GO Transit

[ijmorlan]

It doesn’t need to be twinned all the way anyhow.

Not twinning, however, makes it logistically very difficult to attain 30 minutes heads in both directions at the same time, as #2WADGO promised.

In particular, the last 1/2 of headway of any route can generally be single-tracked without imposing significant operational difficulties. For an hourly service, this means the last 30 minutes of the route. The track distance from King St. in Kitchener to Gordon St. in Guelph, where the track is doubled around the station, is less than 23km.

The Kitchener to Guelph time is 22 minutes, according to the schedule. That means if you have a train leaving Kitchener for Guelph at XX:00, the opposite direction cannot leave Guelph until XX:22, and then that means a second train cannot leave Kitchener until XX:44, which is well below the promised half-hourly peak service for #2WADGO to Kitchener. Guelph→Acton and Acton→Georgetown are 16 minute trips, which means that they can't be run at 30 minute schedules, either.

So as long as the trains are scheduled so that opposing trains meet in Guelph, no double-tracking is required between here and Guelph; and for that matter the first 30 minutes the other side of Guelph could be single-tracked as well, which gets all the way to Georgetown.

It's not really the "last 1/2 of headway" that is the issue, it's the length of the length of the scheduling blocks and whether you require them to be uni- or bi-directional that is the logistical hurdle. And as shown above, it's impossible for the Kitchener→Guelph block to reach it's stated peak target for #2WADGO.

I’m ignoring freight here; those would have to be slotted in as well, meaning that hourly passenger service may require double-tracking. But every 2 hours passenger service definitely does not and depending on how flexible the timing of freight activity is it might be possible to move it to lower frequency periods of time.

And every two hours is also well below the off-peak service promised by #2WADGO to Kitchener. 30 minute peak, 60 minute off-peak.

To be honest, I had forgotten that a promise of 30 minute service had been made (is that true?); I thought the promise was for hourly service, and I’m not expecting anything better than every 2 hours for quite some time.

My point was that we could have something that could reasonably be described as “all day both ways” service without twinning the track. Eventually we will definitely want twinned track all the way; the part you might be able to get away with not twinning (in Kitchener) is already twinned.

You are right that there are some complexities, but it’s still fundamentally true that the last 1/2 headway can be single-tracked because there is only one train at a time in that portion of the line. Strictly, 1/2 of (headway minus terminal time). For example, 30 minute service that takes 10 minutes at the terminal only ever sees one train at a time in the last (30 - 10) / 2 = 10 minutes of the route. Time for switches and signals to adjust will shorten the physical length of track that corresponds to a particular amount of time.

Speed of operation is also an issue; with track improvements, the time between Kitchener and Guelph or Guelph and Georgetown should each be well under 30 minutes meaning that hourly service (but ignoring freight, which is unrealistic) should be achievable without twinning. Of course the closer the schedule gets to the theoretical maximum the worse the impact of any problems, but still we’re used to ridiculously slow operation on this line so distances seem to be of greater duration than they should be.

[tomh009]

To be honest, I had forgotten that a promise of 30 minute service had been made (is that true?); I thought the promise was for hourly service, and I’m not expecting anything better than every 2 hours for quite some time.

My point was that we could have something that could reasonably be described as “all day both ways” service without twinning the track. Eventually we will definitely want twinned track all the way; the part you might be able to get away with not twinning (in Kitchener) is already twinned.

You are right that there are some complexities, but it’s still fundamentally true that the last 1/2 headway can be single-tracked because there is only one train at a time in that portion of the line. Strictly, 1/2 of (headway minus terminal time). For example, 30 minute service that takes 10 minutes at the terminal only ever sees one train at a time in the last (30 - 10) / 2 = 10 minutes of the route. Time for switches and signals to adjust will shorten the physical length of track that corresponds to a particular amount of time.

Speed of operation is also an issue; with track improvements, the time between Kitchener and Guelph or Guelph and Georgetown should each be well under 30 minutes meaning that hourly service (but ignoring freight, which is unrealistic) should be achievable without twinning. Of course the closer the schedule gets to the theoretical maximum the worse the impact of any problems, but still we’re used to ridiculously slow operation on this line so distances seem to be of greater duration than they should be.

Absolutely. Hourly all-day service, with improved travel times, would be a fantastic start in my books.

Also, passing sidings could be added without complete twinning in order to enable opposing trains (including freight trains) to pass.

[danbrotherston]

To be honest, I had forgotten that a promise of 30 minute service had been made (is that true?); I thought the promise was for hourly service, and I’m not expecting anything better than every 2 hours for quite some time.

My point was that we could have something that could reasonably be described as “all day both ways” service without twinning the track. Eventually we will definitely want twinned track all the way; the part you might be able to get away with not twinning (in Kitchener) is already twinned.

You are right that there are some complexities, but it’s still fundamentally true that the last 1/2 headway can be single-tracked because there is only one train at a time in that portion of the line. Strictly, 1/2 of (headway minus terminal time). For example, 30 minute service that takes 10 minutes at the terminal only ever sees one train at a time in the last (30 - 10) / 2 = 10 minutes of the route. Time for switches and signals to adjust will shorten the physical length of track that corresponds to a particular amount of time.

Speed of operation is also an issue; with track improvements, the time between Kitchener and Guelph or Guelph and Georgetown should each be well under 30 minutes meaning that hourly service (but ignoring freight, which is unrealistic) should be achievable without twinning. Of course the closer the schedule gets to the theoretical maximum the worse the impact of any problems, but still we’re used to ridiculously slow operation on this line so distances seem to be of greater duration than they should be.

Absolutely. Hourly all-day service, with improved travel times, would be a fantastic start in my books.

Also, passing sidings could be added without complete twinning in order to enable opposing trains (including freight trains) to pass.

This would be great, although there are still significant challenges, demand is not uniform throughout the day, hourly would be amazing, most of the day but during rush-hour it would be insufficient. Which means during rush hour, you will struggle to run reverse commute trains.

But ultimately, if we got anything close to hourly service, I'd count it as a huge win.

[Bytor]

To be honest, I had forgotten that a promise of 30 minute service had been made (is that true?); I thought the promise was for hourly service, and I’m not expecting anything better than every 2 hours for quite some time.

Kitchener line business case from November 2019.

Speed of operation is also an issue; with track improvements, the time between Kitchener and Guelph or Guelph and Georgetown should each be well under 30 minutes meaning that hourly service (but ignoring freight, which is unrealistic) should be achievable without twinning. Of course the closer the schedule gets to the theoretical maximum the worse the impact of any problems, but still we’re used to ridiculously slow operation on this line so distances seem to be of greater duration than they should be.

When Metrolinx was still acting like twinning the track all the way to Kitchener, then they were indicating that trackway remediation would be done to increase the speed limits. The "no we're not going to twin" that has come out since the Tories took over has been accompanied by a lack of talk about remediation.

[danbrotherston]

To be honest, I had forgotten that a promise of 30 minute service had been made (is that true?); I thought the promise was for hourly service, and I’m not expecting anything better than every 2 hours for quite some time.

Kitchener line business case from November 2019.

Speed of operation is also an issue; with track improvements, the time between Kitchener and Guelph or Guelph and Georgetown should each be well under 30 minutes meaning that hourly service (but ignoring freight, which is unrealistic) should be achievable without twinning. Of course the closer the schedule gets to the theoretical maximum the worse the impact of any problems, but still we’re used to ridiculously slow operation on this line so distances seem to be of greater duration than they should be.

When Metrolinx was still acting like twinning the track all the way to Kitchener, then they were indicating that trackway remediation would be done to increase the speed limits. The "no we're not going to twin" that has come out since the Tories took over has been accompanied by a lack of talk about remediation.

I believe they have been doing track improvements...there are a few corridors which are hard to fix, like right outside the Guelph station where it runs a few meters from homes, but other areas have been improved and we have seen a resulting improvement in travel times.

[tomh009]

I believe they have been doing track improvements...there are a few corridors which are hard to fix, like right outside the Guelph station where it runs a few meters from homes, but other areas have been improved and we have seen a resulting improvement in travel times.

Weren't they also working to eliminate some of the level crossings in Guelph? Or was that just my wishful thinking?

[timio]

I believe they have been doing track improvements...there are a few corridors which are hard to fix, like right outside the Guelph station where it runs a few meters from homes, but other areas have been improved and we have seen a resulting improvement in travel times.

Weren't they also working to eliminate some of the level crossings in Guelph? Or was that just my wishful thinking?

I believe Dublin Street was closed recently.

[ijmorlan]

Weren't they also working to eliminate some of the level crossings in Guelph? Or was that just my wishful thinking?

I believe Dublin Street was closed recently.

That’s unfortunate. It’s not needed for efficient train movement, and it is anti-pedestrian.

Allow me to explain, since the railway experts at Metrolinx seem to think it does need to be closed.

This location is less than 500m from the station. So even HSR could operate through here perfectly fine — I don’t know the exact speed, but trains simply don’t change speed that quickly. Next, the street is a minor street with not much traffic. So a fully protected grade crossing should provide vehicle and other traffic ample warning to stop for the trains.

That being said, closing it to vehicle traffic while keeping it open to pedestrians and bicyclists would simplify traffic flow somewhat without being anti-pedestrian; and for all I know the neighbourhood might appreciate the traffic diversion.

[innsertnamehere]

I believe they have been doing track improvements...there are a few corridors which are hard to fix, like right outside the Guelph station where it runs a few meters from homes, but other areas have been improved and we have seen a resulting improvement in travel times.

Weren't they also working to eliminate some of the level crossings in Guelph? Or was that just my wishful thinking?

I believe they recently increased the speeds through there from 10mph to 30mph. Or at least they were planning to.

[KevinL]

So CBC is talking about Cambridge-Guelph service, it seems the idea is a shuttle with dedicated smaller trains that would connect to Toronto service in Guelph.

I'm completely in favour of this so long as it maintains good connections; hooking it up to Ion service at Hespeler/Pinebush seems to be the idea, and I think having GO buses stop there as well could tie all that together. An intermediate stop on Guelph Ave just north of the river in Hespeler would also be a good move.

The trickiest part, I think, is Guelph station itself. It's being built with two tracks and platforms for through trains; this service would terminate. I suppose a third track and platform could be squeezed in just to the south, but it could get crowded with the Chamber of Commerce building.

Apparently more details are due in May.

[Bytor]

So CBC is talking about Cambridge-Guelph service, it seems the idea is a shuttle with dedicated smaller trains that would connect to Toronto service in Guelph.

I'm completely in favour of this so long as it maintains good connections; hooking it up to Ion service at Hespeler/Pinebush seems to be the idea, and I think having GO buses stop there as well could tie all that together. An intermediate stop on Guelph Ave just north of the river in Hespeler would also be a good move.

The trickiest part, I think, is Guelph station itself. It's being built with two tracks and platforms for through trains; this service would terminate. I suppose a third track and platform could be squeezed in just to the south, but it could get crowded with the Chamber of Commerce building.

Apparently more details are due in May.

Guelph Station is down in Galt, on the CP tracks Malcom and Water.

This article is talking about the CN Fergus Subdivision Which comes down from Guelph, goes under the 401, and then crosses Eagle near Concession. It then parallels the CP line from Kitchener (on witch the Toyota spur sits) down to the Jaffrey yard. ION Stage 2 proposes to use the spur that splits off by Industrial Rd.

Personally, I think a station should be roughed in at Speedsville Rd. where the abandoned line they want to use crosses it. The catchment area reaches all the way down to Langs Dr., and an LRT station that backs onto the parkland along the Speed River right there, with the Kin community & childrens centre, a public school and the seniors all with walking distance could be come quite the community node spurring redevelopment along Eagle and Concession.

[Bytor]

Also, I cannot really see this happening before 2035, or a few years after whenever ION Stage 2 gets built, and certainly not before 2025. This short-run service would be highly dependent upon both #2WADGO between Kitchener and Toronto and on good transit connection (a.k.a. LRT) to the Cambridge end and probably would not have enough passengers to make it economically viable until those two things are in place.

[danbrotherston]

Also, I cannot really see this happening before 2035, or a few years after whenever ION Stage 2 gets built, and certainly not before 2025. This short-run service would be highly dependent upon both #2WADGO between Kitchener and Toronto and on good transit connection (a.k.a. LRT) to the Cambridge end and probably would not have enough passengers to make it economically viable until those two things are in place.

I don't think it makes sense to do this in 2035.  If we're waiting 15 years, we should do the right thing and expand the Milton line. The only reason to re-activate the track and go through Guelph to my mind is to do it quickly.

[Bytor]

Also, I cannot really see this happening before 2035, or a few years after whenever ION Stage 2 gets built, and certainly not before 2025. This short-run service would be highly dependent upon both #2WADGO between Kitchener and Toronto and on good transit connection (a.k.a. LRT) to the Cambridge end and probably would not have enough passengers to make it economically viable until those two things are in place.

I don't think it makes sense to do this in 2035.  If we're waiting 15 years, we should do the right thing and expand the Milton line. The only reason to re-activate the track and go through Guelph to my mind is to do it quickly.

CP is orders of magnitude more obstinate than CN ever was with the Kitchener Line. If you want to wait for that, you'll be waiting far beyond 2035.

The Galt Subdivision is the only line CP has going west from Toronto where CN had 2, so no wonder CP doesn't want to sell it off. Doing so would split their North American network into two disconnected halves, or at the every least, force them to go up through the Dakotas and around Lake Superior to get anything from US midwest or southern Missiissippi River to anywhere east of Toronto.

The only workable solution there requires Metrolinx building brand new track, and a lot of land appropriation because th right of way is not always wide enough to add two more tracks on to. Though it's likely that CP would not allow sharing the ROW like that.

[danbrotherston]

I don't think it makes sense to do this in 2035.  If we're waiting 15 years, we should do the right thing and expand the Milton line. The only reason to re-activate the track and go through Guelph to my mind is to do it quickly.

CP is orders of magnitude more obstinate than CN ever was with the Kitchener Line. If you want to wait for that, you'll be waiting far beyond 2035.

The Galt Subdivision is the only line CP has going west from Toronto where CN had 2, so no wonder CP doesn't want to sell it off. Doing so would split their North American network into two disconnected halves, or at the every least, force them to go up through the Dakotas and around Lake Superior to get anything from US midwest or southern Missiissippi River to anywhere east of Toronto.

The only workable solution there requires Metrolinx building brand new track, and a lot of land appropriation because th right of way is not always wide enough to add two more tracks on to. Though it's likely that CP would not allow sharing the ROW like that.

If I recall the same right of way that was going to be used to bypass the CN line will also bypass the CP line. And I don't think CN will play ball with closing their main freight line either.