News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 6.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 33K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 3.3K     0 

EnviroTO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
4,635
Reaction score
1,799
This is the PCs we're talking about. Part of their whole strategy is they want stations to be integrated with developments as a way to help with Toronto housing crises, make better use of the infrastructure being built (and if you like wearing tinfoil hats, to give favours to their "developer buddies"). Part of the reason this took a while is because they allegedly were trying to find suitable developers to build up the area first before they did anything. In terms of local connectivity, this station has always been a major focal point for Hamilton's transit network, including the terminus of the BLAST S line. So no, this isn't going to be anything close to Bloomington.
I don't think I have ever heard the idea of "Transit Oriented Development" as a "PC" or "Conservative" core value, nor concern about housing. I mean this government has been doing TOD which is great, but I don't think the places in the world that have TOD have it because of fiscally and socially conservative politics. Also, unfortunately, no political walk of life is fully immune from bad eggs that don't prioritize transparency and fairness is government contracts and bidding to ensure no special relationship with "developer buddies" exists. However, some parties are typically pro large corporation, and others are typically more pro mom-and-pop or pro underdog than others.
 

SaugeenJunction

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
2,837
Reaction score
6,279
So will West Harbour still be a dead end until confederation opens?
There is zero chance the West Harbour tracks aren’t connected into the mainline, it’s a major requirement for Confederation service. The current “back in, back out” situation at West Harbour is only barely feasible because just 1 train trip has to do it - it would not be feasible for more frequent service. What isn’t happening anymore according to CBC is a brand new third track along the entire route between West Harbour and Confederation. The corridor is currently double tracked, and likely MX and CN can or have come to an agreement to make that work.

Small signs of prep work for the West Harbour tie-in started showing up this summer with cabling relocation. Picture from July.
1665158613142.jpeg
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
2,160
Reaction score
5,346
I don't think I have ever heard the idea of "Transit Oriented Development" as a "PC" or "Conservative" core value, nor concern about housing. I mean this government has been doing TOD which is great, but I don't think the places in the world that have TOD have it because of fiscally and socially conservative politics. Also, unfortunately, no political walk of life is fully immune from bad eggs that don't prioritize transparency and fairness is government contracts and bidding to ensure no special relationship with "developer buddies" exists. However, some parties are typically pro large corporation, and others are typically more pro mom-and-pop or pro underdog than others.
You misunderstand me. I'm not talking about Conservatives as an ideology or as a movement, I'm talking about PCs as in THIS government with Doug Ford as the leader, who has made TOD as a method of funding transit as the standard, and the same PCs who are currently rumoured to be preparing the nuclear option of MZOs and mass TODs.
 

sunnyside

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 7, 2021
Messages
166
Reaction score
259
There is zero chance the West Harbour tracks aren’t connected into the mainline, it’s a major requirement for Confederation service. The current “back in, back out” situation at West Harbour is only barely feasible because just 1 train trip has to do it - it would not be feasible for more frequent service. What isn’t happening anymore according to CBC is a brand new third track along the entire route between West Harbour and Confederation. The corridor is currently double tracked, and likely MX and CN can or have come to an agreement to make that work.

Small signs of prep work for the West Harbour tie-in started showing up this summer with cabling relocation. Picture from July.
View attachment 431322
So I guess we can infer the third track was never needed? Or maybe CN just had a bone to pick, and they gave in once they realized that metrolinx was going to add a track to get what they wanted regardless. Or, maybe the third track was for future service levels that we won’t be seeing anymore. Anywho, half hourly service was always possible on just two tracks, so there must’ve been another reason why CN chose this outcome.
 

Bordercollie

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
1,121
So I guess we can infer the third track was never needed? Or maybe CN just had a bone to pick, and they gave in once they realized that metrolinx was going to add a track to get what they wanted regardless. Or, maybe the third track was for future service levels that we won’t be seeing anymore. Anywho, half hourly service was always possible on just two tracks, so there must’ve been another reason why CN chose this outcome.
How many freight trains run on the Grimsby Sub on a daily basis? Is it not double tracked most of the way anyways? Why the need for a third track?
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
8,640
Reaction score
15,785
^The third track is certainly not needed, if all that's intended is an hourly 2WAD service that terminates at Confederation.

It's only 5.3ish miles from Confederation to West Harbour, so a GO train can easily go east from West Harbour, reach Confederation, lay over and set up in the other direction, and return to West Harbour before the next hourly train reaches West Harbour. 30 minute headways are also quite doable with a longer layover at Confederation (one train would leave upon the next's arrival). The media reports suggest that Confederation will be a 2-track station (not surprising, since they already built two bridges) - so all GO requires to run 30 minute 2WAD is one track.

CN's use of the line is not so heavy that it needs both main lines all day long. What may be most constraining for CN if they relinquish one track is - while there is double track from Hamilton to Nelles Road, once a freight leaves Hamilton, it must be able to proceed all the way to Jordan without encountering an opposing train. From Hamilton to the end of double track at Nelles Road, there are road crossings spaced close enough together that freights cannot be held for meets. It is possible for two trains to pass between Millen and Nelles Road, provided the meet is timed well enough that neither train has to stop. To work within this limitation, there will be dispatching headaches at certain times of day, but CN may have seen advantage in letting GO use up the extra capacity (one wonders about the price....)

One more thing that may take some work is - last I heard, the zone speed from MP 39 (Woodward Ave) to West Harbour (MP 43.7) was only 30 mph. Hopefully some of the money saved by not adding track will be used to increase track speeds here. We don't need 30 mph GO service.

I wonder however about what this means for service east of Confederation. GO cannot expect to tie up one track all the way to Grimsby. It's hard to believe that 2WAD GO service isn't already justified all the way to St Catherines, given the development happening along the lake and given that the QEW is packed at all hours. This latest announcement is only a trickle of added service.

- Paul
 

Bordercollie

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 20, 2020
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
1,121
^The third track is certainly not needed, if all that's intended is an hourly 2WAD service that terminates at Confederation.

It's only 5.3ish miles from Confederation to West Harbour, so a GO train can easily go east from West Harbour, reach Confederation, lay over and set up in the other direction, and return to West Harbour before the next hourly train reaches West Harbour. 30 minute headways are also quite doable with a longer layover at Confederation (one train would leave upon the next's arrival). The media reports suggest that Confederation will be a 2-track station (not surprising, since they already built two bridges) - so all GO requires to run 30 minute 2WAD is one track.

CN's use of the line is not so heavy that it needs both main lines all day long. What may be most constraining for CN if they relinquish one track is - while there is double track from Hamilton to Nelles Road, once a freight leaves Hamilton, it must be able to proceed all the way to Jordan without encountering an opposing train. From Hamilton to the end of double track at Nelles Road, there are road crossings spaced close enough together that freights cannot be held for meets. It is possible for two trains to pass between Millen and Nelles Road, provided the meet is timed well enough that neither train has to stop. To work within this limitation, there will be dispatching headaches at certain times of day, but CN may have seen advantage in letting GO use up the extra capacity (one wonders about the price....)

One more thing that may take some work is - last I heard, the zone speed from MP 39 (Woodward Ave) to West Harbour (MP 43.7) was only 30 mph. Hopefully some of the money saved by not adding track will be used to increase track speeds here. We don't need 30 mph GO service.

I wonder however about what this means for service east of Confederation. GO cannot expect to tie up one track all the way to Grimsby. It's hard to believe that 2WAD GO service isn't already justified all the way to St Catherines, given the development happening along the lake and given that the QEW is packed at all hours. This latest announcement is only a trickle of added service.

- Paul
Isn't the 30mph limit due to the fact that it's passing through a yard?

So if Confederation station is double tracked will it connect to the mainline from there? Isn't Grimsby station already under construction?

They don't need a third track all the way to St Catharines?
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
8,640
Reaction score
15,785
Isn't the 30mph limit due to the fact that it's passing through a yard?

So if Confederation station is double tracked will it connect to the mainline from there? Isn't Grimsby station already under construction?

They don't need a third track all the way to St Catharines?

I don’t know the rationale for the zone speed, but from the Hamilton interlocking (which sits just east of West Harbour) eastwards, there are two main tracks both CTC equipped. The location of yard limits is irrelevant to the potential speed through this zone.

The ML writeup does imply that there will be an interlocking at Confederation that connects the two platform tracks to the existing Grimsby Sub tracks…. hopefully one at each end, to avoid a repetition of the West Harbour platform shuffle for Niagara trains.

If frequent service to St Catherines is planned, there will have to be additional trackage, partly to retain freight capacity and partly to enable GO trains to pass each other. It’s too far for a GO train to double back without encountering the following train in the schedule. There was talk of relaying the second track from Nelles Road to Jordan (which was ripped out some years back).

The capacity thing is not just track…. the many crossings and the dearth of grade separation means that there is no place where a long freight train can stop without blocking busy road crossings. Freights are best kept moving, and on this line that would mean holding all the GO trains out of the way while one transits the zone. Any expanded service may need not only passing room but some grade separations so that freights can be held in additional locations when the need arises..

- Paul
 
Last edited:

Coolibop

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 20, 2022
Messages
87
Reaction score
112
So....um.......really; we're putting out official claims now for the year 2055; 33 years in the future?
I'm starting to see a pattern as I age. And as a former project manager, I can see that we, humans, are terrible at creating future plans with any accuracy at all. The further you look out, the less accurate the prediction is. Stating a precise date that far out is absurd.

It is one thing to have a vision, and another to state as fact, as if this is what it most definitely will be. Statements like this seem to be politically motivated, to appease a particular group or person until they go away (sometimes literally). Unless shovels are in the ground or it is written in stone (law), you can't really take them seriously - Especially when you have several changes in interested groups or people over the time period. For now, it's just written on a piece of paper and can't really hold water.

I must add that we probably also are terrible for holding anyone to account for those far reaching statements. Especially when we have to rely on previous record that still, even today, can get lost to time.
 

dowlingm

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 8, 2007
Messages
3,957
Reaction score
1,824
Is there been any talk of grade separations? At some point isn't there going to be a concern about the degree to which the healthcare facilities along Wellington St/Victoria St will be impacted by more frequent crossing closures?
 

superelevation

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2020
Messages
486
Reaction score
1,035
Wired would conflict the most with intermodal double stacks and possibly dimensional due to height trains. Maybe a single electrified track? Between Burlington and Aldershot (including the passing track) As far as I know the Grimsby sub only sees trains 422 and 421which takes traffic from Port Robinson + Hamilton road switchers
Double stack and catenary work fine together, see Northeast US
 

Allandale25

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
11,890
"The timeline ProjectCo is proposing would see the grade separation completed in mid-2026, however, to achieve this a 14-month road closure is required, beginning in mid-2024."

 
  • Like
Reactions: max

Allandale25

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 19, 2007
Messages
7,907
Reaction score
11,890
This seems like the most appropriate thread and I don't think it's been posted before to UT (or if it has, the new members may not have seen it). Here is some fun weekend reading. This is a report by CN Rail from 1990 entitled "First Pass Capacity Review: An Initial Assessment of Rail Capacity Required to Meet Future GO Transit Service Expansions". I can't remember where I got it from.

[PDF]

One thing I noticed is that they appear to have not mentioned the need for a Davenport Overpass. Amazing to see how report graphics have advanced since 1990. In case it's of interest cc @Urban Sky @crs1026
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 17, 2014
Messages
8,640
Reaction score
15,785
One thing I noticed is that they appear to have not mentioned the need for a Davenport Overpass. Amazing to see how report graphics have advanced since 1990. In case it's of interest cc @Urban Sky @crs1026

A wonderful read - thanks for posting!

Re the Davenport Diamond - around 1992 GO did a series of Feasibility Studies, one for each of their current or potential lines. The only one I have been able to lay my hands on is the one for the North Toronto Corridor. Some may be in the TPL Reference Library somewhere. (Although I have read the others, and suspect where there might be a copy of them, if they aren't in a dumpster yet).

These were very comprehensive documents which foresaw much of what has happened since - which in more recent years led some old time GO staffers to grumble loudly when later regimes "discovered" some of the original ideas and analyses and claimed the credit for them as their own innovation.

Anyways, this document does state that GO was considering grade separations at both West Toronto and Davenport - so those were on the table that far back.

As to things the early North Toronto study missed, it predicted a Sheppard East subway would come much sooner than it turned out, requiring a transit hub at Agincourt. There was to be a diamond so the North Toronto trains could proceed onwards up the Uxbridge Sub. Conversely, the study decided that Eglinton would be a difficult place for a station, with no relevant transfers to TTC.... so proposed a Don Mills station on the Richmond Hill line, routed down the Leaside Branch, instead. There was no Crosstown line on the horizon, or an Ontario Line either.

- Paul
 

Top