[reaperexpress]

I truly hope that this is true, but is there a definitive source that says CN has agreed to that level of service and ML has obtained funding to build that much capacity?
My fear is that ML has half-assed the Halton Sub design in the interest of saving money - and/or got only a lesser commitment from CN, and we will eventually learn that some more rationed service is all that has been enabled. Or the two parties have reached a deal that does not also include capacity for more express service offerings whether offered by GO or by VIA.
I try not to be cynical, but the lack of progress west of Silver, plus the lack of transparency all round, makes me think that ML has no intention or resources to deliver the service plan that you describe (which I agree is the bare minimum that should be in the works)

- Paull

Metrolinx never really says anything that clearly but in the Kitchener Expansion business case they did imply that they had some kind of agreement with CN to run hourly or better service. Whatever the agreement was, it gave Metrolinx sufficient confidence that they started construction on second tracks in Breslau, Guelph, Acton and planned a second thru platform in Georgetown. When combined those would provide capacity of 2 trains per hour per direction.

The glacial progress on those simple projects on the Guelph sub is definitely a warning sign, but I'm not sure if we should attribute that to issues with CN on the Halton sub just Metrolinx's own poor project management.

 

[micheal_can]

As I pointed out in the GO Service thread a couple years ago, the capacity on the Halton sub isn't necessarily a limitation for the medium-term rollout of moderate upgrades between London and Kitchener, since Metrolinx already has agreement with CN to run hourly service to Kitchener all day, half-hourly during peaks upon the completion of the current construction initiatives. Extending hourly trains to London makes no difference to CN (once Metrolinx has purchased the London-Kitchener tracks).It just means that the GO Trains continuing all the way to London need to make as few stops as possible in the segments where there's an overlapping local service.

A potential quick-and-dirty fix is to add an hourly off-peak local service from Stratford to Guelph or Georgetown to serve minor stops like New Hamburg (?), Baden, Breslau and possibly Acton, enabling the London GO Trains to only stop in the centres of major cities (plus St Marys).

In short to medium term that means that Via would only operate on the South Mainline. Two additional round trips could be enabled by building a second platform at Woodstock station.

In the longer term much more substantial upgrades on the Guelph and Halton subs would expand track capacity to enable VIA to move most of its intercity service there instead, in addition to the local GO service.

Part of the benefit of Via running it is it is not a milk run, stopping at every station between Kitchener and Union. If GO were to take it over,they would need to learn howto better do express and local service, and to do better scheduling. Part of the (if not the whole) reason the GO London failed is due to the scheduling.

 

[Bordercollie]

Part of the benefit of Via running it is it is not a milk run, stopping at every station between Kitchener and Union. If GO were to take it over,they would need to learn howto better do express and local service, and to do better scheduling. Part of the (if not the whole) reason the GO London failed is due to the scheduling.

Wasn't that because it was the only track slot available?

 

[micheal_can]

Wasn't that because it was the only track slot available?

If that is the case, the government should have seen it would have been a waste and put it off till a better slot could be arraigned. I do not know of an employer that starts after 9 and finishes before 5.

 

[crs1026]

Metrolinx never really says anything that clearly but in the Kitchener Expansion business case they did imply that they had some kind of agreement with CN to run hourly or better service. Whatever the agreement was, it gave Metrolinx sufficient confidence that they started construction on second tracks in Breslau, Guelph, Acton and planned a second thru platform in Georgetown. When combined those would provide capacity of 2 trains per hour per direction.

The glacial progress on those simple projects on the Guelph sub is definitely a warning sign, but I'm not sure if we should attribute that to issues with CN on the Halton sub just Metrolinx's own poor project management.

I get nervous whenever these projects add only a single track where ideally there would be two tracks with passenger priority. Seems to be a case of ML trying to spread its funding as widely as it can (not necessarily a bad strategy by itself) but inevitably leads to a situation where within a few years to a decade they are once again constrained and needing to build more.... but face a lot of political resistance when they have to go back to the well (what? more money?more construction disruption?) and possibly it would have been cheaper in the long run to do a bigger build from the start. We fall into a continuing cycle of potential service plans and capacity that ML's infrastructure can't keep up with.

On the Halton Sub, I would expect CN will assert priority on the two existing main tracks and ML is effectively only filling in gaps on the third (single) track (which was built in stretches as far as Mount Pleasant back in 2007-2009) to Georgetown. There may be fourth track built in places to allow GO trains to pass, but I get nervous at any high-frequency single track line, because while operable there isn't much margin for variability or for changing the overall pattern of trains. Georgetown-Acton and Acton-Guelph remain the constraining sections for timing, I wonder if Georgetown-Bramalea is also a constraining section. It's not difficult to build a 30-minute schedule for GO in this configuration, but try to add in a half dozen VIA trains working to VIA's timing needs, and the whole thing goes to molasses.

(BTW, on the same vein.....all the talk about Niagara and Brantford lines is being made in isolation from the reality of Bayview-Canpa being three tracks with two committed to 15-minute or better stopping service.....that third track copes with the current pattern of express trains, but if one tries to push the express concept much further, it won't work until a fourth track is built).

ML should not be copying Blanche Dubois.... relying on the generosity of CN and CPKC is a recipe for disappointment.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

I get nervous whenever these projects add only a single track where ideally there would be two tracks with passenger priority. Seems to be a case of ML trying to spread its funding as widely as it can (not necessarily a bad strategy by itself) but inevitably leads to a situation where within a few years to a decade they are once again constrained and needing to build more.... but face a lot of political resistance when they have to go back to the well (what? more money?) and possibly it would have been cheaper in the long run to do a bigger build from the start. We fall into a continuing cycle of potential service plans and capacity that ML's infrastructure can't keep up with.

On the Halton Sub, I would expect CN will assert priority on the two existing main tracks and ML is effectively filling in gaps on the third track (which was built as far as Mount Pleasant back in 2007-2009) to Georgetown. There may be fourth track built in places to allow GO trains to pass, but I get nervous at any high-frequency single track line, because while operable there isn't much margin for variability or for changing the overall pattern of trains. Georgetown-Acton and Acton-Guelph remain the constraining sections for timing, I wonder if Georgetown-Bramalea is also a constraining section. It's not difficult to build a 30-minute schedule for GO in this configuration, but try to add in a half dozen VIA trains working to VIA's timing needs, and the whole thing goes to molasses.

(BTW, on the same vein.....all the talk about Niagara and Brantford lines is being made in isolation from the reality of Bayview-Canpa being three tracks with two committed to 15-minute or better stopping service.....that third track copes with the current pattern of express trains, but if one tries to push the express concept much further, it won't work until a fourth track is built).

ML should not be copying Blanche Dubois.... relying on the generosity of CN and CPKC is a recipe for disappointment.

- Paul

All Corridor routes should be at least double track. All GO lines should be double track. If a Via and GO train runs on the same line, it should be at least 3tracks.

And,I do think that taxpayers should pay for that. Then freight can continue to operate and passenger rail can keep to their schedule.

 

[reaperexpress]

On the Halton Sub, I would expect CN will assert priority on the two existing main tracks and ML is effectively filling in gaps on the third track (which was built as far as Mount Pleasant back in 2007-2009) to Georgetown. There may be fourth track built in places to allow GO trains to pass, but I get nervous at any high-frequency single track line, because while operable there isn't much margin for variability or for changing the overall pattern of trains. Georgetown-Acton and Acton-Guelph remain the constraining sections for timing, I wonder if Georgetown-Bramalea is also a constraining section. It's not difficult to build a 30-minute schedule for GO in this configuration, but try to add in a half dozen VIA trains working to VIA's timing needs, and the whole thing goes to molasses.

But in the medium term with the service patterns I suggested, there wouldn't be a half dozen Via trains. There would be zero Via trains. The business case envisioned 1 train per hour off-peak to Kitchener plus two trains per hour to Mount Pleasant. That is not a very high frequency, so three to four tracks should be more than enough, even with CN being unfriendly with dispatching.

I get nervous whenever these projects add only a single track where ideally there would be two tracks with passenger priority. Seems to be a case of ML trying to spread its funding as widely as it can (not necessarily a bad strategy by itself) but inevitably leads to a situation where within a few years to a decade they are once again constrained and needing to build more.... but face a lot of political resistance when they have to go back to the well (what? more money?) and possibly it would have been cheaper in the long run to do a bigger build from the start. We fall into a continuing cycle of potential service plans and capacity that ML's infrastructure can't keep up with.

The topic of a second round of upgrades is not purely theoretical because that's exactly what "GO 2.0" is. Far from facing political resistance, that concept actually originated from the politicial side. The Missing Link included in that plan would remove CN mainline freight from the Halton sub, leaving it almost entirely to GO and Via. At that point the 3 to 4 tracks between Georgetown and Bramalea would provide lots of passenger rail capacity and flexibility, enabling fast and frequent Via service in addition to frequent GO service.

(BTW, on the same vein.....all the talk about Niagara and Brantford lines is being made in isolation from the reality of Bayview-Canpa being three tracks with two committed to 15-minute or better stopping service.....that third track copes with the current pattern of express trains, but if one tries to push the express concept much further, it won't work until a fourth track is built).

ML should not be copying Blanche Dubois.... relying on the generosity of CN and CPKC is a recipe for disappointment.

Although the lack of planned track expansion on the Oakville sub is in the same vein, it is not in the same magnitude. On Oakville we're talking at least 4 local trains per hour per direction at minimum (and they implied much more), at least 2 express trains per hour (hopefully more off peak, definitely more during peak) and up to 1 Via train per hour, all sharing 3 tracks. On the Halton sub in the medium we're talking about 2 local trains per hour plus 1 express train, (2 express during peaks), sharing 4 tracks with a couple freight trains per hour (albeit with a 3-track pinch point at Brampton station)

 

[urbancog]

The Missing Link included in that plan would remove CN mainline freight from the Halton sub, leaving it almost entirely to GO and Via.

The focus of GO 2.0 seems to be more removing freight trains from the Milton CPKC line east of Lisgar Station. There's no specific mention of connecting the CN track in Milton to the CPKC track or adding the extra tracks though Milton or south Halton Hills that would be needed to take CN trains over to Lisgar.

DoFo instructed Metrolinx to write 2 business cases to justify cancelling the bypass for the CN tracks, and they've expropriated land for the GO-CN grade separation west of Winston Churchill Blvd, so is is not clear that the current government intends to bypass the Halton sub.

 

[nfitz]

Chrystia Freeland is the new Transport Minster.

Perhaps she can leave some foot prints on CN's butt.

 

[micheal_can]

Chrystia Freeland is the new Transport Minster.

Perhaps she can leave some foot prints on CN's butt.

She is also internal trade. That could be 2 boots from her.
This may also mean my fantasies of an expanded Via Rail might happen.

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

She is also internal trade. That could be 2 boots from her.
This may also mean my fantasies of an expanded Via Rail might happen.

A good first step would be to get these 'boots were made for walkin' into her own department and find something out. That is, where the Grade Crossing Warning Protection device data that CN supplied TC with by the January 9, 2025 deadline has not been utilized ( at least there are no public reports ) to advance TC's case against CN as the federal regulator. Last December's Ministerial Order 24-01 demanded information which was apparently submitted by CN by the pickup-truck-box full. Too much to analyze? Maybe.

 

[micheal_can]

A good first step would be to get these 'boots were made for walkin' into her own department and find something out. That is, where the Grade Crossing Warning Protection device data that CN supplied TC with by the January 9, 2025 deadline has not been utilized ( at least there are no public reports ) to advance TC's case against CN as the federal regulator. Last December's Ministerial Order 24-01 demanded information which was apparently submitted by CN by the pickup-truck-box full. Too much to analyze? Maybe.

Yes!
That should be one of her top priorities.

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

As of today, here is a graphic showing: VIA VENTURES NOT OPERATING for more than two weeks=Red. Undergoing BREAK IN=yellow. Delivered=GREEN) for the 29 delivered sets, data from NOV 18/24-MAY 31/25. Four sets not seen in the past two weeks. The Venture implementation is stuck at 14 trainsets, with two guard consists. That's 50% of the delivered fleet.

 

[cplchanb]

if they seriously cant find a solution in the near term they should really consider combining some sets into 6 or 7 car consists for the time being. this is getting farcicle

 

[Trackside_Treasure]

if they seriously cant find a solution in the near term they should really consider combining some sets into 6 or 7 car consists for the time being. this is getting farcicle

I had that consist-lengthening thought way back in October, 2024 when the speed reductions came in. VIA has said that lengthening sets would cut their fleet by 50%. The closest we will likely get is the operation of 'doublavay' J-trained Ventures which more than exceeds CN's axle limit. VIA has never split or remarshalled a single Venture consist AFAIK.

Another question is whether VIA has done more harm to itself by not only having to ensure CN's grade-crossing warning protection devices are working for 20 seconds minimum, but also that Ventures make 45 mph from the whistle post to the crossing*. VIA crews complain that some crossings are visible for 20 seconds or more from beyond some whistle posts, so this requirement by VIA Operating Practices actually exacerbates CN's already punishing-to-OTP speed reductions. (*Apparently discovered by two VIA guys on the simulator!) Crossing protection operation was not designed to be assessed by train crews approaching it perpendicularly and at speed.