[smallspy]

It's quite a paradox how politicians are all raving about accessibility and transit yet their own laws prevents that from happening

It's not a law. The CTA makes these decisions based on local conditions, and there have certainly been places that looked similar that didn't have the same rulings applied to them.

This was and is the same situation with the Kent St. section in Guelph.

Dan

 

[cplchanb]

It's not a law. The CTA makes these decisions based on local conditions, and there have certainly been places that looked similar that didn't have the same rulings applied to them.

This was and is the same situation with the Kent St. section in Guelph.

Dan

On a broader sense it's definitely true. Look at how ancient TC regs have prevented us from getting trains from overseas until just recently and the whole cowbell thing at stations is way obsolete... a relic of the wild west days

 

[crs1026]

It's not trackwork, and it's not signalling that's the issue.

The issue is a CTA decree about the accessibility of the tracks from the local neighbourhoods.

I don't know if simply building/improving the fencing through there is sufficient, or if it will require a full-blown grade separation to resolve it.

Dan

By signalling I was thinking crossing protection as much as track signals. If they have been calibrated to only 30 mph I don't know how much tweaking would be needed to permit higher speeds.

I have too much faith in CN's ability to pinch pennies to assume that that segment is in shape to handle 60 mph today.... one has to assume that some things might have to be tweaked a bit to bring them from 30 mph compliant to 60 mph compliant. Possibly just some ties and surfacing, possibly the crossings themselves. I'm erring on the side of not assuming everything is good to go.

It's quite a paradox how politicians are all raving about accessibility and transit yet their own laws prevents that from happening

I am all for a regulatory regime that keeps us safe from things, but one has to agree that the regulator's gaze is strangely inconsistent.

That stretch of right of way needs a good defoliation, and as noted some fencing might be needed, but it is wide and straight and the sightlines at crossings are as good as much of the Kingston Sub which permits 100 mph. Vehicular and pedestrian volume is not greater than other crossings that have higher limits.

I'm not sure if CN approves of ML's pedestrian deterrence pads (or if they even work!) Certainly it's a zone that local residents treat as walkway, but the crossings are a lot more benign than Guelph. If we are saving Hamiltonians from themselves - I have only so much sympathy.

Someone likely asked for that slow order, possibly the City of Hamilton itself. Can't blame the CTA for that. But if we are going to invest a whack of money in GO to Confederation, we shouldn't undermine that investment with an arbitrary slow order.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

By signalling I was thinking crossing protection as much as track signals. If they have been calibrated to only 30 mph I don't know how much tweaking would be needed to permit higher speeds.

- Paul

I'm not sure why that's such a concern.

CN uses the same contractors that GO used when the Guelph Sub speeds were updated. And hell, CN has installed specialized detection circuits on the Kingston Sub which are able to accurately activate the crossings in the required 22 seconds regardless of whether it is a 100mph VIA or a 20mph freight approaching it.

So long as a viable and workable solution is arrived at for the CTA edict, all else is a breeze by comparison.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

I'm not sure why that's such a concern.

CN uses the same contractors that GO used when the Guelph Sub speeds were updated. And hell, CN has installed specialized detection circuits on the Kingston Sub which are able to accurately activate the crossings in the required 22 seconds regardless of whether it is a 100mph VIA or a 20mph freight approaching it.

So long as a viable and workable solution is arrived at for the CTA edict, all else is a breeze by comparison.

Certainly, the technology is available - my point was that maybe the existing stuff would have to be replaced, at ML's expense no doubt.

If that's all that the CTA edict is looking for, that's easy. The concern is the bureaucratic inertia if the edict was imposed to address something less obvious and concrete. Do we know that crossing protection is what got the edict imposed in the first place? Versus a more general response after some number of incidents or complaints?

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

Bramalea Station, January 24. The bus loop is finally complete, allowing the 11 and 511 buses to enter the station for the first time.

Work continues - slowly - on the south track, one of two for local short-turning GO trains. This would add a fourth platform, while the north track remains freight-only.

 

[Krypto98]

It's not a law. The CTA makes these decisions based on local conditions, and there have certainly been places that looked similar that didn't have the same rulings applied to them.

This was and is the same situation with the Kent St. section in Guelph.

Dan

So why it remains 45 mph (on my timetable it shows up as a PSO still) even though I think it can accommodate 60-70mph?

 

[Krypto98]

Bramalea Station, January 24. The bus loop is finally complete, allowing the 11 and 511 buses to enter the station for the first time.

Work continues - slowly - on the south track, one of two for local short-turning GO trains. This would add a fourth platform, while the north track remains freight-only.

View attachment 452722

View attachment 452720

View attachment 452721

Are they planning of adding CTC to track 4 eventually and extending that to CN Peel and keeping future track 5 as rule 105 or just just keeping both as a 105 lead

 

[crs1026]

Are they planning of adding CTC to track 4 eventually and extending that to CN Peel and keeping future track 5 as rule 105 or just just keeping both as a 105 lead

We don’t know, really, but that funky angle on the Track 5 platform makes me think that they are planning switches at the west end of the platform, meaning likely all tracks will be signalled with power switches at both ends.

It would be really dumb to spend all this money on the platforms and then pinch pennies to not signal the tracks, causing trains to creep in and out of the platforms under Rule 105. Oh wait…. Metrolinx…..

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

Certainly, the technology is available - my point was that maybe the existing stuff would have to be replaced, at ML's expense no doubt.

No doubt. Hell, I would assume that whatever level or amount work was done to improve speeds through there would be on Metrolinx's dime, since evidently CN has had no issues with it.

If that's all that the CTA edict is looking for, that's easy. The concern is the bureaucratic inertia if the edict was imposed to address something less obvious and concrete. Do we know that crossing protection is what got the edict imposed in the first place? Versus a more general response after some number of incidents or complaints?

- Paul

That's fair, and to be honest I don't know what precisely predicated it. There was some concern with the number of level crossings through that section, and the ease of access to the ROW - much like the stretch through Guelph. But in terms of who asked for it to be applied, I don't know. It has been in place since the 1960s IIRC.

So why it remains 45 mph (on my timetable it shows up as a PSO still) even though I think it can accommodate 60-70mph?

Wait, are you talking about Kent St., or the Grimsby?

Kent St. was allowed to improve the PSO with the additional measures that have been installed by Metrolinx. But a PSO is still required due to the "local factors".

Grimsby I show a PSO (or zone speed, I guess) of 30mph from mile 39.0 to mile 43.7 (plus 36.9 to 38.9 of the Oakville).

Dan

 

[reaperexpress]

Very slow - we were wondering earlier in (this?) thread back in 2015 why they hadn't been built yet! I still don't know why ... even if temporary they'd have been used for a decade.

When I rode the weekday Niagara train in March 2019, the announcement in the train was "Infrastructure work including the installation of signals will continue on the tracks through West Harbour station [...]". It was clear at the time that said infrastructure work had never begun in the first place, and there were no imminent plans for it to begin either. The propaganda was probably handed to GO by the Province as an excuse for the impracticality of their half-assed Niagara weekday service.

I am all for a regulatory regime that keeps us safe from things, but one has to agree that the regulator's gaze is strangely inconsistent.

That stretch of right of way needs a good defoliation, and as noted some fencing might be needed, but it is wide and straight and the sightlines at crossings are as good as much of the Kingston Sub which permits 100 mph. Vehicular and pedestrian volume is not greater than other crossings that have higher limits.

I'm not sure if CN approves of ML's pedestrian deterrence pads (or if they even work!) Certainly it's a zone that local residents treat as walkway, but the crossings are a lot more benign than Guelph. If we are saving Hamiltonians from themselves - I have only so much sympathy.

Someone likely asked for that slow order, possibly the City of Hamilton itself. Can't blame the CTA for that. But if we are going to invest a whack of money in GO to Confederation, we shouldn't undermine that investment with an arbitrary slow order.

Another example of arbitrary speed restrictions is the 15 mph restriction through the Lancaster Street level crossing following a pedestrian collision there. As far as I can tell, the were no location-specific factors leading to that collision, so a similar collision is just as likely to occur at any other level crossing as it is at this particular one. In fact, I'd guess that it's actually less likely to occur at Lancaster Street than an average level crossing given that the Lancaster Street has good sightlines, no track curvature and features such as those pedestrian deterrence pads, dedicated pedestrian signal heads and comprehensive fencing.

 

[Krypto98]

No doubt. Hell, I would assume that whatever level or amount work was done to improve speeds through there would be on Metrolinx's dime, since evidently CN has had no issues with it.


That's fair, and to be honest I don't know what precisely predicated it. There was some concern with the number of level crossings through that section, and the ease of access to the ROW - much like the stretch through Guelph. But in terms of who asked for it to be applied, I don't know. It has been in place since the 1960s IIRC.


Wait, are you talking about Kent St., or the Grimsby?

Kent St. was allowed to improve the PSO with the additional measures that have been installed by Metrolinx. But a PSO is still required due to the "local factors".

Grimsby I show a PSO (or zone speed, I guess) of 30mph from mile 39.0 to mile 43.7 (plus 36.9 to 38.9 of the Oakville).

Dan

Yeah Kent Street...

 

[Allandale25]

From the Metrolinx Durham team newsletter receive today. I wonder what Trans Power is doing in this area and how it relates to GO Expansion/electrification/On Corr? I see an overhead power line crossing near here (Google Street view).

Road Closure Notice - Highway 401 and Salem Road - February 2-6, February 9-13, February 26-March 3​

Project Overview GO service is expanding to serve you better - with more frequent service, more stations, cleaner technology, and more connections. Across the entire network, our goal is to deliver over 10,000 train trips a week - so you won’t need a schedule because you know the next train will be coming soon. GO Expansion will transform the GO rail network from a commuter service into an all-day, rapid system. What You Need to Know To support GO Expansion projects, Trans Power will be mobilizing along Salem Road throughout the month of February and early March, with road and Highway 401 off-ramp closures necessary to complete the scheduled work. What to Expect Crews will be on site throughout the dates mentioned at variable shift times with road closures depending on what work is required. Please see the Hours of Work and Work Details below for details. Hours of Work and Work Details

CLOSURE 1: FEBRUARY 2nd TO FEBRUARY 6th February 2nd 8:00pm – February 6th 5:00am with two crew shifts per day Two left lane (northbound turn) closure of the off-ramp Highway 401 eastbound and one left turn lane to southbound Salem Road at the Highway 401 westbound off-ramp

CLOSURE 2: FEBRUARY 9th TO FEBRUARY 13th February 9th 8:00pm – February 13th 5:00am with two crew shifts per day Crossing South of intersection there is to be a full road closure on Salem Road and right-turn (southbound) lane closure on the eastbound Highway 401 off-ramp

CLOSURE 3: FEBRUARY 26th TO MARCH 3rd February 26th 8:00pm – March 3rd 6:00am one night crew shift only and road conditions to be open at the end of the shift Closure of off-ramp on Highway 401 eastbound to Salem Road Please Note: The above work schedule may be delayed and/or changed with unforeseen adverse winter weather conditions.

 

[generalcanada]

From the Metrolinx Durham team newsletter receive today. I wonder what Trans Power is doing in this area and how it relates to GO Expansion/electrification/On Corr? I see an overhead power line crossing near here (Google Street view).

i do recall there being a Traction power station somewhere close to salem road. could be related

 

[drum118]

From the Metrolinx Durham team newsletter receive today. I wonder what Trans Power is doing in this area and how it relates to GO Expansion/electrification/On Corr? I see an overhead power line crossing near here (Google Street view).

All power lines crossing over the rail corridor or along it will see new poles 10+ feet higher than existing ones with new wires, with the old ones being remove after decommission. Can see it on Hurontario as well the West Sub and Finch. Also at Weston and Mount Dennis Stations.