[Bordercollie]

The value is having full ownership of the entire line and taking CN out of the equation.

Don't want to have a repeat of the Kingston sub for VIA.

 

[crs1026]

The value is having full ownership of the entire line and taking CN out of the

Don't want to have a repeat of the Kingston sub for VIA.

The Kingston Sub is where VIA ran out of money and was unable to install enough track to assure its operational reliability.

I'm sure CN pointed out how much ML needed to invest in the Halton Sub to stay clear of freight trains. If ML chose to pay less, well, you get what you pay for. But we don't know.

Point being, that full investment in a reliable routing is still likely less than the cost of a bypass.

- Paul

 

[ARG1]

Excellent! People kept telling me that the proposed flyover at Georgetown would make the 407 freight bypass obsolete, but I never believed it. Even with the flyover, the freight bypass would eventually still be needed.

I can't see CN agreeing to go ahead with the 407 freight bypass if it means having to share the track with CPKC. Allowing CPKC trains to run on the Halton & York subdivisions would have a negative impact on CN operations at the Brampton Intermodal facility and the MAC yard. I don't even think they'll agree to GO trains running on this subdivision. Which is okay IMO. Just taking CN trains off the Kitchener line would be a huge boost to the passenger rail network in the GTA.

The proposed flyover at Georgetown is perfectly fine on its own... for the service levels and demand that GO would need given current plans. The way I personally see it is if Metrolinx sees it prudent to build the Missing Link, that means they're eyeing something more than just 30m service to Kitchener. The reason why the missing link was on the table at all originally is because of Ontario HSR West, and without it there wasn't that much that the Missing Link unlocked. Bringing it back means that Metrolinx wants to do some extra expansion, whether its electrification, 10m headways, or a proper extension to London.

Of course the alternative (based off the fact that this is just a tweet from Ford) is that someone told Ford this is a good idea, and MX actually isn't on board. Its simply a case of Ford spitting out whatever he thinks is cool, rather than something that makes sense or is practical.

Oh fergawshsakes.... I hope those are your creations and not an official proposal ????

The idea of adding a transit corridor to the 413 to make it more palatable sounds like.... a Ford tunnel idea. Or a ferris wheel.

Putting a freight line there, and asking CP to add those miles of roundabout (and feet of vertical elevation) when it currently has a through route.... not gonna happen.

But so very Ford.

- Paul

The 413 is being built with a fully grade separated transitway. This is locked in, and I believe it was a requirement from the federal government for approval.

That being said, diverting freight onto the 413 is very silly for reasons we have previously discussed, that I don't understand why @Bojaxs keeps bringing up.

The issue with the Milton line isn't capacity. It's over ownership of the track. We can quad track Milton line, but the line is still owned by CPKC and the train movement on the line is controlled by CPKC employees.

This isn't necessarily true. There isn't any rule/law saying that any new tracks within x meters from a corridor belongs to the owner of the original corridor. Just like how GO fully owns the GO sub between Pickering Junction and Oshawa GO, or how the Subway tracks on the YNSE that will parallel the Bala Sub will belong to Metrolinx, there is nothing stopping them from building fully dedicated tracks along the Galt Sub that are solely Metrolinx owned and operated. The GO Sub exists, we literally have a precedent for it.

 

[ARG1]

I have lost sight of exactly where the pylons run. But I do recall the Davis Government's plan to run a ITCS system along it. The routing made a lot of sense, even if it was beyond the technology of that day and a bit fanciful as to cost.

It may be Hydro doctrine not to run transit in a Hydro corridor, but if today's government is actually looking for solutions, I would give it a look.

Cost is always relative. It's a continuous right of way that doesn't impinge on CN or neighbouring landowners, roughly the right distance north of the 401 and south of Markham/Vaughan. If I were drawing a line on the map, it is in about the right place..

Doesn't need to be 12-car bilevels - if ML intends to procure a different train mode, this might be compatible.

- Paul

Did they figure out how much of a problem the electromagnetic waves from the hydro corridor are for a catenary below it? I remember that was brought up as a major concern during the ALRT days, and I'm not sure what the answer was.