[zang]

In fact if HSR does happen and we get it to Pearson, we can scrap the UP.

AoD

I don't know if that's a great idea. If only because of the load it may create may require running empty train cars just to pick up people at Union. Given its 15 minute schedule, UP runs far more frequently than any HSR will, and from experience it runs pretty full by the time it gets to Pearson.

Would there even be much of a speed gain given any route is going to go through a whole lot of suburban areas, which would demand speed restrictions?

 

[Northern Light]

In fact if HSR does happen and we get it to Pearson, we can scrap the UP.

AoD

I don't know if that's a great idea. If only because of the load it may create may require running empty train cars just to pick up people at Union. Given its 15 minute schedule, UP runs far more frequently than any HSR will, and from experience it runs pretty full by the time it gets to Pearson.

Would there even be much of a speed gain given any route is going to go through a whole lot of suburban areas, which would demand speed restrictions?

The plan is for regular, K-W corridor GO service to pass through a new station/hub at Pearson. When that happens, UP will be axed.

Its still a long time away.......but there is serious intent there.

 

[Northern Light]

@Urban Sky has been on point, as one would expect. Summhill is unlikely to serve HSR at all, but if it did it would be a peripheral 'B route'.

@crs1026 Union Station and the USRC are constrained with respect to serving HSR. The Ontario Line as I have repeatedly noted has caused a completely avoidable mess in that regard. But even without it, there are really challenges at Union.

Lots of solutions are being examined. In one fashion or another, should this go ahead, it will (at least this is the current plan) reach Union.

The manner by which it does so is an open point of conversation.

Some options are very advanced, others less so.

 

[Metroscapes]

I don't know if that's a great idea. If only because of the load it may create may require running empty train cars just to pick up people at Union. Given its 15 minute schedule, UP runs far more frequently than any HSR will, and from experience it runs pretty full by the time it gets to Pearson.

Would there even be much of a speed gain given any route is going to go through a whole lot of suburban areas, which would demand speed restrictions?

I second this. UP suffers from being saddled with providing intermediate stops more appropriate for GO.

 

[Urban Sky]

@Urban Sky has been on point, as one would expect. Summhill is unlikely to serve HSR at all, but if it did it would be a peripheral 'B route'.

@crs1026 Union Station and the USRC are constrained with respect to serving HSR. The Ontario Line as I have repeatedly noted has caused a completely avoidable mess in that regard. But even without it, there are really challenges at Union.

Lots of solutions are being examined. In one fashion or another, should this go ahead, it will (at least this is the current plan) reach Union.

The manner by which it does so is an open point of conversation.

Some options are very advanced, others less so.

I appreciate this, but the point is that given that the overwhelming majority of inbound or internal rail passengers in the GTHA travels to locations which are faster and more conveniently reached from Union Station than Summerhill station, service to Summerhill can only be ever justified if the stations served by such a service already have frequent service to Union and therefore the trains to Summerhill can be ignored by passengers wanting to travel to Union.

Let’s say that the Milton Corridor is served by a train every 10 minutes to Union Station and these trains are reaching their capacity limit, then running 2 or 3 trains per hour via Summerhill could be a good way to relieve Union Station and to provide passengers heading towards York region or Agincourt with a more convenient alternative. Conversely, unless we are approaching Shinkansen-levels of frequencies for HSR (e.g., a train every 3-10 minutes), the harm of diverting a HSR departure to go via Summerhill rather than Union will be much larger than the utility of offering an “alternative downtown station”.

As much as a Summerhill station is a very valid and pertinent routing option to discuss in a “GO expansion” thread, it should have been already abundantly clear 5 pages ago that these discussions certain people here keep forcing upon us in this particular thread are a colossal waste of time and I’m increasingly struggling to conceal my disdain for those people who again and again attempt to revive and ride that dead horse.

For the sake of my mental health, could we please move all “Summerhill” discussions elsewhere? Thank you and my apologies for this rant!

 

[Northern Light]

I appreciate this, but the point is that given that the overwhelming majority of inbound or internal rail passengers in the GTHA travels to locations which are faster and more conveniently reached from Union Station than Summerhill station, service to Summerhill can only be ever justified if the stations served by such a service already have frequent service to Union and therefore the trains to Summerhill can be ignored by passengers wanting to travel to Union.

I got that, didn't see a need to repeat your well articulated points.

As much as a Summerhill station is a very valid and pertinent routing option to discuss in a “GO expansion” thread, it should have been already abundantly clear 5 pages ago that these discussions certain people here keep forcing upon us in this particular thread are a colossal waste of time and I’m increasingly struggling to conceal my disdain for those people who again and again attempt to revive and ride that dead horse.

We have this problem in many threads, unfortunately, particularly transit threads. I had to exit the EELRT thread again as certain posters who have no insight into what is planned, what is modelled, or what is feasible, just repeat their fantasies which they insist have equal or greater weight to those views shared by people who know a great deal more.

Its very frustrating to see these, if they were asked as honest, respectful questions..........once.........fine.

If they brought forward some novel information to consider, great.

But its frustrating to see stuff dragged out ad nauseum, and not for the first time.

Some posters are thoughtful and well intentioned, and its not possible on long threads for everyone to realize that horse was previously beaten while dead last year...... LOL

But the failure to apply at least some deference to the posters with greater insight.......is taxing.

 

[MisterF]

You are assuming that Trudeau offers the same variety of flights as Pearson, when in reality, many Carribean or Central/Southern American destinations are much better connected from YYZ than YUL. Therefore, nobody is going to take the train from Peterborough or Ottawa to Dorval, just to fly and transfer at YYZ, but they very well take a direct train to Pearson, as they seek to minimize the total travel time and the number of transfers rather than just the travel time on the train. Also, 30-60 minutes is a normal frequency for airport shuttles, as passengers are much more tolerable of additional waiting times for the 1-2 leisure flights they do per year than for the 2-5 commutes they do to their office each week.

There are also other considerations: given the intense pressure to minimize dwell times at Union Station, extending the services to Pearson would increase the throughput at Union Station.

What's more, people from Ottawa and Montreal would also take the train to Pearson. Lots of people take short connecting flights from these cities to Pearson and HSR is well positioned to replace much of this market. Some people would no doubt go in the opposite direction too if the line is integrated with Trudeau since it's better connected to some parts of the world than Pearson.

 

[PL1]

A bit of a fantasy re: a train station at Pearson: look at what Schiphol has. It would likely require tunnels. *If* this was ever done, it would take a long time to complete. Perhaps this could be integrated into a transit hub at (e.g.) Viscount. (I can't recall what that plan/fantasy is)

 

[Northern Light]

A bit of a fantasy re: a train station at Pearson: look at what Schiphol has. It would likely require tunnels. *If* this was ever done, it would take a long time to complete. Perhaps this could be integrated into a transit hub at (e.g.) Viscount. (I can't recall what that plan/fantasy is)

This is exactly the model being considered.

Do not read that as a physical design, just an inspiration/jumping off point.

 

[crs1026]

A bit of a fantasy re: a train station at Pearson: look at what Schiphol has. It would likely require tunnels. *If* this was ever done, it would take a long time to complete. Perhaps this could be integrated into a transit hub at (e.g.) Viscount. (I can't recall what that plan/fantasy is)

The interesting part being, Eurostar does not stop at Schiphol, although many regional and intercity trains do. Charles de Gaulle is perhaps the better case study, with TGV trains stopping there.
The decision for our HSR is best judged on its own merits. HSR should not replace UP, but there may be a market for one-seat service from east of Toronto if there are sufficient riders wanting to connect to flights, and if HSR were ever to run right thru Toronto towards London (that had always been a bridge too far for VIA - but don’t rule it out, just as many Italian Railways trains now run through Rome from Naples to points north.)
UP, even with its several stops, is a very speedy and convenient service - but I would not underestimate the greater appeal of a one seat ride to Pearson. My mind is not made up on how big a market that is, hopefully VIA or Alto would have studied that more scientifically.

- Paul

 

[rbt]

You are assuming that Trudeau offers the same variety of flights as Pearson, when in reality, many Carribean or Central/Southern American destinations are much better connected from YYZ than YUL.

I'm assuming the flights offered at an airport are flexible and will change to match demand of the adjusted catchment area. Trudeau does not have infrastructure restrictions; it's just a matter of flight profit. So yeah, I am presuming Air Canada at Trudeau will offer more selection of flights; there's plenty of room for flight expansion.

Perhaps UPX and HSR will get a cross-platform transfer at Union and an integrated ticket; I'm not expecting much beyond that. There will be some connections done that way but I wouldn't expect more than a handfull per train. Perhaps I'll be surprised.

 

[rbt]

I'm only making a point that there's enough about it that it makes sense to some people, even if not many of them are here on UT, and even if that still makes it wrong.

Is that factoring in the Ontario Line though? I vaguely recall Relief Line projections greatly reducing overcrowding issues, but I'm not bothering to dig it up because I don't want it to seem like I'm advocating for Summerhill to be taken too seriously.

Yes, the relief line keeps projected Yonge 2040 peak-period peak-direction demand from Eglinton to Queen close to 100% of capacity rather than well beyond. We'll probably be planning Ontario Line 2 by 2050.

 

[Urban Sky]

The interesting part being, Eurostar does not stop at Schiphol, although many regional and intercity trains do.

The Eurostar train from/to London indeed don’t stop at Schipol due to the lack of secure border facilities, but the legacy-Thalys services do stop at Schipol (at XX:26 southbound and XX:30/33 northbound)…

 

[nfitz]

The interesting part being, Eurostar does not stop at Schiphol ...

Similarly HS2 skirts Birmingham International, and is not far from Heathrow ... but there are not served. There'll be a separate 2-km people mover at BHX - and there's no reason that we couldn't do the same from Malton or Woodbine GO (2.5 km). Deflecting the straight-line alignment into Pearson (or Dorval) seems unnecessary to me. Meanwhile at Birmingham, they'll continue to provide separate services into Birmingham International station (which still has a short people mover to the terminal).

At Heathrow, HS2 passes only about 5 km north of the current Great Western mainline - but there's no plan for connection, or even a station (let alone a deflection from the greenfield alignment). The plan being that travellers from points north would backtrack into Old Oak Common and change to the Elizabeth line for a 10-minute ride with 6 stops to Heathrow Central station.

Similarly in Paris, the TGV to Lille passes about 2-km from the (edge) of Charles de Gaulle Aeroport with no stop.

 

[Sauga89]

A bit of a fantasy re: a train station at Pearson: look at what Schiphol has. It would likely require tunnels. *If* this was ever done, it would take a long time to complete. Perhaps this could be integrated into a transit hub at (e.g.) Viscount. (I can't recall what that plan/fantasy is)

I suppose that that the terminals might not always be in the same location they are now. They are a bit inconveniently located for transit, halfway between Malton GO and Renforth. Has there been any plan to move them? I imagine you could maybe build another north-south runway in the spot they are now, and build new terminals around Convair Drive, or in the infield. (I apologize if this has been said before). If you built new terminals in the infield, maybe you could combine a GO/HSR tunnel with an underground terminal link like the one in Atlanta? And maybe work in a Mississauga city centre GO diversion too?

(EDIT: or just have a terminal link between Malton GO and an MCC GO diversion, with HSR extending to both Kitchener and MCC.)