[denfromoakvillemilton]

All the information I have through conversations is that CP is resistant. Others may have heard different information. So, time will tell if they decide to join. Going by memory, I think steveintoronto feels CP will come to the table as part of a larger deal that'd include federal money. Apologies if I'm misremembering his view.

So what is the better option at this point? Double track to Milton or the Missising, and which would be faster.

 

[steveintoronto]

I mentioned it a while back, but I had heard when it was first floated, CP was on board and CN was resistant based on the thinking that CP would continue on the Halton and York subs. As the scope has changed and further discussions have occurred (including the Agreement-in-Principle with CN), that may have changed, but I couldn't speak to it.

Yeah, what we hear publicly is two cats fighting. Behind closed doors, with an adult in the room with a massive stick (The various Railway and Relocation and Crossings Acts et al) the dialog is quickly going to get down to business. The Feds are mandated to pay for any disruption they may cause by dictating the Act, and the lawyers in attendance will duly note what they are owed to make whatever needs to happen happen.

The question isn't 'if it can be arranged' by the Feds, it will be, the question is the funding model, and how that will manifest. It looks like a real job for the Investment/Infrastructure Bank, since they will assume the risk that CP and CN would shy away from, and assess those costs to the overhead traffic using the Link. Most likely CN and CP will be major investors in the scheme, but it would be apt that the Regions, the Province and the Feds all have a stake, and therefore members of the board. I can't see this working without being a singular entity, like TTR (and what Union Station was originally)(which actually had more than GTR and CP originally)

 

[crs1026]

So what is the better option at this point? Double track to Milton or the Missising, and which would be faster.

There's no doubt that CP could be enticed/incented to accept. The trackage that exists would be quite sufficient for 15 minute 2WAD provided no express service is contemplated.

The question is, when will QP have enough money. The CP Portion of the Bypass is longer and the real estate more valuable. Building both CN and CP at once might be prohibitive.

CP continues to improve track and signalling on the line, I suspect at GO's request. I take that to mean that ML still doesnt see Milton RER as a priority, and CP expecta to be using the line for a while yet.

- Paul

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

There's no doubt that CP could be enticed/incented to accept. The trackage that exists would be quite sufficient for 15 minute 2WAD provided no express service is contemplated.

The question is, when will QP have enough money. The CP Portion of the Bypass is longer and the real estate more valuable. Building both CN and CP at once might be prohibitive.

CP continues to improve track and signalling on the line, I suspect at GO's request. I take that to mean that ML still doesnt see Milton RER as a priority, and CP expecta to be using the line for a while yet.

- Paul

Yup. I agree. I think Patrick Brown needs to make this an issue in the election. Promise all day service on all corridors.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Many thanks for that, will listen, albeit I question his sense of context, will clarify after listening.

Edit: Quick note, the headline in itself gives pause:
2-way, all-day GO still 10 years off, despite boost from feds

2nd Edit to Add: Interviewer asked all the pertinent questions he could without pushing it too far. I'm surprised at the answer being "Mount Pleasant" and not "Bramalea".

I see problems...or the story isn't fully correct.

Posted this in GO Construction but thought it would make a little more sense here.

The Kitchener Centre MP commented on the federal investment for the Kitchener Line:

"Saini noted new track will be built to help separate freight and commuter train traffic, in order to speed up passenger travel. He said the work is needed along the whole line as Metrolinx moves toward electrification."

Full interview here. Interesting use of the word "separated". I'm just posting the interview. Not speculating or commenting on it at this point.

Either this story is wrong or the Liberals have mislead people again about timelines.

 

[drum118]

So what is the better option at this point? Double track to Milton or the Missising, and which would be faster.

Doubling track the Milton Line will be faster and cheaper.

If Wynn stay with her platform for this line, it was to be 100% completed by 2021 including the flyunder at the Humber River and a few grade separation for About $2 Billion. Still the best option that would see a 4 track corridor with CP using the south side 2 tracks and 2 electrify tracks for GO RER. The Streetville yard would be partly under the wires, but is used for mostly hopper cars.

You add the missing 3rd track at Brampton downtown that will see that track added to the north side and add a 4th to the west to Georgetown since there is room to do it. Part of Mount Pleasant Station is all ready 4 tracks. The question then becomes, do you add the 4th track bridge over the Credit River or stay with 3 tracks?? Georgetown stations needs to be rebuilt and would see less trains store overnight there.

 

[Allandale25]

You add the missing 3rd track at Brampton downtown that will see that track added to the north side and add a 4th to the west to Georgetown since there is room to do it. Part of Mount Pleasant Station is all ready 4 tracks. The question then becomes, do you add the 4th track bridge over the Credit River or stay with 3 tracks?? Georgetown stations needs to be rebuilt and would see less trains store overnight there.

As I've raised before, it's not a sure thing that the third track through downtown Brampton would be added to the north side. The October 2014 documents from GO which I've previously posted indicate the track would be on the south side, which would avoid moving the historic Brampton Station building. You'll note in the recent announcement of the fed money for the Kitchener Line that some of it will be used for "station modifications", which is referenced in the October 2014 study. Until we see something official, I don't think the location is settled.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Doubling track the Milton Line will be faster and cheaper.

If Wynn stay with her platform for this line, it was to be 100% completed by 2021 including the flyunder at the Humber River and a few grade separation for About $2 Billion. Still the best option that would see a 4 track corridor with CP using the south side 2 tracks and 2 electrify tracks for GO RER. The Streetville yard would be partly under the wires, but is used for mostly hopper cars.

You add the missing 3rd track at Brampton downtown that will see that track added to the north side and add a 4th to the west to Georgetown since there is room to do it. Part of Mount Pleasant Station is all ready 4 tracks. The question then becomes, do you add the 4th track bridge over the Credit River or stay with 3 tracks?? Georgetown stations needs to be rebuilt and would see less trains store overnight there.

Why am I not surprised. Just like @crs1026 said, if the station was on the north this would be less of an issue. 2 billion is not a lot for the 3rd busiest line in the system. The PCs need to make an issue out of this during the election. For Brampton, you add the 4th track. Create as much capacity as possible. The support is there for 1/2 hr service in the future.

As I've raised before, it's not a sure thing that the third track through downtown Brampton would be added to the north side. The October 2014 documents from GO which I've previously posted indicate the track would be on the south side, which would avoid moving the historic Brampton Station building. You'll note in the recent announcement of the fed money for the Kitchener Line that some of it will be used for "station modifications", which is referenced in the October 2014 study. Until we see something official, I don't think the location is settled.

I think they just want the north side to add more parking and a new station building.

 

[drum118]

As I've raised before, it's not a sure thing that the third track through downtown Brampton would be added to the north side. The October 2014 documents from GO which I've previously posted indicate the track would be on the south side, which would avoid moving the historic Brampton Station building. You'll note in the recent announcement of the fed money for the Kitchener Line that some of it will be used for "station modifications", which is referenced in the October 2014 study. Until we see something official, I don't think the location is settled.

You have no room on the south side to put in the 3rd track as you have an office building in the way, the south platform, require the street to be reduce to a single lane. Then you got other buildings in the way to the east.

Far cheaper to relocate the existing VIA Station and putting the 3rd track on the north side. It has been part of past views and reports to happen to improve the station area. Even the Hurontario LRT plan call for the station being move north for future expansion..

If you want the 3rd track on the south side, you will have to tear everything down by the current station, as the tracks would be inches/feet away from them. That includes the bus terminal. The existing space there now is the stair to Main St that not wide enough for a track.

 

[drum118]

Why am I not surprised. Just like @crs1026 said, if the station was on the north this would be less of an issue. 2 billion is not a lot for the 3rd busiest line in the system. The PCs need to make an issue out of this during the election. For Brampton, you add the 4th track. Create as much capacity as possible. The support is there for 1/2 hr service in the future.

I think they just want the north side to add more parking and a new station building.

The only way you can have 4 tracks in Downtown Brampton is to tear the area down including historical buildings and don't support that. That all the way east of Queen St to the west of the junction. Even creating grade separation for the 2 existing will require road closing and tearing buildings down.

You will only have a mile of 3 tracks with 4 tracks on both sides of it.

 

[Allandale25]

I would have assumed that if there was "no room" for the track on the south side, the study I referenced would have mentioned that. It did not. There was no information in that study that suggested the bus terminal was too close. Maybe that wasn't part of the scope but one would think the consultants would have flagged that as a significant issue. Given the third track is already on the south side except for this small section in downtown Brampton (Peel to just west of OBRY), the report suggested it would be easier and smoother for rail operations to continue it rather than shift the track alignment. Maybe the Transport Canada rules have tightened since then about crashwalls and proximities to buildings. Happy to see any links on the subject.

Given that Metrolinx bought a lot (all?) of the properties on the George-Railroad-Elizabeth-Nelson block reducing Railroad Street to one lane or dead ending it might be less of a concern now.

Yes, I've seen the HMLRT drawing you are referring to came before the October 2014 study. If you have copies of any of the "past views and reports" I'd of course be interested to see them. It's not that I want the track to be located on the north or south, I'm merely pointing out what I've seen in the past. We really won't know until a study is released.

You have no room on the south side to put in the 3rd track as you have an office building in the way, the south platform, require the street to be reduce to a single lane. Then you got other buildings in the way to the east.

Far cheaper to relocate the existing VIA Station and putting the 3rd track on the north side and has been part of past views and reports to happen to improve the station area. Even the Hurontario LRT plan call for the station being move north for future expansion..

If you want the 3rd track on the south side, you will have to tear everything down by the current station, as the tracks would be inches/feet away from them. That includes the bus terminal. The existing space there now is the stair to Main St that not wide enough for a track.

 

[Allandale25]

Also, by way of background, here's a timeline for Metrolinx's statements on the Kitchener Line through Brampton:

• September 2015 in a Board presentation: "Dialogue underway with CN concerning additional infrastructure requirements for RER between Bramalea and Georgetown GO stations" and the following in the Capital report: "The feasibility study for a third track on the Halton Subdivision was completed in September 2015."
• June 2015 (presentation): "Kitchener Corridor additional track UP spur to Georgetown (mostly CN owned-to be commenced)".
• March 2015 (presentation): "EA for rail corridor expansion to enable increased frequency and bidirectional service; Expected to start in Fall 2015."

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The only way you can have 4 tracks in Downtown Brampton is to tear the area down including historical buildings and don't support that. That all the way east of Queen St to the west of the junction. Even creating grade separation for the 2 existing will require road closing and tearing buildings down.

You will only have a mile of 3 tracks with 4 tracks on both sides of it.

Interesting. So would 4 tracks be overkill? Because it looks like CN wants it for increased service.

I would have assumed that if there was "no room" for the track on the south side, the study I referenced would have mentioned that. It did not. There was no information in that study that suggested the bus terminal was too close. Maybe that wasn't part of the scope but one would think the consultants would have flagged that as a significant issue. Given the third track is already on the south side except for this small section in downtown Brampton (Peel to just west of OBRY), the report suggested it would be easier and smoother for rail operations to continue it rather than shift the track alignment. Maybe the Transport Canada rules have tightened since then about crashwalls and proximities to buildings. Happy to see any links on the subject.

Given that Metrolinx bought a lot (all?) of the properties on the George-Railroad-Elizabeth-Nelson block reducing Railroad Street to one lane or dead ending it might be less of a concern now.

Yes, I've seen the HMLRT drawing you are referring to came before the October 2014 study. If you have copies of any of the "past views and reports" I'd of course be interested to see them. It's not that I want the track to be located on the north or south, I'm merely pointing out what I've seen in the past. We really won't know until a study is released.

Also, by way of background, here's a timeline for Metrolinx's statements on the Kitchener Line through Brampton:

• September 2015 in a Board presentation: "Dialogue underway with CN concerning additional infrastructure requirements for RER between Bramalea and Georgetown GO stations" and "The feasibility study for a third track on the Halton Subdivision was completed in September 2015."
• June 2015: "Kitchener Corridor additional track UP spur to Georgetown (mostly CN owned-to be commenced)".
• March 2015: "EA for rail corridor expansion to enable increased frequency and bidirectional service; Expected to start in Fall 2015."

Metrolinx has not been honest. Is the north or south side best for the 4th track?

 

[Allandale25]

Metrolinx has not been honest. Is the north or south side best for the 4th track?

I don't feel on this aspect it's a question of honesty, rather it's just a lack of public information and changing dynamics (IE the Agreement). We don't know if a future study will look at adding a third or fourth track and if it'll be on the north or south side. The last public study was from GO in 2014.

 

[steveintoronto]

c

The question is, when will QP have enough money.

I can't see QP putting anything into this at this time, save for what Metrolinx might have in terms of savings from not doing all the other projects that would otherwise need to be done. Even the Feds wouldn't have to put in that much, perhaps a $1B, (Maybe 2 if the final price doubles from $5B) depending on total costs. I see this being a project for the Infrastructure/Investment Bank, and private funding would be ostensibly in a ratio of 4:1. The Fed portion would guarantee the project has the potent powers of the Railway and Relocation Acts. Union Station was enabled by an act of Parliament:

With the GTR making the first agreement with the city, the GTR and the CPR reached a tentative agreement by 1905. In 1906 an act of the Federal Parliament created the Toronto Terminals Railway Company (with the CPR and the GTR each controlling half interest) with a mandate to construct a new station and rail yards south of Front Street (Figure 4).9

http://www.cnr-in-ontario.com/Reports/index.html?http://www.cnr-in-ontario.com/Reports/RSR-003.html

The CP Portion of the Bypass is longer and the real estate more valuable. Building both CN and CP at once might be prohibitive.

Under the Relocations Act, CN can be required, with compensation, to share the track that is theirs. In the event, a third track may or may not be necessary for CN to use as a service siding for local industries. CN's stretch might be acquired (perhaps even likely to be so) by the new Consortium, and then dispatched like TTR is. It would of course require state of the art signalling if it remains dual track and hosting both CN, CP and any other carrier.

Yup. I agree. I think Patrick Brown needs to make this an issue in the election. Promise all day service on all corridors.

Whoa...stranger things have happened, but I wouldn't for a moment expect that. On the other hand, Wynne is about to 'toss Toronto to the wolves' for votes in the 905 region, and is starting to do it already saying 'no' to Toronto's demands for endless project financing.

There's going to be fireworks if not flat out war come the next election. One thing I do see as possible, but it's very hard to know where Brown's real motivation is, but look for partial if not complete privatization of Metrolinx!

I wouldn't necessarily be against that, provisos pending, but wouldn't trust Brown et al to do it. I would trust (with caveats and trepidation) old school OntCons, Bill Davis style, as Metrolinx is underfunded in some respects, overfunded to the point of burning cash in others.

For the massive sums going in, we're not seeing a good yield. Some of the thinking coming out of VIA is much more aligned with where I think Metrolinx should be headed.