Very true. Somewhat like what will exist/already does exist on the West Harbour/Niagara extension of the Lakeshore West line.
|
|
|
- Thread starter dunkalunk
- Start date
Very true. Somewhat like what will exist/already does exist on the West Harbour/Niagara extension of the Lakeshore West line.
crs1026
Superstar
The issue of track capacity Milton-Cambridge is significant, and it stems from today's much longer trains. The Galt Sub used to see a much greater number of shorter trains, but these days it's actually more constrained than ever despite fewer trains. Trains now regularly can be 10,000 to 12,000 feet. There is only one place between Milton and Wolverton where a freight train of that length could be stopped without blocking crossings, and right now that location is single track. While there is a siding at Puslinch (6225 feet) and a decommissioned siding at Killean (6110 feet), running a GO train west of Milton would mean holding all opposing freight traffic of over 6200 feet at Wolverton for a window of roughly one hour prior to the train leaving Milton until shortly before the GO clears at Galt. Extending the Puslinch siding is physically possible but that shaves the timings only partly. And that's with only one freight train in the area. Assume two freights, and the whole problem grows significantly. Assume two GO trains an hour apart in the peak, and the "hold" window gets longer. That's painful for CP's freight.
Allowing the oversize freight to hold the mainline at a siding, letting the GO arrive and enter the siding, and then moving the freight on until the GO can come out the other end....well, that's how CN handles the Canadian out west. We know how well that works.
The issue east of Milton is a little different, ie it's the problem of not being able to run counter-peak trains during the GO peak.
So, regardless of bypass or not, there's no way to reach Cambridge on the Galt Sub without adding track, and/or grade separations.
- Paul
Allowing the oversize freight to hold the mainline at a siding, letting the GO arrive and enter the siding, and then moving the freight on until the GO can come out the other end....well, that's how CN handles the Canadian out west. We know how well that works.
The issue east of Milton is a little different, ie it's the problem of not being able to run counter-peak trains during the GO peak.
So, regardless of bypass or not, there's no way to reach Cambridge on the Galt Sub without adding track, and/or grade separations.
- Paul
Last edited:
muller877
Senior Member
Paul, thanks for the simple summary of the issues. We knew there were capacity constraints but your explanation really explains it well.
So once they get by Milton the basically have to double track almost all the way plus eliminate some at-grade crossings. And manage the doubling of tracks through some very environmentally sensitive land. Not fun.
KevinT
Active Member
Thanks Paul, that's excellent info! So the good old Google Earth ruler shows that the siding in Puslinch could be stretched to almost 16,000 feet if extended from Concession Road 7 to Concession Road 9, but that's assuming you can get 2 tracks under the Highway 6 overpass without having to rebuild it. A very big if!
crs1026
Superstar
An extended Puslinch siding would help a lot, but it's still a long way from Puslinch to either Milton or Wolverton.
Right now westbound trains must hold in Milton until eastbounds get close to the Junction. They used to hold further west, at the ski hill, but they no longer fit between the crossings up there. The closest long segment of track with grade separation is in Milton itself. The area around Guelph Jct is developing, and blocking crossings just isn't on up there, especially with the new fire hall serving both sides of the tracks hence needing the level crossings not blocked.
If it were my railroad I would be asking GO to pay to reactivate the Killean siding and push it further east, so that eastward freight trains trains could meet each other and GO east of Cambridge instead of waiting on the bridge or on the Orrs Lake grade. That would require at least two new grade separations, so not cheap.
I don't know exactly what CP's official ask might be, but I would bet CP would want even more flexibility (ie more track) before allowing GO on that territory. If you look at the design for Bowmanville GO, and for the extensions beyond Richmond Hill, full double track seems to be the solution.
- Paul
Right now westbound trains must hold in Milton until eastbounds get close to the Junction. They used to hold further west, at the ski hill, but they no longer fit between the crossings up there. The closest long segment of track with grade separation is in Milton itself. The area around Guelph Jct is developing, and blocking crossings just isn't on up there, especially with the new fire hall serving both sides of the tracks hence needing the level crossings not blocked.
If it were my railroad I would be asking GO to pay to reactivate the Killean siding and push it further east, so that eastward freight trains trains could meet each other and GO east of Cambridge instead of waiting on the bridge or on the Orrs Lake grade. That would require at least two new grade separations, so not cheap.
I don't know exactly what CP's official ask might be, but I would bet CP would want even more flexibility (ie more track) before allowing GO on that territory. If you look at the design for Bowmanville GO, and for the extensions beyond Richmond Hill, full double track seems to be the solution.
- Paul
KevinT
Active Member
Is Killean the siding that starts east of Beverley St in Cambridge and dead-ends before crossing Clyde Rd? (If I just google for Killean ON I get something west of Woodstock.)
If so I only see about 6,400 feet there, unless you twin the bridges over Beverley St and a creek to extend it to the Cambridge station/junction trackage. That would net you about 10,600 feet of passing track.
Edit to Add: Sorry, my previous search hit on Killean Acres in Ingersoll. I found Killean ON now between Cambridge and Puslinch, but don't spot any siding remains visible there in satellite views.
If so I only see about 6,400 feet there, unless you twin the bridges over Beverley St and a creek to extend it to the Cambridge station/junction trackage. That would net you about 10,600 feet of passing track.
Edit to Add: Sorry, my previous search hit on Killean Acres in Ingersoll. I found Killean ON now between Cambridge and Puslinch, but don't spot any siding remains visible there in satellite views.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Question(s) for Paul.
Is there a regulatory limit for train length?
If so, on what basis were longer trains permitted? Was any weight given to the impact on rail service or associated infrastructure such as crossings?
I ask this, because I recall a modest debate some years ago when longer trucks were permitted, if i recollect, going from 48 ft to 53ft max. length.
Anyone who has watched the 53fters try to navigate many smaller urban intersections and private driveways knows this has proven to be challenging, both operationally, and from a safety point of view.
It has also led to pressure accommodate larger turning radii, wider commercial driveways, traffic lanes and highway ramps.
That in turn is an externalized cost for the trucking industry and their clients, shifted on to governments and sometimes developers.
I just sometimes wonder if these complex interactions are given full advance thought and considerations when trucking firms (or railways) say 'lets go bigger'
crs1026
Superstar
Killean is the second track that begins just southwest of Clyde Road, yes. The switch at the east end was removed a year or two back, so now it is just a secondary track which is only accessed from the west end. It was rated for a maximum train length of 6110 feet, the measured distance between the switch ends would be a little more.
Note that it crossed Dobbie Road at grade. Bond St further west is also a level crossing. These two level crossings set the limits for how long one could have a siding without having to add new grade separation. (Assuming there was a bridge widening in the middle)
I don't know of a regulatory maximum length for trains. There are industry standards for loaded weight and size of individual cars. Every car on the North American system has to be capable of going anywhere on the whole network, so there can't be extra-wide or extra-heavy cars. This regulation is more by the industry itself than by government.
What is regulated is the length of time that a train can block a public railway crossing before the train has to be broken into pieces so cars can get through. That's what's at stake here on the Galt Sub. Taking a train apart only to join it up again is costly and wastes a lot of time, so you don't design the track to stop a train on a crossing unless you have no choice, or if something breaks. The trains on the Galt Sub are now longer than the gaps between roads. So they have to keep moving, or else!
The real limits on train length are practical. Extra length makes it harder to keep the brakes pressurised (there are regulatory standards regarding brakeline pressure). A longer train takes more yard track to put it together at the beginning of the run, and to tie it up at end of run. When something needs done at the rear, it takes a lot longer for a crew member to walk all the way back. And, railway lines aren't totally flat, so a train that is very long may be going uphill at one end and downhill at the other end.... at some point the accordion forces can pull the train apart. Railroads are always trying to solve these challenges - eg by using mid train locomotives. So the railway will generally have guidelines for length for each line or subdivision. But aspirationally, the sky is the limit. If they could run them longer they would, to minimise labour costs and to some degree fuel costs.
The siding lengths were set back in the days of cabooses when trains were shorter. Only some sidings have been lengthened, and operating workarounds have been put in place to deal with the resulting headaches. It is possible to get two 10,000 foot trains to pass each other on a line that only has 6,000 foot sidings, but it's no way to run efficiently. Railways will stand on their heads to avoid spending capital. It's good for the operating ratio, apparently, but it's hugely inflexible.
- Paul
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
smallspy
Senior Member
Yes and no. Transport Canada has issued temporary maximum train lengths on specific lines in specific cases (CN being limited to 8000ft without a DPU on the Kingston Sub several years ago is the most memorable). But there is no permanent maximum as encoded by the regulations.
The only real debate about train length that I've ever found was during the phasing out of cabooses on freights. There was some concern about radio equipment and its effective range for smaller devices such as FREDs. As the technology has improved, this has become a non-issue.
At the railroad level, the only maximum that they have is what they can reasonably handle at their terminals. A standard type E coupler is rated for 350,000lbs of pull - which while it sounds like a lot, isn't really once you factor in the weight of a fully laden car (286,000lbs is the current standard maximum, although a move is on to increase that to 315,000lbs), the drag from things like uphills and curves. Start adding DPUs to the train, and the length and weight of train that can be handled safely - and still by one crew - is much, much larger.
Or the more recent debate to allow double-53s.
And yet, they have become the de-facto standard for both trailer and domestic container length.
Indeed. This isn't an issue for a train however, as its turning radii is a function of speed, rather than length.
And because a train is built of many smaller building-blocks - the cars themselves - there is no issue with breaking a train down to its minimum increment as necessary.
In fact, the basic way of operating a railway - picking up a car, transferring it to a sorting facility (such as a hump yard), combining it with other cars headed in the same direction, running it to another sorting facility, and then dropping off the car at its destination - hasn't changed since the advent of "modern railroading" in the 1930s or so. The cars have grown a bit bigger and heavier, and the trains hauling them bigger as well, but on much of the same infrastructure as it was then.
Unfortunately for the railroads, it's been difficult for them to externalize many of those costs, so they've had to fine efficiencies elsewhere. Longer trains are one such efficiency. Faster trains are another.
Always. The railways are run on such a tight margin that every single decision is measured and weighed against every other one. They don't take the decision to spend money - on anything, really - lightly.
As an example, CP is currently undergoing a program to heavily rebuild a series of 20 year old locomotives, rather than buy new ones. One of the changes being made to these locos is that they are removing the radial - steerable - trucks that were underneath them and replacing them with rigid ones. They know how much more maintenance intensive the radial trucks are, and weighed it against how much less damage they do to the track and the extra couple of percent of tractive effort they produced - and found that replacing them with rigid trucks would still save them money in the long run.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Toronto1834
Active Member
Not necessarily surprising, but Markham is set to put opposition to the Missing Link to a vote on Monday. It seems they have no problem with a freight rail bypass between Bramalea and Milton for CN freight, which would enable improved service on the Kitchener Line, but oppose rerouting CP Milton Line freight through York Region.
http://www2.markham.ca/markham/ccbs/indexfile/Agendas/2018/Development%20Services/pl180129/Missing%20Rail%20Link%20Update.pdf
http://www2.markham.ca/markham/ccbs/indexfile/Agendas/2018/Development%20Services/pl180129/Missing%20Rail%20Link%20Update.pdf
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Wonder why. Only one increases freight traffic through their neck of the woods.
Perhaps Metrolinx should tie future RER works on the Stouffville Line to them not objecting to a full build-out of the Missing Link. Or if they object, threaten to pull some of the funding from the Stouffville Line upgrades to help pay for Milton and Kitchener line upgrades that wouldn't be needed if the Missing Link was built.
Yes, I can understand why having more freight trains may not be a good thing, but a) it would run along the existing bypass, which was purposely built as a bypass, and b) sometimes you have to look past the end of your own nose to see the bigger picture.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Given the push by Mississauga and Milton, it's probably to make their position known and to get out ahead of the matter. Mississauga has a dedicated page advocating for CP's involvement and the Mayor mentions it often.
Northern Light
Superstar
Thank you for the thorough response! Much appreciated.
Something I was thinking of w/the issue of infrastructure costs triggered by longer trains, was sidings.
Clearly many haven't been expanded due to longer trains, I'm guessing its not that much of an operational impediment?
I was thinking at some point the thought that sidings that were only good for 6,000ft trains might have to be doubled in length, and in some cases that might require new grade-separated crossings, might have posed a real cost-barrier to longer trains, but I'm gathering that's not the case.