[mpd618]

I frustrates the hell out of me when an outsider says "oh they do it in Japan, Germany, Netherlands etc". Do we live in Japan, Germany, the Netherlands? Yet people continue to insist that we do things the same way without realizing or being ignorant of the fact that we deal with completely different operational & regulatory requirements than those nations. Your proposal runs into physical, technological, operational and regulatory constraints. ...

Your comment is very informative - thanks for explaining all of that. I can't speak for reaperexpress, but to my mind, proposals for better service approaches like in Europe or Japan are precisely a critique of the current regulatory and other aspects that make them infeasible at present.

For instance, if GO implemented Positive Train Control or another such system on its corridors - and better yet, it was federally mandated - that might change the calculus somewhat for what service is feasible and what operational issues come up.

 

[reaperexpress]

I frustrates the hell out of me when an outsider says "oh they do it in Japan, Germany, Netherlands etc". Do we live in Japan, Germany, the Netherlands? Yet people continue to insist that we do things the same way without realizing or being ignorant of the fact that we deal with completely different operational & regulatory requirements than those nations. Your proposal runs into physical, technological, operational and regulatory constraints. Clearly your not affiliated with any of the major railways, otherwise you'd be cognizant of these limitations. Here, allow me to give you specific examples of them.

When there is a priority alarm, the CSA must cease all other duties an proceed to the coach where the priority alarm has been activated. If we are pulling into a station when it is activated, we will be delayed as the CSA must attend to the matter before we can proceed. Likewise if it happens when we are at the station or when we are just leaving the station, the train must be immediately be brought to a stop if still adjacent to the platform. The amount of delay varies depending on where the coach is located on the train, how many people are on the train and on that coach, since the CSA must walk through to the coach and then when in the coach he must ask anyone if they require assistance. The resulting delay can be negligible(eg. a false alarm in the CSA's coach), several minutes(eg. a false alarm several coaches away on a busy train) or a 1/2 hour or more(eg. medical emergency's, passenger disruptions). I have no idea how many alarms we get in a single day system wide but I can tell you that in one shift on one line, I hear an average of 3-5 passenger alarms being called in to operations. 90% of the time its a false alarm but quite often even those will result in delays. So why do they have these procedure and as a result incur so many delays? Perhaps its because GO values its passenger safety more than maintaining a schedule?

When a train strikes any object on the track it must stop and thoroughly inspected, which will resulting in about a 10 min delay. Why do we do this? Once again perhaps because GO values safety more than on-time performance.

When a wayside inspection system has not given us a proper reading must slow our train down and contact the dispatcher to get one. If he cannot provide us with one then we must stop and inspect our train. Resulting in a substantial delay.

When a wayside inspection system has given us an alarm, we must stop the train immediately and inspect it and make sure it is safe to proceed. Resulting in a substantial delay.

If there is a rule 43(slow order) usually only on one track in a given location, this can delay multiple trains. With another track available trains can be routed around the problem without incurring any delays at all.

In the winter or during the fall(due to snow/ice or leave residue respectively) heavily loaded trains can be subject to severe wheel slippage. Those who travel on the Lakeshore East line may have remembered the many delays that occurred several years ago to trains leaving Union traveling east to Oshawa. While the problem has been largely mitigated(it was so bad at one point the several trains stalled and had to go back to Union) I can assure it still is an issue. I fact it caused significant delays to multiple trains just a week ago.

Dealing with any foremen working on the line will can a huge issue more so when train frequency increase. Everyone has to communicate and receive verbal instructions which must be repeated back correct before being allowed to proceed. If we cannot communicate with a foreman, we cannot enter into his limits. Radio interference is a constant problem we deal with on a daily basis, be it other trains using the radio at the same time or simply a poor transmission. The problem is exacerbated when there are more trains in a given area. In addition

While they all individually might be infrequent, when taken altogether these problems and other less frequent ones (trespasser incidents, mechanical failures, signal malfunctions, rule violations, poor visibility due to weather conditions, police investigations - all of which I've seen happen multiple times per year) results in about 5-10% of all train movements being delayed by 5 mins or more.

That is why GO has chosen to design a system on the Weston sub. that will mitigate the impact to other trains.

I genuinely enjoy learning about rail operations so I would really appreciate your responses if they weren't so insulting.

My point about railway operations in Japan, Germany and The Netherlands is that they face the same constraints as we do, yet they still manage to run a great deal of service with very few tracks. The incidents you describe are not uniquely Canadian problems. Even in Germany or Japan, there can be wet leaves on the track, signal malfunctions, mechanical failures, track work, collisions, trespassers, passenger emergency alarms etc. And I find it hard to believe that they value on-time performance over safety given their excellent safety records.

From what I understand, your explanation for the difference between the countries is that the procedures for dealing with situations are more time-consuming in North America than in the rest of the world. Fair enough.

I just figured that running 8 trains per hour per direction on a track with a capacity of 20tphpd would be leaving enough leeway for the inevitable incidents which may delay trains.

I don't mean to sound like I'm "rigorously standing behind" my fantasy plan, I merely wish to have a respectful discussion about how railways operate and could potentially operate in the future.

Pairs or even threes? Actually that would cause a massive backlog, since it takes approx. 1/2 an hour to join two trains together on the mainline.

I'll try to explain it so that those who don't work in the field can understand.
[...]

So now, after incurring at least a 20 minute delay(but more realistically a 30 minute one), your double consist can proceed.
Does that sound like a realistic option? Or for that matter were you aware of all before you made that claim? Clearly you were not. Which is why I get frustrated when someone who is not involved in or aware of railroad regulations/policies submits a fantasy proposal and rigorously stands behind it.

I'm really sorry to not live up to your expectation of my ignorance, but I am well aware that joining trains on the line is a completely absurd use of precious track time, and that is not at all what I was suggesting.

I was referring to alternating the direction of travel of the single active rail line after each two or three trains, rather than switching after each one. Three trains westbound, three trains eastbound etc. Because that obviously has much higher capacity than alternating after each train.

 

[smallspy]

Metrolinx seems to think so. Liberty Villagers not so much. One problematic issue for placement is that the track along the platform be basically level. One would have to look at the grade profile of that section anew now that the Strachan grade separation is moving along to see if there's any spot that fits the criteria topographically as well as being convenient for platforms, track switches, signals and what not.

That's not true at all. A number of stations are on significant grades (Unionville is approaching 1% southbound off the top of my head). Now a station on a 2% grade may provide for operational issues but that section of track between King and Queen is no where close to that.

My gut says it would be tricky to do and the appetite at Metrolinx to do it is minimal, especially since they want to do the satellite station at Bathurst too. Thus: completely dead.

I would agree with that.

I appreciate that you have much more knowledge about the various regulations relating to rail safety, but I do not agree that GO, or Canada or North America has any appreciable difference in the overall safety of their railways than the countries mentioned above. If people would refer to China, Mexico or Nigeria, then I would agree with you. The question that must be asked is why is it that these advanced countries are able to do thing that we do not. I do not think it is that they ignore safety - it is just that they approach it with a different approach. And if that approach results in similar overall safety, then we can consider it as well.

The only countries on the planet that run trains anything close to what we do are the U.S. (with the possible exception of Russia, and even that I doubt). Nowhere else in Europe or Asia is there the sheer size and density of the freight traffic that has to be contended with.

That's why the regulatory atmosphere is what it is in Canada. Decisions have to be made largely in a bubble because no one else does what is done here.

For instance, if GO implemented Positive Train Control or another such system on its corridors - and better yet, it was federally mandated - that might change the calculus somewhat for what service is feasible and what operational issues come up.

To a degree, yes. Look at the U.S., where conversation has already started about what the next steps are after the completed implementation of PTC. But you still can't have 250km/h lightweight passenger trains mixing with 10,000 foot long, 12,000 ton freight trains travelling at 100km/h. Physics still has a large part to play in all this.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[ShonTron]

I have seen long container and unit trains in China, on lines shared with 160-200 km/h passenger trains; they have a very dense and well-used rail system. (Though the trend there is to build new exclusive high-speed passenger rail corridors). It's true though that Europe generally doesn't run long freight trains like we do in North America.

 

[nfitz]

I genuinely enjoy learning about rail operations so I would really appreciate your responses if they weren't so insulting.

I saw nothing insulting about his post. He made no personal comments. Your plan was a bit daft, and he didn't even say that! He merely noted his frustration ...

... nothing wrong with that.

And there's nothing wrong with daft plans either .... but it's not surprising that they frustrate the experts.

 

[reaperexpress]

I saw nothing insulting about his post. He made no personal comments. Your plan was a bit daft, and he didn't even say that! He merely noted his frustration ...

... nothing wrong with that.

And there's nothing wrong with daft plans either .... but it's not surprising that they frustrate the experts.

I suppose you're right, there were no insults within the post.

I was just a bit frustrated by his incredulous tone which implied that I was a complete imbecile for not knowing a bunch of things many of which I did in fact know and which are all very specific and obscure. He was not out of line for being frustrated, but I really would have appreciated if he had shared his very detailed knowledge in a more positive fashion. I have received a great deal of previous criticism regarding fantasy plans (which are inherently daft, as you mention) and it has always been a pleasant experience, with there being a respectful discourse about the issues with the plan and adjustments which would be necessary.

Clearly your not affiliated with any of the major railways, otherwise you'd be cognizant of these limitations. Here, allow me to give you specific examples of them.
[...]
So why do they have these procedure and as a result incur so many delays? Perhaps its because GO values its passenger safety more than maintaining a schedule?
[...]
Why do we do this? Once again perhaps because GO values safety more than on-time performance.
[...]
Does that sound like a realistic option? Or for that matter were you aware of all before you made that claim? Clearly you were not.

 

[drum118]

Dec 5
They aren't wasting time on removing the earth for the 2nd fly-under.

The switch from the Lakeshore to the Weston Sub has been removed with a curve track there now. Not sure why track 3 is out of service at Bathurst, but is west of it at the switch. It has an X post in the track. The only thing I can think for this is lack of block signal.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

I suppose you're right, there were no insults within the post.

I was just a bit frustrated by his incredulous tone which implied that I was a complete imbecile for not knowing a bunch of things many of which I did in fact know and which are all very specific and obscure. He was not out of line for being frustrated, but I really would have appreciated if he had shared his very detailed knowledge in a more positive fashion. I have received a great deal of previous criticism regarding fantasy plans (which are inherently daft, as you mention) and it has always been a pleasant experience, with there being a respectful discourse about the issues with the plan and adjustments which would be necessary.

The only comment which I can see that you may perceived as an insult was where I suggested it was a "horrible plan", that's if your the actual author of the fantasy proposal(I have no idea whether you are or aren't). Nonetheless that comment was warranted at the time. Not having any crossovers between main tracks for over 10 miles(not the 6 you stated in your reply, as the airport spur diverges at mile 13.6 and West Toronto is at mile 4.8 and the crossovers would have been approximately a half a mile beyond those two locations, this is a major issue operationally for any level of bi-directional service, not just the stretch where the UPX will run) is what made it completely unfeasible at that point. Now having the two tracks together may have seemed like a small difference but in reality the difference is massive, which is why I questioned your knowledge since you didn't realize this or seemingly downplayed the value of it.

The incidents you describe are not uniquely Canadian problems. Even in Germany or Japan, there can be wet leaves on the track, signal malfunctions, mechanical failures, track work, collisions, trespassers, passenger emergency alarms etc. And I find it hard to believe that they value on-time performance over safety given their excellent safety records.

From what I understand, your explanation for the difference between the countries is that the procedures for dealing with situations are more time-consuming in North America than in the rest of the world. Fair enough.

Fair enough, that was part of the point - I wasn't sure if you were considering those issue at all since you seem to undervalue how much they interfere with optimal train frequency. Many of those issues are more of a problem in Canada than those nations. For instance leave residue on the track is more problematic here because of the type of locomotives we use and the length/weight of our trains. And many of the others are indeed far more time consuming because of our differing railway rules & regulations and company & government mandated operating procedures. Not to mention their more modern methods of train control. All of which is why its unrealistic to expect the same service level with the same number of tracks.

I was referring to alternating the direction of travel of the single active rail line after each two or three trains, rather than switching after each one. Three trains westbound, three trains eastbound etc. Because that obviously has much higher capacity than alternating after each train.

I see I misinterpreted your comment, my apologies for going off on an unnecessary tangent then. Your correct in saying that this would not lead to a massive backlog. However I'm simply stating that GO won't accept a plan that will clearly result in delays when having 3 tracks available would eliminate or mitigate the impact of nearly all the aforementioned occurrences.

The other issue I haven't mentioned yet is that VIA intercity service schedule is highly unreliable. A perfect example of what happens can be seen at Durham Jct. GO trains are frequently delayed waiting for a VIA train when entering or exiting the GO sub, despite the fact that section of track is double tracked CTC and sees a maximum frequency of only 8 tphpd. Once again my point being that GO, which has no control over the precision of VIA schedules, does not want that to be an issue on the Weston sub.(and is also why they are planning for a 3rd track in the section west of Durham Jct.).

 

[nfitz]

To go back to subject (somewhat ... Kitchener is south of Georgetown, right? ...

So the non-CTC section is Georgetown to Kitchener? Or is it from Brampton?

Any idea what we are likely to see new with the impending completion of CTC to Kitchener? It's hard to imagine there's much more demand for a 3rd peak-hour train. What I keep dreaming about, especially as I age and tire of driving to KW in the morning, is peak train to KW.

 

[jimmy3]

something i always wondered, does anyone know why GO insists on using wood ties instead of cement ones?
The ones in the photo look quite beat up

 

[reaperexpress]

Not having any crossovers between main tracks for over 10 miles(not the 6 you stated in your reply, as the airport spur diverges at mile 13.6 and West Toronto is at mile 4.8 and the crossovers would have been approximately a half a mile beyond those two locations, this is a major issue operationally for any level of bi-directional service, not just the stretch where the UPX will run) is what made it completely unfeasible at that point. Now having the two tracks together may have seemed like a small difference but in reality the difference is massive, which is why I questioned your knowledge since you didn't realize this or seemingly downplayed the value of it.

The 6 miles is from just north of Bloor to a new higher-speed mainline spur through the airport near the 401 (the DRL uses the existing Pearson spur) where the GO tracks would converge in a tunnel. I figured that given that it was a multi-billion dollar fantasy plan, it wouldn't be unreasonable to include new crossovers. I'm not defending my position, just explaining my thinking at the time.

I'm simply stating that GO won't accept a plan that will clearly result in delays when having 3 tracks available would eliminate or mitigate the impact of nearly all the aforementioned occurrences.

I figured that we're looking at major changes regardless of what happens.
- If we massively increase service on the GO services on Weston (i.e. S-Bahn style) we will have to deal with the conflicting traffic near Union and capacity at Union somehow ($$$).
- If we do that fantasy plan, we would need to build a new mainline tunnel to the airport ($$$) and reform passenger rail operating procedures
- And if we do that fantasy plan with more tracks we're looking at corridor widening ($$$) in addition to the tunnel ($$$).

The other issue I haven't mentioned yet is that VIA intercity service schedule is highly unreliable. A perfect example of what happens can be seen at Durham Jct. GO trains are frequently delayed waiting for a VIA train when entering or exiting the GO sub, despite the fact that section of track is double tracked CTC and sees a maximum frequency of only 8 tphpd. Once again my point being that GO, which has no control over the precision of VIA schedules, does not want that to be an issue on the Weston sub.(and is also why they are planning for a 3rd track in the section west of Durham Jct.).

Yes, I was thinking about the VIA issue myself and was thinking it might actually make sense for GO to take over the whole north mainline from London to Toronto, with VIA trains from Sarnia going via Brantford instead. This includes GO taking over the tracks and massively upgrading them (100mph, double track, electrify). But this is all long-term fantasy stuff.

To go back to subject (somewhat ... Kitchener is south of Georgetown, right? ...

So the non-CTC section is Georgetown to Kitchener? Or is it from Brampton?

The thread topic! Sorry about the tangent. I reckon this question is on-topic because it relates to the level of service we'll see on the corridor once GTS is finished.

The work is 90 miles between London and Silver Junction (Georgetown), including "significant crossing upgrades" according to VIA.

GOKW.org suggested that the work will save 20 minutes of travel time for VIA, which is presumably in addition to the time saved due to the end of GTS construction. I'm not sure if this represents an increase in line speed, or a reduction in signal delays, or elimination of slow zones. But in any case, it's really looking up for this rather neglected rail corridor!

Any idea what we are likely to see new with the impending completion of CTC to Kitchener? It's hard to imagine there's much more demand for a 3rd peak-hour train. What I keep dreaming about, especially as I age and tire of driving to KW in the morning, is peak train to KW.

I think the key factor for counter-peak service is the second platform at Guelph Central station, which would allow trains to cross roughly in the middle of the single-track portion of the line. I seem to recall it was planned to be completed by 2015, but I haven't seen any work start yet. I assume the siding/signaling itself will be ready to go as a part of this signal upgrading, but passenger trains can't use it unless there's a platform there (or they skip Guelph station, which wouldn't make any sense).

 

[Adjei]

something i always wondered, does anyone know why GO insists on using wood ties instead of cement ones?
The ones in the photo look quite beat up

I'm sure it's money.

 

[Komiksulo]

I'm sure it's money.

GO used concrete ties on their tracks in Durham Region (Pickering to Oshawa). Well, mostly concrete ties.... the ones under their switches are wood. Always wondered about that.

 

[smallspy]

something i always wondered, does anyone know why GO insists on using wood ties instead of cement ones?
The ones in the photo look quite beat up

Concrete ties do last longer and are more resistive of train forces, which means that the track doesn't need to be maintained quite as much.

They are, conversely, far, far more expensive than wood, steel or plastic/composite ties, and because they weigh more the need very specialized equipment to install and replace them. As well, they are more likely to get damaged in a derailment.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[jimmy3]

Concrete ties do last longer and are more resistive of train forces, which means that the track doesn't need to be maintained quite as much.

They are, conversely, far, far more expensive than wood, steel or plastic/composite ties, and because they weigh more the need very specialized equipment to install and replace them. As well, they are more likely to get damaged in a derailment.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Is it possible they get the reused ties that the frieght companies don't want? I read some business about a contract accusing CN of overcharging GO and providing substandard work.