[Bordercollie]

Why would it take 20 years?

Design phase is likely two years.
Then you need to do an environment assessment two more years.
Get funding two more years.
Order and have the TBM'S delivered. One year
Once the tunnel is dug probably three years to get it operational.

That's ten from now assuming that the project has the green light.

Bridge upgrades could be done in two years. For a few million dollars. Tunnel is probably 5B.

 

[nfitz]

Design phase is likely two years.
Then you need to do an environment assessment two more years.
Get funding two more years.
Order and have the TBM'S delivered. One year
Once the tunnel is dug probably three years to get it operational.

That's ten from now assuming that the project has the green light.

What takes the other 10 years, to get up to 20 years?

An EA doesn't take 2 years with the current rules - particularly for such minor environmental changes. Funding also doesn't take 2 years for a relatively small project.

Would they even use TBMs? Given how short the tunnel is, wouldn't they use underground mining? They may have used TBMs for the 840-metre long Thorold Tunnel. But it's probably more comparable to the 200-metre long Highway 140 tunnel, just east of Welland, given how narrow the canal is at that point.

 

[Bordercollie]

What takes the other 10 years, to get up to 20 years?

An EA doesn't take 2 years with the current rules - particularly for such minor environmental changes. Funding also doesn't take 2 years for a relatively small project.

Would they even use TBMs? Given how short the tunnel is, wouldn't they use underground mining? They may have used TBMs for the 840-metre long Thorold Tunnel. But it's probably more comparable to the 200-metre long Highway 140 tunnel, just east of Welland, given how narrow the canal is at that point.

Considering that this is a pipe dream, it's going to take ten years for it to even get enough traction to actually think about building it.

How else are you going to build a tunnel under a canal? And how is that a small project?

 

[ShonTron]

Considering that this is a pipe dream, it's going to take ten years for it to even get enough traction to actually think about building it.

How else are you going to build a tunnel under a canal? And how is that a small project?

A tunnel here will also have the problem of introducing a longer and/or steeper grade up the Escarpment on the east side.

It can be done – especially if it was designed only for passenger trains – but that will further increase the cost significantly.

 

[Sauga89]

So, I really like this discussion, and I have a couple questions of my own, but I feel like this isn't the thread for it. I also feel like the question of more frequent and faster trains to Niagara comes up a lot in other threads. Could I suggest a new thread entitled "Better Niagara Trains (Speculation) Including Bayview Junction changes, grade separations, canal bridges & tunnels, electrification and new stations". Then Mods perhaps we could move the last 2 pages of this thread over into the new thread to get us started? Thoughts @ShonTron?

 

[crs1026]

So, I really like this discussion, and I have a couple questions of my own, but I feel like this isn't the thread for it. I also feel like the question of more frequent and faster trains to Niagara comes up a lot in other threads. Could I suggest a new thread entitled "Better Niagara Trains (Speculation) Including Bayview Junction changes, grade separations, canal bridges & tunnels, electrification and new stations". Then Mods perhaps we could move the last 2 pages of this thread over into the new thread to get us started? Thoughts @ShonTron?

I would suggest the discussion be framed as an Ontario Regional Network - of which Niagara is a leading candidate - but might also encompass Sarnia, Kitchener-Guelph, Cobourg-Belleville, possibly Toronto-North Bay/Sudbury. All things that are greatly needed but things Ottawa seems to want to sidestep and Ontario is not yet aligned to.

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

I’m thinking about this. There’s probably something to be said for a new thread that covers the area between the GO construction thread and the general foamers’ fantasies thread.

 

[Sauga89]

I would suggest the discussion be framed as an Ontario Regional Network - of which Niagara is a leading candidate - but might also encompass Sarnia, Kitchener-Guelph, Cobourg-Belleville, possibly Toronto-North Bay/Sudbury. All things that are greatly needed but things Ottawa seems to want to sidestep and Ontario is not yet aligned to.

- Paul

I'm not against a regional network thread, but I worry the Niagara discussion would get lost in the shuffle. Currently, Niagara train discussions seem to float between the GO services thread, the GO construction thread, the General railways thread, the fantasy maps thread, and other threads like this one. It would be nice for it to have its own thread to anchor the discussion in one place. Adding a network thread could just spread the topic to yet another thread without really giving it a home.

 

[crs1026]

The other thread that might suit is GO 2.0, as it's a bit speculative anyways (so far) and relates to extending GO beyond its GO Expansion role.

Niagara has some unique aspects (ie the tunnel) but there are also commonalities (ie CN)

The mods know best.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

How else are you going to build a tunnel under a canal? And how is that a small project?

You could use the same way you dug deep tunnels in the 19th century, before there's such a thing as a TBM.

They were kilometres long. We are only dealing with a couple of hundred metres.

Though for such short distances, it's not dissimilar to the underground mining they are currently doing at the new Bathurst-King and Spadina-Queen subway stations. Those must be about 150-metres long, and not using TBMs or shields. But it will depend on soil types.

A tunnel here will also have the problem of introducing a longer and/or steeper grade up the Escarpment on the east side.

Yes, that could complicate things.

I wonder if with modern construction techniques, you could push a pre-fab structure under the canal, during the off-season. Probably not.

Alternatively, if the canal was drained, how long would it take to build the tunnels as cut-and-cover, if they went all-out.

There's only two 24-metre "canals" here at Lock 4. I wonder if it's feasible to close them one-by-one while they excavate a cut-and-cover tunnel sequentially for each lock. I don't know if that would disrupt canal operations too much.

We are definitely in the wrong thread though. The generic railways thread would work as well.

 

[innsertnamehere]

A tunnel here will also have the problem of introducing a longer and/or steeper grade up the Escarpment on the east side.

It can be done – especially if it was designed only for passenger trains – but that will further increase the cost significantly.

Personally I always pictured "fixing" the Welland Canal crossing with a bridge / overpass, not tunnel. Specific reasons include:
1. There is an absolute ton of space in the area to build it,
2. the grades work in it's favour of not having to be particularly large given the lock system adjacent to the current bridge giving the existing rail line a "natural" elevated position if the bridge is built slightly to the north, and just generally a far lower expense to construct and a lack of sensitive land uses nearby,
3. the grades allowing for a much shorter ramp on the east side of the Canal.
4. The excess amount of space would probably allow a large chunk of it to be built as an embankment, instead of an actual (much more expensive) structure.


Using a 2% railway grade, the embankment would probably begin somewhere around the Hartzel Road overpass, include a small bridge structure over the Welland Canal, then a smaller embankment on the east side to meet existing railway grades to the east close to the Seaway Haulage Road.

Orange is embankment track, green is the embankment itself, red is actual bridge structure:

It would have the bonus of grade-separating Glendale Avenue too.

Would need a lot of fill soil, but Metrolinx has no shortage of that from other projects..

 

[smallspy]

Using a 2% railway grade, the embankment would probably begin somewhere around the Hartzel Road overpass, include a small bridge structure over the Welland Canal, then a smaller embankment on the east side to meet existing railway grades to the east close to the Seaway Haulage Road.

A 2% grade is not feasible for a freight alignment, especially on something that will be replacing an existing alignment. 1% is seen as the maximum if a grade can't be avoided.

Dan

 

[Metroscapes]

Personally I always pictured "fixing" the Welland Canal crossing with a bridge / overpass, not tunnel. Specific reasons include:
1. There is an absolute ton of space in the area to build it,
2. the grades work in it's favour of not having to be particularly large given the lock system adjacent to the current bridge giving the existing rail line a "natural" elevated position if the bridge is built slightly to the north, and just generally a far lower expense to construct and a lack of sensitive land uses nearby,
3. the grades allowing for a much shorter ramp on the east side of the Canal.
4. The excess amount of space would probably allow a large chunk of it to be built as an embankment, instead of an actual (much more expensive) structure.


Using a 2% railway grade, the embankment would probably begin somewhere around the Hartzel Road overpass, include a small bridge structure over the Welland Canal, then a smaller embankment on the east side to meet existing railway grades to the east close to the Seaway Haulage Road.

Orange is embankment track, green is the embankment itself, red is actual bridge structure:
View attachment 650051


It would have the bonus of grade-separating Glendale Avenue too.

Would need a lot of fill soil, but Metrolinx has no shortage of that from other projects..

I like an overpass idea too but the height would be astronomical, if we use the Garden City Skyway as a proxy. That bridge is 40 metres at its tallest point above the canal. the bridge is probably about 8-10 metres elevated already. If we're generous and say they've got 30 more metres to go, that's still a kilometre and a half to get up and down at a 2% grade. That should be enough room to get under the underpasses at Merritt St to the west and Taylor Rd to the east. So, technically feasible, but a big cost.

I'm still for establishing a tunnel, and re-directing a new GO line southeast to get closer into the city centre of Niagara Falls. But that's Sim City fantasy.

 

[Sauga89]

Personally I always pictured "fixing" the Welland Canal crossing with a bridge / overpass, not tunnel. Specific reasons include:
1. There is an absolute ton of space in the area to build it,
2. the grades work in it's favour of not having to be particularly large given the lock system adjacent to the current bridge giving the existing rail line a "natural" elevated position if the bridge is built slightly to the north, and just generally a far lower expense to construct and a lack of sensitive land uses nearby,
3. the grades allowing for a much shorter ramp on the east side of the Canal.
4. The excess amount of space would probably allow a large chunk of it to be built as an embankment, instead of an actual (much more expensive) structure.


Using a 2% railway grade, the embankment would probably begin somewhere around the Hartzel Road overpass, include a small bridge structure over the Welland Canal, then a smaller embankment on the east side to meet existing railway grades to the east close to the Seaway Haulage Road.

Orange is embankment track, green is the embankment itself, red is actual bridge structure:
View attachment 650051


It would have the bonus of grade-separating Glendale Avenue too.

Would need a lot of fill soil, but Metrolinx has no shortage of that from other projects..

Interesting idea. I imagine you would have to close the existing bridge to build it though, which I doubt CN would like. Perhaps if a bypass were ever built for CN Metrolinx could shut the bridge, but otherwise I can't see CN agreeing.

The current road lift bridges from what I've read have a clearance of 36.5 metres, and the current railroad bridge looks to be about 10 metres above the water line when down. Pleasure craft face a 12 metre height limit on the canal, and it would make sense if the railroad bridge didn't open for them. So your embankment would need to be 24.5 m over the current ground level at the canal. Merritt street is 1.75 km to the west, so at a 1% gradient, you could only rise 17.5 metres. I don't have a gradient profile handy to know whether or not the Merritt street crossing is naturally 7 metres higher than the current bridge, though I suppose you could theoretically rebuild the Merritt bridge if needed. With a freight bypass I suppose you could also adopt a 2% gradient for passenger trains, but either of those options would add to the expense.

Also, thank Mods for the new thread!

 

[crs1026]

Don't discard the idea of doing construction during the winter while the Canal is dewatered.

There are already road and rail tunnels under the Canal that did not demand TBMs or excessively deep shafts.

I'm not a structural engineer, but I can imagine techniques that would line the canal bed sufficiently to enable mining underneath. If the excavation were shallow, the gradient problems would be that much less.

Whether that could be done with the topography where the line requires is a different matter, perhaps.

- Paul