space. Increasing frequency to 15 minutes on every line would be near impossible with CN and CP as the owners of the tracks, as you pointed out. I just wish it weren't so, and knowing that it COULD be done, but probably won't, is just PAINFUL! It would alleviate so many commuting troubles by providing a great transit option for everyone at any time of day. It's almost as good as a subway!

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I wonder if GO will ever morph into a better rail system of its own volition, or if it will have to be done to GO, perhaps by a GTTA as spmarshall speculates. I have no doubt that $15 or $20 billion will be spent on subways, busways, streetcarways, etc., before anything substantial is done to GO, and that's a shame.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

I wonder if GO will ever morph into a better rail system of its own volition, or if it will have to be done to GO, perhaps by a GTTA as spmarshall speculates.

I think in fairness to GO, a good question would be to ask what else can GO do today? If the massive changes required to give GO the freedom to expand and build a new regional rail system were in place it would be fair to lay most of the blame on GO for inaction. But as I stated in the post above, as of today, GO lacks an environment where it could implement more progressive transit strategies. There are any number of examples around Toronto and its immediate neighbors where using GO and a regional rail model are so obvious and logical a solution that it would probably be done where it not for the limitations it faces. If you want me to go over some of the examples just let me know (I just don't want to make this post too lengthy).

If you wanted to see where the push for regional rail is going to come from (at least as much as such a prediction is possible) then the best method is too look at what organizations and governments are doing today and/or what role they can or will be required to play in the future.

1. GO Transit - I have already talked about GO above. But I would also add the point that they are not completely impotent in the idea department. At least the accommodation of 12 car train sets is making some effort at expanding capacity given the difficulties of adding additional train sets. There was also the plan to buy and utilize the set of Talents from Ottawa. Although this plan is now dead since Ottawa's plans are dead, this could have lead to some sort of implementation of a regional rail type pilot project in the GTA which could have been used to help build the case for the model. So an optimist might say that GO could have at least some impact on pushing for regional rail (though probably not much).

2. The GTTA - The GTTA is still too young to really make a fair judgment on. The fact that such an agency was created is a positive sign and it could play some role in advocating regional rail. But it greatly depends on its influence with regards to transit in the GTA. My guess is that like GO it will play a small part, but not much more since it is not likely to be an agency with any real power and political force anytime soon. It would however probably play a very important role after the fact in terms of the technical and coordination aspects of the project.

3. Queens Park - The province will almost certainly be the most important player in terms of implementing such a system. Again, looking at what is currently taking place, the province is taking the leading role. The Places to Grow Act has effectively put in place a framework to tackle planning issues, of which transit is one the many, on a regional scale to a degree that has not been seen before. Also, and rather obviously, the province is the primary funding body for GO transit. So when the time comes for expansion, it is easy to see who holds a great deal of power in making it happen. Because of the awesome scale that such a project would take, the province by necessity has to be the key player.

4. Ottawa - The Federal government, while doing nothing at the moment for regional rail, will be responsible in mostly indirect, but still important, ways. First off, most of the issues surrounding ownership are likely to be dealt with by the federal government. Transport Canada will also play a role given that it would be responsible for technical issues such as regulations regarding the mixed use of freight and passenger transport just to name one. There is also the case of High Speed Rail. Hypothetically if the federal government went ahead with an HSR project in the Quebec-Windsor corridor this could actually provide much of the framework needed so that GO or the GTTA itself could capitalize on the opportunity and also simultaneously lay the ground work for regional rail. So while the federal government probably would not play an advocate role in regional rail, it will be an important, and could, in some situations, be the leading factor.

5. The Business Community - Like the Federal Government private interests are not likely to play an advocacy role, but, their support and co-operation will be an important role in regional rail. The most obvious interests that should come to mind are freight companies, such as CN and CP, who currently own most of the rail lines. Any plan that does not have their consent will most likely fail so co-operation with these companies is going to be necessary. There are also plenty of secondary players that could provide support for the project. SNC-Lavalin, hated by many, might find it beneficial to support such a project that would see it be allowed to operate an express Union-Pearson service on public rail lines even if GO and VIA where operating along side of it. Support of the Greater Toronto Airport Authority (GTAA) could help secure and finance the land and station at Pearson that would be part of the regional rail network. There are many other parties such as airlines (for reasons I mentioned in my last post), Bombardier, developers, etc. It is possible such a project could be done solely according to state interest and the business community be damned, but, it is probably lot easier to work with them and gain a consensus instead of fighting them.

Going back to the original question, I would say that GO will continue to grow and expand to whatever degree is possible given the framework it has to work in. But in terms of creating an environment where GO can become a regional rail service, it's role, as well as the role of the GTTA will be important, but somewhat limited, with the province being the lead player, but support coming from Ottawa and private interests as well. This should make sense given that actually developing a regional rail network is a massive project that cannot be done by any one single agency.

 

[unimaginative2]

One of the biggest problems we face in creating real regional rail is the American Federal Railroad Administration's standards (which are basically matched in Canada) requiring all rail vehicles to be built like tanks. This makes it impossible to import proven, off-the-shelf European designs without jumping through regulatory hoops as Ottawa did to bring in the Talents.

The Stouffville Line seems like the perfect spot for a first try at regional rail. It has very little freight traffic and I believe GO already owns the line. They could start out with Talents, as they were considering before the Ottawa LRT catastrophe. When it is successful, as I'm sure it will be, the model of frequent service with somewhat smaller vehicles can be emulated on the busier and longer lines, ideally with electrification to provide the fast acceleration that such a service would require.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

^ I've never seen freight traffic on the Stouffville line.

 

[unimaginative2]

I think it probably has all of two or three trains a week. Unfortunately, I've discovered that CN seems to still own the line as far as Stouffville. It's pretty crazy that GO, by far the main operator on the line, remains a tenant.

 

[Degnaw]

I seem to remember reading that GO was buying DMUs for some north-south corridor (although i'm not sure if it was Stoufville)

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

Here is the statement you are probably thinking of, from this thread.

Originally posted by "GL" on transit-toronto:

GO Transit is looking at the possibility of purchasing Ottawa's O-Train
to operate on the Stouffville Corridor. The city has made its
intention to sell the rail cars becuase it wants to electrify its new
light rail system. The train if purchased would operate during the off-
peak hours between Stouffville and Scarborough stations, allowing
patrons more travelling options and a connection to the Lakeshore
service.

However, since the Ottawa plan is now dead, so too is the plan to buy DMUs from them. Although it would likely not cost that much more to buy them directly from Bombardier if they wanted too.

I was under the impression that GO owned the Stouffville line, one of the few that it did actually own, which was part of the reason they would have been able to use the line for a DMU pilot project.

The idea itself was not the greatest necessarily, even if their heart was in the right place. Unless the DMUs could have run all the way to Union and not just terminate at Scarborough station the line would just be another SRT with limited use. Just another example of the limitations on GO right now. Since all lines lead to Lakeshore it is inevitable that the bottleneck they face getting onto the line will prevent the spur lines from being used to their fullest potential.

 

[spmarshall]

I thought GO owned from Hagerman northwards, but Scarborough-Hagerman was still CN.

 

[unimaginative2]

I've heard that too, but I can't seem to be able to find any record of it. Just the section from Stouffville to Uxbridge.

I've heard at different times that GO owns the Newmarket Sub, Galt Sub from the Junction down to the start of the TTR, and the Uxbridge Sub. The biggest mistake GO ever made was not pushing for the feds to give them the lines on which they operate when they privatized CN. I'm sure it would have been easy to convince them for the Uxbridge Sub, Weston Sub, and Newmarket Sub (though they were using it more back then). For the Kingston Sub, Oakville Sub, and Halton Sub, it would have been rather more difficult, admittedly, but this would still have put GO in a much better position. Right now, CN and CP can basically prevent GO from ever expanding their service. I'm still baffled by why GO continues to operate on the Weston Sub south of the Junction when they have a parallel double-tracked route on which they could operate unfettered and wouldn't need to pay any rent.

 

[Antiloop33rpm]

I am sure a quick trip to City Hall or the main library, which ever place contains public the public records necessary, could solve the problem of who owns what, though in the end, its a minor detail that even if known wouldn't change much so why should anyone bother really.

Part of the problem that exists right now is that there are no strong advocates for GO. The city of Toronto really has no reason right now since GO only serves a very minimal amount of its internal transit needs (though this could change with the GTTA), the province has yet to give GO a stronger position in regional transportation needs, and GO itself under its current leadership seems to have no interest in pushing the envelope and bounds of its current operating framework. Compare that too the CN and CP who have their own financial resources and lobbying skills at hand as well as a federal government who are more than happy to keep the status quo arrangements safe for freight operators.

From a technical standpoint the task of upgrading lines are really not all that difficult. The Stouffville corridor has a generous width along most of its length so doubling tracking could easily be done (save a few spots that would require planning beyond just laying another track beside the other). Even the Lakeshore corridor could be upgraded to 4 tracks along a large portion of its length with what really amounts to not much difficulty for the professionals that make these sorts of projects happen. Using Google Earth (not the most scientific or accurate examination in comparison to other mapping software or an on site investigation but still useful as a general tool) you can follow the line from Union Station and see this. Freight companies have tended to rip up old not used anymore and there are a number of areas along the line where the right of way once accomodated 4 tracks in some areas but now only has a set of 2 remaining. And even disruptions to people and residents near the track (such as expropriation of land, etc) are probably not as numerous as some might think.

Toronto (and the GTA) really is as close to a perfect setting as you can find for implementing regional rail. It already has rail right of ways all across the city that could easily be converted for passenger service. Most lines neatly find their way to Union Station. Even though it would be expensive because of its size, beyond the necessary capital expenditures (labour, track, some land purchasing, electrification systems, etc) there are no overly complex engineering projects would be required too make it happen (such as extensive elevated portions, tunnelling, etc).

It does seem frustrating right now and the regulatory, and corporate, structures in place today are big issues that have to be dealt with. But once those hurdles are removed, the stage is set. I don't think it will be that long until regional rail becomes a reality (by that I mean probably 5 - 10 years before the important processes really start to take shape and get underway).

 

[Darkstar416]

Nice points! Let's hope the GTTA comes to this conclusion too.

 

[yinyang41]

Re: S-bahns

i think that expanding the road network could also possibly "save" the city from gridlock...really, it's all in the eyes of the beholder. some favour roads, some subway, some heavy rail. enough of any one of those has potential for great success.