[unimaginative2]

You don't need a subway line in the corridor if there's regional rail, since it would serve the exact same purpose. Regional rail is effectively a subway line from the standpoint of the rider. Four tracks should (plus one for CP) should be more than sufficient for virtually every use.

Two tracks would be dedicated to high-frequency, frequent stop regional rail. It would be the only trains operating on those tracks.

The other two tracks are a bit more complex since they require different types of operations to share track. It's far less complex, though, since all of the trains are making few or no stops and operating at high speed. Those tracks should be built with superelevation and vertical curvature to accommodate at least 200 km/h, to permit eventual use for high speed rail. The three uses are the ARL, regional express services, and intercity trains, either VIA or HSR. The ARL is relatively simple because it operates 4 trains per hour and is likely never going to need increased frequency beyond that level. The trains would make at least one stop at Bloor and possibly a second stop at Weston (though that could likely be phased out with real regional rail). The second is regional express rail, operating up to 4 trains per hour and making perhaps two stops at Spadina/Bathurst and Bloor. The third is intercity service, which would likely not make any intermediate stops between Union and the airport. The trains could all travel at the same speeds, so the only overtaking issues are at stations. 16 trains per hour is more than within the capability of modern signalling systems and modern rail vehicles with reasonable stopping distances. If overtaking is required, a pair of passing tracks could be added at Bloor. I'm not sure they would be required given relatively short station dwell times and a fairly reasonable number of trains per hour by international standards, but they could be included for additional flexibility and growth.

 

[gweed123]

You don't need a subway line in the corridor if there's regional rail, since it would serve the exact same purpose. Regional rail is effectively a subway line from the standpoint of the rider. Four tracks should (plus one for CP) should be more than sufficient for virtually every use.

Two tracks would be dedicated to high-frequency, frequent stop regional rail. It would be the only trains operating on those tracks.

I was going the say the same thing. The advantage with GO REX as I and others have shown it is the duality of the service. You have the express suburban trains that can bypass all of the stops in Toronto as needed. It would basically be an NYC subway using GO rolling stock.

I would also agree that having a subway line like the TTC runs is unnecessary. Interlining with the existing TTC subway won't happen, but interlining with various GO services definitely will. I'd much rather have interoperability with other GO lines than interoperability with the TTC lines. Especially when you can run virtually identical frequencies with electrified GO trains as you can with TTC subway cars.

 

[dunkalunk]

I was of the thinking that the DRL vehicles would be high-floor with an option to add catenary, making them usable on mainline rail lines provided certain transport regulations regarding vehicle weight and crew size were reformed to allow it.

In addition, there would be room for a center passing track for intercity express trains at regional stations (Mt. Pleasant, Bloor, ect.)

 

[gweed123]

I was of the thinking that the DRL vehicles would be high-floor with an option to add catenary, making them usable on mainline rail lines provided certain transport regulations regarding vehicle weight and crew size were reformed to allow it.

But what about track gauge? TTC subways and GO use different gauges, so interoperability is next to impossible. Given the tradeoffs, I'd rather just use standard electrified GO vehicles. As long as the rolling stock can run similar frequencies with a similar capacity, why have special vehicles just for one GO REX line?

 

[dunkalunk]

Who said anything about using TTC gauge on the DRL? I'd actually prefer that any DRL be standard for reasons of operational flexibility on rail ROWs. GO should investigate in investing in a standard high-floor REX vehicle type.

 

[gweed123]

Who said anything about using TTC gauge on the DRL? I'd actually prefer that any DRL be standard for reasons of operational flexibility on rail ROWs. GO should investigate in investing in a standard high-floor REX vehicle type.

Well if it's a TTC DRL then presumably it would be using TTC rolling stock, no? I can't see the TTC adopting another technology type just for one line.

Again, I really don't see the advantage in having a special set of rolling stock just for the DRL (in whatever form it may take). Just use the same type of rolling stock that will be used on all of the other GO REX lines.

And I think high floor or low floor should depend on how easy it will be to modify the existing stations to change the platform height. If the required work is too extensive, go with low floor. If it's relatively inexpensive, then go with high floor, because then you can raise the platform levels to be level with the doors.

 

[reaperexpress]

The other two tracks are a bit more complex since they require different types of operations to share track. It's far less complex, though, since all of the trains are making few or no stops and operating at high speed. Those tracks should be built with superelevation and vertical curvature to accommodate at least 200 km/h, to permit eventual use for high speed rail. The three uses are the ARL, regional express services, and intercity trains, either VIA or HSR.

I'd agree with you if we were talking about the Lakeshore line. But I think the demand in the Toronto-Georgetown-Kitchener-London corridor is much simpler, so we would only need 2 services, not 4.

There is no need for long-distance intercity or high-speed rail, since anyone traveling from Toronto to London or further would take trains on the faster Toronto-Burlington-London corridor. All that remains is the demand between cities within the 200km corridor. The longest popular trips would be Kitchener-Union (100km) and London-Brampton (160km). These could be adequately served by regional services which stop in the centre of every city.

In my proposal, both the local and regional services stopped at Pearson, completely eradicating the need for the ARL.

The advantage of having only 2 services is that you don't lose much capacity from differing average speeds. Like I said in my initial post, when you have different services with different average speeds sharing the same tracks, they need to be scheduled further apart to compensate for faster trains catching up to slower trains.
Out of curiosity, what does the 16tphpd consider? Is it assuming a fully quad-tracked line and/or these speed differential issues?

As well, when you say "intercity service", what stops are you proposing to omit relative to my "express service". You've so far said Bloor station, and I'm curious what other ones.

 

[unimaginative2]

Yes, as I described, there would be 16tph on the "express" pair of tracks consisting of 4tph each for the ARL, regional express trains, and intercity/high speed trains. The "local" pair of tracks would be used by the standard regional rail service that I assume would operate between 6 and 18tph as the Milton and Bradford corridor trains join the line. I suppose it could be as many as 24tph if you included comparable service on the MacTier sub.

As for the intercity service, I was operating on the assumption that VIA service would continue pending the development of high speed rail. 4tph is a very optimistic figure for VIA service at the height of the peak. With high-speed rail, that figure is more reasonable. If high-speed rail were actually built, it would almost certainly be in the Weston/Kitchener corridor and not the Lakeshore corridor because of access to Pearson Airport and the ability to build a much longer stretch of dedicated track; high-speed trains on the Lakeshore line would be relegated to an upgraded Oakville sub rather than dedicated high-speed line at least to Hamilton. Without the introduction of high-speed rail, I agree that it might make sense to replace the north mainline VIA service with express rail making similar stops.

The ARL is another issue that doesn't need to be explored right now. If regional service is deemed adequate to serve the airport, then even fewer tph would be needed. The point is that the corridor can accommodate both good regional rail and regional express service in addition to the ARL.

The key is that trains on the express tracks wouldn't have significantly differing speeds. The regional express trains, intercity trains, and ARL trains would all be intended to operate at similar speeds. If high-speed trains were introduced that traveled at much higher speeds, then some overtaking areas could be required. With high-speed rail, though, I think a speed of 200 km/h or thereabouts would be suitable for all those types of service.

For service to Pearson, it would make the most sense to divert the corridor in a tunnel under the airport, an option that was examined during the early rail link studies. That could be built as part of a high-speed rail project. In the interim, we would presumably have the ARL direct to the terminals and some kind of people mover or shuttle service to a regional rail station on the corridor. A direct line to the terminal, in a tunnel diverting from the historic line if necessary, is the model at virtually every major European airport (CDG, Brussels, Lyon, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Berlin, Madrid, etc.).

 

[reaperexpress]

Yes, as I described, there would be 16tph on the "express" pair of tracks consisting of 4tph each for the ARL, regional express trains, and intercity/high speed trains. The "local" pair of tracks would be used by the standard regional rail service that I assume would operate between 6 and 18tph as the Milton and Bradford corridor trains join the line. I suppose it could be as many as 24tph if you included comparable service on the MacTier sub.

The problem with looking at capacity on each pair of tracks is that at Brampton Station, there is only a single pair of tracks, which must be able to handle trains arriving on both the "express" pair and "local" pair of tracks further east.

The Milton and Barrie lines don't come into the line capacity calculation because once the Georgetown South Project is finished they will each have their own dedicated tracks. South of the junction with the Newmarket Sub, in it will be 2 tracks for Barrie, 4 tracks for London/Kitchener/Georgetown and 2 tracks for Milton. That configuration makes sense to me since the London/Kitchener/Georgetown corridor has extensive express/local service while the other two don't.

The ARL is another issue that doesn't need to be explored right now. If regional service is deemed adequate to serve the airport, then even fewer tph would be needed. The point is that the corridor can accommodate both good regional rail and regional express service in addition to the ARL.

Why would we need the ARL if we have two services already doing that job? If you want to get from downtown to the airport as fast as possible, you take the Regional service and if you want to get off at one of the other stops between you take the Local service. It seems like a fairly simple decision to scrap it - one that seems reasonable to make at this stage in a fantasy plan.

The key is that trains on the express tracks wouldn't have significantly differing speeds. The regional express trains, intercity trains, and ARL trains would all be intended to operate at similar speeds. If high-speed trains were introduced that traveled at much higher speeds, then some overtaking areas could be required. With high-speed rail, though, I think a speed of 200 km/h or thereabouts would be suitable for all those types of service.

If the speeds don't differ, what does? What is the difference between your "intercity" and "regional" trains? Is it just GO vs. VIA?

For service to Pearson, it would make the most sense to divert the corridor in a tunnel under the airport, an option that was examined during the early rail link studies. That could be built as part of a high-speed rail project. In the interim, we would presumably have the ARL direct to the terminals and some kind of people mover or shuttle service to a regional rail station on the corridor. A direct line to the terminal, in a tunnel diverting from the historic line if necessary, is the model at virtually every major European airport (CDG, Brussels, Lyon, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Berlin, Madrid, etc.).

I completely agree, that's what I was thinking as well.

 

[unimaginative2]

The problem with looking at capacity on each pair of tracks is that at Brampton Station, there is only a single pair of tracks, which must be able to handle trains arriving on both the "express" pair and "local" pair of tracks further east.

Obviously the corridor at Brampton station will have to be widened, either through expropriation or some kind of elevated alignment. 4 tracks is sufficient for any foreseeable traffic, but it's also a minimum.

The Milton and Barrie lines don't come into the line capacity calculation because once the Georgetown South Project is finished they will each have their own dedicated tracks. South of the junction with the Newmarket Sub, in it will be 2 tracks for Barrie, 4 tracks for London/Kitchener/Georgetown and 2 tracks for Milton. That configuration makes sense to me since the London/Kitchener/Georgetown corridor has extensive express/local service while the other two don't.

I know, and that means we will have far more track capacity than we will ever need. If GO invested the money they're spending on all these tracks on a modern signalling system, we wouldn't need to pour so much concrete. Cities like Paris, Munich, and Berlin move more corridors with far more traffic than these through a pair of tracks. Either way, it gives us loads of room for the future.

Why would we need the ARL if we have two services already doing that job? If you want to get from downtown to the airport as fast as possible, you take the Regional service and if you want to get off at one of the other stops between you take the Local service. It seems like a fairly simple decision to scrap it - one that seems reasonable to make at this stage in a fantasy plan.

Like I said, I don't want to get into an ARL debate. If the corridor is diverted through Pearson, I could see how the regional rail services could play much of the role intended for the ARL. All I'm saying is that there's enough room to accommodate it alongside world-class regional rail service in the corridor.

If the speeds don't differ, what does? What is the difference between your "intercity" and "regional" trains? Is it just GO vs. VIA?

In the short term, pretty much. The speeds might differ once out of the city proper, but mostly I'm just protecting for future high-speed rail service in the corridor.

 

[gweed123]

Obviously the corridor at Brampton station will have to be widened, either through expropriation or some kind of elevated alignment. 4 tracks is sufficient for any foreseeable traffic, but it's also a minimum.

Realistically in some places it can make due with 3 tracks, because the peak period express is going to be uni-directional. Not necessarily all spots can be, but some can be.

Also, what do you guys think of running a GO REX line from Bramlea to Pickering via the line that goes just north of Steeles. I know that's a main freight line, but is there any chance of widening the corridor and adding 2 additional tracks? I wouldn't need to have any express services on it, just a regular 2 track service.

 

[Voltz]

Also, what do you guys think of running a GO REX line from Bramlea to Pickering via the line that goes just north of Steeles. I know that's a main freight line, but is there any chance of widening the corridor and adding 2 additional tracks? I wouldn't need to have any express services on it, just a regular 2 track service.

It may be able to be built, but I would say the midtown corridor is a higher priority for new GO Train service

 

[gweed123]

It may be able to be built, but I would say the midtown corridor is a higher priority for new GO Train service

I agree that Midtown is a higher priority. I'm just thinking longer term here.

I counted 6 locations in need of grade separation from Bramlea to Pickering, and most of those were relatively minor streets. A few overpass bridges will need to be widened, but nothing too extensive, and it looks like the corridor itself has room for 2 extra tracks.

It's definitely lowest on the priority list for GO REX lines, but I think it's something worth considering, unless there's a show-stopper that someone can think of.

 

[reaperexpress]

Obviously the corridor at Brampton station will have to be widened, either through expropriation or some kind of elevated alignment. 4 tracks is sufficient for any foreseeable traffic, but it's also a minimum.

Either way we're looking at enormous costs to do so. Is it worth that cost in order to ensure flexibility "just in case" there's an HSR? I think it would be best to leave Brampton Station with two tracks until the actual HSR project. As you've said earlier, with proper signalling, a double-track railway is more than capable of meeting the demand from a capacity standpoint, it's just the flexibility standpoint which might suffer.

I know, and that means we will have far more track capacity than we will ever need. If GO invested the money they're spending on all these tracks on a modern signalling system, we wouldn't need to pour so much concrete. Cities like Paris, Munich, and Berlin move more corridors with far more traffic than these through a pair of tracks. Either way, it gives us loads of room for the future.

I think that Paris, Munich and Berlin would do the same thing as us if they had an enormous corridor like we do. The money spent on concrete isn't just lost, it still benefits us by making the lines more independent than they would be with interlining. That means better schedule flexibility and service reliability. Also, keep in mind that those other cities also run EMUs, which can run closer together due to better acceleration and braking. The Barrie line will likely not see EMU service for a very long time, if ever.

Realistically in some places it can make due with 3 tracks, because the peak period express is going to be uni-directional. Not necessarily all spots can be, but some can be.

I think it is crucial that the peak period express be bidirectional. The Express train is a regional rail service, so should be serving all commutes, not just those into and out of Toronto.

Also, what do you guys think of running a GO REX line from Bramlea to Pickering via the line that goes just north of Steeles. I know that's a main freight line, but is there any chance of widening the corridor and adding 2 additional tracks? I wouldn't need to have any express services on it, just a regular 2 track service.

As someone who lives next to that rail line, that would be AWESOME! But from a more realistic standpoint, not so much. The corridor itself is very highly engineered, and is predominantly on embankments and in trenches (through my area, at least). That's why on Google Earth there seems to be extra space in the ROW. I guess you could build concrete retaining walls to get more track space, but I don't think the benefit from the line would justify the cost.

I think the 401 would make a better route for a Brampton-Oshawa train. It would have to be EMU-operated due to some of the slopes, but it crosses far more high-ridership transit routes so it could serve as a quick crosstown route even though the walk-up ridership would be negligible.

 

[unimaginative2]

I think it is crucial that the peak period express be bidirectional. The Express train is a regional rail service, so should be serving all commutes, not just those into and out of Toronto.

Agreed. At least hourly.

It doesn't make sense to build in a choke point like Brampton. Since it would presumably be an express station stop, it would need to be widened for multiple platforms anyway. I took another look at the corridor and it looks like 4 tracks wouldn't be such a difficult fit. The bigger issue is the freights: unlike most of GO's corridors, the line from Silver to Halwest is a major freight route and there's no way that freights could be limited to a night time window. It wouldn't be possible to fit 6 tracks (or at least 5 plus sidings) in the corridor, so something would need to be done. The best long term option would likely be to completely separate the freight bypass from passenger corridors. The most obvious option is the 407 corridor, which is quite spacious through Brampton. The issues would be with grades, though that's hardly insurmountable (pun intended). The route was considered in the high-speed rail studies, but it has far too many curves for that purpose. That's obviously not an issue for freights.