[KhalilHeron]

They're not going to run trains through union and not stop. as ther article said, the preffered station location is near union. that could mean a block away like the UP station or somehere completely different like summerhill, but a stop at pearson or woodbine would be in addition to union or a stop closer to downtown, not instead of

 

[kEiThZ]

Summerhill station is a 15 min subway ride from Union. And would probably result in a travel time from Montreal of less than 3 hrs. Not the end of the world, if that is swapped for Union.

 

[north-of-anything]

Do you mean like not stopping at Union?

Absolutely not. If not at Union as it is now, then at a station connecting to the PATH network where Union can be reached easily.

I don't think Summerhill is a good idea either, the last thing we want is CPKC having any kind of leverage over ALTO.

 

[ComptoirGeneral]

Gotta wonder if keeping ALTO at Union and moving some GO services to terminate/pass at Dupont, Summerhill, The Well, Sherbourne, East Harbour, Exhibiton makes more sense? There's actually a fair number of possible options (albeit, many not built). Or how about moving the milk-run VIA services out of the station for ALTO? They too, could use one of the ones I suggested.

Honestly, that's not a terrible idea. Having VIA operate out of a future East Harbour or Spadina station could create some space. I also wonder if an expansion could be constructed into the future Union Park (current Metro Toronto Convention Centre) site. It's directly adjacent to Union and spans the entire block.

I think if done right, it could be a great spot to have a dedicated space for ALTO. It would allow for a "premium" space and experience that others were speculating the planners might be trying to achieve, while also providing great connections to other services at Union.

In my mind, the ideal circumstance would be to build a beautiful new terminal underneath Union dedicated to ALTO, but I'm a dreamer.

 

[ComptoirGeneral]

I'm not suggesting it would be a good option, but doesn't SNCF, one of the consortium members, operate double decker trains in France? The Avelia Horizon is only 200 metres long and can carry 740 passengers. Alto could probably even afford to add a second level to platforms, equipped with platform edge doors, so that both levels could have level boarding. I could see benefits from operating fewer cars rather than longer trains.

That does seem like a good idea, to be honest. I think that having double-decker trains would allow for increased capacity and shorter trains; it's a win-win. Dwell times might be a bit longer, but the distances between stations are far enough I can't imagine it would make a huge difference.

 

[kEiThZ]

If we take the McGill study at face value, they predicted ALTO will use two 8 car trains in regular operation, so any platform infrastructure at or not at Union needs to be minimum 420 metres long.

View attachment 701946

I’m not sure if 16 car trains is a surprise to anyone else, but for a while i was assuming a possible ALTO setup at Union could’ve been a set of two to four 8 car platforms on the northeast side of Union (either starting outside the canopy or from the easternmost VIA Concourse entrances in the middle), but with massive trains that becomes way less feasible.

I think their assumptions are off. I don't think we'll see express trains unless a lot more intermediate stops are added. And I don't think we'll 40 min headways and 16 car trainsets. 8 car trains running every 20 mins is more likely.

 

[Northern Light]

Honestly, that's not a terrible idea. Having VIA operate out of a future East Harbour or Spadina station could create some space. I also wonder if an expansion could be constructed into the future Union Park (current Metro Toronto Convention Centre) site. It's directly adjacent to Union and spans the entire block.

I think if done right, it could be a great spot to have a dedicated space for ALTO. It would allow for a "premium" space and experience that others were speculating the planners might be trying to achieve, while also providing great connections to other services at Union.

In my mind, the ideal circumstance would be to build a beautiful new terminal underneath Union dedicated to ALTO, but I'm a dreamer.

Directly underneath is unlikely, but your thinking is in the right direction.

Directly underneath (and through running) is not feasible due to the Harbourfront LRT Tunnel under Bay. (for further clarity, at greater depth it is nominally feasible, but unlikely. )

Additionally Union Station and the Scotia Bank Arena have loading facilities underground to avoid as well.

Any underground terminal that ties into Union will have to pass under that tunnel, but going in directly under the Union Station foundations, or the trainshed is also problematic, not impossible, but takes complex and pricey to a very high level.

There are other options.

@Urban Sky is very much on point with his up thread observations.

 

[ARG1]

Absolutely not. If not at Union as it is now, then at a station connecting to the PATH network where Union can be reached easily.

I don't think Summerhill is a good idea either, the last thing we want is CPKC having any kind of leverage over ALTO.

First, the line will be using the Havelock Sub which is owned by CP. The fact that CP will have some leverage over Alto is inevitable.

Second, I have started to wonder yesterday if Ford's GO 2.0 announcement has anything to do with Alto, specifically as to trigger a course correction on the missing link and demand federal funding as a nation building project. In theory building the Missing Link and kicking CP off the Midtown corridor could better enable Alto to use the Belleville Sub to reach Union or Summerhill, whilst also allowing Metrolinx to latch on to federal funding being used to electrify and upgrade the line to launch their own projects. I imagine in Ford's eyes it's a more ideal outcome than the Feds spending money to dig up and reconfigure the Uxbridge Sub again.

 

[urbancog]

First, the line will be using the Havelock Sub which is owned by CP

It's generally assumed that Alto will purchase the Havelock sub from CPKC and grant them night-time running rights for the once a day freight movements needed to server their customers.

 

[CapitalSeven]

It's generally assumed that Alto will purchase the Havelock sub from CPKC and grant them night-time running rights for the once a day freight movements needed to server their customers.

Maybe, but they were pretty categorical at Senate that they were not in the freight business, and it's not happening on their rails. So a third freight track? I'm starting to see less and less of Havelock in the cards. There are stretches where following 407 and other corridors would be much more straightforward. I could be very wrong, but a sort of patchwork between Scarborough and Smith's Falls, and even Ottawa to Montreal seems more likely. This could leave Havelock as is, sharing the corridor with HSR in a few stretches.

And I also think a reboot of missing link is possible. I believe I specufoamed about that in this space a few months ago. Not sure what that would mean for station location. Longer term, could half of trains go to Union and half to Summerhill and Pearson area?

 

[McGillicuddy]

Maybe, but they were pretty categorical at Senate that they were not in the freight business, and it's not happening on their rails. So a third freight track? I'm starting to see less and less of Havelock in the cards. There are stretches where following 407 and other corridors would be much more straightforward. I could be very wrong, but a sort of patchwork between Scarborough and Smith's Falls, and even Ottawa to Montreal seems more likely. This could leave Havelock as is, sharing the corridor with HSR in a few stretches.

And I also think a reboot of missing link is possible. I believe I specufoamed about that in this space a few months ago. Not sure what that would mean for station location. Longer term, could half of trains go to Union and half to Summerhill and Pearson area?

I have to imagine that the airline partners are going to want to see fairly fancy amenities at stations: I'm picturing something Brightline-ish, and possibly keyed up even from that.

If I'm correct in that, then splitting off into two terminals would be a poor choice.

 

[crs1026]

Maybe, but they were pretty categorical at Senate that they were not in the freight business, and it's not happening on their rails. So a third freight track? I'm starting to see less and less of Havelock in the cards.

Or, I'm seeing less and less of freight in the cards. Coexisting with freight was more feasible back in the original VIA HFR days when the design was vanilla railroad and the freight was compatible with the intended passenger equipment and roadbed. With Alto's design trending towards upper end HSR, the tracks would not be compatible with heavier bulk freight.

The mineral freight that is carried out of Havelock is partially transloaded already. It would be simple to have the transload point shift to the Belleville Sub. Road capacity and congestion is really not a concern out that way.

- Paul

 

[jmi22]

This is being looked at........but it is pricey. There is one other cardinal direction that can be looked at.

I'm guessing you are referring to the USRC essentially just east of the existing GO platforms.

Could be plausible, especially if the aging Green P parking lot and (I believe) city-owned apartment is thrown in the mix. Gets you downtown, within walking distance of Union assuming a PATH extension, avoids the elevated CIBC Park and largely avoids the landowner pushback over views/noise/construction as the site is bordered largely by the Gardiner and the previously mentioned parking garage. Likely would require a southward extension of Church Street to maximize accessibility for the new "South Core but east" going in on QQE, but that is overdue anyways IMO.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm guessing you are referring to the USRC essentially just east of the existing GO platforms.

I was referring, in that context, to underground alignments that could link with Union Station, but not necessarily run track directly underneath it.

Should such an option be pursued, the descent needs to begin immediately west of an existing overpass, and be able to safely clear under the subsequent major road, and its sewers with room to spare, all at a reasonable grade point.

Additionally it needs to reach a depth several meters below the Bay Street streetcar tunnel (at the minimum).

You want the least complicated and costly you can manage, while, ideally, connecting to Union, directly or indirectly, but the connections should be close.

This is not the only choice available.

 

[kEiThZ]

Or, I'm seeing less and less of freight in the cards. Coexisting with freight was more feasible back in the original VIA HFR days when the design was vanilla railroad and the freight was compatible with the intended passenger equipment and roadbed. With Alto's design trending towards upper end HSR, the tracks would not be compatible with heavier bulk freight.

The mineral freight that is carried out of Havelock is partially transloaded already. It would be simple to have the transload point shift to the Belleville Sub. Road capacity and congestion is really not a concern out that way.

- Paul

I really wonder how much real demand there is for they sub. Seems like everything there can be transloaded 40 km south.