[Urban Sky]

That was the pre-election promise. It's also been in the RTP for years - though probably in the 25-year timeframe (which never seems to get any closer in each edition!)

I've never heard it related to the missing link - that seems to be one of the Urban Toronto fantasy ideas, for the CP line.

The ROW is quite wide. They just need more tracks. CP doesn't need more than two.

Shoulder, counter-peak, mid-day, evening, and weekends.

If the recent funding promise wasn't about those, I'm confused what it's for. I don't know how you can do that (other than perhaps some infrequent mid-day/weekend/evening trains) without adding 2 tracks.

Some peak runs to Galt wouldn't hurt either. Which might be easier to negotiate, if GO get's off the Milton to Junction track completely.

Your second post describes what I meant in a much less clumsy way as mine did: providing useful service (i.e. AD2D service at RER-style frequencies) will require a dedicated infrastructure which is basically independent from CP's transcontinental freight network and the "Missing Link" is indicative of the massive scale of investment which might be required to provide that pre-requisite...

 

[nfitz]

...will require a dedicated infrastructure which is basically independent from CP's transcontinental freight network and the "Missing Link" is indicative of the massive scale of investment which might be required to provide that pre-requisite...

If there's room for 2 more tracks from Milton to The Junction (and I thought there is, but I haven't checked - though it certainly seems very wide when I've crossed it), then why is the missing link a factor?

 

[Urban Sky]

If there's room for 2 more tracks from Milton to The Junction (and I thought there is, but I haven't checked - though it certainly seems very wide when I've crossed it), then why is the missing link a factor?

The "Missing Link" is an (admittedly costly) solution which would solve the issue of conflicts between GO's RER and CP's transcontinental freight operations, but I didn't intend to claim it's the only possible solution...

 

[crs1026]

If there's room for 2 more tracks from Milton to The Junction (and I thought there is, but I haven't checked - though it certainly seems very wide when I've crossed it), then why is the missing link a factor?

Including CP in the Missing Link has a lot of intuitive sense, so long as one doesn't live in York-Markham.... do we really want freight rolling through the center of the city? Why not reduce the adverse impacts/risks of freight in densely populated urban areas from two corridors to one?

What we may never know is what the railways' take on it was.... just what price point would have created interest?

I suspect the price point was far higher than the Province could afford. And the railways' long term capacity needs may well exceed what one corridor can deliver.

The cost of adding two tracks (for 2WAD Milton GO) along the Galt Sub versus adding two tracks for CP further north and repurposing the existing CP tracks as GO is probably not that central to the railways' actual asking price, and therefore not that material to the discussion. It's simply against the railways' institutional framework. That doesn't mean it can't be done, but it means a tangled conversation that will take longer and has more implications when all the Province was hoping for was a fast, easy way to acquire the Milton line to get GO service upgraded. There is no such silver bullet.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

You are suggesting that adding 2 more tracks to part of the Milton line, would be tougher to negotiate, than building an entire new mainline (much of it on CN land), all the way from Milton to neat Pickering?

I'd think the opposite.

 

[Urban Sky]

You are suggesting that adding 2 more tracks to part of the Milton line, would be tougher to negotiate, than building an entire new mainline (much of it on CN land), all the way from Milton to neat Pickering?

I'd think the opposite.

You are forgetting about the costs of accommodating AD2D RER service with CN's longhaul freights still on CN's Halton Sub. The Missing Link would fix the issues of two GO Corridors including HFR/HSR to London and beyond...

 

[DirectionNorth]

You are forgetting about the costs of accommodating AD2D RER service with CN's longhaul freights still on CN's Halton Sub. The Missing Link would fix the issues of two GO Corridors including HFR/HSR to London and beyond...

I don't see how the Missing Link will help with Milton Sub traffic - it would (if my understanding was correct), use the blue route, more or less. I don't see overlap with the Milton GO, at least, not in the trickier-to-build sections east of Lisgar Station or whereabouts. They're probably better treated as separate projects.

 

[Northern Light]

I don't see how the Missing Link will help with Milton Sub traffic - it would (if my understanding was correct), use the blue route, more or less. I don't see overlap with the Milton GO, at least, not in the trickier-to-build sections east of Lisgar Station or whereabouts. They're probably better treated as separate projects.
View attachment 358279

The 'Missing Link' was envisioned to do two different things.

One, was to remove CN traffic from the portion of the K-W line running through downtown Brampton, via the dark blue/purple in the image shown above.
Two, was to remove traffic from the CP line between the missing link's westernmost point (red through midtown); and shift it to the blue (CN) across the top of the City, via the same routing.
If you look at the dark/blue purple line, CP traffic, theoretically could have been diverted from ~ Milton to roughly Rouge Park, where the CN York sub heads south and crosses the CP mainline.
This would allow for greater Milton Service, but also a Midtown GO line to Agincourt (or points beyond)

****

That said, you're not wrong that the initial suggestion was to focus on CN and freeing up the K-W corridor; but the CP line component was being talked about; though not with CP to my knowledge.

The Mississauga Study I cite below considered a 3-track configuration, but I know a six-track model was looked at.......2 for CN, 2 for CP and 2 for passenger rail.

****

Mississauga did a report on this :

Link here: https://www7.mississauga.ca/Departm...ction-2018/Missing-Link-Feasability-Study.pdf

From Said Report:

 

[crs1026]

You are suggesting that adding 2 more tracks to part of the Milton line, would be tougher to negotiate, than building an entire new mainline (much of it on CN land), all the way from Milton to neat Pickering?

I'd think the opposite.

I don’t have a view one way or the other. My point was, the pure construction cost is probably not the most important consideration for the freight railways. Making them “whole” goes beyond the number of tracks or miles of line shifted.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

You are forgetting about the costs of accommodating AD2D RER service with CN's longhaul freights still on CN's Halton Sub. The Missing Link would fix the issues of two GO Corridors including HFR/HSR to London and beyond...

We are discussing the Milton service, which doesn't run on CN's Halton Sub. Therefore the cost is $0.

I don't see anyone is going to foot the bill anytime soon for CP to build a new mainline all the way from the border with Milton to Pickering! In comparison, the now cancelled plans to divert CN trains away from Brampton is cheap!

 

[Urban Sky]

We are discussing the Milton service, which doesn't run on CN's Halton Sub. Therefor the cost is $0.

I've lost track of what argument you are trying to make, but whenever a public railroad is forced to deal with CN or CP, the cost rarely is $0...

 

[Krypto98]

We are discussing the Milton service, which doesn't run on CN's Halton Sub. Therefor the cost is $0.

I don't see anyone is going to foot the bill anytime soon for CP to build a new mainline all the way from the border with Milton to Pickering! In comparison, the now cancelled plans to divert CN trains away from Brampton is cheap!

Just to be clear. The current plan for the halton sub is to have a 3rd track through downtown brampton. And a grade separation at Silver or somewhere between Mount pleasant and Georgetown?

Couldn't they put 4 tracks through downtown brampton and relocate the existing station?

 

[nfitz]

I've lost track of what argument you are trying to make, but whenever a public railroad is forced to deal with CN or CP, the cost rarely is $0...

We are talking about RER service on the Milton line. How would there be ANY cost from CN? I'm really baffled here.

Obviously there's be significant money going to CP.

Just to be clear. The current plan for the halton sub is to have a 3rd track through downtown brampton. And a grade separation at Silver or somewhere between Mount pleasant and Georgetown?

Couldn't they put 4 tracks through downtown brampton and relocate the existing station?

I'd think there'd be space - the ROW looks to be over 120 feet wide - is that enough for 6 tracks? 5 for sure.

Can they do 2-way all-day with just one new track and a grade separation? There's already 3 (and in some places 4 tracks) almost all the way west to Brampton, and then from just west of Brampton to past Mount Pleasant.

 

[crs1026]

Just to be clear. The current plan for the halton sub is to have a 3rd track through downtown brampton. And a grade separation at Silver or somewhere between Mount pleasant and Georgetown?

Couldn't they put 4 tracks through downtown brampton and relocate the existing station?

The documents showing the changes around Brampton that I saw a while back (in City Council minutes, I think) did indeed show a fourth track pencilled in on the north side. The heritage depot would be moved.

Why not do it now? To keep costs down for a while, I presume. One step at a time…..

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

We are talking about RER service on the Milton line. How would there be ANY cost from CN? I'm really baffled here.

Obviously there's be significant money going to CP.

I still don't know what proposal your statement "Therefor the cost is $0" referred to, but since it presumably concerned something which involves CN and/or CP, I suspect that my observation is applicable...