[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.

 

[enter username]

Assuming Ford’s missing link does create a midtown CPKC bypass, another benefit could be shortening (by ~3.5km) and straightening the Richmond Hill line as proposed for 1994. It would allow for the same 3 transfer stations (Sunnybrook Park, Thorncliffe Park and Broadview) but would require retracking the Leaside spur.

*Decided to put my reply to these posts in the GO Richmond Hill thread, which I didn’t know existed.



Some of these are good ideas. And not all that dissimilar from proposals brought up in the 80s and 90s:

1986:

View attachment 44448
https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/rhstudyjune1986.pdf

1994:

View attachment 44449
http://levyrapidtransit.ca/chapter-...d-transit-expansion-program-1992-94/#more-604

I’m fairly certain we’ll be (re)visiting many of these ideas soon enough. But one thing I can’t help dwelling on is that if we’re spending all this money on improving the Richmond Hill corridor, why not just bundle it with the Queen Subway / DRL wherever possible? If we could save several Billion dollars, fast-track the whole thing, and actually see some progress on the DRL instead of broken and empty promises – I don’t see why anyone would be against it. There's no denying the two lines have similarities that can be shared if given the opportunity. Another bonus is we could work into the plan a Redway Road extension, and possibly a Leslie Street Extension.



Ah, this makes sense. One RHDRLRER (and a proper Yonge Relief line) built from downtown to RHC in one shot. One alternative to this that I’ve been contemplating recently is dropping the Don Mills section altogether, and having the line meet the Crosstown’s Leslie stop instead. Yes, Don Mills/Eglinton is an optimal intersection to have a major intermodal transit hub - but intersecting with the Crosstown at Leslie may be better if the line could use the Leaside Spur to get from Eglinton to the RH mainline north of Lawrence. And by "better" I mean more affordable.

Obviously running a line right under Don Mills would be more preferable from a transportation and planning standpoint, but it's hard to discount a former rail corridor that parallels Don Mills and offers the chance to save ~$1bn or more. Another point is that Leslie north of Eglinton is seeing quite a bit of development, and with a potential Leslie Street Extension south to Redway Rd and (potentially) Bayview - could be a better corridor to invest in than Don Mills.

 

[Bordercollie]

Assuming Ford’s missing link does create a midtown CPKC bypass, another benefit could be shortening (by ~3.5km) and straightening the Richmond Hill line as proposed for 1994. It would allow for the same 3 transfer stations (Sunnybrook Park, Thorncliffe Park and Broadview) but would require retracking the Leaside spur.

View attachment 625105

Not sure how happy those residents will be having trains run every 15 minutes, 10m from their backyard.

 

[lenaitch]

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.

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.

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.

True, but if any proposal involves severing part of an existing right-of-way, land title would have to be addressed. The host owner (railway) could sell it or gift it or the province (MX) could expropriate it (I say that not knowing how provincial expropriation laws would apply to privately owned but federally regulated land). Otherwise, MX remains a tenant.

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.

I have to believe somebody has studied this somewhere. It has popped into my mind whenever a proposal like this comes up. If I recall, the original ALRT called for overhead catenary, which might impact safety clearances between conductors. If they had gone with linear induction there might have been problems because of . . . induction. Typically, a conductor set perpendicular isn't as subject to induction as one running parallel. Having said that, I have seen lower voltage conductors running along the same corridor as high voltage lines, so, maybe?

 

[crs1026]

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.

There are so many rail lines that parallel transmission lines that this must be a solvable phenomenon.

Interestingly, the bigger source of EMF that affects electrified railway trains is.....the railway's electrical supply itself. See here. The issues are well understood and the engineering addresses them.

- Paul

 

[MisterF]

Respectfully disagree. The bypass isn't just about improving GO service on the Kitchener line, but also improving VIA service to & from southern Ontario. Also potential future Amtrak service from Detroit and Chicago.

Assuming the bypass will also be for CP, that would also free up the CP line through Toronto to Milton, meaning the Milton line could finally get proper upgrades and a new service could be established through midtown.

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

The reason Via ran out of money is because CN was doing the actual work and inflated the costs. It then controlled what did get built, cancelling out any potential benefits for Via trains.

Obviously the part of the Halton sub that's the issue is a lot shorter so it would in theory be easier to work out a lasting solution, but I don't think I'm wrong to be skeptical.

 

[crs1026]

Assuming the bypass will also be for CP, that would also free up the CP line through Toronto to Milton, meaning the Milton line could finally get proper upgrades and a new service could be established through midtown.

True, but that only creates a justification to put CP in the bypass. The question being debated is, what justification is there to include CN, assuming there is already a solid solution to sharing the Halton Sub among CN, ML, and VIA. The argument is, it gives ML sole ownership of the entire Kitchener line.

The reason Via ran out of money is because CN was doing the actual work and inflated the costs. It then controlled what did get built, cancelling out any potential benefits for Via trains.

Obviously the part of the Halton sub that's the issue is a lot shorter so it would in theory be easier to work out a lasting solution, but I don't think I'm wrong to be skeptical.

The two options are:

• work out a sharing solution with CN (with the benefit of lessons learned in the Kingston Sub fiasco) and take the risk of having to hold them to it......or.........
• build a bypass, shift CN to the bypass and enjoy sole control of the Halton Sub.

While I appreciate the value that sole ownership provides, the question is - how much more will that bypass cost over the shared deal. We have no data, but I would speculate that the added cost (dollars plus possible legal challenge and delay) of the bypass is material. (and maybe eyepopping)

- Paul

 

[leopetr]

.... but would require retracking the Leaside spur.

Current conditions of the Leaside spur https://maps.app.goo.gl/ZVTe6Ao8PSWrLJ389